Fed close 9 more banks; Cheney attacked; Jobs saved or created?; Health czar with super powers?

1) Inside Pelosi's Health Care Bill Page 94, Pelosi plan: "Prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government." In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited. Page 110: "Requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan -- and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions." Page 111 -- Section 223: "Establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the 'Health Benefits Advisory Committee') to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase -- and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion." The death panels are back, by the way. Page 211 -- Section 321: "Establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage." Page 225 -- Section 330: "Permits -- but does not require -- Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care." So they'll be able to opt out of it and maintain their Cadillac plans. Page 255 -- Section 345: "Includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill -- while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants' identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits." …Page 1174 -- Section 1802(b): "Includes provisions entitled 'TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES' to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that 'We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House.'" And this, you know, is just the scratch-the-surface look 'cause there are 1,990 pages. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103009/content/01125115.guest.html 1a) Morning Bell: The Pelosi Blueprint for Government Run Health Care So that’s the plan: force all Americans to buy health insurance, regulate the private plans till they are too expensive, and then slowly expand the power and size of the public option as Americans are left with no choice but to turn to government run health care. That is how Pelosi aims to achieve Obama’s goal of “Everybody in, Nobody out” government run health care. The costs are going to be staggering. Not only will health care quality and choice suffer as more and more Americans are forced onto a government plan that reimburses providers at low government set rates, but the price tag is guaranteed to skyrocket. The only way the House managed to keep their price tag as low as $1.05 trillion is by pretending that Congress would cut Medicare reimbursement rates by 20% in 2010. The full ten-year cost of being honest about the Medicare reimbursement rates would be $250 billion. Less choice, lower quality health care, and trillion dollar deficits for years to come: that is the House’s prescription for health reform. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/30/morning-bell-the-pelosi-blueprint-for-government-run-health-care/#more-18678 1b) House Health Bill – A Whopping 1,990 Pages! (from Sean Hannity e-mail newsletter) The new House health care bill contains almost twice the number of pages than The Bible and weighs more than 5 pounds! The House bill, which was unveiled yesterday, weighs in at a jaw dropping 1,990 pages. Sean, who perused the massive document this morning, noticed a few important things. “The one important promise Obama gave that you get to keep your health insurance if you want is false (emphasis mine),” Sean said. “Go to pages 92 and 18 and you’ll find some frightening language in there that I guarantee you no one in the media is going to pick up on.” Medical devices, such as hearing aids or knee replacements, now come with a 2.5% excise tax. There is also a new tax on health savings accounts and the elimination of non-taxable reimbursements of over the counter medication! 1c) Pelosi Plan Would Give Health Czar Super Powers Among the fallacies in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill is the pretense that bureaucrats are smarter than the rest of us. An unelected bureaucrat would be given czar-like control over our lives, our health, and our pocketbooks. Even super powers. This new all-powerful “health choices commissioner” would be entrusted with more power than most superheroes. The laundry list of that special power is proof that it’s a government takeover of health care. This presidential appointee will both control the new government-run insurance plan AND decide how private insurance companies are to operate, by creating the standards for their coverage and enforcing compliance. Likewise, employer-run health plans would answer to super-czar. In other words, this health czar will control both the government plan and all of its competition. So much for claims about a level playing field! Rather than having Medicare dictate payment amounts to doctors and hospitals (as Pelosi originally intended), her new 1,990-page bill says the czar will “negotiate” rates. That will take an an awful lot of staff. America has 788,000 active doctors and 5,708 hospitals. But that’s not all. The new czar would also: -Oversee the millions of Americans who would qualify for insurance subsidies -Audit the country’s 1,300-plus health insurers -Have power to collect whatever data the office deems necessary, which could involve review of medical -records -Assess fines -Define our terms for us. This commissioner/czar would dictate all the definitions used in health insurance policies. After all, if you control the language, you control the debate -Appoint a national health ombudsman to examine consumer complaints, but only in “a linguistically appropriate manner” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/30/pelosi-plan-would-give-health-czar-super-powers/ 1d) Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? …But a fair-minded person may ask: But those are just cost estimates; what is the federal government’s track record when it comes to accurately measuring the future costs of health care programs? Well, the Senate Joint Economic Committee has released a report studying exactly that issue, and they found that health care plan costs are always dramatically underestimated. From the report: “Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.” Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/ 2) Even State-Run Media Doesn't Buy Obama Lies on Stimulus Jobs RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, the White House is -- not even the State-Controlled Media is buying this, by the way -- the White House, earlier this week, maybe last week, they put out this number -- 30,000 jobs saved or created by the stimulus. And the press said, "No, it's not 30,000, it may be 10,000," and gave us details, such as that Florida daycare center that claimed they saved or created 129 jobs with their stimulus money when in fact all they did was give people already working there a raise. There were no jobs saved, and there were no new jobs. The report was phony. So the White House, "This is wrong. We got our new numbers and the new numbers are out," and the White House is now saying they created or saved a million jobs since the stimulus passed. The White House claimed today President Obama's plan has saved or created more than one million jobs. Now, during this time, under Obama, the US unemployment rate has gone up from 7.6% to 9.8%. We round off here. We're gonna call it 10% 'cause it's going to get there at some point anyway. Now, in reality, the United States has lost 3.3 million jobs since Obama and Pelosi passed the Porkulus bill, and as I say, the State-Controlled Media is not even buying any of this. Let's go to last night, CBS Evening News, Chip Reid, the chief White House correspondent talking about the stimulus jobs report. REID: At a small college in Georgia, $100,000 in stimulus funds paid for trucks for students to practice for commercial driver's licenses. Another hundred thousand went for a modular classroom. The school reported to the government that 280 jobs were created. In reality, not even close. In Cocoa, Florida, a child care center reported 129 jobs created by a stimulus grant. In fact, no jobs were created. It turns out the administration's initial jobs stimulus report contained hundreds of errors as first reported by the Associated Press. Critics say if the kinds of errors found in that earlier report are repeated in Friday's much more extensive job creation survey it won't be worth the paper it's printed on. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103009/content/01125106.guest.html 3) Glenn Beck: Free Speech Being Muzzled? …But on to Public Broadcasting. Executive director Josh Silver's position paper "Public Media's Moment" spells out to President Obama how to take advantage: "The growing crisis facing commercial journalism and public media's unique ability to address it... makes such reform all the more urgent... you have a rare opportunity to achieve real change and reinvent public media." Adding: "Just as the economic crisis has put an end to free market fundamentalism, so too should the failure of commercial media to adequately serve the public interest end the myth that government has no role in fulfilling society's information needs." You see how the White House's "Fox isn't a real news organization" comments make more sense now, right? Silver calls on President Obama to create a White House commission on public media to provide policy recommendations. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/32549/ 4) Federal regulators close 9 banks NEW YORK – Regulators have shut down nine banks, including California National Bank. The move Friday brings the number of failed U.S. banks this year to 115 as the still-weak economy produces a stream of loan defaults. The banks are mostly in the West and had combined assets of $19.4 billion at the end of September. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation says U.S. Bank in Minneapolis agreed to assume the deposits and most of the assets of the banks. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bank_closures 5) Cheney told FBI he had no idea who leaked Plame ID How shocking that one week after Cheney gives an outstanding speech which is critical of the current administration, they bring up Plame and Scooter Libby. Coincidence? I think not. WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Dick Cheney told the FBI in 2004 he had no idea who leaked to the news media that Valerie Plame, wife of a Bush administration critic, worked for the CIA. A summary of the FBI's interview with the then-vice president reflects that he had deep concern about Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador in Africa who said the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the probe of who leaked Plame's identity to the news media. At the end of Libby's trial, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said that "there is a cloud over the vice president" regarding the leaking of Plame's identity. …In a New York Times opinion piece on July 6, 2003, Wilson accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to buy a uranium "yellowcake" in the African nation of Niger. Bush referred to the yellowcake during his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union speech to Congress as he was trying to rally support for going to war with Iraq. Yellowcake is a powdered form of uranium that could be used in a nuclear weapon if purified and enriched. The year before, the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to determine the accuracy of the uranium reports. Wilson brought back denials of any sale and argued such a sale was not likely to happen. Remember, from previous posts, that Irag DID have yellowcake. The AP thinks no one will remember. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_cheney_cia_leak 6) Liz Cheney Slams Obama on Dover LIZ CHENEY: I don't know why he went to Dover. I think that clearly it is very important for a commander-in-chief whenever he can, in whatever way possible, to pay tribute to our fallen soldiers, our fallen military, folks, but I think, you know, what President Bush used to do was to do it without cameras, and I don't understand sort of showing up with the White House press pool with photographers and asking family members if he can take pictures. I mean, that's really hard for me to get my head around. I think it's an honorable and important thing to pay tribute, there's no greater sacrifice people make to the nation. It was a surprising way for the president to choose to do it. I would also point out that the best way to pay tribute to those who have sacrificed is to win the war (emphasis mine). See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103009/content/01125110.guest.html 7) This week on 'The Hal Lindsey Report' (from an e-mail newsletter from Hal Lindsey, http://www.hallindsey.com/) This morning, I read a very brief, but telling, news report from Pakistan. When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited there recently, she spoke at the Government College and took questions from the students. One young lady asked her directly, "What guarantee can Americans give Pakistan that we can now trust you... that you guys are not going to betray us like the Americans did in the past when they wanted to destabilize the Russians?" In the face of President Obama's indecision about Afghanistan, that's the $64,000 question. If he can't decide whether to grant his hand-picked commander's request; if we don't have the commitment to finish the job in Afghanistan, how can Pakistan know that we'll stand by them if they take the necessary steps to defeat the Taliban in their country? How can they know that we won't abandon nearby Afghanistan to the very forces that are now seeking to take control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal? …Because of America's loss of nerve and its unwillingness to confront Iran, Israelis have now come to believe that they can no longer trust America (sound familiar?). In fact, recent "Jerusalem Post" surveys indicate that 96% of Israeli citizens believe that America is no longer pro-Israel! That's why the European Union (remember France's Foreign Minister?) seems to be stepping forward to assume the mantle of chief Middle East Peace mediator. After all, the Middle East is practically in Europe's backyard and, thus, is of more importance to them than it is to America. Not coincidentally, the Bible predicts that in the last days a man will rise from the revived form of the old Roman Empire (Europe) to take charge and guarantee Israel's safety. …Some observers feel that the palpable turn taken by Washington against Israel, evidenced by President Obama's recent referral at the UN to "the Israeli occupation" (the first time a sitting US President has done so), sends a message of tacit approval to the PA to ratchet up the pressure on Israel. Even now I can hear the words and warnings of Zechariah the prophet ringing across those ancient hills. Finally, I'm going to take a few minutes to review with you why the Temple Mount, the most strategic place on earth, is also the most volatile tinderbox on earth. And it's dangerously close to igniting.

Dismantling America; Legal tax deductions disallowed on basis of "motive"; GMAC to be owned by gov.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson 1) Dismantling America Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent? Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?   Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments? Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones? …Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country. Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people. Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children. Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House? …Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation (emphasis mine). See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/dismantling_america_98883.html 2) Excerpts: Pelosi's Debacle RUSH: How is that hope and change working out for you? Now, there's another passage, I'm not going to read nearly as much of it. There is a tax on those without insurance. Section 59(b), page 297 out of 1,990 pages, by the way, "Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Coverage. '(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-- '(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over '(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. (b) limitations -- tax limited to average premium. In general, the tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year." What it all adds up to here is there's going to be a tax if you don't go out and get insurance, two-and-a-half percent. You want to hear some of the other taxes in this? The Americans for Tax Reform has gone through the bill and they got a comprehensive list of taxes in Pelosi's debacle. "Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted. Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)" …"Codification of the 'Economic Substance Doctrine' (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related." Want me to read that to you again? Page 349, "Economic Substance Doctrine empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related." Welcome to the Soviet Union (emphasis mine).   See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102909/content/01125112.guest.html 2a) It's alive! End-of-life counseling in health bill WASHINGTON – It's alive. The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to "death panels" for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_death_panels 2b) Pelosi Bill: Get Ready to Grow that Enemies List The White House seems fond of making enemies lists these days, so it seems worthwhile to look at the just-released House health package to determine who non-partisan journalists think might be joining the enemies list in the near future: 1. States — The House bill will be increasing the threshold for Medicaid eligibility from 133 percent of poverty to 150 percent. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Medicaid expansion is likely to prompt protests from the states, who share the program's costs with the federal government.” 2. Employers — The Journal notes that the legislation will impose a payroll tax on employers with over 500,000 in payroll who do not offer health insurance. Per the Journal, “The penalty gradually rises, and firms with payroll greater than $750,000 would pay a penalty of 8% of payroll. Senate versions of the bill have weaker penalties.” …4. Budget hawks — Per Politico: “The legislation is projected to create deficits over the second five years, a fact that should give budget hawks plenty to worry about.” 5. Conservatives, specifically pro-lifers and those worried about illegal immigration — As the Washington Post notes, “sticking points involving abortion and immigration remain unresolved.” …10. Insurers — “Health insurers, who have already agreed to end many of the practices banned by the bill, would have to compete with a government-run insurance vehicle that would put pressure on them to lower premiums.” All told, the Pelosi approach is an impressive demonstration of coalition building . . . if you’re trying to build a coalition of opponents. See: http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODM2MTEzMTkwZmNjMTNkY2FmMWRhNzY5NWFhY2Y4MmE 3) Big Lender GMAC Asks for More U.S. Aid GMAC, the troubled consumer finance company, is seeking billions of dollars in additional federal aid, a move that would be its third taxpayer bailout and could give the government a majority stake in the company, according to people briefed on the situation.  GMAC and Treasury Department officials have been locked in negotiations over how to structure the third bailout as it approaches a crucial deadline in early November for shoring up its finances. The government has injected $12.5 billion into the company and already owns about a 35 percent stake from a broader restructuring of General Motors, its onetime parent.  Any fresh injection of government money, or the conversion of its existing preferred shares into common stock, would give taxpayers a much larger — perhaps even a majority stake — in the company. The government’s investment in GMAC would vastly surpass its nearly 34 percent stake in Citigroup, and could reignite the public debate over the Obama administration’s role as a major investor in corporations. …GMAC was selected by the Obama administration earlier this year as a key source of buyer and dealer financing to G.M. and Chrysler. Many of its problems, however, stem from now-soured sub-prime mortgages and other real estate loans it made at the height of the housing bubble.  GMAC’s financial issues are not new. Following a government-mandated stress test last spring, GMAC was found to need another $11.5 billion of capital — and given six months to raise it. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/28gmac.html?ref=todayspaper 4) Obama's GDP Grew Because the "G" Now Stands for "Government" RUSH: They're not. Look, you can try to cover up 10% unemployment all you want with a phony GDP number of 3.5%, you can go out there and say you saved the economy, but there are no jobs. Obama is gratified, but by his own benchmark his economy is still failing. Now, let me see if I can put this GDP number into context for you, 'cause it's phony. It is a fake number. Gross domestic product needs to be understood as the sum of three things: consumption by consumers, investment by business, and spending by government, CIG. Consumption, investment, spending by government. So they say the total GDP went up 3.5%. But was there any new consumption by consumers? No. Was there any new investment by business? No. Was there spending by government? Yes. That's the G. The increase is in G, spending by government.  See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102909/content/01125108.guest.html 5) Stimulus dollars going to accused contractors More than $1.2 billion awarded to firms on watchdog's list President Obama and members of Congress told federal agencies earlier this year to avoid awarding funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to contractors with troubled histories of work for the federal government.  But that isn't happening at numerous agencies, a Washington Post analysis shows. So far, 33 federal departments and agencies have awarded more than $1.2 billion in stimulus contracts to at least 30 companies that are ranked by one watchdog group as among the most egregious offenders of state and federal laws. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804540.html 6) Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law 'It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties' A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.  The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.  Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.  Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act at a White House ceremony today. Prior to signing the act into law, Obama spoke briefly of the hate crimes bill. American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."  Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence (emphasis mine).  "It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.  As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114305 7) How the FCC and Liberal Churches Are Scheming To Shut You Up The apostate church is alive and well… Creators Syndicate – The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on "hate speech" over cable TV and right-leaning talk-radio airwaves. President Obama's speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige. Over the last week, an outfit called "So We Might See" has conducted a nationwide fast to protest "media violence" — specifically, "anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts." Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk-show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government's systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions against illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies? The "interfaith coalition for media justice" is led by the United Church of Christ. Yes, that's the same church of Obama's race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. Other members include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the National Council of Churches. These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and "explore options" for combating "hate speech" from staunch critics of illegal immigration. …Unsurprisingly, far-left billionaire George Soros' money is backing the So We Might See/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing "diversity czar," Mark Lloyd. …Jeffrey Lord, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, reported in The American Spectator that not long after that speech, the UCC sent out a mass e-mail to its millions of members urging them to join the nationwide fast and regulatory drive. The church-state alliance missive directed its followers: "As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media." No word on when they'll be launching an inquiry into the fear-based, fact-free "hate speech" from the mouth of Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, who accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to "die quickly," likened health care problems to the "Holocaust" and attacked an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a "K Street whore." Or when they'll be going after MSNBC and Air America radio hate-mongers who have openly wished on their airwaves for the deaths of George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. But I digress. In the age of Obama, the targets of left-wing hate speech don't have a prayer. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20091028/cm_uc_crmmax/op_1911774 8) CNN's Lou Dobbs: Shot fired into my home 'We'd had threatening phone calls ... it's now become a way of life' CNN and talk radio host Lou Dobbs, a strong proponent of U.S. border enforcement, told his radio audience a gunshot was fired into his home after a series of threatening phone calls.  "Three weeks ago this morning a shot was fired into my house, my wife was standing there," he said on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday. "This follows weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls."  "This shot was fired with my wife not 15 feet away." Dobbs said advocacy groups that support illegal aliens and have pressed for him to be fired "have created an atmosphere and have been unrelenting in their propaganda."  Outspoken opponents of Dobbs include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of La Raza, Internet media watchdog Media Matters and Geraldo Rivera of Fox News.  Last week, in a speech to Hispanics sponsored by New York City's largest Spanish-language daily newspaper, El Diario La Prensa, Rivera singled out Dobbs for what he called "the defamatory tone of the immigration debate" which has "slandered an entire race of people." …More from Dobbs' Monday broadcast:  "If anybody thinks that we're not engaged in a battle for the soul of this country right now, you're sorely mistaken. And the more you stay on the sidelines and the more you don't make your voice heard, the more likely it is that we're going to lose this battle for the soul of the nation."  "My wife and I have been shot at, our driver, my house has been shot and hit. The investigation continues. I've had bodyguards now, you know, I'm not in the mood to put up with little fools like Geraldo Rivera."  "It's time we really awaken to what is happening in this country, it is ugly, it has to stop, and we have to find the courage to elect congressmen and senators, and yes, presidents who will speak truth. Not pander and not play politically correct games."  "We need to get real about what is happening in this country, and understand that if this battle for the soul of the country is lost, so much is lost that follows. Respect for our laws, respect for our borders, our ports, our national sovereignty." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114393 9) Iran Hints at Uranium Plan Changes BEIRUT, Lebanon — A high-ranking Iranian official said Tuesday that even if the country agreed to a United Nations-sponsored plan to ship its enriched uranium abroad for further processing, it would not ship it all at once, Iranian news media reported. That position, if maintained, could undermine the entire plan. The French government, a party to the deal, has made it clear that the uranium must be shipped all at once before the end of the year.  Iran has said it will formally respond on Friday to the proposal, which is intended to delay the country’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon for about a year and buy time for a broader diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html?ref=todayspaper 10) Confirmed: Skin cream contains fetal proteins Company's anti-aging products built on cells harvested from aborted baby A pro-life organization is blasting a Switzerland-based cosmetics manufacturer whose website openly admits some of its products were developed from the tissues of an aborted baby.  Children of God for Life is a non-profit organization focused on the bioethics of embryonic tissue use in medicine and manufacturing. One of its current campaigns includes petitioning pharmaceutical companies to produce safe, effective alternatives to vaccines derived or cultivated from aborted fetal tissue. But the organization's attention has now turned Neocutis, a company with offices in San Francisco which has developed a line of anti-aging products that include an ingredient the company has trademarked as Processed Skin Cell Protein, or PSP, developed from skin cells harvested from an abortion. …But this is the first time, the organization says, that any company was bold enough to put the information right on its own website and in product literature.  In fact, the Neocutis website openly explains the history of its PSP ingredient:  "A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination," the website states, "and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments. Originally established for wound healing and burn treatments, today this same cell bank also provides a lasting supply of cells for producing Neocutis' proprietary skin care ingredient Processed Skin Cell Proteins." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114251

Unprecedented power to sieze banks, Hate Crimes to Obama tomorrow, "Opt-Out" is Sleight of Hand

1) Obama embraces House financial overhaul bill WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday embraced a House bill that would give the government unprecedented power to seize bank holding companies and other large financial firms teetering on the brink of collapse and stick their competitors with the cost. …Under Frank's proposal, a council of regulators would be established to monitor financial firms regarded as so big and influential that their collapse could bring down the entire economy. If the council determines that a firm has grown too big and dangerous, the Federal Reserve could step in to dismantle it. Firms with more than $10 billion of assets would be responsible for covering any outstanding costs of that action. The agreement paves the way for the bill's swift approval. Frank's committee was expected to consider it next week with a floor vote anticipated as early as November. …Frank's latest proposal to give the government the power to dismantle large, influential non-bank firms is not expected to generate the same kind of consensus. Republicans are likely to oppose the measure because they say it will create the expectation that some companies will be bailed out by the government because of their designation as being critical to the health of the economy. Democrats counter that the bill will prevent future bailouts because it will enable regulators to dismantle these firms. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul 2) Nineteen States Move to Defend Individual Health Care Choice (CNSNews.com) – Regardless of what the U.S. Congress decides about health care reform, a growing number of states are standing up for individuals’ freedom of choice when it comes to purchasing – or not purchasing – health insurance.   Several Kansas Republicans have introduced a state constitutional amendment that would protect the right of Kansas residents to make their own health care choices. That makes Kansas the 19th state where legislators have introduced, or will introduce, such legislation.   The proposed Kansas amendment preserves the right of individuals to pay directly for medical care -- something that is not allowed in single-payer countries such as Canada. It also prohibits any individual from being penalized for not purchasing government-defined insurance. Under the amendment, any state attempt to require an individual to purchase health insurance--or forbid an individual from purchasing services outside of the government-established health care system--would be rendered unconstitutional. …Kansas now joins legislators in seven states (Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Utah) that have publicly announced their intention to file legislation to protect their citizens from any government health-care mandates.    Another 11 states have already filed or pre-filed similar legislation (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Arizona's measure, which passed the legislature in June, will be put before voters on the 2010 ballot. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56144 2a) Snowe would vote to block Reid's health care bill WASHINGTON — Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe says she would vote with fellow Republicans to block the Democratic health care overhaul if changes are not made to the version Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined this week. The Democrats will need 60 votes to get the bill past a threatened Republican filibuster, so Snowe's vote would be crucial if Reid loses any of the chamber's 58 Democrats and two independents. Snowe is the only Republican in Congress who has voted for any of the early Democratic versions in either the Senate or House. Reid says he has blended two versions in a measure that includes a government-run "public option" to compete with private health insurance plans. States could opt out of the government insurance, but Snowe said Tuesday that's not good enough. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BJK4EG0 2b) Senate moderates voice concern over public option WASHINGTON – Inclusion of a government insurance plan in Senate health care legislation is posing problems for moderate senators whose votes are critical to passing the bill. Reverberations could be felt across the Capitol, where House Democratic leaders are finalizing a bill with a government plan. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday that while he won't vote to block Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan from going to the Senate floor for debate, he would ultimately oppose the measure because it includes a public option. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul 2c) Dingy Harry's Sleight of Hand: An "Opt-Out" of the Public Option RUSH: All right, now, he's provided nothing specific. This is typical. He's come up with a theory on this public option state opt-out, and he sent it over to the CBO to have it scored. I don't trust the CBO, for one thing, but that's not the point about this. I want to reiterate again that there will no way be any possibility you can opt out of a public option and there's no way your governor or your state legislature or assembly will be able to opt out of it, either, and I'm going to explain why. As a side illustration, do you recall when Jimmy Carter declared a national speed limit of 55 miles an hour and states could opt -- you don't remember that? Okay, I'll tell you. That's when the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit got started, Jimmy Carter declared it, and there was a state opt-out. Now, the Catch-22 was that if states opted out, they lost all federal highway funds, they lost any participation, but that's a side point. This is much more than that.   Here's the truth. The citizens of this country, regardless of what state they live in, will have to pay for, that is, subsidize through taxes and higher private insurance policy costs that the public option the government will set up. No citizen will be able to opt out of that whether you are an employer or an employee or on your own. It's an illusion. You're gonna pay for it no matter what. Furthermore, the government's imposition of bankrupting regulations on private insurance companies are gonna put 'em out of business. We now know that contrary to what Obama and his people are running around saying, that the insurance companies are making obscene profits, the usual attacks on the business of the day, we now learn that the profits of private health insurers, two to three percent. Even the AP reported that. They are not flush with money. They are not among the most profitable businesses in the nation. They're nowhere near it. What's going to happen, what everybody seems to forget, you know, Pelosi's out there saying, (paraphrasing) "Public option, that's a bad word, we need to change the term. We need to call it competitive option."   That's even worse. Because the objective of the public option is to drive private health care insurance out of business. There are a number of ways that will happen and Dingy Harry's latest sleight of hand is one of them. Here's how it's going to work. These regulations that will bankrupt insurance companies, that will be imposed on them, will consist of compelling private companies to take all comers. Private insurance companies will have to insure everybody, including those who are going to have a heart attack tomorrow and die. They're going to have to take 'em when they have not purchased insurance earlier, only when they need a major operation or an expensive drug. Now, by compelling these companies to do that, they are going to destroy the ability of any private entity to protect its other customers who have acted responsibly and purchased insurance when they were not sick. So the people who again play by the rules, follow what they're supposed to do, are going to be paying for the insurance policies of people who sign up at the first sign they got a big operation or need an expensive drug or what have you, the government will set benefit requirements for the insurance agency, they will set price limits.   See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102709/content/01125108.guest.html 2d) Obama Told House Democrat He Wasn’t Talking about House Health Bill When He Told Congress ‘Our Plan’ Doesn’t Fund Abortion (CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written. “I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion. Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.  …CNSNews.com read Stupak the verbatim transcript of President Obama’s joint-session-speech statement about abortion funding: “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Is that a true or false statement?”   “That is exactly what he said,” said Stupak.    “But is it an accurate statement?” asked CNSNews.com.   “I called him,” said Stupak. “I called the president--had a discussion with the president. And I read exactly what you just said. And he said: ‘What it says is “under my plan”’—meaning the president’s plan. And I said: ‘With all due respect, sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan.’ So, I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what.” …In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Stupak offered his own amendment to the health care bill that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to cover “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.”  On July 31, by a 27-to-31 vote, the Energy and Commerce Committee defeated Stupak’s effort to include the Hyde language directly in the health-care bill itself and thus prohibit abortion funding through that bill and the programs it would create. Stupak told CNSNews.com he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will try to kill the health care bill itself unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) agrees to allow an up-or-down vote on his amendment when the bill comes to the House floor. "The speaker has told me I will not have my amendment," said Stupak. "It will not be made in order." I don’t know how many different ways this can be said. The bill(s) COVER ABORTION. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56109 3) Signing the hate crimes bill A source sends word that Obama will give remarks on signing hate crimes legislation Wednesday afternoon, and is sending invitations out to gay groups -- including some that have been critical of the White House -- for a reception in partnership with the David Bohnett Foundation -- run by a major gay donor.  “‘hate crime law’ . . . . aka Device for Intimidating and Silencing Political Opponents on issues like same-sex marriage ("What, you're opposing gay marriage? Well, we'll just have to open a federal criminal investigation of you") -------- ------- Gee, you don't think the Chicago Thugs in the White House would ever resort to such sleazy level tactics????” - comment posted by anonymous. “White House threatens criminal prosecution of Humana after it dared speak out. Guess what will happen to people who dare speak out against gay marriage?” - posted by “Decoder” See: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Signing_the_hate_crimes_bill.html 3a) Congress passes Hate Crimes Bill Opponents worry over special 'hate crimes' treatment for homosexuals A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, is poised to be signed by President Obama, a longtime proponent of the plan to give homosexuals and others with alternative lifestyles special protections not provided other classes of citizens.  The Senate approved the measure 68-29 today after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.  Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill.  "The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., told Fox News after the vote. The plan also hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes.  Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the move is a step toward criminalizing thought and suggested the bill will be a threat to those to speak out about their religious faith. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113788 3b) Obama gets Hate Crimes Bill Victim of state law says federal act 'one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation' A Christian minister who has spent time in jail because of a state "hate crimes" law is warning that the federal legislation, now pending on President Obama's desk, is "one of the most dangerous pieces of federal legislation in the history of our nation."  The comment comes from Michael Marcavage of Repent America. He was among a group that became known as the "Philadelphia 11" that made national headlines in 2004.  That was when the Christians, ministering at a homosexual festival, were accused under a state "hate crimes" law. "This is an attempt by the U.S. government to shut down the Gospel of Jesus Christ by criminalizing Christians who reach out in the love of God to those trapped in the bondage of homosexuality," he said. "The passage of this 'hate crimes' legislation is one giant leap in the direction of persecuting Christians nationwide."  It was five years ago when Marcavage and 10 others were charged for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the public streets of Philadelphia during an annual taxpayer-funded celebration of homosexuality called "Outfest." He describes how by preaching the Word of God, singing songs of praise and carrying banners with Bible verses, the Christians were perceived by law enforcement officers as a "threat" and were arrested.  "At the same time, police ignored the fact that homosexual attendees were harassing the Christians by encircling them with large pink placards while blowing loud, screeching whistles," he wrote in a report on the dispute.  "After being jailed for 21 hours, each member of Repent America was charged under Pennsylvania's 'hate crimes' law called 'ethnic intimidation.' They were also charged with a host of other bogus felony and misdemeanor charges, including 'criminal conspiracy' and 'possession of an instrument of crime,' and each faced a possible sentence of up to 47 years in prison along with a $90,000 fine," he said.  "Thankfully, after months of the looming 'criminal' charges, they were all vindicated of all counts," he said.  The state's "hate crimes" law eventually was struck down by the courts, he noted. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114142 4) "The New 'Twilight Zone' -- Obama Declares Swine Flu Emergency" President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency on Friday October 23, empowering the health secretary to suspend federal requirements and speed up treatment.  His declaration authorizes Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to bypass normal federal regulations so health officials can respond more quickly to the outbreak, which, allegedly, has killed more than 1,000 people in the United States. "As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic," Obama wrote in the declaration, which the White House announced Saturday. He said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there's a potential "to overburden health care resources." Dr. Mercola’s comments: It would appear that President Obama has not been apprised of the real facts of the situation, and has declared the swine flu a national public health emergency. …The intention of this report is to show you with the government's own statistics that there appears to be MASSIVE amounts of misinformation and outright deception going on that appear to be designed to panic American people into believing that H1N1 influenza is more serious and widespread than it is. ..I just published a major swine flu update on Saturday about how CBS News investigative journalists exposed how misleading statistics are being used to panic the public into complying with the huge H1N1 swine flu vaccination program. Last week, CBS News published the results from a three-month long investigation into the swine flu. One would think this would have received MASSIVE media exposure since their findings are in direct conflict with what the government is publicly stating. Of major interest…CBS investigative journalists went to the CDC to seek their help in clarifying the situation and answering outstanding questions but CDC officials refused. They would not cooperate and CBS had to do their own investigation. Even worse, after CBS compiled the data, the CDC refused to comment on it (emphasis mine). …The only way that we can have an effective response to the reported H1N1 influenza outbreak is if the government is transparent with the data. We have simply not seen ANY evidence that government health agencies are willing to be transparent. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. The CBS investigative report included state-by-state test results that revealed some VERY different facts from what the US Centers for Disease Control has been telling the American public.  The CBS report found that H1N1 flu cases are NOT AT ALL as prevalent as feared. A CBS article even states: "If you've been diagnosed "probable" or "presumed" 2009 H1N1 or "swine flu" in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn't have H1N1 flu.  In fact, you probably didn't have the flu at all. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico." In most states the percentages ranged from 83 to 98 percent NOT BEING H1N1 or influenza. …It also seems odd to declare a national emergency even if there were 1,000 confirmed swine flu deaths. There are so many diseases that claim so many more lives each and every year... The only difference is they don't have a vaccine against them that they can promote that every man, woman, and child should take. For example, hospital-acquired infections alone kill some 90,000 people annually in the US! See: http://articles.mercola.com/swine-flu-article/20091027.htm And: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea 5) Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund WASHINGTON — The White House Friday highlighted a new multi-million-dollar technology fund for Muslim nations, following a pledge made by President Barack Obama in his landmark speech to the Islamic world. The White House said the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) had issued a call for proposals for the fund, which will provide financing of between 25 and 150 million dollars for selected projects and funds. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiACngvR3yEdcvTEeHLuh4IcXe6Q 6) Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx

WH attacks worry moderate dems; how HC is tyranny; Net neutrality is fairness doctrine for internet

“To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel.” - Ayn Rand “The simple fact is that human rights, and property rights go hand in hand. You cannot have one, without the other. Any governmental philosophy that violates the fundamental right to property is a threat to liberty, even if it’s intentions are noble.” (from http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/01/why-reject-socialism-private-property-and-economic-freedom-vs-economic-equality-part-2/) “…the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” - John Adams "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Thomas Jefferson  Or, as a T.E.A. party protester put it: “Wealth is not immoral. Thievery is.” 1) White House attacks worry moderate Democrats A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.  “It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”  Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.  “There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.” POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it’s the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.” OK, Chairman Anita.  Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was “targeting those who don’t immediately fall in line” with “Chicago-style politics” aimed at “shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents.”  Boehner’s No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation’s problems are growing while the White House “bickers with a cable news network.” See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html 1a) Behind the War Between White House and Fox WASHINGTON — Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret tête-à-tête. Mr. Ailes, who had reached out to Mr. Axelrod to address rising tensions between the network and the White House, told him that Fox’s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators who were skewering President Obama nightly, according to people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.  What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan. By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn. …In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.” …“This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Our concern is other media not follow their lead.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1 2) When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?' (CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The arrogance of these people knows no bounds.  Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Are you kidding? In what world is healthcare interstate commerce? The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:    CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”   Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”   CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”   Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971 2a) When tyranny calls In explanation for her "yes" vote on the Max Baucus created health care bill, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe said: "Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls."  Senator Snowe is probably right. History is calling. What she has wrong is history's message. History is calling with the warning that tyranny is at our doorstep. The tyranny that threatens us is not the same brand as the violent police states of the 20th century. Tyranny in America will look more like the misguided utopianism that has taken England from being the greatest, freest nation on earth to the frail remains of a world power it is today. …If health care passes, it will not represent the beginning of the end -- the beginning took place long ago. But it may signal the end of the beginning, the end of the period in which liberty has its chance to beat back statism. American freedom has been bent, and bent, and bent for nearly 100 hundred years. Like post World War II socialization of England, health care may prove to be America's breaking point. History is calling. Who will hear her? See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/when_tyranny_calls.html 2b) Congress Warms to Public Option, Weighs Compromise Proposals After raucous town hall meetings appeared to discourage moderate lawmakers from pursuing a government-run health insurance plan, both chambers of Congress are starting to warm to the idea once more.  A compromise is emerging in the Senate on a government-run health insurance plan that would give states an opportunity to either opt out of or opt into the program.  …In the Senate, Democratic sources say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and many key Democrats prefer a plan that would allow individual states to drop out of the program. Reid was testing support for that idea and for another alternative, which would hold government-sponsored insurance coverage in reserve and "trigger" it only if private companies weren't providing enough affordable alternatives in given states.  …Sens. Nelson and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., both former governors, along with Lincoln, have expressed a great deal of concern toward the "opt out" option, the one favored by Reid and many other Democrats.  Nelson wanted to know how difficult it would be for states to opt out, fearing that those who want a more robust public option would virtually lock states into the plans.  See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/congress-warms-public-option-weighs-compromise-proposals/ 2c) In Massachusetts, Obama won't promote state's health-care plan President Obama will travel Friday to Massachusetts, one of only two states to implement a universal health-care program similar to his ambitions for the entire country. But he does not plan to use the trip to make his case for far-reaching reform; he will tout clean energy and raise money for the Democratic governor.  The president's critics say his reluctance to spotlight the Massachusetts model is real-world evidence that his vision would not work on a national scale. High costs have forced the state to trim benefits for legal immigrants and prompted one safety-net hospital to sue over a $38 million shortfall. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204684.html 3) Freddie Mac’s Secrecy Pacts Face Court Test WASHINGTON — One year after the government took over and bailed out Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage finance company, federal regulators are blocking former employees from revealing information to investors who are suing the company for fraud, lawyers for shareholders say. The Treasury has propped up Freddie Mac with more than $50 billion in taxpayer money since the company nearly collapsed more than a year ago, and officials warn that the company will probably need additional billions in the months ahead. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/business/23mortgage.html?ref=todayspaper Remember from yesterday?  Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn’t have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP (emphasis mine).  Why is that?  All of which somehow reminds us that Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, got $250,000 from a very limited stint at Freddie Mac at the very time they were cooking their books so badly. Will he give any of that money back? Still, we would say that it serves these bank CEOs right for taking the money in the first place. Except that many of them were forced into doing so by the government. Nevertheless, just imagine how well the war against the terrorists would go if Mr. Obama would be as tough on the Taliban and Al Qaeda as he is on law abiding American executives. See: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-to-slash-bank-ceos-pay-90 4) Why Reject Socialism?: Private Property, and Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality (part 2) Let’s now take a look at Socialism as an economic philosophy. 19th century philosopher Ayn Rand had some strong words to further define socialism and its nature as an economic and governmental theory: “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” - From The New Intellectual In order to fully understand Rand’s view – we need to clearly define ‘private property.’ In plain terms, Private property is essentially the results (or wages) of an individual’s personal labor. Furthermore, an individual’s labor is basically the sum of a person’s mind, since all that we do creatively and productively is the result of our own mind making free choices to take actions. Therefore, the crucial question each person must ask is, “Does a free individual have the right to the product of their own mind?” Take a moment to internalize this question, because it is simply too easy to think of ‘individuals’ as numbers. Do you have the right to the product of your mind? In my view, if you truly believe in personal human liberty – you must answer this question: Yes. This is where a proper view of taxes becomes important. Part of the problem in America today is that people don’t really view taxes for what they truly are: unpaid labor for the state. Most people are so used to paying their taxes (many times not even seeing them, as they are deducted automatically) that this reality is blurred. You and I pay a certain percentage of our annual wages in tax. What this really means is that we spend that percentage (if you are middle-class, that’s about 30%) of our year working directly for the state and not ourselves or our families. Furthermore – you and I don’t really get to decide what happens with the labor we do for the state. Socialism seeks to make all people economically equal through the idea of fairness. In other words, socialism seeks to share the wealth, or create a state of ‘shared prosperity‘ as this is seen to be more fair and compassionate. During the recent campaign, President Barack Obama, then candidate Obama made the remark, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” Of course, most people (including conservatives) view sharing with those who are less fortunate, as a positive thing. However, it is important to remember we are talking about a governmental philosophy, not personal kindness and charity. Under socialism, in order to create fairness or shared prosperity, this requires taking the labor of some, and giving it to others. This is, as Rand said, the denial of individual property, and ultimately the control of the product of an individual’s labor (emphasis mine). See: http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/01/why-reject-socialism-private-property-and-economic-freedom-vs-economic-equality-part-2/ 5) Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet' Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke against net neutrality regulations today at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance. Representing the songwriters, singers, actors, producers and other entertainers in Memphis and Nashville, she said the creative community does not want the federal government to interfere with how they are able to get content to consumers via the Internet.  "Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said. The creators "fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. "They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available....We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue." See: http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq 5a) FCC votes to begin crafting `net neutrality' rules WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators took an important step Thursday toward prohibiting broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain kinds of Internet traffic.  Despite the concerns of telecommunications companies and the agency's two Republicans, the Federal Communications Commission voted to begin writing so-called "network neutrality" regulations. Proponents say the rules would prevent phone and cable companies from abusing their control over the market for broadband access.  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said regulations are needed to ensure that broadband subscribers can access all legal Web sites and services, including Internet calling applications and video sites that compete with the broadband companies' core businesses. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said he remains unconvinced that broadband providers are engaging in widespread anticompetitive behavior that requires government intervention.  "I do not share the majority's view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it," he said. See: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BG8MT00&show_article=1 6) State launches boycott of 'unconstitutional' federal laws Urges 49 others to join in combating government's 'abuse of authority' Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a "joint working group between the states" to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.  Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.  State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been "blurred, bent and breached."  "The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay," Lynn wrote. "Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113606 7) Sunstein urges: Abolish marriage  Adviser compares institution to country club membership The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.  Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.  Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.  "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802

Dick Cheney - A true patriot; Mandated insurance unconstitutional; Pay 'czar' cuts pay - AGAIN - but not for Freddie

“But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America's enemies.” - Dick Cheney, 10/21/09, speech to Center for Security Policy   1) Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance (CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.    Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action. Well, I do.  …"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'" .."This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers (emphasis mine)," he said. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55910 1a) Morning Bell: A Whole New Health Care Ball Game You have to read all the way to page A-25 in today’s New York Times to learn about it, but the Senate took its first floor vote on Obamacare yesterday and the White House lost. Big. The NYT reports: “Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.” As we reported on Monday and Tuesday, yesterday’s “doc fix” vote was part of a White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel strategy to smooth passage of President Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This transparently dishonest shell game was too much for honest Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden told the NYT: “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/22/morning-bell-a-whole-new-health-care-ball-game/ 2) Treasury orders 90% salary cuts at bailout firms Top execs’ perks also in cross hairs WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will order companies that received huge government bailouts last year to slash the salaries of their top executives by an average of 90 percent and cut their total compensation in half, a person familiar with the decision said Wednesday. The cuts apply to the 25 highest paid executives at the seven companies that received the most assistance, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected. The Treasury is expected to announce the cuts within the next few days. Kenneth Feinberg, the special master at Treasury appointed to handle compensation issues as part of the government’s $700 billion financial bailout package, is making the pay decisions. The seven companies are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial. It was unclear how much the executives would be allowed to make, or how that would be determined. See: http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/65420552.html More on this: Feinberg, who was named special master on compensation by the administration in June, has sole discretion to set compensation for the five top senior executives plus the next 20 highest-paid people at each of the seven companies (I‘m sure that‘s constitutional). For months, he has been meeting with officials at each of the firms to negotiate executive-pay arrangements. In August, each company submitted detailed compensation plans for their top earners. Under the Treasury Department's rules, Feinberg had 60 days to make a determination after receiving the pay plans. His decisions are binding. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102102719.html More on this: Of course the lesson here is that you cannot let the government even get its nose under the tent, or it will claim to own the whole tent — and the caravan and every oasis. Still, let’s hope these pay cuts aren’t in retaliation for the reported “reluctance” of many of these selfsame financial firms to donate to the Democrats’ war chest that the New York Times reported on just a couple of days ago. But of course that can’t be. Mr. Obama is above such pettiness.  Do note, however, that fully owned and operated government institutions are exempt from any such controls on their pay and bonuses: Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn’t have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP (emphasis mine).  Why is that?  All of which somehow reminds us that Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, got $250,000 from a very limited stint at Freddie Mac at the very time they were cooking their books so badly. Will he give any of that money back? Still, we would say that it serves these bank CEOs right for taking the money in the first place. Except that many of them were forced into doing so by the government. Nevertheless, just imagine how well the war against the terrorists would go if Mr. Obama would be as tough on the Taliban and Al Qaeda as he is on law abiding American executives. See: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-to-slash-bank-ceos-pay-90 2a) Obama Pay Czar Driving Execs to Go Galt? At Marginal Revolution George Mason University economics professor Alex Tabarrok comments on Obama administration’s pay czar Kenneth Feinberg’s decision to cut bailed out firm executive pay by an average of about 90 percent from last year: There is no way this will work as advertised. If the administration actually follows through, most of these executives will quit and get higher paying jobs elsewhere. Executives not directly affected by the pay cuts will also quit when they see their prospects for future salary gains have been cut. Chaos will be created at these firms as top people leave in droves. Will the administration then order people back to work? See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/22/obama-pay-czar-driving-execs-to-go-galt/ 3) Grassley Warns HHS Web Site May Be ‘Propaganda’ Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda. The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS. In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were 'underhanded tactics' and that these tactics 'are not worthy of our great democracy.'” …The page requires signatories to provide their name, zip code and e-mail address, and also asks for their mailing address and phone number, although that information is not labeled as required. In his letter, Grassley notes that HHS has recently issued new guidance to insurers that they must obtain permission from beneficiaries before sending out mailers critical of the reform efforts in Congress. “The use of the official HHS.gov Web site for activities that seem to be nothing more than government propaganda raises many serious questions,” Grassley wrote. See: http://www.rollcall.com/news/39730-1.html 4) Dems seek cover to boost debt limit The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover.  Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.  Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm’s way — and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow. The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion — above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February — but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don’t have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.  As of Tuesday, the debt stood at $11.95 trillion, staring at senators amid a roiling health care debate in which critics have seized on the potential costs of the overhaul. Unlike those of the House, the Senate’s rules do not allow it to automatically increase the debt with its adoption of the annual budget resolution. That puts senators in a tough position politically. And if the Senate balks at the increase, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the slow economic recovery could collapse, as investors around the world would sharply lose confidence in America’s abilities to meet its credit obligations. See: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=79AB8DBE-18FE-70B2-A8316002E29BE1FD 5) The Never Ending TARP Slush Fund This afternoon President Barack Obama announced that his administration would shift TARP’s $700 billion bailout fund away from big financial institutions and toward small businesses through small banks.Specifically, the Treasury Department will offer capital from TARP, at a 3% rate, to viable banks with less than $1 billion in assets. These small banks must first submit a plan explaining how the capital will allow them to increase lending to small businesses. But remember that TARP was originally sold to the American people as a way to protect the economy from the systemic risk posed by the collapse of firms that were too big to fail. Small businesses and small banks are by definition not too big to fail. First under the Bush administration and now under Obama, TARP has become a slush fund for pet political priorities. And as the New York Times reports, this time it is even being used to influence votes in Congress: “What is striking about the S.B.A. initiatives is not just the size of the increases but whom they appear meant to impress. The new loan limits closely track increases proposed by Olympia Snowe, the senator from Maine who is both the ranking Republican on the Senate Small Business Committee and possibly the only Republican considering voting for Democratic-led health care reform. …At least one observer was not surprised. ‘Who is the one senator they need on health care reform?’ a lobbyist who has followed the issue asked, rhetorically. ‘What number do you think they’re going to pick?’” The Obama administration has the authority to extend TARP until next October. But even members of his own party are growing tired of the lawlessness it has created. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) has called for TARP to be ended this December, telling USA Today: “We don’t even know where the money went.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/21/the-never-ending-tarp-slush-fund/ 6) A True Patriot Continues to Speak Out: Dick Cheney Re: Concerns About America's Foreign Policy Drift (Long but worth your time) Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country's word. So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith. It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that - with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion. …What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous "Reset" button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In the short of it, President Obama's cancellation of America's agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won't be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well. …Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about. I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work. …President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." End quote. Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America's armed forces. "I will give you a clear mission," he said, "defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That's my commitment to you." It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger. Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause. Recently, President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President's chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn't asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy. In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision - a good one, I think - and sent a commander into the field to implement it. Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity (emphasis mine). … And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage. ..In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program's legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country's name and in our country's cause. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings - and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them. …But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America's enemies (emphasis mine). And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11. …We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work - the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/22/concerns_about_americas_foreign_policy_drift.html More on this: "The White House has prepared more than a dozen contingency plans to help guide President-elect Barack Obama if an international crisis erupts in the opening days of his administration, part of an elaborate operation devised to smooth the first transition of power since Sept. 11, 2001. "The memorandums envision a variety of volatile possibilities... 'This is very unusual,' said Roger Cressey, a former Clinton White House counterterrorism official who was held over under Mr. Bush. 'We certainly did not do that,'" with the Clinton years. "'When the transition happened from Clinton to Bush, remember it was a totally different world. You had some documents given that gave them a flavor of where things were at. But now you've got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a hot war against Al Qaeda.'" The media went out of its way, Gibbs, to point out how Bush was briefing Obama! It was "unprecedented."   See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102209/content/01125111.guest.html 7) FBI Tells Caller: Listen to Rush, Glenn Beck, and Talk Radio CALLER: I called Congress. Who do you talk to when the top people you can't trust? You know, I called the FBI, and you know what they told me? RUSH: No. CALLER: They said, "Watch Fox cable and listen to talk radio," and then I called another time -- RUSH: Wait a minute! Wait a minute. Wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up. You called the FBI? CALLER: Well, I wanted to find out what was going on with ACORN, the 14 states that they had arrested these people. RUSH: What FBI office did you call? CALLER: Los Angeles. RUSH: And they told you to listen to Fox News and talk radio? CALLER: Talk radio. RUSH: To find out what was going on? CALLER: Yes. And the next time I called you know what they said? RUSH: No. CALLER: Listen to talk radio and watch Glenn Beck. And they said, "We all watch Glenn Beck." RUSH: That's what they told you at the FBI? CALLER: Exactly. And so when I wanted to find out they said call the Justice Department, what was going on. Well if you can't trust the Justice Department, who do you talk to? Who do you talk to? You can't trust the top. I called John Boehner, because he's the one you can really talk to. I said, "You've got to tell them that Obama is going after the Internet and talk radio. They've gotta stop it." RUSH: And what did he say? CALLER: Well, I talked to the office. They said, "Yeah, we know what's going on," and when I called the FBI they said, "We know what's going on, but we can't do anything because the Secret Service will say they're in charge." This is what's going on right now. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102209/content/01125114.guest.html