Thursday, October 28, 2010
This is definitely going to be me later in life.
Everyone who's ever known me knows I rarely give a straight answer unless it's a life or death situation.
And depending on whose life and/or death it is, well...........................
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
I have heard many cautionary warnings over the past few years regarding an impending Food Crisis, worldwide, as well as countrywide in the US.
How feasible is it?
Personally, I think it would take an enormous catastrophe within the US to cause a food production crisis.
However, I can certainly believe that economic causes could contribute to some sort of catastrophic event, or chain of events that could result in a food crisis.
Interesting reading, nonetheless.
LINK to article
Leave it to Zerohedge to say it as plain as vanilla;
from the article linked above;
After months of US bitching and moaning about China's so called unfair exchange policies, when it is the US Fed which is the biggest currency manipulator in the world by orders of magnitude, one country finally had the guts to stand up and call out Tim Geithner on his endless bullshit. At the G-20 meeting, per Bloomberg, German Economic Minister Rainer Bruederle said that the Fed's "push toward easier monetary policy is the “wrong way” to stimulate growth and may amount to a manipulation of the dollar. Excessive, permanent money creation in my opinion is an indirect manipulation of an exchange rate." The fact that China was smart enough to peg its currency to the most rapidly devaluing currency in the world is a different story altogether, and merely confirms that they are leap and bounds more sophisticated in their monetary policy than anyone gives them credit for. If Geithner wants to prevent a relative depreciation of the Yuan versus all other currencies in the world (especially the EUR, against which it continues to be in freefall), the answer is simple: stop bloody printing!
And with Tim Geithner present, could the G20 meeting possibly not end up being a total farce? Of course not:
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner dismissed prospects of mounting criticism of the Fed’s approach in his press conference after the G-20 meeting yesterday. When asked whether he expected Germany’s criticisms to gain steam, he replied: “I do not.”In the future, when asked if he ever had problems with being called an idiot and a moron by virtually everyone, Tim Geithner will have the same reply.
And the stand cup comedy continued.
The Treasury chief declined to comment directly on the Fed’s policy, while also saying that major economies like the U.S. need to make growth a top priority. One of the global imbalances is the disparity between rapidly expanding emerging- market economies and too-slow growth in developed nations, he said.In other words, the Fed will celebrate the recovery "under way" by printing another $1.5 trillion in money.
“We are going to continue to try to strengthen the recovery under way so we can dig out of this as quickly as we can,” Geithner said.
It has gotten so bad that Germany is now directly siding with Brazil which spat in the face of America and decided to not even show up, demonstrating just what it thinks of Geithner's endless hypocrisy.
Yeah, let's buy up our country's debt.
How, you might ask?
Isn't the country nearly broke?
Well, instead of cutting Government spending, reducing the size of said Gov't, instead of reducing taxes to stimulate spending & job creation, our resident genius at the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, says we'll just reduce interest rates, print more money and buy our own debt with the worthless paper.
This has been tried before.
This is how inflation is created, which in the case of the US, will surely turn to hyperinflation as our money is nearly worthless now, and will become even more so when the printing presses go back into overtime paper production.
Google the Weimar Republic. And for God's sake, stay away from Progressive Liberal sites like Wikipedia when you research it.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
This morning, the first thing I read in the Sunday newspaper was the story of a young local Marine who recently lost both legs, had both hands & arms severely damaged in an IED blast.
It was a heart-wrenching story, to say the least.
Statistics show there have been over 1000 coalition wounded this year alone, with over 1800 in 2009.
And we're no closer to wiping out the Taliban, or Al Qaeda than ever.
The Afghan Government is showing themselves to be quite corrupt, it seems.
Well, as it turns out, the second thing I read in the paper, was an article originally published in the NY Times.
The first article made me cry.
The second one made me curse.
It seems that the Afghan Government is taking money-millions in cash-from Iran, funneled thru Europe to President Karzai's most trusted aide, Umar Daudzai, to "buy the loyalty of Daudzai and promote Iran's interests in the Presidential Palace..."
Here's the original article;
Iran is said to give top Karzai Aide cash by the bagful
KABUL, Afghanistan — One evening last August, as President Hamid Karzai wrapped up an official visit to Iran, his personal plane sat on the airport tarmac, waiting for a late-running passenger: Iran’s ambassador to Afghanistan.
The ambassador, Feda Hussein Maliki, finally appeared, taking a seat next to Umar Daudzai, Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff and his most trusted confidant. According to an Afghan official on the plane, Mr. Maliki handed Mr. Daudzai a large plastic bag bulging with packets of euro bills. A second Afghan official confirmed that Mr. Daudzai carried home a large bag of cash.
“This is the Iranian money,” said an Afghan official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Many of us noticed this.”
The bag of money is part of a secret, steady stream of Iranian cash intended to buy the loyalty of Mr. Daudzai and promote Iran’s interests in the presidential palace, according to Afghan and Western officials here. Iran uses its influence to help drive a wedge between the Afghans and their American and NATO benefactors, they say.
The payments, which officials say total millions of dollars, form an off-the-books fund that Mr. Daudzai and Mr. Karzai have used to pay Afghan lawmakers, tribal elders and even Taliban commanders to secure their loyalty, the officials said.
“It’s basically a presidential slush fund,” a Western official in Kabul said of the Iranian-supplied money. “Daudzai’s mission is to advance Iranian interests.”
The Western and Afghan officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of discussing the financial dealings of Mr. Karzai and his aide. The sources said they were motivated by a concern that Mr. Daudzai was helping to poison relations between Mr. Karzai and the United States. Mr. Daudzai and Mr. Karzai both declined to respond to written questions about their relationship with Iran. An aide to Mr. Daudzai dismissed the allegations as “rubbish.”
Mr. Maliki, the Iranian ambassador in Kabul, also declined to answer questions. A spokesman for Mr. Maliki called the allegations “devilish gossip by the West and foreign media.”
The Iranian payments are intended to secure the allegiance of Mr. Daudzai, a former ambassador to Iran who consistently advocates an anti-Western line to Mr. Karzai, the officials said. Mr. Daudzai briefs Mr. Karzai each morning.
“Karzai knows that without the U.S., he is finished,” an associate of the president said. “But it’s like voodoo. Daudzai is the source of all the problems with the U.S. He is systematically feeding him misinformation, disinformation and wrong information.”
The payments to Mr. Daudzai illustrate the degree to which the Iranian government has penetrated Mr. Karzai’s inner circle despite his presumed alliance with the United States and the other NATO countries, which have sustained him with military forces and billions of dollars since the Taliban’s ouster since 2001.
Earlier this year, Mr. Karzai invited the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the presidential palace, where Mr. Ahmadinejad gave a virulently anti-American speech. When Mr. Ahmadinejad visited Kabul, he brought two boxes of cash, an Afghan official said. “One box was for Daudzai personally, the other for the palace,” the official said.
A senior NATO officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to discuss whether Mr. Daudzai was receiving money from Iran. But he said that the Iranian government was conducting an aggressive campaign inside Afghanistan to undermine the American and NATO mission and to gain influence in politics.
The NATO officer said Iran’s intelligence agencies were playing both sides of the conflict, providing financing, weapons and training to the Taliban. Iranian agents also financed the campaigns of several Afghans who ran in last month’s parliamentary election, the NATO officer said.
The Iranian intelligence services have developed the ability to assassinate opponents and attack American troops inside the country, the NATO officer said.
“I am very concerned that they have a lethal capability and presence inside Afghanistan and Kabul,” the officer said.
Obama administration officials have expressed alarm about Iranian intentions. Last week, Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, complained to Afghanistan’s finance minister, Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal, about Mr. Daudzai and Iran’s influence in the presidential palace, a former Afghan official said.
Mr. Holbrooke did not respond to requests for comment. In an interview, Mr. Zakhilwal declined to talk about the discussion with Mr. Holbrooke or about any Iranian activities in Afghanistan.
“We have no choice but to be friendly with Iran,” Mr. Zakhilwal said. “It’s a hostile neighborhood.”
Mr. Daudzai is part of a group of Afghans around Mr. Karzai whose members once belonged to Hezb-i-Islami, a hard-line Islamist group that fought the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The group, loosely allied with the Taliban, is still fighting NATO forces and the Afghan government.
Hezb-i-Islami’s leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was one of the most brutal of Afghan warlords. During the civil war in the 1990s, his forces conducted an extended bombardment of Kabul, killing thousands of civilians. Since 2001, Mr. Hekmatyar has spent at least part of the time living under the protection of the Iranian government. The group also has long-standing ties to Pakistan’s intelligence services, which maintain links to the Taliban.
Current and former Afghan officials say the Iranian government began financing Mr. Karzai before Mr. Daudzai became his chief of staff in 2003. It is not clear when Mr. Daudzai became a conduit for Iranian cash. In 2005, he was named ambassador to Iran. It was then, one Afghan official said, that Mr. Daudzai became acquainted with Iranian intelligence officials and grew close to senior Iranian leaders like Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Daudzai returned to Kabul in 2007 to resume his job as chief of staff. Since then, officials said, Mr. Daudzai has maintained a close relationship with the Iranian ambassador. Iranian officials have nearly unfettered access to Mr. Karzai’s palace, bypassing the normal rules of protocol.
“The relationship is intimate,” an Afghan political leader said of Mr. Daudzai and the Iranians.
Accounts vary as to how much Iranian money flow into the presidential palace. An Afghan political leader said he believed that Mr. Daudzai received between $1 million and $2 million every other month. A former diplomat who served in Afghanistan said sometimes single payments totaled as much as $6 million.
One former Afghan official said the money appeared to be kept in a safe in Mr. Daudzai’s office.
It is not clear whether Mr. Daudzai takes any of the money himself or whether he is the only conduit. But Afghan and Western officials say Mr. Daudzai owns at least six homes in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and in Vancouver, British Columbia, acquired during his time as Mr. Karzai’s top aide.
One Afghan official said Mr. Daudzai used his power over Mr. Karzai’s schedule to ensure that Afghans who saw him registered complaints about the American presence in the country and the deaths of Afghan civilians in the war. “This is the strategy,” the Afghan official said.
Mr. Daudzai’s efforts on Iran’s behalf have met with some resistance. According to the Western official, Mr. Daudzai ran afoul of Afghan intelligence officials when he tried to help some Iranian businesses set up operations in Kabul. The Afghan intelligence officials believed that the Iranian officials were fronts for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a powerful wing of the Iranian military.
The Iranian businesses were shut down by the National Directorate of Security, the Western official said. But not for long.
“Daudzai helped them get going, then N.D.S. closed them down, but then they reopened again,” the Western official said. An Afghan official confirmed the account.
Iranians get involved in other parts of Afghanistan’s political life as well. The Iranian ambassador is trying to sway the choice of speaker of the lower house of Parliament, Afghans said. According to an Afghan official, Mr. Maliki recently called Mirwais Yasini, a candidate for the speaker’s job, and urged him to step aside in favor of Yunus Qanooni
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
TIME (rag)agazine is fanning the flames of civil unrest, points at Tea Party as likely to revolt in Civil War
TIME says that the Tea Party, Ron Paul among others, are likely to start a civil war.
I am rarely, if ever speechless, but when I first read this tripe, I had to seriously sit and consider my words carefully.
The author of this article, and the editors at TIME, are showing themselves to be nothing short of trash perveyors, attempting to create news.
To blatantly suggest that the Tea Party is in any way connected to Militia organizations is not only untrue, but sensationally so.
Please read this literary fecal matter, and see what you think.
( I seriously chopped up the original article to keep it under 500 words. Wouldn't want big old TIME getting offended by infringement on their property)
Go to the website here to read all the article;
From the article (empahsis added by yours truly);
".......What is the most likely cause today of civil unrest? Immigration. Gay Marriage. Abortion. The Results of Election Day. The Mosque at Ground Zero. Nope.
Try the Federal Reserve. November 3rd is when the Federal Reserve's next policy committee meeting ends, and if you thought this was just another boring money meeting you would be wrong. It could be the most important meeting in Fed history, maybe. The US central bank is expected to announce its next move to boost the faltering economic recovery. To say there has been considerable debate and anxiety among Fed watchers about what the central bank should do would be an understatement. Chairman Ben Bernanke has indicated in recent speeches that the central bank plans to try to drive down already low-interest rates by buying up long-term bonds. A number of people both inside the Fed and out believe this is the wrong move.
But one website seems to believe that Ben's plan might actually lead to armed conflict. Last week, the blog, Zerohedge wrote, paraphrasing a top economic forecaster David Rosenberg, that it believed the Fed's plan is not only moronic, but "positions US society one step closer to civil war if not worse."
I'm not sure what "if not worse," is supposed to mean. But, with the Tea Party gaining followers, the idea of civil war over economic issues doesn't seem that far-fetched these days. And Ron Paul definitely thinks the Fed should be ended. In TIME's recently cover story on the militia movement many said these groups are powder kegs looking for a catalyst.
So why not a Fed policy committee meeting. Still, I'm not convinced we are headed for Fedamageddon. That being said, the Fed's early November meeting is an important one. Not everyone agrees this is a good move. In fact, a number of presidents of regional Fed banks, not all of which get to vote at Fed policy meetings, have recently come out against Bernanke's plans. Some say it sets bad policy. Others think it will stoke inflation, which might be the point. Few, though, have warned of armed conflict. Here's how Zerohedge justifies its prediction of why the Fed's Nov. 3rd meeting will lead to violence:
In a very real sense, Bernanke is throwing Granny and Grandpa down the stairs - on purpose. He is literally threatening those at the lower end of the economic strata, along with all who are retired, with starvation and death, and in a just nation where the rule of law controlled instead of being abused by the kleptocrats he would be facing charges of Seditious Conspiracy, as his policies will inevitably lead to the destruction of our republic.
......So it seems clear what the Fed is likely to do. How the economy, the militias and the rest of us react is up in the air. The count down is on. T minus 15 days to Fedamageddon. See you there, hopefully....."
Christine O'Donnell is correct--Separation of Church and State is a myth perpetrated by the Left in America
Instead, the document seeks to protect citizens from Government interference in the practice of whatever faith we choose to profess. Moreover, it protects our right to profess that Faith, in whatever manner we may choose.
Progressives have assailed this basic right for generations, and seized on an obscure ruling by a Supreme Court Justice in 1947 to "prove" their point.
Further study reveals that the "separation" that Progressives so desperately covet is nowhere to be found in any legal document, simply in a letter from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist organization.
I applaud Ms. O'Donnell in her studied efforts, and I laugh out loud at the ridiculous, misinformed media and students present at the debate Tuesday who simply believe the lies they've all been taught.
Original Article HERE
First Amendment: A law school audience fell into fits of laughter when a Senate candidate asked, "Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?" In fact, the phrase is nowhere in the document.
Tuesday's debate between Delaware's U.S. Senate hopefuls before what was described as a crowd of "legal scholars and law students" at Widener University Law School in Wilmington generated quite some mirth among the assembled elites.
Tea Party-favored Republican nominee Christine O'Donnell had the temerity to ask her opponent to cite the provision of the Constitution that separates church and state.
There is, of course, no such passage. Those scoffing law scholars might want to look at the Constitution's unadorned text instead of the judicial activist law review articles that take up so much of their day.
What the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice.
Talk-radio king and Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin explained the confusion of liberal judges and trial lawyers in his 2005 book, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."
The "Wall of Separation" phrase comes not from the Constitution, but from President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. As Levin notes, the obscure comment was virtually ignored for nearly a century and a half. It wasn't until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson case — which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools — that the Jefferson metaphor was used to establish "the anti-religious precedent that has done so much damage to religious freedom."
So, the next time you hear President Obama railing at the Republicans receiving donations from various Chambers of Commerce, and other half-truth drivel, remember this;
The Democrats are the masters of PAC money.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate alleging GOP groups have funneled foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies.
House and Senate Democrats have received about $1.02 million this cycle from such PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.
"This is not foreign money per-se, but these PACs are certainly populated by people who work for foreign companies," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.
“Foreign companies and foreign governments can lobby Congress, and that is probably one area where they have a measurable effect on politics,” Levinthal explained. “Foreign-subsidiary political action committees is about as close as you can get.”
Republicans with groups under fire from the White House say the hefty campaign contributions illustrate Democratic hypocrisy.
“Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court and his adversaries over the bogus charge of foreign money tainting elections — while leaders in his own party had taken more than a million dollars from the foreign cookie jar,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, the political group at the center of the controversy.
“The hypocrisy here is just stunning,” he said.
I'm shocked--SHOCKED, I say!!!
"....Despite President Obama and the Dems’ accusations, both the Chamber and American Crossroads have vehemently denied accepting foreign dollars for use in domestic political efforts and Democrats have acknowledged that they have no evidence that the groups are accepting money from abroad and using it to fund political messages. Instead, Dems argue that “in the absence of tougher campaign disclosure rules, it’s entirely possible,” The Hill reports.
And it's also 'entirely possible' that the Progressives are simply liars. Gee, ya think???--T.W.
Somebody please explain to me why is it legal for there to be any sort of monetary changes to entitlement programs during an election cycle??
No matter which Party is in power, it is simply wrong to use entitlement programs to buy votes.
This particular strategy is as transparent as a glass of H2O. T.W.
Democrats are making a pre-election pitch to give Social Security recipients a one-time payment of $250, part of a larger effort to convince senior voters that their party, and not Republicans, will best look out for the 58 million people who get the government retirement and disability benefits.
The $250 check is meant to make up for a second year without a cost-of-living increase due to low inflation.
President Barack Obama has urged Congress to approve the $250 payment. House and Senate Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say they will bring up the legislation when lawmakers return for the lame-duck session in November. In the meantime, Democrats are using the proposal to augment their campaign pitch that Republicans would undermine Social Security.
“Instead of helping seniors,” Pelosi’s office said, “Republicans, backed by their allies on Wall Street, are threatening to privatize and cut Social Security, just as they tried to do under President Bush.”
Added Reid, “The only thing standing in the way of America’s seniors receiving this critical support are Senate Republicans.”
Actually, 12 Democrats and one independent who aligns himself with Democrats joined 37 Republicans in blocking the $250 bonus when Senate voted on the issue last March. Two of the Senate Democrats who voted against it then, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, are engaged in tough campaign battles to keep their seats.
Democratic leaders in the House never brought the issue up for a vote. Obama first asked Congress for the $250 payment last February.
Monday, October 18, 2010
LINK to Article
How's that working out for you, Barack?
Seems that a full 1/2 of former Obama supporters are hoping there's a change..............
I also have no doubt there are racists within the NAACP.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are racists in your local PTA, Police & Fire Dept.'s, Teachers associations, church groups, and every street in the country.
Racists exist everywhere there are people.
However, I personally consider the NAACP to be the largest racist group in the country, if not the world.
I am nearly 3/4 Cherokee, with the remainder of my genetic makeup a mix of Scots Irish.
The NAACP is, and always has been, offensive to me personally, as "a person of color".
I wonder what their leadership ans individual members think about the "New Black Panther Party"?
Aren't they a 'Hate Group?
Original Article Link
The NAACP is continuing its sharp criticism of the Tea Party movement, releasing a report later this week that it says will detail "various associations between Tea Party organizations and acknowledged hate groups in the United States."
The group's board recently ratified a resolution calling on tea partiers to repudiate racists in their ranks, something that's rankled grassroots conservatives, who have turned allegations of racism into a kind of organizing point.
“These groups and individuals are out there, and we ignore them at our own peril,” says NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous in the advisory. “They are speaking at Tea Party events, recruiting at rallies and in some cases remain in the Tea Party leadership itself. The danger is not that the majority of Tea Party members share their views, but that left unchecked, these extremists might indirectly influence the direction of the Tea Party and therefore the direction of our country: moving it backward and not forward.”
The report isn't yet online, but the press release has a bit of the substance:
The TeaParty.org faction is led by the executive director of the Minuteman Project, a nativist organization that has in the past been associated with the murder of migrant Mexican workers as part of its vigilante “border operations”. Roan Garcia-Quintana, “advisor and media spokesman” for the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party and member of ResistNet, also serves on the National Board of Directors of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), the lineal descendent of the Council of White Citizens. In Texas, Wood County Tea Party leader Karen Pack was once listed as an “official supporter” of Thom Robb’s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a modern-day white supremacist organization.The attempt to paint a very diffuse movement with a pretty broad brush will no doubt infuriate grassroots conservatives.
The only people who seem "scare", and appear to be be not "thinking clearly" are the Progressives campaigning for themselves and other Progressives.
What a total load of BS.
In his remarks at a Democratic fundraiser in Massachusetts Saturday evening, President Barack Obama said that Americans’ fear and frustration” are to blame for an intensely competitive midterm election season favoring Republican candidates.
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we‘re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”
Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” According to Politico, Obama blamed the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”
“You can respond in a couple of ways to a trauma like this,” Obama said, referring to the economy. “One is to pull back, retrench and respond to your fears by pushing away challenges, looking backwards. Another is to say we can meet these challenges and we are going to move forward. And that’s what this election is about.”
In similar remarks earlier in the day, Obama blamed Republicans for being uncooperative, saying the party decided to “ride people’s anger and frustration all the way to the ballot box,” and predicted more partisanship and gridlock next year. “I don’t anticipate that getting better next year,” he said. “I anticipate that getting worse.”
The president also campaigned in Ohio this weekend with a similar message:
As if there was ever any doubt.
MSNBC has gone off the deep end
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Docket review pulls curtain back on procedure by Homeland Security
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
First, an apology to Cheap Trick for blatantly ripping off a fantastic song;
Folks, do we need any more proof that the Progressives are running things in Washington??
from the article;
...."Another idea suggests using pre-paid cards that only allows students to purchase healthy options from the school cafeteria."
From yours truly, playing the part of Johnny Progressive;
"Well, kids make bad choices about what they eat, so we'll just TAKE THEIR CHOICES AWAY!!!!!"
First, our kids.
Then, they set their sights on the rest of us.
They already dictate the curriculum taught in public screwels (schools), omitting much of our true history, and interjecting their own "modified" history.
It's time to eliminate the US Dept. Of Education.
Of course, they both have most to lose (probably) by military absentee ballots;
From The New York Daily News;
The Board of Elections is facing another "royal screwup" - this time for failing to ship absentee ballots to New York troops serving overseas.
"Our troops sacrifice their lives to protect our freedoms. They should never, ever be denied the right to vote," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, who pushed a 2009 law establishing deadlines for mailing absentee ballots.
New York election officials were required to ship the ballots to U.S. citizens living overseas by Sept. 17. Because New York primaries were held Sept. 14, the feds granted local officials an extension until Oct. 1.
Several New York counties blew past the extension - including the city's five boroughs.
Schumer urged election officials to rush delivery of the ballots to ensure that military votes are counted.
"Put these ballots on the next plane to Afghanistan" Schumer demanded. "There is absolutely no excuse for failing to get this done."
New York State Board of Elections officials informed the feds late last week of their failure to meet the Oct. 1 deadline, which also occurred in Westchester, Putnam, Erie; and Niagara counties.
In all, there are 49,468 registered overseas voters in New York State, 20,172 of whom are in the military.
In the five boroughs, there are 36,446 registered overseas voters, including 6,557 who serve in the armed forces, election officials said.
"We send our young men and women overseas to fight and die for us, and we don't care enough to make sure they get the right to exercise their franchise?" fumed Mayor Bloomberg.
"That's what they're over there fighting for as much as anything else," he added.
City election officials said the absentee ballots for New Yorkers fighting abroad began getting shipped out on Sunday - 10 days past deadline.
City election officials, still reeling from a string of primary election snafus Bloomberg deemed a "royal screwup," said they were delayed because primary results weren't certified until last Tuesday.
Election officials reminded overseas voters that they can now sign up online at elections.state.ny.us to receive ballots.
The 2009 federal MOVE Act requires states to mail overseas ballots 45 days before the general election scheduled for Nov. 2 this year.
Absentee votes are counted until 13 days after Election Day.
State election officials said they would extend "the deadline for receiving those ballots back to New York State as much as we possibly can in compliance with our state law."
A group of Republican lawyers and law students called Tuesday for the Obama administration to do more to ensure that members of the military are able to cast ballots in the Nov. 2 elections.
David Norcross, chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association, said in a statement: "The MOVE Act was passed last year to ensure that these brave men and women would have a voice in this fall's elections. It's unacceptable that any state would fail to meet that obligation. The Obama administration must act swiftly to guarantee that every service member receives his or her ballot in time to vote."
The RNLA is a group of Republican lawyers who advise candidates on election laws and provide assistance on recounts and charges of voter fraud. The group's announcement on the military vote is here.
Last week, the Justice Department announced that it had "filed a lawsuit against Guam and its election officials, seeking emergency relief to help ensure that military service members and other U.S. citizens living overseas have the opportunity to participate fully in the Nov. 2, 2010, federal general election."
But Norcross said in his statement: "Filing a suit in Guam is not a serious attempt to ensure that every state following the law and ensuring military votes. … The Justice Department should be filing similar suits in New York and any other state that is failing to meet the MOVE Act."
As an Army Veteran, I find it reprehensible that ANY elected or appointed political official, of any rank whatsoever, would knowingly disallow Servicemen/women their right to vote.
Who the Hell do people think guarantees their right to vote?
Uh, think again.
The U.S. military are the only ones that knowingly put themselves in physical danger in order to see to it that our God-given rights as Americans remain intact.
All we ever asked in return was for respect for our service.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
On Monday's CBS Evening News, CBS's Jeff Greenfield opined, "they need to "convince the voters that this election is a choice" and "Republicans are just too extreme." Greenfield's probably right about this strategy being Democrats' best hope — and his fellow reporters are already hard at work fulfilling their role in painting Republicans as "extreme."
On Monday's Good Morning America, Jonathan Karl characterized as astonishing how "Alaska's Joe Miller talked about rolling back the power of the federal government further than Republicans have talked about for more than 70 years." Even more jaw-dropping to ABC: "Miller and other Tea Party candidates also favor eliminating the Department of Education." How is that more radical than Democrats' takeover of private-sector health care?
The next morning, NBC's Today dropped any pretense of neutrality, casting Republican gubernatorial nominee Carl Paladino as an "angry candidate" at the "heart of one of the nastiest races in New York history." Co-host Matt Lauer accused the Tea Party-backed Paladino of engaging in "nasty campaigning," then challenged: "How can you practice that gutter politics for a long period of time and then all of a sudden say, 'That's not me anymore?'"
But 24 hours later, Lauer showed no such contempt in an interview with DNC Chairman Tim Kaine. "Even with a high turnout, Republicans hold a 13-point lead over Democrats," Lauer fretted, "so how do Democrats chip away at those numbers in the next four weeks?"
Even as journalists generously dispensed such in-kind contributions to liberals, on Tuesday's CBS Evening News Nancy Cordes saw a scandal in how outside groups favoring Republicans are raising five times more than groups favoring Democrats. "Outside groups," a horrified Cordes asserted without offering any evidence, "are often even less constrained by facts than the candidates they support." The next morning on CBS's The Early Show, co-host Harry Smith rued that this spending on behalf of Republicans "literally takes these elections out of the hands of the voters."
Talk about Bizarro World: It's a perpetually biased media that unfairly favors Democrats more than Republicans; whose facts can't be trusted; and who attempt to take elections "out of the hands of the voters." But journalists never see a scandal in their own bias. They just want to shut down everybody else.
The Media need to read & study the Constitution. They have absolutely zero comprehension of the concept of limited federal Government, of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
What a bunch of useful idiots, to quote their hero Karl Marx.................
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Is America heading toward another Great Depression? The answer may not be a definite “yes” or “no,“ but rather an eerie ”maybe.”
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Donald Luskin laid out an argument for why, should we continue on our path, America might be poised to repeat the mistakes it made that lead up to and perpetuated the Great Depression. In other words, if history is a great teacher, we could be its worst students.
What may allow the “history repeats itself” cliche to ring true, he says, is the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and a renewed aggression toward trade via a recent amendment to the Smoot-Hawley Act — a union favor: both “doomsday clocks” with a deafening tick-tock, tick-tock.
First, where we find ourselves. Explaining a chart showing the stock market in the early part of the century and now (seen above), Luskin paints a fork-in-the-road picture:
“This week corresponds on the chart to mid-August 1937, when the cumulative effects of massive hikes in personal and corporate tax rates, severe monetary tightening, and aggressive business-bashing by the Roosevelt administration tipped the economy into the ‘depression inside the Depression.’”
We are at that tipping point. And while “we’re not repeating all the mistakes of 1937,” Luskin says, the impending tax increases and trade act are bad enough.
So what about those tax cuts/tax increases? Why are they such a big deal? Simply put, letting the tax cuts expire means a 3.3% decrease in income for every American, Luskin says, citing the Tax Policy Center. Add all that up and “if the Bush tax cuts don’t get extended, that’s a 2.3% hit to 2011 GDP.” The result: “instant double-dip recession, starting at midnight, Dec. 31.”
Read the rest of the article at the link above.
Things are quickening.
Monday, October 4, 2010
I don't know why we're shocked to see, hear, and read things like this.
All one has to do is to research the history of the Progressive Movement, and it soon becomes painfully obvious that Progressives, at their heart & core, are radicals that believe in Eugenics.
History is rife with examples like this in print, television, radio.
George Bernard Shaw remains one of the most famous playwrights of all time.
He was also a believer in Eugenics, and although officially he was a Fabian Socialist, his belief structure was lock step with the Progressive Movement in America.
Watch this next video, paying special attention from 3:50.
If you strip away the political correctness, Chapter Three of the IMF's World Economic Outlook more or less condemns Southern Europe to death by slow suffocation and leaves little doubt that fiscal tightening will trap North Europe, Britain and America in slump for a long time.
Last week, a much-anticipated, massive change in the Medicare/Medicaid reporting/billing/payment process was implemented, called MDS 3.0.
This change will do several things;
it will make the process much, much more tedious for folks like me. What was once 8 pages of information we collect, collate, and send to CMS (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services) turned into over 50 pages, overnight.
And these reports have to be done on day 5, day 14, 30, 60, 90, etc., of the inpatient stay. For each patient.
It increases the likelihood of errors, so that CMS can deny payment.
It changes the payment structure, effectively paying facilities less for the services they render, while at the same time mandating the same amount of Rehab/Nursing care be provided.
The new system was dramatically changed by Obamacare, by the way-implementation was supposed to be 10/1/2009, but they delayed it so they could add to the new regs.
Privately owned companies like mine will have to scramble harder to be able to recoup for the services we provide.
Physical/Occupational/Speech Therapists are all PhD level Practitioners, and they aren't cheap, and are in extremely high demand. Their services aren't cheap. But the Gov't sure is.
They have mandated that CMS save $500 Billion in Medicare/Medicaid "fraud".
How will they do that?
By cutting payments like I have briefly described, and by ultimately beginning to deny services to those in need.
It's in the Medicare/Medicaid portion of the Obamacare legislation.
Soon, they will begin to cut payments until facilities have no choice but to cut staff.
Get ready, folks. The Government wants a "single-payor" (Government) healthcare--this is but one of the ways they are going to go about getting it.
We are SO screwed...........................