Are you familiar with Don Berwick? Do you know that he’s our progressive Democratic candidate for Governor, running in the primary against two career politicians?

Don Berwick is running for governor to continue to make Massachusetts “a beacon of light and hope”. We were the first state to recognize healthcare as a human right, and the first state to institute equal marriage. Don is ready to demonstrate that bold, progressive leadership can truly deliver for the people. I’m proud to have met him personally; he is a thoughtful listener whose positions evolve as he learns; he has compassion and is unafraid to speak his values.

Don Berwick is NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN, but a pediatrician and executive who’s been working to improve health care delivery and affordability for 30 years. He was tapped by President Obama to run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, the largest agency in the federal government (with a budget larger than the Pentagon!). The Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm him, so his recess appointment ended after 18 months. Dr. Berwick describes himself as an “improver”, an optimist and a progressive. As with Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB, a federal agency nomination loss could once again be Massachusetts’ great gain!

Berwick has ambitious goals for creating jobs, eradicating poverty, improving our infrastructure, and protecting the environment, including being the first carbon-neutral state. He recognizes that climate change is the most pressing concern to the health of our planet and to future generations.

Here are some of Don Berwick’s positions:
- Would work to establish single payer healthcare (Medicare for All).
- Opposed to casinos (proven harmful to the communities in which they operate); would vote to repeal the law.
- Opposed to the Kinder-Morgan (fracking) pipeline proposed for Franklin County.
- Supports divestment from fossil fuels.
- Supports universal pre-school education and improving education at all levels.

Don Berwick has been endorsed by Progressive Massachusetts, Mass-Care, Progressive Democrats of Mass., Jamaica Plain Progressives, Senators Jamie Eldridge, Sonia Chang-Diaz, and Pat Jehlen, and numerous other state senators and representatives. His supporters are as passionate about him as Elizabeth Warren’s are about her.

Don Berwick is the best possible Democrat to beat Charlie Baker for Governor in the November election. Massachusetts voters have demonstrated that they often prefer a new leader with fresh ideas over an old-time politico when making a choice at the top of the ticket. A Democrat who is new to statewide office very often wins. The evidence is in 40 years of Massachusetts elections.

The Winners:
* * Ed Markey beats Gabriel Gomez for senator in 2013.
* * Elizabeth Warren beats Scott Brown for senator in 2012.
* * Deval Patrick beats Kerry Healy for governor in 2006.
* * John Kerry beats Ray Shamie for senator in 1984.
* * Paul Tsongas beats Ed Brooke for senator in 1978.
* * Ed King beats Frank Hatch for governor in 1978.
* * Michael Dukakis beats Frank Sargent for governor in 1974.

And The Losers:
* * Martha Coakley (then Attorney General) loses to Scott Brown for senator in 2010.
* * Shannon O’Brien (then State Treasurer) loses to Mitt Romney in 2002.
* * Scott Harshbarger (then Attorney General) loses to Paul Cellucci in 1998.

History suggests that either of the other two Democratic candidates, Martha Coakley or Steve Grossman, will follow in the footsteps of Coakley, O’Brien, and Harshbarger, and lose to the Republican gubernatorial nominee. Massachusetts voters want a new face with new ideas and a track record of success OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT. That person is Don Berwick. If Don is the Democratic nominee, he will beat Charlie Baker (another political “retread”) with his bold ideas and proven leadership. Let’s work to add Don Berwick to the list of winners in 2014. Please share this with friends across the state. And please vote for Don Berwick in the SEPTEMBER 6th PRIMARY. Thanks!

For more about Don Berwick’s vision, values, and record of accomplishments, visit these links
Website for his positions on many issues and to volunteer: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook...orGovernor?ref=br_tf
And Pioneer Valley FB: https://www.facebook...rValleyforDonBerwick
Convention speech (12 min.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKz3_w3HfV8
Amherst Media interview (30 min.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlmJ-Dcrqo&feature=youtu.be
AIM (Associated Industries of Mass.) interview (6 min.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n59EzFrZP94
Endorsements: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/endorsements
Statement opposing Kinder Morgan pipeline: http://www.berwickfo...nder-morgan-pipeline
 

DON BERWICK IN GOVERNOR’S RACE FOR RIGHT REASONS: PUBLIC SERVICE
Opinion by Dr. Jonathan Klate:
Sunday, July 6, 2014 Gazette.com The Hampshire Gazette


AMHERST — In the race for the Democratic nomination for governor, Don Berwick is the compelling story now. Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman, established pols aspiring to higher office for years, are being challenged by a smart, mature, experienced, unabashed progressive who has surged into serious contention for all the right reasons.

I had the opportunity to talk with Berwick in a Northampton coffee shop recently. When was the last time you felt a progressive politician running for statewide office was honestly speaking his or her truth, and from a wise heart? I mean other than Sen. Elizabeth Warren?

And I do mean talk with Dr. Berwick, because conversation is supposed to be a two-way street, and this gentleman doesn’t just spout, he listens. He lets you finish and makes it clear by his responses where his thinking has been modified by the information you have provided, if you made sense.

These are the habits of a curious mind and the ethics of a lifelong learner, perhaps shaped by his clinical training as a doctor. He brings a cultivated scientific mentality to his analytic approach to public matters. He is genuinely reflective rather than ideologically reflexive.

Before Berwick was a doctor he was the child of one. His father was a family physician in a small town in Connecticut. Like many small town docs in the 1950s he delivered babies, took his own x-rays and was on call 24/7. What he rarely did was take a vacation.

Berwick’s mom was a leader in the struggle to get a new elementary school built in their hometown. She died when Don was 15. When the school got built they named the library after her. So, while coming to terms with the body blow of his mother’s death, his consciousness was imprinted by her public legacy to the community achieved through political activism.

Don sees his parents’ dedication to both their family and the needs of the community as a way of life. “I don’t think they would have identified it as some kind of nobility,” he says. “It was just the way you lived. It was a habit as much as a value system and that colors the roots of my own values.”

He came of age in the 60s and these core values blossomed into mature progressive political inclinations during the inspiring era of the Kennedy presidency, the civil rights movement, the War on Poverty, the New Frontier, the Great Society, the peace movement and searing incidents like the Kent State massacre.

He learned that government, when animated by concern for human needs, is not necessarily the enemy. Structural poverty is. Underfunded and inequitable education is. Lack of substance abuse treatment is. Exclusion from quality health care due to low income is.

And without government to facilitate solutions like single-payer health care, for example, which he strongly supports, we can’t get the job done to improve the quality of life for all. It is fair to think of his principled mastery of health care policy as comparable to the expertise in the fields of banking and financial services of Sen. Warren.

He was president and CEO of a major not-for-profit organization with a mission to improve health care throughout the world. President Obama appointed him the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services and he ran the agency, overseeing an $800 billion budget, far bigger than the one he’d manage were he to be elected governor here.

It is unusual to find a systems thinker with tons of policy implementation experience who retains compassion for how well or poorly individuals’ needs are met. Through his decades in human and public service he has not succumbed to cynicism or narcissism. This is all too rare in public service.

This is not a person engaged in politics for personal aggrandizement. Can you look at his competitors and honestly say that?

If you think that Martha Coakley is the Democrat who matches up best against Republican Charlie Baker in the general election, you might want to recall what happened when her senatorial ambitions encountered Scott Brown.

Or, if you think just being a woman gives her an edge, maybe it’s time to recall Shannon O’Brien’s defeat by Mitt Romney.

Steve Grossman is a personable, centrist Democrat. But somewhere the Democratic Party has to stop muddling through, find its heart and be willing to have a principled fight. If not in Massachusetts, and now, with such a strong progressive candidate, then where and when?

Berwick can win, provided Democrats who see elections as meaningful agencies of democracy strongly support him.

“I think people are as tired as I am of mincing words and the failure to clarify a value system with a clear and unapologetic commitment to helping each other. I just think it’s wrong.” This guy doesn’t pander. He means it. Stand him next to his competition and it shows.

* * * * *
Jonathan Klate of Amherst writes about spirituality and political perspectives. His column appears the first Monday of the month. He can be reached at opinion@gazettenet.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Berwick
http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/
 

Hi Sam,
I appreciate your thinking about and commenting on what you feel is the left’s reaction to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. It’s good that, even when folks see things differently, they can still talk about their points of view with respect and openness.

I’ve thought about the case a lot, but also thought about how this 5/4 Court has ruled on a number of cases. While you and I may simply be coming from very different places, and yes, I am opinionated, I like to think that I don’t just “shoot from the hip” or that I’m an extremist; even when I feel strongly about issues, I think that facts matter.

The article you referred me to in the National Review had a certain hostile tone that made it difficult to take seriously. It didn’t engender a lot of openness on my part, starting with “The Left is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision” and continued with “This is not just garbage. It’s an entire landfill on stilts.” Hyperbole, much? There are more than a few other straw man arguments – putting words and ideas in the mouths of pro-choicers that are ugly, incendiary, and non-representative.

So, I’ll just get to the points. Interestingly, I’ve read that Hobby Lobby paid for coverage of all 20 types of contraception prior to filing this case. One point the article makes is that the 4 out of 20 forms of contraceptive were singled out because they were abortifacients. They are NOT. Hobby Lobby “feels” that they are. However, the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) of the National Institute of Health reports that IUDs are contraceptives, not abortifacients. Hobby Lobby does not represent the thinking of science in this matter. Sadly, the right-wing regressives in this Court allowed for a religious definition of medical facts, not a scientific one! Political ideology, anyone?

The owners of Hobby Lobby are not doctors. They are not scientists. They are not ministers. They are employers. Their “mission” is to deal in products, services, and profits.

Additionally, the Greens, owners of Hobby Lobby, have a 401(k) employee retirement plan with over $70 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, AND DRUGS OFTEN USED IN ABORTIONS. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). They had no option to invest elsewhere? Some wonder if the owners have mostly a strong religious belief in earning their profits wherever they can. This egregious hypocrisy should have been a factor in the court case; I don't know why it wasn't. Will authentically religious Christians scream about it, or boycott them because of it? Doubtful.

Even if they WERE correct on the scientific merits (of abortifacients), the decision is still a slippery slope, recklessly decided. Once the Court allows the intrusion of the employer into alleged religious objections, we will see (we are already seeing!) companies which will religiously object to ALL forms of birth control, the hiring of the LGBT community, or Muslims, or any group with which they have an issue. See http://talkingpoints...t-hiring-hobby-lobby
They won’t even have to prove their sincerity! Groups could use a religious dodge as a cover for their monetary interests, to skirt civil rights laws, or to impose other forms of social control, if they can invoke religious imperative. Other businesses may wish to impose other restrictions on coverage based of their religious beliefs: no transfusions for Jehovah’s Witness? No anti-depressants for Scientologist companies? The religion of an individual should be freely practiced; it should not be imposed by the individual on others.

On another point, family planning, whether contraception, vasectomy, tubal ligation, morning after or emergency contraception, or termination of pregnancy, encompasses options which are both MEDICAL and LEGAL. Employees don’t get “free” birth control or medical care handed to them by the employer; employees pay for it, and health insurance coverage is one of several benefits as part of a package workers EARN, like vacation time, pensions, etc. HIPPA laws also should protect the patient’s privacy from anyone who is not their doctor; the employer has no business in the doctor’s office or the record room!

The owners of Hobby Lobby are either a for profit business (which they ARE), and are subject to offering their employees the benefits they’ve earned, or they are a church – a “for PROPHET”, if you will. I would understand a church not wanting to include some of these benefits in their package. But they are not a church. They do not have a place in controlling either the private lives or medical decisions of their employees. In her dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the point that “"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

Another point: some of us are profoundly concerned that the Court would give religious rights to a corporation which would trump the rights of workers. No matter how devout the Greens might be (and whether they are or not is moot), the rights of their “personhood”, that of religious freedom has been gifted to the corporation, while being taken from the employees. This Court has given supremacy to the corporation over workers. Interestingly, on the same day, they gave no such standing to unions when they allowed family caregivers who get union benefits to opt out of union dues.

It will be a better day for us all when we have single-payer health care, so that doctor-patient relationships will not be intruded upon by outside forces. I still remember with horror how members of Congress and Jeb Bush involved themselves with brain-dead Terry Schiavo’s medical situation, despite her husband’s legal authority. It will also be a better day when Citizens United is overturned, and when corporations find their proper, more humble, place in the life of this nation.
 

Response from Mike:
"You may as well start a petition to remove Harry Reid while you’re at it. He is as much to blame as anyone else. Matter of fact why don’t we throw the whole bunch out since most of them are only interested in themselves and not the good of the country or the people in it. If this plan is so wonderful why are the politicians exempted from it? We should ALL be on it. They do NOT want it as most of America also does NOT want it. Look at it in its simplest light. If we are here talking about a government shutdown then it is not working in Washington! To add insult to injury we are “closing down” US monuments and statues at added costs that we don’t have. We are putting up fences around monuments to keep people out! You normally can just walk up to these sites for free. This was done purely for political reasons and photo opportunities….and it backfired. Shame on you these so called leaders of ours!! Shame on us as a nation for being complacent and letting it get to this point!! This didn’t happen overnight. This has happened over many years right under our noses….this nation of sheep. Wait until we are put into our corrals. Pay attention to what is going on around the world and most important pay attention to world history…. Real history, not the crap that is being fed to our children in today’s society. What happened to Rome will befall this nation also. Think before you send out more of this one-sided crap as both sides are to blame and in it together. Then pray your ass off for the good of mankind on this planet for we are traveling down a dark path and surely will be doomed."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike, you are misinformed:
"That Congressional Exemption From Obamacare? ANOTHER MYTH"
http://finance.yahoo...-myth-153149342.html
" “Why are Congress and their families exempt from the new plan?” a questioner named Paul asked in a recent Yahoo Finance Q&A on the Affordable Care Act. “If the coverage is inferior, why don’t they stand behind it?”

Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacare—and there are many—one of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself “exempt” from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is TOTALLY FALSE. In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face.

The confusion is understandable. Earlier this year, Congress did, in fact, consider passing legislation that would amount to an exemption, though that never happened. Then, in August, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a speech that “President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception. And he did it because Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who passed this thing came begging and said, ‘Please, please, please let us out of Obamacare.’” Nobody actually saw Harry Reid begging, but the claim gained traction nonetheless, and a chain email containing BOGUS information about Congress being exempt from Obamacare started to circulate...
You can read the full article at the link above.

I also disagree with you that "WE" have closed the government down. With pressure from the Tea Party, the GOP has shut it down, by refusing to bring to a vote a clean resolution to fund the government as a whole. They are instead holding the entire government hostage in a futile and reckless 11th hour effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act. They want to fund the government "piecemeal", only covering the expenditures of which THEY approve. The ACA became law 3 years ago. This shutdown is a Republican gimmick. I've never seen so many happy right-wingers. Their only plan is destruction. Government cannot function in this fashion, being taken from one manufactured crisis to the next. EXTORTION IS NOT NEGOTIATION! THIS KIND OF EXTORTION HAS NOT BEEN TRIED BEFORE - UNTIL THE TEA PARTY TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE.

I suggest you look at more than one news source, and skip Fox News altogether.
 

Hi all. Help Congressman Ed Markey be elected our next MA Senator. REMINDER! The PRIMARY is APRIL 30. The SPECIAL ELECTION is JUNE 25. With regard to the campaign, there's something for everyone here:

DEBATE: If you didn’t have a chance to watch the debate on Wed., here's a link:
http://wgbhnews.org/...cial-election-debate

CANVASSING: Please help with canvassing tomorrow (Sat.) at 11 am. Meet at Wildwood School parking lot on Strong St. We’re going to homes of likely supporters so you might see friends. If 3 hours is too long, come for a shorter time. Bill Ward will be keeping track of how many people will be coming so please contact him at williambward@gmail.com This is an opportunity for face-to-face meeting with voters. There will be canvassing EVERY Sat., 11 – 2, from that location.

GAZETTE SIGNATURE AD: We plan to have a large SIGNATURE AD with many names of Markey supporters in the Daily Hampshire Gazette shortly before the April 30 primary. It will be organized by town and alphabetized by name so your friends can find your name easily. We hope people will see names they recognize and go out to vote for Markey. If you'd like to have your name listed so your friends will be encouraged to come out to vote for him, please send an email to pv4markey@gmail.com , saying, “I agree to have my name in an ad in the Daily Hampshire Gazette supporting Ed Markey for U.S. Senate”. Give your name as you want it to appear, your town, and your phone number. Please encourage other people, especially those who are well known, to sign too. THE AD IS NOT JUST FOR AMHERST, BUT INCLUDES ANYONE IN THE ENTIRE AREA. It will be very expensive, so if you can, please write a check for any amount to “Pioneer Valley for Markey”, and send to Alice Swift, 36 Pondview Dr., Amherst, MA 01002. THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY CONTRIBUTED!

MEETING & PHONE-BANKING: The AMHERST FOR MARKEY group will meet on Monday at 5:30 before phone-banking at 6 pm. Everyone is welcome at both, which will take place at Faythe Turner's house, 129 Heatherstone Rd., Amherst. Please feel free to come to the meeting or phoning, or preferably both. Bring a cell phone if you're going to stay for phoning. We need people to help get the word out that there is an election on April 30 and why Ed Markey is the one to vote for. Training and talking points will be available. Bill Ward will be keeping track of how many people will be coming so please contact him at williambward@gmail.com

WRITING LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: We need more people. If you’re interested, please contact Herschel Shohan, jhshohan@comcast.net He had a great letter in the Amherst Bulletin and the Republican.

VISIBILITIES:
Please join us to stand out with signs in front of Bank of America every Wed. from 5:00 to 6:00 if the weather cooperates. Just come; no need to RSVP. This will give visibility to Markey and help get his name out. We can also talk to people who come by and give them literature. It's another way of connecting with people on a personal basis.

- on South Hadley election day, Monday, April 1. Some of us will stand out in front of S. Hadley High School on their election day, Mon. April 1. The high school is pretty far down on rte. 116 on the left at 153 Newton St. (past the rte. 33 traffic light). Please RSVP if you can help, pv4markey@gmail.com 11:30 – 1 pm

- Sat. mornings at 10 am. We can't table inside at the winter market, but we can stand outside the Middle School handing out lit. Susie Lowenstein did it last week and others are encouraged to join her. If you can’t or don’t want to canvass, this is a good alternative.

- Thurs. April 4, 5?-?8 pm, Amherst Art Walk @ Burnett Gallery, Chamber of Commerce, Gallery A3, Hope & Feathers, Town Hall, Collective Copies, Freedom Trails Gallery, GoBerry, JCA, Amherst Community Connections, and others. This is a free cultural event in downtown Amherst. We want to have people walking around downtown with signs and lit, starting at Bank of America. Come if you can for a little while in the early evening.

SOCIAL MEDIA – Facebook: PV4Markey, Twitter @PV4Markey, email: pv4markey@gmail.com

Thanks for your help! Let's encourage folks to come out & vote for Ed Markey on April 30 and again on June 25!
 

This piece gives a useful perspective on the President's "good-but-could-do-better" performance.

Shame the haters: WHY I BACK OBAMA By Van Jones Nov. 1, 2012
http://www.jackandji...rs-why-i-back-obama/

Have you ever worked at a job where somebody was actively trying to sabotage you? Do you remember what that feels like?

Well, that has been President Obama’s experience from Day One. As African Americans, we have a special sensitivity to situations where folks are unfairly set up to fail. We shouldn’t allow such tactics to determine the outcome of a national election.

This is especially true in the president’s case. Obama’s performance has been extraordinary in both foreign and domestic policy, but he has gotten almost zero credit for truly historic achievements.

ON THE ECONOMY: The U.S. economy is growing at a rate of about 2 percent, according to the most recent Commerce Department report. In the abstract, that might seem like not much to cheer about. But what we are comparing that 2 percent rate of growth to?

Let’s look at the rest of the industrialized world. Japan is SHRINKING at a rate of about 2 percent, as is all of industrial Europe.IN FACT, THE USA IS THE ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED POWER THAT’S GROWING — IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Developing countries like China, which is growing at about 6%, are a century behind us. Much of their growth comes from doing things we did long ago, like building roads, sewers and cities.

A Republican president might be hailed as an economic genius by beating all of our industrial competitors by 4% in terms of GDP, despite the economic pain that the country is going through. Instead, Obama is castigated. Instead of praise and respect, he is continually attacked by his Republican colleagues in government.

ON FOREIGN POLICY: No recent U.S. president could do what President Obama has done: He convinced China and Russia to side with us against Iran. Thanks to his leadership, Iran is fully isolated. It is being strangled by crippling economic sanctions, even by Iran’s friends and key allies. This represents a huge diplomatic and foreign policy success by Obama. But again, he’s gotten zero credit from Republicans and even from the mainstream media.

Let’s look at Libya. On the one hand, George W. Bush bankrupted the federal government and cost America tens of thousands of lives trying to bring about regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama helped bring about regime change in Libya without a single military casualty. It is the height of hypocrisy for Republicans to continue to politicize the death of a brave American diplomat, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, without acknowledging first the incredible success that the president achieved by avoiding any American loss of life in Libya up until that point.

No president should be expected to achieve even half of what President Obama has been able to achieve with zero support and actively daily obstruction from the rival political party. He has faced an unprecedented level of sabotage by the Republican Party — at a time when the nation is in the middle of two wars, the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, and faces a range of challenges across the globe. It is unconscionable.

Voters should be abandoning the Republicans in droves and rallying to this president’s side.

I see this as a moral question. IMAGINE A LIFEGUARD TRYING TO SAVE LIVES IN THE WAKE OF A TSUNAMI. NOW PICTURE THAT LIFEGUARD BEING UNDERMINED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE HOPING MORE PEOPLE DROWN, JUST SO THEY CAN GET THE LIFEGUARD’S JOB.

This is what we are faced with. Whatever frustrations any of us have had with this president (AND I HAVE HAD PLENTY), Americans of all colors have a duty to reject the politics of obstruction and give him four more years to complete the mission.

Everyone has had to face down a jealous, destructive “hater” at work. Next week, we have the chance to send a clear message to haters and saboteurs everywhere: this kind of behavior is unacceptable, and it will not be rewarded on the national stage.


[Van Jones is president and co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, a platform for bottom-up, people-powered innovations to help fix the U.S. economy. A Yale-educated attorney, Van has written two New York Times Best Sellers: The Green Collar Economy, the definitive book on green jobs, and Rebuild the Dream, a roadmap for progressives in 2012 and beyond. Van is currently a CNN Contributor.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Let's give the President a Congress who will work WITH him, and that includes Elizabeth Warren for Senate. Thanks! Dinah.
Feel free to share with others.
 

A recent
"Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United
Nations International Health
Organization.




Percentage of men
and women who survived cancer five years after
diagnosis:




U.S.................................
65%




England..........................
46%




Canada...........................
42%




Percentage of
patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:




U.S.................................
93%




England..........................
15%




Canada...........................
43%




Percentage of seniors
needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:




U.S.................................
90%




England..........................
15%




Canada...........................
43%




Percentage referred to
a medical specialist who see one within one
month:




U.S.................................
77%




England..........................
40%




Canada...........................
43%




Number of MRI scanners
(a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:




U.S.................................
71




England..........................
14




Canada...........................
18




Percentage of seniors
(65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent
health":




U.S.................................
12%




England..........................
02%




Canada...........................
06%




And now for the last
statistic: National Health Insurance?




U.S.................................
NO




England..........................
YES




Canada...........................
YES




Check this last set of
statistics: The percentage of each past president's
cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to

their appointment to the cabinet. (You know that the
private business sector is a real-life business, not a
government job.) Here are the
percentages.




T.
Roosevelt.................. 38%




Taft................................
40%




Wilson...........................
52%




Harding..........................
49%




Coolidge........................
48%




Hoover...........................
42%




F.
Roosevelt................... 50%




Truman..........................
50%




Eisenhower....................
57%




Kennedy.........................
30%




Johnson..........................
47%




Nixon.............................
53%




Ford................................
42%




Carter.............................
32%




Reagan...........................
56%




G. H.
Bush..................... 51%




Clinton...........................
39%




G. W.
Bush.................... 55%




Obama...........................
08%




This helps to explain the
incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have
ever worked in private business! That's right! Only
eight percent; the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!
And these people are trying to tell our big corporations
how to run their business?




How can the president of
a major nation and society, the one with the most successful
economic system in world history, stand and talk about business
when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has
never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of
his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most
of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or
as "community organizers”. They should have been in an
employment line.
 

Muslim encroachment around the world!

This author has in depth knowledge. So let's wake up.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case NOW in:
United States of America -- Muslim, 0.6% of the total
population
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, Muslims begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting in the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening NOW in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of Halal ("clean" by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature Halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim
sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% (True - there are 2 systems of taxations there)
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the "peace" of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% Muslim states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'TheHaj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates far exceed the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the 'fox guard the henhouse'. The 'wolves will be herding the sheep'!

Two devout Muslims have been appointed to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as "a devout Catholic, or a devout Jew or
a devout Protestant."..? Just wondering...

Devout Muslims in critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
That should make the U.S.A. homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish.
Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia
Religiously – no . . . Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically – no . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no . . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly Father, nor is he ever called ‘Love’ in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. -- They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a Muslim be a good soldier??? Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
 

A Personal Letter To Mitt Romney..
http://www.facebook....osts/478431362191286

Dear Mitt Romney:

I saw your video.

I saw you speaking candidly and off the cuff about me. Don’t get me wrong, I know that you didn’t mention me by name or anything, but we both know you were talking about me.

When you were talking about 47% of the population that is never going to vote for you because we are “dependent victims” who lazily live on government programs like food stamps, I can’t help but take personal offense. In fact, once you decided to lump in anybody who is never going to vote for you, you weren't just talking about me, but many people I love, and about 90% of the people I know.

My children eat because of food stamps, Mr. Romney. Now, sir, I want you to picture a Wyoming cowgirl: a mother, a fighter, a righteous, determined, God-loving woman. A Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bear Mamma that would make Sarah Palin’s makeup-wearing pit bull shudder. Picture me staring you in the eyes as I ask you, “What business have you got talking about me and mine like that?”

I am watching you run your Richie Rich mouth on TV right now, with your little flag lapel pin over your heart. You brag that you will bring “12 million new jobs and rising take home pay.” Quite frankly, I have no reason to believe you or your failures in arithmetic. Even if you did manage such a feat, I’d point to the 4.5 million job head start you had thanks to President Obama saving the nation from the failed GOP policies which you use as a platform, and which nearly caused a second Great Depression.

You said that you think that 47% of Americans “think they are victims” and you even said it wasn’t your job to worry about us.

First, I must argue with you. I am not a victim. I have been beaten. I have been bullied. I have been raped. I have been addicted. I have been alone. I have been poor. I have been homeless. I have been sick and broken. I have chosen — each and every single time — to stand up and pull myself and my family out of those circumstances. I beat every one of them without any riches to aid me. I did that without any inheritance, any gifted stocks or bonds, any loans, any rich family, or any elevators for my cars. I did it because I am not a victim, I am an American. I am the Mom-in-Chief of my house and nothing less than the very best that I can provide will do. I am the product of women who forded rivers to fetch the mail after working a hard day’s labor on the Laramie high plains. I am a force to be reckoned with.

I f you don’t believe me, you could ask the doctor who has to take fluid from my spine on a regular basis to preserve my ability to see, due to a rare disease. If you don’t believe me, you can ask our Ambassador to China Gary Locke, who personally invited me to a bill signing when I helped Washington State legislate protection for children in schools against bullying by sharing my own experiences. If you don’t believe me, you can ask my children who have seen me struggle but always, always provide for them. Any one of these people will tell you, that this American is not a victim.

You call me entitled. I devote every day of my life to bettering the planet I live on, with no hope of profit. I am sorry, sir, but you calling me entitled is like the pot calling the dove black. That isn’t going to work. I challenge you to stand at my side and let the American public judge which of us is entitled. I spend every dime of my and my husband’s earned income as quickly as it comes in, right here in my town. Every dime I earn and spend stays in America. I am the ultimate Job Creator. Who are you to challenge me?

You call me entitled. Every year on April 15th, I am certain that I have shown every cent that went through my pocket honestly. I dream of a day when I am well enough off to pay taxes. I fantasize of the flourish with which I will write my first check to the IRS. I would give any earthly belongings I have to be self-sufficient enough to be able to pay it forward to the society that I love.

No, you cannot challenge me, Mitt Romney. I challenge you: where are your tax returns?

I fought, I graduated at the top of my class in college, and I pursued graduate studies. I took loans against myself, believing that this would pay off, but then, in 2009, something happened.

No, it wasn’t Barack Obama’s inauguration; it was a sudden injury to my spine that ended up revealing not one but two severe spinal diseases. Since then I have been unable to finish my studies or to work. I’d like to know, Mr. Romney: how many months of physical therapy, how many of my surgeries, how many of my scars must I share to prove my devotion to wanting to be better? How many of my efforts must I submit before you’ll see me, an American citizen, as worthy of your worry? When you tell me to take responsibility for myself, I ask you: what after that?

This evening, when you justified your awful statements in that video, you said that you had said what you did because you were reassuring your donators that you could win this election. I’m sorry that you have to pander to your base like that. You seem to have sold out your soul. You have forgotten “the eye of the needle” with that wealth you’ve got. You’ve left behind Matthew 24:50. I hate to be the one to tell ya buddy, but you are not the promised one. The promised one understands that the 47% you are talking about are more than low wage workers and elderly people who worked their whole lives and paid into the system, they are the 100% that your God is concerned with when he said “Love thy neighbor.” You may pay a tithe with your wallet, but it’s obvious you’ve neglected to tithe your heart.

My husband left for work at 7 AM. It is now 9 PM and he won’t be home again for two more hours from his second job today. I spent yesterday at the emergency room. I have been waiting for two years for Social Security. I do not understand. How much more do we have to work to show you that your call for jobs isn’t enough? You must also be concerned for the whole nation, and whether we eat, and whether we have medicine. You must care if a hardworking, devoted family like mine is unable to survive after investing their best efforts. How many jobs do you expect every American to take? Three? Four?

You simply must stop and consider those you dismiss as beneath you or you cannot be our leader. It is an unwritten but widely understood rule of the presidency. I don’t know what they taught you when you were out there scalping businesses hard-won on the backs of people like that 47% you so rudely kick around, but in the real world, we care when Americans suffer. We care when you forget the young military men and women who serve our nation by sacrificing their lives. We care when Americans go hungry. We care when Americans jobs are sent overseas and rich men hide societal resources in offshore accounts. We care that we are being ripped off and even if you find profit and power in our suffering, we still exist, we still care, and we will still stand up.

See? You called me a victim, you called me entitled, you called me a lot of other things in that video, but on every count you are wrong. Just by writing you this letter, I’ve proven I am not your victim. Just by living my life of hard and dutiful effort I have proven that I am not entitled. In fact, I consider it a duty as a citizen of this Great United States to shout loudly and proudly: “Mitt Romney is not and never will be my President!”

I warn you Mr. Romney, the one thing that I have not, and will not ever lose, is my voice. I will sound it each and every one of these 50 days until Barack Obama is re-elected, we will vote with Compassion, and Wisdom, and Empathy…and you, sir, can keep your spite and your hate and your rhetoric and see your way out.

Sincerely,
Sarah Zacharias, a.k.a. The Bucking Jenny

*********************************************************************************************************

I'm just one of the 47%, and one of the 99% who stands with you, Sarah Zacharias, with deep and heartfelt gratitude; you speak for so many, and your powerful and compassionate voice WILL BE HEARD.

Please share. D.
 

The Fallacy of Redistribution

By Thomas Sowell



http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.


How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.
 

From: John Porter
To: Americans everywhere

I was sitting at my keyboard halfway through my writing a letter to you about how Barack Obama was fulfilling his pledge to "Transform America" by "Changing the fundamentals of America," so that our government would become the plantation, he the owner, and we the slaves, when this article by Steve McCann appeared in my in box. After checking it for accuracy, and finding it to be so, I put my writing on hold and here present it to you, for I could not say it better.

Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans

The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860.This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America " in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term was to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.

During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.

The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled by Barack Obama and his radical associates.

Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.

None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.

It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.

Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.

The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.

The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them However,once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics,would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.

Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.

Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.

Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated . The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress,either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.

The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.

What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them.

Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.

Steve McCann


I would add but 6 words to those above mentioned, Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney, to say "and we the American people," must also come to grips with this moment in time and our role in denying Barack Obama his life long goal of "transforming" us into his slaves working on his government plantation.
 

Mychal Massie

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic."


The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.


I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.


I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?


Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.


I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.


I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over three million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.


And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.


I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.


Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.


It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this: I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.


As I wrote in a syndicated column titled "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood ... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."



Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
 

Could 2012 be America 's Last Presidential Election?

By Michael Savage

I've asked this question to a number of people and most of them respond as if I were crazy. They tell me that this is America , land of the free, and that there will always be elections.I tell them that we are no longer the land of the free and that if Obama gets Re-elected in 2012 that this just may be America 's last election.

In the past three years, the Obama administration has been very carefully crafting the nation for a political take over by his Marxist regime and this isn't just my opinion.

Popular radio talk show host (of the Savage Nation on the Talk Radio Network), Michael Savage, is the son of Russian immigrants and is very familiar with Soviet and European history.Savage warned his listeners this week saying, "I have to tell you that if this man, God forbid, is the next president of the United States, we're going to be living in something along the lin es of - people say - Europe. I don't believe it's going to be likeEurope - I think it will be closer to Chavez's South American dictatorship.

"This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history. It's not politics as usual. It's not just Democrats versus Republicans. Obama has a long history of being at odds with American values and with America itself and the core principles of this country. They don't want government-sponsored opinions. They only want government-sponsored 'Pravda.' That's exactly what the government-media complex tells you on a daily basis - nothing but the government-media complex party lin e. Pay attention! Your freedom may be at stake!

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told a small group of people in an Iowa coffee house that "Barack Obama is not incompetent, ladies and gentleman.He knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. He sees America differently than you see America ."

[Obama] has gone out of his way to divide this country in a way I haven't seen since the Great Depression when Frank lin Roosevelt went around to divide his country. That's his hero. What makes America great [in Obama's mind] is that the government takes money from somebody and gives it to somebody else. No, that's what makes America , France .

"With his control over the Executive and Judicial branches of the government, the stage is set for a complete takeover of the government. Think about it! Since taking office, instead of helping the economy, Obama has purposely escalated the economic crisis by plunging the country into unprecedented debt. He has a number of programs that are designed to go into effect in January 2013, just in time for his second term of office. The economic burden and increased taxes on everyone will be enough to cause the final economic collapse of the country. As soon as that happens, Obama declares Martial Law and assumes dictatorial control of the nation.

The Department of Justice has already been subverting federal laws to strip us of a number of freedoms. The Supreme Court and many of the other federal courts have been seeded with socialistic liberal judges that will rule in Obama's favor on virtually anything, thus ending constitutional rule and law.

He's already changing the face of America 's military. By promoting gay pride month celebration at the Pentagon, and their celebrations in the White House is causing Military leaders to resign commissions and leave the military. Pentagon officials are also noting that an increase in the enlistment of radical Muslims into the US military where they get all the training they need on weapons and defense systems. We have no idea how many of them there are in the armed forces or in what positions they may hold.

Obama has been wielding executive powers this past year as if he were already a dictator. When Congress is not doing his bidding, he simply bypasses them and uses an executive order to accomplish it anyway. This has set the stage for his disbandment of Congress. He would not be the first world leader to take control of a nation and disband the legislative branch of government.

He has been effectively using the media to anesthetize the public to the dangers he poses. Like a patient being prepped for surgery, people are numb to the changes and won't have a clue what took place until they wake up in recovery and realize that free America has been removed and replaced with a regime that may parallel those of Sta lin , Lenin, Musso lin i, Hitler, Chavez and Castro.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I earnestly pray that we are spared from what seems a certain future and that Obama is overwhelmingly defeated in 2012. Otherwise, heaven help us.