May 20, 2011 || World News

Friday, May 20, 2011

Fwd: [prj] Bill Clinton Calls For Internet 'Ministry of Truth'

Subject: [prj] Bill Clinton Calls For Internet 'Ministry of Truth'
To: a-albionic@yahoogroups.com

Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars, http://www.infowars.com/bill-clinton-calls-for-internet-ministry-of-truth/.

Amazing.

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group

Group Owner/Discussion Moderator: Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research. The Moderator is not responsible for the content of this or any other post which appears on this uncensored discussion list unless sent to the list by him. Those wishing to pursue A-albionic Theories in more detail should join the SUBSCRIBERS ONLY site where back issues of the PROJECT, a 4000+ book bibliography, and other articles are archived and issued to a http://a-albionic.com/forums/98 SUBSCRIBERS ONLY list. ($9.95/365 days) Click http://a-albionic.com/forums/98 for a description of benefits and subscription information.

A-albionic Book Inventory Liquidation Auction:
http://a-albionic.org

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Hello??

Entitlement my 'ars' , I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money , doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout !! Congressional benefits , aka. free healthcare , outrageous retirement packages , 67 paid holidays , three weeks paid vacation , unlimited paid sick days , now that's welfare , and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....scroll down...............

What the HELL's wrong???

WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!

Tuesday's Daily Bulletin paper, ran two articles on the front page side by side :

1- Calif 's 20 Billion Dollar Budget Deficit

2- The Calif Supreme Court ruling that ILLEGALS can attend college and get benefits.

Why don't they just deport them when they arrive to register?

obama wants to appoint Goodwin Liu to the CA SC.

Having NO trial experience, Liu does not even meet the standards set by the American Bar Association. Liu is a hero to the left for opposing the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. If Liu is confirmed he WOULD BE FAVORED FOR THE NEXT SUPREME COURT VACANCY!

Liu believes that the Constitution should NOT influence legal decisions. Instead he said the key to judicial decisions should be "our collective values," "evolving norms," and "social understandings," rather than the Constitution as written or the laws passed by Congress.

What else does this raving radical believe?

We have a Constitutional right to welfare
Government assistance should have equal Constitutional status
There should be reparations to slavery
We need extreme quotas to prevent 'societal discrimination'

3- Last year they ran an article on the yearly costs to Calif Taxpayers from Illegals using Hospital Emergency Rooms for their general health care -

At just one hospital the cost to tax payers totaled over 25 million a year

Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!

We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????

In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey . And now Pakistan .....home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any

We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.

YET.....................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.

Sad isn't it?

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

Are You a Sheeple? Take the Sheeple Quiz and Find Out by Mike Adams

http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m18.1.html

Fox News Most Trusted Political News Source...beats MSNBC by 21 points

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Scotty Starnes's Blog <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Date: Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:10 PM
Subject: [New post] Fox News Most Trusted Political News Source...beats MSNBC by 21 points
To: baconlard@gmail.com

Fox News Most Trusted Political News Source...beats MSNBC by 21 points

Scotty Starnes | May 20, 2011 at 1:10 PM | Tags: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5id

I know liberals will hate to read this. Why wouldn't anyone trust Chris Matthews, who infamously said it was his job to help this President (Obama) succeed?

From AIM:

Liberals received some more bad news this week as a new Suffolk University poll revealed that Fox News is the most trusted political news source among those surveyed.

FOX News – 28%

CNN – 18%

Undecided -12%

NBC – 10%

Other -10%

MSNBC — 7%

ABC — 6%

CBS — 6%

C-SPAN — 3%

Continue reading>>>

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Waivers for Favors: AARP receives ObamaCare Waiver and Cashes in on supporting the Unconstitutional Health Care Bill

Scotty Starnes | May 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM | Tags: AARP, Association of Retired Persons, Department of Health and Human Services, Medigap, Obamacare, ObamaCare waivers, pay-to-play | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5ig

Support Obama, the Democrats and ObamaCare and you too can receive a health care waiver and billions of dollars. The pay-to-play scheme continues.

From The Daily Caller:

The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt "Medigap" policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.

Insurance providers who aren't exempt from Obamacare's rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.

The AARP is the nation's biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare plans that add onto what Medicare won't cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies' biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.

Though the White House and HHS dismiss allegations of political favoritism when it comes to who's getting exceptions from the new health care regulations – such as in the recent uproar over the disproportionate number of Obamacare waivers that went to companies in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's district — Obamacare critics say the mere appearance of the administration helping friends is disturbing.

The AARP was a driving force behind getting Obamacare through Congress, contributing a large sum to the $121 million advertising campaign pushing it, and spending millions more lobbying for it on Capitol Hill.

...The senior citizen advocacy organization stands to make huge profits from Medicare Advantage cuts and from the exemptions it will benefit from when it comes to the Medigap plans sold under what AARP CEO A. Barry Rand calls the AARP's "for-profit side."

The AARP's support of Obamacare during the debate over the legislation raised lots of eyebrows nationwide, as President Obama called for $313 billion in cuts to Medicare to push the plan through. Seniors weren't happy about it, and many ripped AARP representatives at town hall meetings nationwide.

Now, though, it's clear that the AARP is set to make millions, if not billions, of extra dollars in Medigap plan sales moving forward because they've effectively knocked out their biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage, through Obamacare.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Would love to have heard the comments from Rahm on this one - interesting that there was no response

'What qualifies you to be press secretary for the mayor of the
third-largest city?'

by Jim Romenesko
Published May 19, 2011 11:50 am
Updated May 19, 2011 12:06 pm

Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
That's what 55-year-old Chuck Goudie — "one of Chicago's toughest
investigative reporters" — asks 25-year-old Tarrah Cooper, who is
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's press secretary. The 2008 Missouri
Journalism School graduate and former MTV intern "is beginning the job
of a lifetime, even though she doesn't have much life time behind her,"
writes Goudie. (Cooper worked in the Department of Homeland Security
public affairs office before joining Emanuel's team.) In his column for
a suburban Chicago newspaper, Goudie lists the questions he sent Cooper
and and never got answered, including:

• Does your youthfulness and lack of experience symbolize what seems to
be administration focused on hiring managers under 35?

• Is there a set of written guidelines or protocols that you are working
from in dealing with reporters and news organizations?

• How much will you be paid?

• What are your career aspirations?

Goudie also says that "it is interesting that the mayor's new press
secretary felt no inhibition about displaying hundreds of personal
photos on her public Facebook page, showing her partying with friends,
in beach attire and at a slot machine."

Reaction in the comments section? Here's what "old lady 2205″ writes:

Chuck, you sly old fox. What better way to start with the new mayoral
administration than to go after the youngest and possibly most
vulnerable staff member. This entire investigation must have taken you
45 minutes to an hour, including writing the article.
I really expect better of you.

Tags: Public relations

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/133067/what-qualifies-you-to-be-press-secretary-for-the-mayor-of-the-third-largest-city/

My guess on the selection is that Rahm was looking for someone who would
do exactly what he said the way he said it with no back talk. I can't
see him giving up any access to the press to anyone else at all. He
wants to be his own press secretary and by naming someone like this he
gets his wish.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Most trusted political reporting - poll onducted by Suffolk University

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/133205/most-trusted-political-reporter-dont-know-21-none-15-bill-oreilly-9/

Most trusted political reporter: 'Don't know' – 21%; 'None' – 15%; Bill
O'Reilly – 9%

by Jim Romenesko
Published May 20, 2011 10:39 am
Updated May 20, 2011 10:59 am

Suffolk.edu | Suffolk University National Survey [PDF]

The Suffolk University Political Research Center's national poll —
conducted earlier this month — asked respondents about their primary
source for political news and information. Cable/TV News Networks were
cited by a wide margin (57 percent), followed by online news websites
(15 percent) and daily newspapers/print edition (13 percent). Anderson
Cooper came after Bill O'Reilly — and "Don't know" and "None" — as most
trusted political reporter on television.

What political news source do you trust the most?

FOX News – 25%
CNN – 18%
Undecided – 12%
NBC – 10%
Other – 10%
MSNBC – 7%
ABC – 6%
CBS – 6%
C-SPAN – 3%

What is your primary source for political news and information?

Television and Cable News Networks – 57%

Online news websites – 15%
Daily newspaper – print editions – 13%
Radio – 7%
Magazines – print editions – 2%
Friends and Family – 2%
Undecided – 2%
Independent Political Blogs – 1%
Social media websites like Twitter and Facebook – 1%
Smart phone apps – 0%

What political reporter would you say that you trust the most?

Don't know – 21%
None – 15%
Bill O'Reilly (FOX) – 9%
Anderson Cooper (CNN) – 6%
Other – 6%
Sean Hannity (FOX) – 4%
Mike Huckabee (FOX) – 4%
Brian Williams (NBC) – 4%
Tom Brokaw (NBC) – 3%
Katie Couric (CBS) – 3%
Diane Sawyer (ABC) – 3%
Wolf Blitzer (CNN) – 3%
Chris Matthews (MSNBC) – 3%
Megyn Kelly (FOX) – 2%
Rachael Maddow (MSNBC) – 2%
Fareed Zakaria (CNN) – 1%
George Stephanopoulos (ABC) – 1%
Christiane Amanpour (ABC) – 1%
Ed Schultz (MSBNC) – 1%

Bob Schieffer (CBS) – 1%
Jon Stewart (COM) – 1%
Glenn Beck (FOX) – 1%

Howard Kurtz (CNN) – 1%
Candy Crowley (CNN) – 1%

Shepard Smith (FOX) – 1%

John King (CNN) – 0%

Elliot Spitzer (CNN) – 0%

Campbell Brown (CNN) – 0%
Keith Olbermann (CURRENT) – 0%
Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) – 0%
David Gregory (NBC) – 0%

Related Posts
"Objectivity' doesn't require refraining from pointing out the falsity
of government claims'
Cooper didn't talk to CBS about an anchor job, says rep
Atlanta Press Club files protest after governor bars reporter from
bill-signing
"Destroying private life is the single worst thing Gawker has done"
Study: Fox News most-trusted — and least-trusted — TV news outlet
Related Training
Essential Skills for the Digital Journalist
Building a Successful Social Media Strategy
Picture Editing 101: Essentials and Ethics
Write Your Heart Out: The Craft of the Personal Essay
Help! for Writers
Subscribe via e-mail
RSS
Print
Email
7
Share

Most Popular
Top Stories
Most Recent
From Schoolhouse Rock to 'The Fracking Song,' explainers as 'acts of
empathy'
Why NPR's Andy Carvin moderated White House Twitter interview about
Obama's Middle East speech
Twitpic changes reveal conflict as users, journalists, photo sharing
services have competing goals
From too little to too much information, what's relevant in
Schwarzenegger coverage
What news organizations owe the fixers they rely on, leave behind in
foreign countries

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Not Ending Medicare As We Know It

"Third, Republicans who complain about the high cost of Medicare, the waste in the system, and its impending bankruptcy have only themselves to blame. It was Republicans that came up with the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003" that greatly expanded the program. This Republican version of health-care reform was introduced by the Republican House Speaker, supported by the House and Senate leadership, passed the House and Senate with overwhelming Republican support, and was signed into law by a Republican president. Yet, most conservatives think it is only Democrats who favor a welfare state.
"Fourth, the fact that Medicare is even in this Republican budget shows that Republicans don't have a problem with Obamacare and socialized medicine. They just want to replace Obamacare with a Republicare brand of socialized medicine."

Not Ending Medicare As We Know It
by Laurence M. Vance, May 19, 2011

Capitol Police recently arrested 89 protesters from the disability rights group ADAPT for occupying the rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building. They were demonstrating against the proposed changes in Medicaid in the recently passed House budget resolution that would reduce the program's funding and turn it into block grants to the states. "Block grants kill," read some of the protest signs.

This follows outrage by Democrats and senior-citizen groups over the proposed changes to Medicare in the same budget resolution. They are upset about the House Budget Committee's plan to convert Medicare into a voucherized private insurance program. Said Obama press secretary Jay Carney: "The House Republican plan places the burden of debt reduction on those who can least afford it, ends Medicare as we know it and doubles health care costs for seniors in order to pay for more than a trillion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president is required to submit to Congress by the first of February a proposed budget for the next fiscal year (which begins on Oct. 1 of the current calendar year). Within six weeks of the president's submitting his budget request, congressional committees are required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act to submit their "views and estimates" of federal spending and revenues to the House and Senate budget committees. These are then used by each budget committee to draft and report a concurrent resolution on the budget by April 15. It is only then that appropriation bills are enacted.

It is H.Con.Res. 34, "Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021," that recently passed the House by a party-line vote of 235–193. (Only four Republicans including Ron Paul and Walter Jones voted against this bloated Republican budget.)

Medicare and Medicaid are mentioned in two sections in the report ( 112-58) by the House Committee on the Budget that accompanies H.Con.Res. 34: briefly in the introduction under "Restoring America's Promise," "Components of the Federal Budget," and "A Reform Agenda for the U.S. Government," and in more detail under a "Function-by-Function Presentation," where each of twenty-one budget functions represents a broad area of government activities.

Under "Function 550: Health," we are told that "the principal driver of spending in this function is Medicaid" (other cost drivers in this function are SCHIP, the NIH, OSHA, and the FDA). Absent reform, "Medicaid will not be able to deliver on its promise to provide a sturdy health-care safety net for society's most vulnerable." Proposed is the conversion of "the Federal share of Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet each State's needs, indexed for inflation and population growth." In other words, a block grant. This will improve "the health-care safety net for low-income Americans by giving States the ability to offer their Medicaid populations more options and better access to care." After all, Medicaid recipients "like all other Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions, instead of having Washington dictate those decisions for them." This Republican plan to save Medicaid calls for $346.6 billion in spending for fiscal year 2012 on the category of "health."

Under "Function 570: Medicare," we are told that "letting government break its promises to current seniors and to future generations is unacceptable." All seniors should have "secure, affordable health coverage." Absent reform, "Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of current seniors and future generations." Therefore, "the reforms outlines in this budget protect and preserve Medicare for those in or near retirement, while saving and strengthening the program so future generations can count on it when they retire." For those 55 and older, "the Medicare Program and its benefits will remain as they are, without change." For those under 55:

Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries would be enrolled in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy. The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a list of guaranteed coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program; a Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, directly to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost. The program would operate in a manner similar to that of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums.

The Republican plan to save Medicare will cost taxpayers $481.8 billion for fiscal year 2012.

There are numerous problems with these GOP plans to reform Medicaid and Medicare.

First of all, according to a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Medicare Fact Sheet, Medicare benefit payments totaled $509 billion in 2010, plus administrative expenses. The Republican "budget cutters" on the House Committee on the Budget are barely making a dent in Medicare spending.

Second, the head of the House Committee on the Budget with whom Democrats and their constituencies are so upset is Paul Ryan (R–WI). Although he has a reputation as a tough budget cutter, he voted for H.R.1424, the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (the TARP bailout), H.R. 5140, the "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008" (the Bush stimulus plan), and H.R. 7321, the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act of 2008" (the GM bailout). In addition, Ryan supported funding for Head Start, extending unemployment benefits, and the expansion of Medicare. Some budget cutter.

Third, Republicans who complain about the high cost of Medicare, the waste in the system, and its impending bankruptcy have only themselves to blame. It was Republicans that came up with the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003" that greatly expanded the program. This Republican version of health-care reform was introduced by the Republican House Speaker, supported by the House and Senate leadership, passed the House and Senate with overwhelming Republican support, and was signed into law by a Republican president. Yet, most conservatives think it is only Democrats who favor a welfare state.

Fourth, the fact that Medicare is even in this Republican budget shows that Republicans don't have a problem with Obamacare and socialized medicine. They just want to replace Obamacare with a Republicare brand of socialized medicine. In a speech late last year to students at American University in Washington, Eric Cantor, the new Republican House Majority Leader, expressed support for two of the worst provisions of Obamacare. Said Cantor:

We too don't want to accept any insurance company's denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she might have a pre-existing condition. Likewise we want to make sure that someone of your age has the ability to access affordable care if it's under your parent's plan or elsewhere.

In other words, Cantor wants to use the heavy hand of government to force health insurers to do business with people the government tells them to and to keep doing business with others until they reach a certain age that the government decrees.

Fifth, and most important, since when is it the purpose of government to provide a sturdy health-care safety net for society's most vulnerable or a prescription drug benefit? Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to subsidize the cost of someone's health-insurance policy or ensure that seniors have access to secure, affordable health coverage? Since when do Americans deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions with money that has been forcibly taken from other Americans?

Reforming Medicaid and Medicare is not a return to a free market in medical care. Real medical freedom means a complete deregulation of the health-insurance industry, unrestricted freedom of contract, the freedom of insurers to discriminate, the absolute right of refusal of coverage, the repeal of all laws related to drugs, health insurance, or medical care, and the complete withdrawal of government from anything to do with health care. This means no medical licensing laws, no regulation of medical schools, no restrictions on organ sales or donations, no federal vaccination programs, no federal nutrition guidelines, no HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives, no restrictions on the sale of medical devices, no mandates on hospitals, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, or insurance companies, and no federal funding of medical research, laboratories, community health centers, clinical trials, or family planning.

Republicans don't support a free market in medical care any more than they believe in ending Medicare as we know it.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1105m.asp

Where Are the Christian Churches When We Need Them Most?

Where Are the Christian Churches When We Need Them Most?
by Mark R. Crovelli

One of the most important functions of religious faith, observed St. Thomas Aquinas, is to allow people of limited intelligence and people with limited time for study to know important truths about God without having to investigate them personally. After all, few ordinary people are in a position to spend years rationally investigating the tenets of their faith, so, if they are to have any chance at finding Truth during their lives, they need to have it prepackaged for them to swallow on faith alone with the assistance of the Church.

This infinitely wise observation is just as true today as it was in the thirteenth century, and the Christian churches would do well to remember it during these especially turbulent political and economic times. In fact, with the world's masses aflame with revolutionary ideas at the very same time that governments are going bankrupt, the need has never been greater for the Christian churches to remind their unthinking, gullible, and emotional flocks of what is true and just and good. If they fail to do this, and right quick, there is a very real and dangerous possibility that the Christian masses will get swept away by exciting and profoundly immoral ideas that will doom Western civilization for the foreseeable future.

Specifically, the Christian masses desperately need to have the foundations of Christian ethics beaten into their dense skulls to keep them on the right path during these hours of intellectual temptation. Since many of the ideas floating around the world right now are both alluring and morally dangerous, the Christian masses need a simple set of criteria by which to judge what is right and what is wrong. Fortuitously, God was provident enough to provide Christians (and Jews and Muslims) with a list of ten moral criteria so undemanding that even the most intellectually challenged among them should be able to determine right from wrong.

The list contains two ethical commandments of especial importance today because of the extreme danger that the Christian masses will unthinkingly violate them. The first and most important is that it is wrong for Christians to kill people. One would think that the Christian masses would have been able to memorize and abide by this simple proscription in the two thousand years that Christians have been walking the Earth, but apparently the density of the mass man's mind continues to defy penetration. Christians in recent years are definitely no less likely to kill than any other peoples, and the danger is that they will kill even more frequently in coming years as economic and political conditions deteriorate further.

Thus, the Christian churches must intervene right now to remind the Christian masses that it is wrong to kill human beings and it is wrong for other people to kill in one's name. The Christian flocks are increasingly angry, frightened, and impoverished by the political classes' extravagances, and the temptation will only grow to take out their frustrations on other groups of people, such as the wealthy, Muslims, immigrants, or even their own neighbors. This is all the more true today, when it is so easy to aid in killing other people simply by voting. The majority of Christians do not need to bloody their own hands by shooting unarmed women and old men, for example, but they do irreparably stain their consciences by supporting such killings and paying for them with their tax money. And let's not forget about the hordes of professional "Christian" killers (i.e., "soldiers") that are presently plying their bloody trade in the three immoral wars that the supposedly "Christian" West is prosecuting in the Middle East.

The task of reigning in Christian killing before it gets even more out of hand will be impossible, however, unless the Christian churches simultaneously reign in their flocks' nationalistic sentiments. Like most peoples today, Christians have come to worship their own governments with religious fervor, a serious Christian sin in its own right. They thus do not view killings by "their" government soldiers and police as morally analogous to killings by rapists and robbers. Unless this nationalistic moral blindness is corrected by the Christian churches, or by human reason, by emphasizing that the lines drawn on maps identifying different countries are completely morally irrelevant, Christians will never curtail their killing, because they will inevitably view government-sponsored killing of "other people" as somehow morally acceptable. Without help from the Christian churches, the unthinking Christian masses will continue to value, not human life as such, but their "own" people's lives, and to hell with the rest of the people of the world.

The Christian churches must also urgently emphasize that Christians should not torture, imprison, beat, or otherwise physically abuse other human beings. Nor should they countenance such depraved activities done in their name by their governments. This proscription follows directly from the prohibition against killing, because to put a man in a cage deprives him of his life and dignity during that time just as surely as killing him would, and torturing him makes him envy the dead, which is worse than actually killing him. It should go without saying that Christians ought not to do these things or accept that they be done in their name with their tax monies, but the Christian masses keep approving of them nonetheless. This will only increase as political and economic turmoil increases, and the Christian churches will be morally responsible to a certain extent if they do not do all they can to head it off now.

The second important ethical precept that the unthinking Christian masses urgently need to be reminded of is God's prohibition against stealing. It is unequivocally wrong for Christians to take property from other people without their consent, and it is equally wrong for them to encourage or to pay other people (e.g., tax collectors or mob strongmen) to do the same thing. Like the prohibition against killing, God's prohibition against stealing is about as clear as man could possible desire: "Thou shalt not steal." One might be tempted to think that the Christian masses would be able to comprehend something as simple as that, but apparently God vastly overestimated the mental abilities of His progeny. The Christian masses accept stealing, by governments in particular, just as much as any other people, and they tend to particularly approve of stealing from (i.e., taxing) the rich. They apparently think that it is morally acceptable for their government to take money from rich people by force just because Jesus was poor and defended poor people. The fact that Jesus' own Father explicitly forbade them to steal – even from rich people – does not seem to enter into their moral reasoning. The Christian churches desperately need to undermine this invidious tendency before the increasingly impoverished and desperate Christian masses fall on their rich prey with a vengeance. Failure to head this tendency off will doom Western civilization for the foreseeable future, as the rich take flight with their capital to places that actually care about God's Commandments. The loss of this valuable economic capital at a time when it is most needed to rebuild after the government created recession will send the Christian West back to the stone age.

Along a similar vein, there is an urgent need for the Christian churches to remind their mindless flocks that it is immoral to counterfeit money. It is just as wrong for me to print fake money to buy your car, for example, as it would be for me to steal it from you outright. The need for the Christian churches to emphasize this ethical precept does not, however, stem from a danger that the Christian masses will resort to the printing press themselves. Instead, the danger lies in the likelihood that the Christian masses will have their entire life savings and livelihoods wiped out by profoundly immoral economic idiots working in collusion with government who believe that prosperity grows on trees. Again, one would think that the Christian masses would already be aware that counterfeiting money is sickeningly immoral and economically destructive, but Christians of all stripes have done virtually nothing to stand up to this form of robbery. This testifies, yet again, to the appalling stupidity of the Christian masses – even when they themselves are being victimized, and the desperate need for the Christian herd to be morally guided by the Christian churches.

One hopes that the Christian churches will begin to lay seeds in the minds of their followers that will counteract these deadly immoral trends. With economic conditions deteriorating and political "leaders" plumbing new moral depths, the need has never been greater for the Christian churches to lead their herds back to the ethical path laid by Jesus and His Father. And that means, first and foremost, that the Christian churches must do their best to stop Christians from killing and robbing other people. One shudders to think that the Christian Churches even need to be reminded of something as fundamental as this.

http://lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli61.1.html

Thugocracy: America's New Gangster Government

Thugocracy: America's New Gangster Government
Written by Sam Blumenfeld
Thursday, 19 May 2011 14:45

The essence of Gangster Government was summed by a comment President Barack Hussein Obama made in October, 2010:

We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.

That in essence is what government corruption is all about, and that is what we have had in Washington since Obama took his oath of office. We now have a government of men, not laws. That was how the Democrat Congress forced the enactment of Obama's socialized healthcare program despite strong opposition from the American people.

His contempt for the Republican opposition was summed up when the Democrat-in-Chief said: "They can come for the ride, but they have to sit in the back." So now, Jim Crow has also become a philosophical tenet of the Obama regime.

All of this and much more is revealed in David Freddoso's new book, Gangster Government, a primer on the Obama government's corrupt practices, revealing the details of some of the worst forms of federal corruption ever visited on the American people.

Published by Regnery in 2011, the book leaves no doubt that what we are dealing with in the White House is unprecedented corruption on a scale that can only be characterized as criminal in its violations of the U.S. Constitution, violations that have all of the earmarks of gangster activity.

Well-schooled in the corrupt practices of Chicago's Democrat political machine, Obama and his cronies have brought to Washington everything that is repugnant about the way politicians manipulate political power in the Windy City. Case in point is how the Obama administration handled the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, a story of such blatant gangsterism that it boggles the mind.

For years, General Motors had been so badly managed by its top brass that it had become deeply in debt and was headed toward bankruptcy. If allowed to be liquidated, the UAW, the United Auto Workers union, would have been the big loser. The secured creditors would have been first in line to receive whatever monies the sale of GM's assets would have made. That's when Obama decided to step in and bail out the company.

His union friends and their pension funds were in jeopardy. The UAW had contributed greatly to Obama's campaign for the presidency. So they had to be saved. The solution was a bailout for the company as a reward for the union's good deeds. Freddoso writes:

"If anyone wonders whether the automotive bailout was all about saving a union, the answer is yes. There is no other reason why two domestic automotive manufacturers both historically significant, but neither remotely indispensable to the economy would get the bailout they did when nearly 90,000 businesses failed in the financial crisis and received no government help."

The method the Obama government used to bailout GM was quite creative. Most Americans believe that GM was given a bailout loan of $50 billion. However, that was not the case. The company was given a loan of $6.7 billion at 7 percent interest. The Canadian government also gave GM a loan of $1.4 billion. The bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8 percent of the company's equity. The Canadian government paid GM $8.1 billion for 11.7 percent of equity. Thus, the U.S. and Canadian governments owned 72.5 percent of the company at the time of the bailout.

The Obama administration also decided to save Chrysler, which was even closer to liquidation than GM. But the case for saving Chrysler was based more on political and social realities than on its economic factors

The UAW had everything at stake in the survival of GM and Chrysler. Freddoso writes:

"By the time of their bankruptcies, GM and Chrysler together employed 77,600 UAW members.… With so many union jobs at stake, the government rigged the companies' bankruptcies so that the UAW would emerge stronger than any of the other stakeholders, including taxpayers."

In other words, if the Obama administration had permitted the two auto companies to go out of business, the UAW would have lost a third of its membership.

While there are many older Americans who believe that these two great American auto companies should continue to exist, it is more for sentimental reasons than economic ones. Who can forget the cars of one's youth made by GM and Chrysler? And that is why older Americans did not rise up against the bailouts. But we tend to forget that during the Great Depression many great auto companies went out of business and there was never any talk of bailouts. But when government and workers begin taking over the means of production as advocated by the Communist Party, USA, one begins to understand how far we've come from free-market capitalism.

Daniel Gross of Slate recognized the significance of the GM and Chrysler takeovers by the government and union workers. He wrote on June 2, 2009:

It's been a long time since American devotees of Marx (Karl, not Groucho) have had much to cheer about. But with the bankruptcy filings of General Motors and Chrysler, and the transfer of stock ownership from the firms' long-suffering shareholders to the government and unions, communists of the world can rejoice. The workers are now, finally, significant owners of the means of production. The United Auto Workers control about 65 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of General Motors.

Socialist Obama probably told his fellow socialists: "Mission accomplished. We've done what no other socialists have ever been able to do: turn two capitalist entities into two socialist companies."

It will be up to the next Republican administration to get the government completely out of the automobile business.

But the most thuggish part of the story is how the secured creditors were treated by Obama's gang. Freddoso writes:

In the case of the Chrysler bailout, there were many hidden victims, but there were also very visible ones: particularly the company's secured creditors. The theft they suffered was the most egregious irregularity in the automotive bailout and it gave rise to the cry of "Gangster Government" in the first place. Secured creditors, whose rights in bankruptcy the law considers sacred, were manhandled by the Obama administration so that a UAW benefits fund could take 55 percent of the new Chrysler's equity.

The secured creditors were owed $6.9 billion in all. But the Obama team decided that workers were more important than lenders. One thuggish member of the team had written: "In the real world, he who makes the rules of the game, rules the game."

The game was played out to Obama's advantage in the bankruptcy court. One of the secured creditors was Indiana's state pension and highway funds. When Chrysler's financial advisor told the government that the company could come up with the funds to pay the secured creditors more than Obama wanted, he was told in blunt thuggish terms, "You went where you shouldn't."

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock told David Freddoso: "This wasn't about 'Hope and Change.' This was about 'Stop us if you can.' "

Indeed, Tom Lauria, attorney for the secured creditors, revealed on a radio interview the method used by the Obama thugs to get one of his clients, the investment firm of Perella Weinberg, to accept the government's deal:

One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight….That was Perella Weinberg.

Obama also forced GM and Chrysler to close down thousands of dealerships, thereby destroying tens of thousands of private sector jobs at these dealerships. There was no economic reason for the closures. Just the arbitrary decision by Obama to throw a monkey-wrench into America's free enterprise system.

There is much more to this story, which if known by the American people, would help them understand the great damage that the Obama administration is inflicting on the American capitalist economy and our Constitutional form of government. Yet, his sweet talk still manages to fool most of the semi-literate members of the Democrat party. And in 2012 they will vote for him, no matter what.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/7541-thugocracy-americas-new-gangster-government

I hope Benjamin Netanyahu brought his food taster to the White House

barenakedislam | May 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM | Categories: Islam and the Jews | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-ufq

Not that it's likely the Muslim-in-Chief will invite the Israeli Prime Minister for lunch but just in case...

FLORIDA: Obama Regime tries to stop a man from shredding a Qur'an

He forgot to have a dog pee on it first. Gets rid of the muzzie stink.

FLORIDA: Obama Regime tries to stop a man from shredding a Qur'an

barenakedislam | May 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM | Categories: ISLAMOBAMA | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-ufe

NO, not Pastor Terry Jones this time. Because of drought conditions in Florida, a man applied for a permit to shred a Qu'ran instead of burning it. The Secret Service tried to intervene. Why would anyone need a permit to shred a piece of garbage anyway?

The Democratic Party Should Be Ashamed of Themselves!

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/05/democratic-party-should-be-ashamed-of.html?utm_source=The+Lid+List&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5dff7db58d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN

The Democratic Party Should Be Ashamed of Themselves!

May 19, 2011 09:29 pm | Jeff Dunetz

The Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. Today they proved themselves to be nothing but partisan hacks who care more about party politics than doing the right thing. While President Obama's speech regarding Middle East generated much criticism from Republicans, but on the Democratic side, even amongst supporters of the Jewish State, there was either positive spin or total silence.

As you know by now the President today gave an address to the nation that for all intents and purposes threw one of our closest allies, Israel, under the proverbial bus. His public call for Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, broke existing agreements that the United States had made with Israel, probably hurt the quest for an Israeli/Palestinian deal and quite possibly moved the region closer to a new Middle East war.

That 1949 armistice line was created solely because that's Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. The line people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders, and there is plenty of documentation to that fact.

There is not much doubt that at the end of a deal, the two parties will exist with borders somewhere near that armistice border. In fact Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, once under the Premierships of Ehud Barak the other under Ehud Olmert (in both of those cases the Palestinian leadership rejected the offer).

The difference is that in both of those cases, The return to those"1967 borders" was the end point of negotiations, today Obama severely damaged Israel's negotiating position by making it the staring point. Obama took it upon himself to made a unilateral concession on behalf of Israel. There was no negotiation; he gave away a bargaining chip that was not his to give. Should Israel give in Obama it will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues, some of which might otherwise had been easy concessions. If Israel fights Obama on the issue, things might get a bit dicier in the region. Israel's neighbors might see it as giving attacks on the Jewish State legitimacy.

At this point it looks as if Israel is choosing to take a stand. The Prime Minister all but threw a gauntlet down (diplomatically of course).

"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," the response began, curtly. "Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state."

"That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress."

"Among other things," Netanyahu reminded Obama, "those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines."

Republicans were quick to point out that Obama's call for a retreat to the 1949 Armistice lines was dangerous to the Jewish State.

"President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement following Mr. Obama's sweeping speech about the fundamental changes taking place in the Middle East. "He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace."

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called the president's support for a plan that would revive borders not seen since the Six-Day War in 1967 "a mistaken and dangerous demand."The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided," he said. "At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the highest-ranking Jewish Republican, said, "The president's habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace."By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism," Mr. Cantor said in a statement. "Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel's borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today's speech as a 'Moment of Opportunity,' and I'm disappointed that the President's remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity."

Rep. Michele Bachmann said on her face book page that that Obama "has betrayed our friend and ally Israel.I believe Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division, and greater aggression in the Middle East and put Israel at further risk,"

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "We did not hear a pledge from the President to cut off U.S. funding to a Palestinian Authority now aligned with Hamas, nor did we hear a pledge to veto the scheme to attain U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiating peace with Israel. I am also disappointed that the President failed to call on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and instead imposed new pressure on Israel to make concessions on its borders."

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL): "The President's new decision to alter U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process concerns me. Palestinian calls for '1967 borders' should be outweighed by Israel's need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally. The President should block U.S. taxpayer assistance to Palestinian leaders who teamed up with a group his administration certified as a terrorist organization -- Hamas -- responsible for the murder of at least 26 American citizens. America has no greater ally and political supporter than the Israeli democracy."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Unfortunately, the President's reference to Israel's 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not pre-determine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region."

Rep. Allen West (R-FL): "Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state. From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army. The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital."

Let see what we have found from the Democratic Party side:

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)usually a big supporter of the Jewish State, ignored Obama's unilateral declaration of the return to the "1967 borders." With his head cowardly in the sand he said,"I am glad the president has rejected any unilateral action by the UN, which has always been biased against Israel, but there can be no negotiations until Hamas, recognized as a terrorist group by the United States, renounces terror and recognizes the reality of a two-state solution,"

Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) reaction to the President's throwing of the Jewish State was , a reaction echoed by Congressman Gary Ackerman who said and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who added . That's right they said nothing. Harry read proclaimed that he had not yet heard the speech.

The National Democratic Jewish Coalition showed the country why their party is place in front of their religion in their name as they had the audacity to praise the speech saying that the President "demonstrated his unwavering support of Israel"

Also weighing in on the President's speech was full-time progressive activist, and part time director of the ADL, Abe Foxman who like Chuck Shumer ignored the most distasteful part of the speech.

We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel.

This should serve as a red flag to anyone who supports the state of Israel. Remember what happened today when the Jewish State most needed the support of our public figures. The Republican party was quick to point out how Obama's speech put Israel in dangers. The Democrats abandoned the Jewish State to the whims of a President who publicly threw Israel under the bus.

As Edmond Burke said almost three-hundred years ago "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In a time of great need for Israel, the Democratic Party did nothing. For that they should be ashamed of themselves.

Supporters of Israel should remember that when they enter the voting booth in 2012.