Archive for 01/04/2010

IRS to be Charged with Overseeing Healthcare

Posted: 01/04/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Prayer Request

Jan 4 Written by: christopher

Besides collecting the taxes that our founding fathers didn’t want and catching “tax cheats”, the Internal Retinue Service will soon be charged, by Congress, to go after the people that have not purchased health insurance.

Behind closed doors, the Senate is meeting to merge the health care bills, putting the IRS in charge of making sure Americans purchase a health insurance policy. All Americans will be required to purchase a health insurance policy and, those that don’t, will be penalized.

Besides making sure that citizens are purchasing health care, the IRS will also be assessing penalties from those that are not insured. They will also be responsible for collecting new taxes from businesses and oversee the enforcement of this new, unconstitutional, agenda.

The IRS is already understaffed and overburdened, collecting more taxes than any point in the history of this country, most of which, the American people don’t want. Looks like the beast is growing even larger.

Advertisements

This is QUEEN PELOSI’S NEW JET!

Posted: 01/04/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Prayer Request

And the Democrats talk about Sarah’s dresses???
Queen Pelosi wasn’t happy with the small USAF C-20B jet, Gulfstream III, that comes with the Speaker’s job …. OH NO!  Queen Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so she ordered a Big Fat, 200-seat, USAF C-32, Boeing 757 jet that could get her back to California without stopping!  I understand that a former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, flew commerical most of the time.
Many, many legislators walked by and grinned with glee as Joe informed everyone of what Queen Nancy’s Big Fat Jet costs us, the hard working American tax payers, literally thousands of gallons of fuel every week.
Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California every Friday and returns every Monday, at a cost to the taxpayers (YOU and ME are those taxpayers!) of about $60,000, one way!
As Joe put it …”unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday night and that costs us another $60,000!”  Taxpayers, that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to us of $5,760,000!!!
That doesn’t take into account the cost and maintance of the airplane.
No wonder she complains about the cost of this war … it might cramp her style and she is styling on my back and yours.  I think of the military families in this country doing without and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing.
Queen Pelosi wants you and me to conserve our carbon footprint.  She wants us to buy  smaller cars and Obama wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires. Who do these people think they are???  Their motto is … Don’t do as I do … JUST DO AS I SAY!
If you think this is outrageous, forward it to all those on your email list!  Keep in mind the figures above do NOT include the cost of plane or crew … just the fuel!!!  One has to wonder what the total package costs us?
And on top of that … now she wants to tax our IRA’s & 401K’s!

PASS THIS ON IF YOU CARE ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL!

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 1/4/2010

A constitutional historian says American courts would have to overturn their last 80 years of jurisprudence to uphold the constitutionality of the healthcare bill in Congress.

Thirteen Republican attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit against the Democrats’ healthcare bill if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) refuse to remove a provision being called the “Cornhusker Kickback” — the nearly $100 million Medicaid deal Democratic Senator Ben Nelson secured for his home state of Nebraska. Ostensibly, the deal was in exchange for Nelson’s vote — the 60th of 60 needed — favoring the legislation. As reported earlier, the senator’s decision has angered many Nebraskans.

In a letter sent last week, the 13 attorneys general argue the provision is “constitutionally flawed” and violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection against “arbitrary” legislation. Constitutional historian David Barton, the president of WallBuilders, also believes the provision is unconstitutional.

David Barton (WallBuilders)“I think there’s huge constitutional problems with this thing,” exclaims Barton, “and it may be that we see the power of Congress limited constitutionally through a number of different venues by these various lawsuits that are out there.”

Barton notes that court challenges are looming over the bill’s individual mandate, as well as its anti-trust provision that forces a government monopoly. Texas Governor Rick Perry has also threatened to file a lawsuit, arguing the bill violates states’ rights outlined in the Tenth Amendment.

Just before Christmas, The Heritage Foundation also questioned the constitutional legality of the healthcare legislation, publishing a legal memorandum charging that the individual mandate “takes congressional power and control to a striking new level.”

The letter to Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington state. Four of the Republican attorneys general are running for governor in their respective states.

CNSNews

Monday, January 04, 2010
By Jim Heintz


U.S. Army soldiers prepare for patrol duty at Forward Operating Base Airborne, near the town of Maidan Shar, Wardak province, Afghanistan, on Wednesday Dec. 2, 2009. (AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills)
Kabul (AP) – A roadside bombing killed four U.S. service members, the first American combat deaths of the year in Afghanistan, while a British soldier died during a foot patrol elsewhere in the volatile south of the country, officials said Monday.

A statement from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said the explosion that killed the U.S. service members took place Sunday in the south, but did not give further details on the location or the victims’ branch of service.

The deaths are the first U.S. fatalities from hostile action in Afghanistan this year. One U.S. service member has died of non-combat causes so far in 2010.

The British soldier died while on foot patrol Sunday in Helmand province, the British Ministry of Defense said.

Afghan insurgents are increasingly turning to improvised explosive devices — also called roadside bombs — in their fight against Afghan and international forces. Of the 304 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan last year, 129 were due to IEDs, according to a tally by The Associated Press.

Also Monday, NATO said a joint Afghan-international force discovered a huge cache of marijuana and turned it over to police for destruction. NATO said the cache contained up to 800 cubic meters (28,000 cubic feet) of marijuana; that’s the equivalent of about seven standard semi-trailers.

As the U.S. and other Western nations have tried to help Afghanistan stamp out its poppy fields — the country is the world’s leading opium producer — an increasing number of farmers have turned to marijuana, which is receiving less attention from authorities.

By Arthur Weinreb  Monday, January 4, 2010

What the United States does affects much of the world. This is especially so in Canada that is the U.S.’s major trading partner and by the fact that Canada and the United States share a long common border.

While it is not unusual for the Canadian media to criticize American policy or U.S. officials, especially when decisions made in the United States affect Canada, it is almost unheard of for a major Canadian publication to call for the resignation or removal of a high placed American official. But that is what happened late last week when the National Post, owned by media conglomerate CanWest, published an editorial with the headline, “Napolitano must go”.

Certainly there is no love between the National Post, Canada’s more right leaning national newspaper and the American Secretary of Homeland Security. Shortly after entering Barack Obama’s cabinet, Napolitano repeated the urban legend that some or all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada. This was a rumor that was making the rounds in the hours of the collapse of the twin tours and was helped along by some notable New York State politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer and then- Sen. Hillary Clinton. Further investigation revealed that none of those who were in the United States and involved in the 9/11 attacks entered from Canada. They went to the United States from Asia, the Middle East and Europe, many under their own names and with valid U.S. visas.

On April 20, 2009, Napolitano was interviewed by Neil Macdonald of the CBC and the Secretary told him that the borders have to be further protected to prevent the entry of terrorists into the United States. When Macdonald asked her if she was referring to the 9/11 plotters, Napolitano replied, “Not just those but others as well”. She still thinks that some or all of those who were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon came to the United States by crossing the Canadian-American border. It’s obvious that she wants to believe this.

Napolitano told Macdonald that the northern border should be treated in the same way and with the same level of security as the southern border is even after Macdonald pointed out to her that there are differences between Canada and Mexico. Canadians are not trying to enter and remain in the United States en masse and there is no major drug war on the Canadian border where thousands of people are murdered each year. Napolitano acknowledged that but stated that there was still no reason to treat Canada any differently than Mexico. Spoken like a true liberal; we must be fair, you know. The secretary’s answer to the problems that have been raised by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and others; that trade and tourism would come to a standstill if certain measures were implemented was “Well, I certainly hope that doesn’t come into play”.

The National Post took the opportunity of Napolitano’s ridiculous comments in the wake of the Christmas Day terrorist attack to re-iterate her ongoing belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada and her failure to accept that Canada is not Mexico, to chastise her. Napolitano had initially said that the system worked in regards to the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an aircraft. The National Post pointed out that they system only worked after some of the passengers on Flight 253 bailed it out.

As noted in the editorial, under a parliamentary system of democracy with the concept of ministerial responsibility, Napolitano would be under pressure to resign or be fired. There would be continued calls for her to step down after not only the failure of the system that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to carry explosives onto an American bound flight but for her comments that the system worked.

The editorial ended by saying, “There is every reason for Mr. Obama to push if she fails to jump”. But it’s extremely unlikely that there will be any pushing or jumping any time soon.

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, January 4, 2010

Failure of a Blind and Biased Mainstream MediaIt’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration, You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving there are lies of commission and omission.

Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception just as they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence. There’s no excuse for missing the biggest story in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

To See Ourselves As Others See Us

Michael Mann, the most aggressive, bullying and deceptive member of the CRU gang, claims without embarrassment there’s nothing significant in the emails. As Keith Briffa wrote, It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.” He even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26 2003, “Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….” A psychologist can probably identify these behavior characteristics.

In a Washington Post article Mann said the content “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” It’s the confidence trick they’ve always used exploiting the fact most people don’t know how much climate changes naturally. As a result they can report natural change as unnatural and by implication caused by humans. The real issue is the cause of climate change. Now we know how the CRU gang used deception to falsely prove it was human produced CO2. But the mainstream media brush it off, ignore it, or deliberately play along with the CRU gang denials. A good example of the latter was the action of the Associated Press (AP) identified by a Washington Times editorial titled, “Biased Reporting on Climategate – Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows.” They wrote, “There’s a big difference between saying that there is insufficient evidence to determine if falsification occurred—and that there should be an investigation—and saying, as AP did, “Science not faked.” The Times is wrong because it’s incorrect to say there is insufficient evidence, but it is a measure of poor journalism.

The Stink is Unavoidable

Evidence of wrongdoing in the emails doesn’t require understanding of the science. Any objective reading quickly dispels the claim they are normal banter between colleagues.

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.”“We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??” They’re talking about releasing an annual global temperature a month before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun”.

On March 11, 2003 Mann acknowledges they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. They could do this because they believed they controlled peer review of climate change papers. Mann writes, “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

On May 29, 2008 Jones directs Mann to delete emails about requests for Freedom of Information.

On 24 April 2003 Wigley upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role proposes to mislead the publishers, “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”Is this normal discourse between academics?

On 21 Jan 2005 Jones writes to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“Why would he need to hide?

On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Even if the malfeasance wasn’t obvious a check of the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review all literature would disclose it.

On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” “They”are McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) names already familiar in the mainstream media.

On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; a red flag is waved by the comment, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” The only need for science is accuracy and openness, which means the IPCC is not about science. That alone should trigger further investigative journalism.

Unbelievable Ignorance

Those involved in the original deception now present ludicrous arguments. The journal “Nature”used in the corruption of the peer-review process and biased throughout says, “If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”

Absolute rubbish! They should read their guidelines, which say in part, An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).

The ability to reproduce results is fundamental to science.

Jim Hoggan, Chairman of the Board of the Suzuki Foundation and founder of the sleazy, squalid, web site Desmogblog, says the real issue is the agenda of the people who stole the files. It’s an agenda Hoggan, a professional spinner, and the biased mainstream media would not recognize or understand; a desire for openness and the truth.