We all had the chance to see a level of corruption exposed Thursday, as law enforcement officials in New York & New Jersey swept up 44 corrupt people in an international money laundering scheme.
Many were either politicians or rabbis. The media reported that there were Democrats & Republicans involved. We already knew neither party is exempt from dirt.
What the media left out was there were 43 Democrats & 1 Republican. The difference is that whether or not he is convicted, the Republican party will force their man from office.
The Democrats wil allow their people to continue to serve ,convicted or not. We need look no further than our nations capital to remember Democrat former Mayor Marion Barry smoking crack on TV. serving time in prison,and reelected by the DC Democrats. That would have ended a Republican career.
In Michigan, wife of Democrat, Congressman, John Conyers was indicted for taking bribes for a project she was initially against. She changed her vote when money was offerred. Rep. Conyers himself changed his initial position after his wife was paid. He has not yet been charged with any wrong doing.
Rep. Jefferson D-LA, was found to be taking bribes and had $90,000 in his Capial Hill office refrigerator. The Democratic leadership was silent. Had it been a Republican the Dems would have been up in arms, and the Republican leadership would have forced him out.
We saw Detroits Mayor convicted for lying about a relationship with a staffer and hauled off to jail, vowing to return. Even President Clinton was charged for lying about a relationship with an intern, but the Democrats protected him, even though he had plainly commited prejury in a court of law under oath.
The Democrats continue to fend off scrutiny of the obviously corrupt ACORN, because the organization funnels votes to the party. The Democrats will deny the mountain of evidence against ACORN and feign ignorance of the corruption.
Yes, both parties have some corrupt individuals. However, there is a difference, For Republicans it is a career ending event.
For the Democrats, corruption is a badge of honor.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Obamacare Doublecross
The Democrats in the House have prepared their version of the healthcare reform bill. It reads like a tax code without the entertaining graphics.
President Obama said there would be a public option or the choice of private insurance. In essence, we could all keep our own doctors and continue on with our current coverage if we liked it.
However, the language in House bill HR 3200, does not support that premise. It all but forces everyone into the public program. If you go to the text of the bill in section/page 16, you will find it there.
We all remember the Democrats stating that it was not correct that there would be rationing, but the provision to set up the advisory panel is spelled out quite clearly. These are the people who will decide if you get treated for an ailment or if you are merely made comfortable while nature takes its course.
Talk about an Orwellian approach to population control and playing God. I guess this will cancel out the Hippocratic oath for doctors.
Below is the text about 'private insurance'. Any readers with experience in Human Resources understands that health insurance is renegotiated each year. As currently written, this will end that. It stops any changes to premiums or coverage, effectively forcing employers into the public system.
16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
President Obama said there would be a public option or the choice of private insurance. In essence, we could all keep our own doctors and continue on with our current coverage if we liked it.
However, the language in House bill HR 3200, does not support that premise. It all but forces everyone into the public program. If you go to the text of the bill in section/page 16, you will find it there.
We all remember the Democrats stating that it was not correct that there would be rationing, but the provision to set up the advisory panel is spelled out quite clearly. These are the people who will decide if you get treated for an ailment or if you are merely made comfortable while nature takes its course.
Talk about an Orwellian approach to population control and playing God. I guess this will cancel out the Hippocratic oath for doctors.
Below is the text about 'private insurance'. Any readers with experience in Human Resources understands that health insurance is renegotiated each year. As currently written, this will end that. It stops any changes to premiums or coverage, effectively forcing employers into the public system.
16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama Healthcare Plan to withhold treatment to Elderly and Chronically Ill
With the appointment of this eugenics styled "science czar" (google him "John Holdren"), it is becoming more & more evident that Obama and his nationalized healthcare proponents are easing the public to accept the practice of withholding life saving measures for the elderly, infirmed, etc.
I find this troubling. The radical left are trying to keep the concept from public exposure until it is too late. They cry 'fear mongering' if we point out the obvious direction this is going.
Don't trust them folks, they are merely trying to distract you with such diversionary claims. They plan to offer exemptions for the government employees, and get this, also for union members! Is that not the height of cynicism? Protect their own and the heck with the rest of us.
Some of this is purposely being introduced in a controlled manner. It reminds me of cooking a frog. If you throw it in a boiling pot of water, he will jump out. However, if you place him in the pot and slowly increase the heat, he will stay and cook.
This is what we are witnessing with this crazy radical left concept.
It will leave a bureaucrat or protocol to make decisions on who is worthy of care and who is to be comforted and allowed to die.
The New York Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.
The second these ideas become the norm, government will by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.
For the few that watched ABC's special on healthcare, the most important takeaway from it was President Barack Obama's admission that he would go outside the constraints of a nationalized system to get the "very best care" if necessary for his own family.
Obama's response should properly be seen as "a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite."
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, who took part in the televised discussion, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president would not make such a pledge, though he confessed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."
It is time the American voters wake up and recognize this for what it is. A moral disaster in the making.
I find this troubling. The radical left are trying to keep the concept from public exposure until it is too late. They cry 'fear mongering' if we point out the obvious direction this is going.
Don't trust them folks, they are merely trying to distract you with such diversionary claims. They plan to offer exemptions for the government employees, and get this, also for union members! Is that not the height of cynicism? Protect their own and the heck with the rest of us.
Some of this is purposely being introduced in a controlled manner. It reminds me of cooking a frog. If you throw it in a boiling pot of water, he will jump out. However, if you place him in the pot and slowly increase the heat, he will stay and cook.
This is what we are witnessing with this crazy radical left concept.
It will leave a bureaucrat or protocol to make decisions on who is worthy of care and who is to be comforted and allowed to die.
The New York Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.
The second these ideas become the norm, government will by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.
For the few that watched ABC's special on healthcare, the most important takeaway from it was President Barack Obama's admission that he would go outside the constraints of a nationalized system to get the "very best care" if necessary for his own family.
Obama's response should properly be seen as "a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite."
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, who took part in the televised discussion, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president would not make such a pledge, though he confessed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."
It is time the American voters wake up and recognize this for what it is. A moral disaster in the making.
Obama appoints self avowed communist as 'Green Czar'
A disturbing pattern is emerging to paint the radical agenda and participants of the Obama regime. This pattern of allowing the government to be taken over by the radical left with a communist, and globalist agenda is steeling in.
Voters voted for change , but few envisioned the kind of radical agenda and players taking hold of America today. Obama keeps appointing dubious "czars" as a means of bypassing congressional advise & consent. Obama does not want these thugs to be subjected to the questions that surely would be asked in front of the cameras on Capital Hill.
Our new 'Green Czar" is rooted in a communist, black nationalist past, much like Obama's personal ideology.
Kruschev warned us almost 50 years ago that the communists would bury the US. Americans failed to recognize just how easily this could be done from within our own government when using radical leftist organizations such as ACORN, and a compliant Mainstream Media. Kruschev must be looking up at this very moment, feeling quite vindicated.
The media has chosen not to report on Van Jones 2005 interview about his radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism.
Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told an interviewer that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.”
Jones himself stated in that 2005 interview his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice,” and that he was a “rowdy black nationalist,” and a “communist.”
Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea of what this cynical administration is brining to bear..
Voters voted for change , but few envisioned the kind of radical agenda and players taking hold of America today. Obama keeps appointing dubious "czars" as a means of bypassing congressional advise & consent. Obama does not want these thugs to be subjected to the questions that surely would be asked in front of the cameras on Capital Hill.
Our new 'Green Czar" is rooted in a communist, black nationalist past, much like Obama's personal ideology.
Kruschev warned us almost 50 years ago that the communists would bury the US. Americans failed to recognize just how easily this could be done from within our own government when using radical leftist organizations such as ACORN, and a compliant Mainstream Media. Kruschev must be looking up at this very moment, feeling quite vindicated.
The media has chosen not to report on Van Jones 2005 interview about his radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism.
Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told an interviewer that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.”
Jones himself stated in that 2005 interview his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice,” and that he was a “rowdy black nationalist,” and a “communist.”
Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea of what this cynical administration is brining to bear..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
