READ THE BILL FOR YOURSELF: You will see who's lying, Internment/Resettlement Specialists, Russia's still off our coast

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Adrian Rogers, 1931 1) House leaders call noisy disruption of healthcare forums 'un-American' …"Look, I don't think either side ought to be trying to engage in disrupting meetings, either the Democratic side or the Republican side," McConnell (R-Ky..) said in an appearance on Fox News Sunday. But "to demonize citizens who are -- you know, who are energetic about this -- strikes me as demonstrating a kind of weakness in your position," McConnell said. "In other words, you want to . . . change the subject. . . . "Attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits," McConnell said. "This is an enormously important subject. Of course American citizens are concerned about it. And many of them are upset about it." …Insisting that reform will offer "more patient choice" and enable "every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it," See: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-hoyer-health11-2009aug11%2C0%2C3211297.story “Every American who likes his or her current plan” can keep it is simply NOT TRUE. Remember my 7/15/09 post: …Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. …It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers (emphasis mine). See: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854 AND, READ THE BILL FOR YOURSELF AND SEE! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200: 1a) Pelosi and Hoyer call reform opponents 'un-American' You know Democrats think they are in real trouble on the health care reform issue when they stop trying to argue the merits of their ideas and instead, attack the opposition with charges of racism, Nazism, and now, "un-Americanism." Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer - the numbers one and two most powerful Democrats in the House - want you to know that you are betraying the country by opposing their fantastic ideas on health care reform. Writing in USA Today , the Bobbsey Twins say… …"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American" is very interesting coming from a Democrat. Is that why congressional Democrats only answer pre-selected questions from their audience of union supporters and take no serious questions about reform from opponents? Is that why congressional Democrats are denying entrance to their "open" town halls to people who are opposed to reform? Is that why some congressional Democrats refuse to even face their constituents and have "Telephone Town Halls" instead? All of this "un-American" activity on the part of Congressional Democrats has to stop. And I submit that there is indeed one side that fears open debate on this issue - and it ain't those who oppose reform (emphasis mine). See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/pelosi_and_hoyer_call_reform_o.html 1b) Just Take the Painkiller and Don't Read Section 1233 of the House Bill RUSH: Now, she had the bill, and she had read it. The bill doesn't specifically say, "If you're 74 you get cancer you're toast." It describes the scenario by which the government can decide whether or not it's worth the investment to treat you, and the woman is trying to say, "Why do I want to give up this kind of control over my life? Why do I want to give up this responsibility?" Senator Specter says that the example she gave isn't true. But she's reading from the bill. She's got it there, and he says it's a "malicious rumor," and it's not. Everybody that's read this knows about Section 1233 now, and as I pointed out yesterday, even Charles Lane of the Washington Post read Section 1233 and said, "You don't have to be a right-wing wacko" to find this one totally uncomfortable. Because it mandates all of these end of life meetings and counseling sessions with government officials and your doctor to plan your end of care (emphasis mine)-- which, if you're 74 and have cancer, that means the end of life. People are not stupid. So you've got this going on -- and, by the way, at that town hall there was no raucous behavior. There were no outrageous people standing up behaving in an impolite way. These people were more informed than Senator Specter was. I have all kinds of sound bites from this and other town meetings.   See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081109/content/01125108.guest.html 1c) Polls undercut scripted protest claims The White House's claim that large and boisterous protests against health care reform over the past week have been scripted performances, underwritten by industry lobbyists and the Republican Party, continues to run into a stubborn reality check: public polling on the matter. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/drooping-polls-undercut-claims-of-scripted-protest/ 1d) Go Ahead and Report Me -- I'll Shout Louder So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread "disinformation" about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a "public option" into a federalized universal health care initiative?  Report them. Whether its communicated through e-mail, web sites, blogs, or even casual conversation the executive branch of the federal government is asking you to make them aware of this "disinformation" because they can't keep track of all of the dissenters themselves. Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the president or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry? Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so. But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another? See: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/05/kevin-mccullough-white-house-disinformation/ 1e) Craigslist ads recruiting 'Obamacare' lobbyists 'Help pass Obama's health care reform! Earn $325-$550 per week!' Amid accusations of insurance companies and the Republican Party deploying "Astroturf mobs" of health reform opponents, help wanted ads are appearing on Craigslist that offer to pay citizens between $9 and $16 an hour to lobby for the passage of Obama's health care.  The ads are being posted by the Fund for the Public Interest, which describes itself as "a national nonprofit organization working to increase the visibility, membership and political power of the nation's leading environmental and progressive groups." …Similar ads were posted in Minneapolis, Minn., and Columbus, Ohio, sections.  Several blogs have noted that health care recruitment ads posted by the Fund for the Public Interest are springing up across the nation. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106537 1f) Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil' "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_health_care 2) AP to distribute Soros-funded 'journalism' Slammed as 'lapdog on leash sworn in advance to left-wing causes' JERUSALEM – The Associated Press is delivering to its subscribing 1,500 American newspapers content, it has emerged, penned by groups with financing from philanthropist George Soros and another far-leftist billionaire who not only campaigned for President Obama but also topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106448 3) Army National Guard Recruiting FEMA Camp Or “Internment/Resettlement” Specialists The Army National Guard is now recruiting individuals to fill job positions described as an internment/resettlement specialist according to job postings on Monster.Com and other employment based Internet sites such as one listed here. In other words, they are recruiting individuals to man facilities that could be used to house political dissidents, so-called terrorists and other individuals that the government doesn’t like. The term “resettlement” indicates that individuals holding this job position could also be responsible for moving people to other locations against their will. It is a documented fact that the U.S. government has numerous facilities at their disposal that could easily be used to house large numbers of people. Combine that, with this new job posting by the Army National Guard, and it seems as if the U.S. government is continuing to prepare for an eventual popular uprising.   Let’s look at some of the evidence we have of the U.S. government’s intentions to establish the infrastructure that could be used to house large numbers of political dissidents, so-called terrorists and other individuals the U.S. government wants locked up.  HR 645 the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act is a proposed bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would authorize FEMA to build no less than six National Emergency Centers throughout the U.S. on closed or open military facilities. These facilities are to be designed to house large numbers of people. Why would emergency centers need to be built on closed or open military facilities unless there was a need to keep people from coming in and out of them? Some bloggers have suggested this may be for re-settling Gitmo inmates, but that alternative isn’t much more palatable… See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13417 And: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106304 And: http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292 Although, “Officials at the state and federal National Guard levels told WND they were unaware of the program, although one officer speculated it could be intended for soldiers trained in the U.S. and dispatched overseas to “detention facilities.” From the national level, WND was told, officials were unaware of any such “internment facilities” at which there could be jobs to be available.” See: http://www.sodahead.com/blog/126833/internmentresettlement-specialists-wanted/ 4) Sarah Palin: The Heritage Foundation: The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey This one already passed the House and will be voted on in the Senate after the August recess… The Waxman-Markey bill proposes a new national tax of historic proportions. Though levied directly on carbon-based energy, the tax's impact spreads through the economy, increasing prices, reducing income, destroying jobs, and significantly expanding the national debt. …;As President Obama said about his cap-and-trade program during the presidential election campaign, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."[12] The same applies to many other prices as the Waxman-Markey energy tax spreads through the economy. Businesses and consumers will adapt as well as possible to these higher prices. They will spend more for less energy. They will build smaller houses and buildings. They will drive smaller, less safe vehicles. They will turn thermostats up in the summer and down in the winter. They will divert income to more expensive energy-saving appliances. But these activities and more will not be enough to offset the higher energy costs. The net effect is lower income, higher prices, and fewer jobs. See: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=115312783434 5) Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties. …They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations. The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions. And in their July 21 letter, Mr. Frank and Mr. Obey — the chairmen of the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee — asked Mr. Obama to stop issuing such signing statements, warning that Congress might not approve more money for the banking organizations unless he agreed. Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command (emphasis mine). See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss 6) Russian subs off U.S. coast on assignment? Presence in Atlantic coincides with stepped-up provocations The two nuclear Russian submarines trolling the Atlantic off the east coast of the United States could have been dispatched there, sources say, because of actions the Russians anticpate in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.  For the past week, there have been two Russian Akula-class attack nuclear submarines detected in international waters off of the U.S. While U.S. officials are watching their actions closely, they say their presence is in keeping with international law. Security experts suggest the deployment of the Akulas so close to the U.S. mainland reflects a proxy standoff with the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Georgia seeks to join.  The Russians have been quite concerned about U.S. and NATO presence in Georgia so close to the Russian border. The Russians also strongly oppose the pro-U.S. regime of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and refuses to work with him. The presence of the Russian nuclear submarines off the U.S. coast may reflect current Russian military thinking that local disputes can escalate into major global conflicts, including a nuclear war.  "We have seen that an absolutely real war can erupt suddenly and local simmering conflicts, which are sometimes even called 'frozen,' can turn into a real military firestorm," Russian President Dimitriy Medvedev said. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106527