Something To Think About When You Vote
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.
Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! So did my employers. Just because our government borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
Congressional benefits ---- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?
We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , Japan and Turkey . And now Pakistan ......haven of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Governor Christie Slams Obama
Full Text of Governor Chris Christie's Speech at the Ronald Reagan Library:
"Real American Exceptionalism"
Simi Valley, CA
September 27, 2011
Mrs. Reagan, distinguished guests. It is an honor for me to be here at the Reagan Library to speak to you today. I want to thank Mrs. Reagan for her gracious invitation. I am thrilled to be here.
Ronald Reagan believed in this country. He embodied the strength, perseverance and faith that has propelled immigrants for centuries to embark on dangerous journeys to come here, to give up all that was familiar for all that was possible.
He judged that as good as things were and had been for many Americans, they could and would be better for more Americans in the future.
It is this vision for our country that guided his administration over the course of eight years. His commitment to making America stronger, better and more resilient is what allowed him the freedom to challenge conventional wisdom, reach across party lines and dare to put results ahead of political opportunism.
Everybody in this room and in countless other rooms across this great country has his or her favorite Reagan story. For me, that story happened thirty years ago, in August 1981. The air traffic controllers, in violation of their contracts, went on strike.
President Reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refused would be fired. In the end, thousands refused, and thousands were fired.
I cite this incident not as a parable of labor relations but as a parable of principle. Ronald Reagan was a man who said what he meant and meant what he said.
Those who thought he was bluffing were sadly mistaken. Reagan’s demand was not an empty political play; it was leadership, pure and simple.
Reagan said it best himself, “I think it convinced people who might have thought otherwise that I meant what I said. Incidentally, I would have been just as forceful if I thought management had been wrong in the dispute.”
I recall this pivotal moment for another reason as well. Most Americans at the time and since no doubt viewed Reagan’s firm handling of the PATCO strike as a domestic matter, a confrontation between the president and a public sector union. But this misses a critical point.
To quote a phrase from another American moment, the whole world was watching. Thanks to newspapers and television – and increasingly the Internet and social media – what happens here doesn’t stay here.
Another way of saying what I have just described is that Americans do not have the luxury of thinking that what we have long viewed as purely domestic matters have no consequences beyond our borders. To the contrary.
What we say and what we do here at home affects how others see us and in turn affects what it is they say and do.
America’s role and significance in the world is defined, first and foremost, by who we are at home. It is defined by how we conduct ourselves with each other. It is defined by how we deal with our own problems. It is determined in large measure by how we set an example for the world.
We tend to still understand foreign policy as something designed by officials in the State Department and carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. And to some extent it is. But one of the most powerful forms of foreign policy is the example we set.
This is where it is instructive to harken back to Ronald Reagan and the PATCO affair. President Reagan’s willingness to articulate a determined stand and then carry it out at home sent the signal that the occupant of the Oval Office was someone who could be predicted to stand by his friends and stand up to his adversaries.
If President Reagan would do that at home, leaders around the world realized that he would do it abroad as well. Principle would not stop at the water’s edge. The Reagan who challenged Soviet aggression, or who attacked a Libya that supported terror was the same Reagan who stood up years before to PATCO at home for what he believed was right.
All this should and does have meaning for us today. The image of the United States around the world is not what it was, it is not what it can be and it is not what it needs to be. This country pays a price whenever our economy fails to deliver rising living standards to our citizens--which is exactly what has been the case for years now.
We pay a price when our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult but necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending or reform our tax system.
We pay a price when special interests win out over the collective national interest. We are seeing just this in the partisan divide that has so far made it impossible to reduce our staggering deficits and to create an environment in which there is more job creation than job destruction.
This is where the contrast between what has happened in New Jersey and what is happening in Washington, DC is the most clear.
In New Jersey over the last 20 months, you have actually seen divided government that is working. To be clear, it does not mean that we have no argument or acrimony. There are serious disagreements, sometimes expressed loudly—Jersey style.
Here is what we did. We identified the problems. We proposed specific means to fix them. We educated the public on the dire consequences of inaction. And we compromised, on a bi-partisan basis, to get results. We took action.
How so you ask? Leadership and compromise.
Leadership and compromise is the only way you can balance two budgets with over $13 billion in deficits without raising taxes while protecting core services.
Leadership and compromise is the only way you reform New Jersey’s pension and health benefits system that was collectively $121 billion underfunded.
Leadership and compromise is the only way you cap the highest property taxes in the nation and cap the interest arbitration awards of some of the most powerful public sector unions in the nation at no greater than a 2% increase.
In New Jersey we have done this, and more, because the Executive Branch has not sat by and waited for others to go first to suggest solutions to our state’s most difficult problems.
Being a mayor, being a governor, being a president means leading by taking risk on the most important issues of the day. It has happened in Trenton.
In New Jersey we have done this with a legislative branch, held by the opposite party, because it is led by two people who have more often put the interests of our state above the partisan politics of their caucuses.
Our bi-partisan accomplishments in New Jersey have helped to set a tone that has taken hold across many other states. It is a simple but powerful message--lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the depth of our challenges. Tell them the truth about the difficulty of the solutions. This is the only effective way to lead in America during these times.
In Washington, on the other hand, we have watched as we drift from conflict to conflict, with little or no resolution.
We watch a president who once talked about the courage of his convictions, but still has yet to find the courage to lead.
We watch a Congress at war with itself because they are unwilling to leave campaign style politics at the Capitol’s door. The result is a debt ceiling limitation debate that made our democracy appear as if we could no longer effectively govern ourselves.
And still we continue to wait and hope that our president will finally stop being a bystander in the Oval Office. We hope that he will shake off the paralysis that has made it impossible for him to take on the really big things that are obvious to all Americans and to a watching and anxious world community.
Yes, we hope. Because each and every time the president lets a moment to act pass him by, his failure is our failure too. The failure to stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson Bowles Commission, a report the president asked for himself...the failure to act on the country's crushing unemployment ... the failure to act on ever expanding and rapidly eroding entitlement programs...the failure to discern pork barrel spending from real infrastructure investment.
The rule for effective governance is simple. It is one Ronald Reagan knew by heart. And one that he successfully employed with Social Security and the Cold War. When there is a problem, you fix it. That is the job you have been sent to do and you cannot wait for someone else to do it for you.
We pay for this failure of leadership many times over. The domestic price is obvious: growth slows, high levels of unemployment persist, and we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of skittish markets or the political decisions of lenders.
But, there is also a foreign policy price to pay. To begin with, we diminish our ability to influence the thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. There is no better way to persuade other societies around the world to become more democratic and more market- oriented than to show that our democracy and markets work better than any other system.
Why should we care?
We should care because we believe, as President Reagan did, that democracy is the best protector of human dignity and freedom. And we know this because history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against their own people or their neighbors.
We should care because we believe in free and open trade, as exports are the best creators of high-paying jobs here and imports are a means to increase consumer choice and keep prices down.
Around the world -- in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa and Latin America—people are debating their own political and economic futures--right now.
We have a stake in the outcome of their debates. For example, a Middle East that is largely democratic and at peace will be a Middle East that accepts Israel, rejects terrorism, and is a dependable source of energy.
There is no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working.
A lot is being said in this election season about American exceptionalism.
Implicit in such statements is that we are different and, yes, better, in the sense that our democracy, our economy and our people have delivered. But for American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted. If it is demonstrated, it will be seen and appreciated and ultimately emulated by others. They will then be more likely to follow our example and our lead.
At one time in our history, our greatness was a reflection of our country’s innovation, our determination, our ingenuity and the strength of our democratic institutions. When there was a crisis in the world, America found a way to come together to help our allies and fight our enemies. When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the greater public interest first. And in our system, we did it through strong presidential leadership. We did it through Reagan-like leadership.
Unfortunately, through our own domestic political conduct of late, we have failed to live up to our own tradition of exceptionalism. Today, our role and ability to affect change has been diminished because of our own problems and our inability to effectively deal with them.
To understand this clearly, one need only look at comments from the recent meeting of the European finance ministers in Poland. Here is what the Finance Minister of Austria had to say:
You see, without strong leadership at home—without our domestic house in order—we are taking ourselves out of the equation. Over and over, we are allowing the rest of the world to set the tone without American influence.
I understand full well that succeeding at home, setting an example, is not enough. The United States must be prepared to act. We must be prepared to lead. This takes resources—resources for defense, for intelligence, for homeland security, for diplomacy. The United States will only be able to sustain a leadership position around the world if the resources are there—but the necessary resources will only be there if the foundations of the American economy are healthy. So our economic health is a national security issue as well.
Without the authority that comes from that exceptionalism—earned American exceptionalism—we cannot do good for other countries, we cannot continue to be a beacon of hope for the world to aspire to for their future generations.
If Ronald Reagan faced today’s challenges we know what he would do. He would face our domestic problems directly, with leadership and without political calculation.
We would take an honest and tough approach to solving our long-term debt and deficit problem through reforming our entitlement programs and our tax code.
We would confront our unemployment crisis by giving certainty to business about our tax and regulatory future.
We would unleash American entrepreneurship through long-term tax reform, not short- term tax gimmickry.
And we would reform our K-12 education system by applying free market reform principles to education—rewarding outstanding teachers; demanding accountability from everyone in the system; increasing competition through choice and charters; and making the American free public education system once again the envy of the world.
The guiding principle should be simple and powerful—the educational interests of children must always be put ahead of the comfort of the status quo for adults.
The United States must also become more discriminating in what we try to accomplish abroad. We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion. Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home – foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come.
The argument for getting our own house in order is not an argument for turning our back on the world.
We cannot and should not do that. First of all, our economy is dependent on what we export and import. And as we learned the hard way a decade ago, we as a country and a people are vulnerable to terrorists armed with box cutters, bombs, and viruses, be they computer generated or man-made. We need to remain vigilant, and be prepared to act with our friends and allies, to discourage, deter or defend against traditional aggression; to stop the spread of nuclear materials and weapons and the means to deliver them; and to continue to deprive terrorists of the ways, means and opportunity to succeed.
I realize that what I am calling for requires a lot of our elected officials and a lot of our people. I plead guilty. But I also plead guilty to optimism.
Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in what this country and its citizens can accomplish if they understand what is being asked of them and how we all will benefit if they meet the challenge.
There is no doubt in my mind that we, as a country and as a people, are up for the challenge. Our democracy is strong; our economy is the world’s largest. Innovation and risk-taking is in our collective DNA. There is no better place for investment. Above all, we have a demonstrated record as a people and a nation of rising up to meet challenges.
Today, the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves. To not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of accomplishment. To not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths. To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other. We are a better people than that; and we must demand a better nation than that.
The America I speak of is the America Ronald Reagan challenged us to be every day. Frankly, it is the America his leadership helped us to be. Through our conduct, our deeds, our demonstrated principles and our sacrifice for each other and for the greater good of the nation, we became a country emulated throughout the world. Not just because of what we said, but because of what we did both at home and abroad.
If we are to reach real American exceptionalism, American exceptionalism that can set an example for freedom around the world, we must lead with purpose and unity.
In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama gave us a window into his vision for American leadership. He said, “Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of ‘anything goes.’ Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.”
Now, seven years later, President Obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve re- election. This is not a leadership style, this is a re-election strategy. Telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. Trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard. Insisting that we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream. That may turn out to be a good re-election strategy for President Obama, but is a demoralizing message for America. What happened to State Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the “dividers” he spoke of so eloquently in 2004? There is, of course, a different choice.
That choice is the way Ronald Reagan led America in the 1980’s. That approach to leadership is best embodied in the words he spoke to the nation during his farewell address in 1989. He made clear he was not there just marking time. That he was there to make a difference. Then he spoke of the city on the hill and how he had made it stronger. He said, “I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with
people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.”
That is American exceptionalism. Not a punch line in a political speech, but a vision followed by a set of principled actions that made us the envy of the world. Not a re- election strategy, but an American revitalization strategy.
We will be that again, but not until we demand that our leaders stand tall by telling the truth, confronting our shortcomings, celebrating our successes and, once again leading the world because of what we have been able to actually accomplish.
Only when we do that will we finally ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in a second American century. We owe them, as well as ourselves and those who came before us, nothing less.
Thank you again for inviting me—God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.
"Real American Exceptionalism"
Simi Valley, CA
September 27, 2011
Mrs. Reagan, distinguished guests. It is an honor for me to be here at the Reagan Library to speak to you today. I want to thank Mrs. Reagan for her gracious invitation. I am thrilled to be here.
Ronald Reagan believed in this country. He embodied the strength, perseverance and faith that has propelled immigrants for centuries to embark on dangerous journeys to come here, to give up all that was familiar for all that was possible.
He judged that as good as things were and had been for many Americans, they could and would be better for more Americans in the future.
It is this vision for our country that guided his administration over the course of eight years. His commitment to making America stronger, better and more resilient is what allowed him the freedom to challenge conventional wisdom, reach across party lines and dare to put results ahead of political opportunism.
Everybody in this room and in countless other rooms across this great country has his or her favorite Reagan story. For me, that story happened thirty years ago, in August 1981. The air traffic controllers, in violation of their contracts, went on strike.
President Reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refused would be fired. In the end, thousands refused, and thousands were fired.
I cite this incident not as a parable of labor relations but as a parable of principle. Ronald Reagan was a man who said what he meant and meant what he said.
Those who thought he was bluffing were sadly mistaken. Reagan’s demand was not an empty political play; it was leadership, pure and simple.
Reagan said it best himself, “I think it convinced people who might have thought otherwise that I meant what I said. Incidentally, I would have been just as forceful if I thought management had been wrong in the dispute.”
I recall this pivotal moment for another reason as well. Most Americans at the time and since no doubt viewed Reagan’s firm handling of the PATCO strike as a domestic matter, a confrontation between the president and a public sector union. But this misses a critical point.
To quote a phrase from another American moment, the whole world was watching. Thanks to newspapers and television – and increasingly the Internet and social media – what happens here doesn’t stay here.
Another way of saying what I have just described is that Americans do not have the luxury of thinking that what we have long viewed as purely domestic matters have no consequences beyond our borders. To the contrary.
What we say and what we do here at home affects how others see us and in turn affects what it is they say and do.
America’s role and significance in the world is defined, first and foremost, by who we are at home. It is defined by how we conduct ourselves with each other. It is defined by how we deal with our own problems. It is determined in large measure by how we set an example for the world.
We tend to still understand foreign policy as something designed by officials in the State Department and carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. And to some extent it is. But one of the most powerful forms of foreign policy is the example we set.
This is where it is instructive to harken back to Ronald Reagan and the PATCO affair. President Reagan’s willingness to articulate a determined stand and then carry it out at home sent the signal that the occupant of the Oval Office was someone who could be predicted to stand by his friends and stand up to his adversaries.
If President Reagan would do that at home, leaders around the world realized that he would do it abroad as well. Principle would not stop at the water’s edge. The Reagan who challenged Soviet aggression, or who attacked a Libya that supported terror was the same Reagan who stood up years before to PATCO at home for what he believed was right.
All this should and does have meaning for us today. The image of the United States around the world is not what it was, it is not what it can be and it is not what it needs to be. This country pays a price whenever our economy fails to deliver rising living standards to our citizens--which is exactly what has been the case for years now.
We pay a price when our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult but necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending or reform our tax system.
We pay a price when special interests win out over the collective national interest. We are seeing just this in the partisan divide that has so far made it impossible to reduce our staggering deficits and to create an environment in which there is more job creation than job destruction.
This is where the contrast between what has happened in New Jersey and what is happening in Washington, DC is the most clear.
In New Jersey over the last 20 months, you have actually seen divided government that is working. To be clear, it does not mean that we have no argument or acrimony. There are serious disagreements, sometimes expressed loudly—Jersey style.
Here is what we did. We identified the problems. We proposed specific means to fix them. We educated the public on the dire consequences of inaction. And we compromised, on a bi-partisan basis, to get results. We took action.
How so you ask? Leadership and compromise.
Leadership and compromise is the only way you can balance two budgets with over $13 billion in deficits without raising taxes while protecting core services.
Leadership and compromise is the only way you reform New Jersey’s pension and health benefits system that was collectively $121 billion underfunded.
Leadership and compromise is the only way you cap the highest property taxes in the nation and cap the interest arbitration awards of some of the most powerful public sector unions in the nation at no greater than a 2% increase.
In New Jersey we have done this, and more, because the Executive Branch has not sat by and waited for others to go first to suggest solutions to our state’s most difficult problems.
Being a mayor, being a governor, being a president means leading by taking risk on the most important issues of the day. It has happened in Trenton.
In New Jersey we have done this with a legislative branch, held by the opposite party, because it is led by two people who have more often put the interests of our state above the partisan politics of their caucuses.
Our bi-partisan accomplishments in New Jersey have helped to set a tone that has taken hold across many other states. It is a simple but powerful message--lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the depth of our challenges. Tell them the truth about the difficulty of the solutions. This is the only effective way to lead in America during these times.
In Washington, on the other hand, we have watched as we drift from conflict to conflict, with little or no resolution.
We watch a president who once talked about the courage of his convictions, but still has yet to find the courage to lead.
We watch a Congress at war with itself because they are unwilling to leave campaign style politics at the Capitol’s door. The result is a debt ceiling limitation debate that made our democracy appear as if we could no longer effectively govern ourselves.
And still we continue to wait and hope that our president will finally stop being a bystander in the Oval Office. We hope that he will shake off the paralysis that has made it impossible for him to take on the really big things that are obvious to all Americans and to a watching and anxious world community.
Yes, we hope. Because each and every time the president lets a moment to act pass him by, his failure is our failure too. The failure to stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson Bowles Commission, a report the president asked for himself...the failure to act on the country's crushing unemployment ... the failure to act on ever expanding and rapidly eroding entitlement programs...the failure to discern pork barrel spending from real infrastructure investment.
The rule for effective governance is simple. It is one Ronald Reagan knew by heart. And one that he successfully employed with Social Security and the Cold War. When there is a problem, you fix it. That is the job you have been sent to do and you cannot wait for someone else to do it for you.
We pay for this failure of leadership many times over. The domestic price is obvious: growth slows, high levels of unemployment persist, and we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of skittish markets or the political decisions of lenders.
But, there is also a foreign policy price to pay. To begin with, we diminish our ability to influence the thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. There is no better way to persuade other societies around the world to become more democratic and more market- oriented than to show that our democracy and markets work better than any other system.
Why should we care?
We should care because we believe, as President Reagan did, that democracy is the best protector of human dignity and freedom. And we know this because history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against their own people or their neighbors.
We should care because we believe in free and open trade, as exports are the best creators of high-paying jobs here and imports are a means to increase consumer choice and keep prices down.
Around the world -- in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa and Latin America—people are debating their own political and economic futures--right now.
We have a stake in the outcome of their debates. For example, a Middle East that is largely democratic and at peace will be a Middle East that accepts Israel, rejects terrorism, and is a dependable source of energy.
There is no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working.
A lot is being said in this election season about American exceptionalism.
Implicit in such statements is that we are different and, yes, better, in the sense that our democracy, our economy and our people have delivered. But for American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted. If it is demonstrated, it will be seen and appreciated and ultimately emulated by others. They will then be more likely to follow our example and our lead.
At one time in our history, our greatness was a reflection of our country’s innovation, our determination, our ingenuity and the strength of our democratic institutions. When there was a crisis in the world, America found a way to come together to help our allies and fight our enemies. When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the greater public interest first. And in our system, we did it through strong presidential leadership. We did it through Reagan-like leadership.
Unfortunately, through our own domestic political conduct of late, we have failed to live up to our own tradition of exceptionalism. Today, our role and ability to affect change has been diminished because of our own problems and our inability to effectively deal with them.
To understand this clearly, one need only look at comments from the recent meeting of the European finance ministers in Poland. Here is what the Finance Minister of Austria had to say:
“I found it peculiar that, even though the Americans have significantly worse fundamental data than the euro zone, that they tell us what we should do. I had expected that, when [Secretary Geithner] tells us how he sees the world, that he would listen to what we have to say.”
You see, without strong leadership at home—without our domestic house in order—we are taking ourselves out of the equation. Over and over, we are allowing the rest of the world to set the tone without American influence.
I understand full well that succeeding at home, setting an example, is not enough. The United States must be prepared to act. We must be prepared to lead. This takes resources—resources for defense, for intelligence, for homeland security, for diplomacy. The United States will only be able to sustain a leadership position around the world if the resources are there—but the necessary resources will only be there if the foundations of the American economy are healthy. So our economic health is a national security issue as well.
Without the authority that comes from that exceptionalism—earned American exceptionalism—we cannot do good for other countries, we cannot continue to be a beacon of hope for the world to aspire to for their future generations.
If Ronald Reagan faced today’s challenges we know what he would do. He would face our domestic problems directly, with leadership and without political calculation.
We would take an honest and tough approach to solving our long-term debt and deficit problem through reforming our entitlement programs and our tax code.
We would confront our unemployment crisis by giving certainty to business about our tax and regulatory future.
We would unleash American entrepreneurship through long-term tax reform, not short- term tax gimmickry.
And we would reform our K-12 education system by applying free market reform principles to education—rewarding outstanding teachers; demanding accountability from everyone in the system; increasing competition through choice and charters; and making the American free public education system once again the envy of the world.
The guiding principle should be simple and powerful—the educational interests of children must always be put ahead of the comfort of the status quo for adults.
The United States must also become more discriminating in what we try to accomplish abroad. We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion. Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home – foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come.
The argument for getting our own house in order is not an argument for turning our back on the world.
We cannot and should not do that. First of all, our economy is dependent on what we export and import. And as we learned the hard way a decade ago, we as a country and a people are vulnerable to terrorists armed with box cutters, bombs, and viruses, be they computer generated or man-made. We need to remain vigilant, and be prepared to act with our friends and allies, to discourage, deter or defend against traditional aggression; to stop the spread of nuclear materials and weapons and the means to deliver them; and to continue to deprive terrorists of the ways, means and opportunity to succeed.
I realize that what I am calling for requires a lot of our elected officials and a lot of our people. I plead guilty. But I also plead guilty to optimism.
Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in what this country and its citizens can accomplish if they understand what is being asked of them and how we all will benefit if they meet the challenge.
There is no doubt in my mind that we, as a country and as a people, are up for the challenge. Our democracy is strong; our economy is the world’s largest. Innovation and risk-taking is in our collective DNA. There is no better place for investment. Above all, we have a demonstrated record as a people and a nation of rising up to meet challenges.
Today, the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves. To not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of accomplishment. To not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths. To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other. We are a better people than that; and we must demand a better nation than that.
The America I speak of is the America Ronald Reagan challenged us to be every day. Frankly, it is the America his leadership helped us to be. Through our conduct, our deeds, our demonstrated principles and our sacrifice for each other and for the greater good of the nation, we became a country emulated throughout the world. Not just because of what we said, but because of what we did both at home and abroad.
If we are to reach real American exceptionalism, American exceptionalism that can set an example for freedom around the world, we must lead with purpose and unity.
In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama gave us a window into his vision for American leadership. He said, “Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of ‘anything goes.’ Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.”
Now, seven years later, President Obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve re- election. This is not a leadership style, this is a re-election strategy. Telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. Trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard. Insisting that we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream. That may turn out to be a good re-election strategy for President Obama, but is a demoralizing message for America. What happened to State Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the “dividers” he spoke of so eloquently in 2004? There is, of course, a different choice.
That choice is the way Ronald Reagan led America in the 1980’s. That approach to leadership is best embodied in the words he spoke to the nation during his farewell address in 1989. He made clear he was not there just marking time. That he was there to make a difference. Then he spoke of the city on the hill and how he had made it stronger. He said, “I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with
people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.”
That is American exceptionalism. Not a punch line in a political speech, but a vision followed by a set of principled actions that made us the envy of the world. Not a re- election strategy, but an American revitalization strategy.
We will be that again, but not until we demand that our leaders stand tall by telling the truth, confronting our shortcomings, celebrating our successes and, once again leading the world because of what we have been able to actually accomplish.
Only when we do that will we finally ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in a second American century. We owe them, as well as ourselves and those who came before us, nothing less.
Thank you again for inviting me—God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.
Market Will Crash: Be Prepared
An Independent Trader Speaks The Truth
View the Article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/bbc-victim-hoax-no-yes-men-154724196.html
View the Article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/bbc-victim-hoax-no-yes-men-154724196.html
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Muslims Rally Against Extremism
U.K. Muslims Hold Rally Against Extremism
Published September 24, 2011 | Associated Press
Islamic scholar Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri addresses the audience during an Islamic peace conference at Wembley Arena in London, Saturday, Sept. 24.
LONDON -- Thousands of Muslims held a rally in London on Saturday to fight extremism and promote a moderate, inclusive version of Islam.
The event in Wembley arena was led by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a respected Pakistan-born Islamic scholar, who gained recognition outside the Muslim world after he published a detailed fatwa -- or religious ruling -- against terrorism and suicide bombings last year.
"I want to address those who are lost, who have a total misconception of jihad -- I want to send them a message -- come back to normal life. Whatever you're doing is totally against Islam," he told the audience, which included families with young children and students.
Some Islamic scholars, including Tahir-ul-Qadri, have warned that a power vacuum in North Africa and the Middle East could lead to militant and extremist groups gaining ground in upcoming elections caused by the so-called Arab Spring.
"If these elements come into power, it will be a big disaster," Tahir-ul-Qadri told The Associated Press.
He said his message is primarily aimed at people who are on the edge of being radicalized -- not those who had already been "brainwashed."
Tahir-ul-Qadri's organization, Minhaj-ul-Quran International, said the event was attended by some 12,000 people and was broadcast to several countries.
Members of the audience told the AP there is no easy way to persuade terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to give up violence.
"People are looking for a cause, and the path of violence is the easiest one to take," said Memoona Naushahi, a 20-year-old university student from Bradford in northern England. The message of the conference "may reach only people who want to hear it," she added.
But Naushahi and others participants said that promoting a uniting voice such as Tahir-ul-Qadri's is a step in the right direction and can spread the right message.
Britain has been involved in some large international terror plots. On July 7, 2005, four suicide bombers killed 52 people in synchronized attacks on London's subway system.
The men behind the 2006 trans-Atlantic liquid bomb plot began their plan in Britain. A Nigerian man who tried to smuggle explosives onto a plane in his underwear studied in London.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/24/uk-muslims-hold-rally-against-extremism/?test=latestnews#ixzz1Yy6wwEJV
Published September 24, 2011 | Associated Press
Islamic scholar Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri addresses the audience during an Islamic peace conference at Wembley Arena in London, Saturday, Sept. 24.
LONDON -- Thousands of Muslims held a rally in London on Saturday to fight extremism and promote a moderate, inclusive version of Islam.
The event in Wembley arena was led by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a respected Pakistan-born Islamic scholar, who gained recognition outside the Muslim world after he published a detailed fatwa -- or religious ruling -- against terrorism and suicide bombings last year.
"I want to address those who are lost, who have a total misconception of jihad -- I want to send them a message -- come back to normal life. Whatever you're doing is totally against Islam," he told the audience, which included families with young children and students.
Some Islamic scholars, including Tahir-ul-Qadri, have warned that a power vacuum in North Africa and the Middle East could lead to militant and extremist groups gaining ground in upcoming elections caused by the so-called Arab Spring.
"If these elements come into power, it will be a big disaster," Tahir-ul-Qadri told The Associated Press.
He said his message is primarily aimed at people who are on the edge of being radicalized -- not those who had already been "brainwashed."
Tahir-ul-Qadri's organization, Minhaj-ul-Quran International, said the event was attended by some 12,000 people and was broadcast to several countries.
Members of the audience told the AP there is no easy way to persuade terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to give up violence.
"People are looking for a cause, and the path of violence is the easiest one to take," said Memoona Naushahi, a 20-year-old university student from Bradford in northern England. The message of the conference "may reach only people who want to hear it," she added.
But Naushahi and others participants said that promoting a uniting voice such as Tahir-ul-Qadri's is a step in the right direction and can spread the right message.
Britain has been involved in some large international terror plots. On July 7, 2005, four suicide bombers killed 52 people in synchronized attacks on London's subway system.
The men behind the 2006 trans-Atlantic liquid bomb plot began their plan in Britain. A Nigerian man who tried to smuggle explosives onto a plane in his underwear studied in London.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/24/uk-muslims-hold-rally-against-extremism/?test=latestnews#ixzz1Yy6wwEJV
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Tarek Fatah
Muslim Brotherhood In The Whitehouse
Watch live streaming video from ideacity at livestream.com
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
35 Bodies Dumped In Mexico
35 Bodies Dumped into Rush Hour Traffic on Mexican Avenue
Published September 21, 2011| Fox News Latino
Motorists stuck in heavy traffic during rush hour in a Mexican Gulf coast city watched in horror as suspected drug traffickers drove two trucks to a main avenue and dumped 35 dead bodies as gunmen stood guard and pointed their weapons.
The gruesome scene Tuesday in the downtown of Boca del Rio was the latest escalation in drug violence in Veracruz state, which sits on an important route for drugs and Central American migrants heading north.
The Zetas drug cartel has been locked in a bloody war with drug gangs for control of the state.
Veracruz state Attorney General Reynaldo Escobar Perez said the bodies were left piled in two trucks and on the ground at an underpass near the city's biggest shopping mall and its statue of the Voladores de Papantla — ritual dancers from Veracruz state.
Police had identified seven of the victims so far and all had criminal records for murder, drug dealing, kidnapping and extortion and were linked to organized crime, Escobar said. He didn't say to what group the victims belonged.
Motorists caught in the horrifying scene Tuesday afternoon posted warnings on Twitter that masked gunmen in military uniforms were blocking Manuel Avila Camacho Boulevard and pointing their guns at civilians.
"They don't seem to be soldiers or police," one tweet read. Another said, "Don't go through that area, there is danger."
Escobar said police were reviewing surveillance video recorded in the area.
Local media said that 12 of the victims were women and that some of the dead men had been among prisoners who escaped from three Veracruz prisons on Monday, but Escobar said he couldn't confirm that.
At least 32 inmates got away from the three Veracruz prisons. Police recaptured 14 of them.
Earlier Tuesday, the Mexican army announced it had captured a key figure in the cult-like Knights Templar drug cartel that is sowing violence in western Mexico.
Saul Solis Solis, 49, a former police chief and one-time congressional candidate, was captured without incident Monday in the cartel's home state of Michoacan, Brig. Gen. Edgar Luis Villegas said during a presentation of Solis to the media.
Solis is considered one of the principal lieutenants in the Knights Templar, which split late last year from La Familia, a pseudo-religious drug gang known as a major trafficker of methamphetamine.
Drug violence has claimed more than 35,000 lives across Mexico since 2006, according to government figures. Others put the number at more than 40,000.
In northern Mexico, the army announced the detention of two more suspects in a casino fire that killed 52 people last month in the northern city of Monterrey.
The two men captured at a bar in Monterrey late Monday confessed to being members of the Zetas drug cartel and participating in the attack, federal prosecutors said.
Based on reporting by the Associated Press.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/09/21/mexico-gunmen-dump-35-bodies-on-avenue/#ixzz1Yc4s5lQD
Published September 21, 2011| Fox News Latino
Motorists stuck in heavy traffic during rush hour in a Mexican Gulf coast city watched in horror as suspected drug traffickers drove two trucks to a main avenue and dumped 35 dead bodies as gunmen stood guard and pointed their weapons.
The gruesome scene Tuesday in the downtown of Boca del Rio was the latest escalation in drug violence in Veracruz state, which sits on an important route for drugs and Central American migrants heading north.
The Zetas drug cartel has been locked in a bloody war with drug gangs for control of the state.
Veracruz state Attorney General Reynaldo Escobar Perez said the bodies were left piled in two trucks and on the ground at an underpass near the city's biggest shopping mall and its statue of the Voladores de Papantla — ritual dancers from Veracruz state.
Police had identified seven of the victims so far and all had criminal records for murder, drug dealing, kidnapping and extortion and were linked to organized crime, Escobar said. He didn't say to what group the victims belonged.
Motorists caught in the horrifying scene Tuesday afternoon posted warnings on Twitter that masked gunmen in military uniforms were blocking Manuel Avila Camacho Boulevard and pointing their guns at civilians.
"They don't seem to be soldiers or police," one tweet read. Another said, "Don't go through that area, there is danger."
Escobar said police were reviewing surveillance video recorded in the area.
Local media said that 12 of the victims were women and that some of the dead men had been among prisoners who escaped from three Veracruz prisons on Monday, but Escobar said he couldn't confirm that.
At least 32 inmates got away from the three Veracruz prisons. Police recaptured 14 of them.
Earlier Tuesday, the Mexican army announced it had captured a key figure in the cult-like Knights Templar drug cartel that is sowing violence in western Mexico.
Saul Solis Solis, 49, a former police chief and one-time congressional candidate, was captured without incident Monday in the cartel's home state of Michoacan, Brig. Gen. Edgar Luis Villegas said during a presentation of Solis to the media.
Solis is considered one of the principal lieutenants in the Knights Templar, which split late last year from La Familia, a pseudo-religious drug gang known as a major trafficker of methamphetamine.
Drug violence has claimed more than 35,000 lives across Mexico since 2006, according to government figures. Others put the number at more than 40,000.
In northern Mexico, the army announced the detention of two more suspects in a casino fire that killed 52 people last month in the northern city of Monterrey.
The two men captured at a bar in Monterrey late Monday confessed to being members of the Zetas drug cartel and participating in the attack, federal prosecutors said.
Based on reporting by the Associated Press.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/09/21/mexico-gunmen-dump-35-bodies-on-avenue/#ixzz1Yc4s5lQD
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Stupid In America
Opinion
Stupid In America
By John Stossel
Published September 16, 2011| FoxNews.com
School spending has gone through the roof and test scores are flat.
While most every other service in life has gotten faster, better, and cheaper, one of the most important things we buy -- education -- has remained completely stagnant, unchanged since we started measuring it in 1970.
Why no improvement?
Because K-12 education is a government monopoly and monopolies don't improve.
The government-school monopoly claims: Education is too important to leave to the free market. At a teachers' union rally, even actor Matt Damon showed up to deride market competition as "MBA style thinking."
"Competition may be okay for selling movies and cell phones, but education is different," says the establishment. Learning is complex. Parents aren't real "customers" because they don't have the expertise to know which school is best. They don't know enough about curricula, teachers' credentials, etc. That's why public education must be centrally planned by government "experts".
Those experts have been in charge for years. They are what school reformers call the "Blob." Jeanne Allen from the Center for Education Reform says for years attempts at reform have run, "smack into federations, alliances, departments, councils, boards, commissions, panels, herds, flocks and convoys, that make up the education industrial complex, or the Blob.
Taken individually they were frustrating enough, each with its own bureaucracy, but taken as a whole they were (and are) maddening in their resistance to change. Not really a wall -- they always talk about change -- but more like quicksand, or a tar pit where ideas slowly sink.
And the most powerful part of the Blob is the teachers' union.
This Saturday, I interview Nathan Saunders, the President of the Washington, D.C. Teachers' Union, and Joseph Del Grosso, President of the Newark Teachers' Union. They say things like, "the unions have a pretty strong history of advocating for high-quality public education... We have progress as a result of unions."
Their predecessors were more candid. When the Washington Post asked George Parker, when he headed the Washington, D.C. teachers union, why he fought a voucher program that let some kids escape failing government schools, he said, "As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."
Albert Shanker, the teachers' union president who, years ago, first turned teachers unions into a national political force, was even more honest. Shanker callously said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
Union leaders first. Teachers second. Kids third. Or maybe fourth or fifth, after the school board, the principal's union, or some other part of the Blob.
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. His special "Stupid In Amerca" airs Saturday at 10 p.m. ET and 10 p.m. PT. "Stossel" airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. and midnight ET. It re-airs Fridays at 10 p.m., Saturdays at 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, and Sundays at 10 p.m. (all times eastern). He's also the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/16/stupid-in-america/#ixzz1YE7Cx0QR
Stupid In America
By John Stossel
Published September 16, 2011| FoxNews.com
School spending has gone through the roof and test scores are flat.
While most every other service in life has gotten faster, better, and cheaper, one of the most important things we buy -- education -- has remained completely stagnant, unchanged since we started measuring it in 1970.
Why no improvement?
Because K-12 education is a government monopoly and monopolies don't improve.
The government-school monopoly claims: Education is too important to leave to the free market. At a teachers' union rally, even actor Matt Damon showed up to deride market competition as "MBA style thinking."
"Competition may be okay for selling movies and cell phones, but education is different," says the establishment. Learning is complex. Parents aren't real "customers" because they don't have the expertise to know which school is best. They don't know enough about curricula, teachers' credentials, etc. That's why public education must be centrally planned by government "experts".
Those experts have been in charge for years. They are what school reformers call the "Blob." Jeanne Allen from the Center for Education Reform says for years attempts at reform have run, "smack into federations, alliances, departments, councils, boards, commissions, panels, herds, flocks and convoys, that make up the education industrial complex, or the Blob.
Taken individually they were frustrating enough, each with its own bureaucracy, but taken as a whole they were (and are) maddening in their resistance to change. Not really a wall -- they always talk about change -- but more like quicksand, or a tar pit where ideas slowly sink.
And the most powerful part of the Blob is the teachers' union.
This Saturday, I interview Nathan Saunders, the President of the Washington, D.C. Teachers' Union, and Joseph Del Grosso, President of the Newark Teachers' Union. They say things like, "the unions have a pretty strong history of advocating for high-quality public education... We have progress as a result of unions."
Their predecessors were more candid. When the Washington Post asked George Parker, when he headed the Washington, D.C. teachers union, why he fought a voucher program that let some kids escape failing government schools, he said, "As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."
Albert Shanker, the teachers' union president who, years ago, first turned teachers unions into a national political force, was even more honest. Shanker callously said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
Union leaders first. Teachers second. Kids third. Or maybe fourth or fifth, after the school board, the principal's union, or some other part of the Blob.
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. His special "Stupid In Amerca" airs Saturday at 10 p.m. ET and 10 p.m. PT. "Stossel" airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. and midnight ET. It re-airs Fridays at 10 p.m., Saturdays at 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, and Sundays at 10 p.m. (all times eastern). He's also the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/16/stupid-in-america/#ixzz1YE7Cx0QR
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Global Warming Controversy
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
Published September 14, 2011| FoxNews.com
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.
A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.
Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y2I9CIN9
Note: It is my opinion as well as others that the so-called global warming issue has been created specifically to extract money from corporations and citizens through the sale of 'carbon credits' thanks to the greed of a minority including former president, Al Gore
Published September 14, 2011| FoxNews.com
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.
A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.
Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y2I9CIN9
Note: It is my opinion as well as others that the so-called global warming issue has been created specifically to extract money from corporations and citizens through the sale of 'carbon credits' thanks to the greed of a minority including former president, Al Gore
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Islamophobia
John Esposito’s Deceptions on ‘Islamophobia’
Posted By Hasan Mahmud On August 22, 2011
In most cases, a patient won’t even realize, let alone resist, when a doctor betrays him.
I am a Muslim. I believe that accepting our (Muslims’) share in creating “Islamophobia” in the West will help eliminate it. Dr. John Esposito’s recent article in the Huffington Post, “Islamophobia: A threat to American Values?” puts the entire blame on Western “media commentators, hard-line Christian Zionists and politicians.” He even neglects to mention the huge contribution Muslim societies have had on the issue. Esposito ignores that in our global village the West is regularly flooded by violence coming from Muslim societies; violence which is perpetrated in the name of Islam while citing Quranic verses and the Prophet’s examples. The list is long. Here are some examples:
1. A Sharia court stoned to death a gang-raped girl, who was a minor at the time.
2. A Sharia court flogged another girl to death for having an affair.
3. Punishing raped girls/women by Sharia courts is continuing.
4. Wife-beating is openly preached.
5. Child-marriage is openly preached.
6. “No rape in marriage” is openly preached.
7. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is supported by many clergics including some of Al Azhar University.
8. Women are instantly divorced – there is no maintenance in such cases.
9. A woman appealed to a Sharia court to order her husband to beat her not every day but once a week.
10. Sharia-police (Hisba) are invading people’s lives.
11. The persecution of Muslims with different ideas is reaching a frightening level.
12. Non-Muslims are arrested for carrying their holy books.
13. The persecution of non-Muslims is continuous and reaching a disturbing level.
14. Hate preaching against non-Muslims in media is common.
15. Indoctrination of children with such hate is open and alarming.
16. School syllabi are full of hatred directed at “The Other.”
17. Non-Muslim places of worship are destroyed regularly.
18. Lying and deceiving are supported.
19. Civil rights are violently suppressed by “Islamic” governments — often by hanging.
With such phenomena and experience, what else does Dr. Esposito expect from the West except “Islamophobia”? He also blames the West for resisting the Ground Zero Mosque. I wish he knew how many Muslims around the world are opposed to the proposed Islamic center, not because we don’t want mosques, but because before its construction, the notion of the center created “fitna” (division) and violently divided the whole nation.
Esposito is also utterly wrong to state: “Today, opposition to mosque construction with claims that all mosques are ‘monuments to terrorism’ and ‘house embedded cells’ in locations from NYC and Staten Island, to Tennessee and California, has become not just a local but a national political issue.” I wish he knew that only last month a new mosque, Baitul Gaffar, was constructed in New York without a shadow of resistance, or how many euros European governments are pouring into the construct of new mosques. By the way, women were barred from attending the opening ceremony of Baitul Gaffar (House of Creator) in New York.
Throughout his article, Esposito, a respected scholar, uses mini-exceptions as general examples. Despite overwhelming support for Muslims among politicians, he cites a few bad apples. For instance, Esposito says, “Politicians use fear of Islam as a political football.” He also states that “Justice Kagan is being accused of being ‘Justice Sharia.’” Accused? Knowing about widespread violence sanctioned by Sharia law, as the dean of Harvard Law School, Justice Kagan tried “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law” with the blessing of Saudi money. If such a person is not “Justice Sharia,” who is? Aren’t there Islamists trying to establish Sharia courts in the USA? Yes, the blueprint of American Sharia courts was created as early as 1993 by TAM, The American Muslims. Plus, who is breeding the home grown terrorists? Are they Western media commentators, hard-line Christian Zionists and politicians?
I wish Esposito mentioned the hate-tsunami against Jews and the West that roars in the media and throughout the pulpits of the Muslim world, constantly in Himalayan magnitude. One cartoon against our Prophet (SA) caused chaos to break loose, but during my long years in the Middle East, I saw many dozens of worse cartoons in the media about Jews and their holy book. No government contained that, nor was there a sane Muslim voice against these cartoons.
Esposito also states that “all Muslims have been reduced to stereotypes of Islam against the West, Islam’s war with modernity, and Muslim rage, extremism, fanaticism, and terrorism” and “all leaders of that [American] society look at all Muslims with suspicion and prejudice.” These are hyperbolic overstatements. I am a Muslim; I live in Canada and often travel to the US – there is a general sense of concern, but in general, Muslims are doing well, living well and are treated well. The overwhelming support and protection of Muslims by common North Americans and churches after 9/11 is on record, but is sadly overlooked.
Yes, “We all [governments, policymakers, the media, educational institutions, religious and corporate leaders] have a critical role to play in countering the voices of hate, the exclusionary theologies and ideologies.” Esposito should give the same advice to the leaders of Muslims world.
Once again, in our global village, the West is continuously bombarded by the news of serious violence from the Muslim world against women, non-Muslims and Muslims of different Islamic ideas, in the name of Islam.
This is the main reason for “Islamophobia” — and a logical one.
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/22/john-espositos-deceptions-on-islamophobia/
Posted By Hasan Mahmud On August 22, 2011
In most cases, a patient won’t even realize, let alone resist, when a doctor betrays him.
I am a Muslim. I believe that accepting our (Muslims’) share in creating “Islamophobia” in the West will help eliminate it. Dr. John Esposito’s recent article in the Huffington Post, “Islamophobia: A threat to American Values?” puts the entire blame on Western “media commentators, hard-line Christian Zionists and politicians.” He even neglects to mention the huge contribution Muslim societies have had on the issue. Esposito ignores that in our global village the West is regularly flooded by violence coming from Muslim societies; violence which is perpetrated in the name of Islam while citing Quranic verses and the Prophet’s examples. The list is long. Here are some examples:
1. A Sharia court stoned to death a gang-raped girl, who was a minor at the time.
2. A Sharia court flogged another girl to death for having an affair.
3. Punishing raped girls/women by Sharia courts is continuing.
4. Wife-beating is openly preached.
5. Child-marriage is openly preached.
6. “No rape in marriage” is openly preached.
7. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is supported by many clergics including some of Al Azhar University.
8. Women are instantly divorced – there is no maintenance in such cases.
9. A woman appealed to a Sharia court to order her husband to beat her not every day but once a week.
10. Sharia-police (Hisba) are invading people’s lives.
11. The persecution of Muslims with different ideas is reaching a frightening level.
12. Non-Muslims are arrested for carrying their holy books.
13. The persecution of non-Muslims is continuous and reaching a disturbing level.
14. Hate preaching against non-Muslims in media is common.
15. Indoctrination of children with such hate is open and alarming.
16. School syllabi are full of hatred directed at “The Other.”
17. Non-Muslim places of worship are destroyed regularly.
18. Lying and deceiving are supported.
19. Civil rights are violently suppressed by “Islamic” governments — often by hanging.
With such phenomena and experience, what else does Dr. Esposito expect from the West except “Islamophobia”? He also blames the West for resisting the Ground Zero Mosque. I wish he knew how many Muslims around the world are opposed to the proposed Islamic center, not because we don’t want mosques, but because before its construction, the notion of the center created “fitna” (division) and violently divided the whole nation.
Esposito is also utterly wrong to state: “Today, opposition to mosque construction with claims that all mosques are ‘monuments to terrorism’ and ‘house embedded cells’ in locations from NYC and Staten Island, to Tennessee and California, has become not just a local but a national political issue.” I wish he knew that only last month a new mosque, Baitul Gaffar, was constructed in New York without a shadow of resistance, or how many euros European governments are pouring into the construct of new mosques. By the way, women were barred from attending the opening ceremony of Baitul Gaffar (House of Creator) in New York.
Throughout his article, Esposito, a respected scholar, uses mini-exceptions as general examples. Despite overwhelming support for Muslims among politicians, he cites a few bad apples. For instance, Esposito says, “Politicians use fear of Islam as a political football.” He also states that “Justice Kagan is being accused of being ‘Justice Sharia.’” Accused? Knowing about widespread violence sanctioned by Sharia law, as the dean of Harvard Law School, Justice Kagan tried “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law” with the blessing of Saudi money. If such a person is not “Justice Sharia,” who is? Aren’t there Islamists trying to establish Sharia courts in the USA? Yes, the blueprint of American Sharia courts was created as early as 1993 by TAM, The American Muslims. Plus, who is breeding the home grown terrorists? Are they Western media commentators, hard-line Christian Zionists and politicians?
I wish Esposito mentioned the hate-tsunami against Jews and the West that roars in the media and throughout the pulpits of the Muslim world, constantly in Himalayan magnitude. One cartoon against our Prophet (SA) caused chaos to break loose, but during my long years in the Middle East, I saw many dozens of worse cartoons in the media about Jews and their holy book. No government contained that, nor was there a sane Muslim voice against these cartoons.
Esposito also states that “all Muslims have been reduced to stereotypes of Islam against the West, Islam’s war with modernity, and Muslim rage, extremism, fanaticism, and terrorism” and “all leaders of that [American] society look at all Muslims with suspicion and prejudice.” These are hyperbolic overstatements. I am a Muslim; I live in Canada and often travel to the US – there is a general sense of concern, but in general, Muslims are doing well, living well and are treated well. The overwhelming support and protection of Muslims by common North Americans and churches after 9/11 is on record, but is sadly overlooked.
Yes, “We all [governments, policymakers, the media, educational institutions, religious and corporate leaders] have a critical role to play in countering the voices of hate, the exclusionary theologies and ideologies.” Esposito should give the same advice to the leaders of Muslims world.
Once again, in our global village, the West is continuously bombarded by the news of serious violence from the Muslim world against women, non-Muslims and Muslims of different Islamic ideas, in the name of Islam.
This is the main reason for “Islamophobia” — and a logical one.
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/22/john-espositos-deceptions-on-islamophobia/
Friday, September 09, 2011
Obama's Uncle Released
OBAMA'S UNCLE QUIETLY RELEASED FROM JAIL
Officials released President Obama's uncle from Plymouth County, Massachusetts jail yesterday after holding him for more than two weeks on an immigration detainer for violating a deportation order for his return to Kenya in 1992.
US officials refused to disclose any other information about Onyango "Uncle Omar" Obama.
Barack Obama's Uncle Omar was arrested on drunk driving charges after he nearly plowed into a police car while failing to stop at an intersection and failed the breathalyzer test by nearly double the legal limit.
Federal immigration officials continue to refuse to say whether Uncle Omar posted bond, whether they are keeping track of his whereabouts, or even whether they are still seeking his deportation.
With Obama at the helm leading America to its destruction by granting backdoor Amnesty and ignoring the will of the American people we need your help to HOLD WASHINGTON ACCOUNTABLE.
Following his arrest, Uncle Omar was asked if he would like to make a phone call.
Reportedly, he said, “I think I will call the White House.”
The White House is still hiding behind the excuse that campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama did not know about this SECOND relative living in the United States illegally.
The White House also claimed that Barack Obama did not expect his uncle to receive special treatment...
However, the secrecy surrounding Uncle Omar's arrest and hush-hush release from jail suggests the Obama Administration is already hard at work protecting yet another illegal immigrant from justice.
Officials released President Obama's uncle from Plymouth County, Massachusetts jail yesterday after holding him for more than two weeks on an immigration detainer for violating a deportation order for his return to Kenya in 1992.
US officials refused to disclose any other information about Onyango "Uncle Omar" Obama.
Barack Obama's Uncle Omar was arrested on drunk driving charges after he nearly plowed into a police car while failing to stop at an intersection and failed the breathalyzer test by nearly double the legal limit.
Federal immigration officials continue to refuse to say whether Uncle Omar posted bond, whether they are keeping track of his whereabouts, or even whether they are still seeking his deportation.
With Obama at the helm leading America to its destruction by granting backdoor Amnesty and ignoring the will of the American people we need your help to HOLD WASHINGTON ACCOUNTABLE.
Following his arrest, Uncle Omar was asked if he would like to make a phone call.
Reportedly, he said, “I think I will call the White House.”
The White House is still hiding behind the excuse that campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama did not know about this SECOND relative living in the United States illegally.
The White House also claimed that Barack Obama did not expect his uncle to receive special treatment...
However, the secrecy surrounding Uncle Omar's arrest and hush-hush release from jail suggests the Obama Administration is already hard at work protecting yet another illegal immigrant from justice.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
TSA Rape Part II
September 7, 2011
TSA Searches: "Obedience Training For The American Public"
That's how Zahir Ebrahim, of Project Humanbeingsfirst.com, rightly termed the TSA searches -- in his comment on the blog item that led to TSA agent Thedala Magee's demands of me.
Magee is looking for me to pay her $500K, apologize to her, and take down my blog item about her -- because I had the nerve to exercise my First Amendment rights and complain after she jammed her hand sideways into my vagina four times. (Unfortunately for Ms. Magee, I've always made a pretty crappy victim.)
What the TSA searches themselves say about where we're going as a country is the larger issue here, and one I'll be home writing about all day today (I'm doing on op-ed as step two of this. It's not only an explanation of what went on, but a call to action.)
I grew up reading books about Russia and thinking how great it was that no authority figure in America ever demanded our "papers" without reasonable suspicion that we've committed a crime. This is no more the case, and that is tragic and terrible.
I have the Cato Institute copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on my phone and read them often. I see that the Fourth Amendment guards us against unreasonable and warrantless search, but that is exactly what millions of Americans are being put through daily, sans probable cause.
Our country was started by people who were fiercely opposed to blind obedience to authority. Oh, how disappointingly -- and dangerously -- far we've fallen.
In recent years, there's been an overreach of government into many areas of our lives -- telling us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use, and the lady in Oak Park, Michigan who faced 93 days in jail for growing vegetables where her front lawn was "supposed" to be.
Encroachments like the light bulb mandate may seem minor compared to the vile TSA searches in the name of "security," but they are part and parcel of the whole.
Every time we relax and allow Big Government to rule us a little more, every time we let one more Constitutional right be taken from us without so much as a peep, it makes it that much easier to take the next one and the next one, until we wake up one day and wonder how we ended up living in a police state.
...
And finally, thank you to everyone expressing support for me here, by email, and on other websites.
It's been a tough few months (it's scary to possibly be on the hook for the rest of my life to support this woman when I was the one victimized here).
But, I was lucky in that I have an absolutely wonderful guy behind me -- First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, who took my case pro bono, and who just asked that I pay any costs (which he said he'd try to keep really low, and which, at this point are maybe just postage. As in, a 44-cent stamp!).
I don't like to not pay people for their work. When I told him I was sorry that, well, this wasn't exactly the golden age of newspapers (or book-authoring), he told me, "Some cases are too important to need to get paid for." I wanted to hug him through the phone.
Marc and two of his associates (Jason A. Fischer and J. Malcolm Devoy) have put in a substantial amount of work on this, and he, himself, personally challenges the "officers," verbally and otherwise when he goes through these checkpoints.
My absolute favorite thing he does when he gets a patdown is stick out his middle finger on each hand. It's his way of showing these people -- people earning a living violating our rights -- the respect they deserve.
I hope some of you will follow his lead, and mine, and those of others who've spoken out. If there's any message here, it's this: Don't go quietly as they yank away your rights.
UPDATE: Even though Marc and his associates are being gracious with their time, there is a bill, and somebody (who understands that legal fees are hundreds of dollars an hour, and that they've spent many hours) just asked if he could donate, which is wonderful.
If you wish to contribute to my legal defense fund, please mail checks to:
Randazza Legal Group
PO Box 5516
Gloucester, MA 01930
Note on memo line, Alkon LDF
TSA Searches: "Obedience Training For The American Public"
That's how Zahir Ebrahim, of Project Humanbeingsfirst.com, rightly termed the TSA searches -- in his comment on the blog item that led to TSA agent Thedala Magee's demands of me.
Magee is looking for me to pay her $500K, apologize to her, and take down my blog item about her -- because I had the nerve to exercise my First Amendment rights and complain after she jammed her hand sideways into my vagina four times. (Unfortunately for Ms. Magee, I've always made a pretty crappy victim.)
What the TSA searches themselves say about where we're going as a country is the larger issue here, and one I'll be home writing about all day today (I'm doing on op-ed as step two of this. It's not only an explanation of what went on, but a call to action.)
I grew up reading books about Russia and thinking how great it was that no authority figure in America ever demanded our "papers" without reasonable suspicion that we've committed a crime. This is no more the case, and that is tragic and terrible.
I have the Cato Institute copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on my phone and read them often. I see that the Fourth Amendment guards us against unreasonable and warrantless search, but that is exactly what millions of Americans are being put through daily, sans probable cause.
Our country was started by people who were fiercely opposed to blind obedience to authority. Oh, how disappointingly -- and dangerously -- far we've fallen.
In recent years, there's been an overreach of government into many areas of our lives -- telling us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use, and the lady in Oak Park, Michigan who faced 93 days in jail for growing vegetables where her front lawn was "supposed" to be.
Encroachments like the light bulb mandate may seem minor compared to the vile TSA searches in the name of "security," but they are part and parcel of the whole.
Every time we relax and allow Big Government to rule us a little more, every time we let one more Constitutional right be taken from us without so much as a peep, it makes it that much easier to take the next one and the next one, until we wake up one day and wonder how we ended up living in a police state.
...
And finally, thank you to everyone expressing support for me here, by email, and on other websites.
It's been a tough few months (it's scary to possibly be on the hook for the rest of my life to support this woman when I was the one victimized here).
But, I was lucky in that I have an absolutely wonderful guy behind me -- First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, who took my case pro bono, and who just asked that I pay any costs (which he said he'd try to keep really low, and which, at this point are maybe just postage. As in, a 44-cent stamp!).
I don't like to not pay people for their work. When I told him I was sorry that, well, this wasn't exactly the golden age of newspapers (or book-authoring), he told me, "Some cases are too important to need to get paid for." I wanted to hug him through the phone.
Marc and two of his associates (Jason A. Fischer and J. Malcolm Devoy) have put in a substantial amount of work on this, and he, himself, personally challenges the "officers," verbally and otherwise when he goes through these checkpoints.
My absolute favorite thing he does when he gets a patdown is stick out his middle finger on each hand. It's his way of showing these people -- people earning a living violating our rights -- the respect they deserve.
I hope some of you will follow his lead, and mine, and those of others who've spoken out. If there's any message here, it's this: Don't go quietly as they yank away your rights.
UPDATE: Even though Marc and his associates are being gracious with their time, there is a bill, and somebody (who understands that legal fees are hundreds of dollars an hour, and that they've spent many hours) just asked if he could donate, which is wonderful.
If you wish to contribute to my legal defense fund, please mail checks to:
Randazza Legal Group
PO Box 5516
Gloucester, MA 01930
Note on memo line, Alkon LDF
TSA Rape?
Thursday, September 08, 2011
First Amendment rights on the internet at the heart of this case
As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, many will take the time to not only reflect upon the day itself, but also the decade following the WTC attacks. American life has changed dramatically since that day, but it's not always easy to cite tangible examples of how it has changed.
But sometimes it is. And the TSA is one entity that has gained quite a bit of attention since then. As airports have continued to implement stronger safety measures over the last decade, many have put the Transportation Security Administration into the crosshairs, railing against random searches and pat-downs - which they say violate some of their basic human rights. One thing on which we can all agree - getting patted down in an airport isn't a whole lot of fun.
What is the limit of free speech on the internet? In a situation where no facts have been entered into the legal record, should someone be able to make accusations in a blog post? Let us know in the comments.
One woman had a particularly nasty experience during a TSA pat-down. According to columnist and blogger Amy Alkon, her experience with a particular TSA agent went way past uncomfortable.
In a blog post, Alkon details a March 31st incident where she accuses a TSA agent of "raping" her with her hand during a public pat-down in Los Angeles.
Alkon writes about her disapproval of the whole procedure in general, saying that the pat-downs are both a physical violation as well as a constitutional one. On that day, she admits that she decided to make a scene on purpose, to bring attention to what she thinks is an unfair act, "to make it uncomfortable for them to violate us and our rights," she said. So she began sobbing, loudly. According to Alkon, this was what happened next -
Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return. This woman, and all of those who support this system deserve no less than this sort of unpleasant experience, and from all of us.
Apparently, the lawsuit idea fell through as her lawyer told her she had an unwinnable case.
But now, the TSA agent in question is threatening to sue Alkon for her blog post, claiming defamation. Thedala Magee has asked for $500,000 as well as the removal of the blog post.
It doesn't look like Alkon is going to comply with that request, as she writes today on her blog -
She has also gained the services of a First Amendment lawyer named Marc Randazza who is working the case pro bono.
The letter that Magee sent Alkon requesting the monetary damages and the retraction of the "rape" allegations says that the "outbursts in public and writings on the internet" have subjected Magee to "hatred, contempt, and ridicule" and caused her "severe emotional distress, fear, and problems doing her duty."
Alkon's lawyer Randazza sent a letter back, saying -
He then quotes precedent defending the use of the word "rape" as hyperbolic language. So even if Magee didn't "rape" Alkon in some meaning of the word, he says that she has the right to characterize it as such.
First Amendment rights on the internet at the heart of this case
As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, many will take the time to not only reflect upon the day itself, but also the decade following the WTC attacks. American life has changed dramatically since that day, but it's not always easy to cite tangible examples of how it has changed.
But sometimes it is. And the TSA is one entity that has gained quite a bit of attention since then. As airports have continued to implement stronger safety measures over the last decade, many have put the Transportation Security Administration into the crosshairs, railing against random searches and pat-downs - which they say violate some of their basic human rights. One thing on which we can all agree - getting patted down in an airport isn't a whole lot of fun.
What is the limit of free speech on the internet? In a situation where no facts have been entered into the legal record, should someone be able to make accusations in a blog post? Let us know in the comments.
One woman had a particularly nasty experience during a TSA pat-down. According to columnist and blogger Amy Alkon, her experience with a particular TSA agent went way past uncomfortable.
In a blog post, Alkon details a March 31st incident where she accuses a TSA agent of "raping" her with her hand during a public pat-down in Los Angeles.
Alkon writes about her disapproval of the whole procedure in general, saying that the pat-downs are both a physical violation as well as a constitutional one. On that day, she admits that she decided to make a scene on purpose, to bring attention to what she thinks is an unfair act, "to make it uncomfortable for them to violate us and our rights," she said. So she began sobbing, loudly. According to Alkon, this was what happened next -
Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times. Back right and left, and front right and left. In my vagina. Between my labia. I was shocked -- utterly unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there. It was government-sanctioned sexual assault.
Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return. This woman, and all of those who support this system deserve no less than this sort of unpleasant experience, and from all of us.
Apparently, the lawsuit idea fell through as her lawyer told her she had an unwinnable case.
But now, the TSA agent in question is threatening to sue Alkon for her blog post, claiming defamation. Thedala Magee has asked for $500,000 as well as the removal of the blog post.
It doesn't look like Alkon is going to comply with that request, as she writes today on her blog -
Magee is looking for me to pay her $500K, apologize to her, and take down my blog item about her -- because I had the nerve to exercise my First Amendment rights and complain after she jammed her hand sideways into my vagina four times. (Unfortunately for Ms. Magee, I've always made a pretty crappy victim.)
She has also gained the services of a First Amendment lawyer named Marc Randazza who is working the case pro bono.
The letter that Magee sent Alkon requesting the monetary damages and the retraction of the "rape" allegations says that the "outbursts in public and writings on the internet" have subjected Magee to "hatred, contempt, and ridicule" and caused her "severe emotional distress, fear, and problems doing her duty."
Alkon's lawyer Randazza sent a letter back, saying -
Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client's vulva. I am certain that she did not expect to find a bomb there. She did this to humiliate my client, to punish her for exercising her rights, and to send a message to others who might do the same. It was absolutely a sexual assault, perpetrated in order to exercise power over the victim. We agree with Ms. Alkon's characterization of this crime as "rape," and so would any reasonable juror.
He then quotes precedent defending the use of the word "rape" as hyperbolic language. So even if Magee didn't "rape" Alkon in some meaning of the word, he says that she has the right to characterize it as such.
Six Simple Words
Opinion
Republicans, Stick With Six Simple Words to Beat Obama
By Boris Epshteyn
Published September 07, 2011
The 2012 presidential race heats up this week with the first Republican presidential debate in almost a month. As the men and women who would be president spar at the Reagan Library, the GOP contenders need to remember to loudly to remind all Americans why a Republican must be in the White House come January 20, 2013.
As I wrote here in Fox News Opinion just a year ago, the message the candidates convey to Americans needs to be as clear as possible to hit home with voters.
Six words are all it takes:
- Small Government
- Low Taxes
- National Security
Smaller government and low taxes will achieve the economic kick start that the United States needs so badly by stimulating hiring and consumer spending.
A continued concentration on national security is necessary to make sure that Americans continue to be safe as we have been for 10 years since the attacks of 9/11.
The use of such a simple summary, of course coupled with a detailed plan for revitalization of America, is perfectly timed.
Recent polls find that Americans are overwhelmingly tired of the seemingly useless and complicated sausage making that is going on in Washington, D.C. The general discontent afoot across America provides a perfect opportunity for the strong GOP field to use the six word mantra to build support for Republicans going into the general election.
Barack Obama has repeatedly failed to convey such a crisp and concise message.
The president has waffled on issues ranging from Guantanamo Bay, to Afghanistan, to the debt ceiling debate and to international trade agreements. The indecision and lack of conviction emanating from the White House explain why this president is experiencing all time low approval ratings.
Public relations disasters such as the rift last week with Speaker Boehner over this week’s address to a joint session of Congress have also added to the negative and inept image of the president that is now held by well over fifty percent of the electorate.
With a year and 2 months left before the general election, President Obama has left himself extremely vulnerable against the GOP presidential field, but that in no way ensures a victory for any Republican in 2012.
However, if the Republican candidates are able to relate to the electorate by using a concise message such as the 6 words spelled out above, Obama could and should become a one-term president.
Boris Epshteyn is a political strategist, attorney and business consultant in New York City. He served as a communications aide on the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/07/republicans-stick-with-six-simple-words-to-beat-obama/#ixzz1XMgUy13F
Republicans, Stick With Six Simple Words to Beat Obama
By Boris Epshteyn
Published September 07, 2011
The 2012 presidential race heats up this week with the first Republican presidential debate in almost a month. As the men and women who would be president spar at the Reagan Library, the GOP contenders need to remember to loudly to remind all Americans why a Republican must be in the White House come January 20, 2013.
As I wrote here in Fox News Opinion just a year ago, the message the candidates convey to Americans needs to be as clear as possible to hit home with voters.
Six words are all it takes:
- Small Government
- Low Taxes
- National Security
Smaller government and low taxes will achieve the economic kick start that the United States needs so badly by stimulating hiring and consumer spending.
A continued concentration on national security is necessary to make sure that Americans continue to be safe as we have been for 10 years since the attacks of 9/11.
The use of such a simple summary, of course coupled with a detailed plan for revitalization of America, is perfectly timed.
Recent polls find that Americans are overwhelmingly tired of the seemingly useless and complicated sausage making that is going on in Washington, D.C. The general discontent afoot across America provides a perfect opportunity for the strong GOP field to use the six word mantra to build support for Republicans going into the general election.
Barack Obama has repeatedly failed to convey such a crisp and concise message.
The president has waffled on issues ranging from Guantanamo Bay, to Afghanistan, to the debt ceiling debate and to international trade agreements. The indecision and lack of conviction emanating from the White House explain why this president is experiencing all time low approval ratings.
Public relations disasters such as the rift last week with Speaker Boehner over this week’s address to a joint session of Congress have also added to the negative and inept image of the president that is now held by well over fifty percent of the electorate.
With a year and 2 months left before the general election, President Obama has left himself extremely vulnerable against the GOP presidential field, but that in no way ensures a victory for any Republican in 2012.
However, if the Republican candidates are able to relate to the electorate by using a concise message such as the 6 words spelled out above, Obama could and should become a one-term president.
Boris Epshteyn is a political strategist, attorney and business consultant in New York City. He served as a communications aide on the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/07/republicans-stick-with-six-simple-words-to-beat-obama/#ixzz1XMgUy13F
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Obama's Uncle Omar
‘UNCLE OMAR’ CALLED THE FACE OF OBAMA’S AMNESTY GOALS
Washington watchdog organization Judicial Watch is calling Obama’s ‘Uncle Omar’ the face of Obama’s amnesty plan. Instead of being deported as the law requires, Obama’s Kenyan uncle, Onyango Obama, had been living as an illegal immigrant in the Unites States with pending deportation orders for nearly 20 years. His arrest came after a drinking and driving incident where he nearly collided with a police office while breezing through an intersection in Framingham, Massachusetts.
Uncle Omar is now being held on a federal immigration warrant but given that Obama’s first illegal immigrant relative – his Aunt Zeituni Obama – was protected from deportation, chances are Uncle Omar will be similarly protected from American law and justice.
OPEN-BORDERS GROUP IGNORES DANGERS POSED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
The leftist amnesty-loving group Center for Participatory Change (CPC) in Asheville, NC, has a bone to pick with Washington over the 400 illegal immigrants deported from Western North Carolina in the last three years through the federal Secure Communities program. The problem: “…law enforcement is casting a very, very wide net.”
CPC is now featuring the sob-stories of 100 deported local immigrants in an effort to change the hearts of most Americans from caring more about public safety to caring more for the feelings of illegal immigrants. We’re guessing that CPC WILL NOT feature the stories of 26 violent illegal immigrant gang members arrested over a four-day period in the Asheville area just last year.
Washington watchdog organization Judicial Watch is calling Obama’s ‘Uncle Omar’ the face of Obama’s amnesty plan. Instead of being deported as the law requires, Obama’s Kenyan uncle, Onyango Obama, had been living as an illegal immigrant in the Unites States with pending deportation orders for nearly 20 years. His arrest came after a drinking and driving incident where he nearly collided with a police office while breezing through an intersection in Framingham, Massachusetts.
Uncle Omar is now being held on a federal immigration warrant but given that Obama’s first illegal immigrant relative – his Aunt Zeituni Obama – was protected from deportation, chances are Uncle Omar will be similarly protected from American law and justice.
OPEN-BORDERS GROUP IGNORES DANGERS POSED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
The leftist amnesty-loving group Center for Participatory Change (CPC) in Asheville, NC, has a bone to pick with Washington over the 400 illegal immigrants deported from Western North Carolina in the last three years through the federal Secure Communities program. The problem: “…law enforcement is casting a very, very wide net.”
CPC is now featuring the sob-stories of 100 deported local immigrants in an effort to change the hearts of most Americans from caring more about public safety to caring more for the feelings of illegal immigrants. We’re guessing that CPC WILL NOT feature the stories of 26 violent illegal immigrant gang members arrested over a four-day period in the Asheville area just last year.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Letter To University
DENIS MACEOIN: LETTER TO EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY STUDENT ASSOCIATION
By • Denis MacEoin
Published in: A Liberal Defence of Israel April 06, 2011
The following letter was written to the EUSA following their vote to boycott Israel because of its 'apartheid'.
The Committee
Edinburgh University Student Association
May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain’s great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.
I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.
Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a ‘Nazi’ state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nüremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.
Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha’is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran?
Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.
In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?
University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it’s clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha’is.... Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.
I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don’t you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense to you. I have given you some of the evidence. It’s up to you to find out more.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Denis MacEoin
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2011/04/letter-to-edinburgh-university-student.html
By • Denis MacEoin
Published in: A Liberal Defence of Israel April 06, 2011
The following letter was written to the EUSA following their vote to boycott Israel because of its 'apartheid'.
The Committee
Edinburgh University Student Association
May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain’s great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.
I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.
Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a ‘Nazi’ state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nüremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.
Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha’is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran?
Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.
In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?
University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it’s clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha’is.... Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.
I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don’t you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense to you. I have given you some of the evidence. It’s up to you to find out more.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Denis MacEoin
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2011/04/letter-to-edinburgh-university-student.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)