$103 Million to expand broadband Internet in rural United States. Posted by Cowboy Byte, Aug. 22, 2011

$103M to expand broadband Internet in rural U.S.

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Cowboy Byte

Telecommunications companies in 16 states will share more than $103 million in federal funding to help expand broadband Internet access to those areas of rural America that haven't been reached by the high-speed service or are underserved, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Monday.

Policymakers, public interest groups and telecom companies are seeking to bridge the digital divide by reaching even the most remote pockets of the U.S. with broadband internet, hoping to improve economic and educational opportunities there.

"There's a big gap that remains between rural and urban areas because it's just hard to make a business case in rural areas," said Jonathan Adelstein, the agriculture department's rural utilities service administrator, in a conference call with reporters. "Rural areas' future depends upon access to broadband and we're not where we need to be today

US Rating Cut by S&P for first time on Deficit Reduction Plan.. Aug 5, 2011.

US Rating Cut by S&P for First Time on Deficit Reduction Pact

Friday, 05 Aug 2011 08:49 PM

Share:

More . . .

A A |

Email Us |

Print |

Forward Article

The U.S. had its AAA credit rating downgraded for the first time by Standard & Poor's on concern spending cuts agreed on by lawmakers to raise the nation's borrowing limit won't be enough to reduce record deficits.

S&P dropped the ranking one level to AA+, after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the rating in the absence of a "credible" plan to lower deficits even if the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit was lifted. The U.S. was awarded the top credit ranking by New York-based S&P in 1941. It kept the outlook at "negative."

'The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement today.

Demand for Treasuries has surged even with the specter of a downgrade as investors saw few alternatives to the traditional refuge during times of risk as concern increased global growth is slowing and Europe's sovereign debt crisis is spreading. The action could still hurt the U.S. economy over time by increasing the cost of mortgages, auto loans and other types of lending tied to the interest rates paid on Treasuries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise the nation's borrowing costs by $100 billion a year.

Moody's, Fitch

"It's a reflection of the fact that we haven't done enough to get our fiscal house in the order," Anthony Valeri, market strategist in San Diego at LPL Financial, which oversees $340 billion, said in an interview before the downgrade. "Sovereign credit quality is going to remain under pressure for years to come."
___________________________________________________________

'You Opened My Eyes to the Catastrophic Enormity of This Financial Debacle'
Debt ceiling 'medicine will become the poison,' according to famed economist. Brace for economic meltdown. Watch the Aftershock Survival Summit Now, See the Evidence.

_____________________________________________________________

Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings on Aug. 2, the day President Barack Obama signed a bill that ended the debt-ceiling impasse that pushed the Treasury to the edge of default. Moody's and Fitch also said that downgrades were possible if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens.

The measure raised the nation's debt ceiling until 2013 and threatens automatic spending cuts to enforce $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.

S&P put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it risks losing its AAA rating unless lawmakers agree on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. S&P indicated last month that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts would jeopardize the rating.

'Grand Bargain'

"A grand bargain of that nature would signal the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal situation in the U.S.," John Chambers, chairman of S&P's sovereign rating committee, said in a video interview distributed by the ratings firm on July 28.

Obama has said a rating cut may hurt the broader economy by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. An increase in Treasury yields of 50 basis points would reduce U.S. economic growth by about 0.4 percentage points, JPMorgan said in a report, citing Federal Reserve research and data.

"The hope is that we could keep Treasuries pure, limited to interest rate risk," Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and co-chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Bloomberg Television interview before the announcement. "The minute you start downgrading away from AAA, you take small steps toward credit risk and that is something any country would like to avoid."

Relative Yields

Treasury yields average about 0.70 percentage point less than the rest of the world's sovereign debt markets, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. The difference has expanded from 0.15 percentage point in January.

Investors from China to the U.K. are lending money to the U.S. government for a decade at the lowest rates of the year. For many of them, there are few alternatives outside the U.S., no matter what its credit rating.

"Yields are low in the face of a downgrade because there is nowhere else for people to go if they don't buy Treasuries because they want to be in safe dollar assets," Carl Lantz, head of interest-rate strategy at Credit Suisse Group AG, one of 20 primary dealers that trade directly with the Federal Reserve, said before the announcement.

Ten-year Treasury yields fell to as low as 2.33 percent in New York, the least since October.

Bond Dealers

The committee of bond dealers and investors that advises the U.S. Treasury said the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency "appears to be slipping" in quarterly feedback presented to the government on Aug. 3. The U.S. currency's portion of global currency reserves dropped to 60.7 percent in the period ended March 31, from a peak of 72.7 percent in 2001, International Monetary Fund data show.

"The idea of a reserve currency is that it is built on strength, not typically that it is 'best among poor choices'," page 35 of the presentation made by one member of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from firms ranging from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Pimco. "The fact that there are not currently viable alternatives to the U.S. dollar is a hollow victory and perhaps portends a deteriorating fate."

Members of the TBAC, as the committee is known, which met Aug. 2 in Washington, also discussed the implications of a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating. "None of the members thought that a downgrade was imminent," according to minutes of the meeting released by the Treasury.

A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nation's borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 basis points to 70 basis points over the "medium term," JPMorgan's Terry Belton said on a July 26 conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The U.S. spent $414 billion on interest expense in fiscal 2010, or 2.7 percent of gross domestic product, according to Treasury Department data.

"That impact on Treasury rates is significant," Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call. "That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and that's money being taken away from other goods and services."

© Copyright 2011 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: US Rating Cut by S&P for First Time on Deficit Reduction Pact
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Obama Administration Officials Plan Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors

Filed under Government, Health {42 comments}

Alarmed by a shortage of primary care doctors, Obama administration officials are recruiting a team of "mystery shoppers" to pose as patients, call doctors' offices and request appointments to see how difficult it is for people to get care when they need it.

The administration says the survey will address a "critical public policy problem": the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Federal officials predict that more than 30 million Americans will gain coverage under the health care law passed last year. "These newly insured Americans will need to seek out new primary care physicians, further exacerbating the already growing problem of P.C.P. shortages in the United States," the Department of Health and Human Services said in a description of the project that it submitted to the White House.

Obama's Economists Admit Stimulas Has Cost $278,000.00 Per Job

Obama's Economists Admit 'Stimulus' Has Cost $278,000 per Job

July 4, 2011

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it's clearly not trying to draw attention to the report's contents. Sure enough, the "Seventh Quarterly Report" on the economic impact of the "stimulus," released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama's economic "stimulus" did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the "stimulus" in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using "mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus" (which it describes as a "natural way to estimate the effects of" the legislation), the "stimulus" has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

Obama slips DREAM ACT AMNESTY past Congress (World Net Daily News) By Drew Zahn June 25, 2011

Friday, June 24, 2011

---

INVASION USA
WND
Obama slips DREAM Act amnesty past Congress
Columnist charges, 'This is outright lawlessness on part of the administration'

---

Posted: June 25, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn

---

WND

A new enforcement memo handed down by the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last week has some accusing the White House of running around Congress to implement the DREAM Act – and consequent amnesty for some illegal immigrants – by executive fiat.

The new memo, penned by ICE Director John Morton, directs ICE agents, attorneys and directors to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" – meaning less likelihood of deportation – for illegal aliens who have been students in the U.S., who have been in the country since childhood or who have served in the American military.

Critics have pointed out the new leniency standards parallel the provisions of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, which could not pass the Senate, despite several votes over the past decade, including three failed attempts at passage last year.

"This is outright lawlessness on the part of the administration," argued syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on a discussion panel with Fox News' anchor Chris Wallace. "Whatever the politics of this, we do have a Constitution. And under it, the Legislature, the Congress enacts the laws and the executive executes them. It doesn't make them up.

"The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress," Krauthammer continued. "It is now being enacted by the executive, despite the express will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order; it's an implicit one."

(Story continues below)

Other guests on Wallace's program admitted that President Obama has been under pressure from Hispanic lobbyists to do what Krauthammer is accusing: an end run around Congress.

"Immigration-rights activists have been pressing the president to do exactly this, because they couldn't get the DREAM Act enacted," commented Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine. "They have been saying, 'Let's do it administratively.' He has done the same thing on labor issues, union issues, by the way."

Mara Liasson of National Public Radio added, "That's exactly what the president has promised to do. Latino activists were asking him to issue an executive order to make the DREAM Act a law. That would truly be an end run around Congress. And he said he doesn't have the power to do that.

"What he does have is prosecutorial discretion," Liasson continued. "That's existed long before he came in office. And what ICE did today was it said, 'Here are all the factors that you can take into consideration.'"

Specifically, the memo argues, "Because the agency is confronted with more violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise prosecutorial discretion."

Therefore, it states, priority in prosecution should be given to "felons," "gang members" and "repeat offenders."

But other determinants are listed "positive factors [that] should prompt particular care and consideration," namely if the illegal immigrant is a veteran of the U.S. armed forces, present in the U.S. since childhood, pregnant, a victim of violent crime or suffering from serious health conditions.

In addition, the memo states, "When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

• The person's length of presence in the United States;
  
• The circumstances of the person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;
  
• The person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States."

The DREAM Act would similarly grant children in the country illegally the opportunity to become U.S. citizens if they attend college or enlist in the military.

Though the Nancy Pelosi-led U.S. House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act during the "lame duck" session after last year's election, the U.S. Senate has repeatedly failed to clear the 60-vote threshold necessary to bring it up for vote over Republican filibusters.

FIELD POLL; Voters are less likely to Re-Elect Feinstien (The Press-Enterprise June 21, 2011) by Ben Goad

FIELD POLL: Voters are less inclined to re-elect Feinstein

		Download story podcast

06:35 AM PDT on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

By BEN GOAD
Washington Bureau

California voters are less inclined to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein another term than they were at this point in any previous election cycle, a new survey found.

But more voters than not approve of the job Feinstein, D-Calif., is doing in Washington and the pool of potential 2012 Republican challengers is murky.

Polls taken within a year of her previous election bids found that most voters favored Feinstein.

AP photo

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has raised $5 million already for a 2012 campaign.

Today's Field Poll, conducted for The Press-Enterprise and other California media subscribers, found that just 43 percent are inclined to cast a ballot for the state's senior senator. Thirty-nine percent are not inclined to voter for her, and 18 percent are without an opinion.

The shift may say more about voter attitudes toward the state of national politics than it does about Feinstein, Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said. He noted that the same survey found far more voters (46 percent) approve of the job she is doing in Washington than disapprove (31 percent.)

"It's not a great year for incumbents," DiCamillo said. "Given where she had been in prior years, this would appear to be a more opportune year to challenge her."

Feinstein campaign strategist Bill Carrick blamed such suggestions on "political amnesia ." Carrick pointed to 1994, when a Republicans won control of the House and Senate in a landslide victory but failed to unseat Feinstein.

Carrick said Feinstein already has raised $5 million for her campaign, and soon will sharpen her focus on the race ahead.

"We're going into a campaign cycle that gives us the opportunity to communicate with the voters and tell them what the senator's been doing in Washington," he said.

It remains unclear who might emerge from the GOP to take on Feinstein.

In most years, the House of Representatives would be seen as a logical place for the party to find a challenger. But since voters returned Republicans to power in the House, a run at the Democrat-controlled Senate may look less attractive to high profile members of Congress.

"You certainly don't want to give up all the pleasures of majority status for a risky run against an entrenched incumbent senator in a blue state," Claremont McKenna College politics professor Jack Pitney said.

The ongoing redistricting process could yield a challenger. The state panel created to draw new political lines for California has released draft maps that, if made final, would put several Republican House members into seats they would have a hard time winning.

"It's quite possible that a couple of Republicans will find themselves squeezed out," Pitney said. "And if they want to return to Washington, a run for the Senate might be the way to do it."

Today's poll of 950 voters was conducted from June 3 to June 11. Some questions were asked of a sub-sample. Margins of error ranged from 3.3 percentage points for the overall sample to 4.6 percentage points for the sub-samples.

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com

Officer to Obama: See you in Court... by Bob Unruh, WND

Officer to Obama: See you in court By Bob Unruh, WND An Army officer who invited his own court-martial to resolve for the nation questions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has waived a preliminary hearing in his case. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who refused orders from a chain of command led by Obama, also today released a new video explaining why documentation needs to be released by Obama that could confirm that he qualifies to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office by held only by a "natural born citizen." Lakin was scheduled for an Article 32 military hearing tomorrow, the equivalent of a civilian preliminary hearing in a court case. But Daniel J. Driscoll, an Army hearing officer, had banned Lakin from bringing in evidence about Obama's birth as well as testimony from Hawaii officials who may have information on the subject. "In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president's credentials on trial," Driscoll wrote in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lakin would have been allowed. But in a new video, Lakin said the issue is important:

Obama's Ultimate Betrayal (January 12, 2011) Personal Liberty Digest..

Obama's Ultimate Betrayal

January 12, 2011 by John Myers

Welcome to 2011; another year for President Barack Obama, whose energy policies are dictated not from the White House but from Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.

Obama's Christmas gift to the nation was the December announcement by the President himself to clamp down further on domestic oil and gas drilling. Welcome to the New Year where pump prices now average more than $3 per barrel.

Despite the worst recession since the Great Depression, we are paying the highest gas prices since 2008. All thanks to Obama's need to go Green, which is enriching Arab oil producers while putting America's future at risk.

Obama regulators have been busy slipping in ill-advised energy policies. First came the pre-Thanksgiving announcement that oil exploration and drilling in Alaska would be curtailed. All for a good cause, said the Obamaites, to help save vast expanses of polar bear habitat. Then Obama's Department of the Interior made a pre-Christmas policy change that would further cut domestic oil supplies by making energy-rich lands untouchable.

It seems that Obama forgot that designating Federal lands as wilderness areas was supposed to require an act of Congress. Yet the day before Christmas Eve, Obama's Department of the Interior did a coup d'état. As a result, the Obama administration alone is able to judge where oil can or cannot be drilled. In doing this, Obama has thwarted George W. Bush's policy that restricted unilateral action by the White House.

Then there is the drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico. Nearly three months after the Obama administration lifted its ban, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well in the Gulf. In fact, the petroleum industry expects the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps well into 2012.

This long delay by the Obama administration is costing Big Oil billions of dollars that they have tied up in Gulf projects; projects that are now on hold while petroleum companies pay out thousands of dollars every day on rigs that stand idle.

Last week the Wall Street Journal wrote this indictment of Obama' energy policy:

"Their impact goes beyond the oil industry. The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling activity, especially because the oil spill also hurt the region's fishing and tourism industries. The Obama administration in September estimated that 8,000 to 12,000 workers could lose their jobs temporarily as a result of the moratorium; some independent estimates have been much higher.

"The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13 percent this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6 percent in 2011. The difference: A loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day."

All of which leaves America more susceptible to an Arab oil embargo. The last one happened in the 1970s when the U.S. was pumping twice as much oil as it is now.

With the U.S. gulping more foreign crude than ever, Arabs could bring America to its knees. You would think that a President as smart as Obama would understand the risk he is putting the nation in; a nation which he has sworn to protect.

Perhaps the greatest waste of American resources is out West where there is potentially hundreds of millions of barrels in oil reserves and trillions of cubic feet in gas deposits; all of it just waiting to be drilled and pumped to a thirsting nation. Yet our President is obstructing America from meeting its energy needs.

Ben Lieberman of The Washington Times explains:

"Utah is particularly hard hit, with up to 6 million acres in jeopardy of being locked away from development. Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican, told The Salt Lake Tribune, "[This decision will seriously hinder domestic energy development and further contribute to the uncertainty and economic distress that continues to prevent the creation of new jobs in a region that has unduly suffered from this administration's radical policies."

But there is more. Two days before Christmas the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a Pearl Harbor-like pre-emptive attack on U.S. refiners with an order that will place severe limits on carbon-dioxide emissions. The EPA, in language Joseph Stalin would have been proud of, said: "The details have yet to be determined."

The Moroccan Candidate
The bottom-line is that under Obama, Washington is certain to increase the cost of converting oil into gasoline. If you are looking forward to spending $5 per gallon at the pumps, you will love Obama's bold new move to make America more green.

The $5 per gallon is not just a number I picked out of the air. The former president of Shell Oil says that's entirely possible as high demand pushes the price of crude oil higher and higher.

Culminating some time by the third quarter of 2012, retail pump prices in places like California and New York will reach roughly $5 per gallon, said former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister.

Former energy secretary Bill Richardson was asked about Hofmeister's stark prediction: "I hope he's wrong, but this is a very volatile energy market and we haven't moved as fast as we should in America towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels."

Hofmeister underscores the urgent need to develop domestic oil production and he even accuses the Obama administration of being anti-oil.

"I have no problem moving beyond oil but not today, not tomorrow, not 2011 or 2012. We can't. It's simply impractical and unreal," Hofmeister said.

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy (DOE) has put out a statement saying it will continue to pursue responsible oil and gas production while focusing on vehicle efficiency standards and investing in electric vehicles, bio-fuels and mass transit.

Obama's DOE must think America alone can make the Earth green. What the President seems to forget is the fact that China, India and Russia, along with a host of Third World polluters, are using coal and even wood furnaces to drive their industries.

It appears to me that Obama's Green policies are nothing more than collateral damage to a nation that needs domestic petroleum and the jobs that that industry provides. Instead Obama's policies seem to be helping Arab oil exporters.

If you think I exaggerate, consider this from the Dec. 29 Economist, not known as a bastion of conservative ideals: "Mr Obama's team of managing the Middle East is even more inept than Mr Bush's. The American right and many Israelis think he is too pro-Arab."

Dubya Billboard: "MISS ME YET?"
People in the petroleum industry don't believe Obama is pro-North America, at least not when it comes to energy. Canada's oil sands — which help keep America on the road every day—have been labeled "dirty oil" by Obama Democrats (as if the crude they pump out of the Saudi desert was somehow clean). And given the political realities that exist in many parts of Alaska, Sarah Palin has a greater chance of hitting a gusher with an errant shot from her AR-15 than Big Oil has with a drill-bit.

Despite Bush's multiple mistakes in the Middle East, he was a patriot who at least wanted to ramp up domestic oil and gas production. That's not true of Obama, who seems intent on increasing America's dependency on Arab oil.

As I write to you, oil has topped $90 per barrel. I believe that by summer it will break over $100 per barrel. That makes Big Oil a good investment. But at what cost?

Under Obama's presidency we are headed for an energy crisis worse than anything President Jimmy Carter could have engineered. Just how high oil prices will go I don't know. Much depends on what happens in the 2012 election.

Yours in good times and bad,

John Myers
Myer's Energy and Gold Report

U.S. Congressmen Declares: Borders will be 'Irrelevant' (World Net Daily News) Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010

Thursday, December 23, 2010

---

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
U.S. congressman declares: Borders will be 'irrelevant'
Stunning statement from same lawmaker sworn in with hand on Quran, not Bible

---

Posted: December 22, 2010
8:59 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein

---

WorldNetDaily

A so-called spiritual conference at which Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., called for the U.S. border to become an "irrelevancy" was led by a slew of extremists, including a Marxist who reportedly compared the tea-party movement to Hitler.

Conference speakers include radicals with deep ties to President Obama.

Yesterday, TheBlaze.com, founded by Fox News host Glenn Beck, posted a video from a conference led by the Network of Spiritual Progressives, or NSP, in which Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, declared to about 400 attendees that "God willing," the U.S. border will become irrelevant.

Stated Ellison: "No security policy position can be premised on military might. ...The way it works is we are a country guided by ideals of equity, generosity and engagement in our relations with other nations and those philosophical ideals create safe borders … and, God willing, one day the border will become an irrelevancy."

Ellison continued, "And you know, the fact is, it's time for us to answer a critical question, and that is how are we going to shape a progressive foreign policy agenda that provides a platform for the U.S. government in the 21st century."

WND has learned the conference was led by a slew of extremists who have had close relationships with Obama.

(Story continues below)

One of the main speakers was avowed Marxist Michael Lerner, editor of the pro-Palestinian Tikkun Magazine. Lerner has been accused of using the magazine to justify Palestinian terror and has written articles in which he suggested the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. policies.

According to an account of the conference by Baltimore Sun columnist Marta Mossburg, who attended the two-day event, Lerner compared tea party activists to Hitler at least five times.

Mossburg wrote that Lerner used the conference to bolster support for Obama.

"We're here to support Obama. …We're here to help him to be the Obama Americans thought they elected," she quoted Lerner as saying.

Lerner said Obama attended Tikkun meetings in Chicago and used to read the magazine, according to conversations he had with Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Lerner identifies himself as an ordained rabbi. However, as Discover the Networks notes, Lerner received a controversial private rabbinic ordination by "Jewish Renewal" rabbis, whose ordinations are recognized only by those within the Jewish Renewal community and the out of mainstream Reconstructionist Judaism.

Orthodox Judaism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly all consider such ordinations invalid.

Lerner was an activist in the 1960s anti-war movement, the Students for a Democratic Society, from which the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization splintered.

Meanwhile, a co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives conference at which Ellison made his remarks is Princeton professor Cornel West, an avowed Marxist and honorary member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Obama named West, whom he has called a personal friend, to the Black Advisory Council of his presidential campaign. West was a key point man between Obama's campaign and the black community.

West served as an adviser on Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March and is a self-described personal friend of the Nation of Islam leader. West authored two books on race with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., who was at the center of the controversy last year in which Obama criticized Gates' treatment by police outside his home after a report of a burglary.

Another speaker at the Network of Spiritual Progressives event was Heather Booth, founder of the Midwest Academy, which teaches the community organizing tactics of radical Saul Alinsky.

WND was first to report that the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director alongside Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, provided funding to Midwest Academy.

WND also broke the story that the executive director of Midwest Academy was part of the team that developed and delivered a group of volunteers for President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Also, in August 1998, Obama participated with Booth in a panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play "The Love Song of Saul Alinsky," a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as "bringing to life one of America's greatest community organizers."

Ellison's entry into Congress drew attention when he posed with his hand on a Quran instead of a Bible after taking his oath of office in January 2007. His campaign was bolstered by the work of staff members of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations.

As WND reported last year, Ellison defended CAIR when members of Congress sought to investigate whether CAIR was placing interns with members of strategic security committees, as revealed in the book "Muslim Mafia" by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.

Ellison read a statement in Congress criticizing the call for an investigation.

"The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly," Ellison said.

"If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America," he said.

U.S. prosecutors, however, believe CAIR, while claiming to be a civil-rights group, is actually a front group for Hamas and other terrorists. The Justice Department stated in September 2007 during its prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas – the largest terror-financing case in history – that CAIR "has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

 

Mexico & U.S. have shared interest in creating a 21st century border...

Fact Sheet

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

March 23, 2010

---

Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21^st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries. The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of "hold the line" and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21^st century border management. 

The new framework is based on the principles of joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel: 

• Enhancing Public Safety – The protection of Mexican and U.S. citizens from the criminal organizations responsible for the traffic in people, drugs, arms, and money across our common land border is a key priority for both countries. In addition to the bilateral Merida Initiative programs currently underway, we must develop joint strategies for key smuggling and trafficking corridors along with regular sharing of information on investigations, prosecutions, and screening practices.
• Securing Flows – The central challenge in managing flows of people and goods is to separate high-risk travelers and cargo from low-risk ones. Tools that help prevent illegitimate trade and travel while expediting legitimate trade and travel include implementing complementary risk management strategies in both countries, establishing a bi-national "model port" to share information on goods and people, and improving trusted traveler and shipper programs. We must work together with the private sector to ensure that we achieve these goals.
• Expediting Legitimate Commerce and Travel – Each day, about a billion dollars of commerce and a million people cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Affirmative steps that accelerate the flow of people and goods through ports of entry enhance both countries' economic competitiveness. Both countries need work with the private sector to encourage investment in the people, technology, and infrastructure that comprise a 21^st century border. Secure transit lanes for pre-cleared rail and truck shipments as well as passenger pre-clearance programs are two tools that could make cross border trade and travel more efficient.
• Engaging Border Communities – Mexico is the number one or number two export destination of twenty-two U.S. states. Cross-border trade contributes enormously to the economic vitality of both countries, especially in the border region. Continuing to engage border communities, as well as state, local, and tribal governments in bi-national strategy development, law enforcement, and communications, is essential to collaborative border management.
• Setting Policy – Achieving rapid policy change requires an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level. Both countries need to reinvigorate their policy-setting architecture to address the statutory, regulatory, systems, and infrastructure changes needed to realize our new vision of collaborative border management

Repeal ObamaCare. Then, Let's Do Something Really Radical...Try Freedom. (Posted by Labor Union Report) Thu. Dec. 16, 2010

Repeal ObamaCare. Then, Let's Do Something Really Radical…Try Freedom.

Government is (and always has been) the problem, not the solution.

Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)

Thursday, December 16th at 1:00PM EST

50 Comments

ObamaCare. No, it's not dead. Not even close. Yet, with Monday's ruling that ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional, there is some hope on the horizon that the foray into enslaving America in a government-dictated insurance scheme may yet be repealed, outlawed, or just thrown into the ash heap of really, really bad ideas.

There is so much wrong with ObamaCare that it could fill an entire post (and then some), but that is not the reason for this post.

The reason for this post is very simple: First, we need to recognize that government is the problem with America's health care costs, not the solution. Second, we need to start coming up with some fresh and bold ideas in the eventuality that we can slay the beast of government-run healthcare once and for all. Even if ObamaCare is repealed in House, unless there are 67 senators who can be dragged away from the altar of closed-market health care to override a presidential veto, 2013 is the earliest ObamaCare can be aborted—but then what?

As a small business owner who just got hit with a $3600 insurance premium hike for 2011 and who will be paying (at a minimum) $177,500 over the next ten years just for the "privilege" of having one family covered with insurance, you can be assured that my points are more than mere rhetorical ones. If I had my druthers, I would have a catastrophic-only plan that covers emergencies and life-threatening illnesses, and pay the rest out of pocket. I'd probably save well over $125,000 in the next ten years with a plan like that—if one existed.

The problem is, a plan like that doesn't exist…can't exist. Why? The government bureaucrats won't allow it. In our state, there are, by law (or regulation), only three types of insurance, provided by three insurers. It is a closed market scheme. In addition, let's just say (for the sake of discussion) that a plan like that did exist in the next state over and I wanted to purchase it. I couldn't do that either—because the government bureaucrats have created an artificial wall that won't allow insurance to be bought across state lines. You see, in this simple and real small-business example, already government is the problem—and we're paying the price.

Last year, when Nancy Pelosi went on her lunatic rant about insurance carriers being "immoral", it was the epitome of hypocrisy—sort of like the Devil calling demons evil for doing what their master taught them to do. [Too harsh?...What is it then, if not evil, for those who purposely unleash a disease to also claim to be the cure?] People who claim that insurance companies have monopolies don't realize that it is Congress that created the monopolies to begin with. That is why Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the rest of their ilk, have been so disingenuous in shoving ObamaCare up America's rectum.

Like a healthy person going for a checkup, and going home with herpes, America has been gamed, lied to, and tricked into believing that health care is incompatible with a free market—lied to by the very people who claim to have the cure. Democrats and their union coaches have become nothing more (or better) than snake oil salesmen.

Yes, the cost of health care has risen exponentially for years. Health care costs have destroyed incomes, cost American jobs, caused strikes, and bankrupted companies. But it's not due to a lack of government, it's because of too much government.  It hasn't been the fault of the free market, as the socialist union bosses and the Marxist Democrats claim, it has been because it has not been a free market. If America wants to blame anyone, we should blame those who have been controlling and gaming the system—the bureaucrats and their union bosses—who now claim that more bureaucracy is the cure.

So, before we continue talking about "how government should fix health care," perhaps it's time we recognize how government caused it to be broken in the first place. Let's begin looking at the true reason why the cost structure has been so blown out of alignment. And, then, perhaps more will understand why we need to tell government to get out of the way—now!

Last year, as the heated rhetoric of the health care debate was raging all across America, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that provided some market-based alternatives to the monstrous big-government scheme that has become ObamaCare. While Mackey's piece was brief, the Left's reaction to it was extreme.

Immediately, the attack dogs from the unions launched a nationwide boycott of Whole Foods, Mackey was attacked personally, and the Left screamed hysterically. To see the Left's ridiculous reaction indicated that they felt threatened by Mackey's ideas—which meant they were probably pretty good ideas. While you can read the entire Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare here [and it is worth reading in its entirety], below is the main thrust of Mackey's ideas:

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

While there are likely other ideas that are out there, Mackey's ideas serve as a good starting point for debate and discussion as to what we will "replace" ObamaCare with, if we can ever get to that point. However, if we are not serious about coming up with solutions that truly reflect a market-based system, as opposed to a government run bureaucracy, there is no point in trying to repeal ObamaCare. If politicians on the Right think they can replace big bureaucracy with little bureaucracy, it will fix nothing, we'll be right back where we were two years ago, and we're wasting our time.

In healthcare, as in all other areas of life, we can either choose freedom and a free market, or we can choose to be our brother's' keeper—and he our keeper—but you can't have both. Freedom is incompatible with a government bureaucracy making life and death decisions. And, in healthcare, we can't just be against ObamaCare, and not be for something to replace it. The question is, can we take the steps to beat the bureaucrats back?  And, if so,then what?

_________________

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

--
Da'Buck
BS.Ranch
BS.Ranch@Yahoo.com

Live to Ride: Ride to Live
Harley~Davidson #1
Don't take life for granted, You never know when it will be suddenly knocked out of you!! By a Mazda MPV no less!!


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain BS Ranch proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the BS Ranch. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.