A Nation In Distress

A Nation In Distress

Monday, January 31, 2011

Ann Coulter: I'm Torn On Today's ObamaCare Ruling...I Just Got My White House Waiver

From Gateway Pundit:

9:10 PM (2 hours ago)Ann Coulter: I’m Torn on Today’s Obamacare Ruling… I Just Got My White House Waiver (Video)from Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftAnn Coulter and Sean Hannity discussed today’s ruling in Florida that found Obamacare to be unconstitutional. Coulter told Hannity,

“I’m torn on today’s ruling… I just got my White House waiver.”

Too funny.

Ann Coulter on today’s Obamacare ruling:

“So right now federal officials are not allowed to enforce Obamacare. Though, I am torn, because on one hand the law is clearly unconstitutional. On the other hand, I just got my White House waiver…

I must say, there are two court opinions on each side. Obviously, I find the two that find the two that call it unconstitutional more compelling for logical reasons. There’s no point in having any limits on Congress’s authority if they can force all citizens to buy a product. And, by the way, if this is constitutional then Republicans should turn around and mandate that all citizens be force to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to buy health insurance.”

Jnaet Napolitano: It Is Inaccurate to State, As Too Many Have, That The Border Is Overrun With Violence And Out Of Control

From Fire Andrea Mitchell:

10:01 PM (1 hour ago)Janet Napolitano – “It is inaccurate to state, as too many have, that the border is overrun with violence and out of control”from Fire Andrea Mitchell! by adminWhat is really inaccurate would be to claim the Obama and his regime have a clue as to what’s going on in America, it’s security issues, or economic issues. Of course it could be easy to say it’s also inaccurate to state that Obama, anyone in his regime, or any progressive liberal Democrat in general cares about the constitution after today’s ObamaCARE ruling. But for someone as clueless as Napolitano to now claim that the USA/Mexico border isn’t overrun with violence and out of control is not only stupid, but scary also. It’s scary because someone as dumb as Napolitano is in such an important position in the government (Homeland Security Secretary.) These are here exact words from The Hill:

“It is inaccurate to state, as too many have, that the border is overrun with violence and out of control,” Napolitano said in prepared remarks. “This statement — often made only to score political points — is just plain wrong.”

“Not only does it ignore all of the statistical evidence, it also belittles the significant progress that effective law enforcement has made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it.”

What’s next? Is Hillary Clinton going to call Egypt is stable situation?

The Debt Ceiling: Might Someone Educate FOX News And The Rest Of The Media

From Red State:

Might Someone Please Educate Fox News and the Rest of the Media?

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Monday, January 31st at 5:00AM EST


Fox News has an article on its website about John Boehner’s remarks on raising the debt ceiling. But in this objective report there is a great and dangerous falsehood. The article, which has no author attached to it, reports

In order for the debt ceiling to rise, Congress must approve taking on more debt, which currently is growing by more than $4 billion per day. If it doesn’t approve raising the ceiling, then the U.S. will default on its loans and lose its standing as the globe’s most reliable bet.

There is no other way to put this than it is an out and out lie.

In fact, Neil Cavuto interviewed Senator Pat Toomey back on January 6, 2011, and Toomey himself noted

The debt service, interest on our debt is about 6 percent of everything the federal government has to pay. So, we would be taking in enough revenue to cover more than 10 times all the interest that we owe. There is no reason we would have to default on our interest obligations.

That is it precisely. Greg Ip noted in the Economist a couple of weeks ago

A default would result from failure to pay principal or interest. The debt ceiling doesn’t bar either. Treasury can roll over maturing issues so long as the overall stock of outstanding debt doesn’t rise. (A caveat: Treasury must invest surplus Social Security and Medicare taxes by issuing non-marketable debt to the plans’ trust funds, which erodes the remaining capacity for marketable debt.) As for interest, even in today’s straightened circumstances, revenue is more than enough to cover interest charges.

Felix Salmon, writing for Reuters, expands on Greg Ip’s point.

In any given month, the government’s income dwarfs its debt-service obligations, which means that the government could simply pay all interest on Treasury bonds out of its cashflow. Greg hasn’t run the numbers on principal maturities, but I’m pretty sure that they too could be covered out of cash receipts—and when that happened, of course, the total debt outstanding would go down, and we wouldn’t be bumping up against the ceiling any more.

The point here is that the government has enormous expenditures every month, and debt service constitutes an important yet small part of them. If the debt ceiling weren’t raised, it stands to reason that just about any other form of government spending would get cut before Tim Geithner dreamed of defaulting on risk-free bonds.

It is, in other words, flat out not true that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause a default on American obligations.

The media continues to get it wrong

FAIR Legislative Update

From FAIR:

FAIR Legislative Update January 31, 2011

My Interests
All >

Interests: Legislative Update -- Return to Top --

Legislative Update

Add to My Interests

House Immigration Subcommittee Focuses on Worksite Enforcement

The House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held its first hearing of the 112th Congress last week to discuss the importance of worksite enforcement. The hearing, titled “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Worksite Enforcement – Up to the Job?” focused on the effectiveness of worksite enforcement programs, such as I-9 audits, E-Verify, and the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program.

In their opening statements, several members criticized the administration’s failure to enforce the laws. “The Obama administration's strategy clearly does a grave disservice to American workers,” declared Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), the new Chairman of the Subcommittee. (Ventura County Star, Jan. 26, 2011) Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the new Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (the Committee that oversees the Subcommittee) described how worksite enforcement has “plummeted under the Obama administration,” with administrative arrests of undocumented workers falling by 77 percent and criminal arrests falling by 60 percent over the past two years. (Id)

ICE’s Deputy Director, Mr. Kibble, however, was quick to defend the Obama administration’s approach to enforcing federal immigration law. “Our approach is working,” he testified. “The success of our approach to worksite enforcement is evident in the statistics. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, ICE initiated a record 2,746 worksite enforcement investigations, more than doubling the 1,191 cases initiated in FY 2008,” Mr. Kibble declared. (CQ Committee Testimony, Jan. 26, 2011)

Four witnesses testified before the Subcommittee: Kumar C. Kibble, Deputy Director of ICE; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); Michael Cutler, former senior special agent for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)(now the Department of Homeland Security); and Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.

Most of these witnesses said the Obama administration should go even further in investigating and prosecuting employers and employees breaking federal immigration law. Mr. Krikorian of CIS testified that ICE needs to take a more robust and comprehensive approach to worksite enforcement. “[A]udits and fines are by no means a bad thing, as far as they go. But they don’t go very far. By limiting worksite enforcement to the personnel office, the current strategy forgoes the benefits of full-spectrum enforcement that includes both audits and raids, both fines and arrests, focused on both the employers and the employees,” he said. (Id.) Mr. Cutler, a former INS agent, agreed: “Our nation’s immigration laws can only be effectively enforced if all elements of the enforcement program and the immigration benefits program are made to operate as components of a unified system.” (Id.)

The remaining witness, Mr. Griswold of the Cato Institute, agreed that worksite enforcement programs are a step in the right direction, but argued that the immigration system needs to be reformed to admit more foreign workers. “[F]ocusing primarily on worksite enforcement,” he said, “will continue to be an expensive and damaging distraction until we reform our immigration laws to reflect the underlying realities of America’s 21st century labor market.” (Id.) Instead, Mr. Griswold suggested that “[t]he best approach to reducing illegal immigration would be to expand opportunities for legal immigration while targeting enforcement against terrorists, criminals and others who continue to operate outside the system.” (Id.)

The House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement’s next anticipated hearing will focus on E-Verify. Stay tuned to FAIR for more details . . .

Lawmakers Introduce Birthright Citizenship Bills

Federal and state lawmakers introduced legislation last week that tackles the issue of birthright citizenship. In Arizona, state Senator Ron Gould and state Representative John Kavanagh introduced two bills to change how Arizona defines state citizenship. (Arizona Central, January 27, 2011) The first bill seeks to define an Arizona citizen as someone lawfully domiciled in Arizona who is born in the U.S. and is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. (SB 1309; HB 2561) The second bill directs the State of Arizona into a state compact, subject to Congressional approval, under which the member states will issue different birth certificates for those who qualify as citizens of the state. (HB 2562; SB 1308) In developing the legislation, Gould and Kavanagh worked with Senate President Russell Pearce, who has been active on this issue for years and led the effort to pass SB 1070 in Arizona last year. (Arizona Central, January 27, 2011) These bills are part of an agreement made between state legislators from numerous states to work together to eliminate the practice of granting birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of the parents. (See FAIR Legislative Update, January 10, 2011)

On the national level, Republican Senators David Vitter (LA) and Rand Paul (KY) proposed a constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship late last week. (S.J. Res. 2) The proposal would amend the constitution so that children born in the U.S. are only considered automatic citizens if one parent is a U.S. citizen, one parent is a legal immigrant, or one parent is a non-immigrant active member of the Armed Forces. (Fox News, January 28, 2011) Senator Vitter voiced concern that the assurance of children of illegal aliens becoming citizens automatically is continuing to ratchet up illegal immigration numbers. (Id.) “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen,” Senator Vitter said. (Id.)

Mexican Teen’s Family Sues U.S. Border Agent

The family of a Mexican teenager killed by a border patrol agent last summer is suing the U.S. government for $25 million in damages. (Houston Chronicle, January 17, 2011) The lawsuit, filed in El Paso earlier last week on behalf of the teenager’s family, accuses the U.S. Border Patrol agent of wrongful death and civil rights violations. (Id.)

The lawsuit stems from an incident that took place on the border in June 2010 in which the U.S. Border Patrol agent shot and killed 15-yr-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca during the arrests of illegal aliens crossing the Rio Grande. (Id.) Border Patrol agents reported that Guereca was throwing rocks at them, to which agents are legally permitted respond by using lethal force. (Id.) The family’s attorney, however, denies the teenager was throwing anything at the agent, instead claiming that the teen and his friends were running up to the barbed-wire U.S. border fence, touching it, then scampering away when a border agent detained one of the boys. (Id.) Federal records reveal that Guereca was arrested four times since 2008 on suspicion of smuggling illegal aliens across the U.S. border with Mexico, but he was never charged with a crime. (Id.)

FAIR’s sources at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have noted that the rocks thrown at Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents are often large in size and capable of causing serious injury. The National Border Patrol Council –the union which represents CBP agents—reiterated that “rocks are weapons and constitute deadly force.” (Washington Post, June 11, 2010)

Obama Promotes Defunct Immigration Legislation in State of the Union Address

Less than a month after the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected the DREAM Act, President Obama used his State of the Union address last Tuesday to renew the call for its passage. There are “hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not U.S. citizens,” he said. Many of these “live every day with the threat of deportation.” Urging Congress to tackle illegal immigration “once and for all”, the president said he is “prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.”

President Obama’s remarks come at a time when states across the nation are signaling their frustration with federal inaction to protect the nation’s borders and prevent illegal immigration. As FAIR previously reported, state legislatures nationwide are enacting legislation to deter illegal immigration and prod the federal government into forming a responsible approach to immigration woes. (See FAIR Legislative Updates, January 10, 2011) In the first month of 2011 alone, Kentucky and Mississippi have already passed Arizona-style legislation through their respective Senate chambers. (See FAIR Legislative Updates, January 18, 2011; FAIR Legislative Updates, January 24, 2011)

President Obama’s references to immigration reform in his State of the Union address reveal that the President’s immigration policies have not changed despite the impact uncontrolled immigration has on Americans and the U.S. labor market. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said “it’s hard for him to talk about creating jobs and then endorse illegal workers keeping their jobs at the expense of American workers.” (Houston Chronicle, January 25, 2011) Congressman Smith says he plans to concentrate on the pressing immigration issues of border security and workplace enforcement throughout the coming session. (Id.)

The Debt Ceiling Spin Begins From The Democrats

From Red State and Human Events:

The Debt Ceiling Spin Begins From the Democrats

by Erick Erickson


As I noted earlier, if we reach the debt ceiling, the United States does not automatically default on its loans. The issue, however, is priority of payment. We will bring in more each month in tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury than we will need to pay out to our lenders.

It requires Tim Geithner (why is he still on the job anyway?) to prioritize and pay our debt obligations first. But there is no law requiring him to do so. Senator Pat Toomey is proposing legislation that would require Geithner pay our debt obligations before all other obligations if we hit the debt ceiling.

The left, naturally, is crying foul. For the absurdity of it, read this ‘article’ of leftist spin.

The full impact of an actual default is unclear, but Treasury, and independent experts have warned that it would among other consequences, cause an enormous loss of wealth among U.S. citizens. Under the circumstances, one would think that the government’s top priority would be ensuring that citizens owed money by the Treasury would take precedence over, say, foreign governments. But that wouldn’t be the case if Toomey and some House Republicans, including Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), get their way.

The Treasury Department likewise is crying foul, saying it would still amount to default — only it wouldn’t. And we know it wouldn’t based on simple math. Revenue will continue being greater than expenditures to pay interest and principal on our debt obligations.

But the left is pushing back and using the Chinese boogeyman in their playbook. Here, though, is the ultimate point — we would not be in the mess we are in, but for Obama kowtowing to China to begin with.


Mr. Erickson is the managing editor at RedState.

White House Quietly Exempts Pampered Politicos

From The Washington Times and ADF:

WOLF: Tawdry details of Obamacare

White House quietly exempts pampered politicos

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf


The Washington Times

7:21 p.m., Friday, January 28, 2011

Illustration: Obamacare by Alexander Hunter for The Washington
If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.

Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.

Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.

For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.

Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.

In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.

The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?

Our democracy cannot allow a president to exercise the unholy power of picking and choosing winners and losers, of choosing who must follow his flawed laws and who gets a free pass. If any American deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then all Americans do.

It was Mr. Obama himself who infamously said, “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends.” This president speaks anything but softly, and Obamacare is his big stick.

It’s time to give every American his own waiver: Repeal Obamacare.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at miltonwolf.com.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times

Judge Declares Pro-Abortion ObamaCare Un-Constitutional

From LifeNews.com and Alliance Defense Fund:

Judge Declares Pro-Abortion ObamaCare Unconstitutional

by Steven Ertelt
Washington, DC
1/31/11 4:09 PM

PrintEmailNational Share1498ShareA federal judge in Florida has issued a new ruling in what is the largest lawsuit filed against the Obamacare health care law. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson says the individual mandate is unconstitutional and, therefore, the entire law is as well.

Leading pro-life groups have opposed the Obamacare law because it allows massive abortion funding and prompts concerns about rationing of health care.

The individual mandate is a portion of the law independent and conservative voters most strongly oppose because it requires Americans to purchase health insurance, that could fund abortions with taxpayer funds or premiums, whether they want to or not. The case the state of Florida and more than two dozen others made to Judge Vinson is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the Constitution does not allow Congress to regular financial inactivity.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void,” the judge wrote. “This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’”

“Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” the judge wrote. “This case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.”

“Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with individual mandate,” he added.

The Obama administration says it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Appeals Court based in Atlanta, Georgia. Judge Vinson did not stop the implementation of the law pending the appeal which could take two years to reach the Supreme Court and result in a decision.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who headed a similar case in Virginia, responded to the decision and told LifeNews.com in a statement: “I am heartened by the fact that another federal judge has found that the individual mandate forcing citizens to buy private health insurance is unconstitutional. The judge also found that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the law, so he declared the entire act invalid. Constitutional principles have scored another victory today. Liberty has scored another victory today.”

David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute and a law professor at Denver University, said Vinson’s ruling is the right one.

Judge Vinson’s decision today vindicates the original meaning of the Constitution, and increases the already-high probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will choose to hear the legal challenges to the health control law. While some proponents of the federal law continue to claim that it has no constitutional problems, courts are recognizing that the bill was a usurpation of powers which were never granted to Congress,” he said.

Back in October, Judge Vinson issued a written ruling allowing the case to move forward and saying the court needs to issue a decision on the question of whether or not it is a violation of the Constitution to force Americans to purchase health care insurance.

“The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it,” he wrote. “Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.”

“Of course, to say that something is “novel” and “unprecedented” does not necessarily mean that it is “unconstitutional” and “improper.” There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action,” he said.

During the hearing in December, David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson, “The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history.”

President Barack Obama’s administration countered that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of ObamaCare because every American requires medical care. They also claim the states do not have standing to file a lawsuit against ObamaCare and want the lawsuit thrown out and the case dismissed.

Other cases filed against the Obamacare health care law have seen mixed results.

Michigan District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit ruled in another case that the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the penalties states face for not implementing ObamaCare fully are legal. A third lawsuit filed against ObamaCare is pending in Virginia, where a federal judge ruled against the individual mandate but not against the rest of the Obamacare legislation. However, the lack of severability in the legislation likely makes it so if the individual mandate is declared invalid the entire law is likely invalid.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson became the first federal judge to strike down a portion of the law when he sided with Virginia in its lawsuit saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and likely to be combined with the one in Florida and two others where federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington joined Florida in the lawsuit. Earlier this month, six additional states joined them: Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Outwitting Lethal Government Policies

From The American Thinker:

January 30, 2011

Outwitting Lethal Government Policies

By J.R. Dunn

Over the past fifty years, at least a half-million Americans, and perhaps many more, have died prematurely due to ill-designed and badly executed liberal programs. The causes, as I reveal in detail in Death by Liberalism, range from the criminal justice "reforms" of the 1960s, which triggered a crime wave that that killed up to 268,000 Americans, to government-mandated fuel standards responsible for up to 125,000 lives. At least a thousand people are murdered each year by the derelict insane, with many deinstitutionalized lunatics dying as well, giving us a total of as many as 70,000 deaths. The number of deaths of children under the "protection" of state child care agencies is unknown (largely concealed by "privacy" laws) but must total in the thousands. (Twenty-one children died in this manner last year in Los Angeles County alone.)

All this strikes very close to home. There are few families that have not suffered a death from one of these causes over the last half-century. It's horrifying to consider that our lives are threatened by the actions of our own government, but we must consider it or risk becoming victims. How do we protect ourselves against democide?

When confronted with a risk, we analyze it and learn as much as we can in order to take the proper steps to avoid it. The process is no different here, even with the vast power of the government involved. While democide operates on a national scale, it should not be taken as overwhelming for that reason alone. Comprising small-scale elements, it is huge only in the aggregate. Responding to the threat is far from hopeless.

Crime - Crime remains the chief democidal killer. We're still living in the backwash of the great crime explosion of the late 20th century, triggered by interference with the criminal justice system by progressive judges and Supreme Court justices. Such cases as Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona were intended to "level the playing field" between law enforcement and criminals. This they did, with the innocent public paying the price.

Many municipalities, courts, and police forces have not learned the lesson, and they all continue applying failed policies. In such cases, citizens must take their own protection in hand.

Self-defense is the key. "Self-defense" means weapons -- weapons that are effective at a distance, that will fend off potential criminals, that will, if possible, end the confrontation with no escalation to higher levels of violence. Only one item meets this standard: the handgun.

It is possible to criticize ownership and use of handguns on a number of grounds. We will not debate this. Some of these contentions are exaggerated, butg some are well-taken -- the threat of suicide and particularly the possibility of children toying with a loaded gun are two examples.

But as the saying goes, you may need a gun only once in your life, but when you need it, nothing else will do. Drawbacks of gun ownership are similar in nature to the drawbacks of many other common items, such as cars and electrical appliances. All are dangerous, even deadly in certain circumstances. But dangers can be minimized. Despite accidents and misadventures, it remains true that guns are unexcelled at what they do, which is to end criminal activity. According to John Lott, the leading expert on gun use, guns are utilized in confrontations with criminals up to 3 million times a year. In most cases, the simple appearance of a gun causes a felon to flee. No shot is fired, and no one is hurt.

The first order of business is to study the firearms laws of your jurisdiction. Several states and many cities have adapted the anti-gun position as policy and expressed it in law, which is often enforced with far greater ferocity that any laws aimed at actual criminals. It is no coincidence that these jurisdictions (New York City, Chicago, and the District of Columbia among them) include some of the most liberal areas in the country. Under such circumstances, the dangers presented by legal sanctions must be carefully balanced against those presented by criminals.

On purchasing a gun, care must be given to the choice of model, caliber, size, and other important factors. For instance, there are some calibers too powerful for a woman to handle. Also, a gun featuring a hammer may become entangled with clothing, purse straps, and so on. Other factors include the difference between double and single action, concealability, and size.

Obtain a carrying permit and whatever other paperwork is necessary. Take gun safety, marksmanship, and self-defense courses. Purchase of a gun safe or locking system is advisable.

Familiarize yourself with the danger levels of various neighborhoods as revealed by recent crime rates. (Somebody wishing to perform a valuable public service might consider establishing websites for each municipality charting crime rates in various neighborhoods and providing warnings of criminal activity). Take care as to where you are traveling and the routes you choose, along with your destination. Patronizing bars in grubby neighborhoods is never a good idea.

Such steps taken by enough Americans would deter crime by raising the cost of doing business among felons. It would also take the pressure off police forces (although most police oppose an armed populace, operating under the assumption that cops and "civilians," as they refer to us, exist in a state of open war), and ease budget problems in many municipalities. The fact that any such activity by law-abiding citizens is widely discouraged is simply one more example of human perversity.

Such incidents as the recent Tucson shootings, though grounds for serious reflection on a number of counts, do not alter the primary case. Once again, according to John Lott, a large number of such incidents have been curtailed by individuals wielding legal weapons.

Cars - The second-largest democidal killer is automobile fuel standards, and particularly the CAFE standards. These were passed in the mid-'70s as an answer to a bogus "oil shortage." They were intended to lower gasoline use and protect the environment, and they succeeded at neither. Instead, they have killed from 41,000 to 125,000 drivers and passengers, depending on methodology used.

The answer here is to avoid the type of cars -- the class often dismissed as "skateboards," which are lightweight, ill-designed, and engineered to use as little fuel as possible -- that the government would dearly like you to buy. Unfortunately, most if not all subcompact to mid-sized vehicles fit this description. They are dangerous and must be avoided.

A particular example is the PT Cruiser, the first of the "cute" compact trucks, which came briefly into vogue over the past decade before dropping in popularity in recent years. I drove one belonging to a friend a number of times. It was a deathtrap -- underpowered and with no rear visibility to speak of (the rear window was set at such an angle as to make it next to impossible to see anything through it). I later learned that the side panels were so flimsy as to provide no measurable collision protection.

The PT Cruiser was intended to appeal to women (the rear window was designed that way to provide a feeling of "coziness" and security). It is more suited to a role under the big top. It's a blessing that production of the thing ceased last year.

The choice for truly secure, safe motor vehicles is limited to the pickup or the SUV. While it's undeniably true that the SUV was designed by Satan to bring about the downfall of Man, it remains the primary choice for a safe family vehicle. The second choice, relegated to that status by considerations of internal space, is the pickup. (I myself drove a Silverado for many years.) These vehicles soak up a lot of fuel. They use a lot of resources. But they will keep you and your family alive where the government-approved go-carts will not.

Wildlife - Most people have little idea how deeply nature penetrates into developed urban and suburban areas. Wildlife tends to be nocturnal, so its activities remain hidden. All the same, many urban areas are rewilding. I live in an unquestionably urban district which has at least two families of deer, a number of raccoons, and several hawks, as well as various unidentifiables heard going about their business of a midnight. Eventually, the coyotes will be moving in, and we'll see real trouble.

Familiarize yourself with the local animal life and their habits --- gain sure knowledge as to whether anything exists that can threaten your family. Above all, ascertain whether any government functionary from Interior or Fish and Wildlife has plans to release T-Rexes or dire wolves in the region because "they used to be native here," a policy that has been quietly put into effect (without consultation with local authorities or citizens) as regards cougars, grizzlies, and wolves in recent decades. If an attack or the threat of one occurs, do not hesitate to take out the offending animal; neither wildlife protection nor gun prohibition laws should be respected in such a case. The Green effort to reduce the citizenry to the level of prey must cease.

Child Protection Agencies - Think twice about turning any child over to such an outfit. Apart from the fact that it's next to impossible to extricate the child after taking such a step, bringing in social workers can be compared to turning a child over to the Orcs. Scarcely a week goes by without ghastly headlines appearing somewhere in the country concerning children murdered, maimed, or dreadfully abused while in the hands of these organizations. This is the fruit of the federalization of the child-rescue system in the 1970s, which resulted in typical bureaucratic degradation. Domestic troubles involving children can be very difficult, but all possible alternatives -- family, church, private charities -- should be investigated before calling in the government. The guilt incurred by sending a child to her death must be next to impossible to bear.

Lightbulbs - Hoard. Incandescent bulbs are going for a buck or two a package these days. You won't be able to get them for love or money a couple years down the line. Or do you like the idea of being ordered to fill your home with fragile glass objects requiring an eight-hour decontamination procedure if broken?

Inhalers - Several deaths and cases of brain damage have occurred since the classic CFC asthma inhalers, the ones that actually work, were banned in the U.S. through the action of Carol M. Browner, the federal government's departing chief Green hired gun. Such inhalers are available overseas from outlets easily found on the net. It's a pity that ordering them for delivery in the U.S. is illegal. If that weren't the case, I'd suggest that asthmatics and others suffering pulmonary disorders form private buying clubs to purchase in bulk. But that might be taken as inciting to conspiracy to violate the customs laws, so I won't.

Other Green Threats - Environmentalists are constantly coming up with new efforts to assist, amuse, and entertain the snail darters, minnow smelts, and polar bears, usually at the expense of humanity as a whole. The Greens contend that the major driver of environmental degradation is simply too many humans. They view all means of lowering these numbers with strong approval. Keep an eye out and never forget: however innocent a Green policy may look, it's always aimed at you.

Foreign Diseases - If you live on the Texas border, or in fact anywhere in the Southwest, pay close attention to epidemics breaking out across the line. As of 2010, we may add southern Florida to this list. In July 2010, the Centers for Disease Control released the results of a study showing that up to 20% of the inhabitants of the Keys had been exposed to Dengue Fever, also known as "bonebreak fever" for the pain it causes. Dengue is returning to endemic status in Texas after being banished by DDT. We know that Obama will refuse to close the border amid an epidemic because he has done exactly that already.

There also exists one upcoming threat, almost measureless in difficulty, that will undoubtedly affect us all. That is ObamaCare, the thus far successful effort to socialize the health care industry. The ultimate goal, as clearly demonstrated by the appointment of Donald Berwick, is the creation of a system patterned on the British National Health Service (NHS). And that's the thing, because the NHS -- overbudgeted, staffed with incompetents, and top-heavy with bureaucrats -- has developed into one of the great killer instrumentalities of the Western world. Studies commissioned by the British government itself have revealed an accidental death rate among NHS patients of up to 95,000 a year. The equivalent number in a U.S. system would be 450,000 deaths annually.

But it doesn't end with accidental deaths. In recent years, the NHS has adopted a program known benignly as the Liverpool Care Pathway. By means of this protocol, aged or extremely ill patients can be labeled terminal by a single doctor (the Nazis required three in their odious T4 program), whereupon all food and water is cut off, and the patient is given heavy sedation. Death usually occurs within a week. Hundreds of cases are on record where families have been forced to rescue elderly relations from this procedure. There is no known case where hospital staff cooperated. Often, attempts are made to have the family arrested or escorted out by police. As for how many of the lonely or socially isolated have been sacrificed in this manner, we have no idea. This is what Sarah Palin was referring to when she spoke of "death panels." Ob-la-di, ob-la-da!

Steps that should be taken to meet this threat include cultivating relationships with medical personnel -- doctors, nurses, and so on. Become a volunteer at hospitals or other health care institutions. By this means, you will be able to establish useful personal networks as well as being able to obtain information otherwise closed to the public.

A black market in medical care will come into being -- it is very likely coming into being as you read these words. Ask around your place of work and associations you belong to (health and fitness clubs in particular) to learn if any such network is emerging in your area. Make whatever contacts or arrangements are necessary.

When hospitalized even for a minor procedure (U.K. patients have been killed using the LCP for suffering broken legs and stomach viruses), make an effort to inform the staff that you have people on the outside. Have a relative, a friend, or a coworker contact you through the hospital system on a regular basis. Conversely, if an aged or chronically ill relative or friend is hospitalized, make the effort to remain in contact during this period. It would also be advisable to speak to doctors and nurses involved in the case to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings.

Much advanced future medical care will occur overseas, in Mexico, on the Caribbean islands, and in the Latin American littoral (outside Venezuela, needless to say). Medical tourism is the wave of the future. Keep on top of developments in the overseas treatment field. It is likely to be covered in business, lifestyle, and specialized publications both on the net and in print. An information clearinghouse website would be a guaranteed moneymaker under such circumstances. I hereby toss the idea into the ring.

It's very likely that foreign sources will offer health plans redeemable only at foreign clinics. Look into these when they appear. An online brokerage for such plans will also make the virtual register ring.

Efforts such as these will prove useful in protecting individuals against an out-of-control government -- one that has, like so many others before it, appointed itself judge, executioner, and gravedigger for its own people. Did I hear cries that this is the United States, the nation of the Declaration, the first free Constitution, the Federalist, the Emancipation Proclamation? That none of this should be happening here? I hear that. I acknowledge it, I sympathize, and I agree.

But freedom from such threats and protection of rights require exercise of political will, which has not occurred often enough in the past half-century. Instead we have wasted our time on nonsense and trivia (marijuana legalization, radfeminism, homeless "rights") while the actual basis of our freedoms has been surreptitiously chipped away.

In the end, democide must be conquered by politics. Enablers in the federal government, whether politicians or bureaucrats, must be detected, exposed, expelled, and punished. They must be confronted by the public they have so grievously harmed and forced to recant. Why are they in favor of CAFE? What is the point of placing predators in populated areas? Why have child-protection agencies been allowed to become so degraded? If those answers are unsatisfactory -- which they will be -- then vote 'em out, put 'em on trial, and lock 'em up. There is no excuse for lethal governmental policies anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

Only then we will see an end to democide. This is the sole long-term solution. And it will come. No ruler, no matter how impressive and all-powerful, has ever survived brutalizing his own people to no purpose. It will be no different here.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and the author of Death by Liberalism.

The Federal Reserve's Money Policy Is Burning Down The Middle East, And The Fire Will Spread

From Big Government;

8:05 AM (14 hours ago)Fed Policy Burns Down the Middle East, Who’s Next?from Big Government by Chriss W. StreetChairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke launched a second round of Quantitative Easing (QE2) in October, following over a year of growth in the economy at a robust rate of over 3%. Most analysts pooh-poohed QE2 as an insufficient economic stimulus to create enough inflation to reduce unemployment. I warned that QE2 was like pouring inflationary lighter fluid on the world and then lighting a match. With food inflation now running at 15% in poor countries, the Middle East is just the first area to burn, but fire is smoldering in much of the world and other fires will break out soon.

QE2 is a program by the U.S. Federal Reserve to inject $600 billion of U.S. dollars in the financial system by repurchasing an equivalent amount of U.S. Government bonds. Once the money is paid to the former bondholder, they deposit the cash in banks. Banks take deposit dollars and leverage them by 6 to 10 times creating $3.6 to $6 trillion in credit. Given that the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. economy is only about $14 trillion annually, it would impossible to immediately purchase 25-40% of the entire economy. Consequently, the reality of Quantitative Easing is that the money will be invested in the stock and commodity markets. The theory is that the financial assets rise on the huge inflows of QE cash, investors will feel wealthier and go to the malls and the car dealerships to “shop till they drop”.

The problem with theory is that QE2 money quickly drove up commodity food prices around the world. This price rise is barely noticeable to Americans who only spend 10% of their personal income on food for three meals a day; but the impact of food inflation is devastating the over half the world that spends approximately 50% of personal income on food for two meals a day. The 15% QE2 induced commodity food price increase has reduced the amount of food poor people can purchase by almost 1/3.

The riots and revolutionary activity burning down Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt are about gut-level economics. Do you think Americans would riot and throwing out our government if we were forced to cut back to eating 1 1/3 meals a day? Once riots start people in cities hoard food to survive and becomes dangerous for farmers to transport food. This is exacerbates food shortages and drives prices even higher.

Unemployment was modestly declining and inflation was flat before the Fed’s August announcement of the new stimulus, as shown above. That trend remains in place as QE2 has not significantly reduced unemployment. The only success of QE2 in U.S. is a 20% in the stock market the last six months.

When the Credit Crisis hit in 2008, the Middle East country of Dubai was the first financially leveraged nation to suffer a debt crash. Since that time; Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Spain and others are also suffering a similar fate. QE2 leveraging of worldwide commodity food prices has sent the Middle East into flames. With the price of a barrel of oil hitting $100 dollars and food prices accelerating, those flames will spread.

The Internet Kill Switch: Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste--Egypt Today, U.S.A. Tomorrow

From Big Government:

Internet Kill Switch – Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste: Egypt Today, USA Tomorrow

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Bill Giving President Power Over Internet In "Cyber Emergency" To Return

From Homeland Security NewsWire:


Bill giving president power over Internet in cyber emergency to return

Published 25 January 2011

A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year; the bill which emerged from a Senate committee on 15 December 2010, is more restrictive in three respects than the original bill, made public June 2010: The revised version sayis that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review"; another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include "provider of information technology"; a third authorized the submission of "classified" reports on security vulnerabilities

A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a “national cyberemergency,” and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.

Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Senatros Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“We’re not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone,” said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.

Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those “crucial components that form our nation’s critical infrastructure.”

CNET News reports that portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on 15 December. The full Senate did not act on the measure.

The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government’s designation of vital Internet or other computer systems “shall not be subject to judicial review.” Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include “provider of information technology,” and a third authorized the submission of “classified” reports on security vulnerabilities.

CNET News notes that The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.

A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Senatros Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.

Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said.

Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad

emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.

Last month’s rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry, however. “Judicial review is our main concern,” said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”

In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a “good-faith disagreement” with the government’s ruling and would want to seek court review.

“The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” he said. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”

Other industry representatives say it is not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security’s 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.

CNET News writes that the revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will “establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure” and that will be subject to emergency decrees (the term “kill switch” does not appear in the legislation).

Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause “severe economic consequences” or worse. Second, that the system “is a component of the national information infrastructure.” Third, that the “national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system.”

At last week’s event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that “the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list.”

A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. Her decision is final, though, and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.

President Obama would then have the power to “issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency.” What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if “specifically authorized by law,” but a presidential decree may suffice.

“No amount of tightening of what constitutes ‘critical infrastructure’ will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review,” says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. “Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs.”

For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has “nearly unchecked authority” to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a “state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency” exists, the president may “authorize the use or control of any…station or device.”

In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses “presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act,” he said, “as opposed to developing overlapping legislation.”

Friday, January 28, 2011

Beyond The Philadelphia Horror

From Michelle Malkin:

Jan 26, 2011 (3 days ago)Beyond the Philadelphia Horrorfrom Michelle Malkin by Michelle Malkin

1 person liked thisIt’s been more than a week since the Philadelphia Horror was exposed.

President Obama has felt no compulsion to weigh in on the baby serial-killing spree committed in the name of “choice.” And the Beltway press corps has felt no compulsion to query him about the systemic failures of pro-abortion enablers in government to stop the massacre.

As I said last week, the Philadephia Horror is the tip of a blood-stained iceberg. In addition to a clinic in Delaware, Philly Dr. Death Kermitt Gosnell is also tied to a scandal-plagued abortion clinic in Louisiana.

Fortunately, the alternative media and local press remain vigilant in covering the stories that the national MSM prefer to whitewash.

Via Steven Ertelt of LifeNews, here’s another bone-chilling butcher M.D. who fostered the grisly climate of death in his Southern California abortion clinic. Despite having his license revoked once before for botching a delivery that left a baby with a severed spinal column, he went on to kill a pregnant woman during a botched abortion. The California Medical Board will administer another slap on the wrist — revoking his license for three years, which allows him to evade criminal charges:

Andrew Rutland, a southern California abortion practitioner, has agreed to give up his medical license a second time over a case involving his killing a woman in a botched abortion. Rutland killed an Asian woman in a failed abortion — as the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office ruled the death of Ying Chen a homicide.

The botched abortion was done in July 2009 at a filthy and ill-equipped acupuncture clinic in San Gabriel that Rutland ran where he also did abortions. Rutland killed Chen by administering anesthesia to her and not knowing the proper dosage. He injected lidocaine, a local anesthetic, in her cervix and the woman began to have an immediate reaction. The abortion practitioner began to perform CPR but state medical board documents say there was a “significant delay” in him calling 911 for emergency medical help for the woman.

Ying was in cardiac arrest when the ambulance arrived and was taken to a hospital, where she died six days later. An autopsy revealed Rutland gave the woman the wrong dosage of the anesthesia.

According to the orange County register, Rutland will surrender his medical license on February 11 rather than face disciplinary proceedings on the allegations of gross negligence related to Chen’s death. He did not admit his guilt related to the botched abortion in making the agreement with the California Medical Board, which says Rutland acknowledges the board could establish “factual basis” for one or more charges other than the homicide.

This is the second time Rutland has surrender his license — as he did so in 2002 for severing a baby’s spinal column during a forceps delivery, then lying to the parents by telling them that their baby suffered a stroke. The baby later died. His license was reinstated in 2007 and Rutland was placed on five years probation with the restriction that he operate only under the supervision of another physician. Rutland’s Los Angeles attorney Paul Hittelman would not comment to the newspaper about whether Rutland would pursue a medical license after the three year period is up during which he can’t practice medicine.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, another quack abortionist who had had his license revoked in several other states has been put in the spotlight:

Maryland lawmakers will consider legislation to ban the sort of interstate abortions performed last year by a New Jersey doctor whose license has since been suspended.

Dr. Steven Brigham operated an abortion clinic in Elkton. New Jersey regulators suspended his license after finding that he was starting late-term abortions in that state, then ferrying patients to Maryland to complete the procedures in an apparent bid to skirt New Jersey’s more restrictive abortion laws.

Delegate Michael Smigiel, R-Cecil, has introduced three bills intended to prevent anything similar from happening in the future. One would mandate that an abortion begun in Maryland must be concluded in the state except during an emergency.


Documents filed in Maryland suggest that Brigham and his staff frequently performed late-term abortions. A search of the Elkton clinic revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks. Police who searched Brigham’s offices in Voorhees found only two medical records related to those fetuses, documents show…Allegations against Brigham first surfaced in 1992 in Pennsylvania, where he agreed to give up his license amid an investigation of his practice, according to published reports.

In 1993, he botched two late-term abortions in New York, and his license was revoked for gross negligence. According to public records, a 20-year-old patient had to undergo an emergency hysterectomy, and the other patient had her colon removed.

His Florida license was revoked in 1996 after he secretly took over for a colleague who was killed by an anti-abortion activist.

And in July, the Pennsylvania Department of Health ordered him to close his four clinics in the state, saying he employed unlicensed caregivers.

He’s also had tax problems. In 1998, he was sentenced to four months in jail for failing to file corporate income tax returns and bilking insurance companies in New York.

In April, the IRS placed more than $234,000 in liens against him for failing to pay payroll taxes. He’s also subject to tens of thousands of dollars in state tax liens.

Waiting for femmes to blame pro-life movement for all this in 3, 2, 1…


Flashback: The forgotten victims of Planned Parenthood

Flashback: The forgotten victims of choice

Flashback: The life and death of Patrick Chavis

Is The SEIU Working With Hamas And FARC?

From Big Government:

Jan 28, 2011 (17 hours ago)Is SEIU Working With Hamas And FARC?from Big Government by Andrew MarcusProminent current and former members of SEIU local 73 are being investigated for their potential ties to the Hamas and FARC terrorist groups.

Late last year, their homes were raided by the FBI, and they were subpoenaed to appear in front of a grand jury for questioning.

Joe Iosbaker, Chief Steward of SEIU 73, and Tom Burke (former board member of SEIU 73) are among 9 people who are subjects in the investigation. None of them have been charged with any crimes, yet.

Two days ago, they refused again to appear in front of the grand jury.

The interesting thing about these SEIU folks is that they also belong to a violently radical group called the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. From their website:

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a revolutionary socialist and Marxist-Leninist organization in the United States.

1) We stand for the right to self-determination up to and including secession for the African American nation in the Black Belt South.

While rejecting Zionist claims on Palestine and white supremacist claims to a white southern nation or northwestern nation, we do acknowledge the fact that the most advanced sections of the Black liberation movement, from the 1800s on, have demanded a Black Republic in the South.

It gets worse from there.

This is the same group who, along with the other subjects of the FBI investigation, takes credit for staging the 2008 RNC protest-riots.

Shockingly, SEIU leadership is supporting their accused members, and the chosen strategy of not cooperating with law enforcement.

Beginning at 6:15 in the video below, SEIU’s Matt Brandon gives the union’s full-throated support for targets of the investigation.

Let that sink in for a minute. SEIU members are being investigated for potential ties to terrorists, and SEIU leadership is supporting non-cooperation with law enforcement. Can we question their patriotism yet??

Imagine Haliburton being investigated by DOJ for potential ties to terrorists, and their management comes out in support of ignoring grand jury subpoenas. Do you think mainstream media outlets might cover it?

The bottom line is that in addition to demanding the right to riot on the streets of America, the Progressive movement in this country (including SEIU) wants the right to organize “non-violent” actions with Hamas and FARC.

Pay close attention to the 2 minute mark in the video below. The Lawyers Guild protester lets the cat out of the bag when he talks about Global Exchange being threatened by all of this. Global Exchange is one of the groups that helped organized the violent Hamas flotilla.

So here you have SEIU members participating in violent revolutionary causes, and SEIU leadership defending them.

This raises a lot of questions about the extent of coordination between the American Progressive movement and global terrorist organizations. We can think of at least two people who are strongly associated with this exact SEIU local 73, people who might be able to shed some light on the actions of its members:

Andy Stern


And President Barack Obama


From the 2008 SEIU 73 annual report:

SEIU Local 73 was all across the nation in 2008 assisting Barack Obama in his historic run for the White House. Members and SEIU Local 73 staff worked the primaries not only in Illinois, but in Ohio and other key states. The Purple Army was out in force to turn our nation blue!

To say that they are close is an understatement.

What does the President know, and how long has he known it?


EXCLUSIVE – FBI Terror Targets Tied To Obama’s New Party!

Another Target Of FBI Terror Raids Connected To SEIU

DOJ Has Some Curious Budget Prioroties

From The American Thinker:

January 28, 2011

DoJ has some curious budget priorities

Ed Lasky

Hey-what a concept! The Department of Justice proposes to save money by releasing prisoners and discouraging fugitives from turning themselves over to the law? That will teach those law and order Republicans and budget cutters!

From the Wall Street Journal:

As President Barack Obama finalizes his proposals to increase federal funding for his priority programs, the White House is searching for ways to reduce spending elsewhere in the federal government.

At the Justice Department, officials are considering whether to shorten some federal prison terms and have already shut down a program that successfully encouraged fugitive criminals to turn themselves in.


So the White House Office of Management and Budget, in discussions with departments and agencies, has proposed numerous cuts that could be included in the president's final budget proposal, to be sent to Congress in February. At Justice, according to internal documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, OMB's proposals include:

-Increasing the amount of time deducted from prison terms for good behavior, which would immediately qualify some 4,000 federal convicts for release, and another 4,000 over the next 10 years.

-Eliminating the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Gang Intelligence Center, for a savings of $8 million in the next budget year.

-Sharing less of the proceeds from property confiscated from criminals with state and local authorities, and eliminating other funding to local police departments for some operations. The change would reduce spending by $120 million, according to the White House.

Why is it that the government always try to avoid making cuts by threatening taxpayers? When proposals to cut city and state budgets are floated, we are often warned that the lines at Department of Motor Vehicle offices will get longer; that children will suffer; that police and firefighters will be laid off and our security endangered?

How about attrition across all departments, trimming travel expenses, privatizing government functions, bringing salaries and pensions in line with private pay?

Posted at 09:22 AM

Commission Report: DOJ Stifled Investigation Into New Black Panther Party And Voter Intimidation Charges

From Big Government:

3:36 PM (8 hours ago)Commission Report: DOJ Stifled Investigation Into New Black Panther Party and Voter Intimidation Chargesfrom Big Government by Bob McCartyAttorney General Eric Holder and others within the U.S. Department of Justice prevented members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from conducting a complete and thorough investigation of the department’s decision to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for their 2008 election day actions in Philadelphia.

Members of the commission issued what should be regarded as a stinging indictment of AG Holder and the Justice Department in one paragraph of a news release issued today about the investigation trying to answer the question of whether DOJ practiced race-neutral enforcement of the law:

Although such testimony supported the need for thorough investigation, DOJ continued to withhold relevant documents and preclude relevant officials and supervisors from testifying. The Commission was thus limited in its ability to complete a final report. As a result, the Commission has issued an interim report that describes the evidence that has been collected up to this point and the lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice.

In a separate paragraph, appearing on page iii of the interim report addressed to President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), Commission members highlighted the dilemma they face as a result of the DOJ’s obstruction:

The Commission, by a separate 5-2 vote breaking down along the same lines, found that although its statute authorizes the Commission to subpoena witnesses and written material and requires federal agencies to cooperate fully with its investigations, its authority to seek legal recourse when the Attorney General refuses to enforce Commission subpoenas, as has occurred repeatedly during this investigation, is unclear.

Video of the Nov. 4, 2008, incident that triggered public outcry is clear to any objective viewer: Billy club-carrying members of the New Black Panther Party were intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.

It will be interesting to see whether any state-run media outlets report AG Holder’s obstruction of justice and apparent racist enforcement of the law.

Arkansas Senate Votes To Exclude Abortion Coverage From ObamaCare Exchanges

From LifeSiteNews.com and Alliance Defense Fund:


Arkansas Senate votes to exclude abortion coverage from Obamacare exchanges

by Rebecca Millette

Fri Jan 28, 2011 13:42 EST

Comments (0)

Tags: abortion, health care

LITTLE ROCK, AR, January 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Arkansas Senate approved a bill yesterday in a 27-8 vote that will ensure no taxpayer dollars go to funding abortions in the state.

Senate Bill 113, sponsored by Republican Sen. Cecile Bledsoe, maintains that “Health insurance exchange coverage of abortions in the state health insurance exchange [is] prohibited.” It will now go to the state House for a vote.

Under the new national health reform law, individual states are responsible for their own health exchanges, which will take effect in 2014, allowing states to opt-out of insurance coverage for abortion.

Senate Bill 113 contains an exception in the case of the mother’s life being in danger. Unlike some other similar state bills, it includes no exception for cases of rape and incest.

Women can purchase coverage for abortion outside the state health insurance, but such optional supplemental abortion coverage would be at the complete cost of the individual.

“We just feel that the policy that we are putting forth, this opt-out of abortion, goes along with how Arkansans feel,” said Sen. Bledsoe, according to CNBC. Citing the federal health care law, she said, “We’re not trying to do anything more than what we have been given the right to do.”

“This is about tax dollars and Arkansans have said overwhelmingly we don’t want to spend tax dollars on abortions,” Bledsoe told the Senate.

Republican Sen. Jason Rapert supported Bledsoe. “I think we’re here to protect and serve the interests of our constituents and not force their dollar to be utilized for something they don’t agree with,” he said.

Opposition leader Democrat Sen. Joyce Elliott said the bill needed amendments to include exceptions in the cases of rape and incest.

“Rape is nothing more than an assault,” said Elliott, according to Arkansas News. “Suppose you are a man and you are in the exchange, you get mugged and beaten, bloodied, that is an assault on you. You are going to be covered. But [an abortion is not covered] if it’s an assault on a woman who is part of the exchange, and she’s raped and she gets pregnant.”

Bledsoe said she decided to exclude exceptions for rape and incest from the bill because they were not included in the Arkansas Constitution Amendment 68 on abortion, approved by votes in 1989, to ban public funding for abortions in Arkansas. Amendment 68 states, “No public funds will be used to pay for any abortion, except to save the mother’s life.”

Governor Mike Beebe said he would prefer that women who are pregnant as a result of rape and incest should be included in the bill. However, his spokesman told Arkansas News Beebe would support whatever the Legislature approves.

Should the Arkansas House pass the bill, Arkansas will join Arizona, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, and Louisianna, in approving such legislation. Several other states are expected to consider legislation in their upcoming legislative sessions.

Obama Re-Nominates Rationing Czar Berwick To Medicare Post

From LifeNews.com and Floyd Reports:

Obama Renominates Rationing Czar Berwick to Medicare Post

by Steven Ertelt
Washington, DC
1/27/11 12:10 PM

Late Wednesday night, President Barack Obama renominated “rationing czar” Donald Berwick to his current post as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the chief of implementation of the Obamacare law.

Berwick has been deluged with criticism from pro-life advocates, who cite his fondness for rationing and his failure to level with a Senate committee about his pro-rationing views.

Obama previously used a recess appointment to place Berwick in the prominent position after the Senate couldn’t find enough votes to overcome a Republican-led filibuster against his nomination. A recess appointment can be used when the Senate is not in session but the appointment is temporary – he could serve through this year in his current role but not beyond that.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, ranking Republican on the committee that oversees Medicare, told the Washington Post he is disappointed Obama chose to renominate Berwick to the position.

Ed Morrissey, a conservative writer at Hot Air, panned Obama’s move.

“Barack Obama spent Tuesday night telling the American people that he understood the midterm message as the electorate demanding that Democrats and Republicans need to work together in the final two years of his term as President. He spent the rest of the week talking out the other side of his mouth,” he said.

“Even some Democrats at the time objected to the recess appointment. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) would have voted to confirm Berwick but slammed the White House for bypassing the Senate entirely. Berwick hadn’t even filled out the standard questionnaire that forms part of the basis for confirmation hearings, which is why Baucus had yet to schedule a hearing for Berwick,” Morrissey noted.

At the time, Baucus said, “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee, and answered.”

In a November Senate committee hearing, Berwick backed away from the pro-rationing positions he’s taken previously. Berwick told senators he has long opposed rationing health care and said he believed people who are near death still have a right to medical treatment.

He said his guiding principle is that patients should get “all the care they want and need, when and where they want and need it.” Berwick also told lawmakers he doesn’t think a one-size-fits-all scheme is appropriate for the United States because it is such a large and diverse nation.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, calls Berwick “the most important man that you’ve never heard of” and he called on lawmakers to ask about “his radical plans for health care.”

“Berwick, whom the President entrusted with $962 billion dollars, heads up the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid–a job he was never approved by Congress to do,” he said. “Instead, the White House, sensing that his pro-euthanasia socialist views would pose problems even for his own party, made Berwick a recess appointment.”

Berwick is an outspoken admirer of the British National Health Service and its rationing arm, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE).

During a 2008 speech to British physicians, Berwick said “I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it,” and calling it “generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just.”

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, wrote about the problems with Berwick in an opinion column at the Daily Caller in May.

Recalling that opponents of the government-run health care bill were blasted for bringing up “death panels,” Tanner writes: “But if President Obama wanted to keep a lid on that particular controversy, he just selected about the worst possible nominee.”

In his comments lauding the British health care system, Tanner says “Berwick was referring to a British health care system where 750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals.”

“The government’s official target for diagnostic testing was a wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008. The reality doesn’t come close. The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is only 20 percent,” he writes.

“Overall, more than half of British patients wait more than 18 weeks for care. Every year, 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed,’ he continues.

“The one thing the NHS is good at is saving money. After all, it is far cheaper to let the sick die than to provide care,” Tanner adds.

NICE is at the forefront of the rationing in the British health care system.

“It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for NHS, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patient receives, such as prolonged life, are cost-efficient for the government,” Tanner explains. “NICE, however, is not simply a government agency that helps bureaucrats decide if one treatment is better than another. With the creation of NICE, the U.K. government has effectively put a dollar amount to how much a citizen’s life is worth.”

Tanner points out that Berwick has already admitted health care rationing is coming.

“It’s not a question of whether we will ration care,” the Obama nominee said in a magazine interview for Biotechnology Healthcare, “It is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Liberal writer Nat Hentoff has also criticized Berwick’s views.