Friday, June 8, 2012

the Death Panels already have convened

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

This info came to me via a retired USAF general officer.  
  
Forget about getting to age 75, this exact thing happened to me this morning at Danbury hospital here in Ct.  I was scheduled for a cardio-lite stress test.  This is a tread mill stress test where during the process they inject nuclear dye into your blood stream and then put you in a CAT scan or something similar and take a picture of your heart.  If all is good the heart shows up red, if there are blocked arteries anywhere that portion of the heart shows up pink.  I have had three of these tests in the past twelve years due to blocked arteries discovered in 2000.  They use the test to determine if I need a roto router or a bypass operation.
So I arrive at the hospital at 8 am this morning and I am in the process of checking in at Cardiology and the lady says that my appointment has been canceled.  She makes a call and speaks with someone and hands me the phone.  It is a nurse in cardiology who says that my medical coverage denied the procedure.  I said it was routine, part of my heart maintenance process and ordered by my PCP and with approval from my Cardiologist who is the head of Danbury Cardiology which is right where I was standing.  She goes, "yes but we were denied our request".  So I say, I have Medicare so what is my backup insurance doing denying anything?  Then the bombshell, she says it was the Medicare board that denied the procedure.
At that point, I turn to everyone behind me, and it was a long line, and I say to them "well you won't have to wait too long today because
my stress test procedure was just canceled by a Medicare Death Panel.  I am only 67 so can you imagine what is going to happen when we really get old".  The entire waiting room and everyone there from patients to staff just went dead silent. So I turn to the front desk and tell them, “I guess I will have to write a letter to the editor of the Danbury News Times and call my Senators and Congressman and let them know the Death Panels already have convened". Then I walked out
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

NEWSBUSTED X TWO FOR THIS WEEK

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

~~~

BOY SCOUTS MAINTAINING ITS STANDARDS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

Boy Scouts Not Changing Membership Policy That Bans Openly Gay Scouts and Scout Leaders

boy scouts
Boy Scouts members. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) -- The Boy Scouts of America will not reconsider its policy banning openly gay boy scouts and scout leaders from participating in the organization despite a recent online petition, signed by 275,000 people, calling for a change in policy and a resolution calling for local Boy Scout chapters to decide their own membership policies.
“Contrary to media reports, the Boy Scouts of America has no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is ‘reviewing’ a policy or signal a change in direction,” according to an official statement from the Boy Scouts of America national office.
“The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization,” reads the statement.  “The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.”
The resolution cited was submitted in April to the national office by a member of the BSA voting board, asking the Boy Scouts of America to allow local chapters to determine their own membership policies.
According to the bylaws of the BSA, any resolution, regardless of subject matter, must be reviewed by committee.  The national office’s statement, however, makes clear that the BSA is not changing its policy regarding openly gay scouts and scout leaders.
On a related note, in April, Jennifer Tyrrell was removed from her post as den leader of an Ohio Cub Scout troop because she is an openly active lesbian.
wahls
Zach Wahls, Eagle Scout. (AP Photo)
Following her removal, Tyrrell started a petition for reinstatement with the scouts on Change.org where it gained the support of Hollywood celebrities, such as ‘Hunger Games’ actor Josh Hutcherson and actress Julianne Moore.
Also, last week, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls from Iowa, who was raised by two lesbians, delivered the petition with 275,000 signatures to the national annual meeting of the Boy Scouts of America.
As a courtesy to Wahls and Tyrrell, the Boy Scouts of America accepted the petition in a private meeting. The BSA maintains that the resolution introduced in April and the petition are not related in any way.
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality gave his “kudos to the Boy Scouts for not buckling” to the demands of homosexual activists, and said the Change.org petition is another example of the “aggressive” nature of activists to implement their pro-homosexual agenda.
“I wish they would just leave the Scouts alone,” LaBarbera told CNSNews.com.  “They [homosexual activists] have all the freedom in the world to form the pro-gay Scouts, or the Gay Scouts.”
“I’m glad they’re [BSA] not considering capitulating to the homosexual activists’ demands,” he said. “But if they ever did consider it or if they ever moved in that direction, it would be an utter travesty.”
scouts
Boy Scouts. (AP Photo)
This is not the first time the Boy Scouts of America has been challenged on its membership policy. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the Scouts’ favor protecting BSA’s constitutional right to exclude members based on sexual orientation.
In the majority opinion, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that freedom of association guaranteed in the First Amendment meant that the state could not compel the Scouts to admit members who strayed from the organizations’ “expressive message.”
The current BSA policy on sexual orientation reads as follows:
“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to members who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

BIG BROTHER RIDES MASS TRANSIT A CONTROL THING

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

Big Brother Rides on Mass Transit

Written by Gary North on June 8, 2012
Print Friendly
One of the continuing themes of the Left in every industrial nation has been the need to establish mass transit. The war on the automobile is basic to this outlook. Mass transit is more efficient, we are told. Mass transit reduces greenhouse gases. Mass transit fosters community.
Mass transit allows more government control. That is the bottom line.
The automobile provides mobility on the owner’s terms. He pays for this mobility. He comes and goes as he pleases. Bureaucrats hate this. They prefer to monitor everything. George Orwell’s vision in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was accurate. Big Brother wants to watch you.
In the San Francisco mass transit system, the government is installing security cameras that are tied to computers. The program in the computer will assess who is a pre-terrorist and who isn’t.
It’s Minority Report, and it’s coming to a mass transit system near you.
These will be tested in San Francisco, but they are being considered by the New York Port Authority.
The private firm that sells the systems already sells to government agencies, military bases, and private industry.
The cameras go in. Then the data are collected. The program establishes what is normal behavior. Then the program starts making judgments about abnormal behavior. This triggers an alert.
Initially, there will be 22 cameras at each train station. Then the system will “learn.”
The post-9/11 emphasis on “homeland security” and anti-terrorism efforts has resulted in a gold rush of surveillance contracts from mass transit agencies and public institutions nationwide. While large mass transit agencies such as New York’s MTA and Chicago’s CTA have been cagey about their counter-terrorism efforts, trade show presentations and chatter in industry publications have given a basic idea of what is happening. Apart from machine learning-based video surveillance, subway security has also taken on wackier (and scarier) aspects: The Homeland Security Department has publicly announced their plans to release bacteria into Boston T tunnels this summer in order to test new biological weapon detectors deployed throughout the subway system.
This technology is spreading around the world.
There will be competitors.
We are told that there will be less and less human assessment of the data over the coming years. The programs will make the assessments.
We know that humans make mistakes. But computer programs are reliable. We all know this from our experience with computer programs.
Maybe it’s time to read Robert Sheckley’s 1953 science fiction story, “Watchbird.” It’s here.
Continue Reading on www.fastcompany.com

DEATH PANELS MUST COME

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

Death Panels: Greasing the Skids in the Media

Written by Gary North on June 8, 2012
Print Friendly
There will be death panels. When the government takes over medical finding, there must be triage. Panels will decide: (1) Who cannot be saved; (2) who don’t need to be saved; (3) who is left over. That is what battlefield medicine has decided ever since World War I. Battlefield medicine is government medicine.
All the “shock and horror” that liberal Democrats feigned when this issue was raised about Obamacare was just a smoke screen.
The once influential but now peripheral news magazines, Time and Newsweek, have done cover stories on euthanasia: killing granny. The Newsweek story is forthright: “The Case for Killing Granny.” It was written by Professor Evan Thomas of Princeton, who used to be the editor of Newsweek. The Time story was written by veteran Washington reporter Joe Klein: “How to Die.”
Both stories begin with the story of the author’s parents. The strategy here is to personalize the issue. Then they move from the personal (individual responsibility) to the general (bureaucratic responsibility). It’s all about the famous bottom line. Prof. Thomas writes:
Compared with other Western countries, the United States has more health care—but, generally speaking, not better health care. There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients. In his address to Congress, President Obama spoke airily about reducing inefficiency, but he slid past the hard choices that will have to be made to stop health care from devouring ever-larger slices of the economy and tax dollar. A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that’s where the money is.
The death panels are coming. They have to come. The government has to have rules for spending money. The rules must determine who wins and who loses. There is no possible escape from this responsibility. If the government pays for any service, it must do so within written rules.
Liberals know this, but they at first pretended that it would not apply to Obamacare. Of course it will apply to Obamacare, if the program survives the Supreme Court’s case. It applies to Medicare, too. Medicare operates under the laws of the United States government. It is not legally allowed to spend taxpayers’ money on anything not authorized by the law, which means rule books.
Spending money on old people must come under rules. These rules must cover when it’s time to pull the plug.
This can be delayed for political reasons. Now the Establishment has begun to prepare the public for the inevitable.
It’s not that Time and Newsweek have much influence any longer. A generation ago, they did. Today, they are weather vanes. They let us know what the unofficial Party Line is for Establishment thinking.
To read the Newsweek story, click the link.
Continue Reading on www.thedailybeast.com

Thursday, June 7, 2012

HOPE AND CHANGE TO FEAR AND SMEAR

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR


Barack Obama lately has been accusing presumptive rival Mitt Romney of not waging his campaign in the nice (but losing) manner of John McCain in 2008. But a more marked difference can be seen in Obama himself, whose style and record bear no resemblance to his glory days of four years ago.
Recently, the president purportedly has been reassuring Democratic donors that his signature achievement, Obamacare, could be readjusted in the second term -- something Republicans have promised to do for the last three years. What an evolution: We have gone from being told we would love Obamacare, to granting exemptions to favored companies from it, to private assurances to modify it after re-election -- all before it was even fully enacted.
Obama's calls for a new civility four years ago are apparently inoperative. The vow to "punish our enemies" and the intimidation of Romney campaign donors are a long way from the soaring speech at Berlin's Victory Column and "Yes, we can." Obama once called for a focus on issues rather than personal invective. But now we mysteriously hear again of Romney's dog, his great-great-grandfather's wives, and a roughhousing incident some 50 years ago in prep school.
The "hope and change" slogan for a new unity gave way to a new "us versus them" divide. "Us" now means all sorts of targeted appeals to identity groups like African-Americans for Obama, Latinos for Obama, gays for Obamas, greens for Obama, or students for Obama. "Them," in contrast, means almost everyone else who cannot claim hyphenation or be counted on as a single-cause constituency. In 2008, the Obama strategy was supposedly to unite disparate groups with a common vision; in 2012, it is to rally special interests through common enemies.
Remember the Obama who promised an end to the revolving door of lobbyists and special-interest money? Then came the likes of Peter Orszag, who went from overseeing the Obama budget to being a Citigroup grandee, and financial pirate Jon Corzine, who cannot account for more than $1.5 billion of investors' money but can bundle cash for Obama's re-election. If you told fervent supporters in 2008 that by early 2012 Obama would set a record for the most meet-and-greet fundraisers in presidential history, they would have thought it blasphemy.
Obama is said to go over every name on his Predator drone targeted-assassination list -- a kill tally that is now seven times larger in less than four years than what George W. Bush piled up in eight. Guantanamo is just as open now as it was in 2008. If Obama supporter and former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was once accusing President Bush of being "torturer in chief," he is now an Obama insider arguing that bombing Libya is not really war and that taking out an American citizen and terrorist suspect in Yemen is perfectly legal. Previously bad renditions, preventative detentions and military tribunals are now all good.
Some disgruntled conservatives jumped ship in 2008 for the supposedly tightfisted Obama when he called for halving the deficit in four years and derided George Bush as "unpatriotic" for adding $4 trillion to the national debt. Yet Obama already has exceeded all the Bush borrowing in less than four years.
What accounts for the radical change in mood from four years ago?
The blue-state model of large government, increased entitlements and high taxes may be good rhetoric, but it is unsound reality. Redistribution does not serve static, aging populations in a competitive global world -- as we are seeing from California to southern Europe. "Hope and change" was a slogan in 2008; it has since been supplanted by the reality of 40 straight months of 8-percent-plus unemployment and record deficits -- despite $5 billion in borrowed priming, near-zero interest rates, and vast increases in entitlement spending.
Obama's bragging of drilling more oil despite, rather than because of, his efforts is supposed to be a clever appeal to both greens and business. Private equity firms are good for campaign donations but bad when a Republican rival runs them. "Romney would do worse," rather than "I did well," is the implicit Obama campaign theme of 2012.
To be re-elected, a now-polarizing Obama believes that he must stoke the fears of some of us rather than appeal to all of our hopes by defending a successful record, while smearing with the old politics rather than inspiring with the new. That cynical calculation and constant hedging and flip-flopping may be normal for politicians, but eventually it proves disastrous for the ones who posed as messianic prophets.

INVITATION TO FREE ZONE MEDIA

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR


June 7, 2012

Slipping Off the Radar Screen
A Message from Brigitte Gabriel, President, ACT! for America
Dear Free Zone Media,

I am writing to extend you a personal invitation to join us at the fourth annual ACT! for America National Conference and Legislative Briefing in Washington DC June 27
th through the 29th.

There is still time to register AND reserve your hotel room at a deeply discounted rate, by clicking on the image to the left. Our work has never been more important and your voice and presence never more essential.

This is a political campaign season, but the issue of national security and radical Islam is largely getting left out of the debate and slipping off the radar screen. We can’t allow this to happen!

If concern for national security and the safety of America and its citizens from the threat of radical Islam is not stressed during the campaigns, it will not be a priority after the election.

Our elected officials in Washington need to hear that the American people want them to stand and protect this country now more than ever!!!

We must remind them that while we have killed most of the Al-Qaida leadership, we are still fighting the ideology of radical Islam from which violence, intolerance, and hatred towards America is being spewed. For instance, we have arrested over 75 homegrown terrorists in just the last three years.

Unfortunately, political correctness, beginning at the top in the Obama administration, is increasingly paralyzing our first responders, our counterterrorism agencies, the FBI, and even the Defense Department. The result of this political correctness is a whitewashing of what is behind Islamic terrorism—the doctrine of jihad.
If we want our elected officials in Washington to do the right thing and focus on protecting America from the threat of radical Islam, then we need to put it back on their radar!

If we do not speak out, many in Washington will assume the American people just aren’t concerned about the subject of national security.

Therefore, the time to speak out for national security is now! I have no doubt that ACT! for America was created for such a time as this. I have no doubt that together we can take a stand that will make a difference for years to come.

I so look forward to seeing you in Washington DC this month, and thanking you in person for standing with me in defense of our security, our liberty and our values.

Come join us—to make your voice heard, to be informed and inspired, to share the camaraderie, and to celebrate with other ACT! for America chapter leaders, members and donors, everything we have accomplished since our founding in 2007.

Always devoted,


Brigi

DO NOT HIRE MUSLIMS REASON # 87

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

NEVER HIRE A MUSLIM: Reason #87

by barenakedislam

Judge Rejects 'National Security' Defense in Muslim's Bias Suit
Muslim employee forbidden to go to floors of the hotel occupied by Israeli delegation

CAIR(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/7/12) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today welcomed a federal judge's ruling that rejects a claim by a Washington, D.C., hotel that it had the right to discriminate against a Muslim employee because of a "national security exemption."

United States District Judge & Judenrat Barbara J. Rothstein ruled yesterday that "the national security exemption does not immunize Defendant from liability as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim."

"There are Israelis there, and they don't want no face-to-face with Muslims," one supervisor reportedly told a Muslim hotel worker whose job involves going to all the hotel's floors. One hotel employee said he was mocked by other workers who called him a terrorist after the incident.

"I work for [the hotel] 12, 14 hours a day, and they profile me like I'm a criminal, like I'm going to harm them," he said. "I'm like, 'If I'm going to harm them, why would you keep me in your hotel even one day?'" (Yes, why, indeed?)

In addition to Muslim hotel workers being banned from specific floors, 12 workers were told not to come in for work after a routine US State Department background check found "irregularities" in the workers' records.

Judge Rothstein's ruling came in response to a motion filed by the Mandarin Oriental Hotel with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claiming CAIR's lawsuit on behalf of the Muslim employee should be rejected by the court because the hotel "was following a mandate from the federal government regarding a matter of national security."

Mohamed Arafi is suing his employer for barring him from servicing an Israeli delegation staying at a D.C. hotel

The hotel's motion blamed its discriminatory actions on security requirements allegedly imposed by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).

"We welcome Judge Rothstein's ruling and are pleased that this case can now move forward to examine the employee's allegations of retaliation for complaining about the treatment he was subjected to because of his faith and ethnicity," said CAIR National Legal Counsel Nadhira Al-Khalili.

Al-Khalili said CAIR's suit states that in December 2010, the employee, an American Muslim citizen of Moroccan heritage, was forbidden to go to the 8th or 9th floors of the hotel because an Israeli delegation was staying there.

According to the suit, when the Muslim employee asked why he was barred from those floors, he was told by a supervisor, "You know how the Israelis are with Arabs and Muslims." As quoted in CAIR's lawsuit, another hotel supervisor allegedly stated that "the Israeli delegation does not want to be served by Defendant's Muslim employees and that Defendant accommodates this preference because it does not want to lose the Israeli delegation as clients."

The suit also alleges that hotel supervisors believed the Muslim employee "would particularly pose a problem for the Israeli delegation, because if they encountered him, members of the delegation would easily be able to see his name -- Mohamed -- written on his employee nametag."

After the Muslim worker's colleagues learned of the restrictions the hotel had placed on his duties, several of them ridiculed him as a potential terrorist, "poking him in the stomach to feign checking his body for explosives."

CAIR's suit also alleges that the hotel retaliated against the employee for complaining about the discriminatory treatment.

The lawsuit seeks cultural competency training for hotel employees, back pay for the Muslim worker, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and an order requiring the hotel to adopt a non-discrimination and retaliation policy and to establish an effective mechanism for receiving and responding to complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

You can read the entire lawsuit here.

CAIR offers a booklet, called "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices," to help employers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the workplace.

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:
terrorist-front-group-cair-is-shocked-that-d-c-hotel-is-using-national-security-as-the-reason-it-banned-a-muslim-e

ALABAMA BANS AGENDA 21 SOVEREIGNITY

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR


Alabama Bans U.N. Agenda 21 Sovereignty Surrender

Property Rights: Few have heard of Agenda 21, the U.N. plan for sustainable development that tosses property rights aside. But Alabama has, and it recently secured a victory as important as that over union power in Wisconsin.
After Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's stunning triumph over the excesses and abuses of public-sector unions, the London Telegraph's James Delingpole, an indefatigable opponent of global warming fraud, opined in a piece titled, "How Wisconsin And Alabama Helped Save The World," that we should take note of "an equally important but perhaps less well-publicized victory won in the Alabama House and Senate over the U.N.'s malign and insidious Agenda 21."
Agenda 21 is one of those compacts, like Law of the Sea, Kyoto and New START, that are supported by an apologetic administration with a fondness for the redistribution of American power and wealth on a local and global scale.
It fits in perfectly with President Obama's pledge to "fundamentally transform" America, its institutions and its heritage of capitalist freedom.
Agenda 21 has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, but it may not have to be if in a second Obama term the Environmental Protection Agency pursues it by stealth, as it has other environmental agendas that make war on the free enterprise system and rights we hold dear.
One of those is property rights. "Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market," Agenda 21 says.
"Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes."
Not liking the sound of that, Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process and says that "Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21."
mp3
Agenda 21 is intended to foster what environmentalists call "sustainable development" in the belief that man since the Industrial Revolution has been a plague on the planet, plundering its resources while destroying nature and putting the world at risk of disastrous climate change, poverty and disease.
At the end of March, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson jetted off to Paris' ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, as the press release put it, "to discuss the agency's international efforts on urban sustainability."
Excuse us, but "urban sustainability" at the behest of global organizations is not what the EPA was created to do.
Jackson will represent the U.S. at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held June 20-22 in Rio de Janeiro.
"Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments and other economic activities," a U.N. document describing the conference explains.
The EPA's war on coal, its regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant and its regulatory abuses including the use of drones to spy on American farmers are key parts of this international agenda that Jackson says "is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world. ... It means working together to strengthen the effectiveness of environmental governance."
We don't need "environmental governance," just a governance of, by and for the people of the United States.
Nor do we need to "reorient" our consumption and economic activities.
Alabama has just told the U.N. and the EPA what they need to be told — don't tread on us.

PALIN AND HALEY STAND FOR ALLEN WEST FOR VP

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

Subject: Governor Nikki Haley Joins Sarah Palin in Recommending Allen West for Vice President


By Gary P Jackson
Sarah Palin has repeatedly mentioned Allen West as her top choice for Vice President. [no matter who the eventual nominee is] Now South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is joining her with that recommendation.
From The Hill:
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a top surrogate for GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, suggested Wednesday night that controversial Tea Party freshman Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) could be a “good” choice as the party’s vice presidential nominee.
You’ve got great ones. You have heard Gov. Palin talk about West, and he’s good,” Haley told Fox News. “Of course, Marco Rubio is great, and Chris Christie. We know he can be the fighter, and I think there are so many really great ones out there. I think Romney is going to have a hard time picking.
Palin told Fox on Tuesday night that she hoped Romney “goes rogue” and picks someone like West for the nomination.
Top of my list is Allen West,” Palin said. “I love that he has that military experience, he is a public servant willing to serve for the right reasons. When I talk about going rogue, what I want is to encourage the GOP nominee to not think that they have to go with somebody necessarily safe.
West, a conservative firebrand, has won over Tea Party supporters with his frank and unfiltered criticism of not just President Obama, but the Republican congressional leadership. But he’s also raised eyebrows with some comments, like when he suggested that President Obama “get the hell out of the United States of America” or called Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) a “plantation overseer.
Allen West would be an excellent VP choice. He has consistently been the overwhelming choice of Conservatives since speculation about 2012 began. He’s a take charge, no nonsense guy. He says what he means and means what he says. He has a solid grasp of the Constitution, and understands that Liberty and Freedom are essential.
I don’t see Mitt Romney picking West though. That’s too far out of the box for him. I suspect we’ll see someone more conventional, and unexciting. A “safe” candidate. If he does, that will be a real shame.


FEDERAL RESERVE OWNS 49% OF US DEBT WITH CHINA AND JAPAN

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

Top Customer: Under Obama, Fed’s Holdings of U.S. Debt Have Jumped 452%

Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)
(CNSNews.com) -  Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the Federal Reserve’s holdings of U.S. government debt have quintupled, according to the Fed’s official monthly balance sheet.
On Jan. 28, 2009, a week after Obama’s nomination, the Fed owned $302 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. On April 25, 2012, the latest date reported, the Fed owned five and a half time that much in U.S. Treasury securities--$1.668 trillion.
That is an increase from January 2009 of $1.366 trillion—or 452 percent.
Under Obama, the Federal Reserve has become the single largest owner of U.S. government debt. When Obama entered office, entities in the People’s Republic of China were the largest holders, followed by entities in Japan. At the end of January 2009, China owned $739.6 billion in U.S. government debt and Japan owned $634.8 billion.
By the end of March 2012, China’s holdings of U.S. debt had grown to $1.1699 trillion and Japan’s holdings had grown to $1.083 trillion.
Together, the Federal Reserve, China and Japan had increased their holdings of U.S. debt by $2.2445 trillion since Obama took office.
The total U.S. government debt grew from $10.6179 trillion to $15.6233 between Jan. 28, 2009 and April 25, 2012. Leaving out the intragovernmental debt—which the federal government owes itself—the publicly owned part of the U.S. government debt has climbed from $6.2955 trillion to $10.8607 trillion, an increase of $4.5652 trillion.
The $2.2445 trillion of that new publicly owned U.S. government debt that was purchased by the Fed, China and Japan equals 49 percent of all the new debt the U.S. government has sold to the public since Obama took office

FOUR LIES

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/06/07/the_four_lies_about_the_economy_that_obama_needs_voters_to_believe/page/full/ 


President Barack Obama's re-election turns on his ability to convince voters that 1) Obama inherited a "Great Recession," 2) every "independent" economist supported the "stimulus," 3) "bipartisan" economists agree that Obama's stimulus worked, and 4) as actor Morgan Freeman puts it, racist Republicans say, "Screw the country ... we're going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here" -- nothing to do with deeply held policy differences.
That's a lot of merchandise to push.
1) Take this "Great Recession" business.
Remember the "misery index"? The term, popularized by former President Jimmy Carter, used to mean inflation plus unemployment. Unfortunately for John Kerry, by the time he ran for president in 2004, the misery index stood at 7.4 midway into the election year, the same as when George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. What to do? Change the definition. Kerry invented a new misery index, one that included only high-rising costs like college tuition, health care and gas prices.
Similarly, "bad economic times" used to mean, above all, high unemployment. Within a year of Obama's presidency, unemployment climbed to 10.2 percent. Within three years of Reagan's presidency, unemployment reached 10.8 percent. Under Obama, inflation has been -- at least so far -- rather modest. Early in Reagan's presidency, inflation reached 13.5 percent. Rather than describe this era as the "Great-Recession-turned-around-by-Reagan's-pro-growth-policies," many pundits and scribes dismiss this period of extraordinary growth as the "me decade" or the "decade of greed."
2) "There is no disagreement," said then-President-elect Barack Obama, "that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."
What?! More than 200 economists, including several Nobel laureates, signed on to a full-page ad placed in major newspapers by the libertarian Cato Institute. Eventually, over 130 more economists became signatories to the ad.
It read: "With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
"More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.
"To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
These 350 or so notable economists notwithstanding, Obama later doubled down: "This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth."
3) Obama surrogate Steve Rattner recently said that Obama's stimulus worked -- as confirmed by "bipartisan" economists. As proof, Rattner offered the findings of "bipartisan economists Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder," who "agree that ... we would have had unemployment substantially higher than what we've had over the last two years."
"Bipartisan"?
Blinder, a Democrat, served as a member of the Clinton administration and later advised presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. As for Zandi, he did serve as a presidential campaign advisor to John McCain. Like Blinder, Zandi is a self-described Democrat.
Zandi likes "maverick" McCain, a Republican who voted against the first George W. Bush tax cuts using the same left-wing argument about the cuts benefiting the rich. Zandi's man, summoning his inner Dennis Kucinich, once said, "I cannot support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
As to the alleged unanimous expert opinion on the effectiveness of Obama's stimulus, Stanford economist John Taylor debated this on NPR with Zandi. Taylor's analysis, shared by many other economists: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."
4) Democrats never tire of trotting out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said his "single most important political goal" was to make Obama "a one-term president." Horrors! Why, doesn't this just make McConnell the very personification of sinister! Republican opposition for the sole purpose of bringing down Obama, the first black president, yada, blah, etc.
Apparently, it is outside the brain capacity of people like Morgan Freeman to understand something: One way to defeat bad, leftist Democrats' policies is to defeat bad, leftist Democrats, who seek to implement those bad, leftist policies. It's not complicated.
Nothing personal.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...