Barack Obama Fully Embraces Death Panels (by Erick Erickson)

Barack Obama Fully Embraces Death Panels

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Thursday, April 14th at 5:05AM EDT

98 Comments

While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them "an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers." But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.

According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels "will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need."

We already know what they'll recommend as "the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending". Barack Obama's own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they're going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: "protecting access to the services seniors need." Dying people, according to Obama's advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.

"We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. . . . If we're wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare," Obama said. At a time Democrats are saying Republicans want to starve old people to death, Democrats are intent on embracing a cost savings model for Medicare that incentivizes doctors to encourage people to die and, when all else fails, gives a death panel "the authority to make additional savings by" ensuring the dying elderly die quickly.

"Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself," Obama said. Really? The only way that will happen is by rationing. You may not like the use of the phrase "death panel," but make no mistake about it — at the end of your life, in Barack Obama's America, his death panel will throw you under the bus in a way much closer to reality than metaphor.

Officer to Obama, "See you in court!"

The Doctor, The President & the birth certificate by David Kupelian (World Net Daily News) Oct. 5, 2010

---

---

The doctor, the president and the birth certificate

---

Posted: October 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What's wrong with the following picture?

A decorated Army flight surgeon, after 18 years of service including year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan, now risks his career and faces almost certain court-martial and imprisonment.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin claims there's a serious conflict between adhering to his military oath and obeying deployment orders coming down the existing chain of command with Barack Obama at the top – since the president's constitutionaleligibility to be commander in chief has never been documented.

Although some scoff, Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates," confirms retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst who served as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe. Likewise, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, agrees Lakin "has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief."

Moreover, just like Lakin, 3 out of 5 Americans – 58 percent according to a recent CNN poll and 61 percent according to a"60 Minutes/Vanity Fair" poll – are not convinced Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he has long claimed. The Constitution requires in Article 2 Section 1 that every president be a "natural born citizen."

So, now this veteran Army doctor, who would much rather continue serving his country than go to prison, is respectfully telling the military tribunal judging him that he needs for Obama or his representatives to prove that the president is occupying his office constitutionally.

In simple terms, Col. Lakin wants to see Obama's birth certificate.

A special report with evidence galore: "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"

Not the computer-generated summary document that almost everyone in the media mindlessly and ignorantly refers to as "Obama's birth certificate," but the actual document that virtually everyone reading these words possesses – showing the hospital of birth (to date, no hospital on earth officially claims Obama was born there), the attending physician or midwife and similar information that actually proves where and when he was born.

For Obama, at long last, to produce the documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to Lakin's defense, said McInerney, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

Indeed, in an extraordinary affidavit he filed with the court in Lakin's defense, McInerney, who also served as assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force and commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, made this bold statement:

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.

Adds McInerney: "Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution."

So, what does the officer presiding over Lakin's court-martial say in response to all this?

Army Col. Denise R. Lind, acting as judge in the case, has so far ruled that Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as testimony from any who may have access to his records. Her reason for what amounts to denying Lakin the right to defend himself is, according to Lind, that producing such evidence about Obama in a military tribunal could be – and I'll quote her exact word – an "embarrassment" to the president.

Let's make this crystal clear: Lakin's whole argument is that the sacrosanct chain of command may well have been corrupted by a usurper – and millions of Americans agree he has valid reason to suspect this is the case. Yet the presiding officer in the hearing has ruled that neither Lakin nor his defense team may present any evidence bearing on Obama's eligibility to be president – because it might be embarrassing.

Instead, the only "defense" Lakin is being allowed, by Lind's order, revolves around whether a deployment order was given (no one contests this) and whether he refused to obey it (no one contests this either). In other words, this is shaping up as a sham proceeding in which Lakin cannot defend himself, reminiscent of the kind of justice the old Soviet Union used to mete out in kangaroo courts, followed by imprisonment.

Since when does "embarrassment" – especially since the embarrassment in question wouldn't even occur unless Obama actually were indeed lying and usurping the office of the presidency – have anything to do with administering justice?

Truly an amazing and consequential case, both for Lakin and for the nation.

Why, then, have you not heard anything about it from the rest of the media?

Because it's the "mainstream media" – which Rush Limbaugh calls the "state-run media" – that gave us Obama as president in the first place, and which continues to run interference for him to this day. (Who can forget the "thrill going up" Chris Matthews' leg and Newsweek's Evan Thomas rhapsodizing that Obama was "sort of God"?)

Moreover, when it comes to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility, the media, including much of the "conservative" or "alternative" media, remain in denial – with the exception of WorldNetDaily, which has endured constant ridicule and marginalization for daring to cover what the CEO of a major radio syndicator recently told me was "the story of the decade."

Fortunately, most conservative talkers – with the notable exception of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck – admit this is an important, albeit radioactive, story. Beck and O'Reilly, both immensely talented commentators whom I enjoy watching, live in a "birthers-are-crazy" bubble in which they reassure each other there's just nothing to this "conspiracy theory" – you know, the one 3 out of 5 Americans now suspect is true, according to repeated polling. Meanwhile, virtually the entire rest of the talk-radio world acknowledges the issue's legitimacy – from Rush Limbaugh ("All [Obama] has to do is show a birth certificate") and Sean Hannity ("What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'") to Lou Dobbs ("I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate") and Michael Savage ("the presidency may have been usurped by a foreign power"). Not to mention politicians, from U.S. congressmen ("Those are legitimate constitutional concerns")to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ("I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue").

Although most of these good folks are still somewhat afraid of the issue – nobody likes to be mocked and attacked mercilessly – at least they acknowledge occasionally that it's a valid and important issue.

Maybe things are starting to change. I increasingly see conscientious pundits threading this scary needle – first engaging in the obligatory distancing of themselves from the "birthers," and then agreeing with them. A typical "non-birther birther" would be National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and highly respected analyst, who after making clear he doesn't give credence to conspiracy theories, nevertheless argues that Obama seriously owes it to the American public to come clean with the major documentation of his past, including his birth certificate.

For the record, this is exactly what I – and Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi and Aaron Klein and pretty much every other journalist at WND – believe. After exhaustive research, we don't know where he was born, and neither do you. Not only does he continue to conceal his birth records, but also the rest of his life's documentation – his school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, and on and on. All the documents that are a routine matter of public record for all other presidents are, for Obama, hidden. And if you try to access them to find out what he's hiding, you're called a conspiracy nut.

Meanwhile, we're about to witness the spectacle of a true patriot, a decorated military physician who wants nothing more than to save more lives and continue to serve his country, a man of admirable conscience and backbone, being court-martialed and sent to Fort Leavenworth prison as a sacrificial lamb because the "judge" – just like the establishment press and so many others for whom Obama is "too big to fail" – is fearful of "embarrassing" the president.

If this isn't an outrage, then we have lost our capacity for moral indignation in America.

Barack Obama, if he indeed has been lying about his constitutional qualification to serve as president, should be more than embarrassed – he should be impeached. But that's for next year.

Right now, dear reader, help Col. Lakin. Later will be too late. His court-martial is scheduled for Nov. 3-5.

1. Send a contribution, whatever you can manage, to Col. Lakin's Legal Defense Fund.
   
   
2. Write, call and e-mail your congressmen and senators about this case. Call talk radio shows. Forward this column to your friends. Do what you can and make your voice heard!

---

David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, editor of Whistleblower magazine and author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." His newest book is "How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America."

Ex-Obama Official Orszag: Extend Bush Tax Cuts Two Years (by Dan Weil)

BS Ranch Perspective:

If there is an official from President Obama's office that is for the Bush Tax Cuts, then why shouldn't they be extended, or better yet made permanent!! This will be the only way that our Economy will grow! The Government Needs to Stop Spending so much, and they need to cut out a few things, starting with the Obama Health Care Bill!!

I agree that there needs to be some reform in the health care industry, but to take the whole thing over, is a mighty Big Mistake!! The Insurance Companies are marked for failure, and then since the Health Care Bill has passed the Government will simply step in and take over the whole Industry, then there will not be any choices, and the medical care will be metered to those that are considered to be the haves and the have not's will be placed on the back burner only to receive help if there is enough time to taken them in!! Many will simply die waiting for their procedure to come around for approval by the Medical Panel to approve the Operation or Procedure!!

BS Ranch

Moneynews

Ex-Obama Official Orszag: Extend Bush Tax Cuts Two Years

Tuesday, September 7, 2010 12:18 PM

By: Dan Weil

The Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for all Americans to help spur the economy, but even the middle-class cuts should end in two years, former U.S. budget director Peter Orszag says.

That's the best way to solve the country's twin deficits: the near-term jobs deficit and the long-term budget deficit, the recently departed head of the White House Office of Management and Budget writes in a New York Times opinion piece.

"In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether," argues Orszag, whose views differ from those of his old boss, President Barack Obama.

"Ideally, only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it."

Obama supports a permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts. But Orszag said extending the cuts permanently is not affordable.

"Let's continue the tax cuts for two years but end them for good in 2013," he said.

Without action by Congress, tax rates will revert back to those in place before the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003.

"No one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned," Orszag writes.

The Obama administration has advocated maintaining the tax cuts for most Americans, but letting them rise for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

But longer term, "the tax cuts are simply not affordable," Orszag maintains.

John Taylor, Treasury undersecretary during the (George W.) Bush administration, also thinks the tax cuts should be continued.

"A statement that taxes will not increase on Jan. 1 would be a good stimulus," Taylor, now an economics professor at Stanford University, told Bloomberg.

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage, responding to Orszag's article, told Reuters that Obama has been "clear about his support for extending tax cuts for the middle class and about ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."

Ahead of the congressional elections on Nov. 2, Republicans are criticizing Obama's Democrats for opposing an extension to the cuts on wealthier Americans, saying doing so would end up hurting small businesses, whose earnings are often taxed through the income-tax code rather than under the corporate rate, Reuters reported.






© Moneynews. All rights reserved.

Global Currency Crisis (Part 1: CBO Fiscal Crisis Alert) by Craig R. Smith

Global Currency Crisis:
Part 1: CBO Fiscal Crisis Alert
By Craig R. Smith
Chairman, Swiss America
Aug. 10, 2010

If the Fed is telling the truth, gold prices must be lying. The Federal Reserve Board is claiming deflation is the new boogeyman to fear. Yet, if we have such strong deflationary forces at work, the price of gold should have dropped to $800, not run back up near $1200. The sane, thinking world sees inflation ahead.

Since the Fed is notorious for spreading disinformation to achieve its goals, I say ignore the Fed and look instead at the facts from a disinterested third party, the Congressional Budget Office. Its July 27, 2010 report titled, "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis" warns that another fiscal crisis is coming because of entitlements and excessive federal government spending. It is no longer a question of if, but when.

"Sometimes a chart is worth a thousand editorials. The one we reproduce here, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, is one of those. It shows the federal debt throughout U.S. history and the daunting slope of what is likely to happen in the next few decades. The federal debt held by the public -- and, increasingly, 'the public' means foreign governments and investors -- has mushroomed from 36% of gross domestic product at the end of the 2007 fiscal year to a projected 62% of GDP at the end of fiscal 2010. 'Policy options for responding to it would be limited and unattractive.' Debt could be restructured, the currency inflated or an austerity program (tax increases plus spending cuts) implemented," reports The Washington Post.

According to the CBO we will have few favorable options when the crisis hits because the Fed has shot most of the bullets in its financial gun. These options would be as follows:

Option 1) The federal government could renegotiate the terms of the $13.5 trillion debt by offering longer maturity times, changing the rates or by defaulting outright. Default may seem impossible, but tell that to the investors who lost billions in the Asian currency crisis, the crushed LTCM hedge fund or the folks in Argentina after Juan Perón's socialist reign.

Option 2) The federal government could initiate massive austerity programs by slashing spending and lowering entitlement payments on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security as well as extending age requirements on these programs, currently 65-70, to 70-75. The magic number for slashing would be 15% of all government services to achieve the effect necessary to avoid fiscal crisis. We would also require tax increases on all Americans, not just the rich. While an increase on the top 2% would generate $700-800 billion, middle class tax increases (back to pre-Bush tax cut rates) would generate around $2.3 trillion.

Option 3) The federal government could increase the money supply (inflate) and monetize the debt, making the debt far easier to pay off with devalued dollars. Deflation would make paying off the debt much more onerous as wages and prices fall, as opposed to inflation, which causes the value of the debt to decline.

I see no political will to reduce spending or, more importantly, to address the long-term crippling liability of entitlements. It is the third rail of politics. If we were even to suggest default or attempt to renegotiate the debt, bonds would collapse and the dollar would plummet. So the only politically expedient option is to increase the money supply dramatically - causing severe inflation. Inflation will steal the value of earnings and savings from the average citizen, but monetizing the debt would help inflate government's debt away.

Germany and France both employed this approach after WWI. While difficult for the citizenry, it kept both countries at virtually full employment. Inflation also provided an ever-expanding economy as their products became very attractive to other countries due to lower prices; a result of their weaker currency. Inflation ultimately allowed central banks to eliminate the war debt and, in the case of Germany, also allowed them to renegotiate war reparations.

In our current crisis, the Europeans are decreasing spending and want America to mirror their austerity plan. In my opinion President Barack Obama has looked to history to determine a way out of this crisis and has concluded that the United States will take its chances on the German model. His policies will severely inflate our currency. Congress and the Obama Administration have both certainly shown that they have no interest in taming government spending or decreasing the debt.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke knows inflation is much easier to start, stop and control than deflation. Deflation is very unpredictable and virtually impossible to stop, especially with the limited tools currently in the Fed's arsenal. Congress would need to enact new powers to fight deflation.

Over the last 4 years, we've doubled the money supply! Bernanke is $3 Trillion behind, with 0% interest rates. Our immediate debt is $13 Trillion. Our long-term debt is over $100 Trillion. We are so out of balance right now, that if we inflate the currency and create inflation in the 12% range, annual U.S. revenue wouldn't be sufficient to allow us to pay off the principal alone on our debt! "Central banks may now need to talk about the necessity of inflation...before it is too late." (CNBC.com 7/16/10)

Fed. Chair Bernanke is shocked that we haven't seen inflation yet. It is a phenomenon nobody understands. In fact, we can't even determine if we're inflating or deflating right now. However, eventually, inflation will win out. You can be assured that the slingshot is loaded and the tension on the band is severe. At the first sign of rising prices, millions will rush to spend the backlog of dollars they have been saving because of uncertainty. When that happens, inflation could explode.

The tremendous increase in the quantity of currency caused by the printing of money benefits the economic status of the country printing it, but it decreases the standard of living of a large proportion of citizens. In effect, the massive printing of money hurts the people, but conversely helps the economy.

But this has a cost. According to the CBO, each 1% increase in projected inflation would increase the debt by $ .7 Trillion! In other words, if inflation is projected at 2%, and its actual rate is 12%, the additional debt that would be created is $7 Trillion!

I see no other viable choice except for the federal government to monetize the massive debt we now have, which is increasing at a yearly rate of $1.4 trillion. It is expected to continue doing so over at least the next five years unless major policy changes come out of Congress. This analysis is why now is the time to convert your soon-to-be-inflated dollars into gold.

What do we know for certain?

On July 21, Fed Chairman Bernanke said the U.S. economy faces "unusually uncertain" prospects. Six days later, the CBO stated that, absent a change in policy, further increases in federal debt "almost certainly lie ahead," and, without spending restraint, will cause debt to rise to "unsupportable….unsustainable levels."

The CBO projects that federal debt "will stand at 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010, having risen from 36 percent at the end of fiscal year 2007." (Only once has the figure exceeded 50 percent - shortly after WW II.)

With the aging of the population and rising health care costs, it is hardly a stretch to assume with very high likelihood that government spending will not significantly decrease, and that government revenues will not significantly increase. So what are our available options and the likely outcomes of those implemented options?

A fiscal crisis in the United States is imminent. We've seen significant fiscal hemorrhaging at the state level for the past two years. Bonds, as a reflection of investor confidence, are returning well below 3%.

Prior to the start of the market meltdown in 2008, total U.S. wealth was $100T. Although not ideal, our debts at that time were around $100T. We could have continued to live that way. Although our lifestyles would have eventually eroded, we were not in danger of a complete collapse.

Today the current value of our combined wealth is only $50T. We still have over $100T in debt. Good luck getting a loan from your local bank with that scenario, I don't care how brilliant your business model looks!

To put such amounts in perspective, let's say you started a business on the day Jesus was born 2000 years ago. Business wasn't very good for your start-up, so you lost $1 Million that first day. In fact, business did not improve at all. Your company continued to lose that same $1M every day -- 365 days each year -- until the present day. If that were the case, it would take ANOTHER 700 YEARS before you would have lost $1 Trillion. Still think we're going to "grow our way out" of this mess?

___________________________________________________

BS Ranch Perspective:

This is very serious, the Federal Bank needs to make changes along with Congress, as they are the ones that seem to not know the problems that they are creating for the United States Government. Not just the government, but the Citizens in the republic, as they are not properly representing us, since they are not doing the proper book keeping to make sure that the Government will be around for the next three hundred years!!

We need to Elect Members of the House and Senate that will CUT SPENDING!! and LOWER TAXES for the American Taxpayer! Not only that but a straight flat tax would be most beneficial to the government, they would get more money, and we would have less paper work to manage each year!!

The FLAT TAX NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED!!

BS Ranch

State Department Confirms Obama DUAL Citizen!! by Caleb

State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen

Posted by Caleb on August 26, 2010

The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk aconspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believingspace aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.

However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.

In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.

The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter- Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.

Texas Resisting Obama Power Grab (Personal Liberty Digest) by Bog Livingston

Texas Resisting Obama Power Grab | Personal Liberty Digest

Sensing the political failure of the Left's environmental whacko

agenda of raising energy costs to cap emissions of a gas we all exhale

and that plants need to thrive — carbon dioxide — President Barack

Obama has instructed his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

rewrite its Clean Air Act and give itself authority it doesn't have.

Thankfully, one state is resisting: Texas.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot and Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw call the EPA's

actions an illegal power grab and in a letter to the EPA they wrote:

"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized

control of industrial development through the issuance of

permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each

state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental

Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations — regulations that are plainly contrary to

U.S. laws… To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state

enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty

to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that

Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to

compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."

In an Op-Ed piece in today's The Washington Times, Texas state director of Americans for Prosperity Peggy Venable

writes that:

Federalist principles have allowed Texas to become the strongest state in the union. The Lone Star State

leads the nation in job creation, is the top state for business relocation and has more Fortune 500

companies than any other state and is the top state for wind generation. President Obama said he wants to

double U.S. exports in five years; he could look to Texas, as we are the top exporting state in the country.

The Obama administration could learn a lot from Texas.

Instead, it is attempting to ride roughshod over Texas, and it goes beyond the greenhouse-gas issue.

After 16 years of allowing Texas to run its own permitting program to meet Federal air-quality standards, in May the

EPA announced the state was not in compliance with Federal regulations. This despite the fact that Texas had met or exceeded its clean air obligations the entire time.

The Obama administration's agenda is simple: Grab more and more power from the States and consolidate it under

the Federal government. Thankfully, Texas will have no part of it.

If only the other 49 States will follow Texas' lead.

Bob Livingston is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 41 years. Bob has devoted

much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as

nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset

protection and the preservation of freedom.

BS Ranch Perspective:

It looks that the "Right" State is taking on the President on all his take over of the local Government Control of their Jurisdiction!! I would say that President Obama might win, but with all the friends that he has made in the Supreme Court, especially after his State of the Union Speech where he called out the Judges in the Supreme Court!! The Justice was seen in the audience stating that what Obama was saying in his Speech was not a true statement!!

Looks like Texas just might set presidents and win against the West Wing!!

BS Ranch

Documents Show Media Plotting to Kill Stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Western Journalism by Caleb) July 20, 2010

Documents Show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

| Western Journalism.com

Censored News

Documents Show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Posted by Caleb on July 20, 2010 ·

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama's political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher's rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama's campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright's remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged.

"George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases

plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists."

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: "Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill

BS Ranch Perspective:

I thought that the Press was only watched and told what was going to be in the paper's by the White House when Woodrow Wilson was in Office. I even believe that Franklin Delinor Roosevelt had some control of what was placed in the New's Especially during World War II! But to have it still happen in todays day and age was just a little big over the top for my liking!!

BS Ranch

Lifting Fannie, Freddie Cap Called Policy Disaster! (News Max Wednesday, 30 December, 2009 15:55 hrs) by Julie Crawshaw

BS Ranch Perspective:

Looks like the Government is going to relieve the CAP, that was placed onto Freddie and Fannie, when the Real Estate Losses started, but since the whole thing is ruled to be passed history the Cap was lifted, If this is the case then History is bound to repeat itself!!

Also I bet that the big Banks that President Obama has Mentioned, whom have paid off their portion of the Money's that were given to them reference the bill that was designed to keep our country out of a full on depression, well they had a certain amount of time to pay them off. The Larger Banks (Bank of America, Chase, & Wells Fargo) have paid their Debt back to the Federal Government. President Obama now wants to target them again, even thought they paid off their Debt faster then they were allowed, President Obama wants more, so he has proposed a "New TAX" that is to get more money from them. The reason that this happened was the bank Honored their Employee's Employment Contracts, that stated that they were entitled to a portion of the Banks Good Fortune. These employee's are in Management, and their contract basically says that if their Bank or Department within the bank makes money, they are entitled to a portion of the Profits that were made. They are paid in the form of "Bonuses"

The Banks are currently making money and they decided to Honor their Profit Sharing portion of their Employee's Contracts and they paid the Bonuses to their Employee's! But this is something that is bad in the thoughts and mind of the President of the United States, so he as devised this new Tax to gain the Bonuses that is owed to their employee's via a Profit Share portion of their Labor Contract, So he feels that the monies paid to these DESERVING EMPLOYEE'S for their Hard Work, is not good business.

Now let me be clear that if the Bank didn't pay their employee's in this manner the Employee could go after them for breech of a labor contract. I am certainly not a Lawyer and I am not sure on this but if you are a deserving Employee and the bonus is entitled to go to you certainly you would want that money that you worked so hard for!

Once again the President has ATTACKED our Capitalist Ways and is reverting back to Socialist Terrorism against these Banks for their decision to run their MONEY MAKING Business as they see fit!! This Socialist Terrorism by the President is designed to make these companies not to recognise their good work, and give their earned bonuses to the Federal Government.

NOT GOOD!! It really makes these Strong Arming Tactics Look Like Terrorism against Capitalism!!

BS Ranch

Lifting Fannie, Freddie Cap Called Policy Disaster

Wednesday, 30 Dec 2009 03:55 PM

Article Font Size

By: Julie Crawshaw

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got a huge gift this Christmas: The Treasury Department removed the $400 billion spending cap from what the administration believes will be necessary to keep the huge government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, solvent.

"This action confirms that the decade-long congressional failure to more closely regulate these two government-sponsored enterprises will rank for U.S. taxpayers as one of the worst policy disasters in our history," Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute writes in The Wall Street Journal.

"Fannie and Freddie's congressional sponsors — some of whom are now leading the administration's effort to 'reform' the financial system — have a lot to answer for."

Most of the damage, Wallison notes, was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages.

However, new research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, reveals that the GSEs began buying risky loans as early as 1993.

Pinto says Fannie and Freddie routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that clearly made them subprime or Alt-A.

By the end of 2008, the two GSEs held or guaranteed approximately 10 million risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion that are now defaulting at unprecedented rates.

Since then, under government control, the two agencies have continued to buy dicey mortgages in order to stabilize housing prices.

After mortgage giant Freddie Mac reported a 13 percent drop in mortgage purchases in November, Fannie Mae said its book of business declined at an annualized rate of 6.7 percent in the same month, Housing Wire reports.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved

An Open Letter to President Obama. (by Lou Pritchett) Scary Stuff, On The Head!

This is all just to Frightening, Mainly Because it's TRUE!! To Think that these United States Minority Comedic Actor's have said during their Comedy Act on Stage, to a Very Large Applause, that Obama was not elected for his Politics, he was Elected Because He Is Black! Basically the Comedic Actor stated that he gave his vote to the Black Man, To Get The First Black Man Elected Into Office, No Matter What His Policies Are! Just to get the first one out of the way, this will ultimately make it easier for the next Minority Leader to become The President of The United States. Plus, the Minority Children in the United States will believe there are bigger possibilities for them growing up! Who Cares what he does in the Four Years that he is in Office!!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

(Following verified by Snopes)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

The author, Lou Pritchett, is a well-known public speaker who retired after a successful 36-year career as the VP World Sales for Proctor and Gamble. Lou Pritchett Foremost Leader in Change Management Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history. AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', and are always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett

The Tax Poem

The Tax Poem

At first I thought this was funny

...then I realized the awful truth of it.

Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.

Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!

Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.

Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.

Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.

Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.

Tax all he has, Then let him know

That you won't be done, Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;

Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.

Put these words Upon his tomb , 'Taxes drove me to my doom...'

When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Pro perty Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no n ational debt, had the largest middleclass in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.