Wouldn’t it be nice if the computers in our brains had a “delete” button to erase unwanted memories? If I had a delete button I would be able to sleep a whole lot better. The longer the life, the more times the delete button would be used.
There are many kinds of memories I would erase. All the occasions when I screwed up and lost someone special would be gone in a New York minute; they are just reminders of how stupid I can be and how much better life could have been. (“Woulda, coulda, shoulda?”)
How about the memories of things you don’t and never will understand? I don’t know about others but the most frustrating things to me are those for which there seems to be no explanation; of course these always involve other people. How many times can you ponder and review something in your mind without ever coming to any conclusion - only so many. After a while such things are “accepted” and you promise yourself you won’t think about them anymore – but you do because the memory lingers on. Push delete and zap they are gone.
How many times do you replay in your mind events and interactions to consider alternate scenarios that might have been better for you? Deleting memories that cause you to push replay would go along way toward avoiding fruitless musings and further frustration.
It’s a nasty mind game to wonder about how things would have gone if you did something you should have or not have done something you did. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to relive those moments to change the outcome? But you can’t, so with delete, the whole thing doesn’t exist and more unnecessary frustration is avoided along with sleepless nights.
Replacing bad thoughts with good ones is a good idea but seldom possible because to do that you have to push aside those pesky bad thoughts. If we could cut and paste it might work but the brain’s computer doesn’t operate on Windows.
Of course what we’re saying is that mental hurt is far worse than physical pain. The body can heal itself but the brain can’t.
Some painful memories are good though and should be kept. Pictures of man’s inhumanity to man need to remain in the computer. Remembering the atrocities of the Nazis and of Muslims are important because they remind you of the need for vigilance against those who would perpetrate such things if they come into positions of power and achieve the ability to repeat their inhumane behavior. If only more of us would recognize the slippery slope of allowing such people incremental advancing steps that inevitably lead to horrors. How silly of the world to condemn childish pranks or physically harmless practices during incarceration of enemies while avoiding speaking about real inhumanity like cutting off heads or stoning people.
Obama and his Joseph Goebbels running the news media have the right idea; control what people know and you control how people think about things. If the masses only conjure up memories of what you say and not what you do, you can get away with anything. There’s another use of that darn delete button if you had one. Delete the b--- s--- and you can clean up the slippery slope and make things go in the direction they should.
Do you think there is anyone is congress that would ”pledge their sacred honor” for the country like the men did in a hot and sticky court house in Philadelphia in 1776? (Do they have any sacred honor?) Hell, they can’t even fulfill their oath to protect and defend the constitution – most of them should be tried for perjury.
If I can’t have a delete button, I’ll settle for a toke, a glass of Kool-Aid and an on/off switch.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Isn’t it about time congressmen are required to read what they are about to vote on?
Once again, like the Stimulus bill earlier, congress was willing to vote upon, and enact, a lengthy bill no one could possibly have fully read. All representatives in congress, both those who were for and those against were not allowed to read the Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) Climate Bill. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi wanted to pass this legislation on a rush basis before too many people became aware of the draconian affect it has on American people and our way of life.
Representative House Minority Leader John Boehner tried to delay the roll call vote by using the Minority Leader’s prerogative of unlimited speaking to read aloud the 300-page Amendment to the bill presented by Democrats at 3:00 AM but he eventually gave up this mini filibuster. Boehner read page after page of the late filed Amendment including passages related to the usage of "qualified youth corps" to regulate energy efficiency in regards to "the sustainability of low-end income communities." "I wonder if ACORN qualifies for these grants," Boehner joked (but the joke was too serious to be funny).
By objecting to the fact that 300 pages were added to the bill at 3 a.m., Boehner gave some time for colleagues and aides to scan the unread extra passages and present certain excerpts on the floor. Speaking for the Democrats, Politico blasted this effort by Boehner:
“Boehner seemed to relish the hour-long stunt, picking out the bill’s most obscure language and then pontificating about what it might – or might not – mean.”
No mention was made by Politico that Democrats presented the amendments in the early hours giving opponents no chance to read let alone argue against the added provisions to the bill.
It is no surprise that the bill co-sponsor Henry Waxman objected to Boehner’s reading the bill on the House floor; he even tried to prevent it on procedural grounds so that it's contents would remain unknown and no one would shift support or delay the bill’s passage. Who can deny passing “laws” in secret is not law at all – it is tyranny and corruption of constitutional ideals - it is a shameful but not unexpected ploy by Democrats in these times.
Waxman also wondered if any “historical records would be broken” by Boehner reading part of the bill and queried whether the tactic was “an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” And "so what?" I might respond. Is it an acceptable tactic to call up legislation for vote without giving members of congress time to read it?
Representative House Minority Leader John Boehner tried to delay the roll call vote by using the Minority Leader’s prerogative of unlimited speaking to read aloud the 300-page Amendment to the bill presented by Democrats at 3:00 AM but he eventually gave up this mini filibuster. Boehner read page after page of the late filed Amendment including passages related to the usage of "qualified youth corps" to regulate energy efficiency in regards to "the sustainability of low-end income communities." "I wonder if ACORN qualifies for these grants," Boehner joked (but the joke was too serious to be funny).
By objecting to the fact that 300 pages were added to the bill at 3 a.m., Boehner gave some time for colleagues and aides to scan the unread extra passages and present certain excerpts on the floor. Speaking for the Democrats, Politico blasted this effort by Boehner:
“Boehner seemed to relish the hour-long stunt, picking out the bill’s most obscure language and then pontificating about what it might – or might not – mean.”
No mention was made by Politico that Democrats presented the amendments in the early hours giving opponents no chance to read let alone argue against the added provisions to the bill.
It is no surprise that the bill co-sponsor Henry Waxman objected to Boehner’s reading the bill on the House floor; he even tried to prevent it on procedural grounds so that it's contents would remain unknown and no one would shift support or delay the bill’s passage. Who can deny passing “laws” in secret is not law at all – it is tyranny and corruption of constitutional ideals - it is a shameful but not unexpected ploy by Democrats in these times.
Waxman also wondered if any “historical records would be broken” by Boehner reading part of the bill and queried whether the tactic was “an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” And "so what?" I might respond. Is it an acceptable tactic to call up legislation for vote without giving members of congress time to read it?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The biggest scam of all; cap-and-trade
It is truly amazing how anyone really familiar with the so-called cap-and-trade bill could actually accept this legislation, or in congress, vote for it.
First, it is erroneous to think that it would have any effect on global warming because carbon dioxide is not the cause, it is the effect but unfortunately that battle won in the halls of science is lost in the halls of congress.
Second, it is also erroneous to say that the bill would cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions because most “greenhouse-gas emissions” are water vapor – carbon dioxide is a relatively small portion of such emissions.
The House bill is falsely alleged to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It would also establish a new Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would force utilities to supply a minimum amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. The result will be: (1) everything used by the public will increase in price because of increased costs to producers from the need to acquire “carbon credits” for their operations will be passed on to consumers and, (2) requiring utilities to change their the means of power production from whatever is being used now to “renewable energy sources,” however defined, will necessarily increase the cost of electricity to homeowners because new “sources” will be more expensive to use that currently used fossil fuels.
The bill supposed to result in achieving carbon-dioxide emission targets by establishing a cap-and-trade system, which would require heavy emitters of carbon dioxide, and the oil and gas industry, to buy annual emissions permits from the government or through a secondary market. It is not rocket science to understand that any money spent on acquiring “annual emissions permits” is simply another expense of utilities and by law and public utility regulations in all states public utilities are guaranteed to earn minimum profits since they are regulated monopolies. In order to “earn” their minimum profits, the cost of electricity to consumers, residential and commercial, has to be increased.
The plan, as written by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would auction a small percentage of the available permits, or allowances, directly to companies. The rest, more than 85 percent, would be given away to selected industries, local utility companies, states and Indian tribes. The idea itself is ludicrous but it would be nice if congress could explain why Indian tribes would be given available permits – surely casinos don’t emit much “greenhouse gas”, unless you consider cigarette smoke in that category.
Democrats and Republican supporters contended the legislation would help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, increase the use of renewable energy such as solar and wind power and increase employment in clean energy industries. How ridiculous that is. Most oil is used to produce fuel for the transportation industry, cars for example. How will solar power and windmills power automobiles and trucks? Not only that, it has been established that production of renewable fuels such as ethanol consume more energy than produced by the products and also involve substantial emissions of “greenhouse gas,” e.g. carbon dioxide. The claim of reducing either reliance on foreign oil or reduction of greenhouse gas is a plain lie.
Obama said “This is a jobs bill” and would increase employment in clean energy industries. There may well be new jobs created but they will be more than offset by the numbers of jobs lost. As manufacturing costs increase businesses will have no choice but to reduce employment as will businesses that depend on those manufactured products. Increased unemployment will also reduce consumer income thereby accelerating the downward spiral of our economy. House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said the bill will cost the economy up to 2.7 million jobs and he may be underestimating the effect.
"When it comes to energy, Washington Democrats, I think, are poised to make matters worse by imposing a job-killing energy tax, courtesy of Speaker Pelosi. This is going to force small businesses and their workers and families to pay more for electricity, gasoline, and other products that are made in America that have high energy content."
The basic idea behind cap-and-trade is simple: Government experts assess how much pollution can be “safely” put into the environment, then shares (sometimes called permits or allowances) equaling that amount are given or auctioned by the government to those who have historically emitted the pollutant. How do you suppose “safe” limits of carbon dioxide can be determined? Will continued emission of carbon dioxide exhaled by us be taken into account?
Polluters then must return to the government enough permits to cover their emissions every year. If they fall short of permits, emitters must buy them from those who have a surplus. The number of permits available decreases annually until a "safe" level of emissions level is reached.
The bill would direct 2 billion free allowances to domestic and international conservation, known as "offsets," which would allow companies to buy emissions permits by effectively paying farmers here and abroad to preserve trees and employ environmental planting practices. I would like to form a business to sell emissions permits by using the money to “preserve trees” by letting them continue to grow; would anyone like to join me?
The legislation would require utilities that provide more than 4 million megawatt hours of electricity a year to buy a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources; thus assuring the cost of electricity will increase.
The amount starts at just 6% in 2012 and gradually increases to 20% in 2020, although utilities could meet up to 8% of the mandate through reduced energy usage by their customers. In other words, the government will figure out some way to make us use less energy (a very broad term) other than by increasing the cost – I wonder what that may me, government controlled thermostats?
Right now renewable energy accounts for about 8.5% of domestic electricity generation, but the House bill's renewable mandate would not recognize all of that as renewable. Hydropower, for example, which makes up a large chunk of current electricity generation, is not all counted as renewable toward the new mandate, nor is geothermal energy.
A new amendment added by speaker Pelosi requires the president to impose trade tariffs on trade partners that do not limit their carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020. To get representatives farm states on board, provisions easing rules on corn-based ethanol production and putting the permit program under the Agriculture Department rather than the Environmental Protection Agency was included.
The bill would have far reaching effects on energy users at all levels of the economy, from giant manufacturers to utilities to individuals. For instance, new government imposed buildings standards would be mandated and some household items will be required to use less energy than they do now. These items include backyard spas, lamps located above art work, drinking-water dispensers and light bulbs in outdoor light fixtures. Are you prepared to live with that?
The bill would force companies to phase out allegedly inefficient products of the kinds described and replace them with allegedly more efficient - and more expensive and less desirable - versions. For example presently used incandescent light bulbs, now costing less than a dollar, will have to be replaced by required compact florescent light bulbs (those curly things), that already cost more and will cost still more in the future when they are the only light game in town.
The bill would also make changes to the government's Energy Star program, which recognizes dishwashers, refrigerators and other appliances that save energy. The tougher standards would mean these "energy saving" products would cost more than regular products and it would take longer for consumers to recoup the extra costs through savings on their energy bill.
"It doesn't do any good to have high-price, energy-efficient products if people will just pay to have their old appliances fixed," said Kevin Messner, vice president of government relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
If you think you can avoid this by repairing older appliances, think again, everything will wear out sooner or later.
First, it is erroneous to think that it would have any effect on global warming because carbon dioxide is not the cause, it is the effect but unfortunately that battle won in the halls of science is lost in the halls of congress.
Second, it is also erroneous to say that the bill would cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions because most “greenhouse-gas emissions” are water vapor – carbon dioxide is a relatively small portion of such emissions.
The House bill is falsely alleged to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It would also establish a new Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would force utilities to supply a minimum amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. The result will be: (1) everything used by the public will increase in price because of increased costs to producers from the need to acquire “carbon credits” for their operations will be passed on to consumers and, (2) requiring utilities to change their the means of power production from whatever is being used now to “renewable energy sources,” however defined, will necessarily increase the cost of electricity to homeowners because new “sources” will be more expensive to use that currently used fossil fuels.
The bill supposed to result in achieving carbon-dioxide emission targets by establishing a cap-and-trade system, which would require heavy emitters of carbon dioxide, and the oil and gas industry, to buy annual emissions permits from the government or through a secondary market. It is not rocket science to understand that any money spent on acquiring “annual emissions permits” is simply another expense of utilities and by law and public utility regulations in all states public utilities are guaranteed to earn minimum profits since they are regulated monopolies. In order to “earn” their minimum profits, the cost of electricity to consumers, residential and commercial, has to be increased.
The plan, as written by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would auction a small percentage of the available permits, or allowances, directly to companies. The rest, more than 85 percent, would be given away to selected industries, local utility companies, states and Indian tribes. The idea itself is ludicrous but it would be nice if congress could explain why Indian tribes would be given available permits – surely casinos don’t emit much “greenhouse gas”, unless you consider cigarette smoke in that category.
Democrats and Republican supporters contended the legislation would help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, increase the use of renewable energy such as solar and wind power and increase employment in clean energy industries. How ridiculous that is. Most oil is used to produce fuel for the transportation industry, cars for example. How will solar power and windmills power automobiles and trucks? Not only that, it has been established that production of renewable fuels such as ethanol consume more energy than produced by the products and also involve substantial emissions of “greenhouse gas,” e.g. carbon dioxide. The claim of reducing either reliance on foreign oil or reduction of greenhouse gas is a plain lie.
Obama said “This is a jobs bill” and would increase employment in clean energy industries. There may well be new jobs created but they will be more than offset by the numbers of jobs lost. As manufacturing costs increase businesses will have no choice but to reduce employment as will businesses that depend on those manufactured products. Increased unemployment will also reduce consumer income thereby accelerating the downward spiral of our economy. House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said the bill will cost the economy up to 2.7 million jobs and he may be underestimating the effect.
"When it comes to energy, Washington Democrats, I think, are poised to make matters worse by imposing a job-killing energy tax, courtesy of Speaker Pelosi. This is going to force small businesses and their workers and families to pay more for electricity, gasoline, and other products that are made in America that have high energy content."
The basic idea behind cap-and-trade is simple: Government experts assess how much pollution can be “safely” put into the environment, then shares (sometimes called permits or allowances) equaling that amount are given or auctioned by the government to those who have historically emitted the pollutant. How do you suppose “safe” limits of carbon dioxide can be determined? Will continued emission of carbon dioxide exhaled by us be taken into account?
Polluters then must return to the government enough permits to cover their emissions every year. If they fall short of permits, emitters must buy them from those who have a surplus. The number of permits available decreases annually until a "safe" level of emissions level is reached.
The bill would direct 2 billion free allowances to domestic and international conservation, known as "offsets," which would allow companies to buy emissions permits by effectively paying farmers here and abroad to preserve trees and employ environmental planting practices. I would like to form a business to sell emissions permits by using the money to “preserve trees” by letting them continue to grow; would anyone like to join me?
The legislation would require utilities that provide more than 4 million megawatt hours of electricity a year to buy a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources; thus assuring the cost of electricity will increase.
The amount starts at just 6% in 2012 and gradually increases to 20% in 2020, although utilities could meet up to 8% of the mandate through reduced energy usage by their customers. In other words, the government will figure out some way to make us use less energy (a very broad term) other than by increasing the cost – I wonder what that may me, government controlled thermostats?
Right now renewable energy accounts for about 8.5% of domestic electricity generation, but the House bill's renewable mandate would not recognize all of that as renewable. Hydropower, for example, which makes up a large chunk of current electricity generation, is not all counted as renewable toward the new mandate, nor is geothermal energy.
A new amendment added by speaker Pelosi requires the president to impose trade tariffs on trade partners that do not limit their carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020. To get representatives farm states on board, provisions easing rules on corn-based ethanol production and putting the permit program under the Agriculture Department rather than the Environmental Protection Agency was included.
The bill would have far reaching effects on energy users at all levels of the economy, from giant manufacturers to utilities to individuals. For instance, new government imposed buildings standards would be mandated and some household items will be required to use less energy than they do now. These items include backyard spas, lamps located above art work, drinking-water dispensers and light bulbs in outdoor light fixtures. Are you prepared to live with that?
The bill would force companies to phase out allegedly inefficient products of the kinds described and replace them with allegedly more efficient - and more expensive and less desirable - versions. For example presently used incandescent light bulbs, now costing less than a dollar, will have to be replaced by required compact florescent light bulbs (those curly things), that already cost more and will cost still more in the future when they are the only light game in town.
The bill would also make changes to the government's Energy Star program, which recognizes dishwashers, refrigerators and other appliances that save energy. The tougher standards would mean these "energy saving" products would cost more than regular products and it would take longer for consumers to recoup the extra costs through savings on their energy bill.
"It doesn't do any good to have high-price, energy-efficient products if people will just pay to have their old appliances fixed," said Kevin Messner, vice president of government relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
If you think you can avoid this by repairing older appliances, think again, everything will wear out sooner or later.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Obama teleprompter lies about Obamacare
I’m not especially a fan of Dick Morris but I find I agree with him more these days since he has become a serious thorn in the sides of both Clintons. For example, here is what he said recently:
"Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their (Obama and Democrats) secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care – and right now. These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor’s opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat’s and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford."
Morris also warns us: "But this is just the very beginning... rationing is coming, and coming soon." To paraphrase Morris; if you need a CAT scan or an MRI, forget it. If you need antibiotics, forget it. As for potentially life-saving or life-extending treatments, take a number and stand in line.
Obama describes his health care plan through his lying teleprompter and claims his plan will reduce healthcare costs and provide the same medical care we receive now. Obama has told us that if you want to keep your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you want to keep your present health plan, you'll be able to keep your present health plan. Specifically, Obama said: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away." But Obama doesn’t keep his promises and everyone but the public sheep knows that; Obama can't keep that promise and he knows it.
If the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies by increasing employees’ share of contributions to the company plan so as to persuade some employees to take the public option of the Obama healthcare plan in exchange for the company provided insurance. The rationale is workers could buy their own coverage in the government public option plan or perhaps employers will even fund part of their workers’ participation in that plan, which will also reduce the company cost substantially.
The Obama’s takeover of health care is nothing more than an unmitigated power grab, even more than his takeover of the banks and the automobile industry. Obama’s goal is not to improve health care but to extend government control of our lives.
If Obama and his Democrat minions in congress are successful, we will lose what many believe is the finest medical care in the world, (why else are people coming to the United States for medical care?).
To reduce costs of healthcare according to the Obama plan it is necessary to reduce payments to medical care providers and/or ration medical care. One critical component is to target the elderly, the already-handicapped and the unborn. Consider Obama's own words and remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and learn for yourself.
“Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill.... There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."
What do you think that means? Obama’s top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old or sick individuals. One Obama adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel. Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel’s views: “He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: ‘Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.’ We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just.”
These are scary times and if you’re over the age of 55, be very scared. If you’re chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis – or have heart disease or cancer – your future doesn’t look very bright, and not only because of your disease. Do we want to give Obama the power of the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide how long we should live? If we are not entirely convinced of this possibility, do we really want to find out the answer the hard way?
Obama claims that his health plan won’t involve rationing or reduced care. But that’s ridiculous, because all government-run health systems suffer from those drawbacks. For a real-world example, take a look at the Canadian system.
Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian-trained physician who practices in the United States, describes his own revelation about Canada’s medical system:
“On [my way to medical school class]… I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers – waiting, moaning, (and) begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care – not only in Canada, but also in the United States. … I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."
How about the similar system is France? In a French journalist’s words reprinted by the Heritage Foundation:
“The majority of France’s state-owned hospitals are managed in a way that is reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. ... In the average French public hospital, it is not uncommon for every window to be open, even in winter, because the heating system in the building cannot be regulated. With the only options being no heat or unbearably high heat, everyone opts for the latter. Predictably, this is not very cheap.”
Germany is also no exception to the pitfalls of a universal healthcare system. The British medical journal Lancet has an article that says that system is facing bankruptcy on an unprecedented scale.
In Great Britain, one current cost-saving measure is the denial of essential medications to women in advanced stages of certain cancers. Notwithstanding these examples; on June 15th Barack Obama told the American Medical Association (AMA) that other developed countries – he meant nations like Canada, Germany, France, and Britain – pay much less per capita for health care than Americans. Even if this is true, you also get exactly what you pay for; is denying available medicine and treatment to those who need it a viable option to reduce cost? So why does Obama want to bring millions of people into the system literally overnight?
What happens when there are suddenly many more patients than there are practitioners to care for them? Will we have to wait in doctor’s offices like the wait in emergency rooms? And if you’re really sick, what are the chances that you might die in line, waiting for treatment that simply does not come in time? Remember what Dr. Gratzer told us about what’s going on in Canada, one of systems Democrats would like us to emulate?
In his talk to the AMA, Obama implied that costs were rising because patients were getting unneeded care. In fact, the opposite is true. A 2003 survey by the Rand Corporation found that only 11% of patients got treatments they didn’t need – while a whopping 46% failed to receive needed care.
There is a great irony in Obama’s rush for action toward a government-run system; in Great Britain, France, Germany, and even Canada, there’s a growing push to get people back into private insurance systems, taking the pressure off public facilities and doctors. They say it’s a move toward – hold onto your seat – government cost savings.
"Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their (Obama and Democrats) secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care – and right now. These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor’s opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat’s and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford."
Morris also warns us: "But this is just the very beginning... rationing is coming, and coming soon." To paraphrase Morris; if you need a CAT scan or an MRI, forget it. If you need antibiotics, forget it. As for potentially life-saving or life-extending treatments, take a number and stand in line.
Obama describes his health care plan through his lying teleprompter and claims his plan will reduce healthcare costs and provide the same medical care we receive now. Obama has told us that if you want to keep your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you want to keep your present health plan, you'll be able to keep your present health plan. Specifically, Obama said: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away." But Obama doesn’t keep his promises and everyone but the public sheep knows that; Obama can't keep that promise and he knows it.
If the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies by increasing employees’ share of contributions to the company plan so as to persuade some employees to take the public option of the Obama healthcare plan in exchange for the company provided insurance. The rationale is workers could buy their own coverage in the government public option plan or perhaps employers will even fund part of their workers’ participation in that plan, which will also reduce the company cost substantially.
The Obama’s takeover of health care is nothing more than an unmitigated power grab, even more than his takeover of the banks and the automobile industry. Obama’s goal is not to improve health care but to extend government control of our lives.
If Obama and his Democrat minions in congress are successful, we will lose what many believe is the finest medical care in the world, (why else are people coming to the United States for medical care?).
To reduce costs of healthcare according to the Obama plan it is necessary to reduce payments to medical care providers and/or ration medical care. One critical component is to target the elderly, the already-handicapped and the unborn. Consider Obama's own words and remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and learn for yourself.
“Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill.... There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."
What do you think that means? Obama’s top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old or sick individuals. One Obama adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel. Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel’s views: “He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: ‘Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.’ We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just.”
These are scary times and if you’re over the age of 55, be very scared. If you’re chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis – or have heart disease or cancer – your future doesn’t look very bright, and not only because of your disease. Do we want to give Obama the power of the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide how long we should live? If we are not entirely convinced of this possibility, do we really want to find out the answer the hard way?
Obama claims that his health plan won’t involve rationing or reduced care. But that’s ridiculous, because all government-run health systems suffer from those drawbacks. For a real-world example, take a look at the Canadian system.
Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian-trained physician who practices in the United States, describes his own revelation about Canada’s medical system:
“On [my way to medical school class]… I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers – waiting, moaning, (and) begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care – not only in Canada, but also in the United States. … I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."
How about the similar system is France? In a French journalist’s words reprinted by the Heritage Foundation:
“The majority of France’s state-owned hospitals are managed in a way that is reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. ... In the average French public hospital, it is not uncommon for every window to be open, even in winter, because the heating system in the building cannot be regulated. With the only options being no heat or unbearably high heat, everyone opts for the latter. Predictably, this is not very cheap.”
Germany is also no exception to the pitfalls of a universal healthcare system. The British medical journal Lancet has an article that says that system is facing bankruptcy on an unprecedented scale.
In Great Britain, one current cost-saving measure is the denial of essential medications to women in advanced stages of certain cancers. Notwithstanding these examples; on June 15th Barack Obama told the American Medical Association (AMA) that other developed countries – he meant nations like Canada, Germany, France, and Britain – pay much less per capita for health care than Americans. Even if this is true, you also get exactly what you pay for; is denying available medicine and treatment to those who need it a viable option to reduce cost? So why does Obama want to bring millions of people into the system literally overnight?
What happens when there are suddenly many more patients than there are practitioners to care for them? Will we have to wait in doctor’s offices like the wait in emergency rooms? And if you’re really sick, what are the chances that you might die in line, waiting for treatment that simply does not come in time? Remember what Dr. Gratzer told us about what’s going on in Canada, one of systems Democrats would like us to emulate?
In his talk to the AMA, Obama implied that costs were rising because patients were getting unneeded care. In fact, the opposite is true. A 2003 survey by the Rand Corporation found that only 11% of patients got treatments they didn’t need – while a whopping 46% failed to receive needed care.
There is a great irony in Obama’s rush for action toward a government-run system; in Great Britain, France, Germany, and even Canada, there’s a growing push to get people back into private insurance systems, taking the pressure off public facilities and doctors. They say it’s a move toward – hold onto your seat – government cost savings.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
When is meddling not meddling?
The answer to the question depends on whether President Obama is talking about Iran or Israel.
President Obama waffles about Iran and is "appalled" at the behavior of the Iran Super Leader toward the brave Iranian protesters as he decides whether strong condemnation may interfere with his plan to charm the Iranian leaders out of developing nuclear weapons but he has no qualms about bullying Israel.
Our glorious leader, to use a phrase common in dictatorships like North Korea, is pressuring the Netanyahu government mercilessly to diminish Israel's security and to accept the terrorist group and Iran puppet Hamas as a negotiating partner, despite Hamas’ express policy that it intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Obama demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance when it comes to the Middle East and like the laughing stock former President Jimmy Carter unquestioningly swallows the propaganda of the Arabs. As expected, this propaganda is repeated uncritically by most of the Obama-fawning media; how else could Obama get away with one distortion of history after another, all of them aimed at glorifying Islam and discrediting the West, in his Cairo speech?
If Obama knew anything about history, he would not have said that Israel came into existence because of the world's guilt for the Holocaust. Our president does not seem to know or understand that there is a 3,400-year-old connection by Jews to the land now known as Israel where Jews have lived continuously since ancient times. Obama does not know that in 1845 Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 in Jerusalem and were the largest ethnic group in the region, according to a census at the time. Unfortunately in this ignorance President Obama is not alone; many members of congress and most of his adoring press are also unaware of these historical facts or otherwise choose to ignore them.
Of course what can we expect from someone who for 20 years listened to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright - the pastor who recently told a reporter that "them Jews ain't going to let him [Obama] talk to me."
Not long ago Obama was seen in an official White House photo of the president talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu on the phone where he showed the soles of his shoes in the foreground. In the Muslim world this is a sign of grave disrespect which was not lost on Muslim terrorists around the world. A spokesman for a terrorist organization commented:
"It's a sign of humiliation that shows Obama thinks the Israeli government and the Jews don't deserve more than shoes. This proves Obama is disgusted with the Israelis.... With Obama's shoes, change will come."
We don’t know, and doubt, that the president did this on purpose. But President Obama is clearly naïve and inexperienced in Middle East protocols. In any case there is no doubt that Obama’s approach to foreign policy is to treat our enemies well and our friends badly.
David Horowitz calls Israel “the canary in the coal mine.” By that he means that Israel represents the sacrificial lamb in Mid East politics. Obama fails to understand that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of America and all of western civilization. If Obama follows the agenda of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Palestinian groups, Israel will soon be just a memory and our enemies will achieve a victory by their terrorism which they could not otherwise realize through military action.
President Obama waffles about Iran and is "appalled" at the behavior of the Iran Super Leader toward the brave Iranian protesters as he decides whether strong condemnation may interfere with his plan to charm the Iranian leaders out of developing nuclear weapons but he has no qualms about bullying Israel.
Our glorious leader, to use a phrase common in dictatorships like North Korea, is pressuring the Netanyahu government mercilessly to diminish Israel's security and to accept the terrorist group and Iran puppet Hamas as a negotiating partner, despite Hamas’ express policy that it intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Obama demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance when it comes to the Middle East and like the laughing stock former President Jimmy Carter unquestioningly swallows the propaganda of the Arabs. As expected, this propaganda is repeated uncritically by most of the Obama-fawning media; how else could Obama get away with one distortion of history after another, all of them aimed at glorifying Islam and discrediting the West, in his Cairo speech?
If Obama knew anything about history, he would not have said that Israel came into existence because of the world's guilt for the Holocaust. Our president does not seem to know or understand that there is a 3,400-year-old connection by Jews to the land now known as Israel where Jews have lived continuously since ancient times. Obama does not know that in 1845 Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 in Jerusalem and were the largest ethnic group in the region, according to a census at the time. Unfortunately in this ignorance President Obama is not alone; many members of congress and most of his adoring press are also unaware of these historical facts or otherwise choose to ignore them.
Of course what can we expect from someone who for 20 years listened to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright - the pastor who recently told a reporter that "them Jews ain't going to let him [Obama] talk to me."
Not long ago Obama was seen in an official White House photo of the president talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu on the phone where he showed the soles of his shoes in the foreground. In the Muslim world this is a sign of grave disrespect which was not lost on Muslim terrorists around the world. A spokesman for a terrorist organization commented:
"It's a sign of humiliation that shows Obama thinks the Israeli government and the Jews don't deserve more than shoes. This proves Obama is disgusted with the Israelis.... With Obama's shoes, change will come."
We don’t know, and doubt, that the president did this on purpose. But President Obama is clearly naïve and inexperienced in Middle East protocols. In any case there is no doubt that Obama’s approach to foreign policy is to treat our enemies well and our friends badly.
David Horowitz calls Israel “the canary in the coal mine.” By that he means that Israel represents the sacrificial lamb in Mid East politics. Obama fails to understand that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of America and all of western civilization. If Obama follows the agenda of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Palestinian groups, Israel will soon be just a memory and our enemies will achieve a victory by their terrorism which they could not otherwise realize through military action.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Obamacare is too expensive but it’s even worse than that
Most Americans are quite satisfied with the way they receive medical care under the present system. Cost of medical care has risen but so has most everything else. If Americans are satisfied for the most part with their healthcare, then why must the entire medical care system be discarded, and on a rush basis at that?
We also are told that millions and millions of people in America do not have medical insurance and the cost of healthcare is rising. We are also supposed to believe that these are such urgent matters there is no time to consider these and other problems in any sort of rational way; "reforming" healthcare must be rushed through congress right away to meet President Obama’s deadline.
To solve this newly identified “crisis”, Democrats in the House and Senate have worked mightily to come up with health care plans that would satisfy President Obama’s sense of fairness on an expedited time basis. Addressing this healthcare crisis urgently looks amazingly like the previous crises of toxic mortgages, an economy that would become non existent if a stimulus program proposed by Obama was not enacted; and we were told both of these crises had to be addressed and solved the day before yesterday; so it is with healthcare which will have the same feeble crisis-solving result.
Under the best of circumstances, other than the military, congress and the government do not function well when given a lot of time to deal with issues deemed important, let alone when done on an emergency basis. As a result we have a number of inefficient and failed government run programs and others that are totally unnecessary for the proper function of government as the founders of our country envisioned. Moreover, only by disregarding the constitution do much of our country’s laws and regulations exist – and the inevitable tinkering with what is believed by many to be at least a satisfactory, and by many others as the best in the world, will destroy medical care as we know it, probably forever.
It has never been required by those seeking to do good in the name of the government to be consistent if consistency interferes with their vision. But the issue of medical care as currently promoted by Obama and Democrats constitutes the greatest invasion of privacy ever contemplated. Some years ago the U.S. Supreme Court somehow found a guarantee of privacy in the constitution and based their decision to remove restrictions on abortion (the infamous Roe vs. Wade case) on the newly discovered constitutional right of privacy. However Obama and Democrats now propose sweeping laws and regulations that will interfere with a citizens’ right of privacy in selecting, requesting and receiving medical care. Furthermore, Americans’ private medical records will be assembled in data bases and be made available to others without their permission. Nonetheless Democrats and many Republicans are willing to subscribe to this hypocrisy.
It is also interesting to note that objection to sweeping government takeover of healthcare, fully one-fifth our total gross national product, is that the takeover will be expensive. Just how costly is debated; Obama and Democrats are low-balling the numbers and the Congressional Budget Office is estimating almost twice the Obama number. The unfortunate thing however is that both sets of numbers are surely wrong and the actual fiscal cost will likely be at least double any estimates.
However I am grateful for any opposition to the government takeover of healthcare regardless of the reason given but the reality is that there is so much to oppose that singling out only the cost seems needlessly minor.
Surprisingly Americans seem to understand that besides the cost of government-run insurance, millions of Americans would lose their current coverage if government run healthcare became law. A New York Times poll also identified other concerns Americans have about government run health care. In the event a government created a system of providing health care for all Americans would be created, 63% of those surveyed were concerned that the quality of their own health care would get worse; 68% were concerned that their own access to medical tests and treatments would be more limited; and 53% were concerned that they would be required to change doctors.
The American people know what the true costs of government-run health care would be: lower quality, less access, and less choice. As the health care debate continues, and the reality behind Obama’s rhetoric is exposed, it will be interesting to see how many people will still support a government-run health insurance plan. Unfortunately the ideas of rationed healthcare and senior citizens being deprived of healthcare, has not sunk in yet.
As a partial answer to concerns of Americans, President Obama has claimed that under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it.” But the White House has begun to “clarify” the President’s claim. It turns out he didn’t really mean it. According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” It is fair to interpret this assurance to mean that people will not be forced at the point of a gun to accept government healthcare but all other means are available to them.
Depending on the final outcome of the government health plan enacted by Congress, millions of Americans will lose their existing coverage. By opening the public plan to all employees and using Medicare rates, the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, has said that the public plan could result in 119.1 million Americans being transitioned out of private coverage, including employer based coverage, into a public plan. With employers making the decision, millions of Americans could lose their private coverage, regardless of their personal preferences in this matter. This is a logical result since most employers would be very willing to forego cost of private insurance in favor of a government plan.
Obama, Democrats and too many Republicans are fond of saying there are almost 50 million people without health insurance and that this essentially amounts to a crime against nature. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that a government overhaul of Americans health care system would cost at least $1.6 trillion and would mean the loss of private coverage for an estimated 23 million Americans, according to a recent preliminary analysis.
Even the CBO says that, if enacted, the bills before congress would break a key promise made by Obama: that those with private health insurance would not be harmed.
The number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, the report says. Such programs as Medicare and Medicaid will be replaced and the CBO concludes that the bill will have a major impact on the lives of Americans. The CBO said the Obama and Democrat plans would have significant effects on the number of people who are enrolled in health insurance plans, the sources of that coverage, and the federal budget.
Even senator Dodd, the chief Obama healthcare advocate in the Senate, says “everyone would be affected by this legislation and any reform will touch everyone’s lives; this bill is [going to affect] 100 percent of the population of our country, every consumer, every provider and every business.”
Star Parker had an interesting analysis of the alleged millions of people estimated to be without health insurance.
“According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, June O'Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.
According to 2007 census data, 20 percent of uninsured households earn over $75,000.
Regarding the remaining 57 percent, the authors call them ‘involuntarily’ uninsured because they can't afford insurance. But ‘involuntarily’ is also a misnomer, because it implies no connection in how they choose to live to the fact that they can't afford insurance.
The study provides the following portrait of this population: About a third is high school dropouts; they are disproportionately young; about a third are immigrants, mostly Hispanic non-citizens; about half are single without children; about 40 percent did not work during the year.”
According to "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens. Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more. If they don’t have health insurance, it’s not because they can’t afford it. Subtract non citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it and the number of uninsured falls dramatically. "Many Americans are uninsured by choice," wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." As George Will points out, 60% of people in San Francisco without health care are not citizens (read that illegal aliens)
Do you still think it is correct to use so-called millions of people without health insurance as an excuse to demolish our medical system?
We also are told that millions and millions of people in America do not have medical insurance and the cost of healthcare is rising. We are also supposed to believe that these are such urgent matters there is no time to consider these and other problems in any sort of rational way; "reforming" healthcare must be rushed through congress right away to meet President Obama’s deadline.
To solve this newly identified “crisis”, Democrats in the House and Senate have worked mightily to come up with health care plans that would satisfy President Obama’s sense of fairness on an expedited time basis. Addressing this healthcare crisis urgently looks amazingly like the previous crises of toxic mortgages, an economy that would become non existent if a stimulus program proposed by Obama was not enacted; and we were told both of these crises had to be addressed and solved the day before yesterday; so it is with healthcare which will have the same feeble crisis-solving result.
Under the best of circumstances, other than the military, congress and the government do not function well when given a lot of time to deal with issues deemed important, let alone when done on an emergency basis. As a result we have a number of inefficient and failed government run programs and others that are totally unnecessary for the proper function of government as the founders of our country envisioned. Moreover, only by disregarding the constitution do much of our country’s laws and regulations exist – and the inevitable tinkering with what is believed by many to be at least a satisfactory, and by many others as the best in the world, will destroy medical care as we know it, probably forever.
It has never been required by those seeking to do good in the name of the government to be consistent if consistency interferes with their vision. But the issue of medical care as currently promoted by Obama and Democrats constitutes the greatest invasion of privacy ever contemplated. Some years ago the U.S. Supreme Court somehow found a guarantee of privacy in the constitution and based their decision to remove restrictions on abortion (the infamous Roe vs. Wade case) on the newly discovered constitutional right of privacy. However Obama and Democrats now propose sweeping laws and regulations that will interfere with a citizens’ right of privacy in selecting, requesting and receiving medical care. Furthermore, Americans’ private medical records will be assembled in data bases and be made available to others without their permission. Nonetheless Democrats and many Republicans are willing to subscribe to this hypocrisy.
It is also interesting to note that objection to sweeping government takeover of healthcare, fully one-fifth our total gross national product, is that the takeover will be expensive. Just how costly is debated; Obama and Democrats are low-balling the numbers and the Congressional Budget Office is estimating almost twice the Obama number. The unfortunate thing however is that both sets of numbers are surely wrong and the actual fiscal cost will likely be at least double any estimates.
However I am grateful for any opposition to the government takeover of healthcare regardless of the reason given but the reality is that there is so much to oppose that singling out only the cost seems needlessly minor.
Surprisingly Americans seem to understand that besides the cost of government-run insurance, millions of Americans would lose their current coverage if government run healthcare became law. A New York Times poll also identified other concerns Americans have about government run health care. In the event a government created a system of providing health care for all Americans would be created, 63% of those surveyed were concerned that the quality of their own health care would get worse; 68% were concerned that their own access to medical tests and treatments would be more limited; and 53% were concerned that they would be required to change doctors.
The American people know what the true costs of government-run health care would be: lower quality, less access, and less choice. As the health care debate continues, and the reality behind Obama’s rhetoric is exposed, it will be interesting to see how many people will still support a government-run health insurance plan. Unfortunately the ideas of rationed healthcare and senior citizens being deprived of healthcare, has not sunk in yet.
As a partial answer to concerns of Americans, President Obama has claimed that under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it.” But the White House has begun to “clarify” the President’s claim. It turns out he didn’t really mean it. According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” It is fair to interpret this assurance to mean that people will not be forced at the point of a gun to accept government healthcare but all other means are available to them.
Depending on the final outcome of the government health plan enacted by Congress, millions of Americans will lose their existing coverage. By opening the public plan to all employees and using Medicare rates, the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, has said that the public plan could result in 119.1 million Americans being transitioned out of private coverage, including employer based coverage, into a public plan. With employers making the decision, millions of Americans could lose their private coverage, regardless of their personal preferences in this matter. This is a logical result since most employers would be very willing to forego cost of private insurance in favor of a government plan.
Obama, Democrats and too many Republicans are fond of saying there are almost 50 million people without health insurance and that this essentially amounts to a crime against nature. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that a government overhaul of Americans health care system would cost at least $1.6 trillion and would mean the loss of private coverage for an estimated 23 million Americans, according to a recent preliminary analysis.
Even the CBO says that, if enacted, the bills before congress would break a key promise made by Obama: that those with private health insurance would not be harmed.
The number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, the report says. Such programs as Medicare and Medicaid will be replaced and the CBO concludes that the bill will have a major impact on the lives of Americans. The CBO said the Obama and Democrat plans would have significant effects on the number of people who are enrolled in health insurance plans, the sources of that coverage, and the federal budget.
Even senator Dodd, the chief Obama healthcare advocate in the Senate, says “everyone would be affected by this legislation and any reform will touch everyone’s lives; this bill is [going to affect] 100 percent of the population of our country, every consumer, every provider and every business.”
Star Parker had an interesting analysis of the alleged millions of people estimated to be without health insurance.
“According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, June O'Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.
According to 2007 census data, 20 percent of uninsured households earn over $75,000.
Regarding the remaining 57 percent, the authors call them ‘involuntarily’ uninsured because they can't afford insurance. But ‘involuntarily’ is also a misnomer, because it implies no connection in how they choose to live to the fact that they can't afford insurance.
The study provides the following portrait of this population: About a third is high school dropouts; they are disproportionately young; about a third are immigrants, mostly Hispanic non-citizens; about half are single without children; about 40 percent did not work during the year.”
According to "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens. Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more. If they don’t have health insurance, it’s not because they can’t afford it. Subtract non citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it and the number of uninsured falls dramatically. "Many Americans are uninsured by choice," wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." As George Will points out, 60% of people in San Francisco without health care are not citizens (read that illegal aliens)
Do you still think it is correct to use so-called millions of people without health insurance as an excuse to demolish our medical system?
Al-Qaida: We Would Use Pakistani Nukes On America
I have never done this before on this blog but with all the Obama hype and a non-foreign policy, I include this here with a question - are you Obama supporters happy with the security of America under President Obama?
From NewsMax:
"Al-Qaida: We Would Use Pakistani Nukes On America
Monday, June 22, 2009 9:08 AM
DUBAI — If al-Qaida were in a position to do so, it would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.
Pakistan has been battling al-Qaida Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 60 miles northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.
'God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans,' Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al-Qaida's in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.
Abu al-Yazid was responding to a question about U.S. safeguards to seize control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case Islamist fighters came close to doing so.
'We expect that the Pakistani army would be defeated (in Swat) . . . and that would be its end everywhere, God willing.'
Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al-Qaida ) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny: the United States.
'That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially.'
The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group's unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter.
'Our goals have been the Americans . . . and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims.'
'There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader.'
Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al-Qaida will continue 'with large scale operations against the enemy' — by which he meant the United States.
'We have demanded and we demand that all branches of al-Qaida carry out such operations,' he said, referring to attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The militant leader said al-Qaida would be willing to accept a truce of about 10 years' duration with the United States if Washington agreed to withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and stopped backing Israel and the pro-Western governments of Muslim nations.
Asked about the whereabouts of al-Qaida's top leaders, he said: 'Praise God, sheikh Osama (bin Laden) and sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri are safe from the reach of the enemies, but we would not say where they are; moreover, we do not know where they are, but we're in continuous contact with them.'"
From NewsMax:
"Al-Qaida: We Would Use Pakistani Nukes On America
Monday, June 22, 2009 9:08 AM
DUBAI — If al-Qaida were in a position to do so, it would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.
Pakistan has been battling al-Qaida Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 60 miles northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.
'God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans,' Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al-Qaida's in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.
Abu al-Yazid was responding to a question about U.S. safeguards to seize control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case Islamist fighters came close to doing so.
'We expect that the Pakistani army would be defeated (in Swat) . . . and that would be its end everywhere, God willing.'
Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al-Qaida ) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny: the United States.
'That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially.'
The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group's unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter.
'Our goals have been the Americans . . . and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims.'
'There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader.'
Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al-Qaida will continue 'with large scale operations against the enemy' — by which he meant the United States.
'We have demanded and we demand that all branches of al-Qaida carry out such operations,' he said, referring to attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The militant leader said al-Qaida would be willing to accept a truce of about 10 years' duration with the United States if Washington agreed to withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and stopped backing Israel and the pro-Western governments of Muslim nations.
Asked about the whereabouts of al-Qaida's top leaders, he said: 'Praise God, sheikh Osama (bin Laden) and sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri are safe from the reach of the enemies, but we would not say where they are; moreover, we do not know where they are, but we're in continuous contact with them.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
