Saturday, July 24, 2010

Firery Crash...pilot has close call (spectacular pictures) Updated with video!

See video at bottom of page.
Fighter jet crashes in Lethbridge, pilot ejects safely

A CF-18 fighter jet crashed on Friday in Lethbridge as it prepared for an airshow in Alberta, but the pilot managed to eject before the plane slammed into the ground.

Despite the crash at the Lethbridge airport, the Alberta International AirShow will go ahead as planned this weekend.
Canadian Air Force pilot Captain Brian Bews ejected safely from his CF-18 fighter jet just moments before it crashed during a practice flight on the eve of the annual event.
Bews escaped serious injury in the crash, which occurred during the noon-hour while he was attempting a slow-speed pass over the airport. After ejecting, he narrowly missed being hit by the plane as it plunged to the ground and exploded in flames near
the junction of two runways, according to witnesses.
The Department of National Defence is handling the investigation into the cause of the crash. Transport Canada officials also arrived Friday to monitor the situation but are leaving the investigation in the hands of the military.

“We planned for this. We know this kind of thing can happen. The military said they would support us, and we thought we couldn’t let our community down,” said Kathy Wallocha, past president of the air show.
Image above courtesy Ian Martens/Lethbridge Herald/CBC News (more).

Friday, July 23, 2010

Comment of the day.

Pejman Yousefzadeh Attorney and blogger :

Nancy Pelosi promised us "the most ethical Congress in history," during the 2006 midterm elections. The reality is quite different. Every effort was made by the House Democratic leadership to save Charlie Rangel, despite the mountain of evidence showing that he violated ethical rules. The House Democrats were only willing to cut Rangel loose when he became too much of an embarrassment to them.

Ethical people usually do not have to be coerced into behaving ethically. However, in Rangel's case, no amount of coercion got him to be ethical, and it took the political equivalent of moving heaven and earth to get the House Democratic leadership to denounce Rangel's behavior. If this is the Democratic leadership's idea of good government, then I would hate to see bad government in action.


Thursday, July 22, 2010

John F. Kennedy's Secret Society Speech

The speech was given in 1961 but it may as well be 2010 or anywhere in between. President Kennedy was addressing the American Newspaper Publishers Association or what we would refer to today as the mainstream media (MSM). So the one-sided media has been around for some time or as Kennedy phrases it, "...the so-called one party press." One sometimes wonders how and why the MSM appears to be at times so anti-American and so narrowly focused. Well that would lead us into another story that I don't want to get into here but suffice it to say the uni-vision direction of the MSM had its beginnings with the banking cartels (i.e. JP Morgan et al). They selected or rather purchased the most influential newspapers in the United States to control what the general public consumed as news...this was verified in the Congressional Record of 1917. You might ask, "Why would they do that?" The answer to that is simply, "control". The money people (lets call them the politic elite) want to control the entire world and run it as they see fit (you and I are just pawns or slaves in their whimsical plans).
To accomplish this control and/or takeover of society there would have to be a sophisticated network of like minded people operating in a very clandestine manner. President Kennedy recognized that such people existed (by the way, President Eisenhower also recognized that people behind the scenes of government in fact were the controllers of government) and here he refers to such secrecy as, "repugnant". Well we shall see that what is happening in our dying days as a country is a direct result of the the repugnant people that desire some kind of new world order that we the people did not order. Who are these people? Take a good look at this video and many of the scoundrels will be revealed...and don't worry about them being Democrat or Republican because that's one area they have had almost complete control over us for a number of years. Who else wrote the FEC rules? That's right, it was both parties...they want to limit your choices and they have pretty much succeded in that area. ~ Norman E. Hooben
ps: if you want to read along with President Kennedy the complete text is below the video.
President John F. Kennedy’s Secret Society Speech

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Something to think about...
When Abraham Lincoln printed interest free, debt free, and tax free money (the "green back dollar") he was assassinated. When President Garfield tried to follow in Lincoln's footsteps he was assassinated. When President John F. Kennedy issued executive order 111.10 ordering the United States Secretary of the Treasury (USST) to issue silver certificates, he was assassinated. When the Attorney General of the United States, Bobby Kennedy, tried to follow in JFK's footsteps he was assassinated. There are some very powerful political, financial, economic, and religious forces that will do everything in their power to prevent sovereign nations from printing their own money interest free, debt free and tax free of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

For Once I Can Agree With Barney Frank

“the people are so dumb they will never know the difference!” Barney Frank*

For once I can agree with Barney Frank...the people are dumb... It was overheard some years ago (this is true) that the Democrats wanted to "...screw things up so bad, that when they were in charge they would get the credit for straighten it all out."  Yet in their attempts to make good on their promise, things go from bad to worse.  Just to remind all you dumb Americans out there, you did not cause this financial mess we're in, the people you voted for did...and you know who they are (Dodd and Frank to name a few) but what makes you so dumb (or as some would call it, "insane") is that you keep voting for the same people over and over again and expecting different results.  All you people who voted for change I hope you all realize now what little change you have left ...but there's still hope for change, you can dump Barney Frank in November ~ Norman E. Hooben

* Additionally, Barney Frank said, "The middle class won't fight back..." 

The following post is from AGJ
As you all know, the Senate passed the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” sham last week. Today, Obama will sign the 2,319-page monstrosity into law.
To your left you see the two corrupt politicians who sponsored the bill.. Chis Dodd, retiring rather than face the shame and Barney Frank, whose attitude is: “the people are so dumb they will never know the difference!”
The Associated Press calls it “sweeping.”
My adjectives are different.
Try “galling:”
In choosing to ignore the actual causes of the financial crisis — loose monetary policy, Fannie/Freddie, and never-ending efforts to expand homeownership — and instead further expanding government guarantees behind financial risk-taking, Congress is eliminating whatever market discipline might have been left in the banking industry. But we shouldn’t be surprised, since this administration and Congress have consistently chosen to ignore the real problems facing our country — unemployment, perverse government incentives for risk-taking, massive fiscal imbalances — and instead pursued an agenda of rewarding special interests and expanding government.
At least we’ll know what to call the next crisis: the Dodd-Frank
Try “discriminatory:”
Buried deep in the bowels of the massive financial-regulation bill the Senate passed Thursday are massive race- and gender-employment provisions that will cost countless millions to enforce and appear to duplicate other civil-rights initiatives already in place.
…Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as chief of staff for former President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, tells Newsmax that the rules represent a “dramatic change in employment legislation.”
Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently penned a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and several other leading senators, objecting to the new fair-employment regime in the Dodd-Frank legislation now headed to the president’s desk.
“The likelihood that it will in fact promote discrimination is overwhelming,” the letter states.
Try “radical,” “expansive,” “power-mad,” and “dangerous:”
Fully 80% of those surveyed by Bloomberg say they have little or no confidence the bill will prevent or even soften a future financial crisis. Nor will the bill be a big win for the economy. If anything, it will hinder the recovery and weaken the financial system.
Indeed, despite all the hype from the president and his minions…most knowledgeable observers agree that the new law will not prevent another financial crisis. No reasonable person should expect that it should. By its very nature, the financial system relies on leverage and investor confidence. As the experience of 2008 shows, that can be an unpredictable and volatile mix. So no matter how many times President Obama says otherwise, the new law won’t ban financial doomsdays. As his own FDIC chairman, Sheila Bair, says, “No set of laws, no matter how enlightening, can forestall the emergence of a new financial crisis down the road.”
Sheila needs to have a chat with the president. He seems to be one of the only ones who’s under the illusion that the bill is some sort of cure-all. “Because of this bill,” he intoned just last week, “the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.”
Actually, that’s already wrong. Taxpayers are still on the hook for the bad mortgages guaranteed and owned by the two entities (and key causes of the crisis) the new law studiously ignores: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their ultimate losses figure to be much, much higher than any bailouts provided to date.

Comment by American Grand Jury:
In many ways, this legislation is more dangerous than Obamacare. It can completely wipe out what is left of our banking system as we know it today. Just another license by the communists to steal from the American taxpayer, maybe even our pension and retirement funds as a bonus!

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Invasion Of OTM's ...we can stop it by arresting Eric Holder and his boss (hint: Sheriffs have the authority)

Texas Border Volunteers... Excerpted from their monthly news letter.

It seems as though we may be seeing an increase in the number of Hondurans in our area. The following is from the National association of Former Border Patrol Agents M3 Report of 5 July 2010.
Some 500 Hondurans emigrate daily to the US
San Pedro Sula, Honduras – At least 500 Hondurans leave daily for the US to seek “the American dream,” according to the regional human rights commission.  The commissioner of the organization said that about 15,000 leave the country monthly in search of jobs in the US.  However, most of them are deported back, he added.
Some 20,000 Hondurans have left Arizona
Tegucigalpa, Honduras – Some 20,000 Hondurans have left Arizona due to the threat of SB 1070.  The Honduran government has sent authorities to the state to lend assistance to their people.  The Hondurans are seeking refuge in neighboring states like California and Texas, although they prefer California.  This is due to two things.  Some Texas counties are seeking to implement laws similar to Arizona’s “which violate the rights of the migrants,” while California is a state that is boycotting some of Arizona’s commercial and economic activities in protest to the law.
Tom Kile

Speaking of Hondurans...

Police: Illegal Immigrants Raped 14-Year-Old Texas Girl at July 4th Party 
A pair of illegal immigrants raped a 14-year-old Texas girl at July 4th party in Texas, where the teen was later found sitting naked in a bathtub, police said.
The victim told police that she went to an Independence Day party with her cousin in Horseshoe Bay, Tex., about 40 miles northwest of Austin, where she was left in a room with Anibal Escobar, 19, and Anael Martinez, 22, MyFoxAustin reported.
The two Honduran natives, who told police they are in the U.S. illegally, made advances at the victim and then raped her, she told police. The victim’s cousin discovered her in the bathtub and brought her home.
Escobar and Martinez were arrested early in the morning on July 9 and face felony charges of aggravated sexual assault, MyFoxAustin reported. Local investigators contacted Texas Rangers to assist in their investigation and translate, as none of the witnesses at the party or the suspects spoke English.

The Only Person I Know Of ...that profitted from a vote for Obama (Is this the same as taking 30 pieces of silver? know...the bible story)

Source: Planck's Constant

BS Removal Kit fixing the Shame of Voting for Obama

By Bernie on 19 Jul 2010

bs removal kit
Photo Credit: American Tees
I admit it. I voted for Obama - but I'm not ashamed because I didn't buy the BS promise of hope and change. And I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to paste an Obama bumber sticker on my car without a full explanation of why I am voting for Obama [See Firing Employees who voted for Obama]. Otherwise I certainly would appear as an idiot.

But here's the explanation: I voted for Obama precisely because he is an incompetent moron who will bring this country to its economic knees. On 4 Jun 2008, I informed my readers I was going to vote for Obama (and the first time in my life I voted for a Democrat) so that I could make a killing in gold. On that day gold was 883.50 per ounce on London's Second Fix. And I placed a heavy bet that gold would rise hundreds of dollars.
Last month, less than halfway through his first term gold hit more than 1261 dollars per ounce and is currently hovering around $1200 an ounce.
Those of you who own very little gold and still voted for Obama and proudly displayed an Obama bumper sticker on your car, now have nothing to show for it. To help you liberal idiots out there, here is an Obama Bumper Sticker removal kit, or as they call it, the BS Removal Kit.
Be ashamed no longer. Drive around once again as a proud American. No one need know that you were an imbecile for voting for him. You can even deny you ever had an Obama bumper sticker.

, there is no cheap remedy forthose of my readers who have tattoos of Obama in large areas of their bodies.

Obama Tattoo
Photo Credit:

There is a bright lining though, if you are the kind of person to do such a thing, I'm sure most of your friends already think of you as a complete buffoon, so it's unlikely the tattoo has diminished your stature in any way in your community.

[Click on image(s) for larger view]

Unemployed? - Want A Job? D.C. is the place to go.

Cross-posted from Gerry Charlotte Phelps

Washington D.C. Booms, Country Suffers

From "Washington Booms, Country Struggles" by Jim Vanderhei and Zachary Abrahamson, 7-19-10, Politico. While the country is struggling, Washington's governing class is doing extremely well.
The massive expansion of government under President Barack Obama has basically guaranteed a robust job market for policy professionals, regulators and contractors for years to come. The housing market, boosted by the large number of high-income earners in the area, many working in politics and government, is easily outpacing the markets in most of the country. And there are few signs of economic distress in hotels, restaurants or stores in the D.C. metro area.

As a result, there is a yawning gap between the American people and D.C.’s powerful when it comes to their economic reality — and their economic perceptions.
A new poll shows the harsh divide:  About 45% of "Washington elites", but only 25% of the general population, said they thought the country and economy were headed in the right direction.  The Washington elites were aware of their advantageous situation.  About 74% said the recession has hurt them less than most Americans.  Washington has lost fewer employees than any of the nations 15 largest urban areas.  Unemployment is only 6% - well below the national average of 9.5%.  It is a tiny fraction of unemployment in manufacturing towns like Flint, Mich (14.7%), Elkhart, Ind. (13.7%) and Rockford, Ill. (13.9%.)
In part, that’s because the federal government drives about a third of the national capital region’s economy by direct employment — Uncle Sam employs about 10 percent of the area’s 3 million-person work force — or by federal procurement dollars, more than $20 billion of which landed in nearby Fairfax County, Va., alone last year.
“This is our auto industry, or financial services, or entertainment,” said Stephen Fuller, director of George Mason University’s Center for Regional Analysis....“The federal government is our business. And on top of that, we have an administration that’s clearly expanding the role of the federal government...That hasn’t been the case in the past, except in the case of wars.”
Those outside Washington also come to Washington to create new jobs.
Many New York firms have opened new offices and created new jobs in D.C. to deal with the growing web of regulations. Northrop Grumman — one of many contractors profiting from government growth — is moving its operations from Southern California to Northern Virginia. Several other firms have moved here of late, too.

Even media companies, which have been hammered by the economy and bad industry-wide trends, are hiring in town. Competition among Bloomberg, POLITICO and other outlets has resulted in bidding wars for reporters with sophisticated understanding of government policy.
Then, of course, there will be even more well-paid agency jobs due to "reforms" of the nation's health insurance sector and financial markets.  More money is on the way to Washington from all over the country!
Both bills call for substantial new federal oversight by agencies such as the Health and Human Services Department and the Internal Revenue Service. And the professionals who take those jobs will need homes, buy furniture and pay taxes, said David Robertson, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, “and that’s going to have a multiplier effect in our region.”

The Center for Regional Analysis projects the federal government will add 6,500 new jobs in the area each year through 2012.
What is the political result?  Much of America now has a low opinion of the Washington governing class.  It has led to the growth of movements like and the Tea Parties, which oppose the establishments of both parties.  Meanwhile, Washington seems just not to "get it."  Says Mark Penn, who helped conduct the poll,
 “The D.C. elites are largely isolated from the economic downturn, and this means that they can easily fail to understand the depth of dissatisfaction out in the country.”

Sun Power...sun powered flight..can do!

An experimental solar-powered plane has completed its first 24-hour test flight successfully, proving that the aircraft can collect enough energy from the sun during the day to stay aloft all night. The test brings the Swiss-led project one step closer to its goal of circling the globe using only energy from the sun.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Selectively picking and choosing which elements of the law to honor is not only grounds for impeachment...its criminal and grounds for imprisonment!

The title commentary above is not the opinion of Maggies Notebook~Norman E. Hooben

Rich Lowry on How Obama will Argue Against Arizona Immigration Law

Are you puzzled about how the U.S. Government will argue against Arizona adopting and following Federal immigration laws? I was puzzled, but I think Rich Lowry has it sorted out.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama

The Obama administration's plan of action is to execute the Federal law "carefully," meaning they use discretionary enforcement, rather than following the letter of the law, which makes enforcement mandatory.

And all that amounts to an indirect way of saying that the Obama administration is willing to tolerate the presence of millions of illegal aliens in this country, and that, as far as it’s concerned, this preference constitutes the unalloyed law of the land...
In other words, such mandatory enforcement of the law conflicts with the executive’s discretionary enforcement of the law. If Arizona’s statute is in keeping with the letter of the laws as passed by Congress, so what? The executive can selectively pick and choose which elements of those laws to honor, and then on that basis quash state statues even if they mirror the handiwork of Congress.
Will a court accept, that not following the law is a lawful stance?

As Lowry said, "if nothing else, the state of Arizona has smoked out the Obama administration," and put a spotlight on the administration's disinterest in detaining illegals.

In May 2010, I said the same thing. In an early response to Arizona's new law, John Morton the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said when Arizona hands over illegals picked up with the authority of the new law, he may not "accept" them, and said it is not "not good government" to criminalize the presence of illegals. I commented that "being in this country illegally hangs on the discretion of whomever is in power. Charles Krauthammer said this administration is "lawless" and indeed it is, including the Department of Justice. At one time I though the lawlessness was creeping, but with mandated health care, the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and now Obama's lawsuit against Arizona, the lawless leaders are in full gallop.

Listen to this excellent commentary from Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer - Lawless Administration (video)

"One of the prettiest sounds on earth" is the Muslim call to prayer at sunset.

No Place Else To Go - "We called this euthanasia." - "Next came gun registration..."

Source: Freedom Yell

After America , There is No Place to Go

By: Kitty Werthmann 
What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books. 
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history.  I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.  We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote..  I've never read that in any American publications.  Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression.  Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed.  We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily.  Young people were going from house to house begging for food.  Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs.  My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need.  Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other.  Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed.  The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933.  We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.  Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise.  We were led to believe that everyone was happy.  We wanted the same way of life in Austria .. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family.  Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.  Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades.  The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order.  Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed.  The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

  Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women.  Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home.  An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family.  Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children: 
Our education was nationalized.  I attended a very good public school.  The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore.  Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.
Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance.  Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum.  They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time.  The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.  The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination.  The rest of the day we had sports.  As time went along, we loved it.  Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.  We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had. 

My mother was very unhappy.  When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent.  I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful.  There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination.  I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it.  Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home.  I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.  Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me.  They lived without religion.  By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.  It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly.  As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.
Equal Rights Hits Home: 

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established.  All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps.  At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented.  It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps.  During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.  They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps.  After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.  When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.  Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack.  I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.  

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare: 
When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.  You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government.  The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.  By this time, no one talked about equal rights.  We knew we had been had.

 Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls: 
Before Hitler, we had very good medical care.  Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna .  After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone.  Doctors were salaried by the government.  The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.  If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn.  There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine.  Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

  As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income.  Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household.  We had big programs for families.  All day care and education were free.  High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized.  Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing. 

We had another agency designed to monitor business.  My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.  Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners.  Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar.  He couldn't meet all the demands.  Soon, he went out of business.  If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection.  We were told how to shop and what to buy.  Free enterprise was essentially abolished.  We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers.  The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.
"Mercy Killing" Redefined: 
In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.  So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded.  When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.  I knew one, named Vincent, very well.  He was a janitor of the school.  One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.  I asked my superior where they were going.  She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write.  The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.  They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death.  The villagers were not fooled.  We suspected what was happening.  Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months.  We called this euthanasia. 

The Final Steps - Gun Laws: 
Next came gun registration..  People were getting injured by guns.  Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns.  Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms.  Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns.  The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
No more freedom of speech.  Anyone who said something against the government was taken away.  We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria .  Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath.  Instead, we had creeping gradualism.  Now, our only weapons were broom handles.  The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria.  Women were raped, preteen to elderly.  The press never wrote about this either.  When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process.  They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned.  We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses.  Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized.  Those who couldn't, paid the price.  There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. 

This is an eye witness account.  It's true...those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.
America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World.
Don't Let Freedom Slip Away!
"After America , There is No Place to Go"

When the people fear their government there is tyranny. 
When the government fears the people there is liberty.    
-Thomas Jefferson