Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Doesn't Get It - Thomas Jefferson
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. ~Thomas Jefferson
Obama Doesn't Get It About Gun Control Nor The Second Amendment
Guns kill people the same way spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Obama Doesn't Get It - Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Obama Re-Writes The Lords Prayer
FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF DEMOCRAT
PSALM 2008-2012
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.
HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL FACTORIES.
HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE BREAD LINE, I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY..
OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES.
MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME.
SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS TERM.
FROM HENCE FORTH, WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.
BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE. BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG AND OBAMA WAS A TREE .
Today's Quote:
"Too many Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world,
so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
PSALM 2008-2012
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.
HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL FACTORIES.
HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE BREAD LINE, I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY..
OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES.
MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME.
SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS TERM.
FROM HENCE FORTH, WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.
BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE. BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG AND OBAMA WAS A TREE .
Today's Quote:
"Too many Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world,
so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
Pelosi and Her War On GOD
Nancy Pelosi, The Liberal Left and Political Correctness and Their Combined War On GOD
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Obama Healthcare Obama Waterloo Obama Failure and Socialism
Obama Healthcare Obama Waterloo Obama Failure and Socialism
To quote the esteemed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the chickens that were hatched in the stimulus package are coming home to roost in the healthcare proposal. The budget deficit Obama racked up paying for the massive federal spending passed in January is now having a real economic and political impact, which is forcing the president and his congressional allies into hard choices as they face his healthcare legislation.
Of course, the prudent thing to do is postpone healthcare changes until the economy generates some revenues and trims the deficit. But the socialist in the White House can't do that. He's got to strike while his congressional majority is hot. So he is forcing his administration and his party to choose among unpalatable choices to finance his program. His demand may be a bridge too far, endangering his popularity with the American people.
First of all, the very fact of a focus on healthcare reform inevitably stirs discussion of the deficit.
Americans are allergic to deficit spending and worry the more the deficit grows. As interest rates rise and the government finds it more and more difficult to borrow enough to cover Obama's massive spending, the economy is likely to show the negative effects. It is a matter of a few months, certainly no more, before voters start to realize that it is the deficit, not the pre-existing conditions Obama inherited, which is causing the prolongation of the recession. Already the jump in mortgage rates has slowed the refinancing, which was the only aspect of the Obama economic program that was working well.
But the foreign and domestic focus on the deficit has a harsher political impact: It forces the Democrats to come up with money to fund healthcare reform. In other words, it makes them raise taxes. The Democratic Party is good at fooling itself that tax increases don't matter and are politically palatable, but they do and they are not.
The massive spending healthcare will require dwarfs the capacity for the rich alone to pay the bill, no matter how confiscatory Obama chooses to become. Only broader taxes will do the job.
Obama faces two practical choices: a value added tax or taxing health insurance benefits.
The political harm either way will be enormous. Not only will Obama be breaking his pledge not to tax the middle class, but he will be doing so in a particularly pernicious way. If Obama opts for the value added tax (VAT), Democrats will hope to cloak the increase in the price of the product. They reason that the consumer won't know how much the tax is since it will be added on throughout the sale and resale of the product rather than at the cash register at the end, as the sales tax is. But it will work the other way. As inflation sets in, triggered by Obama's deficit spending, consumers will blame the whole thing on Obama. His VAT will be much magnified in the voters' minds to include all of the inflation going on. Just as voters blamed Clinton's gas tax increase of five cents in 1993 for the entire run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, so they will place all the blame for inflation on Obama's VAT.
Or Obama could tax healthcare benefits, a direct reversal of his campaign pledge. He would be adopting a policy for which he overtly and loudly criticized McCain. And his popularity will wilt as taxpayers suddenly have to add onto their tax liability the money their employer has always paid for their health insurance. Obama will probably have his own separate line on the 1040 and even on the short form for his new tax. That's not the way to stay popular.
Obama's only good option is not to move so quickly on healthcare reform, to give himself some wiggle room. But as the song says, "we're knee deep in the big muddy but the damn fool says to push on!"
As always, Dick asks us to forward this on, but then contradicts himself by saying this is copywrighted and not to reprint. My blog is my email to my friends and family, so as not to crowd their email inbox.
Socialist
To quote the esteemed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the chickens that were hatched in the stimulus package are coming home to roost in the healthcare proposal. The budget deficit Obama racked up paying for the massive federal spending passed in January is now having a real economic and political impact, which is forcing the president and his congressional allies into hard choices as they face his healthcare legislation.
Of course, the prudent thing to do is postpone healthcare changes until the economy generates some revenues and trims the deficit. But the socialist in the White House can't do that. He's got to strike while his congressional majority is hot. So he is forcing his administration and his party to choose among unpalatable choices to finance his program. His demand may be a bridge too far, endangering his popularity with the American people.
First of all, the very fact of a focus on healthcare reform inevitably stirs discussion of the deficit.
Americans are allergic to deficit spending and worry the more the deficit grows. As interest rates rise and the government finds it more and more difficult to borrow enough to cover Obama's massive spending, the economy is likely to show the negative effects. It is a matter of a few months, certainly no more, before voters start to realize that it is the deficit, not the pre-existing conditions Obama inherited, which is causing the prolongation of the recession. Already the jump in mortgage rates has slowed the refinancing, which was the only aspect of the Obama economic program that was working well.
But the foreign and domestic focus on the deficit has a harsher political impact: It forces the Democrats to come up with money to fund healthcare reform. In other words, it makes them raise taxes. The Democratic Party is good at fooling itself that tax increases don't matter and are politically palatable, but they do and they are not.
The massive spending healthcare will require dwarfs the capacity for the rich alone to pay the bill, no matter how confiscatory Obama chooses to become. Only broader taxes will do the job.
Obama faces two practical choices: a value added tax or taxing health insurance benefits.
The political harm either way will be enormous. Not only will Obama be breaking his pledge not to tax the middle class, but he will be doing so in a particularly pernicious way. If Obama opts for the value added tax (VAT), Democrats will hope to cloak the increase in the price of the product. They reason that the consumer won't know how much the tax is since it will be added on throughout the sale and resale of the product rather than at the cash register at the end, as the sales tax is. But it will work the other way. As inflation sets in, triggered by Obama's deficit spending, consumers will blame the whole thing on Obama. His VAT will be much magnified in the voters' minds to include all of the inflation going on. Just as voters blamed Clinton's gas tax increase of five cents in 1993 for the entire run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, so they will place all the blame for inflation on Obama's VAT.
Or Obama could tax healthcare benefits, a direct reversal of his campaign pledge. He would be adopting a policy for which he overtly and loudly criticized McCain. And his popularity will wilt as taxpayers suddenly have to add onto their tax liability the money their employer has always paid for their health insurance. Obama will probably have his own separate line on the 1040 and even on the short form for his new tax. That's not the way to stay popular.
Obama's only good option is not to move so quickly on healthcare reform, to give himself some wiggle room. But as the song says, "we're knee deep in the big muddy but the damn fool says to push on!"
As always, Dick asks us to forward this on, but then contradicts himself by saying this is copywrighted and not to reprint. My blog is my email to my friends and family, so as not to crowd their email inbox.
Socialist
Lou Pritchett Obama You Scare Me
Lou Pritchett Obama You Scare Me
This message "Obama You Scare Me" Deserves Reposting
From Lou Pritchett
Foremost Leader in Change Management
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends-an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support..
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
This message "Obama You Scare Me" Deserves Reposting
From Lou Pritchett
Foremost Leader in Change Management
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends-an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support..
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Obama Failure and Socialism Barry Soetoro Hates Our Military And Despises Our Freedoms
Obama Failure and Socialism Barry Soetoro Hates Our Military And Despises Our Freedoms
Obama Failure and Socialism hating our military personnel as much as Lyndon Baines Johnson, the fags at the SDS of the sixites and the worthless, hateful Black Panthers of the sixties. Let's get this right. Obama stated that he hates his WHITE MOTHER. He also hates our military troops.
Along with the fact that he won't produce his birth certificate and prove that he is an American and not a socialist poser in the highest office of our Country.
Socialism
Obama Failure and Socialism hating our military personnel as much as Lyndon Baines Johnson, the fags at the SDS of the sixites and the worthless, hateful Black Panthers of the sixties. Let's get this right. Obama stated that he hates his WHITE MOTHER. He also hates our military troops.
Along with the fact that he won't produce his birth certificate and prove that he is an American and not a socialist poser in the highest office of our Country.
Socialism
Obama Failure and Socialism Traitor To Our Safety...For Today Lets See What He Says Tomorrow
Obama Failure and Socialism Traitor To Our Safety...For Today Lets See What He Says Tomorrow
"I've Decided Not to procecute you For Helping To Keep Us Safe Since 9/11", Barry Soteoro AKA Barrack Obama
Obama Failure and Socialism
Socialist
Socialism
Muslim Traitor
Socialist Poser
"I've Decided Not to procecute you For Helping To Keep Us Safe Since 9/11", Barry Soteoro AKA Barrack Obama
Obama Failure and Socialism
Socialist
Socialism
Muslim Traitor
Socialist Poser
Obama Failure and Socialism Trying to Socialize America And Still Blame Bush
Obama Failure and Socialism Trying to Socialize America And Still Blame Bush 
"Okay, I need to hear this one more time. After We Bankrupt The Country People are Still Going to Blame Bush, Right?"
Obama Failure To Stop The Next Muslim Terrorist Attack
Obama Failure To Stop The Next Muslim Terrorist Attack
Bloggers note: this was received in an email that asked us to forward on to those we care about. Then, asked for us not to reproduce it. Many of our family and friends read this blog, so this serves as their email pass on.
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred.
His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant. Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. Will occur within the next few months.
Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.
For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is reactionary.
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.
Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a Drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved.In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (I. E., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc..) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked.
Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons.
They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U..S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East .
These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help.
We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities.
The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase! (Go figure. Possibly Rob Blagoyavich or Roland Burris)
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.
But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terrorist emergency.
He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone?
Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.
How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
If you believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send to every concerned parent or guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever and whomever.
Nothing will happen if you choose not to do so, but in the event it does happen, this particular email will haunt you..."I should have sent this to..... ", but I didn't believe it and just deleted it as so much trash from old Bill Jones!!!
The information contained in this communication is confidential and intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend it to the sender and delete the original message and copy of it from your computer system. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to our official business should be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the company.
Bloggers note: this was received in an email that asked us to forward on to those we care about. Then, asked for us not to reproduce it. Many of our family and friends read this blog, so this serves as their email pass on.
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred.
His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant. Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. Will occur within the next few months.
Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.
For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is reactionary.
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.
Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a Drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved.In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (I. E., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc..) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked.
Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons.
They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U..S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East .
These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help.
We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities.
The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase! (Go figure. Possibly Rob Blagoyavich or Roland Burris)
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.
But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terrorist emergency.
He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone?
Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.
How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
If you believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send to every concerned parent or guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever and whomever.
Nothing will happen if you choose not to do so, but in the event it does happen, this particular email will haunt you..."I should have sent this to..... ", but I didn't believe it and just deleted it as so much trash from old Bill Jones!!!
The information contained in this communication is confidential and intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend it to the sender and delete the original message and copy of it from your computer system. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to our official business should be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the company.
All Americans. My Friends take head. Whether this is real information or not, we should always be prepared.
Were we ready for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour? Did our forefathers expect the 'shot heard 'round the world' that founded the greates Country of all time (that Barry Soteoro AKA Barrack Obama wants to destroy)? Did we expect the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did we ever expect that a religion, MUSLIM ISLAMISTS, would attack us on our shores and kill thousands of innocent people?
Be prepared America.
Barry Soetoro AKA Barrack Obama Failure and Socialism
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
Every American citizen needs to read this!
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
Every American citizen needs to read this!
The Economic Case For Health Care Reform - More Socialist Rhetoric By Barry Soteoro AKA Barrack Obama
The Economic Case For Health Care Reform - More Socialist Rhetoric By Barry Soteoro AKA Barrack Obama
On Monday President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers released a report called "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform."
The report argues that Americans must curb their consumption of medical care in order to avoid soaring federal deficits, unsustainable burdens on family budgets, and damage to the economy.
All of these claims are untrue.
- Federal deficits. The White House report makes the argument that there must be controls on what all Americans spend on health care in order to avoid government programs running huge deficits.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius uses the same faulty logic, warning that "the only way to slow Medicare spending is to slow overall health system spending through comprehensive and carefully crafted legislation."
In truth, Medicare can be fixed without subjecting the nation to medical scarcity. Telling all Americans they have to cut back on health care because Medicare is fiscally unsound is like ordering all Americans to go on diets because the food stamp program is in trouble.
It would be safer to reduce government's share of the health care bill rather than lowering the standard of care for everyone and depressing the nation's largest industry. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has suggested alternatives such as asking wealthy seniors to pay more or inching the eligibility age upward two months a year until it reaches age 70 in 2043.
- Skyrocketing costs. The White House report warns that "health care costs have risen rapidly over the last two decades and are projected to rise even more rapidly in the future." The truth is that health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased by 10% in 1970 and 13% in 1980. But over the last five years, spending increased less than 7% each year, and reached a low of 6% in 2007. It's true that premiums are increasing rapidly. But the White House report incorrectly blames health costs.
The real cause is the declining share of care paid for out of pocket (down to 15% today from 33% in 1975). Auto-insurance premiums would also skyrocket if coverage suddenly included oil changes and tune-ups.
- Burdening families. The report depicts families straining under the burden of health spending and unable to purchase other goods and services. But U.S. Department of Commerce data show that food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' spending each year since 1960, while housing has consumed a steady share. The result is that Americans have been able to spend more on health care.
In fact, these four necessities together use up about the same share of Americans' spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, American families are increasing the share of their budget that they spend on recreation.
Averages don't tell the whole story, and families that can't afford coverage should be helped. But most Americans can afford the current level of health care spending. The White House report points to Europe's skimpier health spending as an example Americans should follow. But 90% of the difference in per capita health spending between Europe and America is due to higher per capita incomes in the U.S. Americans spend more because they earn more, and they get more for it.
- Copying Europe. Women in the U.S. are more likely to have regular mammograms, so their breast cancer is detected sooner and treated faster. As a result, they have higher survival rates than women in Europe according to the Concord 2008 Five Continent Study and the Commonwealth Fund. These figures reflect the experiences of all American women, not just those with insurance.
Two-thirds of annual health spending increases are the result of the rapid development and use of new medications and devices, according to the CBO. But, as the CBO reminds us, these innovations "permit the treatment of previously untreatable conditions." If you had a heart attack in the 1980s and made it to the hospital you had only a 60% chance of living a year. Now your chance is over 90%. No one wants 1980s medicine at 1980s prices. And in 10 years, no one will want 2009 care.
- Endangering jobs. Cutting annual increases in health care spending by 1.5% a year, as the Obama administration is suggesting, will affect jobs too. At a time when the economy is ailing and the president is bailing out industries to protect jobs, his advisers recommend shrinking the health care industry. It currently provides 1.4 million jobs -- 10 times the U.S. work force of General Motors and Chrysler.
Slowing the flow of dollars into the health care industry while extending coverage to 46 million more people will create a European-like system where medical care is limited. Hospitals will face budget cuts, nurses will be spread even thinner, and equipment will be in shorter supply. You may be able to keep your health plan -- as politicians have promised -- but you'll find a lower standard of care when you need it.
This is a reprint of an email received. Article is written by Ms. McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York
Socialist
Socialism
Health Care Costs
Muslim Traitor
On Monday President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers released a report called "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform."
The report argues that Americans must curb their consumption of medical care in order to avoid soaring federal deficits, unsustainable burdens on family budgets, and damage to the economy.
All of these claims are untrue.
- Federal deficits. The White House report makes the argument that there must be controls on what all Americans spend on health care in order to avoid government programs running huge deficits.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius uses the same faulty logic, warning that "the only way to slow Medicare spending is to slow overall health system spending through comprehensive and carefully crafted legislation."
In truth, Medicare can be fixed without subjecting the nation to medical scarcity. Telling all Americans they have to cut back on health care because Medicare is fiscally unsound is like ordering all Americans to go on diets because the food stamp program is in trouble.
It would be safer to reduce government's share of the health care bill rather than lowering the standard of care for everyone and depressing the nation's largest industry. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has suggested alternatives such as asking wealthy seniors to pay more or inching the eligibility age upward two months a year until it reaches age 70 in 2043.
- Skyrocketing costs. The White House report warns that "health care costs have risen rapidly over the last two decades and are projected to rise even more rapidly in the future." The truth is that health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased by 10% in 1970 and 13% in 1980. But over the last five years, spending increased less than 7% each year, and reached a low of 6% in 2007. It's true that premiums are increasing rapidly. But the White House report incorrectly blames health costs.
The real cause is the declining share of care paid for out of pocket (down to 15% today from 33% in 1975). Auto-insurance premiums would also skyrocket if coverage suddenly included oil changes and tune-ups.
- Burdening families. The report depicts families straining under the burden of health spending and unable to purchase other goods and services. But U.S. Department of Commerce data show that food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' spending each year since 1960, while housing has consumed a steady share. The result is that Americans have been able to spend more on health care.
In fact, these four necessities together use up about the same share of Americans' spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, American families are increasing the share of their budget that they spend on recreation.
Averages don't tell the whole story, and families that can't afford coverage should be helped. But most Americans can afford the current level of health care spending. The White House report points to Europe's skimpier health spending as an example Americans should follow. But 90% of the difference in per capita health spending between Europe and America is due to higher per capita incomes in the U.S. Americans spend more because they earn more, and they get more for it.
- Copying Europe. Women in the U.S. are more likely to have regular mammograms, so their breast cancer is detected sooner and treated faster. As a result, they have higher survival rates than women in Europe according to the Concord 2008 Five Continent Study and the Commonwealth Fund. These figures reflect the experiences of all American women, not just those with insurance.
Two-thirds of annual health spending increases are the result of the rapid development and use of new medications and devices, according to the CBO. But, as the CBO reminds us, these innovations "permit the treatment of previously untreatable conditions." If you had a heart attack in the 1980s and made it to the hospital you had only a 60% chance of living a year. Now your chance is over 90%. No one wants 1980s medicine at 1980s prices. And in 10 years, no one will want 2009 care.
- Endangering jobs. Cutting annual increases in health care spending by 1.5% a year, as the Obama administration is suggesting, will affect jobs too. At a time when the economy is ailing and the president is bailing out industries to protect jobs, his advisers recommend shrinking the health care industry. It currently provides 1.4 million jobs -- 10 times the U.S. work force of General Motors and Chrysler.
Slowing the flow of dollars into the health care industry while extending coverage to 46 million more people will create a European-like system where medical care is limited. Hospitals will face budget cuts, nurses will be spread even thinner, and equipment will be in shorter supply. You may be able to keep your health plan -- as politicians have promised -- but you'll find a lower standard of care when you need it.
This is a reprint of an email received. Article is written by Ms. McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York
Socialist
Socialism
Health Care Costs
Muslim Traitor
Social Security - The Democratic LIe
Social Security
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what. And it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, Facts are facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would becompletely voluntary.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month --and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to 'putaway', you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party took Social Security from theIndependent 'Trust Fund' and put it in to the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of theSenate, while he was Vice President of the U..S.
--------------------------------------
Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! TheDemocratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try.
How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!'
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'----Thomas Jefferson----
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what. And it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, Facts are facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would becompletely voluntary.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month --and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to 'putaway', you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party took Social Security from theIndependent 'Trust Fund' and put it in to the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of theSenate, while he was Vice President of the U..S.
--------------------------------------
Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! TheDemocratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try.
How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!'
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'----Thomas Jefferson----
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Obama Failure and Socialism - Where Is The Birth Certificate!
Obama Failure and Socialism - Where Is The Birth Certificate!
Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama
Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama
Mark S. McGrew
The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
So who or what is a Grand Jury?
Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government.
However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.
Americans are educated to believe that America has three branches of government:
The Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive and that is they who decide our lives. This also is false. There is a Constitutional force which has power, authority and dominance over those three branches.
That is the The Grand Jury of We The People. The Grand Jury was intended to give the people of the United States of America total control over a potentially corrupt government and to enable prosecution of corrupt or criminal government officials, agents and employees, whether they were elected, hired or appointed.
The Constitution of The United States of America was created and designed to give the individual or collective people of America the power to tell the government what to do. The government, including the President of the country has no Rights to make Americans do anything that is not permitted by or is contrary to our Constitution.
The US Constitution especially has no provision for an illegal alien to be our President and pass laws that we do not permit or condone.
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.
"To be crystal clear: The Grand Jury is a Constitutional fixture in its own right.
The Grand Jury is not a tool of government to use against its citizens.
Justice Scalia determined further, to reinforce that there is no question as to the purpose of the Grand Jury:
"In fact, the whole theory of it's foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people.
Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it's institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office".
Besides providing for society to charge individual people for crimes, the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution. And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.
Any judge who tells a jury to "disregard that remark or disregard that evidence" is violating the US Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.
Any Congressperson, Senator, Governor or police officer who violates the constitution can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, without the advice, consent, permission or interference of any government employee.
This is why America has always been promoted as a land where no man is above the law, including the President.
However, in 1946, certain people hijacked the role of our Grand Jury and the courtroom jury and henceforth, embarked on a mission of misinformation, distortions and blatant lies to convince the American people and the entire legal community, that it is the government that determines what is right and what is wrong in the actions of the government or of any elected government officials, employees or agents.
In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:
"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."
Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase "runaway grand jury" to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury.
Roger Roots continues,
"A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's 'runaway' grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times. They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."
In 1946, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted. In those procedures, they made a rule to punish runaway grand juries. Rule 6(g):
"At any time for cause shown, the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused."
Now judges could throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its own discretion and not doing what the court or prosecutor tells them to do.
All laws in America, whether federal, state, county or city must conform to the framework of the United States Constitution. Laws can be illegal, and many laws are illegal. Rules are not even laws and have no authority if attached to a source that is not in line with the US Constitution. Laws, rules, orders, methods of the government that do not conform to the US Constitution are considered "Fruit from the poison tree" and if challenged as such, and proven not to be Constitutional in nature, must be unenforceable.
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has an added "Note 4" which directly conflicts with, ignores and willfully violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution which states clearly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
Note 4 of Rule 7 states:
"Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts".
They rewrote the US Constitution to suit their own purposes.There are only two ways that the US Constitution can be changed:
Method 1:
A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution. Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority. Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless.
This is the only method that has been used to date.
The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.
Method 2:
A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention. The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions.
This method has never been used.
Most certainly a bunch of crooked lawyers writing their own rules to corrupt the jury system can not override the US Constitution.
But they did.
And, as Susan Brenner wrote in The Voice of the Community: A Case for Jury Independence,
"Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent."
If a grand jury and a courtroom jury have to do only what the judge and prosecutor say, and a prosecutor can refuse to indict and charge a politician or another lawyer, what is the reason to have any jury? Only to perpetuate a myth that Americans live under a system where no man is above the law. There is no other reason.
As the American Judicial system now operates, judges and prosecutors can pick and choose who they send to prison. And they guarantee that they and their friends can go on with their criminal behavior unmolested.
The American Juror published a commentary regarding Note 4 of Rule 7:
"[Retaining the Constitutional Right of grand juries to determine evidence and witnesses] might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States Attorney(Prosecutor)"
So, the American government employees took the bold step to violate the US Constitution on a continuing, repeated basis and gave defendants a "jury of their peers" that would and could, only nod to the prosecutor and judge and say only, "Yes sir. No sir. You're right sir. Whatever you say sir."
This kind of behavior was outlawed in the year 1215 by the English Magna Carta, which the founders of the United States of American adopted as their basis for how Americans were going to live and be treated by the government that they would employ.
The authors of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the true criminals and should have been dragged out of their homes and hanged from the nearest tree.
Now, 63 years later, the American people are fed up with the treasonous acts of their government employees and their rigged courts. And they have found a way to rid this country of the "domestic enemies" that our Constitution warned us to be prepared for.
AmericanGrandJury.org explains the process and how to form a constitutionally acceptable Common Law Grand Jury and bring presentments or indictments in any location in America and begin prosecuting corrupt government employees, at any level of government. No longer should they be referred to as Officials or agents. They are our employees and if they don't want to respect that, they need to find a friendly 3rd world country to live in.
Mr. Carl Swensson of the State of Georgia successfully organized a Common Law Grand Jury and that Grand Jury reviewed evidence against Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama and is recommending an indictment.
The US Attorney, who was presented with that recommendation has refused to discuss it by saying, "We only deal with lawyers".
The Attorney General's office of the State of Georgia has also been presented with that recommendation and has also refused, saying, "We don't represent citizens".
Everyone should call US Federal Attorney, David Nahmias at 404-581-6000 or fax him at 404-581-6181 and tell him to do his job. Every person should also call the State of Georgia Attorney General's office and ask Lilly Thomas why she thinks the Attorney General does not represent citizens and who do they represent. Her number is 404-656-3300.
On Mr. Swensson's website at RiseUpForAmerica.com you can see the process he went through to organize a Common Law Grand Jury.
You will also find that Common Law Grand Juries in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio also have seen the evidence and are making a presentment to charge the illegal alien Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama.
More Common Law Grand Juries across American are being scheduled as of this writing.
A 2 hour Internet radio broadcast on April 9, 2009 has Carl Swensson of www.RiseUpForAmerica.com, Bob Campbell of http://americangrandjury.org and the spokesman for American Grand Jury, Sam Sewell explaining the Grand Jury actions against Obama, how Grand Juries can be used to rid local communities of corrupt government employees and how citizens can form their own Common Law Grand Jury groups. That broadcast can be listened to or downloaded at this site:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/04/10/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show
Please allow a few minutes for this show to start playing.
American people are uniting, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the form of "Tea Parties" named after the Boston Tea Party demands of "No Taxation Without Representation" in the year 1773, which helped start the American Revolutionary War with England in 1775.
Tea parties are being held for people to object to unconstitutional government acts, taxes and loss of freedoms
In less than 30 days, demonstrations have been organized and are scheduled in 2,000 communities, starting April 15, 2009. Anyone can find information on where Tea Parties are being held or how to form your own Tea Party at FreedomWorks.org
Something World leaders had better understand and understand well: Obama and his mentally deranged friends are not going to destroy America any more than countless other socialist fascist fanatics have tried in the past.
If World leaders want to keep their jobs and keep their nation's economies intact, they would be smart to drop Obama like a hot potato.
Obama and his backers are pulling a giant scam on the rest of the World, just as they have on American voters.
Americans have wised up. It is only the major media that keeps pounding the drums of the Obama lie.
Ask yourselves a question: Why are many of America's major newspapers that have been in business for over 100 years, filing for bankruptcy and closing every week?
If you believe, as major news tell us, that the reason is lowered advertising revenue and more people getting their news from the Internet, you're hallucinating. The real reason is because Americans are thoroughly fed up with the lies, the slanders, the politically correct brain vomit that major news pours out and their astounding absolute refusal to portray any semblance of the truth.
Nothing Obama does will continue. Everything he does will be retracted by a very near future administration.
One thing that is certain, of all that can be observed about the current Obama administration, corporate executive friends of Obama and the American Judicial system: Whether in the boardroom, the courtroom or the bathroom, scum sticks together.
When the scum is annoying enough, it is scrubbed, cleaned and thrown in the trash. That's why people have cleansers and society has prisons.
World leaders are making a very dangerous mistake to think that we, the people of America are not making preparations for cleaning house. This house belongs to us, not a gang of decrepit senile old men, pursuing a useless fantasy of a New World Order that has a 2,000 year history of abject failure.
Here's your first clue: The very first line of the US Constitution says, "We the people... establish this Constitution".
Mark S. McGrew may be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com
Copyright 2009 by Mark S. McGrew. Published on American Grand Jury by permission from Mr. McGrew.
NOTE: This article may be republished without seeking permission, provided such publication is published in full and NOT altered in any manner. You may change fonts and colors to suit your needs. You may copy the source code on this webpage if you wish. If you wish to paraphrase or quote excerts from this article you may do so as long as you do not quote the excerpt "out of context." Please respect the spirit of this article and not abuse it by taking journalistic liberties at your own discretion.
Thank you. Mark S. McGrew and AmericanGrandJury.org
Mark S. McGrew
The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
So who or what is a Grand Jury?
Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government.
However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.
Americans are educated to believe that America has three branches of government:
The Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive and that is they who decide our lives. This also is false. There is a Constitutional force which has power, authority and dominance over those three branches.
That is the The Grand Jury of We The People. The Grand Jury was intended to give the people of the United States of America total control over a potentially corrupt government and to enable prosecution of corrupt or criminal government officials, agents and employees, whether they were elected, hired or appointed.
The Constitution of The United States of America was created and designed to give the individual or collective people of America the power to tell the government what to do. The government, including the President of the country has no Rights to make Americans do anything that is not permitted by or is contrary to our Constitution.
The US Constitution especially has no provision for an illegal alien to be our President and pass laws that we do not permit or condone.
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.
"To be crystal clear: The Grand Jury is a Constitutional fixture in its own right.
The Grand Jury is not a tool of government to use against its citizens.
Justice Scalia determined further, to reinforce that there is no question as to the purpose of the Grand Jury:
"In fact, the whole theory of it's foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people.
Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it's institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office".
Besides providing for society to charge individual people for crimes, the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution. And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.
Any judge who tells a jury to "disregard that remark or disregard that evidence" is violating the US Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.
Any Congressperson, Senator, Governor or police officer who violates the constitution can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, without the advice, consent, permission or interference of any government employee.
This is why America has always been promoted as a land where no man is above the law, including the President.
However, in 1946, certain people hijacked the role of our Grand Jury and the courtroom jury and henceforth, embarked on a mission of misinformation, distortions and blatant lies to convince the American people and the entire legal community, that it is the government that determines what is right and what is wrong in the actions of the government or of any elected government officials, employees or agents.
In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:
"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."
Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase "runaway grand jury" to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury.
Roger Roots continues,
"A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's 'runaway' grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times. They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."
In 1946, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted. In those procedures, they made a rule to punish runaway grand juries. Rule 6(g):
"At any time for cause shown, the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused."
Now judges could throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its own discretion and not doing what the court or prosecutor tells them to do.
All laws in America, whether federal, state, county or city must conform to the framework of the United States Constitution. Laws can be illegal, and many laws are illegal. Rules are not even laws and have no authority if attached to a source that is not in line with the US Constitution. Laws, rules, orders, methods of the government that do not conform to the US Constitution are considered "Fruit from the poison tree" and if challenged as such, and proven not to be Constitutional in nature, must be unenforceable.
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has an added "Note 4" which directly conflicts with, ignores and willfully violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution which states clearly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
Note 4 of Rule 7 states:
"Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts".
They rewrote the US Constitution to suit their own purposes.There are only two ways that the US Constitution can be changed:
Method 1:
A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution. Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority. Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless.
This is the only method that has been used to date.
The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.
Method 2:
A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention. The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions.
This method has never been used.
Most certainly a bunch of crooked lawyers writing their own rules to corrupt the jury system can not override the US Constitution.
But they did.
And, as Susan Brenner wrote in The Voice of the Community: A Case for Jury Independence,
"Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent."
If a grand jury and a courtroom jury have to do only what the judge and prosecutor say, and a prosecutor can refuse to indict and charge a politician or another lawyer, what is the reason to have any jury? Only to perpetuate a myth that Americans live under a system where no man is above the law. There is no other reason.
As the American Judicial system now operates, judges and prosecutors can pick and choose who they send to prison. And they guarantee that they and their friends can go on with their criminal behavior unmolested.
The American Juror published a commentary regarding Note 4 of Rule 7:
"[Retaining the Constitutional Right of grand juries to determine evidence and witnesses] might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States Attorney(Prosecutor)"
So, the American government employees took the bold step to violate the US Constitution on a continuing, repeated basis and gave defendants a "jury of their peers" that would and could, only nod to the prosecutor and judge and say only, "Yes sir. No sir. You're right sir. Whatever you say sir."
This kind of behavior was outlawed in the year 1215 by the English Magna Carta, which the founders of the United States of American adopted as their basis for how Americans were going to live and be treated by the government that they would employ.
The authors of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the true criminals and should have been dragged out of their homes and hanged from the nearest tree.
Now, 63 years later, the American people are fed up with the treasonous acts of their government employees and their rigged courts. And they have found a way to rid this country of the "domestic enemies" that our Constitution warned us to be prepared for.
AmericanGrandJury.org explains the process and how to form a constitutionally acceptable Common Law Grand Jury and bring presentments or indictments in any location in America and begin prosecuting corrupt government employees, at any level of government. No longer should they be referred to as Officials or agents. They are our employees and if they don't want to respect that, they need to find a friendly 3rd world country to live in.
Mr. Carl Swensson of the State of Georgia successfully organized a Common Law Grand Jury and that Grand Jury reviewed evidence against Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama and is recommending an indictment.
The US Attorney, who was presented with that recommendation has refused to discuss it by saying, "We only deal with lawyers".
The Attorney General's office of the State of Georgia has also been presented with that recommendation and has also refused, saying, "We don't represent citizens".
Everyone should call US Federal Attorney, David Nahmias at 404-581-6000 or fax him at 404-581-6181 and tell him to do his job. Every person should also call the State of Georgia Attorney General's office and ask Lilly Thomas why she thinks the Attorney General does not represent citizens and who do they represent. Her number is 404-656-3300.
On Mr. Swensson's website at RiseUpForAmerica.com you can see the process he went through to organize a Common Law Grand Jury.
You will also find that Common Law Grand Juries in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio also have seen the evidence and are making a presentment to charge the illegal alien Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama.
More Common Law Grand Juries across American are being scheduled as of this writing.
A 2 hour Internet radio broadcast on April 9, 2009 has Carl Swensson of www.RiseUpForAmerica.com, Bob Campbell of http://americangrandjury.org and the spokesman for American Grand Jury, Sam Sewell explaining the Grand Jury actions against Obama, how Grand Juries can be used to rid local communities of corrupt government employees and how citizens can form their own Common Law Grand Jury groups. That broadcast can be listened to or downloaded at this site:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/04/10/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show
Please allow a few minutes for this show to start playing.
American people are uniting, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the form of "Tea Parties" named after the Boston Tea Party demands of "No Taxation Without Representation" in the year 1773, which helped start the American Revolutionary War with England in 1775.
Tea parties are being held for people to object to unconstitutional government acts, taxes and loss of freedoms
In less than 30 days, demonstrations have been organized and are scheduled in 2,000 communities, starting April 15, 2009. Anyone can find information on where Tea Parties are being held or how to form your own Tea Party at FreedomWorks.org
Something World leaders had better understand and understand well: Obama and his mentally deranged friends are not going to destroy America any more than countless other socialist fascist fanatics have tried in the past.
If World leaders want to keep their jobs and keep their nation's economies intact, they would be smart to drop Obama like a hot potato.
Obama and his backers are pulling a giant scam on the rest of the World, just as they have on American voters.
Americans have wised up. It is only the major media that keeps pounding the drums of the Obama lie.
Ask yourselves a question: Why are many of America's major newspapers that have been in business for over 100 years, filing for bankruptcy and closing every week?
If you believe, as major news tell us, that the reason is lowered advertising revenue and more people getting their news from the Internet, you're hallucinating. The real reason is because Americans are thoroughly fed up with the lies, the slanders, the politically correct brain vomit that major news pours out and their astounding absolute refusal to portray any semblance of the truth.
Nothing Obama does will continue. Everything he does will be retracted by a very near future administration.
One thing that is certain, of all that can be observed about the current Obama administration, corporate executive friends of Obama and the American Judicial system: Whether in the boardroom, the courtroom or the bathroom, scum sticks together.
When the scum is annoying enough, it is scrubbed, cleaned and thrown in the trash. That's why people have cleansers and society has prisons.
World leaders are making a very dangerous mistake to think that we, the people of America are not making preparations for cleaning house. This house belongs to us, not a gang of decrepit senile old men, pursuing a useless fantasy of a New World Order that has a 2,000 year history of abject failure.
Here's your first clue: The very first line of the US Constitution says, "We the people... establish this Constitution".
Mark S. McGrew may be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com
Copyright 2009 by Mark S. McGrew. Published on American Grand Jury by permission from Mr. McGrew.
NOTE: This article may be republished without seeking permission, provided such publication is published in full and NOT altered in any manner. You may change fonts and colors to suit your needs. You may copy the source code on this webpage if you wish. If you wish to paraphrase or quote excerts from this article you may do so as long as you do not quote the excerpt "out of context." Please respect the spirit of this article and not abuse it by taking journalistic liberties at your own discretion.
Thank you. Mark S. McGrew and AmericanGrandJury.org
This article has been posted on this blog for all Americans and is posted in total
I Don't Care - A Reprint
I DON'T CARE ABOUT MUSLIM TERRORISTS
This message came in an email and is posted here for all to read
This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it also applies to theU.S. , U.K. and Australia
THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH
Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!
Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to her local newspaper. Thisis one ticked off lady.
Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day,in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repentsfor incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishableby beheading in Afghanistan .
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion byhiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them whensomething happens.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran'and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,
I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mailfriends Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country!
And may I add:
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.'
I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this.
One last thought for the day:
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The Canadian Soldier.
3. The British Soldier.
4. The US Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.
AMEN!
Obama Failure and Socialism
This message came in an email and is posted here for all to read
This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it also applies to theU.S. , U.K. and Australia
THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH
Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!
Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to her local newspaper. Thisis one ticked off lady.
Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day,in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repentsfor incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishableby beheading in Afghanistan .
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion byhiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them whensomething happens.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran'and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,
I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mailfriends Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country!
And may I add:
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.'
I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this.
One last thought for the day:
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The Canadian Soldier.
3. The British Soldier.
4. The US Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.
AMEN!
Obama Failure and Socialism
Obama Health Care Rationing
Copy of email from DickMorris.com
HERE COMES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on June 6, 2009
The photo op was too good to be true. Health care providers trooped out of the White House and trumpeted their goal of saving $1.7 trillion of costs over the next decade in health spending. Now these drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, labor unions and doctors have laid out their plans in more detail.
And right there, in plain print, is the beginning of medical care rationing. Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care. Right now, they cite four targets. They plan to:
1. Cut diagnostic imaging tests like MRIs and CAT scans.
2. Reduce the use of antibiotics.
3. Perform fewer Caesarean sections.
4. Cut care for management of chronic back pain
These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor's opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat's and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford.
And you will not be able to bypass their rulings and pay for this care yourself. The rules laid down must be followed and private payments will not be permitted to override them. What we now call a private fee for service will metastasize into a bribe.
But this is just the very beginning of rationing. The total of health care spending now runs about $2.3 trillion a year in the United States. Over ten years, that's likely to reach $30 trillion. So a cut of $1.7 trillion is a mere drop in the bucket.
More rationing is coming, and coming soon.
In our new book (coming out on June 23rd) Catastrophe, we explain exactly what rationing will mean and what it has done to patient care in Canada.
It's not a pretty picture and Obama will bring it here soon unless we stop him. Forewarned is forearmed!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT WWW.DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
Blogger's Note: This email asks for the receiver to forward to Friends and Family. With the amount of emails that we all receive, we have chosen to post this email to our blog so that all of our Friends and Family can read without filling our emails.
Obama Failure and Socialism - And, Now - Health Care Rationing
HERE COMES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on June 6, 2009
The photo op was too good to be true. Health care providers trooped out of the White House and trumpeted their goal of saving $1.7 trillion of costs over the next decade in health spending. Now these drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, labor unions and doctors have laid out their plans in more detail.
And right there, in plain print, is the beginning of medical care rationing. Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care. Right now, they cite four targets. They plan to:
1. Cut diagnostic imaging tests like MRIs and CAT scans.
2. Reduce the use of antibiotics.
3. Perform fewer Caesarean sections.
4. Cut care for management of chronic back pain
These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor's opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat's and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford.
And you will not be able to bypass their rulings and pay for this care yourself. The rules laid down must be followed and private payments will not be permitted to override them. What we now call a private fee for service will metastasize into a bribe.
But this is just the very beginning of rationing. The total of health care spending now runs about $2.3 trillion a year in the United States. Over ten years, that's likely to reach $30 trillion. So a cut of $1.7 trillion is a mere drop in the bucket.
More rationing is coming, and coming soon.
In our new book (coming out on June 23rd) Catastrophe, we explain exactly what rationing will mean and what it has done to patient care in Canada.
It's not a pretty picture and Obama will bring it here soon unless we stop him. Forewarned is forearmed!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT WWW.DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
Blogger's Note: This email asks for the receiver to forward to Friends and Family. With the amount of emails that we all receive, we have chosen to post this email to our blog so that all of our Friends and Family can read without filling our emails.
Obama Failure and Socialism - And, Now - Health Care Rationing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
