I received the invitation to join your organization and I wanted to let you know why I bailed out of the AARP in the mid-1990s. AARP had humble beginnings, and was designed to be an organization that would help seniors as they faced many changes in their lives. I was impressed with AARP in those early days and I joined the organization when I turned 50 years old.
As the AARP grew exponentially, it developed into an advocate for seniors and it had become a voice for seniors. The AARP gradually developed a progressive agenda and assumed a leadership position that supposedly represented seniors; in fact, AARP was not reflecting the views or needs of hundreds of thousands of AARP members, it was imposing progressive propaganda on its clients in order to shape seniors’ views on important issues such that their support and votes went to causes and candidates the AARP leadership had chosen in this political manipulation scheme of seniors designed to promote a liberal, progressive agenda and to elect Democrat candidates to office. AARP became a de facto political machine and arm of the Democrat Party.
At a time when government, in an attempt to recover some of the vast sums of money spent on healthcare in the U.S., turned to the criminalization of medicine, physicians far and wide were investigated for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Even such minor infractions as typo errors on billing sheets and other common, unintended mistakes were prosecuted as fraud. Another example of the type of cases where physicians were targeted in the government’s fraud scams is as follows: A physician sees a very sick patient, provides a high level of care to the patient, documents the elements of care that justify having provided the high level of care, codes the care provided appropriately, and bills for that same level of care that was delivered.
The government’s scheme was to claim that the level of care provided was actually one step lower than that which the doctor had billed. By definition, the physician in such a case has billed for a service that “wasn’t actually provided”; the physician, therefore, is guilty of fraud. The physician is then subjected to the government’s extortion scheme where the physician can, at times, pay huge fines and avoid going to prison. Alternatively, the physician with adequate resources can go to trial accepting the risk and expense of going to trial.
The prosecution team gets to keep any money extorted from physicians so they can pay themselves a bigger salary and hire more prosecutors to attack more physicians; thus, these government agents self-perpetuate, have built in job security and broaden their investigations to target and abuse more physicians with each passing year. Anyone who informs the government of a physician suspected of fraud stands to receive a huge sum of money for being the whistleblower.
When the government began the criminalization of medicine where any whistleblower stood to get rich, AARP capitalized on this by encouraging its members to investigate their doctor bills and to report any suspicions to the AARP. These reports were shared with government prosecutor teams and the doctors so targeted served as hapless dupes, guilty or not, to be ground up and expectorated by the government machine. AARP shares a good portion of the guilt for helping propagate this abusive government program.
The transition from senior advocacy to senior exploitation was complete when AARP (and the AMA) colluded with the Obama Administration to throw itself into full promotional and propagandizing mode, where AARP and the AMA were complicit with Obama in grossly deceiving the public as to what Obamacare really was, with no mention of the serious flaws in the bill that were well known to all insiders. This deception was “necessary” in order to get enough support to pass the bill; apparently, the Obama Administration, the Democrats in office, big Pharma, the AMA and the AARP were complicit in this criminal scheme to defraud the American people. If the American people had known the truth about Obamacare, the bill would never have passed.
In return for selling these whopper lies to AARP and AMA members, both the AARP and the AMA enjoyed tremendous financial advantages provided by the government in their mega-crony-capitalism scheme. The AMA has the exclusive rights of determining, publishing, disseminating and collecting the millions of dollars in sales of codebooks on diagnosis, medical procedure and levels of care coding to be used in physician and hospital (facility) billing; the AMA decided to revise and increase the number and complexity of these codes the codebooks each year, and since these are the only approved codebooks, all healthcare providers must purchase these materials from the AMA on an annual basis. The AMA, of course, can charge whatever it chooses as they are a government-directed monopoly.
The AARP has been receiving significant financial advantages, subsidies and preferentially greater numbers of prime referrals from the government; other healthcare insurance companies do not get these government perks and can’t effectively compete with AARP. This helped AARP offer the lowest prices on AARP-branded Obamacare and Medicare insurance products where AARP got huge, under-the-table fees and subsidies to which other companies have no access. The advantages provided AARP by the government have created a non-level playing field where AARP has an unfair and anti-competitive leg up on other companies.
In the deal between AARP, the AMA and Obama, seniors and physicians were thrown under the bus so these companies could reap huge ongoing profits. In addition, the half a billion dollars stolen from Medicare to shore up Obamacare, left Medicare underfunded; this Medicare shortfall led to a significant drop in services. Specifically, Medicare is scheduled to cancel its popular Medicare Advantage program, one of the few affordable health plans remaining that provides a plan similar to those offered by employers before the Obamacare law terminated them to eliminate anything that Obamacare might possibly be compared to or have to compete with.
AARP and the AMA peaked in terms of influence and membership just prior to the illegal passage of the Obamacare Bill. Both organizations have shown a steep decline in these two parameters after siding with Obama to promote passage of the healthcare legislation, knowing, along with the entire Obama Administration and Democrat Party that they were acting in direct contradiction to the will of the American people.
We have seen multiple instances where both the AARP and the AMA were faced with major choices: either to support the will of the people, or to seek after riches. Unfortunately, both chose to oppose the people in order to gain great wealth. As membership has declined because of these poor choices, these organizations that sought after wealth and power rapidly lost whatever influence they had previously enjoyed.
These are the reasons I have chosen to reject any further invitations for association or membership in these two organizations, the AARP and the AMA. Please refrain from sending me any further promotional or membership notices.
An American Registered Nurse (RN), who traveled to West Africa on a mercy mission to care for patients with Ebola, recently returned to the U.S. This RN had performed acts of courage, charity and service that brought her in close contact with these desperately ill Ebola patients.
Other Americans having had similar contact with Ebola had been cautioned to go home and self-monitor. This American RN was not similarly cautioned. Instead, she was rewarded for her heroism by being forcibly isolated from family and friends and quarantined in bleak, third-world prison-like conditions. Is it any wonder she complained about her mistreatment?
I guess it’s true what they say: “No good deed goes unpunished.”
CDC Director Tom Frieden gave a news conference about Ebola and discussed the Dallas nurse who was recently diagnosed with Ebola. She had treated Thomas Duncan, the Ebola patient who recently died, while wearing full protective gear and following the CDC Protective Protocol. Frieden blamed the nurse for contracting Ebola, saying that there had been a “breach of protocol“.
It’s true that a breach of protocol may have been the cause of the nurse contracting Ebola; after all, it’s only human to make a mistake. However, it’s more likely the nurse came in contact with Ebola because the CDC Protective Protocol is flawed and ineffective because it is based on false assumptions. This Obama Disinformation Campaign is pushing false information on the American public.
Some of the false assumptions that led to the flawed CDC Protective Protocol: “Ebola can’t be easily transferred”, “screening of travelers from West Africa for illness by airline personnel will protect us”, “Ebola is not a threat to the U.S.”, and “if you adhere to the Protective Protocol when in close contact with Ebola patients you’re safe”. All these statements, made by President Obama and his administration (including the CDC), are unsubstantiated, are not evidence-based as required by quality medical standards, and are politicized half-truths that amount to nothing less than blatant lies.
We hear a lot about how important it is to vote, and all are vigorously encouraged to vote. The various political parties put together massive “Get Out The Vote” campaigns every election. Some argue that it’s so important that everyone votes, that even asking people to do the minimal effort it takes to obtain an official ID is an unreasonable requirement that could restrict people from voting. I’m against voting just to have voted. Anyone that fails to establish identity as a citizen of the United States has no right to vote, and if you really don’t know what you’re voting for—Please Don’t Vote.
Any that are disabled or homebound and can’t get to the DMV for an ID, should receive whatever assistance necessary, or be able to get the ID another way. But those of us who are unwilling to exert even the smallest amount of effort needed to obtain an ID, will not spend the time to become acquainted with the issues or the candidates. Voting just to vote serves no good purpose, and is harmful to our “government of the people”.
Not by any law, but to fulfill our personal responsibility as voters in the United States, each citizen should prepare well before voting. Personal integrity requires that we study and understand the pros and cons of the issues and the candidates’ positions. Only then should we make an “educated” vote. If we don’t get around to learning about what we’re voting for, my advice is Please Don’t Vote at all. If we all did our duty to be educated voters, we’d have a better government and a better country.
Evil ISIS Islamist Terrorists Gain Ground in Iraq and Syria – From Freedom Fighters to Genocidal Maniacs
There are many causes that led to the current, evil and bloodthirsty, political Islamist terrorist movement called ISIS. Foremost is the wickedness of these people who are drawn to ISIS to commit murder and atrocities to gain power, control and riches, working in league with and according to the compact with Satan to spread death and desolation across the face of the earth for gain.
Another cause of this ISIS plague includes that the U.S. and others gave significant military and financial aid to the Muslim Brotherhood when they ruled Egypt. Much of this aid has ended up in the hands of Islamist terrorist rebels in Syria. In addition, the U.S. has been supplying the Freedom Fighters in Syria, the “Syrian Rebels”, with military hardware and financial aid for over a year to help in their struggle to overthrow a brutal dictator. These “Syrian Rebels” first merged with al Qaeda until the most vicious of these left al Qaeda to become the “ISIS Islamist terrorists” that used this aid to take over and lay waste to a significant portion of Syria and Iraq, and smaller portions of other Middle East countries.
The stated goal of ISIS is to subdue by the sword and effect ethnic and religious “cleansing” of the entire Middle East and North Africa, and then to establish a “Caliphate” (ISIS Islamist terrorist government) to rule over this entire region. Their next step is to do the same to the West and all other nations, creating a “Global Caliphate” to murder, enslave, abuse and exploit all mankind, reigning with blood and horror over all the face of the earth.
President Obama also withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq without an agreement to maintain a force that would confirm U.S. and others’ intent to stand with those Iraqis who love freedom as they seek to strengthen their democratic processes and institutions, to include real power and resource sharing with the different Iraqi factions, and to support the Iraqis in curbing government corruption. The U.S. should also recommit to backing up Iraqi defense forces as needed (i.e. air and intelligence support, military aid to the Kurds, etc.). At this point it does not appear that U.S. ground forces are needed, however this option should not be taken off the table. Iraq perhaps never needed U.S. military support more, as it faces the vicious ISIS war machine, rapidly undoing earlier gains made at great sacrifice of American blood and treasure.
The ruthless, evil ISIS killing machine now includes U.S. military hardware, unlimited finances from robbing banks, the sale of Iraqi oil, the takeover of the Mosul dam with the sale of its water and electricity, the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians with the subsequent confiscation of their “non-ISIS Islamist terrorist” property, and the enslavement and abuse of many of these women and children. Afghanistan, other countries in this region, and eventually the West, are at risk of suffering similar death and desolation at the hands of ISIS and the like, if Obama persists in his policies of degrading U.S. military capabilities, withdrawing American influence in foreign affairs, and jeopardizing U.S. and worldwide security by faithlessly abandoning our Middle East allies to the Islamist terrorists.
The problem for the prosecution in this case is that while they provided a lot of circumstantial evidence to support elements of their case, even if we accepted their evidence without question, there remained significant and reasonable doubt that Caylee’s death may have been accidental. Take the elements one at a time:
A hair matching that from Caylee’s brush and recovered from the trunk of Casey’s car, had post-mortem banding consistent with a decomposing body. Experts also testified that air samples taken from the trunk of Casey’s car showed evidence of a decomposing body having been in the trunk. One air sample was said to have high levels of chloroform present, while the other air sample, analyzed by a different lab, found low levels of chloroform present. One expert testified that chloroform would be expected to be found in a trunk air sample where a decomposing body had lain.
Because of the inconsistencies regarding chloroform testified to by experts, there is reasonable doubt that Casey administered chloroform to Caylee: the evidence for this part of the prosecution’s theory is just not there. On the other hand, it is agreed that Caylee’s decomposing body more than likely lay in the trunk of Casey’s car for some time. However, it is possible that following an accidental death, Caylee’s decomposing body was placed in the trunk until a permanent resting place could be determined
Whether or not Casey did a computer search for “How to Make Chloroform”, there is no evidence that Casey had or exercised the capability to make chloroform or administer it to herself, Caylee or anyone else. There is insufficient evidence of Casey, or anyone, having administered chloroform to Caylee and this provokes significant and reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform.
The duct tape that was found attached to Caylee’s skull is the same brand as duct tape found in the Anthony home, but we have no assurance that the crime scene duct tape was from the roll kept at the Anthony home. Testimony of experts and others who had visited Caylee’s swampy grave, established that the site had been tampered with and that people, animals, and the elements may have moved parts of Caylee’s decomposed body around. The prosecution theory that the duct tape had been applied by Casey to the nose and mouth in an attempt to smother Caylee was not proven in regard to the positioning of the duct tape or as to who might have positioned the duct tape. There has been no report whether Caylee’s hands and feet were bound. If someone had placed duct tape over Caylee’s mouth and nose to smother her, Caylee would have pulled the tape off with her hands. The duct tape theory is another element of the case that provokes reasonable doubt.
The prosecution theorized that the motive for murdering her daughter was that Casey wanted to be a party girl rather than a mom. Reports have confirmed that Casey has been a “party girl” for most of her adult life, with little change in her partying after Caylee was born or even after Caylee was missing and presumed dead. She had no shortage of ready babysitters to take Caylee frequently so mom could party. Despite Casey’s affinity for the high life, photos presented to the court documented a loving, happy relationship with Caylee; the child was well-nourished, well-developed, and well-dressed. There was no evidence or even rumors of neglect or abuse. In addition, scientists who study human behavior have noted that some people develop a psychologic disorder consistent with mania (which involves behavior such as that demonstrated by Casey during the thirty-one days when Caylee was “missing”) as an expression of their deep and unresolved grief. Again, there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s theory of motive.
While in my “gut” I feel and believe, as many others do, that Casey is somehow responsible for Caylee’s death, I cannot say that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution was unable or incapable of developing and introducing enough solid evidence to remove the reasonable doubts discussed above. The Jury produced a correct verdict given the dearth of convincing evidence and the reasonable doubts that remained at the end of the day.
In our American Legal System, a large percentage of those who are accused of deadly crimes have their day in court and receive justice (conviction or acquittal). Victims of the most violent and deadly crimes, on the other hand, rarely get their day in court. Victims are at the mercy of a legal system that is more interested in preserving the rights of alleged criminals and assuring they get justice rather than in seeking justice for the victims.
While our legal system may have provided justice, according to the law, to Casey Anthony, where is the justice for Caylee? I’m afraid that many innocent victims like Caylee will be denied justice in this mortal world without significant improvement in our society and our legal system.
Why the Japanese Government Can Afford to Rebuild: It Owns the Largest Depository Bank in the World, by Ellen Brown.
The excellent article, discussed in this piece, about Japan’s ability to recover from the triple disasters is has recently suffered by utilizing the considerable resources of the country’s public central bank is from Ellen H. Brown, author of “Web of Debt”. In her book, Ms. Brown exposes the corrupt and decaying underbelly of the international banking cartel’s (IBC) death grip on world economies through its near total monopoly on the creation of money as debt.
While the IBC creates nearly the entire money supply out of thin air as loan principal amounts (based on fractional reserve banking), the IBC does not create the money supply needed by those receiving loans to pay the interest on these loans. The additional money supply required to pay the interest on IBC loans must be obtained from the misfortune and losses of others. The IBC then pockets their earnings, usually moving this income to foreign shores, thus transferring over time the wealth of individual victim nations to a foreign oligarchy that only grows more powerful each day.
Japan and China are examples of nations that have resisted the slimy tentacles of the IBC’s debt-bondage by having their own public central banks. China has fueled its tremendous economic growth with low or no interest loans to businesses (many of which, it is understood, do not have to be paid back). This allows Chinese businesses to produce goods and services at very low cost, permitting them to set extremely low prices for their goods. Low priced Chinese goods have attracted worldwide markets leading to China’s booming export trade and rapid economic expansion.
Japan’s government owned central bank, Japan Post Bank (JPB), functions much the same way as the Chinese model outlined above. The Japanese government, through JPB, has a large amount of debt on its books, but there are important differences between the Japanese government’s debt and that of Portugal, Ireland or Greece.
These European countries owe their debt (principal and interest) to the IBC, which can increase the interest rate charged, refuse to rollover any loan or deny further credit if the IBC lacks confidence in the country’s ability to repay the loan. The Japanese government owes its debt to itself alone, not to any counterparty, and charges itself a very low interest rate. JPB, using government debt money, makes loans to the Japanese people to spur economic growth and productivity.
As JPB has expanded financial services over the last several years, many and varied foreign and domestic financial institutions (all of which are ultimately owned and controlled by the IBC) have expressed concern about Japan’s fulfillment of international trade obligations and are pressuring the Japanese government to “privatize” JPB and institute “international competitive conditions”. In other words, the IBC wants to capitalize on and freely pillage the wealth and economy of Japan without any competition.
Current “international competitive conditions” for most countries of the world consist of a large number of banks that supposedly compete against one another for business. But the fact is, all these banks are owned and controlled by the country’s government chartered but privately owned central bank. The various central banks are, in turn, owned and controlled by the private IBC interests. The international standard of competition is the IBC monopoly (i.e. no competition).
Arguments that public banking is socialistic and anti-American, and that our current banking system is based on the free market, just don’t hold water. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make and control money in the U.S., and our Constitution does not promote socialism. As far as free markets, the international banking system monopoly never was “free enterprise”, and is the biggest example ever of crony capitalism gone wrong.
Disadvantages of our current international banking system include the fact that it is owned and controlled by IBC private interests, the IBC decides who gets credit at what cost (financing IBC friends and affiliates at favorable terms, while denying financing or reasonable terms to those less favored), the IBC manipulates money supply, most often increasing its supply out of proportion to productivity (i.e. by excess printing of money or by excessive creation of money as loans via fractional reserve banking), causing inflation and currency devaluation, and the workings of the IBC and its affiliate banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve go on in secret, behind closed doors.
Public banks are owned by the people and controlled by representatives elected by the people. Weaknesses with public central banking are similar to those seen with the IBC system: politicians are also prone to direct favorable financing to their friends and supporters as a form of patronage, they are usually unable to resist inflating the money supply to meet their insatiable desire to spend, and they also prefer that their horse-trading deals be conducted behind closed doors.
Where public banks participate in fractional reserve banking, the IBC system of creating money as debt, banks create ten times or more money as debt than they have in reserve and the money supply is expanded exponentially. Invariably, this practice leads to inflation, currency devaluation, and economic deterioration. To meet the needs of the people while avoiding these negatives, public banks should employ a system of 100% reserve banking.
While there is no redress or accounting obtainable from the private, IBC interests, politicians periodically have to face their constituents when they run for reelection.
If the people remain vigilant and demand restraint, fairness and transparency of their elected officials, the officials will respond appropriately or be removed from office. However, if people were to become complacent and neglect their responsibility to oversee their representatives’ actions, corrupt politicians controlling the public central bank could do little worse than the predatory IBC has done with the world’s money.
Japan will need every resource it can muster, including abundant cheap credit from the JPB, to recover, cleanup and rebuild from its triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear emergency. If the JPB can avoid the many pitfalls of public central banking, and provide a real service by funding economic productivity and growth, Japan will weather this storm even as it has historically weathered severe storms in the past.
I’m passing along this email warning about CFL light bulbs that can start burning and spread the fire to your home. It should be noted that the ballast in these bulbs (what triggers the light bulb when you flip the switch) contains mercury, a toxic “heavy metal”. Any broken bulb or any burning of ballast releases mercury into the environment-your home. Disposal of used CFL bulbs cannot be with regular trash disposal, but they must be recycled and processed as a “hazardous material”. To date, there is no uniform protocol established for the safe handling and disposal of CFL bulbs.
Because CFL bulbs are slightly more efficient at producing light (they produce more light and less heat per unit of electricity) a nearly worldwide environmental movement is driving lawmakers to mandate conversion of home and business lighting from incandescent bulbs to CFL bulbs. However, despite all the hype about the theoretical benefits of promoting CFL bulbs, such conversion can lead to either cost savings and environmental benefits or to increased expense and pollution, depending on the particular circumstances.
Home or business lighting with incandescent bulbs provides significantly greater contribution to heating needs than CFL lighting. In a cool climate with hydroelectric power and fossil fuel heating, exchanging incandescent lighting for CFL lighting would shift a portion of energy consumption from clean and cheaper hydroelectric power, to the increased expense and pollution associated with burning fossil fuels.
Despite these and other confounding factors, the average energy consumer is likely to experience a small decrease in electricity consumption and a lower electricity bill which may or may not be noticeable to the homeowner. In addition, the manufacturing and handling of CFL bulbs requires more energy consumption than that of incandescent bulbs. The higher cost and energy usage in manufacturing and handling associated with CFL bulbs may offset or exceed any theoretical cost/energy savings from their use. Because of the false belief that CFL bulbs are good for the environment and conservation, incandescent light bulbs have been outlawed in the U.S. and in many other Western Countries and they will soon be unavailable for purchase here or anywhere.
Unfortunately, this is another misguided effort to control the people, from those who claim to want to do the right thing for the environment and who believe religiously in Global Warming and want to stave off its man-made effects. Typically, these people neglect to calculate the collateral effects and cost of action they propose, endorse and enforce on the rest of us. In this case, the Environmental Lobby and lawmakers subject to their influence, have irresponsibly neglected the full balance of negative effects on the world.
Obvious negatives include higher prices for CFL bulbs. Some have claimed that General Electric (GE) stands to benefit greatly from the sale of their CFL bulbs, and that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs was done mainly to help GE make money. While it is clear that with Cap & Trade, the Obama administration and the Democrats are colluding to enrich GE in return for GE support (see Crony Capitalism), GE recently closed their massive incandescent light bulb manufacturing plant in Virginia adding to high regional unemployment, and China is now the largest producer of CFL bulbs for the world. Outlawing incandescent bulbs has thus added to the steady loss of American manufacturing and jobs to overseas interests.
The increased cost of CFL bulbs is not just due to markup or to increased costs associated with materials and manufacturing, but is also due to the cost of necessary, proper hazardous waste handling from the collection of materials, to manufacturing, and through disposal. Disposal of hazardous waste is often contracted for and shipped to third world countries for storage.
Other negative effects include those on the environment of spreading mercury throughout our communities with potential human exposure, causing brain and other nervous system damage, and then ending up in hazardous waste landfills poisoning the earth. CFL bulbs also expose humans to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF), Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy, and low levels of UV light, which may have adverse effects on the human body. Additionally, CFL bulb light quality is inferior to that of the incandescent bulb, making all visual inspection, from that of patients by their doctors for signs of disease, to that of the subject of the visual arts and design, to that of products for defects by manufacturers, more difficult and less revealing. There are also a number of reports suggesting that CFL lighting can adversely affect health, mood, psychological well-being, and those with pain syndromes and certain skin conditions.
If you believe that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs should be repealed, please contact your government representatives and let them know your feelings on this issue. Howard M. Brandston, a lighting engineer who has done a great deal of research and referencing in regard to these issues, makes his efforts available on his website for the public. In addition, a group opposed to outlawing incandescent light bulbs, “Free Our Light”, has set up a website and Facebook page where you’ll find information about this issue and you can sign a petition and communicate with like-minded people.
Forwarded Email Warning
Below is a picture of a CFL light bulb from my bathroom. I turned it on the other day and then smelled smoke after a few minutes. Four inch flames were spewing out of the side of the ballast like a blow torch! I immediately turned off the lights. But I’m sure it would have caused a fire if I was not right there. Imagine if the kids had left the lights on as usual when they were not in the room. I took the bulb to the Fire Department to report the incident. The Fireman wasn’t at all surprised and said that it was not an uncommon occurrence. Apparently, sometimes when the bulb burns out there is a chance that the ballast can start a fire. He told me that the Fire Marshall had issued reports about the dangers of these bulbs.
Upon doing some Internet research, it seems that bulbs made by “Globe” in China seem to have the lion’s share of problems. Lots of fires have been blamed on misuse of CFL bulbs, like using them in recessed lighting, pot lights, dimmers or in track lighting. Mine was installed in a normal light socket. I bought these at Wal-Mart. I will be removing all the Globe bulbs from my house. CFL bulbs are a great energy saver but make sure you buy a name brand like Sylvania, Phillips or GE and not the ones from China.
There’s little question that the Egyptian people are protesting in resistance to tyranny, or that Mubarek has abused human rights and exercised totalitarian oppression of the people in the process of maintaining his 30 year rule. The Mubarek regime justifies its oppression as the only effective means of preventing the violent overthrow of its government and its replacement with an even more tyrannical regime. The people have clearly suffered under Mubarek’s rule, they no longer (if ever they did) subscribe to this justification for oppression, and are seeking a change in government. The Egyptian people, as all mankind, have a Natural Law right to the liberty and self-determination that they seek and that has long been withheld from them.
While the current mass protests in Egypt may indeed precipitate a change in government, the use of violence by either the protesters or the government is deplorable and is only destructive to the causes of either party. The use of violence in this type of mass popular uprising, where an unarmed people face a heavily armed and mechanized military force, the people will suffer more casualties and a higher rate of defeat, unless there is a significant mind-set change in the troops, military and other political leaders. If the current protests do lead to a change in government, it remains unclear whether such change will improve or diminish liberty for the Egyptians.
As freedom loving Americans, we can certainly identify and empathize with the desire of the Egyptian people to be free. However, regardless of American commercial or political interests in Egypt (which are undeniably significant), it is not our place to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, one way or the other. The question, then, is how do we support the Egyptian people in their quest for freedom without intervening inappropriately in internal, sovereign affairs? While we can provide moral support in terms of world reporting on the protests and our government and public opinion leaders, and the American people speaking out in support of the people, anything more than this could easily be interpreted as inappropriate meddling, and could actually be detrimental to the cause of freedom.
The Egyptian Army and Police have kept Mubarek in power all these years. While the U.S. has worked with Mubarek by default, in order to have dealings with Egypt, the U.S. has in no way “propped-up” the Mubarek regime at the expense, or promoted its oppression of the Egyptian people. Continued efforts to encourage the Egyptian government, whether changed or not, to conform to the principles of freedom and human rights, including the right of self-determination, must be maintained.
The real danger is that many groups and organizations that do not have the best interests of the Egyptian people at heart, including their right to freedom and self-determination, are seeking to co-opt
the current power of the people for their own designs of imposing different tyrannies. If the current government is incapable or unwilling to supervise the peaceful transfer of power to a new government that will hold free elections and respect the rights of the people, it is likely that the Mubarek government will disintegrate, leaving a vacuum that will be filled by one or the other of these totalitarian groups, leaving the people no better off, and perhaps even worse off, than they were under Mubarek.
Egyptian President Sadat, a leader who was largely responsible for Egypt signing on to a major agreement of cooperation and peace with Israel (the first such agreement between an Arab nation and Israel in modern times), was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time Alman-al-Zawahiri
was a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. After being jailed for his terrorist activity, he became the mentor of Bin Laden, and currently serves as second in command of al Qaeda.
The Muslim Brotherhood, despite Mubarek’s tremendous oppression and counter-terrorism efforts, has continued to spread blood and horror throughout Egypt, spread terrorism beyond Egypt’s borders with Hamas, al Qaeda and others, and continues to pursue the violent overthrow of the Mubarek government so they can impose an Islamic Totalitarian State. These folks, and many others like them, are not the good guys. Egypt is at great danger at this time of ending up like Gaza (ruled by Hamas), or more recently, Lebanon (ruled by Hezbollah).
Whether or not countries seeking freedom and self-determination succeed in their efforts, or fail, leading to more tyranny, is of considerable interest and import, not only to the citizens of the countries seeking freedom, but to the peace and security of all nations of the world. But the truth may be that there is precious little peace and security in store for the future. Perhaps the world is fated to descend into terrorism, anarchy and totalitarianism, and resistance is futile.
I pray for people everywhere seeking freedom, and especially now for the people of Egypt, that they may achieve their righteous goals and enjoy the blessings of liberty.
TARP was supposed to rescue our financial system from total collapse by providing capital to failing financial firms; when the firms had stabilized and then paid back the money borrowed plus interest that returned money would be used to pay down the deficit. Contrary to express language in the bill, the Obama Administration bailed-out a number of imprudent financial and insurance firms, not only by the provision of capital, but also by the purchase of stock in these institutions.
TARP funds were also used for the hostile takeover of most of the nation’s automobile industry by stealing the value of the companies from investors and transferring it to the favored unions as part of a grand wealth redistribution scheme. Money returned by the financial firms has not been used to pay down the deficit, instead, it’s become a massive slush fund for Obama to distribute to his favorite special interests, like SEIU and ACORN.
The DISCLOSE Act was forged in dark, smoke-filled back rooms, behind closed doors, with Obamacrats and a gaggle of Most-Favored Lobbyists nose to nose as the special interests wrote in carve-outs for themselves, and the Obamacrats added language that hamstrings the opposition. They claim their legislation increases transparency and provides a more level playing field for more fair campaign financing. In reality, the Act does nothing to increase transparency and skews the playing field in favor of the Democrats by giving them an unfair advantage.
The Act goes on to provide for warrantless, compulsory submission of sensitive, private donor and member lists to the government, exposing vulnerable opposition supporters to government intimidation and persecution. While 2010 pre-election efforts to pass this legislation have been unsuccessful, the ideas behind the proposal have not been abandoned, and similar legislation is planned for the future.
Attempts by the Obamacrats to limit constitutionally guaranteed rights are not restricted to campaign free speech. Laws and executive orders have been promoted to restrict the free practice of religion, to limit other forms of free speech, and to abridge the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, the government takeover of student loans for higher education is being used to promote student indoctrination by providing financial aid only to students attending schools “approved” by the government. Other Obamacrat measures seek to control what kinds and how much energy Americans use, which energy industries will be permitted to survive, what body-mass index (BMI) is acceptable for Americans, and which foods and condiments Americans will consume.
President Obama touts the new financial reform law as ending any further taxpayer bailouts and as a boon to the consumer. In reality, the financial takeover legislation creates more layers of bureaucracy and red tape that dramatically increases cost to any business offering credit or financial services; this increased cost is passed along to the consumer. Millions of small businesses, including doctors, dentists, and local retailers, are no longer able to offer payment plans to their customers. Credit card companies have already raised interest rates and banks are no longer offering free checking in light of the new rules.
Written into the financial reform bill, the President and Secretary of the Treasury, are obligated to bailout, with taxpayer money, any company that they deem, at their sole discretion, to have serious financial difficulties. Favored companies will be propped up and preserved with taxpayer money. Politically unfavored companies, especially those that actively oppose the government’s agenda, will be placed in receivership, assets will be liquidated and sold at bargain-basement prices to favored companies, and favored companies will benefit from the reduced competition.
Two companies that played a big role in the housing and financial collapse that precipitated the Obama Depression, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, received a blank check from Obama as a perpetual, unlimited and continuous bailout using taxpayer funds, permitting these companies to continue to make the same high-risk, sub-prime loans that triggered this financial collapse. Likewise, the highly-leveraged mortgage-backed derivative market continues unchecked, where high-risk vehicles can produce eye-popping gains that are pocketed, or staggering losses that are bailed-out by Uncle Sam.
These companies were not included in the new financial law, and the business plan and practices that led to the failure of Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street firms have not been corrected. The continuous drain on the treasury to pump life into the failed Fannie, Freddie, and others, along with the promise of bail-out for Wall Street and other large companies as needed, does nothing to restrict excessive risk-taking and adds daily to skyrocketing government spending and deficits.
Businesses and individual taxpayers shoulder the burden of higher taxes needed to help people who can’t afford a home buy one anyway, and to enable Wall Street’s gambling addiction by allowing them to enjoy their winnings without suffering the negative consequences of their actions in terms of losses that are bailed-out by taxpayers.
The financial legislation also gives the Administration unrestrained power to determine at its arbitrary and sole discretion, if a business should be declared insolvent or about to be insolvent, to take over that business, and distribute assets to cronies. This has sent a chill over the business community, as it is forced to think twice before donating to the opposition, when doing so could lead to very real dissolution of the business, in retaliation, by Obama’s lethal financial weapon. All of this contributes to iron-fisted control by the government of the American economy on an apparently unstoppable march to socialism and totalitarianism.
Obama’s Stimulus Bill is credited by the Administration with “saving or creating” millions of jobs, and breathing new life into a severely injured economy. The Stimulus Bill was advertised as principally funding “shovel ready” infrastructure projects. The truth is less than a third of the Stimulus money spent went towards anything that even slightly resembled infrastructure projects. Instead of saving or creating jobs, since the Stimulus Bill was signed into law, there has been a net extinction of millions of jobs, most of which were losses suffered by the private sector, and unemployment lines have never been longer, outside the Great Depression.
Most of the Stimulus money, which was primarily supposed to help the private sector, hardest hit by the Obama Depression, has been squandered. At a time when the average government worker makes over twice the income of non-government workers, the majority of this taxpayer-funded windfall went to government and union jobs and benefits, cementing organized labor support for the Obamacrats. The remainder was wasted on pork-barrel payback to other cronies to further strengthen the political base.
Obama and his minions have stumped the country proclaiming the “Bush Recession” over and prosperity in view, believing, against hope, that if they ritualistically repeat the words often enough, they will magically come true and naïve Americans will accept them at face value. On their way to imaginary prosperity, Obama and the Democrats swallowed whole, Keynesian economic theory: if the government could just spend enough billions, the consumer-driven economy would turn around. In reality, despite over a trillion dollars of stimulus, growth remains at a dismal 1.6% and true jobless figures remain at a devastating 15% plus.
The Obama-led race to spend money we didn’t have led to an astronomical deficit; these huge deficits imperil the financial and national security of the nation. As deficits rise, interest on the debt rises exponentially. The excesses of today will be paid for by the sweat of our grandchildren in the future. This is not the legacy that Main Street Americans want to leave for their posterity. Part of the American dream is that our children should have a better life than we did. How can this American dream come true when our children and grandchildren will be saddled with the monstrous debt that this generation has accumulated over our lives? The Obamacrats continue to insist that our country is still much better off, even despite the massive deficits.
But the Family on Main Street is still out of work, and is trapped, upside-down in a high-interest mortgage, unable to refinance despite record low mortgage rates because appraisal value is significantly less than the balance owed. The Family is behind on payments or fighting foreclosure, owes $10-15 thousand dollars in credit card debt at recently raised exorbitant interest rates (another benefit of the financial bill), has exhausted savings and tapped into retirement accounts for living expenses, and has put off necessary expenditures for major items like a new roof, furnace replacement, auto repair or an expensive, indicated healthcare procedure. Despite active searching, no prospect of employment is apparent, and discouragement sets in.
The Small Business (SB) on Main Street is not doing much better: SB has been through downsizing and belt-tightening, trying to remain profitable in a marketplace where demand has dropped precipitously. The SB has too much debt, at unfavorable rates, production is down and receipts are too little. Money is tight, and the SB no longer has a standing line-of-credit with its bank, which it had used on occasion to cover cash-flow shortfalls. On some paydays, the SB owners do not draw a paycheck in order to make payroll for others in the company. What assets remain available are horded by the SB and spending on supplies or maintaining large inventories is curtailed.
A tidal wave of new regulations coming from Washington (Obamacare, the Financial Bill, the DISCLOSE Act and other legislation, executive orders and regulatory agency rulings), many yet to be written by their respective agencies, are casting a pall of uncertainty on the Main Street SB. Heavy regulation, such as that seen over the last 18 months and including the financial reform bill and Obamacare, dramatically increases the cost of doing business.
Without knowing exactly how these regulations will affect it, the Main Street SB knows it’s going to take a major hit. However, it has no way of determining the magnitude of the damage to be done, or to plan for the anticipated increase in costs, restrictions, reporting requirements and red tape. In this overburdened, uncertain and anti-business climate, the SB is paralyzed. Hunkering down, the SB is cutting personnel and other expenses to the bone, is struggling to get out of debt, is conserving capital and deferring any plans for hiring or expansion. Waiting on the sidelines for months and years for the business climate to improve, hope for the promised economic recovery has begun to fade and the SB contemplates permanently closing its doors.
Obama has promised on multiple occasions, that those with an income of $250,000 or less would not be subject to any tax increases. New Obama initiatives, astronomical government spending and deficits, and refusal to renew the Bush tax cuts have crushed that promise by imposing higher taxes on all Americans at a time when Americans can least afford it.
With Obamacare, the President promised “If you like your health insurance and your doctor, you can keep your health insurance and your doctor”. Obama promised that government would not get between the doctor and patient, and that there would not be rationing of healthcare or any “death panels” deciding who will live and who will die on a cost-benefit basis. Obama promised that public funds would not pay for abortion, that government healthcare spending would be contained, that healthcare and insurance expenses for the consumer would be reduced, and that actual savings from Obamacare would help pay down the deficit.
Estimates of the true cost of Obamacare have recently been dramatically revised upward, and this is now shown to be adding significantly to the deficit instead of reducing it. The cost of healthcare and insurance to the consumer has also increased because of Obamacare. Avoiding congressional and public scrutiny, Obama recess appointed “Dr. Rationing and Death Panel” as the director of CMS, the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, and this Director, with Obama’s approval, is planning on limiting the healthcare anyone can receive, making healthcare decisions previously made between the physician and patient, and withholding care when the government determines that the value of the individual to society is not worth the cost.
Public funds provided through Obamacare may be used to pay for abortions depending on the individual states. Also, most people will not be able to keep their same doctor or health insurance. During the Obamacare debate, a majority of the people recognized Obama’s dishonesty and fought passage of the bill. A smaller but not insignificant percentage of the people, took Obama at his word, and passively accepted passage of the bill, patiently awaiting Obama’s promises to be fulfilled. It is rapidly becoming apparent, even to this smaller, more passive group of Americans, that Obama was not being truthful and is not to be trusted.
President Obama and his Administration have been braying loud and proud about all of the good things Obama has done for the country, the economy, small business and the little people across the nation. However, this self-congratulatory trumpeting rings hollow on Main Street where the lack of any positive Obama accomplishment is glaringly apparent.
The Emperor’s procession moved slowly down the central road of town, lined with peasants cheering the Emperor. The Emperor’s advisors motioned for the peasants to come close to admire the Emperor’s new suit of clothes, handmade of the finest silk by the most skilled tailors in the land. “Only the most intelligent among us can truly appreciate the excellence of the Emperor’s new clothes”, they said, and the peasants clucked approvingly. As the procession neared the center of town, a small boy on the side of the road tugged at his father’s sleeve, “The Emperor has no clothes” he said. On hearing this, all the peasants looked again at the Emperor, and realized the boy was right, The Emperor Has No Clothes!
Amnesty is defined as the action of governments by which persons or groups who have committed a criminal offense of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of a country, are granted total or partial, conditional or unconditional, immunity from prosecution for that crime. Amnesty law, the core of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, is not the solution to our illegal alien crisis, despite misguided claims from the Left. Indeed, past amnesty law dramatically increased illegal immigration, and any suggestion of new amnesty law only encourages more of the same, with illegals crowding into the country to get in under the wire at the prospect.
Even the potential for amnesty rewards lawlessness, penalizes legal immigrants & lawful citizens, leads to a dramatic increase in illegal alien immigration, contributes to the deterioration of American sovereignty, culture & language, undermines our socio-economic stability & growth, and promotes unchecked, single-party dominance, destabilizing our two-party political system. No Amnesty should be offered and no illegal aliens should ever be allowed to vote.
One of the key components of the current illegal immigration crisis is “birthright citizenship”, based on misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, where it says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Based on this “Citizenship Clause”, even children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are currently considered citizens. This definition of birthright citizenship has led to the practice of foreign women crossing the border into the country illegally, for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child in an American hospital, so that baby would be a citizen of the U.S. and serve as an “anchor baby”, facilitating the legal immigration of the entire extended family, and, in turn, the extended families of each individual of the original extended family, and so on. Recent reports have found that, while illegal aliens comprise only 4% of the U.S. population, they account for more than 8% of babies born in the United States.1
Considering this rate of birth of anchor babies, the subsequent family members that will immigrate based on these births, and the current and projected rates of illegal immigration, the sheer numbers of illegal aliens constantly breeching our borders are overwhelming. There is a huge toll to be paid for this; the cost to American taxpayers and culture vastly outweighs any benefit from work done and taxes paid by illegals.2,3,4 Illegal aliens must not receive welfare, medical coverage, Social Security, or any other services at the expense of taxpayers, as this costs the public millions of local and federal dollars, and voraciously consumes local and national resources.
This clause of the 14th Amendment was intended to assure citizenship to the children of African-American, former slaves, in anticipation of Southern challenges to black citizenship rights. Many have the erroneous belief that birthright citizenship applies to all children born on U.S. soil. In fact, children of foreign diplomats born in this country are not U.S. citizens.5 Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. U.S. Senator Jacob M. Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment “Citizenship Clause”. During debate over this clause, Senator Howard confirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign or alien parents were not birthright citizens. This was recorded in the Congressional Record of the time:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”6
Congressional debate at the time also established that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. meant that children born in the U.S. to parents who owed any allegiance to a country other than the U.S. (i.e. a foreign citizen), would not automatically be citizens. Congress was referring, in the 14th Amendment, to those who were completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction, those who would enjoy the full rights and shoulder the full responsibilities of a U.S. citizen, including being subject to military draft, voting and holding office, and being capable of being charged with treason. Illegal aliens simply do not meet this qualification.7
To fix the anchor baby portion of the illegal immigration crisis, it is not necessary to repeal the 14th Amendment, as some have proposed. Rather, congressional legislation could reaffirm the original intent of the “Citizenship Clause” and all children subsequently born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers would retain their foreign citizenship, would no longer be birthright U.S. citizens and would no longer be able to serve as anchor babies.8
Immigration law mirroring federal statute was passed in Arizona in 2010, in response to a virtual invasion of illegals, with thousands of people crossing the border from Mexico each day. Other States have also noted an influx of illegals and are planning similar legislation. State immigration laws like Arizona’s are necessary when the government fails to uphold, and continues to delay, fulfilling federal obligations to provide border security and protection from violent illegals and foreign drug cartels.9,10 While Arizona went to great lengths to assure there would be no racial profiling and the law would meet constitutional muster, many, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, criticized the Arizona law as racist and unconstitutional, before admitting they had not yet read the law.
In fact, President Obama indicated to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona that he is holding border security hostage until he gets the necessary political cooperation to pass Amnesty law.11 In addition, rather than provide assistance to this embattled State, the Obama Administration, acting through the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, filed against the State of Arizona in federal court and was granted a stay of several key portions of the law. The injunction was reported to have been issued based on the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause”, where, if there is overlap, federal statutes supersede those of the States. This temporarily halted meaningful implementation of the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070, pending appeal.12
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate “naturalization”, which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate “immigration”, the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws.
Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution clearly gives Arizona the right to wage a defensive “war” based on the imminent danger of the illegal immigrant invasion of Arizona and President Obama’s persistent delay in providing assistance:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution organizes the judicial system, and determines that where a legal action involves a State, the Supreme Court is the only court where such actions can be tried:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Having filed an invalid action in federal court and obtained an invalid ruling from a federal judge in regard to the State of Arizona, Mr. Holder finds himself in another awkward situation. Any action the federal government wants to take against Arizona, must be correctly tried only by the Supreme Court. Whether the federal or State government, in the end, takes responsibility for the border, it is essential that it be secured without delay. The imperative of border security is a key part of National Security and is heightened by the ease with which known terrorists can illegally traverse the border without detection, to infiltrate American society with murderous intent.
Some have proposed, as a solution to our illegal immigration crisis, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, which is Washington-speak for Amnesty. However, we have seen that Amnesty is no solution and would only worsen the problem. The key to a real solution is strengthening and enforcing current immigration law. If proper enforcement prevents U.S. employers from hiring illegal aliens, these jobs will “dry up” and illegal aliens, most of who came here to work, will pack up and go home without further incentive.
Those choosing to commit the crime of illegal immigration understand that family separation is an integral part of this choice. However, families should not be torn apart, if at all avoidable. Rather, as unemployed illegal aliens repatriate themselves, they are encouraged to keep their families intact by taking them along with. Serious consideration should also be given to advancing the legal immigration and naturalization of more highly-educated and skilled workers, if demand exists.
1. Jordan M. Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births. The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News, August 12, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/2cmgbp2
3. McNeill JB. Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal Immigration Problem. May 18, 2009, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/25nyobo
4. Smith L. Immigration: Many Questions, A Few Answers. October 3, 2007, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/2gyz7rj
5. Gordon R. The Diane Rehm Show: The Debate Over Immigration and Birthright Citizenship. Case Western Reserve University School of Law News. http://law.case.edu/Home/News.aspx?id=807&content_id=57
6. Howard JM. The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Senate, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p. 2890. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg.html
7. Feere J. Backgrounder: Birthright Citizenship in the United States, A Global Comparison. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship.
8. Lee M. More Key Issues: Illegal Immigration. Mike Lee for U.S. Senate 2010. http://www.mikelee2010.com/
9. Archibald RC, Cooper H, Hulse C. Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. April 23, 2010, New York Times. http://tinyurl.com/22q2h4b
10. Brewer J. Arizona Border Security Information: Brewer Letter to President Barack Obama on Immigration. April 6, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer’s website. http://azgovernor.gov/AZBorderSecurity.asp
11. FOXNews.com. Kyl: Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package. June 21, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/358m6au
12. Markon J, McCrummen S, Shear MD. Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 – Judge Blocks Some Sections. July 29, 2010, The Washington Post. http://tinyurl.com/28ry299
2. Wagner PF, Amato D. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Facts, Figures and Statistics on Illegal Immigration. http://tinyurl.com/ybtwl8s