Wake up America

---

• Obamacare another Medicare: 134 percent increase in the payroll tax
• How is all that spending going Obama?
• Corked!
• Chicago Link Love Sunday

Obamacare another Medicare: 134 percent increase in the payroll tax Posted: 08 Jun 2009 09:40 AM PDT CNSNews has an alarming piece out and one that has to be read in full, but to tweak the focus here until you read the whole thing, Obama care would mimic our Medicare program in which the 2009 annual report from the Medicare Trustees says that in order for Medicare to remain solvent there will have to be "134 percent increase in the payroll tax paid by every working American." Let your mind wrap around that for a second. That is Medicare and that is the plan that Obama's healthcare plan will regurgitate on a massive scale, to not only cover the elderly as Medicare does, but everyone. What will the cost to the American taxpayer be then? You think you pay enough in taxes? You think your healthcare costs are too high now? Imagine the government taking 134 percent more from your paychecks to not only cover you and your family, but everyone else as well. Healthcare for all is great in theory, but it is not sustainable, ask the UK, France, and Canada how that is working out for them, when they have millions that have their neeeds outsourced to other countries because their "public" healthcare cannot take care of them. Obama's federal plan would essentially operate like a massive version of Medicare, the government-run plan for seniors which cost 3.2 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008 and which will become insolvent for the first time this year. Medicare faces $34 trillion in unfunded liabilities – the cost of services seniors are eligible for in the future but for which the government does not have the money. According to the 2009 annual report from the Medicare Trustees, the program will require a 134 percent increase in the payroll tax paid by every working American to remain solvent. The federal plan has been described as "Medicare-like" by the Senate Finance Committee, which Baucus chairs, and would be run by a new government agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), according to an outline of the plan published by the committee. "This proposal would establish a 'Medicare-like' public health insurance option," Baucus' proposal says. So, the Medicare plan is not sustainable without raising the payroll tax by 134 percent and this is the system, already proven unsustainable, that Obama is pitching for all Americans? Hennessey details the problems clearly, go read why he opposes this and ask yourself why everyone doesn't. .

How is all that spending going Obama? Posted: 08 Jun 2009 08:07 AM PDT ( Source: The Economist-KAL's cartoon ) All over the television news channels we saw Obama's talking heads explaining why the news, the economy and the massive spending bills passed can work, even though it isn't working, and the news reporting that all the spending is actually having the opposite effect of what was intended isn't really as bad as it appears. Get that? Clear as day huh? They can spin the news all they want, but the bottom line is still going to be the bottom line. The Obama's big spending policies are hurting the economy, not helping it. AP reports: The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market. But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation. A little further down in that same article: The White House estimates that the government will rack up an unprecedented $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year - more than four times last year's all-time high. "The bond market is calling the Federal Reserve out," said Mike Larson, a real estate analyst at Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Fla. "Investors are saying that the Fed can't just print money out of thin air to finance a massive deficit." Vodkapundit plays the headline game. I have done this myself a time or two, because when looking at all the headlines (he uses Drudge to line them all up and put context to them) they seem to mesh together to tell a story and show the bigger picture. He explains: Well, duh. Some of us have been warning you about this since before Obama was even sworn in. Look, stimulus spending can't work, because of one of three things happens: 1. That extra spending means extra taxes which means the whole thing is a wash. (Government spending having some "multiplier" effect unknown to consumer or business spending is a big, fat lie.) 2. That extra spending means extra debt, which drives up interest rates, which chokes off growth. 3. That extra spending means extra money being printed, which means inflation which means any growth is illusory. Of course, there's no rule saying you can pick only one result. Mix and match up to all three to suit yourself! If I had to bet, I'd say we will indeed get all three. He points to a VOA article showing "US Unemployment Rate Gallops Ahead of Expectations." Austan Goolsbee spoke on Fox News Sunday: "It is going to be a rough patch [difficult period], not just in the immediate term, but for a little bit of time [in the future]," he said. "You have to turn the economy around, and jobs and job growth tends to come after you turn the economy around." But Friday's employment news was not all bad. Although the U.S. jobless rate continues to spike higher, the actual number of Americans who lost jobs during the month was the smallest since last September, the fourth consecutive month in which the pace of job losses slowed. How can the unemployment rate continue to rise sharply while job losses are growing milder? Goolsbee says recent indicators showing improvement in some sectors of the U.S. economy are encouraging Americans who had stopped looking for work to re-enter the job market. With a larger pool of workers comes higher unemployment when the economy continues to shed jobs. Again, Vodkapundit cuts through the doublespeak of Goolsbee: Here's the missing context: The Obama people are the ones making it worse, those stupid idiot dumb-dumbs. What, with the printing of the money, the driving up of the interest rates, and the impending raising of the taxes. Look. When you hire an employee, you're betting on the future. You're betting your own money that there will be enough new business to justify your new hire. And to put a human face on it, you're making a commitment to another human being who will be counting on the power of your judgement to put food on his table. Are you going to take that risk and make that commitment when the dumb-dumbs are in charge? More on Goolsbee's incorrect statements from Keith Hennessey, who remembers what Goolsbee either doesn't or pretends not to. He has more, go look, but there are some headlines and stories that he didn't include, such as "Obama Promises More Than 600,000 Stimulus Jobs," the subheader is the kicker in that article though." President promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions. Just ask yourself one question before reading the "fine print," and that is... where is all this money Obama is spending, coming from? But Obama now promises an accelerated pace of federal spending over the next few months to boost the economy and produce jobs. "We have a long way to go on our road to recovery but we are going the right way," Obama said in a written statement prepared for his public announcement of the additional summer stimulus activity. "Our measure of progress is the progress the American people see in their own lives. And until that progress is steady and solid, we're going to keep moving forward. We will not grow complacent or rest. Surely and steadily, we will turn this economy around," the statement said. The announcement comes days after the government reported that the number of unemployed continues to rise; the unemployment rate now sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to lose jobs each month, although fewer jobs were lost last month than expected. Just how much of an impact Obama's recovery program had on the pace of job losses is up for debate. Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far, even as government reports have shown the economy has lost more than 1.6 million jobs since Congress approved funding for the program in February. Obama keeps talking, his talking heads keep excusing, explaining or outright lying and his initial promises and expectations have already failed. A little lower in that article: Obama initially offered his stimulus plan as a way to put people back to work, a promise that 3.5 million jobs would be saved or created. The administration's predictions that unemployment would rise no higher than 8 percent already have been shattered, leaving Obama's advisers to caution that job growth takes time, even as recovery spending intensifies. Put it all together and what do we have? Team Obama spends like a drunk on binge making promises that cannot be kept to get his $787 billion stimulus bill passed, then he and his talking heads say they overestimated the short term good it would do, but he has another brilliant idea, spend MORE, faster. When the news reflects his policies failure, start ramping it up again and pitching, excusing, blaming others and explaining why what we see is not what is really happening. The Politico: While the administration is sensitive to criticism that stimulus spending has been too slow, a new Gallup Poll shows danger in the other direction. For the first time, a majority of respondents disapprove of Obama on the issue of "controlling federal spending" (51 percent to 45 percent), compared with the 67 percent who view him favorably overall. Could "deficit politics" return as the economy steadies? The poll suggests that the nation's exploding red ink could be an issue in next year's midterm congressional races. Obama also will face increasing questions not only about the deficit explosion, but uncertainty about the effectiveness of the $787 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say the "save or create" metric for jobs is meaningless, since it's impossible to prove or disprove. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a quote provided to POLITICO: "I'm very skeptical that the spending binge that we're on is going to produce much good and, even if it does, anytime soon." A little tidbit from Gallup, way down at the end, under implications: This latest Gallup Poll shows that the U.S. public has significantly differentiated views on various dimensions relating to Obama. Americans are most positive when asked about their basic opinions of Obama as a person. They also are positive when asked to assess his overall job performance, and on aspects of his performance relating to foreign and international issues. Americans have become increasingly less positive about Obama's handling of the economy in recent months, and are most negative when asked to say whether they approve of his handling of the federal deficit and federal spending. He rates well when the question is generic, about him personally or his overall performance, but when the questions get specific... not so much. All that and we haven't even touched on "Obama's Health Care "illusion", make sure to read all of the Wall Street Journal's piece to understand that bit of irrational logic. Yup, spend even more. So, where does this leave us and what is the next move? Well for team Obama, that is very easy..... more money, to spend more. Any guesses on when he starts pitching his NEXT stimulus plan and asking for even more than $787 billion and making promises that any rational, thinking person will know cannot be kept? Oh that is right... the groundwork for the next massive spending package was laid already by Nancy Pelosi, back in March. Flashback: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that Congress needs to "keep the door open" to a another stimulus package -- raising the question of how much the government could eventually spend on top of the $787 billion already allocated to rescue the country from dire economic straits. "The word of the day is confidence. Confidence in our markets, confidence in lending, confidence in our financial institutions," Pelosi said before suggesting the need for another rescue package during a press conference Tuesday following a meeting with top economists. Mark Zandi, chief economist and founder of Moody's Economy, took a more definitive stance than Pelosi, telling reporters a second stimulus bill is necessary. "We are going to need more taxpayer money ... I think another stimulus package is a reasonable assumption because of the way things are going," Zandi said. They knew, while making all those false promises, that this wasn't going to work. .

Corked! Posted: 08 Jun 2009 06:04 AM PDT For those that have a problem with elitist wine snobs, the movie "Corked" is for you. http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/06/corked/ Go see it. eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Chicago Link Love Sunday Posted: 07 Jun 2009 08:26 PM PDT I began the day in beautiful and sunny Los Angeles. I am now watching a lightning storm in Chicago. Randy Newman is right when he sings "I love LA." Anyway, here is some link love to many individuals. http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/06/chicago-link-love-sunday/ eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Inbox too full?
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Wake up America

What if there were no more rich to steal from? Part #2 Posted: 07 Apr 2009 07:33 AM PDT In October of 2007, I asked "What if there were no more rich to steal from?." I asked a few questions at that time: Take a good hard look at that graphic. I mean really look at who supports America. Who pays for national defense and homeland security, good schools and a crumbling infrastructure, the upcoming costs of Social Security? In an amazing show of complete short sightedness, the socialists of this word, the Hillary Clinton's who say we are going to take from the rich for the "common good", taken directly from the communist manifesto, the Salon idiots that suggest we steal more from the rich but never once ask themselves, what if the rich of this world, the ones that pay 96.54% of everything, the ones that employ millions of people, the ones that provide health insurance to millions of people.... no longer cared to do so? [SNIP] What then? Who would be left to pay for the food stamps of the employees that would no longer have jobs? Who would be left to pay for the healthcare of those employees that would no longer have it provided by those rich they just suggested leave and do not come back? Who would be left to pay that 96.54% revenue that our country is now receiving from the top 50% of wage earners? Who would be left to pay for national defense? Who would be left to pay for homeland security? Who would be left to pay for good schools? Who would be left to pay for crumbling infrastructure? Who would be left to pay for upcoming costs of Social Security? Easy to talk big and say let them leave, but I do not see anyone addressing who would be left to make up for that revenue? Atlas Shrugged was first published in 1957 and according to news sources, in 2009 it is selling at triple the rate it sold at in the beginning of 2008. The main hero, out of many in the book, is John Galt. The man that said "enough" and determined to stop the motor of the world. Take the men and women that produced, employed, and supported our country and see where that left those that would have continued to leech off them. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, explained the parallels between Atlas Shrugged and today's events. "In Atlas Shrugged, Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?" Brook also stressed the importance today of the book's often overlooked message that capitalism cannot be properly defended without morally defending profit and self-interest: ". . . only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism--and that as long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention--and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest." A piece written recently over at Pajamas Media, reminded me of Atlas Shrugged, a book I have had on my bookshelf since my mother gave me my first copy when I was 18 years old. The PJM piece is headlined with "A message to the rich" and that message is the almost the exact message that John Galt, in the book, gave to those people that carried the weight of the world on their shoulders when he told them to "shrug" it off. So let me now send a personal message to The Rich in America… As an American and a patriot, I implore you – I go to my knees and beg you – LEAVE NOW. Leave. Just go away. Retire to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or wherever, but do it now, please, while you still have some love for this country. Close your companies, fire your employees, shutter your factories and offices, sell your property, and take all of that somewhere else… better yet: somewhere scenic but poverty-stricken. Somewhere that could use some wealth creation. Somewhere that people simply are grateful to have a job in the first place. Somewhere where you will be appreciated. You are not welcome in America any more. Take your wealth and prosperity and inventiveness and hard work and vision and insight and bold risk-taking and joy in seeing growth and wealth creation and just go away – right now, before it's too late. Because if you stay, Joel Berg and Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will continue to come after you for more and more and more and they will not ever stop – not ever – until you are forced to flee. And when that day comes, you will go with not with fond remembrances and a desire to return home, but rather a black heart and hard and bitter memories. So on behalf of those few of us who still believe in the Land of Opportunity, I beg you and implore you, in the name of our common patriot ancestors who worked so hard and sacrificed so much so that we could become so spoiled and ungrateful: take your 60% of the total income taxes and just go away. Because if you do, then there will no longer be an Enemy for the Left to stick it to. Then, perhaps, the half of the country that pays no income tax might have to put some skin in the game. Then, perhaps, with most of the wealth generation gone we will turn to our community organizers to provide the wealth creation, and the tax dollars, and the innovation. When you have gone the President of the United States, supported by an army of little acorns like Joel Berg, will have to start calling for the rest of us to be taxed more to address the inequality gap. That's what I want. You see, I've actually been there. I have experienced this pathology from the inside. Read the whole thing from a man that says he was one of those "leeches" that thought it was his right to take from those that produced by virtue of his inability TO produce for himself. A man that finally got his act together and realized he needed to stop being a leech. He explains the pathology of what this country is suffering now. I have written about Atlas Shrugged multiple times, quoting specific portions from the book in the Anniversary piece I wrote showing the multiple faces of the book. Quotation from Atlas Shrugged: If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders - What would you tell him? I…don't know. What…could he do? What would you tell him? To shrug. That is Whittle, from PJM is telling the rich to do now, to shrug, to abandon those that think it is their right to take, by force, the hard earned money and work of another, for the benefit of those that cannot or will not produce. .

Left Having A Cow Over Obama And Wiretapping Posted: 07 Apr 2009 06:53 AM PDT The Obama administration, via the Justice Department, filed papers Friday in San Francisco, defending the Bush wiretapping program in response to a lawsuit filed by AT&T customers, stating disclosure of information sought by the customers, "which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign's "unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency." Not only is Obama liking those powers, but according to Glenn Greenwald, a member of the far far left, the Obama administration is making "New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ." But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications. In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned. Needless to say, Greenwald is quite upset (massive understatement). It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "soverign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying The Obama Administration's full motion to dismiss can be read here (PDF). The Raw Story highlights The Electronic Frontier Foundation's response to this, via their press release: "President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston in the release. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again." Cindy Cohn, legal director of EFF has the quote of the day here when she states "In our case we have no reason to believe that the warrantless wiretapping has ended, so at some point we have to call it Obama's warrantless wiretapping." .

Obama To Cut Missile Defense After North Korea Fires Long Range Missile? UPDATE - Inhofe's Response- VIDEO Posted: 07 Apr 2009 06:11 AM PDT [Update] Inhofe's response from Afghanistan, via YouTube from his site. Video below. The Weekly Standard has a letter sent to Barack Obama from multiple Senators, Republican, Independent and Democrat, urging him to not to make cuts to our missile defense capabilities. They point out the timing of the planned announcement about said cuts being directly after North Korea launched a test showing they had the capability of launching a missile that could reach parts of the United States of America. The planned announcement is also coming after 57 percent polled by Rasmussen favors a military response to North Korea's missile launch. The letter was signed by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Sessions and James Inhofe. The Letter: Dear President Obama: We write to urge you not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today announced plans to cancel or reduce such major programs as the Airborne Laser, Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the installation of additional Ground-Based Interceptor missiles in Alaska, and cut the MDA's budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by $1.4 billion. Although we applaud Secretary Gates' commitment to such capabilities THAAD and SM-3, these proposals would amount to almost a fifteen percent cut in the MDA budget and a major reduction in our missile defense portfolio—actions that we fear could undermine our emerging missile defense capabilities to protect the United States against a growing threat. As you know, the threat from ballistic missiles is significant and on the rise. Lieutenant General Daniel Maples, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the threat posed by ballistic missile delivery systems is likely to increase while growing more complex over the next decade." General Maples further warned that "adversary nations are increasingly adopting technical and operational countermeasures to defeat missile defenses." Ballistic missile technology has already proliferated worldwide and is a direct threat to both our allies and our homeland. The threat posed by rogue states with ballistic missiles has been underscored by Iran and North Korea's recent missile tests. In early February, Iran launched a satellite atop a rocket that could be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile. Last weekend, North Korea tested the Taepo Dong-2, a long range missile that if successful, could have the range to strike Hawaii, Alaska, and possibly the West Coast of the United States. Although these developments highlight the danger we face, they have also revealed the progress our national missile defense system has made. When recently asked before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether the United States could intercept a Taepo Dong-2 missile that targeted the American homeland, Admiral Timothy Keating, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and General Patrick Chilton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, assured that we can do so with high probability. This would not have been the case just a few years ago, and is only the case today because we have invested in a diverse set of missile defense capabilities. Cooperation on ballistic missile defense is also essential to our most important alliances. In the Asia-Pacific region, Japan became the first among our allies to successfully intercept a ballistic missile with the Aegis defense system. In response to North Korea's growing arsenal of missiles, the Government of Japan decided six years ago to deploy a joint Aegis and Patriot PAC-3 missile defense and has already invested $7.9 billion of its own funds to build a new pillar of our alliance. India has likewise expressed strong interest in closer cooperation on missile defense systems, which promises to become an area of cooperation in our growing strategic partnership. In the Middle East, we continue to develop missile defense technology in close partnership with Israel. As you know, the State of Israel faces a uniquely pressing threat due to Iran's ballistic missile program and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. In response, we have long cooperated with Israel to develop the Arrow family of missile interceptors and are now working together on the David's Sling missile defense system to defeat medium range rockets. These are critical programs that should not be abandoned. In Europe, NATO has also endorsed the importance of missile defense as a collaborative venture among its member states. At the Bucharest summit in April 2008, NATO formally declared that "ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies' forces, territory, and populations. Missile defense forms part of a broader response to counter this threat." NATO further expressed "deep concern" over the proliferation activities of both Iran and North Korea, and urged the examination of a "comprehensive missile defense architecture to extend coverage to all Allied territory and populations." In sum, cooperation on missile defense is now a critical component of many of our closest security partnerships around the world. We fear that cuts to the budget for missile defense could inadvertently undermine these relationships and foster the impression that the United States is an unreliable ally. Moreover, sharp cuts would leave us and our friends around the world less capable of responding to the growing ballistic missile threat. The fact remains that our adversaries continue to invest large sums in the development of these weapons. The question is whether we respond by developing appropriate defenses against them. We therefore urge you to sustain the ability of the Missile Defense Agency and the military services to develop an integrated, layered defense against the threat of ballistic missiles to the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Emphasis mine. This is the height of irresponsibility. As stated in the letter, it is clear that one of the largest threats against us and our allies will be ballistic missiles and cutting the money going into developing a defense against them, at a time when they are needed the most, shows an incredible lack of understanding of these basic facts by Barack Obama and his administration. The Hill picked up on this story and points out that retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca, who served as chief of the National Guard Bureau under former President Clinton stated "I am convinced that that the Pentagon's decision to halt the build-out of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system [GMD] will leave us vulnerable to missile attacks from countries like North Korea in the near future." He also goes on to point to North Korea's recent missile launch saying "North Korea's recent test of a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile, coupled with its troubling nuclear program, demonstrates that it is determined to develop the capabilities needed to strike the U.S. with a nuclear ballistic missile." The Hill highlights why Lieberman's concerns are "problematic" for the Obama administration: Lieberman's opposition is problematic for the Obama administration because he is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the panel charged with assessing threats to the nation. He is also chairman of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services panel. Lieberman's criticism comes at an especially sensitive time in the debate over missile defense, one day after North Korea attempted to launch a satellite into orbit. While the effort failed, it is being seen as strong evidence that the nation is working on its long-range ballistic missile capability.... .

"He didn't have to go" Posted: 06 Apr 2009 04:21 PM PDT A hero needs our help: I am writing to ask your help in getting the word out to people about a good friend of mine, Massachusetts Army National Guard Sergeant First Class Kevin Dupont. Kevin was seriously wounded while serving in Afghanistan. On March 8, 2009, Kevin was riding in a convoy of vehicles in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border. Kevin's Humvee was struck by an Improvised Explosive Device. The blast destroyed the vehicle and turned it into a raging inferno... That is from BlackFive, and they have all the details about how you can help this hero. As you read, marvel as I did about this man who had already more than served his country, and yet at 52 years old he volunteered to go to Afghanistan. I haven't heard of one news story about Kevin since he was wounded. I am hoping that you will be able to let people know. Kevin volunteered to be deployed to Afghanistan. He didn't have to go. He could easily have stayed here in Massachusetts doing his National Guard duties instead of where he is now, lying in a hospital bed unconscious, with feeding and breathing tubes keeping him alive and bandages over most of his body.... I am more than a tad ticked off this story is not being covered by the msm BUT I know full well that the milblog community (and that includes all the readers of all the sites,) can and will step up and do what we can. There are addresses at BlackFive here, so please go over there, read the story, and do what you can. Meantime, prayers are also welcome. Thank you.

You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Wake up America

Daschle Withdraws His Name For Secretary of Health and Human Services Posted: 03 Feb 2009 10:00 AM PST Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name for the nomination for Obama's new secretary of health and human services, due to the problematic nature his ethics conduct and tax issues. Yesterday we showed a video of Obama defending Daschle, but after Daschle asked his name be withdrawn, Obama accepted his request. This was just announced on television, online link to CBS2 Chicago, here. Faced with problems over back taxes and potential conflicts of interest, Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to be President Barack Obama's Health and Human Services secretary. "Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting Daschle's request to be taken out of consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle. Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, said he would have not been able to operate "with the full faith of Congress and the American people." "I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction" to Obama's agenda, he said. His stunning statement came less than three hours after another Obama nominee also withdrew from consideration, and also over tax problems. Nancy Killefer, nominated by Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer, said she didn't want her bungling of payroll taxes on her household help to be a distraction. Seems many of Obama's picks lately have had some serious ethical problems. What does that say about Barack Obama's judgment in the first place? More on Nancy Killefer found at The Swamp and her withdrawal. .

Terrorism and blood libel reaches UCLA Posted: 03 Feb 2009 09:21 AM PST I recently infiltrated a terrorist sleeper cell on the UCLA campus. http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2009/02/terrorism-and-blood-libel-reaches-ucla/ I came home afterwards and gave myself a good scrubbing. You may wish to do the same. eric aka the Tygrrrr Express .

McConnell Quotes Obama To Democrats Posted: 03 Feb 2009 08:33 AM PST Interesting piece in The Politico, showing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell quoting Obama's own words to the Democrats regarding the stimulus bill...whole thing is a good read. Teaser: Quoting Obama, McConnell said at a news conference that Congress should "trim" out the items in the package "that are not relevant to putting people back to work." He then cited Obama's praise for GOP ideas: "They have some good ideas and I want to make sure those ideas are incorporated." Despite confident talk from Obama and Senate Democratic leaders predicting eventual GOP support for their plan, members of the Senate's ideological center so far have resisted backing the legislation. Among those undecided are Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Jim Webb (D-Va.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). "I'd have trouble with it and so would a number of other people," Nelson said Monday in an interview.Democratic leaders are poised to let senators rework it with a series of amendments to be voted on this week. This could create a dilemma for House Democratic leaders. They could strike a hard bargain in conference negotiations, but such a move would complicate their chances of getting a bill to Obama's desk by Presidents Day. Seeking to drive a wedge between Democrats at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, McConnell called on Obama to pressure his party into accepting Republican proposals on the Senate floor. "I know the Democratic leadership is going down to the White House tonight. I hope he can get through to them that the way to build this package is indeed to do it on a bipartisan basis, which doesn't mean just talking to us but including ideas that we think will work," McConnell said. It is a two page piece so go read the whole thing. No sense passing a bill, as the U.S. House jammed through with no Republican support, that will not accomplish the goals of actually stimulating the economy. Passing a bill just to pass something and "appear" to be trying to address the situation will do nothing but make matters worse. The House did what Pelosi always does, talks out of one side of her mouth about bipartisan support then passes strictly partisan bills, hoping the public will not see that she only talks the talk but is incapable of walking the walk. The Senate will do what it is supposed to do, hash out the differences, compromise and get something passed that at least has a chance of helping a little... although many of us believe letting things alone, letting the chips fall where they may and moving forward from there, would be a better option. .

Gregg Won't Take Obama Appointment With GOP Replacement Take His Senate Seat Posted: 02 Feb 2009 04:00 PM PST Barack Obama may appoint New Hampshire Senator, Judd Gregg, as his secretary of commerce, but Gregg has made it clear he will not accept the position unless another Republican is his replacement. New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg said for the first time Monday that he won't accept an appointment as secretary of commerce unless he's replaced by a Republican, confirming days of speculation and dashing Democratic hopes of obtaining a 60-seat majority. According to Marc Ambinder, Governor John Lynch (D-NH, who would be naming Gregg's replacement has said he will replace Gregg with another Republican. Lynch's statement: "We are in the midst of a national economic crisis, and it calls for cooperation on all of our parts. We all need to work together to do what is in the best interest of our country and our state. "I have had conversations with Senator Gregg, the White House and U.S. Senate leadership. Senator Gregg has said he would not resign his seat in the U.S. Senate if it changed the balance in the Senate. Based on my discussions, it is clear the White House and Senate leadership understand this as well. "It is important that President Obama be able to select the advisors he feels are necessary to help him address the challenges facing our nation. "If President Obama does nominate Senator Gregg to serve as Commerce Secretary, I will name a replacement who will put the people of New Hampshire first and represent New Hampshire effectively in the U.S. Senate." This will guarantee the Republicans have the ability to filibuster any partisan proposals that the Democratically controlled House jams through. .

You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

America's Moment of Truth

America's Moment of Truth
'This is the most important election in the world since the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980' says Conrad Black

Saturday, September 06, 2008 from the National Post

The policy and ideological differences between the Unites States' Democrats and Republicans this year are greater than in all the elections since the Second World War, except for Barry Goldwater's quixotic challenge to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society in 1964; George Mc-Govern's kamikaze mission against Richard Nixon in 1972; and Ronald Reagan's release of Jimmy Carter to spend more time with his family in 1980.

The differences over taxes, the economy and medical care are profound -- and very complicated. Obama is proposing one of the greatest tax increases in world history, entirely on the wealthiest 40% of the U. S. population -- who already contribute more than 100% (yes, you read that correctly) of the U. S. government's personal income tax revenue. He is disguising it behind a welter of largely fictitious refundable tax credits. The increased tax on people of substantial income will be paid out to people who pay small amounts of tax or none at all.

No part of this familiar process is a "tax-cut," which is how it has been presented.

The top tax-rate and the tax on capital gains and dividends would all rise by a full third, estate taxes would be raised to 45% and social-security payroll taxes would be raised for families earning over $250,000 a year. The Obama claims that all this would keep taxes at 18.2% of GDP, and would cover his vast spending plans, are nonsense.

McCain would tax-incentivize productivity increases and legitimate industrial research and new technology, and would accelerate depreciation allowances, thereby encouraging capital investment; and would moderately reduce corporate and personal taxes. And he would distribute health-care tax credits to every adult, encouraging the public to seek care at the lowest prices.

Obama, on the other hand, is proposing compulsory medical insurance, in a way that ensures that about half the population will get their coverage from the federal government. Neither candidate proposes caps on malpractice awards, insurance premiums or drug prices; thus assuring that under either candidate's proposal, annual U. S. medical costs will rise substantially above their present staggering $2-trillion, and 16% of GDP, the highest of any country.

The new president will face tough economic decisions, which would be better met by McCain's than by Obama's program. Raising taxes when their economy's on the verge of a possible recession, which the Democrats endlessly claim is already upon the country, is an economic recovery plan that went out of fashion with Herbert Hoover 75 years ago.

The differences between the candidates over traditional litmus-test issues such as abortion and gun control, are more stark, though Obama fudged them rhetorically in his convention acceptance speech. He professed to respect the constitutional right to bear arms, but said he didn't want to sell AK-47 machine guns to criminals -- as if anyone were asking for that. (Readers will be aware that I am at the moment, technically a criminal in the United States, thanks to the perversities of the country's justice system. I can attest that distributing AK-47's to all the residents here, on their release, would not raise the crime rate whatsoever. Those few who might want an AK-47 will lay hands on one whatever the federal government thinks about it.)

Senator Obama said he respects the right to life, but that there were "too many unwanted babies" a supply-side take on abortion, in other words. McCain and his running mate, on the other hand, hold views of gun control and abortion that are unambiguously negative, but not authoritarian.

Even more important are the seismic sociological appeals to white voters by the Democratic candidate, and to female voters by the Republicans. Senator Obama has told the black community to shape up, stop the disintegration of the African-American family and stop playing the victim card.

The unspoken bargain is that if elevated to the White House by white America, he will end the moral oppression of white Americans by guilt-mongering black charlatans such as Jesse Jackson,

Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel. (Hence, Jackson's recent bitter complaint that Obama had abandoned his gonzo spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright, a stentorian peddler of black victimhood and white guilt.) Such people have led the black political community in the United States since the assassination of Martin Luther King 40 years ago. The vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin is, in part, an effort to wrest the leadership of the feminist movement from the elite and militant left, and to put it in the hands of a silent majority of relatively traditional but ambitious women. It is a bold move to try to separate abortion from other issues generally associated with women's rights.

The Democrats and the feminist media establishment failed in their effort to represent Governor Palin as a Dan Quayle dunce in drag, a trigger-happy Stepford Wife and negligent mother (because she would choose to run for vice president despite her young family and 17-year old unmarried, pregnant daughter). The frenzy of the initial assault, and the sanctimonious conceit that American women would be offended by the candidacy of such an allegedly ditzy yokel, showed that McCain had remembered the basic military strategic lessons to apply maximum force at the decisive point and achieve complete surprise: If the liberal Democrats are taking the high ground on extramarital sex and working motherhood, you know they are frightened.

But even the Republicans were not prepared for the virtuosity of Ms. Palin's debut on Wednesday night. Managing to be winsome and even ingenuous, while witty; hard-hitting without being a harridan; an authentic feminist about what women can aspire to, while being a traditionalist; a clean government achiever and a populist enemy of the oil companies' excesses and the proverbial special interests; a spunky and endearing, yet effective, attack dog; she touched all the buttons. The early Democratic and media ripostes of offended American womanhood, lumpenbourgeois mediocrity and the primitive frontierswoman with a rifle in one hand and a Bible in the other, were completely inadequate.

She is a naturally popular person, and a contrast with Joe Biden, a monotonous leftist journeyman, full of pretension and loquacity, a plagiarist (from Neil Kinnock of all people) with hair plugs. When Ms. Palin quoted the noisy nonentity the Democrats have inflicted on the Senate as majority leader, Harry Reid, as detesting John McCain, and said that was the greatest compliment the Republican nominee could receive, to deafening applause, a resonant tocsin sounded. George W. Bush has a low but far from unprecedented approval rating of about 30%. But the equivalent figure for the Congress is in single figures, a smaller percentage than the proportion of Americans who think Elvis Presley is alive. The Democrats have assumed for the last two years that all they had to do was mention the outgoing president and set out giant dumpsters to collect all the Democratic votes. Persevering readers will recall that I never thought so.

The Democratic candidates propose a foreign policy of endless negotiation, punctuated only by Obama's apparent shot-from-the-hip promise that in search of Osama bin Laden, he would invade Pakistan, a nuclear power and ostensible ally, that has a population eight times that of Iraq. [I thought he was against war???]

McCain, the veteran, ex-POW, son and grandson of admirals, is uninhibited about the use of the U. S.'s immense military power in the legitimate national interest. He believes that the Vietnam War could and should have been won, and has not wavered in his support of the Iraq War, although he was rightly critical of the way the occupation was conducted prior to the surge. Obama and Biden believe recourse to military force is almost never justified. McCain and Palin believe in maintaining credible deterrence by measured retaliation when justified. These philosophical differences could lead to sharply different responses to international events.

Senator Obama is and will be the political leader of African-Americans, whether he is the next president or not. This election should durably put the leadership of that community in his responsible hands; it could put the feminist political leadership in play between the militants and traditionalists; will determine whether the United States moves toward or further away from greater public sector influence on the economy and social services; and decide whether the U. S. armed forces become an Ozymandian white elephant or continue to be the most powerful geopolitical factor in the world.

This is the most important election in the world since the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

cbletters@gmail .com

-Thanks to reader Dirk Peters for reminding me that Walther Ulbricht said that the East German government had lost confidence in the people in 1953, not 1948 as I wrote here two weeks ago; and to George Grosman for pointing out that Jan Masaryk was the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia when the Russians murdered him, not, as I wrote in the same column, the Premier. Research is difficult where I am at the ho