This should hurt the Democrats in this upcoming election...it is just one sign of the corruption of Obama, his Administration, Pelosi, Reid and this Democrat Congress.....
Democrats' Election Hopes Fade as Scandals Mount
Saturday, 31 Jul 2010 10:42 AM Article Font Size
WASHINGTON – A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.
People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about charges before they are made public, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.
Waters, 71, has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board.
New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel also faces an ethics trial this fall on charges that include failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.
Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the trials would be an embarrassment for the group. Dual ethics trials would also be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party's ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority.
While Rangel is a former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Waters is a prominent member of the House Financial Services Committee.
Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution.
Her husband, Sidney Williams, held at least $250,000 in the bank's stock and previously had served on its board. Waters' spokesman has said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged.
Waters has said the National Bankers Association, a trade group, requested the meeting. She defended her role in assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation's financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions she used her influence to steer government aid to the bank.
"I am confident that as the investigation moves forward the panel will discover that there are no facts to support allegations that I have acted improperly," Waters said in a prior statement.
The committee unanimously voted to establish an investigative subcommittee to gather evidence and determine whether Waters violated standards of conduct.
Waters, like Rangel, could settle her case by arranging a plea bargain with the ethics committee. So far she has decided instead to fight.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" - Even Corrupt Obama says Rangel should Go Home!!!
Even Obama says Rangel should go home....maybe at some time this corrupt President will take his own advice and go home....but probably not before we get the chance to vote him out in 2012....
POLITICO: Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" - Ben Smith - Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity"
POLITICO: Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" - Ben Smith - Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity"
Anthony Weiner - A political HACK...He needs to go HOME!
This Anthony Weiner NEEDS TO GO HOME!!!!....He's a great example of what's wrong with the Democrats in Congress!!!
Steve Wynn Takes On Washington - And Tell America why Businessmen are Not Investing in the USA
Steve Wynn, another big businessman, explains why business is not investing in America and why Obama, his Administration and the Democratic Congress is driving this nation into the Ground!.....Now is the time for action....These November Elections are of Great Importance!
Steve Wynn Takes On Washington
Steve Wynn Takes On Washington
Why Charles Rangel is surviving - Rangel will Hurt the Democrats!
The Rangel story will hurt the Democrats....it just underscores the corruption and dirty dealing of this Congress and President...this combined with all the legislation passed in direct conflict with the will of the American People just emphasized what's wrong and what needs to be changed in the next election cycle!...It also highlights Pelosi who is widely seen as an Idiot and that will also play against the Democrats...this will hurt...personally I hope it drags out to be a weeks long trial with the ultimate conclusion being he's thrown out of the House. I doubt that will happen, but whatever happens this WILL hurt Obama and the Democrats.
Why Charles Rangel is surviving - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com
Why Charles Rangel is surviving - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com
More on Shirley Sherrod....CNN's even turning on her!
Even CNN is looking into the issues surrounding Shirley Sherrod....Again she's not nearly so lily white as she makes herself out to be....
Charlie Rangel needs to be Sent HOME!....The Voters in November are the ultimate ethic committee...Vote them OUT!
Michelle Malkin The Enablers of Charlie Rangel
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the world's worst cleaning lady. How has she fulfilled her vaunted promise to "drain the swamp" and preside over the "most ethical Congress in history"? By shrugging her shoulders, downplaying the gravity of myriad ethics charges against corruptocrat Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel and waiting for the "political chips" to "fall where they may." Imagine a custodial service that fixed toilet clogs by letting the overflowing waste and polluted waters "fall where they may."
At a press conference to preempt the bipartisan House ethics panel's announcement of 13 ethics and federal regulation charges against Rangel on Thursday afternoon, Pelosi claimed to take "great pride" in her swamp-draining record. Unblinkingly, she cited the House trial against Rangel as proof that the "process" is working. But that beleaguered panel has been pathetically understaffed, has dragged its feet for two years on the Rangel case and has administered more halfhearted wrist-slaps than all the pushover parents on a season of "Nanny 911."
Clinging bitterly to the moral equivalence card, Pelosi carped about Bush-era GOP corruption. (Cue a chorus of "Let's do the time warp again!") Her lips were sealed, however, on the continuing wheeling and dealing behind the scenes between Rangel's lobbyist-funded lawyers and the ethics panel on a deal to avoid a congressional trial.
A full-blown public trial would thoroughly air his self-dealing, habitual bad-faith failures to report income, multiple House gift ban and solicitation ban violations, flouting of franking privilege and letterhead rules, and a fundamental "pattern of indifference or disregard for the laws, rules and regulations of the United States and House of Representatives," as the House ethics statement of violations put it. But, hey, what about that GEORGE W. BUSH, eh, Pelosi?
Bush-whack all you want. The Rangel stench is overwhelming. Along the way, Rangel has obstructed House investigators, failed to produce documents and refused previous settlement offers -- prompting House ethics investigative subcommittee member Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., to reject the Rangel-as-victim narrative. Misfortune didn't befall Rangel. He chose his path. While bleeding-heart lefties in the media, like The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, mourn entrenched incumbent Rangel's sudden fall (he "took 36 years to climb to the top, only to lose it all in an instant"), there is nothing sudden about the entitlement sclerosis that took hold of his career.
And there is nothing ethical about the Democratic enablers who have shown their own long pattern of indifference or disregard for clean, open, transparent government.
I remind you that in March, Speaker Mop & Glo was minimizing Rangel's mountain of alleged transgressions by pooh-poohing that "it was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." GOP Rep. Mike McCaul, a member of the House ethics investigative subcommittee, begged to differ. "Credibility is what's at stake here; the very credibility of the House itself," he said at the hearing announcing the baker's dozen of ethics charges. Echoing Pelosi's nonchalance, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters sniffed that "many members" of the House are as habitually sloppy and apathetic toward House ethics rules as Rangel -- her good friend and Congressional Black Caucus ally.
Since Day One, the identity-politics caucus that Rangel helped found has stood by his side and blamed anti-black bias for Rangel's troubles. Rangel likened media scrutiny of his shady rent-controlled apartment deals and tax troubles to a "lynching." CBC member Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., called it a "witch hunt." And an unidentified, tinfoil-hatted black House Democrat told Politico: "It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules (are) and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the (CBC)."
Never mind that the supposedly bigoted House ethics panel exonerated four CBC members of their participation in corporate-funded tax junkets to the Caribbean. When the polls are down and damning evidence keeps mounting, first yell "BUSH!" Then yell "RAAAAACIST!"
As last-minute deal-making between Rangel and the foxes guarding the congressional henhouse continues, more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusions: House-soilers can't be cleaners. Voters, not Washington politicians, are the ultimate ethics committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the world's worst cleaning lady. How has she fulfilled her vaunted promise to "drain the swamp" and preside over the "most ethical Congress in history"? By shrugging her shoulders, downplaying the gravity of myriad ethics charges against corruptocrat Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel and waiting for the "political chips" to "fall where they may." Imagine a custodial service that fixed toilet clogs by letting the overflowing waste and polluted waters "fall where they may."
At a press conference to preempt the bipartisan House ethics panel's announcement of 13 ethics and federal regulation charges against Rangel on Thursday afternoon, Pelosi claimed to take "great pride" in her swamp-draining record. Unblinkingly, she cited the House trial against Rangel as proof that the "process" is working. But that beleaguered panel has been pathetically understaffed, has dragged its feet for two years on the Rangel case and has administered more halfhearted wrist-slaps than all the pushover parents on a season of "Nanny 911."
Clinging bitterly to the moral equivalence card, Pelosi carped about Bush-era GOP corruption. (Cue a chorus of "Let's do the time warp again!") Her lips were sealed, however, on the continuing wheeling and dealing behind the scenes between Rangel's lobbyist-funded lawyers and the ethics panel on a deal to avoid a congressional trial.
A full-blown public trial would thoroughly air his self-dealing, habitual bad-faith failures to report income, multiple House gift ban and solicitation ban violations, flouting of franking privilege and letterhead rules, and a fundamental "pattern of indifference or disregard for the laws, rules and regulations of the United States and House of Representatives," as the House ethics statement of violations put it. But, hey, what about that GEORGE W. BUSH, eh, Pelosi?
Bush-whack all you want. The Rangel stench is overwhelming. Along the way, Rangel has obstructed House investigators, failed to produce documents and refused previous settlement offers -- prompting House ethics investigative subcommittee member Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., to reject the Rangel-as-victim narrative. Misfortune didn't befall Rangel. He chose his path. While bleeding-heart lefties in the media, like The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, mourn entrenched incumbent Rangel's sudden fall (he "took 36 years to climb to the top, only to lose it all in an instant"), there is nothing sudden about the entitlement sclerosis that took hold of his career.
And there is nothing ethical about the Democratic enablers who have shown their own long pattern of indifference or disregard for clean, open, transparent government.
I remind you that in March, Speaker Mop & Glo was minimizing Rangel's mountain of alleged transgressions by pooh-poohing that "it was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." GOP Rep. Mike McCaul, a member of the House ethics investigative subcommittee, begged to differ. "Credibility is what's at stake here; the very credibility of the House itself," he said at the hearing announcing the baker's dozen of ethics charges. Echoing Pelosi's nonchalance, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters sniffed that "many members" of the House are as habitually sloppy and apathetic toward House ethics rules as Rangel -- her good friend and Congressional Black Caucus ally.
Since Day One, the identity-politics caucus that Rangel helped found has stood by his side and blamed anti-black bias for Rangel's troubles. Rangel likened media scrutiny of his shady rent-controlled apartment deals and tax troubles to a "lynching." CBC member Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., called it a "witch hunt." And an unidentified, tinfoil-hatted black House Democrat told Politico: "It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules (are) and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the (CBC)."
Never mind that the supposedly bigoted House ethics panel exonerated four CBC members of their participation in corporate-funded tax junkets to the Caribbean. When the polls are down and damning evidence keeps mounting, first yell "BUSH!" Then yell "RAAAAACIST!"
As last-minute deal-making between Rangel and the foxes guarding the congressional henhouse continues, more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusions: House-soilers can't be cleaners. Voters, not Washington politicians, are the ultimate ethics committee.
Real Sherrod Story Still Untold- Here's the REAL STORY about Ms Sherrod and her Family of Opportunists
Here's the real story about Ms Sherrod.....She's not as lily white as she claims...and that's not a pun!
Real Sherrod Story Still Untold
Real Sherrod Story Still Untold
What part of "illegal" does the SIEU not understand?
What part of "illegal" does the SEIU not understand???? These folks are "ILLEGAL" immigrants...they are here "illegally"....that's a problem and it's costing the rest of hard working Americans a fortune....not to mention the crime, drugs, loss of life, human trafficing that goes along with this....Seal the Borders FIRST....THEN we can deal with those that are already here....But you have to SEAL the borders first....until then there's no other way to combat this other than finding those here illegally and send them home.....
This isn't Mayberry RFD Andy!
Unfortunately this isn't Mayberry RFD Andy....It's more like a socialist or communist country that is dominated by a government that doesn't tell you the truth....If you can't believe Obama or his Administration why would you believe Andy Griffith pitching their hated policies....How do you get all this "free" stuff when you cut $500 Billion out of Medicare?????
Rep. Anthony Weiner Loses it on House Floor - Despite Weiner's Rage the Democrats don't have the votes to pass this Bill!
He's Weiner "acting" again....and despite his comments against Republicans he does not have enough Democrats to pass the bill!....
Breitbart.tv » Rep. Anthony Weiner Loses it on House Floor
Breitbart.tv » Rep. Anthony Weiner Loses it on House Floor
A CLEAR picture of the Dissatisfaction with Obama and his Administration
This is a CLEAR picture of the dissatisfaction with Obama, his Administration and the Democratic led Congress.....The American People are NOT stupid...they see what's happening and they are not happy about IT!
We need to show that dissatisfaction this November 2nd at the polls....Elect Conservative Republicans to the House and Senate...
Fox News Poll: 62 Percent Think U.S. Is on the Decline
By Dana Blanton
Published July 30, 2010
| FoxNews.com
A Fox News poll released Friday finds widespread belief among American voters that the country is on the decline as a civilization. In addition, a majority thinks the country is moving toward socialism.
A 62 percent majority of voters thinks the United States is on the decline. That's more than twice as many as the 26 percent who believe it is on the rise.
Most Republicans — 76 percent — think the country is in decline, and 64 percent of independents agree. Views among Democrats are more evenly split: 41 percent say on the rise and 43 percent say on the decline.
There's a slight gender gap as men (64 percent) are somewhat more likely than women (59 percent) to take the negative view of the country's progress. Across generations there is substantial agreement: young voters ages 35 and under (58 percent) are about as likely as seniors 65 and over (57 percent) to think things are on a downward slide.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from July 27 to July 28. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Along with a strong sense of national decline, the poll also finds 73 percent of voters think the government in Washington has too much power, up from 64 percent who thought so in 1997.
That feeling crosses party lines. To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (89 percent), independents (78 percent) and Democrats (53 percent) agree the government is too powerful.
Almost all voters — 89 percent — think elected officials in Washington are employees of the American public and "should therefore try to follow the will of the people when making decisions."
Socialism
A majority thinks the transition from capitalism to socialism in the U.S. is already underway. By 56-34 percent, more voters think the country is currently moving away from capitalism to socialism. Far fewer voters, however, approve.
Less than one in five voters (18 percent) thinks it would be a good thing for the country to move away from capitalism and toward socialism. Among those most likely to favor this option are those with household incomes under $30,000 (28 percent), as well as those under age thirty (31 percent), and Democrats (32 percent).
About 7 in 10 voters (69 percent) think a move toward socialism would be a bad thing. Republicans (88 percent), those with household incomes of $100,000 or more (83 percent), and those ages 55 and over (70 percent) are among those most likely to think it would be a bad move. Smaller majorities of those living in lower-income households (59 percent), young people (57 percent), as well as just under half of Democrats (49 percent) agree.
We need to show that dissatisfaction this November 2nd at the polls....Elect Conservative Republicans to the House and Senate...
Fox News Poll: 62 Percent Think U.S. Is on the Decline
By Dana Blanton
Published July 30, 2010
| FoxNews.com
A Fox News poll released Friday finds widespread belief among American voters that the country is on the decline as a civilization. In addition, a majority thinks the country is moving toward socialism.
A 62 percent majority of voters thinks the United States is on the decline. That's more than twice as many as the 26 percent who believe it is on the rise.
Most Republicans — 76 percent — think the country is in decline, and 64 percent of independents agree. Views among Democrats are more evenly split: 41 percent say on the rise and 43 percent say on the decline.
There's a slight gender gap as men (64 percent) are somewhat more likely than women (59 percent) to take the negative view of the country's progress. Across generations there is substantial agreement: young voters ages 35 and under (58 percent) are about as likely as seniors 65 and over (57 percent) to think things are on a downward slide.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from July 27 to July 28. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Along with a strong sense of national decline, the poll also finds 73 percent of voters think the government in Washington has too much power, up from 64 percent who thought so in 1997.
That feeling crosses party lines. To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (89 percent), independents (78 percent) and Democrats (53 percent) agree the government is too powerful.
Almost all voters — 89 percent — think elected officials in Washington are employees of the American public and "should therefore try to follow the will of the people when making decisions."
Socialism
A majority thinks the transition from capitalism to socialism in the U.S. is already underway. By 56-34 percent, more voters think the country is currently moving away from capitalism to socialism. Far fewer voters, however, approve.
Less than one in five voters (18 percent) thinks it would be a good thing for the country to move away from capitalism and toward socialism. Among those most likely to favor this option are those with household incomes under $30,000 (28 percent), as well as those under age thirty (31 percent), and Democrats (32 percent).
About 7 in 10 voters (69 percent) think a move toward socialism would be a bad thing. Republicans (88 percent), those with household incomes of $100,000 or more (83 percent), and those ages 55 and over (70 percent) are among those most likely to think it would be a bad move. Smaller majorities of those living in lower-income households (59 percent), young people (57 percent), as well as just under half of Democrats (49 percent) agree.
Shirely Sherrod just another Blook Sucking Opportunist!
Shirley Sherrod is nothing more than another blood sucking opportunist....if she is to be mad at someone it ought to be against Obama and his Administration...they are the one's that fired her.....BUT she got her job back...she got vindicated by the national media...she shamed Obama into calling her on the phone to apoligize...Now Ms Sherrod it's time to either take the new job or not and then GO AWAY!....But I guess since you've already won one multimillion dollar lawsuit you've decided to take advantage of the American People Again....I hope you lose this suit in a quick summary judgement!
Shirley Sherrod Says She'll Sue Andrew Breitbart
Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
Sherrod was forced to resign as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.
Obama: Shirley Sherrod Deserved Better
Obama on The View: Racial Labels Don't Matter
Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would "definitely" sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department in advocacy and outreach. She has not decided whether to accept.
"I am so far from being able to do that," Sherrod said at the convention. "I have not had a chance to read the offer. [The] offer says 'draft.' I need to ask them what that means."
Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one.
"He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.
Breitbart did not immediately respond to a call or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she expresses reservations about helping the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements. Some members of the NAACP audience appeared to approve when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.
Does Shirley Sherrod Have a Solid Legal Case?
The farmer's wife came forward after Sherrod resigned, saying Sherrod had eventually helped them save their farm.
Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Obama said Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week."
Obama said Thursday morning on ABC's daytime talk show "The View" that the incident shows racial tensions still exist in America.
Obama pinned much of the blame for the incident on a media culture that he said seeks out conflict and doesn't always get the facts right. But he added, "A lot of people overreacted, including people in my administration."
Addressing the National Urban League, he said the full story Sherrod was trying to tell "is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America."
At the journalists convention, Sherrod was asked what could be done to ensure accurate coverage as conservatives like Breitbart attack the NAACP and other liberal groups.
Sherrod, 62, responded that members of her generation who were in the civil rights movement "tried too much to shield that hurt and pain from younger people. We have to do a better job of helping those individuals who get these positions, in the media, in educational institutions, in the presidency, we have to make sure they understand the history so they can do a better job."
She said Obama is one of those who need a history lesson.
"That's why I invited him to southwest Georgia. I need to take him around and show him some of that history," Sherrod said.
Despite her experience, Sherrod said she believes the country can heal its racial divisions - if people are willing to confront the issue.
"Young African-Americans, young whites, too, we've done such a job of trying to be mainstream that we push things under the rug that we need to talk about. And then we get to situations like this," she said.
"I truly believe that we can come together in this country. But you don't (come together) by not talking to each other. You don't get there by pushing things under the rug."
Sherrod said her faulty firing should not be blamed on all media.
Before the full video was released, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said Sherrod should be fired, and others called her speech racist. O'Reilly later apologized.
"They had a chance to get the facts out, and they weren't interested," Sherrod said.
She said she declined to give Fox an interview because she believed they were not interested in pursuing the truth. "They would have twisted it," she said.
Shirley Sherrod Says She'll Sue Andrew Breitbart
Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
Sherrod was forced to resign as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.
Obama: Shirley Sherrod Deserved Better
Obama on The View: Racial Labels Don't Matter
Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would "definitely" sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department in advocacy and outreach. She has not decided whether to accept.
"I am so far from being able to do that," Sherrod said at the convention. "I have not had a chance to read the offer. [The] offer says 'draft.' I need to ask them what that means."
Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one.
"He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.
Breitbart did not immediately respond to a call or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she expresses reservations about helping the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements. Some members of the NAACP audience appeared to approve when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.
Does Shirley Sherrod Have a Solid Legal Case?
The farmer's wife came forward after Sherrod resigned, saying Sherrod had eventually helped them save their farm.
Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Obama said Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week."
Obama said Thursday morning on ABC's daytime talk show "The View" that the incident shows racial tensions still exist in America.
Obama pinned much of the blame for the incident on a media culture that he said seeks out conflict and doesn't always get the facts right. But he added, "A lot of people overreacted, including people in my administration."
Addressing the National Urban League, he said the full story Sherrod was trying to tell "is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America."
At the journalists convention, Sherrod was asked what could be done to ensure accurate coverage as conservatives like Breitbart attack the NAACP and other liberal groups.
Sherrod, 62, responded that members of her generation who were in the civil rights movement "tried too much to shield that hurt and pain from younger people. We have to do a better job of helping those individuals who get these positions, in the media, in educational institutions, in the presidency, we have to make sure they understand the history so they can do a better job."
She said Obama is one of those who need a history lesson.
"That's why I invited him to southwest Georgia. I need to take him around and show him some of that history," Sherrod said.
Despite her experience, Sherrod said she believes the country can heal its racial divisions - if people are willing to confront the issue.
"Young African-Americans, young whites, too, we've done such a job of trying to be mainstream that we push things under the rug that we need to talk about. And then we get to situations like this," she said.
"I truly believe that we can come together in this country. But you don't (come together) by not talking to each other. You don't get there by pushing things under the rug."
Sherrod said her faulty firing should not be blamed on all media.
Before the full video was released, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said Sherrod should be fired, and others called her speech racist. O'Reilly later apologized.
"They had a chance to get the facts out, and they weren't interested," Sherrod said.
She said she declined to give Fox an interview because she believed they were not interested in pursuing the truth. "They would have twisted it," she said.
Christiane Amanpour’s biased reporting causes a backlash to her selection as host of ABC’s This Week | Why would this surprise anyone she's on ABC
I am not sure why anyone would be surprised at this....She is going to be on State-Run ABC....you cannot expect to get all the news and certainly not fair and balanced new on ABC!!!! It's State-Run!
Christiane Amanpour’s biased reporting causes a backlash to her selection as host of ABC’s This Week | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Christiane Amanpour’s biased reporting causes a backlash to her selection as host of ABC’s This Week | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Speaker defends troubled majority - Pelosi is a JOKE....
Pelosi is a joke....she promised to "drain the swamp", she certainly hasn't....she commmitted to transparency, she's done more dirty back room dealing than anyone PLUS she's just an IDIOT....What an embarassment for America!
Speaker defends troubled majority - David Rogers - POLITICO.com
Speaker defends troubled majority - David Rogers - POLITICO.com
Trying to Control the Lame Duck Congress!
Representative Tom Price from Georgia making a resolution to curtail activity in the lame duck Congress....Guess what his resolution was put off by Democrats...watch what they have planned once the lose the House and Senate in November...This is a totally corrupt and dishonest body controlled now by a destructive party with destructive leadership in Obama, Pelosi and Reid.....We all need to be concerned as to what socialist, progressive and liberal legislation they will force through in a lame duck session AGAINST the will of the American People...as you know the will of the American People has not been important to this Congress or Administration since they have acted against the will of the people time and time again in the past year and a half....It's time for a big change...it's time to take America Back.....conservative republican leadership in both the house and senate is the goal.....elections do have consequences....we need a huge change in Washington.
Obama's underhanded, sneak attack to take over all of the American Education System
This is another underhanded end run by Obama and his corrupt Administration...just another effort to increase the size and scope of Government in our lives...but this one will forever impact our nation as it would even further drive our public education system into mediocrity.....And it's all being done without the involvement of the Congress and virtually out of sight of the American Public. The best way to improve education in America is to go to a voucher system and allow private enterprise to compete with the unionized public education system that works so poorly today! Obama's tie to the unions is absolutely disgusting and again will put this nation in worse position....talk to any teacher in the public school system and they will tell you that they work with many really poor teachers that are protected by the union tenure.....Again it's a prime example of a quasi government body that does not have to compete to survive....and we all know that good competition drive results.....
The Quiet Education Overhaul
Yesterday, President Obama delivered a major speech on education in an effort to garner support for his Race to the Top grant program and his push for national education standards and tests. The President’s remarks came on the heels of a speech delivered by Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Tuesday at the National Press Club, during which Duncan attempted to paint the Administration’s policies as part of a "quiet revolution."
Duncan certainly got the quiet part right. Since his Administration came into office, President Obama has quietly been reworking the country’s education system, doing an end-run around normal legislative procedure. With the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) funding doubled thanks to the so-called "stimulus," the Administration has little need or incentive to bother negotiating its education agenda through Congress. Instead, the DOE is using that windfall of funding and power to stage a significant overhaul of local schools; dangling grant money before cash-strapped states on the condition they adopt key pieces of the Obama education agenda. And this is all happening without public consideration, even though it means that parents will now have to trek to Washington to petition an unaccountable bureaucracy if they want to see changes in their children’s curriculum. Knocking on the door at the DOE (the lowest rated federal department) is unlikely to produce a response.
The push for national education standards and tests began last year when the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) began writing standards for what all U.S. students should learn in school. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has been backing the effort with federal dollars, pressing Race to the Top grants in front of fiscally starved states while making it clear that they also intend to make Title I funding (the largest federal education program at $14.5 billion) contingent upon acceptance of these standards. A number of states have signed onto the standards to position themselves for federal grants—without the American people ever having the opportunity to weigh in on such a drastic change that will soon be coming to a school near you.
Secretary Duncan’s use of the term revolution was also right on the mark. The federal government’s ever-expanding role in education, and now the Obama Administration’s push for national standards and tests, threatens the long-established right of parents to direct their children’s education and confuses a proper understanding of federalism. States model federalism for children by setting standards, tests, and curriculum. But that important lesson in self-government will be another unintended casualty of this standards overhaul now that the federal government is overreaching to set the educational terms for local schools—contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the letter of federal law, which expressly prohibits federal involvement in standards, tests, and curriculum.
But it’s not just our deep-rooted principal of federalism that is at stake in President Obama’s education agenda; it’s also our ongoing pursuit of excellence that hangs in the balance.
Secretary Duncan has referred to state standards as "50 different goal posts." That comment makes clear that the Administration’s push for national standards is geared more toward uniformity than with excellence and more concerned with standardization than minimum standards of quality and rigor. States that currently have high quality state standards—such as Massachusetts, California, Virginia, and Indiana—offer exemplary models, creating competitive pressure for other states to raise their academic standing.
But when national standards are enshrined, they’ll slump toward the middle of the pack—standardizing mediocrity and generating the kind of nationwide uniform data that will be more useful to national bureaucrats than to parents. Current standards and tests, developed at significant taxpayer expense by each state, currently provide the kind of information parents need. What’s needed is more transparency about that information and for parents to be empowered to make choices on that information.
The Obama Administration’s plans would dramatically change our country’s education system without a single vote in Congress and without the American people having the opportunity to debate the issue. But this one-size-fits-all approach from Washington is not a fait accompli. State leaders in Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, and Indiana have voiced clear concerns about losing state autonomy under this federal standards overhaul.
National standards would not make public schools accountable to families; rather, they would make schools responsive to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Moreover, national standards and tests would be a one-size-fits-all approach that tends toward mediocrity and standardization, undercutting the pockets of excellence and the principle of federalism on which this nation is founded.
The Quiet Education Overhaul
Yesterday, President Obama delivered a major speech on education in an effort to garner support for his Race to the Top grant program and his push for national education standards and tests. The President’s remarks came on the heels of a speech delivered by Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Tuesday at the National Press Club, during which Duncan attempted to paint the Administration’s policies as part of a "quiet revolution."
Duncan certainly got the quiet part right. Since his Administration came into office, President Obama has quietly been reworking the country’s education system, doing an end-run around normal legislative procedure. With the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) funding doubled thanks to the so-called "stimulus," the Administration has little need or incentive to bother negotiating its education agenda through Congress. Instead, the DOE is using that windfall of funding and power to stage a significant overhaul of local schools; dangling grant money before cash-strapped states on the condition they adopt key pieces of the Obama education agenda. And this is all happening without public consideration, even though it means that parents will now have to trek to Washington to petition an unaccountable bureaucracy if they want to see changes in their children’s curriculum. Knocking on the door at the DOE (the lowest rated federal department) is unlikely to produce a response.
The push for national education standards and tests began last year when the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) began writing standards for what all U.S. students should learn in school. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has been backing the effort with federal dollars, pressing Race to the Top grants in front of fiscally starved states while making it clear that they also intend to make Title I funding (the largest federal education program at $14.5 billion) contingent upon acceptance of these standards. A number of states have signed onto the standards to position themselves for federal grants—without the American people ever having the opportunity to weigh in on such a drastic change that will soon be coming to a school near you.
Secretary Duncan’s use of the term revolution was also right on the mark. The federal government’s ever-expanding role in education, and now the Obama Administration’s push for national standards and tests, threatens the long-established right of parents to direct their children’s education and confuses a proper understanding of federalism. States model federalism for children by setting standards, tests, and curriculum. But that important lesson in self-government will be another unintended casualty of this standards overhaul now that the federal government is overreaching to set the educational terms for local schools—contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the letter of federal law, which expressly prohibits federal involvement in standards, tests, and curriculum.
But it’s not just our deep-rooted principal of federalism that is at stake in President Obama’s education agenda; it’s also our ongoing pursuit of excellence that hangs in the balance.
Secretary Duncan has referred to state standards as "50 different goal posts." That comment makes clear that the Administration’s push for national standards is geared more toward uniformity than with excellence and more concerned with standardization than minimum standards of quality and rigor. States that currently have high quality state standards—such as Massachusetts, California, Virginia, and Indiana—offer exemplary models, creating competitive pressure for other states to raise their academic standing.
But when national standards are enshrined, they’ll slump toward the middle of the pack—standardizing mediocrity and generating the kind of nationwide uniform data that will be more useful to national bureaucrats than to parents. Current standards and tests, developed at significant taxpayer expense by each state, currently provide the kind of information parents need. What’s needed is more transparency about that information and for parents to be empowered to make choices on that information.
The Obama Administration’s plans would dramatically change our country’s education system without a single vote in Congress and without the American people having the opportunity to debate the issue. But this one-size-fits-all approach from Washington is not a fait accompli. State leaders in Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, and Indiana have voiced clear concerns about losing state autonomy under this federal standards overhaul.
National standards would not make public schools accountable to families; rather, they would make schools responsive to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Moreover, national standards and tests would be a one-size-fits-all approach that tends toward mediocrity and standardization, undercutting the pockets of excellence and the principle of federalism on which this nation is founded.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
MSNBC Host Verbally Attacks Conservative Guest on Air - This is way no one watches Chris Mathews and MSNBC
This is exactly why no one watches Chris Mathews or MSNBC...This is certainly "fair and balanced"...NOT!
Breitbart.tv » MSNBC Host Verbally Attacks Conservative Guest on Air
Breitbart.tv » MSNBC Host Verbally Attacks Conservative Guest on Air
This Immigration Decision will Cost the Democrats in November!
IMMIGRATION DECISION WILL ERODE OBAMA SUPPORT
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 28, 2010
When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department's position, but against the president's political interest.
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama's opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the president is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won't.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority -- close to two-thirds of the electorate -- that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the president of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama's Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama's approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base.
This decision hurts him badly.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 28, 2010
When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department's position, but against the president's political interest.
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama's opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the president is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won't.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority -- close to two-thirds of the electorate -- that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the president of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama's Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama's approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base.
This decision hurts him badly.
Obama has no Respect for the Law and I would not have any problem suggesting that this Administration mettled in this court decision!
The corruption of this Administration is unbelievable....Obama certainly has no respect for the law of this nation...and I would at all be surprised if it were to be learned that Obama, his Administration, Eric Holder and Department of Justice had their fingerprints all over this bad verdict by Judge Bolton....The fight will go on....more and more Americans will simply use this additional issue against Obama and the Democrats this November....It's one more reason to put conservatives firmly in charge of the House and Senate and get Obama out of office in 2012...
Surviving the Obama Assault on the Rule of Law
Hours after yesterday's decision by President Bill Clinton judicial appointee Susan Bolton to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), told The New York Times: "This is a warning to any other jurisdiction." Just in case the message from the Obama administration and its leftist allies was not clear, Obama appointee U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke told The Associated Press: "Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework."
But no amount of pause by states and localities could ever possibly satisfy the Obama administration, its amnesty allies, and activist judges like Bolton. In a textbook case of judicial activism, Judge Bolton rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law. President Jimmy Carter appointee and immigration law professor at Yale Law School Peter Schuck told The New York Times: "She rushed to judgment in a way I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly."
The Obama administration's case against Arizona sought to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's new immigration law. The legal term for this is a "facial challenge," and federal precedent is clear that facial challenges "must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about 'hypothetical' or imaginary cases." But that is exactly what Judge Bolton did. First, she ignored Section 2(B) of the law as written and completely ignored the section's first sentence that required an officer to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person was in the country illegally before their immigration status should be checked. Then, she invented a completely hypothetical case about a Chilean dog walker detained by a completely fictional Sheriff Smith. Finally, despite the fact that 8 U.S.C. §1373 clearly requires the federal government to "respond to an inquiry by a…State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual," Judge Bolton concluded that the Obama administration's decision not to enforce this provision was as good as rewriting the law itself.
Taken alone, the White House's behavior on this issue is troubling enough. But put into the broader context of the first 18 months of this Administration, a truly pernicious pattern emerges. First, there was the Obama Justice Department's decision to dismiss voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Then there was the Obama administration's use of TARP to bail out its union allies in what bankruptcy law scholars have called "so outrageous and illegal that until March of this year [2009], nobody even conceptualized it." Then there was the Obama administration's shakedown of BP in the White House's Roosevelt Room. Less than a week later after a federal court found its first oil drilling ban to be "arbitrary and capricious," the Obama administration issued a second oil drilling ban that was wider and killed even more jobs than the first.
Americans cannot be cowed by the Obama administration and its La Raza and MALDEF allies. Giving into bullies only encourages their behavior. Finally this lawsuit should be a permanent reminder to everyone who wants to call themselves a conservative that any and all claims about an amnesty deal are complete fiction. La Raza and MALDEF will fight every enforcement measure in any such deal tooth and nail while administrations like this one will simply choose not to enforce them. Meanwhile, the amnesty provisions would be instantaneous and permanent. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has vowed to fight this decision all the way to the Supreme Court, and she deserves support.
Surviving the Obama Assault on the Rule of Law
Hours after yesterday's decision by President Bill Clinton judicial appointee Susan Bolton to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), told The New York Times: "This is a warning to any other jurisdiction." Just in case the message from the Obama administration and its leftist allies was not clear, Obama appointee U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke told The Associated Press: "Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework."
But no amount of pause by states and localities could ever possibly satisfy the Obama administration, its amnesty allies, and activist judges like Bolton. In a textbook case of judicial activism, Judge Bolton rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law. President Jimmy Carter appointee and immigration law professor at Yale Law School Peter Schuck told The New York Times: "She rushed to judgment in a way I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly."
The Obama administration's case against Arizona sought to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's new immigration law. The legal term for this is a "facial challenge," and federal precedent is clear that facial challenges "must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about 'hypothetical' or imaginary cases." But that is exactly what Judge Bolton did. First, she ignored Section 2(B) of the law as written and completely ignored the section's first sentence that required an officer to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person was in the country illegally before their immigration status should be checked. Then, she invented a completely hypothetical case about a Chilean dog walker detained by a completely fictional Sheriff Smith. Finally, despite the fact that 8 U.S.C. §1373 clearly requires the federal government to "respond to an inquiry by a…State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual," Judge Bolton concluded that the Obama administration's decision not to enforce this provision was as good as rewriting the law itself.
Taken alone, the White House's behavior on this issue is troubling enough. But put into the broader context of the first 18 months of this Administration, a truly pernicious pattern emerges. First, there was the Obama Justice Department's decision to dismiss voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Then there was the Obama administration's use of TARP to bail out its union allies in what bankruptcy law scholars have called "so outrageous and illegal that until March of this year [2009], nobody even conceptualized it." Then there was the Obama administration's shakedown of BP in the White House's Roosevelt Room. Less than a week later after a federal court found its first oil drilling ban to be "arbitrary and capricious," the Obama administration issued a second oil drilling ban that was wider and killed even more jobs than the first.
Americans cannot be cowed by the Obama administration and its La Raza and MALDEF allies. Giving into bullies only encourages their behavior. Finally this lawsuit should be a permanent reminder to everyone who wants to call themselves a conservative that any and all claims about an amnesty deal are complete fiction. La Raza and MALDEF will fight every enforcement measure in any such deal tooth and nail while administrations like this one will simply choose not to enforce them. Meanwhile, the amnesty provisions would be instantaneous and permanent. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has vowed to fight this decision all the way to the Supreme Court, and she deserves support.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Congress/Rpublicans need to stand up against the Start Treaty!
From the Heritage Foundation Today....This START Treaty is not good for America...It certainly doesn't make us any safer in a world where nuclear capacity is building in unstable countries like North Korea and Iran....and with this Treaty (although it doesn't include them) we can't even adequately verify what Russia is doing and we are limited by what we can do to update, improve, increase our nuclear defense system....Another Bad Mistake by an Idealistic, Academic Obama who is going to get us into a position where we cannot remain the superior military power in the world....That puts us very much in jeopardy!
Let's Not Make a Deal
At the height of the debate over Obamacare, when the White House's leftist allies were in full panic mode, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein accused Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) of being "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people." Lieberman's crime? He opposed including an expansion of Medicare in the health regulation bill. Now that the President's signature foreign policy achievement, the New START nuclear agreement with Russia, is on the ropes, the left is again back to their hyperbolic ways. Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione told The Associated Press last week: "A delayed ratification with a close vote would be a blow to U.S. leadership around the world. People would doubt the President's ability to negotiate other agreements."
The histrionics are the result of a sudden surge of concerns over the treaty that started with a blast from Mitt Romney who declared the treaty "Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake." Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) attempted to shoot down Romney's concerns, but their responses raised more questions than they answered. Romney has responded to his critics by identifying eight problems with New START that must be resolved before the Senate can vote on the treaty. We'll focus on three today:
New START Weakens Our Missile Defense Capabilities: The Washington Post editorial board asserted yesterday that "attempts by Moscow to insert [limits on missile defense] into the treaty failed." This is just plain false. First, even the Post admits that the preamble links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons. The Post says that this was also true of previous STARTs. But not only is the language in this preamble stronger, and not only has the Russian leadership said that any increase in our missile defense system would be considered a breach of the treaty, but Article V of the treaty specifically limits our ability to convert ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers into defensive interceptors. The Post is completely silent about this fact.
New START Fails to Maintain Our Nuclear Forces: The Post does concede that our nuclear weapons our "in need of renewal, as are the laboratories and industrial complex that sustain it." But then they claim, "the Obama administration accepts this priority," which is odd since President Obama has promised not to develop any new nuclear weapons. The Obama administration is promising Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) $80 billion in spending on the "nuclear weapons complex" over the next decade, but no legislation has been produced. Any such promise would have to be passed by the House. Do you trust Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to spend $80 billion on nuclear weapons? Your answer to that question tells you all you need to know about the credibility of New START's nuclear modernization claims.
New START's Verification Procedures Are Inadequate: The Obama administration is telling skeptical Senators that "rejecting the treaty would leave the two countries dangerously uncertain about each other's arsenals." But New START's verification terms are so weak that they add little informational value. Paula A. DeSutter, the former U.S. assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance and implementation, noted in a Heritage lecture last month: "The Russians can do so much under this treaty to advance and expand their strategic forces… [yet] our ability to determine whether or not they are doing that and whether it violates the treaty is very, very low. The degree of verifiability is very low." Worse, the Obama administration admitted in Congressional testimony last week that they do not even care if the Russians cheat on the treaty.
All the pressure to blow past the critics, cut backroom deals and get the treaty ratified ought to raise huge red flags. New START has had less than half the number of hearings that treaties are normally subjected to, and the pace for approval certainly is trying to outpace any nuclear arms pact the Senate has ever considered. Not only is the speed with which it is being pushed through unprecedented, the administration continues to withhold key documents, including the treaty negotiating record. This is no time for conservatives in the Senate to offer lemming-like support for President Obama's arms control agenda.
Let's Not Make a Deal
At the height of the debate over Obamacare, when the White House's leftist allies were in full panic mode, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein accused Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) of being "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people." Lieberman's crime? He opposed including an expansion of Medicare in the health regulation bill. Now that the President's signature foreign policy achievement, the New START nuclear agreement with Russia, is on the ropes, the left is again back to their hyperbolic ways. Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione told The Associated Press last week: "A delayed ratification with a close vote would be a blow to U.S. leadership around the world. People would doubt the President's ability to negotiate other agreements."
The histrionics are the result of a sudden surge of concerns over the treaty that started with a blast from Mitt Romney who declared the treaty "Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake." Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) attempted to shoot down Romney's concerns, but their responses raised more questions than they answered. Romney has responded to his critics by identifying eight problems with New START that must be resolved before the Senate can vote on the treaty. We'll focus on three today:
New START Weakens Our Missile Defense Capabilities: The Washington Post editorial board asserted yesterday that "attempts by Moscow to insert [limits on missile defense] into the treaty failed." This is just plain false. First, even the Post admits that the preamble links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons. The Post says that this was also true of previous STARTs. But not only is the language in this preamble stronger, and not only has the Russian leadership said that any increase in our missile defense system would be considered a breach of the treaty, but Article V of the treaty specifically limits our ability to convert ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers into defensive interceptors. The Post is completely silent about this fact.
New START Fails to Maintain Our Nuclear Forces: The Post does concede that our nuclear weapons our "in need of renewal, as are the laboratories and industrial complex that sustain it." But then they claim, "the Obama administration accepts this priority," which is odd since President Obama has promised not to develop any new nuclear weapons. The Obama administration is promising Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) $80 billion in spending on the "nuclear weapons complex" over the next decade, but no legislation has been produced. Any such promise would have to be passed by the House. Do you trust Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to spend $80 billion on nuclear weapons? Your answer to that question tells you all you need to know about the credibility of New START's nuclear modernization claims.
New START's Verification Procedures Are Inadequate: The Obama administration is telling skeptical Senators that "rejecting the treaty would leave the two countries dangerously uncertain about each other's arsenals." But New START's verification terms are so weak that they add little informational value. Paula A. DeSutter, the former U.S. assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance and implementation, noted in a Heritage lecture last month: "The Russians can do so much under this treaty to advance and expand their strategic forces… [yet] our ability to determine whether or not they are doing that and whether it violates the treaty is very, very low. The degree of verifiability is very low." Worse, the Obama administration admitted in Congressional testimony last week that they do not even care if the Russians cheat on the treaty.
All the pressure to blow past the critics, cut backroom deals and get the treaty ratified ought to raise huge red flags. New START has had less than half the number of hearings that treaties are normally subjected to, and the pace for approval certainly is trying to outpace any nuclear arms pact the Senate has ever considered. Not only is the speed with which it is being pushed through unprecedented, the administration continues to withhold key documents, including the treaty negotiating record. This is no time for conservatives in the Senate to offer lemming-like support for President Obama's arms control agenda.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Why won’t the Justice Department let Christopher Coates testify on New Black Panther Party case? | BECAUSE the DOJ is Guilty!
There is no doubt that the Department of Justice is guilty here...there is no other reason why they would keep Coates from testifying....More Corruption....More Stonewalling....More Democrat "leadership"....More of the Obama REGIME!
Only 99 days until we can give Conservative Republicans control of the House and Senate....and at least stop the Obama Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Agenda.
Why won’t the Justice Department let Christopher Coates testify on New Black Panther Party case? | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Only 99 days until we can give Conservative Republicans control of the House and Senate....and at least stop the Obama Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Agenda.
Why won’t the Justice Department let Christopher Coates testify on New Black Panther Party case? | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Kerry - Another Democrat Tax Cheat!
Another Democrat tax cheat...and he's using the typical Obama/Democrat defense...just stonewall reporters and do not answer any questions....after all he was only elected by his constituents in Mass.....
Kerry On Yacht-Taxes Issue: 'Nothing More To Say'
BOSTON (WBZ) ―
Senator John Kerry found himself answering questions Monday about his new $7 million yacht and the controversy about where he's docking it.
"There's nothing more to say about it," he told reporters at an event at the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station Monday.
The "Isabel" is docked in Rhode Island rather than at Kerry's summer home on Nantucket or in Boston Harbor.
That means he avoids paying nearly $500,000 in taxes to Massachusetts and he doesn't have to pay a $70,000-a-year excise tax.
Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.
"Let's get this very straight, I've said consistently we will pay our taxes, we have always paid our taxes. It's not an issue period," he said.
Last week, when the Boston Herald broke the story, Kerry's office released a statement saying, "The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it's based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons."
"It's being worked on. It's under warranty down there. It's being worked on and it will come to Massachusetts and I look forward to that," Kerry said Monday.
When asked "Did you berth the boat in Massachusetts?" he replied, "That depends on who owns it."
Then, he said to his driver, "Can I get out of here please?"
Kerry spokesperson David Wade said the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state. It was built in New Zealand by Friendship Yachts.
A Department of Revenue spokesman said last week that Kerry would be liable for Massachusetts taxes if he berthed the boat in the Commonwealth within six months of its purchase.
If the "Isabel" were brought to Massachusetts after that period, the state would have to decide if it wanted to pursue the taxes.
Massachusetts, like most other states, has been grappling with plunging tax revenues.
Last year's budget deficit was $600 million, and officials are bracing for a $1 billion deficit this year.
The 76-foot sloop has two cabins, a pilot house fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage, according to the Herald.
It derives its moniker from the middle name of Kerry's mother and the name his wife, Teresa Heinz, planned to give a daughter.
Instead, she had three sons.
Kerry On Yacht-Taxes Issue: 'Nothing More To Say'
BOSTON (WBZ) ―
Senator John Kerry found himself answering questions Monday about his new $7 million yacht and the controversy about where he's docking it.
"There's nothing more to say about it," he told reporters at an event at the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station Monday.
The "Isabel" is docked in Rhode Island rather than at Kerry's summer home on Nantucket or in Boston Harbor.
That means he avoids paying nearly $500,000 in taxes to Massachusetts and he doesn't have to pay a $70,000-a-year excise tax.
Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.
"Let's get this very straight, I've said consistently we will pay our taxes, we have always paid our taxes. It's not an issue period," he said.
Last week, when the Boston Herald broke the story, Kerry's office released a statement saying, "The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it's based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons."
"It's being worked on. It's under warranty down there. It's being worked on and it will come to Massachusetts and I look forward to that," Kerry said Monday.
When asked "Did you berth the boat in Massachusetts?" he replied, "That depends on who owns it."
Then, he said to his driver, "Can I get out of here please?"
Kerry spokesperson David Wade said the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state. It was built in New Zealand by Friendship Yachts.
A Department of Revenue spokesman said last week that Kerry would be liable for Massachusetts taxes if he berthed the boat in the Commonwealth within six months of its purchase.
If the "Isabel" were brought to Massachusetts after that period, the state would have to decide if it wanted to pursue the taxes.
Massachusetts, like most other states, has been grappling with plunging tax revenues.
Last year's budget deficit was $600 million, and officials are bracing for a $1 billion deficit this year.
The 76-foot sloop has two cabins, a pilot house fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage, according to the Herald.
It derives its moniker from the middle name of Kerry's mother and the name his wife, Teresa Heinz, planned to give a daughter.
Instead, she had three sons.
From the Heritage Foundation - Obama's failed Economic Policies
This Obama Big Spending/Big Government Strategy is heading America for Destruction and Obama isn't smart enough to change course....He's just going to do more of the same going forward....The American People are totally FED UP with this approach...They realize that this is totally unsustainable and his answer to raise taxes significantly is not a remedy the American People want!....And to address the last sentence of this article ...the American People should NOT believe what this Administration says....most of it is untruthful!
An Admission of Failure
It is established practice in Washington that if you have to release bad news, it is best to do it on a Friday ... the later in the day the better. So not only did the White House schedule the publication of the "Mid-Session Budget Review" for last Friday, but they then released it three hours late to ensure that as few reporters as possible were left in the nation's capital to cover it. But Heritage's dedicated budget team patiently waited the Obama administration out, and their analysis shows that this year's mid-session review is nothing short of a complete admission of failure of the White House's economic policies.
When President Obama sold his $862 billion economic stimulus to the American people, he promised that, if enacted, it would prevent unemployment from ever rising above 8%. With unemployment currently at 9.5%, the American people are now well aware that the President's stimulus has been a complete failure. But Friday's report was the first time this Administration was forced to admit just how long Americans will have to suffer for their failed economic policies. According to Friday's report, the Obama administration now projects that unemployment will average 9% throughout all of next year and 8.1% throughout 2012.
And if that news wasn't bad enough, the report pegs this year's budget deficit at $1.471 trillion, or 10% of the entire U.S. economy. In nominal dollars, it's the largest deficit in American history; and as a percentage of the economy, it's the largest deficit since World War II. To pay for that $1.471 trillion hole, our government will borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends. And the Obama Administration concedes that these large deficits are here to stay. It projects another $1.42 trillion deficit in 2011, which is $150 billion worse than previously predicted. Looking ahead, the President's budget includes deficits that never fall below $698 billion and leaves our children with $18.5 trillion in debt by 2020. And all this assumes the economy will grow 4% from 2012-2014. The only times the economy performed that well in the past thirty years was from 1997-2000 and from 1983-1985.
These future deficits are driven almost exclusively by rising spending. As Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl noted earlier this year: "Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020 — an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government." There is a way out of this deficit nightmare: stop spending. If the federal government managed to return to the per-household spending level of the Reagan administration, the budget would be balanced by 2012 without any tax hikes. Too ambitious? Just returning to the per-household spending levels that existed before the current recession would balance the budget by 2019.
But that is not the route this President wants to take. President Obama wants to close the gap between what our government spends and what it takes in by raising taxes by $3 trillion. His Treasury secretary was on television yesterday claiming this massive tax tsunami would have no effect on economic growth. After last Friday's Mid-Session Budget Review exposed the failure of this Administration's economic stimulus claims, does anybody believe anything this Administration says anymore?
An Admission of Failure
It is established practice in Washington that if you have to release bad news, it is best to do it on a Friday ... the later in the day the better. So not only did the White House schedule the publication of the "Mid-Session Budget Review" for last Friday, but they then released it three hours late to ensure that as few reporters as possible were left in the nation's capital to cover it. But Heritage's dedicated budget team patiently waited the Obama administration out, and their analysis shows that this year's mid-session review is nothing short of a complete admission of failure of the White House's economic policies.
When President Obama sold his $862 billion economic stimulus to the American people, he promised that, if enacted, it would prevent unemployment from ever rising above 8%. With unemployment currently at 9.5%, the American people are now well aware that the President's stimulus has been a complete failure. But Friday's report was the first time this Administration was forced to admit just how long Americans will have to suffer for their failed economic policies. According to Friday's report, the Obama administration now projects that unemployment will average 9% throughout all of next year and 8.1% throughout 2012.
And if that news wasn't bad enough, the report pegs this year's budget deficit at $1.471 trillion, or 10% of the entire U.S. economy. In nominal dollars, it's the largest deficit in American history; and as a percentage of the economy, it's the largest deficit since World War II. To pay for that $1.471 trillion hole, our government will borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends. And the Obama Administration concedes that these large deficits are here to stay. It projects another $1.42 trillion deficit in 2011, which is $150 billion worse than previously predicted. Looking ahead, the President's budget includes deficits that never fall below $698 billion and leaves our children with $18.5 trillion in debt by 2020. And all this assumes the economy will grow 4% from 2012-2014. The only times the economy performed that well in the past thirty years was from 1997-2000 and from 1983-1985.
These future deficits are driven almost exclusively by rising spending. As Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl noted earlier this year: "Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020 — an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government." There is a way out of this deficit nightmare: stop spending. If the federal government managed to return to the per-household spending level of the Reagan administration, the budget would be balanced by 2012 without any tax hikes. Too ambitious? Just returning to the per-household spending levels that existed before the current recession would balance the budget by 2019.
But that is not the route this President wants to take. President Obama wants to close the gap between what our government spends and what it takes in by raising taxes by $3 trillion. His Treasury secretary was on television yesterday claiming this massive tax tsunami would have no effect on economic growth. After last Friday's Mid-Session Budget Review exposed the failure of this Administration's economic stimulus claims, does anybody believe anything this Administration says anymore?
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The fix was in - NYPOST.com - This will make you Proud of the American Liberal Press!
This will make you even more suspect of the press coverage in many media outlets on TV, cable and the internet.....most are now considered State-Run...Thank God for Fox News....
The fix was in - NYPOST.com
The fix was in - NYPOST.com
Pelosi's lying Again!
Trust me Pelosi is lying through her ass.....this is all a statement to get votes from seniors in November, but seniors know better...this woman would cut her mother's throat if it was in her way.....her "pay as you go rules" haven't been used since they were passed....since everything is an EMERGENCY! She is a total joke and just another Democrat LIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 24, 2010 1:07 PM
Pelosi Opposed to Raising Retirement Age
Posted by Stephanie Condon
LAS VEGAS -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said unequivocally today that she is opposed to raising the retirement age, and that scaling back Social Security should not be a means of reducing the deficit.
"To change Social Security in order to balance the budget, they aren't the same thing in my view," the Democrat said today at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas. "When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you're talking about apples and oranges."
Pelosi clarified her position before a group of liberals highly concerned that Democrats and Republicans are interested in modifying Social Security as a means of deficit reduction in ways that would reduce its impact for Americans. The Netroots Nation conference, the largest gathering of liberals all year, even featured earlier this week a panel entitled, "Obama's Social Security 'Death Panel': Engaging Activists to Defeat the Drive to Cut Critical Social Programs."
By "Social Security Death Panel," liberals are referring to President Obama's deficit commission, which in December will give Congress a plan for reducing the federal deficit. Its co-chairs have repeatedly said that reform of entitlement programs must be a part of the solution. Pelosi has promised a vote on the commission's plan, and lawmakers have generally expressed interest in what the commission will recommend.
While Pelosi said today she opposes raising the retirement age, other Democratic leaders have said they would support it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said earlier this year he thinks raising the retirement age could be done with other modifications to ensure that Social Security benefits still support those most in need - such as paying out benefits on a progressive scale. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn has also said he would support raising the retirement age.
Pelosi said today that Democrats are "moving on all fronts to reduce the deficit" with pay-as-you-go rules and Mr. Obama's stern budget, and reinforced the need to keep Social Security solvent.
She also said, however, that it's important for Democrats to make clear to seniors that they support Social Security and oppose changes, such as privatization of the program.
July 24, 2010 1:07 PM
Pelosi Opposed to Raising Retirement Age
Posted by Stephanie Condon
LAS VEGAS -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said unequivocally today that she is opposed to raising the retirement age, and that scaling back Social Security should not be a means of reducing the deficit.
"To change Social Security in order to balance the budget, they aren't the same thing in my view," the Democrat said today at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas. "When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you're talking about apples and oranges."
Pelosi clarified her position before a group of liberals highly concerned that Democrats and Republicans are interested in modifying Social Security as a means of deficit reduction in ways that would reduce its impact for Americans. The Netroots Nation conference, the largest gathering of liberals all year, even featured earlier this week a panel entitled, "Obama's Social Security 'Death Panel': Engaging Activists to Defeat the Drive to Cut Critical Social Programs."
By "Social Security Death Panel," liberals are referring to President Obama's deficit commission, which in December will give Congress a plan for reducing the federal deficit. Its co-chairs have repeatedly said that reform of entitlement programs must be a part of the solution. Pelosi has promised a vote on the commission's plan, and lawmakers have generally expressed interest in what the commission will recommend.
While Pelosi said today she opposes raising the retirement age, other Democratic leaders have said they would support it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said earlier this year he thinks raising the retirement age could be done with other modifications to ensure that Social Security benefits still support those most in need - such as paying out benefits on a progressive scale. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn has also said he would support raising the retirement age.
Pelosi said today that Democrats are "moving on all fronts to reduce the deficit" with pay-as-you-go rules and Mr. Obama's stern budget, and reinforced the need to keep Social Security solvent.
She also said, however, that it's important for Democrats to make clear to seniors that they support Social Security and oppose changes, such as privatization of the program.
Two more Prominent Business People confirm Obama is Anti-Business
July 25, 2010
Obama is anti-business, Forbes and Zuckerman say
Posted: July 25th, 2010 12:05 PM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
Washington (CNN) – Just days after President Obama signed landmark legislation increasing oversight of Wall Street, he is again being slammed for being anti-business.
Asked about recent perceptions among business leaders that Obama is not in their corner, Steve Forbes, chairman and CEO of Forbes, Inc., agreed with that assessment.
“Well, the president clearly is [anti-business],” Forbes, a former Republican presidential hopeful, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “I mean you can take excesses [of some on Wall Street] and tar the whole business community, which is like taking election fraud and saying that's why we shouldn't have free elections. He caricatures them, and you saw it in that letter that his top aides sent to the Business Roundtable saying our doors are open even to the business community.”
Forbes told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley that the Obama administration would do well to heed some of the business community’s concerns.
“The business community employs 110 million people; companies and the people who work with them pay most of the taxes in this country. That's where the innovation comes from,” he said.
“So whenever business talks about the need for a stable currency, about the need for a better tax code, they always say, oh, well they're always whining, that's what they always want as if there's some dog that keeps barking or baby crying on an airplane instead of dealing with the substance of the thing. And that is: when you have a tax environment where you don't punish success, where you don't trample on the rule of laws – as they did with Chrysler and other situations - where you can trust the currency, where you're not going to have massive, thousands of new rules come and hit you, and you have no idea what they're going to be, they don't take that stuff seriously. They just think they're a bunch of greedy crybabies, and the business community is reacting to that.”
Mort Zuckerman, a Democratic supporter of Obama in the business community and the editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, told Crowley that he believes Obama’s rhetoric when it comes to the business community runs counter to the kind of confidence the economy needs right now to turn itself around.
“I'm not saying that Washington hasn't tried to do some good things,” Zuckerman told Crowley. “They've also done some things that I think are really, really very, very counter to trying to get this economy growing.
“One of them is not only regulation, but expensive regulation. The other is - and they've done something here that affects everybody's confidence in the attitudes of this administration to the business community and to the economy - they've demonized the business world; they've blamed everything on the business world. Frankly, I don't think that's accurate, but more than that, it's counterproductive to what this administration wants, which is a much more optimistic and confident business community.”
As passage of the Wall Street reform bill seemed imminent, the White House began battling the perception that it is anti-business. The top Republican in the House recently called for a moratorium on new federal regulations as a way to provide more certainty to businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, one of the key national voices on behalf of business interests, slammed the White House for not doing enough to create jobs. In a letter posted on its website, the chamber said the Obama administration "vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits and job-destroying regulations."
Obama is anti-business, Forbes and Zuckerman say
Posted: July 25th, 2010 12:05 PM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
Washington (CNN) – Just days after President Obama signed landmark legislation increasing oversight of Wall Street, he is again being slammed for being anti-business.
Asked about recent perceptions among business leaders that Obama is not in their corner, Steve Forbes, chairman and CEO of Forbes, Inc., agreed with that assessment.
“Well, the president clearly is [anti-business],” Forbes, a former Republican presidential hopeful, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “I mean you can take excesses [of some on Wall Street] and tar the whole business community, which is like taking election fraud and saying that's why we shouldn't have free elections. He caricatures them, and you saw it in that letter that his top aides sent to the Business Roundtable saying our doors are open even to the business community.”
Forbes told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley that the Obama administration would do well to heed some of the business community’s concerns.
“The business community employs 110 million people; companies and the people who work with them pay most of the taxes in this country. That's where the innovation comes from,” he said.
“So whenever business talks about the need for a stable currency, about the need for a better tax code, they always say, oh, well they're always whining, that's what they always want as if there's some dog that keeps barking or baby crying on an airplane instead of dealing with the substance of the thing. And that is: when you have a tax environment where you don't punish success, where you don't trample on the rule of laws – as they did with Chrysler and other situations - where you can trust the currency, where you're not going to have massive, thousands of new rules come and hit you, and you have no idea what they're going to be, they don't take that stuff seriously. They just think they're a bunch of greedy crybabies, and the business community is reacting to that.”
Mort Zuckerman, a Democratic supporter of Obama in the business community and the editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, told Crowley that he believes Obama’s rhetoric when it comes to the business community runs counter to the kind of confidence the economy needs right now to turn itself around.
“I'm not saying that Washington hasn't tried to do some good things,” Zuckerman told Crowley. “They've also done some things that I think are really, really very, very counter to trying to get this economy growing.
“One of them is not only regulation, but expensive regulation. The other is - and they've done something here that affects everybody's confidence in the attitudes of this administration to the business community and to the economy - they've demonized the business world; they've blamed everything on the business world. Frankly, I don't think that's accurate, but more than that, it's counterproductive to what this administration wants, which is a much more optimistic and confident business community.”
As passage of the Wall Street reform bill seemed imminent, the White House began battling the perception that it is anti-business. The top Republican in the House recently called for a moratorium on new federal regulations as a way to provide more certainty to businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, one of the key national voices on behalf of business interests, slammed the White House for not doing enough to create jobs. In a letter posted on its website, the chamber said the Obama administration "vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits and job-destroying regulations."
You have GOT to read the last sentence of this Article...Newt couldn't be more correct!!!
Gingrich: administration “destructive irresponsibility” - July 25, 2010
The Obama administration “acted with destructive irresponsibility in the way that they fired” former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) charged on Sunday.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gingrich refused to apologize for blasting Sherrod as “viciously racist” based on incomplete video excerpts that misportrayed Sherrod, who is African American, as boasting about using her Agriculture Department post to discriminate against a white farmer.
Asked if that were irresponsible of him, Gingrich told host Chris Wallace that it was the Obama administration that acted rashly by firing Sherrod before the all the facts were known.
“Remember, I was acting in the context of the secretary of agriculture having summarily fired her,” Gingrich told Wallace. “And, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the clip and what you see is one more example of the Obama administration’s continuing incompetence,” said Gingrich, adding “it’s very worrisome to me” that the administration felt compelled to fire Sherrod before the full context of the video was made public, because they feared that the video would be featured prominently Glenn Beck’s Fox News show.
“If the Obama administration is this afraid of Glenn Beck, how do they deal with the Iranians?” Gingrich asked.
The Obama administration “acted with destructive irresponsibility in the way that they fired” former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) charged on Sunday.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gingrich refused to apologize for blasting Sherrod as “viciously racist” based on incomplete video excerpts that misportrayed Sherrod, who is African American, as boasting about using her Agriculture Department post to discriminate against a white farmer.
Asked if that were irresponsible of him, Gingrich told host Chris Wallace that it was the Obama administration that acted rashly by firing Sherrod before the all the facts were known.
“Remember, I was acting in the context of the secretary of agriculture having summarily fired her,” Gingrich told Wallace. “And, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the clip and what you see is one more example of the Obama administration’s continuing incompetence,” said Gingrich, adding “it’s very worrisome to me” that the administration felt compelled to fire Sherrod before the full context of the video was made public, because they feared that the video would be featured prominently Glenn Beck’s Fox News show.
“If the Obama administration is this afraid of Glenn Beck, how do they deal with the Iranians?” Gingrich asked.
Dean: Fox News “racist” - OH and Howard Dean is Credible??????
Howard Dean is nothing but a Democratic Liberal Blowhard....that's why the American People totally rejected him as a presidential candidate....who would believe anything he has to say....
POLITICO: Dean: Fox News “racist” - POLITICO Live - Dean: Fox News “racist”
POLITICO: Dean: Fox News “racist” - POLITICO Live - Dean: Fox News “racist”
Obama Lying AGAIN...this time about the release of the Lockerbie Bomber....
Here's another blatant example of Obama out and out lying to the American People. Just last week he said he was surprised when the Lockerbie bomber was released yet he and his administration secretly backed the release...This President and his Administration has a big problem with the truth!!!!
White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi
Jason Allardyce and Tony Allen-Mills From: The Australian July 26, 2010 12:00AM
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release".
The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.
It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi's doctors thought he could live for another decade.
A source close to the Senate inquiry said: "The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer."
Last week, a succession of British politicians - including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate's hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi's release.
Despite the controversy over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Megrahi's release, it emerged over the weekend that BP is planning deep-water drilling off Libya.
And BP boss Tony Hayward is poised to quit this week when the company announces its half-year results, London's Sunday Telegraph reported.
White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi
Jason Allardyce and Tony Allen-Mills From: The Australian July 26, 2010 12:00AM
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release".
The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.
It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi's doctors thought he could live for another decade.
A source close to the Senate inquiry said: "The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer."
Last week, a succession of British politicians - including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate's hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi's release.
Despite the controversy over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Megrahi's release, it emerged over the weekend that BP is planning deep-water drilling off Libya.
And BP boss Tony Hayward is poised to quit this week when the company announces its half-year results, London's Sunday Telegraph reported.
YouCut.com....check it out!!!!
If you haven't already checked out YouCut.com you need to....It's the brainstorm of minority whip Eric Cantor and it offers Americans the opportunity to vote on wasteful uses of taxpayer money...the winning entry is presented in front of the House for an up and down vote...and despite this site being populated by over 1.3 million Americans, not one proposal has been adopted by the Democratic House. It's obvious that the democrats have no appetite to reduce taxpayer waste and reduce the deficit....See this week's article from Eric below and take the time to pull up the site and vote...It's an easy way to get involved and be more aware of the tremendous taxpayer waste that the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress is supporting! Much of it is just CRIMINAL!
From Eric Cantor, Republican House Minority Whip....7/25/2010
House Republicans have already offered more than $120 billion in common-sense spending reductions, backed by over 1.3 million votes from the American People.
This week's YouCut winner, proposed by Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, highlights a particularly egregious example of government waste - taxpayer subsidized "sleeper car" Amtrak service. Right now, people are enjoying first-class travel complete with evening turn-down service, complimentary movies, meals and access to first-class lounges thanks to over $100 million a year in taxpayer subsidies.
Is it really fair to ask taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to pay their own bills, to subsidize these luxuries? We brought this YouCut item to the House floor and forced an up-or-down vote on ending this wasteful spending, so that you could see where your Representatives stood on that question.
The next five cuts are already up on the website - will you vote for cutting the $1 billion in paycheck subsidies under a program where most recipients don't even meet the program's self-defined requirements? Or perhaps you will vote to cut the millions of your tax dollars going to pay for election campaigns in other countries?
Each week, it is your voice that enables the YouCut program to keep the spotlight on wasteful spending - click here to cast your vote on the next five YouCut proposals. Together, we are changing the culture of spending that dominates Washington into a culture of savings.
Regards,
Eric Cantor
House Republican Whip
From Eric Cantor, Republican House Minority Whip....7/25/2010
House Republicans have already offered more than $120 billion in common-sense spending reductions, backed by over 1.3 million votes from the American People.
This week's YouCut winner, proposed by Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, highlights a particularly egregious example of government waste - taxpayer subsidized "sleeper car" Amtrak service. Right now, people are enjoying first-class travel complete with evening turn-down service, complimentary movies, meals and access to first-class lounges thanks to over $100 million a year in taxpayer subsidies.
Is it really fair to ask taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to pay their own bills, to subsidize these luxuries? We brought this YouCut item to the House floor and forced an up-or-down vote on ending this wasteful spending, so that you could see where your Representatives stood on that question.
The next five cuts are already up on the website - will you vote for cutting the $1 billion in paycheck subsidies under a program where most recipients don't even meet the program's self-defined requirements? Or perhaps you will vote to cut the millions of your tax dollars going to pay for election campaigns in other countries?
Each week, it is your voice that enables the YouCut program to keep the spotlight on wasteful spending - click here to cast your vote on the next five YouCut proposals. Together, we are changing the culture of spending that dominates Washington into a culture of savings.
Regards,
Eric Cantor
House Republican Whip
New Zeal: "Picture of the Year"!...This is what is happening America...November elections are very important!
Take a look at this picture of the year...it's exactly what Obama and his corrupt Administration along with the Democratic party is doing to America!...Elections have consequences and this Novembers elections are particularly important....it's time Take America Back and restore out rights...but to do that we HAVE TO give control of both the House and Senate back to Conservative Republicans....we have to get rid of all the Democrat Liberals, Progressives and Socialists....and even the RINOs...we need conservative leadership to begin to right this ship called the United States of America!
New Zeal: "Picture of the Year"#links
New Zeal: "Picture of the Year"#links
Lawsuit with the FEC on legality of Obama's relationship/dealings with Acorn and the 2008 Election.
Interesting video...can't verify the allegations, but if there's anything here it might serve to continue to show the corruption in this Administration and the stealing of the election in 2008....Stay tuned to see what happens....
Great Video...Fla. Congressional Candidate Allen West about healing America's racial divide...He Get's It!
Florida Congressional Candidate Allen West understands race...He gets it....It's about colorlessness...not about black and white...it's about being American, not African American....This is what Obama should be talking about with respect to race....I really like this guy...he's a stand up guy with a rich military background...he's articulate and has great charisma.....
Reid to progressives: Don’t give up on us! | MORE REASONS THAT HARRY REID NEEDS TO GET BEAT IN NOV.
Here are more reasons to make certain Dirty Harry Reid gets beaten in the November election....!...This guy is dangerous just like his cohorts, Pelosi and Obama.
Reid to progressives: Don’t give up on us! | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Reid to progressives: Don’t give up on us! | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
The Insanity of CNN...No wonder no one watches!
This is just and example of the insanity of CNN...first of the comments that states' rights if racist is ridiculous!....this is the United STATES of America....not the Federal Government of America....states have rights and they are mostly rights that are now getting trampled on by Obama and his regime.....and then to say that we have to talk race because we are all brothers and sisters is also stupid...if we are all brothers and sisters we need to not talk race, not see race, not refer to race...what we need to a colorblind society!....But since we are talking color, why doesn't CNN have anyone but black commentators on their Sherry Sherrod Special....should those of us that are not black take that as racist????? Again it's no Wonder that No One Watches CNN!
White House dispatches Florida team to contain spill's political backlash - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com
Why on earth would the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida be at all pleased with the Federal Government's response to the spill????? Why would they ever vote democratic again???? Obama was LATE to begin to react to the tragedy....when he did you couldn't determine who if anyone was in charge..(that's still a problem)...finally after public outcries Obama said he was in charge...he's ONLY made 4 visits to the area in 97 days!!!! That an average of more than three weeks between visits....(and he hasn't visited the area in well over a month and half most recently).....sure he's sent "Babbling Biden" down there and his wife down there, but when they vacation they go to Maine????...(again now after all kinds of outcries he will take a long weekend in Florida in August)....He did "shake down" BP for a $20 Billion fund even though they have never once denied responsibility for the event or it's result....his claims czar, Mr Feingold is now in charge and it doesn't appear the payments are coming any faster....Obama not only put a moratorium on future drilling which will cost tens of thousands of jobs, but he has been unwilling to accept a court decision and an appeal decision to overturn his moratorium order and just placed new moratorium orders in place to snub his nose at the courts....(does this man think he's above the law of the land and the courts' decisions?.....AND he's virtually avoided the entire subject for well over a month thinking/hoping that it will just go away.....This is NO LEADER...this in NOT SOMEONE IN CHARGE....He, his party, and his regime should be concerned...If I lived in any of these states I would not vote for a Democrat again for a long, long time!
White House dispatches Florida team to contain spill's political backlash - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com
White House dispatches Florida team to contain spill's political backlash - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com
Another Reason why Reid, Pelosi and Obama have to be voted out of office!
Another Reason why Dirty Harry Reid, Princess Pelosi and Obama have to go!....They have no intention to stop socialist legislation to change America...They are still and will continue to try to get a single payer public option in healthcare despite the lies they will spew publicly. This Regime has to voted out starting in November...Nothing more I'd like to see than Dirty Harry Reid looking for alternative employment! Maybe he could get a job as a dealer in Vegas...that would be more up his alley!
Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"
By Philip Klein on 7.24.10 @ 6:54PM
LAS VEGAS -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.
"We're going to have a public option," Reid said. "It's just a question of when."
Reid's general comments reflected the same overall message to progressives that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered earlier today. It essentially boils down to: We've done a lot of stuff, but we still have a lot of unfinished business, so campaign for us again.
During a question and answer session, Reid also argued against "fear tactics of those who say Social Security is going broke. It's not."
This is part of a strategy I described earlier this week, with Democrats renewing the spectre of Social Security cuts to use as an issue to use against Republicans.
"Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," he said.
Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"
By Philip Klein on 7.24.10 @ 6:54PM
LAS VEGAS -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.
"We're going to have a public option," Reid said. "It's just a question of when."
Reid's general comments reflected the same overall message to progressives that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered earlier today. It essentially boils down to: We've done a lot of stuff, but we still have a lot of unfinished business, so campaign for us again.
During a question and answer session, Reid also argued against "fear tactics of those who say Social Security is going broke. It's not."
This is part of a strategy I described earlier this week, with Democrats renewing the spectre of Social Security cuts to use as an issue to use against Republicans.
"Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," he said.
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care...we Just Centralized It!
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care to provide more choice, more efficiency and less beauracracy......It will cost beauracratic government jobs, but will save significant money while providing more choice for it's citizens and better doctor/patient relationships!.....Sounds Great....Why have we just gone in the opposite direction?????????????????????????
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care
By SARAH LYALL
Published: July 24, 2010
LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
The new British government’s plan to drastically reshape the socialized health care system would put local physicians like Dr. Marita Koumettou in north London in control of much of the national health budget.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.
The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems.
The government announced the proposals this month. Reactions to them range from pleased to highly skeptical.
Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers.
It is likely that many such groups would have to spend money to hire outside managers to manage their budgets and negotiate with the providers, thus canceling out some of the savings.
David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget.
“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.”
But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals.
“One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.”
Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were “far too many bureaucratic hurdles to leap” in the system, impeding communication. “In many places, the communication between G.P.’s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,” he said.
The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service.
The government has promised that the new plan will not affect patient care and that the health care budget will not be cut. But some experts say those assertions are misleading. The previous government, controlled by the Labour Party, poured money into the health service — the budget is now about three times what it was when Labour took over, in 1997 — but the increases have stopped. The government has said the budget will continue to rise in real terms for the next five years, but it is unlikely that the increases will keep up with the rising costs of care and the demands of an aging population.
“The real mistake that is being made by the health secretary is to drive through an ideologically determined program of reorganization which is motivated by the principle of efficiency savings,” said Robin Durie, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Exeter. “History shows clearly that quality will suffer as a consequence.”
Dr. Durie added, “The gulf between the rhetoric of the white paper and the technicalities of what is involved in the various elements of the overall reorganization being proposed is just extraordinary.”
For example, he asked, how will the government make good on its promise to give patients more choice — a promise that seems to require a degree of administrative oversight — while cutting so many managers from the system?
“How will the delivery of all this choice be funded?” Dr. Durie asked. “And how will the management of the delivery of choice be funded?”
Dr. Vautrey said the country needed to have a “mature debate about what the N.H.S. can and cannot afford.”
He said: “It is a sign of the mixed messages that government sends out. They talk about choice and competition and increased patient expectations at the same time as they tell the service they need to cut costs and refer less and prescribe less. People need to understand that while the needs of everyone may be met, their wants will be limited.”
As they prepare for the change, many doctors are wondering whether it will be permanent this time around.
“Many of our colleagues have seen this cycle of change repeatedly,” Dr. Vautrey said. “Many would look at previous reorganizations and compare it to this one and wonder how long the current change will last before the next one comes along.”
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care
By SARAH LYALL
Published: July 24, 2010
LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
The new British government’s plan to drastically reshape the socialized health care system would put local physicians like Dr. Marita Koumettou in north London in control of much of the national health budget.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.
The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems.
The government announced the proposals this month. Reactions to them range from pleased to highly skeptical.
Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers.
It is likely that many such groups would have to spend money to hire outside managers to manage their budgets and negotiate with the providers, thus canceling out some of the savings.
David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget.
“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.”
But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals.
“One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.”
Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were “far too many bureaucratic hurdles to leap” in the system, impeding communication. “In many places, the communication between G.P.’s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,” he said.
The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service.
The government has promised that the new plan will not affect patient care and that the health care budget will not be cut. But some experts say those assertions are misleading. The previous government, controlled by the Labour Party, poured money into the health service — the budget is now about three times what it was when Labour took over, in 1997 — but the increases have stopped. The government has said the budget will continue to rise in real terms for the next five years, but it is unlikely that the increases will keep up with the rising costs of care and the demands of an aging population.
“The real mistake that is being made by the health secretary is to drive through an ideologically determined program of reorganization which is motivated by the principle of efficiency savings,” said Robin Durie, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Exeter. “History shows clearly that quality will suffer as a consequence.”
Dr. Durie added, “The gulf between the rhetoric of the white paper and the technicalities of what is involved in the various elements of the overall reorganization being proposed is just extraordinary.”
For example, he asked, how will the government make good on its promise to give patients more choice — a promise that seems to require a degree of administrative oversight — while cutting so many managers from the system?
“How will the delivery of all this choice be funded?” Dr. Durie asked. “And how will the management of the delivery of choice be funded?”
Dr. Vautrey said the country needed to have a “mature debate about what the N.H.S. can and cannot afford.”
He said: “It is a sign of the mixed messages that government sends out. They talk about choice and competition and increased patient expectations at the same time as they tell the service they need to cut costs and refer less and prescribe less. People need to understand that while the needs of everyone may be met, their wants will be limited.”
As they prepare for the change, many doctors are wondering whether it will be permanent this time around.
“Many of our colleagues have seen this cycle of change repeatedly,” Dr. Vautrey said. “Many would look at previous reorganizations and compare it to this one and wonder how long the current change will last before the next one comes along.”
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Obama tries to refocus news cycle on his victories after Sherrod fiasco | This was NOT a week of Victories!
This was not a week of victories as Obama said it was....they passed a terrible financial reform bill that will fix nothing, but will create bigger government, put more regulations on business which will continue to slow the economy, will take jobs overseas, established race and gender quotas for Federal Agencies, and DOESN'T impact Freddie and Fannie which were very much a part of the past financial crisis and are costing us an arm and leg as taxpayers right now!....Then he increased the deficit by passing the extention of the unemployment benefits which is the exact opposite position he took last November, but he really doesn't care about mounting deficit...all extended unemployment will do is keep many folks away from going back to work for 99 weeks instead of 26 weeks so unemployment will not get any better!......
And as for Shirley Sherrod he blew that big time....and unfortunately now he's stuck with her and from what I've heard she is a ticking bomb waiting to go off...he is praying she goes away fast!
But what didn't he talk about this week....The Oil Spill...he's trying to run away from his mismanagement of that as fast as he can..hasn't visited the area in more than a month....hasn't talked about the issues in North Korea...who runs international affairs anyway?....Barack or Hillary???? It seems like we have two presidents...Barack who just spends money he doesn't have on people that don't work and contribute and Hillary who just flys around the world visiting other countries and making nice speeches.
IF this is a week of victories, I would like to see a week of failures....
And Oh by the way part of the reason Obama got to do what he did this past week is thanks to three RINO Republicans.....Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown...not sure any of them should be reelected...you might was well have a Democrat in their seats for the way they are voting....Dirty Harry Reid must have party pictures on them!
Obama tries to refocus news cycle on his victories after Sherrod fiasco | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
And as for Shirley Sherrod he blew that big time....and unfortunately now he's stuck with her and from what I've heard she is a ticking bomb waiting to go off...he is praying she goes away fast!
But what didn't he talk about this week....The Oil Spill...he's trying to run away from his mismanagement of that as fast as he can..hasn't visited the area in more than a month....hasn't talked about the issues in North Korea...who runs international affairs anyway?....Barack or Hillary???? It seems like we have two presidents...Barack who just spends money he doesn't have on people that don't work and contribute and Hillary who just flys around the world visiting other countries and making nice speeches.
IF this is a week of victories, I would like to see a week of failures....
And Oh by the way part of the reason Obama got to do what he did this past week is thanks to three RINO Republicans.....Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown...not sure any of them should be reelected...you might was well have a Democrat in their seats for the way they are voting....Dirty Harry Reid must have party pictures on them!
Obama tries to refocus news cycle on his victories after Sherrod fiasco | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Van Jones: Stop worrying about the deficit. The government can just take more money from rich companies | Here is the Scary Truth about Obama!
Here's the scary truth about the Obama Agenda....here's one of his advisors telling you what the real goal is....take money from rich companies to forward the Obama social justice/redistribution of wealth agenda. If you think he's kidding, think again!....we will end up like communist Russia in the 70's if we allow this to continue...This is AMERICA!....It was built on intiative, hard work and the dream that could/will all pay off for individuals and companys....That's NOT the vision of Obama and his Administration...and not the vision of the Liberals, Progressives and Socialists in the Democratic Congress!...
The elections this November REALLY MATTER!...We have do all we can to give control of the House and Senate to Conservative Republicans!....OR the Van Jones Comments in the Article below will become reality and we can hang up the American Dream....It's time to take AMERICA BACK!
Van Jones: Stop worrying about the deficit. The government can just take more money from rich companies | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
The elections this November REALLY MATTER!...We have do all we can to give control of the House and Senate to Conservative Republicans!....OR the Van Jones Comments in the Article below will become reality and we can hang up the American Dream....It's time to take AMERICA BACK!
Van Jones: Stop worrying about the deficit. The government can just take more money from rich companies | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
it time for the Republican Party to Stick Together!
I completely agree with Rush....It's time for the Republicans to totally stick together...there's a greater good here and it's essential that the party support itself....from my view most of the problems are coming from the career politicians and that in and of itself is a problem....WE NEED TERM LIMITS on Congress!...no one should be able to make a career out of serving in Congress....people get jaded...they get power hungry....they distort their views so they can continue to get elected and that's not good for America....But this year it is time for the Republican Party to stick together...and we need to Tea Party to also support the republicans...it's their best shot to get what they want going forward...smaller government, lower taxes, constitutional governance, and better national security.....Now is NOT the time for internal bickering!
Friday, July 23, 2010
Obama's Dangerous Health Care Plan [Obama's Microchip MARK] - Are you ready to get "tagged"?
This is another disturbing article about Obamacare....Don't put it past this President and this Regime to try to tag every human being....it's the beginning of Big Brother....that's what big government gets you....next is it Dictatorship?...It's time to take America Back!...This November's election is Very, Very Important! Vote these socialists out!
Obama’s Dangerous Health Care Plan [Obama's Microchip MARK]
Obama’s Dangerous Health Care Plan [Obama's Microchip MARK]
Yes, A Period of Consequences
A great article....Yes it's a period of consequences....AND elections have consequences as we have seen after the election of Barack Obama and seen the destruction of the American Way of Life as we know it....Big Government, Big Spending, Overarching Entitlements, Distribution of Wealth, Substandard National Position and Defense, Big Taxes, Huge Regulation, No Economic Growth, No Recovery despite record spending (most of which was waste), Socialist leaning leadership and a Corrupt, Untruthful, Back Room Dealing Administration!.....
This November's Elections will have consequences also and that's why we have to take it very seriously...we have to communicate with others...get them out to vote in a Conservative Republican Controlled House and Senate....Get rid of the Democrats, the Liberals, the Progressives, the Socialists and even the RINOs.....We have to begin to get control of America Back...we have to get American back to where our founders wanted it to be....Yes Elections Have Consequences!
Yes, A Period of Consequences
This November's Elections will have consequences also and that's why we have to take it very seriously...we have to communicate with others...get them out to vote in a Conservative Republican Controlled House and Senate....Get rid of the Democrats, the Liberals, the Progressives, the Socialists and even the RINOs.....We have to begin to get control of America Back...we have to get American back to where our founders wanted it to be....Yes Elections Have Consequences!
Yes, A Period of Consequences
Obama has Wasted a Ton of our Taxpayer Money!
Obama has us in a Great Position doesn't he?????....He's wasted more taxpayer money since taking office than all the Presidents that preceded him...and he still wants to spend and has no fear of continuing to increase the deficit....It's the wrong direction for our nation and soon we will be in the position that Greece is in right now....At least in Europe the leadership has realized they have to get the situation under control...This President Just Doesn't Get IT!!!!...but most Americans know what has to happen and they will express that this November at the Polls...we need Conservative Republicans to take control of the House and Senate...get rid of the Democrat Liberals, Progressives, Socialists and also get rid of the RINOs...those Republicans In Name Only!!!!....
White House Predicts Record $1.47 Trillion Deficit
Published July 23, 2010
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments (3) Text Size
New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
That's actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.
The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.
The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 -- a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.
"The U.S. economy still faces strong headwinds," the OMB report said. They include tight credit markets, a high inventory of unsold housing and retrenchment by state governments bound by balanced budget mandates. The European debt crisis has also had an impact.
"Despite these headwinds, the administration expects economic growth and job creation to continue for the rest of 2010 and to rise in 2011 and beyond," the report said.
The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters. But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission.
While there's a slight improvement in the deficit for the current year, next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth of red ink -- that's 37 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent -- is looking worse. It's about $150 billion more than previously predicted, because of still-slumping tax revenues.
OMB Director Peter Orszag said the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Obama "has done little to confront this domestic enemy," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "Washington desperately needs real leadership. We cannot continue to postpone the hard choices and sacrifices that are necessary to stop this fiscal train wreck."
Deficits have skyrocketed since the recession took hold in 2008 and Congress responded with a massive bailout of the financial system and last year's $862 billion stimulus measure.
"What we should be doing now is putting in place deficit reduction policies that will kick in after the economy has more fully recovered," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota. "It is an unsustainable long-term course."
White House Predicts Record $1.47 Trillion Deficit
Published July 23, 2010
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments (3) Text Size
New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
That's actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.
The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.
The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 -- a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.
"The U.S. economy still faces strong headwinds," the OMB report said. They include tight credit markets, a high inventory of unsold housing and retrenchment by state governments bound by balanced budget mandates. The European debt crisis has also had an impact.
"Despite these headwinds, the administration expects economic growth and job creation to continue for the rest of 2010 and to rise in 2011 and beyond," the report said.
The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters. But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission.
While there's a slight improvement in the deficit for the current year, next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth of red ink -- that's 37 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent -- is looking worse. It's about $150 billion more than previously predicted, because of still-slumping tax revenues.
OMB Director Peter Orszag said the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Obama "has done little to confront this domestic enemy," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "Washington desperately needs real leadership. We cannot continue to postpone the hard choices and sacrifices that are necessary to stop this fiscal train wreck."
Deficits have skyrocketed since the recession took hold in 2008 and Congress responded with a massive bailout of the financial system and last year's $862 billion stimulus measure.
"What we should be doing now is putting in place deficit reduction policies that will kick in after the economy has more fully recovered," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota. "It is an unsustainable long-term course."
Trust, but No Need to Verify!
You will feel much safer with Obama in charge after you read this from the Heritage Foundation on missile defenses and our efforts to verify if the Russians are or are not following their end of the START Treaty....This President and his administration are just totally incompetent and they are going to get us into big trouble!
NEW START, New Slogan ... Trust But Don't Verify
In 1987, at the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), President Ronald Reagan summarized his approach to arms-control by citing an old Russian proverb: "doveryai, no proveryai." Translation: trust, but verify. When Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev noted, "You say that at every meeting," Reagan shot back, "I like it."
Like everything else the Obama administration does, their approach to arms control is the exact opposite of President Reagan. As the following exchange from this Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee New START hearing shows, the Obama administration approach to arms control might as well be, "trust, but don't bother to verify." Here is the crucial exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and U.S. Strategic Command Commander, Air Force General Kevin Chilton:
Sen. McCain: General Chilton, do you agree with the unclassified statement in the State Department Verification Assessment that ‘any cheating by the Russians would have little, if any, effect?’
General Chilton: Senator McCain, I do agree with that…
Sen. McCain: Well, what this brings to the casual observer's mind, General, is if it doesn't have any consequences if they do any cheating, what's the point in having a treaty?
Only in the bizarro world of the Obama administration is this country made any safer by signing treaty that the counter party has no intention of following. And that is just the beginning of New START's many fatal flaws.
Not only has it been clearly established that New START's verification mechanisms are completely inadequate to protect our country, but it is increasingly becoming clear that the Obama administration significantly weakened our missile defenses in order to get the Russians to sign.
From the beginning it was clear that New START's preamble, which is a binding provision, linked our missile defense capabilities with Russian arms reductions. The Russians also made it clear on the day the treaty was signed that they believe New START limits our missile defenses. Since then, despite Obama administration claims to the contrary, experts have uncovered more and more limitations to our missile defense capabilities throughout the treaty's other provisions.
Now there are reports that U.S. negotiators actually told the Russians that the U.S. had no intention of deploying strategic missile defenses in Europe. The Senate cannot in good faith sign off on this agreement until these statements are verified. The full negotiation records must be released.
Proponents of New START promise virtual Armageddon should the Senate reject the treaty. This is fear-mongering nonsense. As Heritage fellow Peter Brookes has noted.
Today, the levels of strategic nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia are governed by the Bush-era Moscow Treaty or as its technically known, the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Strategic Offensive Reductions. The Moscow Treaty is still in force, is currently limiting the size of both strategic nuclear arsenals, and will remain so until the end of 2012, if New START is not ratified.
But more importantly the Obama administration's obsession with New START betrays their antiquated Cold War mind set regarding national security. The greatest nuclear threat our country faces today comes from Iran and North Korea; countries not bound by New START and with a proven track record of not caring about what example such an agreement might set.
The better way to protect America is through a "protect and defend" strategy: allow the U.S. and Russia to reduce operationally deployed warheads below Moscow treaty levels while leaving missile defenses unconstrained. Instead of signing treaties that weaken our missile defenses we should be signing mutual commitment agreements to field cooperative missile defenses against strategic attacks. Finally, we should also pursue bilateral treaties with Russia and others to counter nuclear-armed terrorism.
New START only limits our ability to defend ourselves while offering no new verifiable commitments from the Russians. This is not an agreement Reagan would sign.
NEW START, New Slogan ... Trust But Don't Verify
In 1987, at the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), President Ronald Reagan summarized his approach to arms-control by citing an old Russian proverb: "doveryai, no proveryai." Translation: trust, but verify. When Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev noted, "You say that at every meeting," Reagan shot back, "I like it."
Like everything else the Obama administration does, their approach to arms control is the exact opposite of President Reagan. As the following exchange from this Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee New START hearing shows, the Obama administration approach to arms control might as well be, "trust, but don't bother to verify." Here is the crucial exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and U.S. Strategic Command Commander, Air Force General Kevin Chilton:
Sen. McCain: General Chilton, do you agree with the unclassified statement in the State Department Verification Assessment that ‘any cheating by the Russians would have little, if any, effect?’
General Chilton: Senator McCain, I do agree with that…
Sen. McCain: Well, what this brings to the casual observer's mind, General, is if it doesn't have any consequences if they do any cheating, what's the point in having a treaty?
Only in the bizarro world of the Obama administration is this country made any safer by signing treaty that the counter party has no intention of following. And that is just the beginning of New START's many fatal flaws.
Not only has it been clearly established that New START's verification mechanisms are completely inadequate to protect our country, but it is increasingly becoming clear that the Obama administration significantly weakened our missile defenses in order to get the Russians to sign.
From the beginning it was clear that New START's preamble, which is a binding provision, linked our missile defense capabilities with Russian arms reductions. The Russians also made it clear on the day the treaty was signed that they believe New START limits our missile defenses. Since then, despite Obama administration claims to the contrary, experts have uncovered more and more limitations to our missile defense capabilities throughout the treaty's other provisions.
Now there are reports that U.S. negotiators actually told the Russians that the U.S. had no intention of deploying strategic missile defenses in Europe. The Senate cannot in good faith sign off on this agreement until these statements are verified. The full negotiation records must be released.
Proponents of New START promise virtual Armageddon should the Senate reject the treaty. This is fear-mongering nonsense. As Heritage fellow Peter Brookes has noted.
Today, the levels of strategic nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia are governed by the Bush-era Moscow Treaty or as its technically known, the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Strategic Offensive Reductions. The Moscow Treaty is still in force, is currently limiting the size of both strategic nuclear arsenals, and will remain so until the end of 2012, if New START is not ratified.
But more importantly the Obama administration's obsession with New START betrays their antiquated Cold War mind set regarding national security. The greatest nuclear threat our country faces today comes from Iran and North Korea; countries not bound by New START and with a proven track record of not caring about what example such an agreement might set.
The better way to protect America is through a "protect and defend" strategy: allow the U.S. and Russia to reduce operationally deployed warheads below Moscow treaty levels while leaving missile defenses unconstrained. Instead of signing treaties that weaken our missile defenses we should be signing mutual commitment agreements to field cooperative missile defenses against strategic attacks. Finally, we should also pursue bilateral treaties with Russia and others to counter nuclear-armed terrorism.
New START only limits our ability to defend ourselves while offering no new verifiable commitments from the Russians. This is not an agreement Reagan would sign.
A Retired Major General speaks out....Impeach Obama!
Retired Major General Vallely....says Impeach Obama if we want to take America Back...we may not have two more years to get this correct what progressive socialism is doing to us!
Just Found a Great New Website
Just found a great new website...www.removerinos.com.....I'm all for that...these congressmen/women have voted like democrats and don't deserve to be reelected for another term. And I'm not sure Scott Brown shouldn't be part of this group as well....he's caved for several big pieces of democratic legislation recently...most recently the financial reform bill....
My take is if the best you can do is elect these folks, then you might as well have a democrat in office...It's time for conservative Republicans to be in Congress so we have a chance to Take Back America for the liberal, progressive, and socialist Obama agenda!
My take is if the best you can do is elect these folks, then you might as well have a democrat in office...It's time for conservative Republicans to be in Congress so we have a chance to Take Back America for the liberal, progressive, and socialist Obama agenda!
Republican Senate candidate fires new salvo in the next battle of Tea Party versus ‘RINO’ | Wake up Delaware..Do NOT elect a RINO!
Wake up Delaware...Do not elect a RINO....you might as well have a democrat in office...get the passions up...get the vote out and elect O'Donnell and get some Real Change!
Republican Senate candidate fires new salvo in the next battle of Tea Party versus ‘RINO’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Republican Senate candidate fires new salvo in the next battle of Tea Party versus ‘RINO’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)