Friday, February 17, 2012

TSA HELP WANTED ? HELP OUR :" BIG SIS " GIVE HER A HAND ?

Posted by Herbie Swartz 11:54 pm 2-17

LIBERTY COUNSEL ACTION PETITION !

posted by BH 10:26 pm 2-17

  I think anyone can sign up or Join First and then Sign the Petition...Bill

Mathew Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, a leading member of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, recently said the Obama administration is “…as close to a monarchy as there’s been since the days of George III.”  The President has once again grossly overstepped the constitutional authority of his office with his “contraceptive and abortifacient mandate,” and Americans have had enough. 
This latest usurpation is just the tip of Obama’s iceberg of unconstitutional mandates that are emerging during the implementation of ObamaCare. The ObamaCare “mandates” threaten the liberties of ALL Americans and must be stopped!  Please read my very important update below – Mat
William,

Our forefathers fought and died to overcome tyranny.  


Our Constitution was designed to prevent the abuse of power by any one person or branch of government.  It defines and limits the powers of the federal government and binds its officers with the restraints of checks and balances.


For the past three years, America has suffered under the leadership of one of the most dangerous administrations in American history. This autocratic President has trampled the Constitution, seized self-appointed power, and imposed “mandates” that differ little from dictatorial commands.


++Putting Obama’s unconstitutional “ObamaCare mandates” into perspective…


In his ObamaCare “contraception mandate,”
Barack Obama is forcing insurance companies and self-insured religious organizations to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to Americans who want to pay for neither.

In the unconstitutional “individual mandate” at the core of ObamaCare, you are required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.


The “contraception and abortifacient mandate” requires religious organizations, either through their insurance premiums directly if self-insured, to pay for chemical abortions. 
In short, the “contraception and abortifacient mandate” blatantly violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.
Plus, it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a law which was duly enacted during President Clinton’s term of office.  It is an assault on our conscience and collides the government against religious freedom.

Here’s the simple bottom line: The mandate is unlawful!  


++A “lawless administration.”


President Obama’s “mandates” have not only stretched the Constitution – they have broken it!  Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently declared that the Obama administration “has become a lawless administration.”  


When a President refuses to enforce the law of the land, he has broken faith with his oath of office. He has become a law breaker –in this case, the broken law is the Constitution of the United States.
Sadly, we have seen unprecedented presidential tyranny in practice for the three years Barack Obama has been in office.
++Legislative attempts to correct this alarming situation…

Right now in Congress, there are three pieces of legislation making their way through both Chambers that can counter the “contraceptive and abortifacient mandate”:


1.) Senator Roy Blunt's S.1318 is coming up for a Senate vote. Sen. Blount wrote, "This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don't have to follow that [ObamaCare] mandate if it violates their faith principles."


2.) Congressman Jeff Fortenberry's, "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act" has been approved for a House vote. Representative Fortenberry wrote that his Act, "…would repeal the controversial [ObamaCare] mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage."


3.) Senator Marco Rubio's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012" is headed for a Senate committee and will, "…repeal a new ObamaCare mandate that violates the religious liberties and conscience rights of faith-based institutions by forcing them to offer employees insurance coverage for contraceptives."  


Liberty Counsel Action is supporting the passage of all or any of these bills – which will likely be reconciled into one bill if the individual measures pass their respective Chamber.
I am calling on you to take a minute to tell your elected officials to pass these bills!  This is extremely important!
I urge you to take action with us and sign Liberty Counsel Action’s petition to stop Barack Obama’s subversion of our religious liberties and conscience rights.  With your help, we will be delivering multiplied tens of thousands of petitions to key Members of the House and Senate very soon.

Please, click here to sign: 
http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp

A recent CNS News headline describes the issue’s urgency: “Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, and Jewish Leaders Swear Disobedience to HHS Contraception Mandate.”


Challenged with the choice of going against the federal government or violating their religious faith and moral consciences, these leaders are standing up to this outrageous new “mandate"!
Liberty Counsel Action stands with these courageous leaders! 
In a recent Congressional hearing, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik told representatives, “Freedom of conscience and of religion… is first and most sacred to Americans.”

The leaders I’ve mentioned, and a great many more, know the danger of allowing this attack on people of faith to stand. They know this mandate is the proverbial “camel’s nose in the tent.”


William, I am simply asking you to sign a petition to STOP President Obama’s mandates BEFORE we are forced to make even more difficult decisions.


Please, click here to add your name to this critical petition, which will soon be delivered to Capitol Hill:


http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp


I am both pleased by your resolute patriotism and deeply humbled to stand with you against tyranny in defense of liberty, life, and family!


THANK YOU for all you do, and have done, as a key member of the Liberty Counsel Action team!


Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

P.S. Please join me in signing Liberty Counsel Action’s petition to stop Barack Obama’s subversion of our religious liberties and freedom of conscience!  Then, help us reach more people by posting the petition link on your social network site or forwarding this message to as many of your friends as possible. Again, thank you and God bless you!


http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp
+   +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +  +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +
(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. This e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages. To contact Liberty Counsel Action with comments, questions or to change your status, see the link at the end of this e-mail.)
+   +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +  +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +
+ + Comments? Questions?
Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)4 organization. Gifts are not tax deductible. For full notice including notices for individual states, go here.
http://www.lcaction.cc/r.asp?U=74830&CID=660&RID=34286811
 

ONE FOR ME AND - ONE FOR EACH OF MY BROTHERS

Posted by BH from WP 9:21 pm 2-17

A cowboy, who just moved to Wyoming from Texas, walks into a bar and orders three mugs of Bud. He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.
The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, "You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you bought one at a time."The cowboy replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is in Arizona, the other is in Colorado.. When we all left our home in Texas, we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together. So I'm drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself."
The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there. The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way. He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn.
One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. All the regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss."
The cowboy looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eyes and he laughs. 
"Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains, "It's just that my wife and I joined the Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking."
"Hasn't affected my brothers though."

The Israelis don’t have the luxury of endless talk-talk.

Posted by BH from DH 9:00 pm 2-17



By Wesley Pruden
Crunch time is coming in Iran, but President Obama and his men act as if they’re at the senior prom, trying to dance the minuet without anyone to dance with.

The White House is trying desperately to rewrite Defense Secretary Leon  Panetta’s interview with David Ignatius of The Washington Post, where Panetta was said to believe that Israel is likely to bomb the Iranian nuclear-weapon works “in April, May or June before Israel enters a ’zone of immunity.’” This is girlie-man language for “before it’s too late.”
“Very soon,” the columnist wrote from his notes of the interview, “the Israelis fear the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and [then] only the United States could stop them militarily.”

The Israelis don’t have the luxury of endless talk-talk.
Benjamin_Netanyahu_portrait3
This could sound like a warning to the Iranians to straighten up and do right unless they want a lesson in the perils of not getting along with your neighbors. But this was not a warning to Tehran, but to Jerusalem. President Obama and the secretary of defense have told Israel that they oppose any bombing of Iran, risking a “zone of immunity” or not, because the sanctions are really working and they must not say upsetting things to Iran. And if sanctions ultimately don’t work, someone at the White House will write a strong letter to the editor urging everyone be nice.
The Panetta interview, published Feb. 2, made a lot of people’s teeth itch in Washington, particularly after Mr. Panetta passed up several opportunities to confirm his remarks, deny them or at least say his remarks were taken out of context. The miniature tape recorder that every reporter and columnist carries with his pen and paper has made life difficult for politicians and diplomats. Telling a diplomatic whopper ain’t what it used to be.
But the White House was clearly unhappy, if not with Mr. Panetta, who may have thought he was warning Israel to back away and shut up, then with the reporters and columnists for taking the Panetta remarks as a warning to Iran.
This week, a fortnight after the Ignatius interview, Mr. Panetta got another opportunity to say what he makes of what his remarks wrought. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and was pressed by Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, a Republican, to tell the senators who said what to whom.
“I usually don’t comment on columnists’ ideas about what I’m thinking,” he replied with a chuckle. “It’s usually – it’s a dangerous game to get into.” Then he retreated into argle-bargle about how the “international community” should act as one to deter Iran from making nuclear war. (If Russia, China, Upper Volta, Lower Slobbovia and the peace-loving nations work together with the West the world will be safe for bunnies, begonias and all living things.)
The senator persisted. Does Mr. Panetta believe there’s a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June? Was he misquoted or “mischaracterized” by the columnist?
“I think, as the president has suggested, I think, ah, we do not think that Israel has made that decision,” he replied.
      Did he actually have a conversation with Mr. Ignatius? “As I said, the comments that are included in a column about what I am thinking or what I’m, you know, possibly worried about – ”
But did he talk to Mr. Panetta? “We talked, but we talked about a lot of things, frankly.” Was the administration trying to send a signal, either to Iran or Israel?  “No.” And does he have a view of whether it’s likely that Israel will attack Iran this spring? “No, I do not.”
If people are confused in Washington and Tehran, most people are not confused in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israelis don’t have the luxury of endless talk-talk. Winston Churchill famously said that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but that’s only if there’s a willing and working jaw on both sides. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu only yesterday said sanctions are not working, an unpopular view in certain salons, but one widely held in private by soft-talking girlie men.
In Israel there’s a melancholy view of reality, where life is every day proved unfair. “We shall almost certainly see a war here,” Sever Plocker, a prominent Israeli pundit, writing in Jerusalem’s Ynet News with heavy heart. “Israel will bomb Iran’s nuclear military sites earlier than predicted, while enjoying Western and Arab assistance and backing. The sirens will wake us up early in the morning. The Home Front Command’s spokesman will instruct us to enter our sealed rooms without panicking. And the rest will be history.”
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Did Saudi Prince buy FOX'S Silence ?

Posted by BH 8:55 pm 2-17
From DH, Editor




Did Saudi Prince Buy Fox's Silence?Have you heard about the 23-year-old Saudi journalist who tweeted an imaginary conversation with Muhammad? It went something like this: He loved Muhammad, he hated Muhammad, he couldn't understand Muhammad, he wasn't going to pray for Muhammad. If this isn't exactly a disquisition on faith and doubt a la "The Brothers Karamazov," remember, we're just talking Twitter.

If you haven't heard of this young man, whose name is Hamza Kashgari, it could be because you're watching too much Fox News. As of this writing, almost a week after the Kashgari story broke, I haven't found a single story about it at the Fox News website. (You try: www.foxnews.com.) Meanwhile, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CNN have all reported the Kashgari story, clueing in their viewers on how far totalitarian Islam, Saudi style, will go to exert its control over the human spirit. But not Fox.

Say -- you don't suppose the fact that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns the second-largest block of stock (7 percent) in News Corp., Fox News' parent company, not to mention a new $300 million stake in Twitter (almost 4 percent), has anything to do with Fox's silence on this Saudi black eye of a story? After all, it was Saudi dictator King Abdullah -- Alwaleed's uncle -- whom press accounts credit with ordering the tweeting journalist's hot pursuit and imprisonment. And it is Saudi Arabia's adherence to Islamic limits on free speech that is driving Kashgari's ordeal.

Maybe it has become institutional Fox thinking to let such news slide for fear of offending the Saudi prince -- or for fear of risking the kind of exposure that might remind viewers of Fox's connections to Saudi regime interests via Alwaleed.

As I've argued in the past, it is these connections that make it incumbent upon News Corp. to register as a foreign agent. (So, too, should universities that accept Saudi and other Islamic millions to open departments of Islamic studies.) Fox's silence on this bell-ringer of a story reinforces the sneaking suspicion that, conscious or not, there may be an Alwaleed effect on Fox coverage which, in a conflict of interest, actually serves the House of Saud before Fox viewers.

Prediction: I don't believe Hamza Kashgari will be executed or even face hard time for his Twitter "blasphemy." Despite widespread enthusiasm for his demise among his fellow Saudis -- at last count, a Facebook page titled "The Saudi People Demand Hamza Kashgari's Execution" had a whopping 23,000 members -- I'm guessing Kashgari's already publicized repentance will be accepted by Saudi poobahs. The crisis will likely end in a gesture of royal magnanimousness. The new "moderation" of the Kingdom -- see, they don't kill you for tweeting! -- will become the story of the day, maybe even "fair and balanced" enough for Fox News to cover it.

That would make it a win-win situation, at least when it comes to Islamic law enforcement: Saudi Arabia gets international "modernization" brownie points, and no one dares break Shariah inside the country anyway, particularly given the bloodthirsty scorn of the Saudi public. (Remember that Facebook community of execution-for-"blasphemy" enthusiasts.) No "blasphemy," no "defamation," no problem.

This same issue is part of a much larger story, a terrifying point of parley between the Islamic world, as represented by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the Free World, as led, still, by the USA. Why terrifying? Any accommodation of Islamic so-called blasphemy law is an unconstitutional erosion of American free speech.

I'm mortified to report that the USA, as represented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is working itself into sync with the Saudi, OIC and, apparently, Fox position that silence on Islam is golden. Last summer, Clinton, while meeting with the OIC in Turkey (where they throw journalists who cross the state in jail) to discuss "defamation" of Islam, promoted a de facto censorship of Islam's critics by calling for "some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor."

Funny, but I don't think Fox covered the secretary of state's menacing comments about free speech. Not even a tweet's worth.

GLEN CAMPBELL AND HIS BATTLE WITH ALZHEIMER'S

Posted by BH from Fox News 6:30 pm 2-17
FROM FOX NEW'S 
Well, Same old Glen, I remember 40 years ago, in New Jersey, doing a show, had a problem, told him, His Answer, "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT"  Same old Glen....God Bless Him !   BH










~

CAPITOL POLICE ARREST MAN ON SUACIDE MISSION TO BOMB CAPITOL BUILDING

Posted by BH  6:05 pm 2-17

FREE ZONE BREAKING NEWS
FROM FOX NEW'S

IT'S WHAT'S CALLED  "ALMOST"
 Authorities arrested and charged Friday a Virginia man allegedly on his way to the U.S. Capitol for what he thought would be a suicide attack on one of the nation's most symbolic landmarks.
The federal criminal complaint against the suspect identifies him as Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan citizen who has been living in the United States illegally since 1999 after his visa expired. He was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he allegedly expressed interest in conducting an attack. Court documents say he came onto the radar screen in early December after he told an undercover agent about an earlier plan to bomb a northern Virginia building. 
Feds nab man headed to suicide mission
According to charging documents, he first entered the country that year on a tourist visa, which expired and was never renewed. Khalifi was charged Friday in U.S. District Court in northern Virginia with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. 
The suspect allegedly weighed hitting various targets ranging from a military installation to synagogues to a Washington restaurant before settling on the Capitol. 
The man thought undercover FBI agents assisting him in his plot were associates of Al Qaeda. He purchased bomb materials including jackets, nails and glue in preparation for an attack. He even conducted a test explosives demonstration in a quarry.  
When he was arrested Friday in Washington, he was carrying with him a vest that he had been led to believe was packed with explosives, but the material inside was not actually dangerous, Fox News was told. 
A short time earlier, Khalifi had been praying at a mosque in the Washington area. His destination was Capitol Hill
The public was never in danger, as he had been under constant surveillance for some time, officials said. The FBI provided the suspect with a disabled gun during their ongoing operation, Fox News has learned. 
The U.S. Capitol Police, in a statement that confirmed the arrest but provided few details, said the suspect had been "closely and carefully monitored."
A senior source involved with law enforcement at the Capitol also told Fox News the investigation was "all very controlled." The source said the U.S. Capitol Police was involved with the FBI and other agencies in tracking the suspect "not more than a year."
A former landlord in Arlington said he believed El Khalifi was suspicious and called police 18 months ago.
Frank Dynda said when he told El Khalifi to leave, the suspect said he had a right to stay and threatened to beat up Dynda. Dynda said he thought El Khalifi was making bombs, but police told him to leave the man alone. Dynda had El Khalifi evicted in 2010.
El Khalifi had several men staying with him and based on packages left for him, Dynda said, it appeared that he was running a luggage business from the apartment, although Dynda never saw any bags.
"I reported to police I think he's making bombs," Dynda said. "I was ready to get my shotgun and run him out of the building, but that would have been a lot of trouble."
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers in leadership positions had been briefed on the investigation, though rank-and-file members did not appear to have prior knowledge of the case. 
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., called the plot a "stark reminder" of the dangers Americans face. 
"I think it will encourage more of us to take the tunnel. ... Maybe we have to walk around with a little higher level of paranoia," Cleaver told Fox News. 
Sites in Washington have long been a target for terrorists, especially self-radicalized extremists caught in FBI stings. 
In September, a Massachusetts man was arrested for allegedly plotting to fly bomb-laden model planes into the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. FBI agents claiming to be associates of Al Qaeda provided 26-year-old Rezwan Ferdaus with what he thought was explosive material for the remote-controlled planes. 
Nearly a year earlier, a Virginia man was arrested for trying to help Al Qaeda plan multiple bombings against Washington's Metrorail system. For months, 34-year-old Farooque Ahmed of Ashburn, Va., had been meeting and discussing "jihad" with individuals he thought were affiliated with Al Qaeda, but in fact he was meeting with FBI agents. 
In the past year alone, at least 20 people have been arrested in the United States on terrorism-related charges, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 
"Most of the arrests" have involved "lone wolves," radicalized online and able to use the Internet to build bombs, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate committee last month. 
At the time of Ahmed's arrest in October 2010, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Neil MacBride, said the case showcases "our ability to find those seeking to harm U.S. citizens and neutralize them before they can act."
Fox News' Catherine Herridge, Trish Turner, Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

FROM OUR SENIOR EDITOR DAVE ( AN EMAIL HE RECEIVED )

Posted by BH from DH 4:45 pm 2-17
Posted by our Editor Dave 

This is from a friend who is a Marine officer,  I was his coach in high school.  

----- Forwarded Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:13 AM
Subject: Afghanistan.

Hi Coach,

A friend recently asked my impression of the situation in Afghanistan.
I thought that I'd start by passing the following: 



> On Feb 8, 2012, at 1:08 AM, R. E. wrote:

> > The first thing I would say is that, if I came to your house and stayed one week and briefed you for 8 hours a day, each day, you would still only have a thumbnail of a grasp on what is going on in
Afghanistan.  You really just have to be there to begin to understand the complexities.
>>I was there for a year, working closely with Afghan police, military and covert agency.  What I know about Afghanistan could fill a thimble!
Seriously, the thing that I know about Afghanistan that the average American doesn't know, is that I know that I don't know.
That is a humerous attempt at saying that  Americans make an ignorant and arrogant assumption that Muslims would use the same logic that we use, when reacting to a situation.  They DO NOT think like us.  The "smart" westerners are the ones who know that middle eastern Muslims don't think like us.  Any westerner who says that he understands how they think is an arrogant, self deluded fool.

 I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that the ONLY reason Osama ben Laden is dead, is BECAUSE we have a strong military
force in Afghanistan.  There is absolutely NO WAY we could have ever got him without large US military bases in Afghanistan.  And, killing OBL was a huge victory for our side.
 Second, our presence in Afghanistan gives the war a place to be.  If  when] we disengage from our battle zones in the middle east, the fighting of the war will shift to American soil.  (Where it started on 9/11.)
 I think these two reasons alone make staying there "worth while".
 Having said all this, Afghanistan is a fucking mess and pretty much everything that LtCol. Davis said about Afghanistan is true.

I disagree that our military leadership is intentionally "misleading" anyone.  What they are doing is following orders.  The civilian "leadership" wants to disengage and the Generals know damned well what their Commander wants to hear.
 Although, I would change how we do things.  We spend too much money on things like schools and Afghan government buildings and give them too
much military equipment.  Unless WE are willing to STAY at the school and STAFF the school, there is NO reason to build a school.  The minute we leave, the Taliban (Talib) will come in and scare off the teachers and students and burn the building.  On the other hand, one of the best ways to destroy the Talib and Islamic radicals and rob them of warriors, would be to build good roads.  If the country had good roads, everyone would
want to use them and the Talib would not destroy them.  If there were good roads, people could get to town to spend money and get jobs and they would not be available to join the Talib.  90% of Talib fighters are simply unemployed, illiterate farm boys who have been "hired" by the Talib.  If they had jobs they would not help the Talib.
 The Afghan people HATE the Taliban!!  They do not "support" the Talib.
But, they are AFRAID to oppose them because the Afghan govt. will NOT protect them (read what Col. Davis said about Afghan soldiers refusing to go into "Indian Country" because, "...it's too dangerous!").  I worked in a HQ in Ghazni Province and I handled a lot of intel.  Ghazni Province has a population of about 3 million people and it is probably about the
size of the State of Georgia.  At the time (09-10), the Talib only had about 2000 fighters in the whole Province.
 The Afghan Army (ANA) Police (ANP) had about 2000 fighters total, plus a Polish Regiment and a Company of US soldiers.  The ONLY people who
wanted to go out and fight the Talib were the Americans.  The inside joke there  is that the ISAF(Officially, it's International Security Assistance Force) patch on our sleeves actually stands for "I Saw Americans Fighting".  This is because Americans are the only ones willing to fight, not the NATO allies and NOT the Afghans!
 The Afghan government is corrupt on a level that westerners can not fathom.  You can't give their soldiers more than one magazine of bullets because they will sell them at the bazaar, KNOWING that the Talib will  get those bullets and shoot back at them that very night!  The corruption goes all the way to the top and is at every level of government.
 
The big problem with Afghanistan is STUPID American EXPECTATIONS.   There is NO WAY that we can "win" that war in the way that Americans
think of "winning".  If you want to win that war and turn Afghanistan into a safe place like what we did when we won WWII with Germany and Japan, then that CAN be done.... in about 100 years! (Maybe.)
 If your idea of "winning" is to kill Osama bin Laden and kill a bunch of other Islamic radicals.  Then victory is very attainable.
 The other big problem is the IGNORANT notion among Americans, that Muslims think like we do.  They do NOT!!!  If, for example, you give the
Afghan National Police (ANP) a new truck, they don't think,  "Oh how nice!  I'm so grateful that you gave me this new vehicle that costs more than my daddy made in his whole life time."  No!  A Muslim thinks, "What a stupid bunch of fools the Americans are!  Don't they know, if the roles were reversed, we'd kill or enslave them?  Our God is Great!  He is
delivering the infidels into our hands and making us rich at the same time!"
 If the Americans suggest to the Talib, for example, "Let's stop all this killing.  Why don't we sit down and negotiate a just peace that will benefit everyone and prevent either side from oppressing the other?"  The Talib will think, "Allah is Great!  The Americans are AFRAID of us!  Because, anyone who is honorable would kill or enslave his enemies, if he
were able." If you have a specific question, send it back to me, I'll do my best to answer.

Semper Fi
Bob

TAXPAYERS IN GOOD OLD CONNECTICEUT PAYING BIGTIME FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Posted by BH from DH 4:26 pm 2-17

It's Like the old Tune ?
They Everywhere, They Everywhere  

submitted by DH
175 Generally when you think of illegal immigrants you tend to think of the southern states from Florida across to California.  One of the last states you may think of as having a problem with illegal immigrants is Connecticut, but guess again.
In 2007, federal immigration agents raided a location in New Haven, Connecticut and arrested eleven men on the charges of being in the United States illegally.  The men filed suit against the federal government and claimed that their rights were violated.
Nearly five years later, the federal government has announced that they have reached a settlement with the eleven illegals.  In the announcement, the feds have agreed to pay the men $350,000 and to stop all deportation proceedings against them.
In other words, the men have been financially rewarded by the federal government for rightfully arresting them, and they will be allowed to remain in the United States.  While not specified in the settlement notice, you can be assured that if the men are being allowed to remain in the country that they will be given work permits and allowed to compete against American citizens for jobs in a job starved market.
If you notice, the men were arrested while George W Bush was President of the United States and that the men are being freed, paid with taxpayer money and allowed to remain in the country while Barack Hussein Obama is president.  I truly believe that this demonstrates the contrast between the two presidencies and says a lot about the deterioration of America under our first foreign born president.
Federation for American Immigration Reform media director Ira Mehlman says that in deals such as this that Americans are the real losers,
“They are costing the taxpayers $350,000. In addition, the illegal aliens will almost certainly get work authorization, so they can go out and compete with Americans for scarce jobs.  Unfortunately, this administration seems more concerned with the rights and the interests of illegal aliens than they are with protecting the rights and interests of the American people.
“If you’re a mayor, or governor, or some other local government official that thwarts federal immigration laws, the Obama administration is not going to touch you. But if you dare to try to enforce laws that are already passed by Congress, then they’re going to come after you with the full force of the federal government.”
And in case you don’t believe his last statement is serious, just take a look at the legal assault the Obama administration has unleashed on Arizona.  They have gone after Gov Jan Brewer for trying to enforce the immigration laws the feds refuse to enforce.  The feds have also unleashed an all-out war against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for trying to enforce immigration laws, clean up the illegal drug trafficking through his county and for challenging Obama’s eligibility to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.
And as a side note, the Department of Justice has filed charges against Sheriff Joe for illegal racial profiling of Hispanics and it has recently been learned that the Mexican drug cartels have placed a $1 million bounty on Sheriff Joe’s head.  But the feds have made it illegal for Arpaio to target Mexicans in his investigations so I guess he’ll have to target some other group in his investigation into the Mexican death threats and bounty placed upon him.

Senator Blunt of Missouri Marks 3rd Anniversary of President Obama's Failed Stimulus 2/17/12

HOW TO HUG A BABY

Posted by BH 1:40 pm 2-17
How to hug a baby

cid:X.MA1.1328067639@aol.com
The
K9 above is Brutus, a military K9 at McChord..
 . He's huge - part Boxer
and part British Bull Mastiff and tops the
scales at 200 lbs. Would you let him kiss your Baby ? You

won't beleive this !



FOOD SAFETY NOTICE FROM NESTLE FOOD'S FOR RETURN'S

Posted by BH 1:23 pm 2-17
URGENT...URGENT....URGENT....
FOOD SAFETY NOTICE !!!

"URGENT!!! For all parents, Nestle is asking for everyone to return all GERBER BANANA BABY FOOD expiring 2012 because they may contain glass. Please copy and paste for all babies safety. 
Batch code 7613033089 73

Even if you're not a parent please copy you could save a baby's life."

HSS Turning State's Down on Obamacare Modification after Promises

Posted by BH 12:53 pm 2-17

 

HHS Allows Obamacare Modification in Only 7 of the 17 States That Requested One

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Health and Human Services Secretary 
Kathleen Sebelius

The Democrats' health care law requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of their premium dollars on health care, and no more than 20 percent on overhead and administrative costs -- unless the Obama administration grants an "adjustment" or waiver.
Insurance companies that do not meet the 80/20 standard (also called a medical loss ratio) are required to pay rebates to their customers this year -- unless those companies are located in states that received waivers from HHS.

Obamacare allows Secretary Sebelius to "adjust the medical loss ratio" for a state -- if meeting the 80/20 rule would "destablize the state's individual insurance market."
HHS on Thursday said it had concluded its review of 17 states -- more than a third of the nation -- that requested a waiver. Ten states were denied waivers, and seven were granted "adjustments," as HHS calls them.
The 10 states denied Obamacare waivers include Florida, North Dakota, Louisiana, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Delaware. All but Delaware have Republican governors.
The seven states granted waivers, or modifications in their medical loss ratios, include Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Maine, Nevada, Kentucky, and Georgia. Three of those states have Democratic governors, and four are led by Republicans.
In her announcement, Sebelius said the adjustment determinations "were made as a result of a transparent and data-driven process." She noted that the documentation related to each state's request has been publicly posted.
Sebelius said the new rebate rule has "saved" consumers up to $323 million -- all "part of the Obama Administration’s effort to increase transparency in the health insurance marketplace."
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association representing approximately 1,300 health insurance plans, says the medical loss ratio requirements impose "an unprecedented new federal cap on the administrative costs of health plans, strictly micro-managing their ability to invest in new initiatives and innovations to benefit their enrollees.
"This policy will have a number of unintended consequences for individuals, families, and employers," AHIP officials told a congressional panel last June.
Also on Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that consumers can find out if their insurance company has met the new 80/20 standard by checking the list posted on HealthCare.gov. She said the Obama administration also may require insurers to notify consumers directly.

Romney, Paul, Santorum to Skip March 1 Debate

Posted by BH 12:21 pm 2-17
From WP

Romney, Paul, Santorum to Skip March 1 Debate

By Dan Weil

Friday, 17 Feb 2012 09:56 AM
By Dan Weil

A presidential debate scheduled for March 1 in Georgia has been canceled by CNN, The Hill reports.

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum all decided to skip that debate, which is the last scheduled before "Super Tuesday" March 6, The Hill reports.


Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney bowed out first, citing schedule conflicts. “With [nine] other states voting on March 6, we will be campaigning in other parts of the country and unable to schedule the CNN Georgia debate," said Andrea Saul, Romney's campaign press secretary.


"Gov. Romney will be spending a lot of time campaigning in Georgia and Ohio ahead of Super Tuesday." Romney already has participated in 20 previous debates, she pointed out.


Meanwhile, Georgia GOP chairman Sue Everhart told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Texas Rep. Paul will take a pass on the debate, The Hill reports. And Hogan Gidley, spokesman for former Pennsylvania Sen. Santorum, told the National Journal that his boss "has no plans of doing it right now."


Presumably, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would have been happy to participate. The debates have offered him his best chance to shine.


All four presidential candidates are still scheduled to take part in CNN’s Arizona debate next Wednesday.


A source familiar with what happened told
Politico that a Paul campaign official approached Romney’s team last week about not participating in the CNN forum.

Still, it seemed that Romney wasn’t the only candidate to beg off as a result of a busy campaign schedule. Santorum’s spokesman told Politico said the former Pennsylvania senator isn’t expected to attend the March 1 forum, and Paul’s camp gave a firm “no.”


“He’s not planning on being there.” Paul spokesman Gary Howard told Politico. He said Paul will be in another state to focus on retail campaigning.


Gingrich, who has excelled in the debates, gave CNN its only confirmed “yes,” and the network decided against moving ahead.


“Mitt Romney and Ron Paul told the Georgia Republican Party, Ohio Republican Party and CNN Thursday that they will not participate in the March 1 Republican presidential primary debate,” CNN said in a statement, which was reported on the cable network’s website shortly after Romney’s decision was announced.



“Without full participation of all four candidates, CNN will not move forward with the Super Tuesday debate. However, next week, CNN and the Arizona Republican Party will host all four leading contenders for the GOP nomination. That debate will be held in Mesa, Ariz. on Feb. 22 and will be moderated by CNN’s John King."

Gingrich is now left without his most tested method for success so far. Without a debate platform, the former House speaker will find it harder to reassert himself in a race that’s increasingly seen as a two-man dogfight between Romney and Santorum.

FORBES: SAY'S - " Bernanke 'Supreme Socialist "

Posted by BH 12:16 pm 2-17
From WP

Forbes: Bernanke 'Supreme Socialist'

Thursday, 16 Feb 2012 10:13 AM
By Forrest Jones



George Bush Did It ? My ASS
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is running the economy in such a heavy-handed manner that he more resembles a socialist strongman reminiscent of the Soviet Union than the head of the world's largest and most iconic of capitalist economies, former GOP presidential hopeful and publisher Steve Forbes writes.

By swelling the Fed's balance sheets via massive purchases of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities from banks and by controlling interest rates and money supply with various monetary policy tools, Bernanke has become a "supreme socialist" who dictates how Americans manage their money.


"Our central bank tries to manipulate our economy in ways befitting a Soviet commissar. Take interest rates. Fixing the price of money is a form of price control, pure and simple," Forbes writes in a column in the magazine that bears his name.

_________________________________________________________

Editor's Note: Exposed: You Owe It to Yourself to Learn What Obama and Bernanke Are Hiding From Americans
This gripping Newsmax investigative report reveals the truth about America's economic future and the disastrous path that Obama’s and Bernanke’s reckless policies are taking us down. Watch, learn, and receive a free Survival Guide ($49 value) for your personal financial future. Click Here Now.

_________________________________________________________

"Until Ben Bernanke, our central bank was content to fix short-term interest rates, which he announced would be kept at virtually zero through 2014. But in the aftermath of the financial crisis Bernanke is, in effect, dictating the price of all money, regardless of duration."


Bernanke claims his ultra-loose monetary policies, which include keeping interest rates low through 2014, were necessary to steer the economy from the edge of deflationary collapse and to spur job creation. 
Praying ? " I doubt it "
 

Critics say the tactics have distorted portions of the economy while sapping the dollar of most of its strength and pushing up inflationary pressures in the process.


"All of this means the government is picking winners and losers. And in this case the losers are savers. Bernanke & Co. want to effectively force Americans to put their cash in riskier assets, such as stocks," Forbes writes.


"You thought socialism was dead, other than in miserable countries such as North Korea and Cuba? Think again. It’s alive and well at the Federal Reserve, and we and the world are paying a price for it."


Bernanke, meanwhile, tells Congress his policies are going nowhere.


Even though unemployment rates are falling, they still remain a big problem for the economy.


The unemployment rate measures the percentage of those who are out of work but are actively looking.


Those workers who have lost their jobs and have given up looking aren't counted as part of the labor force.


Factor them in as well as younger workers entering the work force and the unemployment picture becomes a lot bleaker.


"It's very important to look not just at the unemployment rate, which reflects only people who are actively seeking work," Bernanke told a Senate hearing recently, according to the Associated Press.


"There are also a lot of people who are either out of the labor force because they don't think they can find work. ... There are also a lot of people who are working part-time, and they'd like to be working full-time but they can't find full-time work."

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...