#1
Again, it shows why Osama Bin Laden & Co. have
been very pragmatic or realist in transferring the focii of the Islamist JIahd from Iraq proper to RUSSIA, CENTRAL ASIA, + PERIPHERIES.
*NO US-IRAN WAR > IRAQ PER SE IS NOW A GENER "HOLDING/DIVERSIONARY FRONT". As long as the US = US-Allies keep confine their MilOps to only Iraq and Afghanistan [Africa], OR EVEN REDUX AS PER A POTUS OBAMA, IRAN + MILITANTS-TERRS WILL LIKELY GET THEIR DESIRED NUKES + OTHER STRATEGIC WEAPONZ-MILTECHS FOR FUTURE JIHAD [Nukular].
DEMOCRATS' single most important domes tic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details. Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"
That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.
About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.) The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.
Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes? Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.
Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems. Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions - as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)
But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.
We could deny care to citizens so as to provide care to illegals. That would go over well ...
These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.
That 80 year old likely got to 80 precisely because he/she was healthier. So it's a non-sequitor argument.
John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.
McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance - and hit it hard.
#6
John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote.
Which presumes legal Latinos - those who might vote for the Trunks - think those who cheated the system deserve a break for which they (the legals) will fund.
Gee, if you put it that way, it sounds pretty stupid, but I hear/read it again and again.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/22/2008 7:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
McCain is almost as pro illegal alien as Obama is.
#8
That 80 year old has probably been paying TAXES into the system for 60-odd years as well.
While the 37 year old has probably not paid a time in federal taxes (and of course his large family has been taking advantage of free education, free lunch (and breakfast) programs, free ER care, etc... all on the 80 year old's dime)
#11
The polls I've read are clear. A healthy majority of Americans don't want this. Spread the word! Let BO pander to the illegal vote. It wll be good.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/22/2008 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Consider supporting Lou Barletta for Congress. He's the Hazleton, Pennsylvania mayor that got fed up with the illegal alien crime waves and financial raping of his city. He's running on a strong anti illegal alien platform.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2008 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#13
He may need to do it to win, but he certainly won't because he favors it maybe more so than Hussein. Haven't you heard his repeated "all God's children " talk ? It pops up in every speech. What do you surmise he is implying ? He sounds like the Catholic church. Bring them in and let the "government" take care of them. The issue is whether the Dummocrats have voting majorities in both Houses. The first thing they are going after is Universal health care. Probably within the first 30 days. If fact, Fat Ted has his crew working diligently on legislation he can put forward as his Last Hurrah. As if he hasn't done enough damage already. I think universal health is coming without doubt. What will it mean ? To control costs, the wages of physicians and other health care professionals have to be slashed drastically. The cost of medication must be smashed. But will it be done ? Probably not. They think they can just increase debt. How much longer will the Chicoms, Japanese, etc. keep investing in our debt ? Until they have a better place to invest. Such meetings are being held, nothing has transpired...yet. This is going to be a tremendous drain on our sputtering economy. It will be like another Demo jewel, education. Now if you want a child to get a decent education, you have to put them into private schooling. Meanwhile, your tax dollars are spent to educate non-citizens who pay no tax, but send money south to build nice homes they will return to when they have a large enough kitty. Big changes coming, better get ready to hunker down.
#15
Legal Hispanics I know personally, most of which are in CA, wouldn't give illegals the sweat off their sack. It's funny, because many of them started off as illegals themselves and got legal over the years. My point is that they will split from the Dems on this issue if you have a set and explain it to them like this author does. It will cost them $$$$$ in taxes and that they can understand as well as you or I.
Jeesuz, Barry. When even the Globe notices...and calls you on it. By Joan Vennochi
JUST LIKE the Obama girl, Obama has a crush on Obama.
Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he's turning into the A-Rod of politics. It's all about him. He's giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism.
A convention hall isn't good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he's embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America's top news anchors - as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, "Vero possumus" - "Yes, we can"?
Obama finds criticism of his wife "infuriating" and doesn't want either of them to be the target of satire. Tell that to the Carters, the Reagans, the Clintons, and the Bushes, father and son.
There's no such thing as a humble politician. But when Obama looks into the mirror, he doesn't just see a president; he sees JFK. In 1960, John F. Kennedy accepted his party's nomination with an outdoor speech at the Los Angeles Coliseum. But he waited until he was elected before going to Germany to declare "Ich bin ein Berliner."
The fashionistas have already noted Michelle Obama's affinity for chanelling Jackie. And it's hard to watch the Obama daughters "Access Hollywood" interview and not think about Caroline and John F. Kennedy Jr. back in the days of Camelot. So far, Dad is only promising to get the kids a dog, not a pony named Macaroni.
Republican John McCain has the opposite challenge. As a candidate, he's shrinking, thanks to a series of gaffes, stumbles, and generally uninspiring speeches. But McCain has one thing going for him: the appearance of modesty.
Part of it is physical. McCain is stiff and awkward, the result of age and injuries from his years as a prisoner of war. That, too, is a contrast to Obama's sleek physique, the consequence of youth and a George W. Bush-like passion for working out. But with McCain, there's also the sense of a man who made mistakes in life and acknowledges them.
McCain's humility comes through in his book, "Faith of my Fathers," which he wrote at age 63, after completing a career in the US Navy and moving onto politics. Obama wrote the more self-reverential "Dreams from My Father," after he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review.
The McCain campaign is beginning to jump on the ego issue. "I don't know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One," a McCain aide quipped in response to Obama's upcoming visit abroad.
The conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh regularly ridicules "The Messiah also known as Obama." And "The Audacity of Obama" is turning into a ready-made take-off on the title of the Democrat's second book, "The Audacity of Hope."
The downside for Obama is how much his ego stands to resonate beyond the political right. Last January, the online Slate Magazine debuted "The Obama Messiah Watch."In February, a blogger for the left-embracing Mother Jones commented on his uneasiness over the candidate's messianic complex: "Does this post play unhelpfully into the pernicious and growing Obamaism-as-cult . . . that we'll likely see repeated over and over by the right wing if Obama gets the nomination?" blogged Jonathan Stein."It does. Sorry. But Obama's rhetoric makes an undeniable suggestion: that his election, not an eight-year administration that successfully implements his vision for America, would represent a moment in America of the grandest, most transformative kind. And that's a bit much," Stein wrote.
When the Obama Girl video first surfaced, Obama told the Associated Press, "You do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." That's good advice. He should think more about the impact of his ego on voters. A presidential candidate is supposed to get bigger on the national stage. That doesn't mean his head should, too.
#3
No human being could live up to the expectations that are being heaped upon him. The leftards will be just as sullen and depressed 6 months after he wins the election as they are now. They seem to forget that he is running for President, not Grand Chancellor.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/22/2008 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Vero possumus"
Note to the Obamarama campaign. The Army Institute of Heraldry dropped Latin and French in their designs about two decades ago. They figured our English had earned the position to be displayed as any of the 'dead' cultures. Just another example of 'talking down to the people'.
Dear Barack: You're wrong about small towns.
By Will Manly of the Hays Daily News, Hays, KS
Dear Barack Obama:
I grew to like you over the last year. I've always thought of you as dangerously naive at best. Eloquent, gifted, genuine, yes. But dangerously naive at best.
I couldn't vote for you - but not because of your funny name or your lunatic pastor. I couldn't vote for you because you say we should raise taxes (even on the rich, who I'm convinced already pay too much), and because you say we should abandon Iraq (which I'm convinced would be surrendering a war we must win), and because you don't respect the Second Amendment (which I'm convinced should disqualify any politician from any office).
Still, I've liked your message of unity and your ability to inspire. And, since your rise I've hunted quite frantically, for young conservative leaders with your talent. (To my relief, I found Bobby Jindal.)
And I've long said if you beat Hillary Clinton, you will have done your country a tremendous service. But ever more I'm having a harder and harder time rooting for you.
First came your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time - conveniently, right after you started winning primaries. Then came your own words about your grandmother who is just a "typical white person" - a racist, or at least someone with racist tendencies. (I'm a "typical white person," I suppose, and I'm no racist. In fact, little makes me angrier than when it's insinuated I am.)
Sometimes people say things they don't really mean. But this is a pattern.
Recently, we heard your comments about small-town America. Someone at a San Francisco fund-raiser asked you why it's so hard for Democrats to win in rural areas. You said: "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."
Is that a minority? Hey, Cletus, get the gun! (If only we had a job to go to, some time in the last 25 years).
Here's a thought: Maybe gun rights' voters know gun control laws kill people and steal freedom.
Here's a thought: Maybe some of us have moral objections to an immigration system that forces rule-followers to wait decades for legal status and rewards border-violators with amnesty.
Here's a thought: Maybe some Americans cling to their church because their pastor is a nice person, because they findlove there, because there they have something they can believe in.
Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, us simpletons in small towns findit harder to be bigoted than all o' y'all city folks. Maybe in small towns, where everybody knows your name - and how hard you work, if you pay your taxes, how well you treat your neighbors, how often you volunteer in the community, and whether or not you're a good parent - people see the content of your character, so they don't give a hoot about the color of your skin. (But I grew up in a small town where about a third of the population is of a different race than me. What do I know?)
And here's my favorite thought of all: Maybe smalltown folks are - really - capable of thinking. All on our own.
You're wrong about why small-town Americans don't vote for Democrats.
We don't vote for Democrats because we're selfreliant, so we don't like the government trying to "solve" everything for us. And because you tell your rich friends in San Francisco that we're dumb. And because, each election, whichever one of you is running for president traipses all over the country telling us you have all the answers, that you're the one on our side, that you understand and respect our way of life.
But each time, a little bit here and there slips out - and by the end of the campaign, we can tell what you really think about us. And we manage to learn who you really are.
#1
Mr. Manly is absolutely correct. The idiots who look down on small-town people are just that, idiots. Just because the town is small doesn't mean the inhabitants have small intellects or small hearts. Bama's condescending attitude won't go unnoticed by those folks, and he'll pay the price at the polls.
BTW, the people I knew when I lived in a small town could generally take care of themselves and their families through tough times a heck of a lot better than most of the big-city types I met later. There was and is a lot of truth in that song "A Country Boy Can Survive."
#5
Don't be too sure about Virginia. The minority vote in Richmond and Tidewater is substantial, and the northern Virginia vote has been Dhimmicratic for a while. I think McCain will pull it out but I think Obama has a chance there, enough that he'll pro'ly spend time and money.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2008 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
A PREDICTION: If Barack Obama is elected President, he'll be far more warlike than President Bush, and far more warlike than his pre-election rhetoric suggests. Because before he's elected President, attacks on America are just attacks on America. But after he's elected President, attacks on America will also be attacks on Barack Obama.
And Keith Olbermann will describe the mushroom cloud over Tehran as "awesome in its rampant Technicolor beauty."
Not sure if he's right about Obama (and don't want to take the chance to fiund out!) but he's definitely right about Olbermann.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/22/2008 09:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't forget that the Democrats have gotten us into most of the wars of the last 100 years.
By R.K. Ohri, IPS (Retd.) Bangladesh has become the major operational ground for waging proxy war against India. Pakistan's ISI and Al Qaeda have a grand design to set up a caliphate from Indonesia to Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, via India and through Pakistan right into the Balkans. In this global Islamic design India is the only obstacle, populated by non-Muslims.
During last three decades there has been a quantum jump in economic distress caused by growing unemployment all over the northeast, especially in Assam. As mentioned by the Chief Minister of Assam in August 2004, there were more than two million unemployed youth in Assam alone, an abnormally high figure by national standards. It could be an underestimate because the State's economic survey for 2003-2004 revealed that employment exchanges had 15,71,996 job-seekers. As a rule, the employment exchange figures are underestimated to the extent of 30 to 40 per cent because the rural unemployed don't come to register themselves in Employment Exchanges. Obviously the state has more than 20 to 25 lakh unemployed youth. Anyone can guess, what could be the jobs and livelihood resources usurped by Bangladeshis? Census 2001 had placed the population of Assam at 2,66,55,528. As per census 1991, the proportion of Assemese-speaking people in Assam was less than 40 per cent indicating that they have already become a minority in their ancestral homestead. That should give us an idea of the size of Bangla influx which could be 70 to 80 lakh. It means that at least 30 to 35 lakh jobs and livelihood resources have been usurped by Bangladeshis in Assam alone. Among the poorest sections of society both in India and Bangladesh, at least two members of the family (often both father and mother) work to keep the kitchen fires burning. Thus Nandy is not far wrong in saying that by pushing 15 per cent of its population into India, Bangladesh has imposed a heavy economic burden on Indian citizens. And this burden is borne by the poorest of the poor living on the margin of starvation because they are the first victim of loss of livelihood sources and petty jobs.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: ISI
#1
Compare wid WAFF.com > YOUTUBE - [IIRC] A SIGN OF FUTURE ETHNIC/RACIAL STRIFE IN AMERICA??? AZTLAN = "the Reconquista" of many parts of old Mexico north of the Rio Grande and throughout the US Southwest, Texas and California???
Obama arrived in Iraq on Monday for what is described as a fact-finding mission. However, its hard to believe Obama is actually searching for facts in Iraq, nor will the facts he finds change his position. The position he chose for himself, as well as all the comments he has made so far about Iraq, reflect a disregard for facts, and there is no reason to expect a change now.
This visit, for Obama, is just a necessary evil part of an electoral campaign and not a sincere fact-finding mission. The fact that Obama made Afghanistan his first stop (after arriving in Kuwait, just next door to Iraq) suggests that its his electoral campaign that sets his priorities when it comes to the war on terrorism, not the actual map and course of the war.
Obama is lucky in that his host, Prime Ministe Maliki, is also going through an election season. Hes even luckier that Maliki has been convinced by the close circle around him that Obama is going to win the American presidential race. The state-owned Al-Sabah quoted a senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject, as saying: The change in the prime ministers position has to do with his own perception of the political developments in the United States Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election and that he will withdraw his countrys troops from Iraq as he pledged in his campaign. The official added that Maliki sees that hes got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House.
This is why both men have appeared to be in perfect harmony recently; one lending generous support to the other. But this is not solid harmony because both men are acting like this due to mere speculations and/or flawed advice from their aides during critical moments in election seasons. Maliki, for example, knows very well that had Obamas vision for Iraq been adopted two years ago, he wouldnt be enjoying the position and power he does today, and the progress in Iraq wouldnt have been achieved.
The call for disengagement in the way Obama proposes (and Maliki cautiously endorses) is based on a vision that goes no further than the upcoming elections in both countries and thus an indicator of dangerous selfishness. The two men are gambling with victory against true enemies of their nations in the hope of achieving victory against personal electoral foes. The obvious confusion in Malikis recent statements forced government spokesmen and top officials to appear several times to correct or retract what he said. This indicates that much of what Maliki is saying these days is for personal/partisan electoral purposes and does not represent the strategy of the state of Iraq.
The problem with Obamas vision for the future of Americas role in the region is that his understanding of the war and the consequences of victory or defeat is stagnant and superficial. He hasnt changed his proposed policy despite all the changes on the ground over the course of the war. He says that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the main front in the war on terror and backs this claim with the recent increase in violence over there. This raises the question of why he didnt see Iraq as the main front when Al-Qaeda was wreaking havoc on Iraq and not only redirected almost all of its resources and fighters to the country but even declared it an Islamic state.
The road to Quds [Jerusalem] passes through Karbala, Khomeini said in the 1980s. We must not forget that Jerusalem is a stones throw from Baghdad, Zawahiri said two years ago.
History proves that every terrorist and extremist in the region sees Iraq as the epicenter of their war. Neither Khomeini nor Zawahiri had Jerusalem as a priority. The priority has always been Iraq; thats why one wanted to export the revolution and the other sought to establish the Caliphate in Iraq.
Obama insists that he wants to end the war, as if that would achieve victory. This too indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of the war. Victory in a war on terror requires first and foremost that the ideology of extremists be made unattractive in the hearts and minds of the peoples of the region. The people are the center of gravity in a war of this type, and the winner is the one that attracts the people to his side. This goal can only be achieved by presenting a successful model for stability, liberty, and prosperity; a model that proves beyond a doubt that the people have a path that can lead to a bright future a choice other than status-quo dictatorships and suicidal ideologies of extremism.
Terrorism cannot be defeated by killing Bin Laden or even killing every single existing member of Al-Qaeda, especially considering the decentralized structure of terrorist organizations. Terrorism can be defeated by offering a model for a bright future that gives people who have suffered for so long hope and saves them from despair.
Iraq is now closer than ever to becoming this model, and victory in this chapter of the war is within hand unless Obama succeeds in ending the war his way
#1
Terrorism cannot be defeated by killing Bin Laden or even killing every single existing member of Al-Qaeda, especially considering the decentralized structure of terrorist organizations. Poverty and crime can be defeated by offering a model for a bright future that gives people who have suffered for so long hope and saves them from despair.
FACT FOUND: This is the pablum of socialism and victimization direct from the pulpits of Lenin, Marx and the reverend Wright. He'd do better to stick to basketball.
#2
Beez, he is totally blind to religious extremeism. That could be because he is not really religious himself. He cannot fathom a society that is totally dedicated to eradicate anyone who does not conform to their religious beliefs. If you vote for "Hope and Change" you better hope you have more than change left after you get your paycheck.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/22/2008 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
Vincent Geloso
Last week, Israel secured the release of the bodies of two soldiers who had been kidnapped by Hezbollah. Thousands of Israelis honoured Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were relieved that they could offer them a proper burial. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was present to support the families of the two soldiers in this time of sorrow.
In the meanwhile, Hezbollah supporters celebrated the return of Samir Kantar. The President of Lebanon, Michel Suleiman, greeted him warmly on the tarmac of the Beirut airport. His and others' liberation was the prize for reclaiming the bodies of the two soldiers. A spokesman from Hezbollah pronounced the exchange a day of "national pride" for Lebanon, adding, "there won't be any explosion today". Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, made a rare public appearance to celebrate the release of Kantar. But what exactly had this man done to deserve imprisonment in Israel?
In 1979, Kantar shot three Israelis and subsequently murdered a four year-old girl by striking her repeatedly on the head with a rock. In 2004, Israel negotiated an exchange of prisoners (three bodies and a colonel for 450 Palestinians and 60 bodies), but refused to release Samir Kantar who had been implicated in the Palestinian Liberation Front but not Hezbollah. In 2006, Hezbollah kidnapped two Israelis soldiers in order to negotiate the release of Kantar and thus started the war of 2006.
So Kantar, a child killer, was proclaimed a hero in Lebanon and was photographed with a bemused face making fascist-like salutes to the crowd of Hezbollah supporters. In the meantime, we witness thousands of Israelis sharing the sorrow of the widows mourning their husbands. Can you imagine a starker contrast? Actually you don't need to, since Quebec newspaper La Presse illustrated it for you (see picture).
Ehud Goldwasser's brother, Chlomo, summarized this by saying, "the Lebanese sacrificed over 700 soldiers and thousands of civilians on top of a full year of its economy and for what? This child killer? I wish to say that I pity Lebanon for sacrificing so much for so little." Can you really disagree with that?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
