Blog Archives
Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?
2nd Amendment advocates worry over opinions of OSHA nominee
By Bob Unruh
Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years soon could come in the form of a workplace “safety” regulation under President Obama’s nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George Soros.
“The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms,” wrote Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com.
“That’s by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers.”
WND has reported on Obama’s czars and has published a Whistleblower magazine issue on the “shadow government” officials gradually being installed in positions of power in Washington.
Two already have met problems. Green jobs czar Van Jones quit his post after reporting, largely by WND, of his self-described communist beliefs and his belief that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Also, White House communications director Anita Dunn, who launched a verbal assault on Fox News as an “arm” of the GOP, reportedly will step down this month.
Now comes Michaels, who although he would have to be approved by the U.S. Senate, comes with views that concern Second Amendment advocates.
Only two years ago, Michaels condemned proposals in Georgia and Florida that would have allowed workers to carry guns to and from their places of work for protection.
He continued in his 2007 writing to laud the ability of the federal government to respond by creating new laws to ban activities or behaviors.
David Michaels
“When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects of the story bring it to the public’s attention, our nation invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less,” Michaels wrote at the time.
“We saw this recently with the disaster at West Virginia’s Sago Mine, when a mine explosion and failed rescue attempts resulted in the deaths of 14 miners. Within months, Congress passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act,” he said.
“This is not true only of recent times. On the heels of the Elixir Sulfanilamide scandal, in which a medicine manufactured with antifreeze killed scores of children, Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, requiring for the first time that pharmaceutical manufacturers prove the safety of their products before marketing them,” he continued.
“It’s hard to count all of the lives that this Act has saved, but one example stands out: The United States avoided the plague of thalidomide-related birth defects that ravaged Europe in the early 1960s as a result of controls granted the FDA under that legislation. A regulatory hero, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Kelsey, had blocked U.S. licensing of thalidomide on the basis of inadequate safety data,” he wrote.
“In the U.S., we see an average of one gun-related homicide every 45 minutes, or 32 each day,” he wrote. “These are usually treated as isolated incidents, until a horrific event like the Virginia Tech massacre reawakens the public and strengthens public health advocates who are attempting to prevent gun violence.”
At RedCounty.com, writer Bryan Myrick noted that the Washington Times has urged the Senate to reject Michaels’ nomination.
“OSHA is an agency that already has a well-earned reputation for abusing its authority and reaching beyond its stated purpose. Add one zealot and it easily becomes an oppressive entity with immense power over all American businesses, large and small. At a time in which America’s businesses desperately need the freedom to responsibly pursue earning profits and put workers back on the payroll, the chemical potency of combining Obama’s left-wing agenda with an anti-business zealot manager at OSHA could prove toxic,” Myrick wrote.
The first vote on Michaels’ nomination already was canceled by the Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions.
At the Examiner, gun rights writer David Codrea warned that some “public health” excuse could be used for imposing draconian restrictions on gun owners.
He cited the comment from a director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention that, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.”
“Does anyone doubt that Michaels will bring a similarly creative agenda to apply through regulatory measures under the guise of ‘occupational safety and health?’” he asked.
The BD Law firm in Washington posted a statement that Michaels is expected to bring major changes if approved. The law firm quoted Michaels’ writing from earlier this year that OSHA “badly needs a change in direction and philosophy” and it should include a “campaign to change the workplace culture of safety.”
The National Gun Rights organization called him an “anti-gunner.”
Columnist Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute in Colorado said, “Plenty of Obama’s administration appointees have a longer record of anti-gun activism than David Michaels, but perhaps none of them have the ability to make such a dramatic, instant change in the lives of law-abiding gun owners.
“By its own fiat, OSHA could outlaw the possession of firearms in every workplace and every employee parking lot in the United States,” he wrote.
“That David Michaels is anti-gun is undisputed,” he continued.
“The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution means that a valid federal law or regulation wins in any conflict with a state law. Many states have laws that protect the rights of employees to store lawful firearms in parking lots at work. If an OSHA regulation prohibiting such storage existed, the federal regulation would trump state law,” he said.
“Under Michaels, OSHA could write a regulation stating that it is illegal for any business to allow guns in the workplace or in parking lots. No handgun could be locked in the trunk of a car, even if the owner has a Right-to-Carry license. No rifle could be stored in the car, even if there’s no ammunition around and the gun will be dropped off at the gunsmith after work,” he said.
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, had supported Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. And since Obama has been in office, he’s already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban “assault” weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.
Besides its reporting on Van Jones and Anita Dunn, WND previously reported on the controversy over the appointment of Kevin Jennings, a homosexual rights promoter, to oversee the office of school safety in the Department of Education.
Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein also has, among other issues, stated that marriage discriminates against singles
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c343a40d-0964-4b6d-a32e-330175451372)
White House grabs 2010 census power
FROM WND
GOP warns Democrats attempting unconstitutional vote manipulation
By Drew Zahn
In a move with major political implications for voting, districting and representation in future elections, the Obama administration has demanded oversight of the 2010 U.S. census.
The move has Republicans crying foul, alleging that transferring the power of census-taking from the Commerce Department, which normally oversees the U.S. Census Bureau, to the White House is an attempt to manipulate redistricting of congressional seats.
“This action appears to be motivated by politics, rather than the interests of our country,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. “The United States Census should remain independent of politics; it should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House.”
The Washington Post’s Mary Ann Akers reports a senior Republican aide telling her that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has no business overseeing the headcount that will shape the future of U.S. elections.
“With all of its political implications,” the aide reportedly said, “hijacking the census from the Commerce Department and letting it be run out of Rahm’s office is like putting PETA in charge of issuing hunting permits.”
Congressional Quarterly reports that Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the top Republican on the House Government Reform Committee, said the proposed move may even be in violation of federal law.
“Any attempt by the Obama administration to circumvent the census process for their political benefit will be met with fierce opposition,” said Issa. “This ill-conceived proposal undermines a constitutionally obligated process that speaks to the very heart of our democracy.”
Bruce Chapman, director of the U.S. Census Bureau under President Reagan, explains the Republican objection and why the census is so important in his Discovery blog:
“Everyone knows that it is possible to organize a decennial census in a way that benefits one party or another politically,” Chapman writes. “One way to effectuate this otherwise unpalatable departure from the Census Bureau’s 200-year history of non-partisanship is to put the Bureau administratively under direction of the politicos in the White House. In reality, that would be a sure invitation to cook the books on the highly consequential count of Americans.”
Chapman also claims, “The only reason the White House would want to be involved is in figuring out how to add more voting power to certain states and groups within states.”
The decennial census, taken every 10 years, generates maps and numbers then used to draw congressional districts. Ideally the census director conducts the count in a non-partisan manner under the authority granted by U.S. code to the secretary of Commerce.
Congressional Quarterly, however, announced earlier this week that a senior White House official reported the director of the Census Bureau will now report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce.
CQ later updated its report, stating that the White House “took a small step back from what the senior official told CQ” by announcing that the director of the Census Bureau would “work with the high-level officials rather than report directly to them.”
 Secretary of Commerce nominee, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. |
Several news outlets speculated that the White House power play was prompted by objections from minority group leaders over Obama’s nomination of Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., to be secretary of Commerce, the office responsible for the census. Many of the groups are concerned about how particularly Hispanics will be counted in the next census, since the numbers affect both redistricting and federal funding based on demographic changes over the past decade.
Several minority leaders have expressed dismay over Obama’s nomination of a Republican with a questionable track record on the census.
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said in a statement, “Sen. Gregg’s record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns.”
A National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials spokesman told Politico, “Secretary of Commerce-designate Judd Gregg’s record raises serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation’s population.”
An editorial in the Hispanic newspaper La Opinion went further, emphasizing a fear that Gregg may not place a high enough priority on getting an accurate count.
“We cannot afford this risk,” the paper opined.
At a White House briefing, however, spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that the change was linked to worries over Gregg’s nomination.
MSNBC reports a White House spokesman further arguing that Obama’s action actually has historical precedent.
“From the first days of the transition the census has been a priority for the president, and a process he wanted to reevaluate,” the spokesman reportedly said. “There is historic precedent for the director of the census, who works for the Commerce Secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management – given the number of decisions that will have to be put before the president. We plan to return to that model in this administration.”
Former Census Bureau Chief Chapman, however, disagrees.
“Simply put, there is no excuse for this idea,” Chapman writes. “It is not true that the Census Bureau has ever been under the direct management of the White House, and for good reason. Even if angels were in charge of the executive mansion, if the nation’s premier statistical agency were placed under White House direction, the danger to public trust would be enormous. The Decennial count is one of the few federal functions specifically described in the Constitution itself and must be operated above suspicion of politics.”
Chapman added, “Power flows from an accurate census count. Everyone involved for years has seen the count therefore as a sacred trust. It must not be polluted with even a semblance of presidential meddling.”
Lawmaker warns about ‘back-door’ to euthanasia
FROM WND
Urges Schwarzenegger to veto plan supported by ex-Hemlock Society
By Bob Unruh
A state senator in California has launched a campaign to urge Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto a plan approved by the legislature because he describes it as a “back-door” to legalized euthanasia.
The legislation is called the “Terminal Patients’ Right to Know End of Life Options” Act, and WND already has reported how it would allow patients under certain conditions to be drugged and then starved to death.
“AB 2747 allows a physician assistant or a nurse to opine that a patient is ‘terminal,’ and then push for unnatural death by ‘palliative sedation,’” charged Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families. “Depressed patients who succumb to this pressure will be drugged unconscious and die from dehydration.”
Now state Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, a licensed oral surgeon, says he’s urging the governor to veto the proposal.
“The so-called end of life options act interferes with the medical care of people who just received the worst news of their lives,” Aanestad said in a statement sent to WND. “State government has no business intruding upon the doctor-patient relationship at that time, yet that is exactly what this bill does.”
He said the bill was sponsored by a group called Compassion and Choices, which formerly was known as the Hemlock Society and has advocated for physician-assisted suicide legislation in the past. A founder of the group has praised Dr. Jack Kevorkian for helping more than 100 people die.
“I want the governor to clearly know that this measure cloaked as compassion is actually sponsored by a group of people who want to give physicians the legal right to take part in the death of another person,” said Aanestad. “Failing to do that in the past, they have introduced this measure as a small first step which looks innocent, but opens the door to further ‘end of life’ intrusions.”
Further, he said, “It also bothers me that this legislation is a back-door approach for advocates of euthanasia. AB 2747 contains language that can easily be amended in the future to include other treatments than those it now includes – treatments like those advocated by the bill’s sponsor, the former Hemlock Society.”
Aanestad noted dozens of individuals and groups representing cancer patients, minority rights groups, members of religious communities and hospitals spoke before the Senate Health Committee in opposition to the idea.
Aanestad said he believes patients facing terminal illness need information based on who they are as individuals, not an intrusion into their relationship with their doctor.
“Patients don’t need their doctors to dispense a laundry list developed by Sacramento politicians,” he said. “It’s downright cruel to take a list of treatments that may not even apply to a patient and have the doctor say ‘here, this is what the State of California legislates I must tell you when you find out that you’re dying and you ask me what to do.’”
Annestad said part of the reason he became an oral surgeon was because of his belief that serving God means valuing human life.
“Patients facing a terminal illness have many needs. Among them are comfort, pain relief and information to make critical decisions,” he said. “They need dignity, respect and the support of those who love and care for them. They need prayer and the help of clergy, family and friends. What they don’t need is an intrusion into their relationship with their doctor.”
He said the requirement that doctors tell terminal patients “would have to be told that they could be sedated into a coma and stop eating and drinking.”
“It bothers me that AB 2747 leaves no option for the compassion of a doctor who knows her patient best. A cancer doctor caring for a depressed patient who says ‘What can I do?’ would have no recourse other than to do exactly as the bill mandates – give the information the California Legislature says she needs when they say she needs it,” he said.
Forty-two Democrats in California voted in favor of the plan: 30 Republicans and two Democrats opposed the plan.
Bush Embraces Obama’s Socialism
Nov 5
Posted by Chris Thomas
By Cliff Kincaid
If Bush doesn’t know what’s going on, those on the international Left certainly do.
In one of the few tough media interviews of the Democratic ticket, veteran WFTV-Channel 9 (Orlando, Florida) anchor-reporter Barbara West grilled Joe Biden about Barack Obama’s “Marxist” views on the economy. West, who compared Obama’s “spread the wealth around” comment to the ideology of Karl Marx, should be congratulated for bringing one of the key issues to the forefront of the campaign. Needless to say, the Obama-Biden campaign is outraged that a reporter had the audacity to even mention any of this.
The point was that Obama is a socialist. Biden called the accusation “ridiculous.”
The problem for the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin is that their fellow Republican, President George W. Bush, may do more damage to American-style capitalism during his last months in office than Obama could ever do in a four-year term as president.
In short, we already have a socialist president―and his name is Bush.
Bush’s latest scheme, as he explained in his Saturday radio address, is a November 15 “international summit,” including the United Nations Secretary-General, to “begin developing principles of reform for regulatory bodies and institutions related to our financial sectors.” This is bureaucratic doublespeak for what has been called “global governance.” Some may fear with good reason that world government and global taxes are on the way in and U.S. sovereignty is on the way out.
Kept hidden from the American people is the fact that the U.N., under its new General Assembly President, Miguel D’Escoto, a sort of Jeremiah Wright on a global level, is working to take advantage of the continuing crisis.
D’Escoto is the renegade Catholic Priest and former foreign minister of Communist Sandinista Nicaragua who advocates Marxist-oriented liberation theology and won the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union. He is in a position to influence the conduct of Bush’s “international summit” and may even show up there.
D’Escoto says that “there is growing recognition that the current financial turmoil cannot be solved through piecemeal responses at the national and regional level but requires coordinated global efforts that should be led by the United Nations,” according to an Associated Press story. This means it has to be a U.N.-managed or supervised process, in order to loot the U.S. and benefit the rest of the world.
Bush’s “international summit” fits perfectly into D’Escoto’s anti-American plans.
Killing Capitalism
Bush insists that the nations at this summit must “recommit to the fundamentals of long-term economic growth―free markets, free enterprise, and free trade.” He has got to be kidding.
While mouthing platitudes about free enterprise, Bush has already authorized several socialist-style schemes, including a $700-billion “bailout” of Wall Street, nationalization of mortgage companies, massive subsidies to American International Group (AIG), and the federal government taking ownership stakes in big banks. The estimated cost is already $1.8 trillion―more than $17,000 per American household.
It is important to note that none of this has stabilized the financial system, although that is what we were told by the media would happen.
It is also newsworthy that Bush has escaped criticism from McCain and Palin for “spreading the wealth around.” Perhaps this is because McCain voted for this Bush brand of socialism. Of course, so did Obama.
It is time for the conservative media to hold the Republican ticket accountable for their president’s embrace of socialism.
Chris Wallace Grills McCain
On October 19, an effort was made in this regard. McCain appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and was asked about socialism by host Chris Wallace. McCain said he was against it. “I believe in wealth creation by Joe the Plumber,” McCain said.
Wallace shot back: “But, Senator, you voted for the $700-billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism?”
McCain answered: “That is reacting to a crisis that’s due to greed and excess in Washington.” He went on to say that “They’re bailing out the banks. They’re bailing out these institutions.”
“But you voted for that,” Wallace countered. “Of course,” McCain replied. “It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank.”
So McCain is critical of a socialist scheme he voted for! No wonder his criticism of Obama’s socialism is starting to ring hollow.
On Saturday, as Bush was verbally promoting adherence to free market principles, the major media were reporting that the administration’s socialist financial takeover plan was now being dramatically expanded into taking financial stakes in insurance companies. This is another desperate sign that things continue to get worse.
Our media are still calling all of this a “bailout” or a “rescue.” They don’t want to use the accurate word “socialism.” It’s as if they don’t want the American people to realize that everything their ancestors fought and died for is being frittered away.
Mysterious Meltdown
Incredibly, we have no definitive explanation of why a global financial crisis suddenly materialized just six weeks before U.S. presidential and congressional elections. Instead, controversial hedge fund operators like George Soros, an Obama backer who was convicted of insider trading in France and was in the news earlier this year for his possible role in betting on a U.S. economic collapse, have largely escaped scrutiny.
“The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to hold a hearing about regulation next month with five hedge fund managers,” including Soros, the New York Times reported last Wednesday. Soros is one of several hedge fund operators who reportedly made more than $1 billion last year. But this hearing could occur after the elections and after the Soros-supported Democrats take the White House and increase their numbers in Congress.
Soros is being treated deferentially by such media personalities as Bill Moyers of the Public Broadcasting Service and Fareed Zakaria of CNN.
“In the interest of full disclosure,” declared Moyers before his Soros interview, “you should know that I served three years on the board of George Soros’ foundation, the Open Society Institute, dealing with such issues as a free press, the rule of law, and human rights. But I’ve had no involvement in his political activities and nothing to do with his business interests unfortunately.”
No involvement in his political activities? The Open Society Institute was designed to promote his political activities. Who does Moyers think he’s kidding?
While the media and Congress seem reluctant to get to the bottom of what really happened, Bush participates in a masquerade of his own, giving lip service to capitalism while his administration takes us down the road of socialism. He seems to be acting like a puppet of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the “Armand Hammer of Communist China,” as Frank Gaffney once described him, alluding to the businessman who did favors for the Soviets. China’s reported role in pulling the plug on the U.S. financial system, and Paulson’s demand that he be given the ability to bail out foreign banks in China holding U.S. assets, cry out for media scrutiny. But Bush went along with Paulson’s plan, which might be viewed as a comedy of errors were it not for the fact that many Americans are losing their life savings.
There was only one problem with the Bush/Paulson plan―socialism doesn’t work.
Now, having failed on the domestic level to “rescue” the economy or anything else, Bush is counting on the “international community,” largely populated by socialists, communists and assorted dictators, to figure everything out. This is one mistake on top of many others. But this mistake could not only compound the problem but leave us in the grip of global elites who intend to loot our wealth and savings to an even greater degree.
If Bush doesn’t know what’s going on, those on the international Left certainly do.
Taking it to the Next Level
Calling the global financial crisis an “historic opportunity,” a coalition of “progressive” individuals, social movements and non-governmental organizations met in Beijing on October 15 and issued a statement urging the “radical economic transformation” of the global economy. They advocate a “global taxation system,” including what are known as “Tobin taxes, on the movements of speculative capital,” and “stringent progressive carbon taxes on those [nations] with the biggest carbon footprints.”
Of course, U.S. taxpayers will be hardest hit by any such scheme.
Their plan also includes phasing out the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency and establishing “a people’s inquiry into the mechanisms necessary for a just international monetary system.”
They intend to bring the U.S. into a system of international socialism, with new and more powerful global agencies deciding our economic and financial fate. We will pay for the international bureaucrats and foreign elites to rule us. It will mark the end of the American system of self-government.
At the same time, the Left wants to make sure that “aid transfers do not fall as a result of the crisis.” Foreign aid must not only continue, they say, it must be expanded. The primary vehicle for this is the Millennium Development Goals project of the United Nations, whereby nations such as the U.S. are supposed to provide .7 percent of their Gross National Product (GNP) in foreign aid.
The hope of the international Left is that Bush’s November 15 summit can be manipulated to provide a cover for forcing the U.S. and the other nations to agree to global socialist proposals to manage the world economy.
Here’s what they say: “The past few months have seen one of the most significant financial crises in North American and European history. The response was just as historic. To stave off regional and global recessions and restore stability and confidence in the market, northern governments are pursuing a massive and unprecedented program of government intervention, nationalizing banks, injecting massive subsidies into ailing institutions and re-regulating their financial sectors.”
But they want to go further. The new process must be “inclusive and participatory of all governments of the world,” they say. This is globalism gone mad.
Setting the Stage for Obama
Their point man is Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in 2001 and is now a Columbia University professor. Stiglitz has been appointed by D’Escoto to chair a high-level U.N. task force to review the global financial system.
His first book, Globalization and its Discontents, was praised by George Soros as “Penetrating, insightful…. A seminal work that must be read.” In it, Stiglitz suggested that while a global tax on currency transactions, the so-called Tobin Tax, was being seriously studied in Europe, it might involve serious “implementation problems.” But with his subsequent book, Making Globalization Work, those problems have vanished, as he argues for a variety of global tax schemes that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.
Stiglitz, a financial contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign and major backer of the national Democratic Party, is in a perfect position to guide the transition into a global socialist economy.
On October 23, at a U.N. meeting, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with Stiglitz to discuss the financial crisis and the November 15 global summit. One of the other economists in attendance was Jeffrey Sachs, also of Columbia University, and the head of the U.N. office that supervises foreign aid commitments and contributions to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Sachs has estimated that the U.S. is short by $65 billion-a-year in foreign aid, which adds up to $845 billion over the 13-year period during which nations are supposed to attain the MDGs. Through references to various U.N. resolutions and conferences, as well as the MDGs, Obama’s Global Poverty Act is designed to make the U.S. comply with the requirement of .7 percent of GNP being provided for “official development assistance.” Sachs has stated openly that a global tax will be necessary to force the U.S. to come up with the money.
At the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in September, Obama reaffirmed his own “embracing” of the MDGs and noted, “This will take more resources from the United States, and as President I will increase our foreign assistance to provide them.” On top of that, Obama supports the Jubilee Act, which would cancel as much as $75 billion of third world debt. That adds up to $920 billion more in taxpayer money on top of the estimated $1.8 trillion in national and domestic spending to deal with the current crisis.
We are facing the bankruptcy of the United States.
McCain hasn’t officially endorsed the Global Poverty Act or the Jubilee Act. But both have passed the House of Representatives and both were also approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, headed by Obama running mate and Senator Joseph Biden. This is the same Joe Biden who denies that his running mate is a socialist.
The irony is that the same socialist process begun by the Republican president, Bush, could be dramatically expanded under a Democratic President, Obama. This time, the “bailouts” and “rescues” will be global in nature and used to benefit the rest of the world, using U.S. tax dollars.
The inevitable result will be global government financed by global taxes. The last time this was tried in America was when King George attempted to impose taxes on what became the founders of the greatest country in human history, the United States of America.
The cry of “no taxation without representation” led to a revolution.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
Del.icio.us : BARACK OBAMA, BREAKING NEWS, COMMENTARY, DEMOCRATS, GEORGE W. BUSH, LATEST NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS, REPUBLICAN, SOCIALISM
Zooomr : BARACK OBAMA, BREAKING NEWS, COMMENTARY, DEMOCRATS, GEORGE W. BUSH, LATEST NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS, REPUBLICAN, SOCIALISM
Technorati : BARACK OBAMA, BREAKING NEWS, COMMENTARY, DEMOCRATS, GEORGE W. BUSH, LATEST NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS, REPUBLICAN, SOCIALISM
Flickr : BARACK OBAMA, BREAKING NEWS, COMMENTARY, DEMOCRATS, GEORGE W. BUSH, LATEST NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS, REPUBLICAN, SOCIALISM
Posted in Latest News, News, Politics
Leave a Comment
Tags: Barack Obama, Breaking News, Commentary, Democrats, GEORGE W. BUSH, Latest News, News, Politics, REPUBLICAN, SOCIALISM