Beware of Stealth ObamaCare!

H/t GiovanniWorld member (what a lovely name) Lara!

A standard technique used by magicians is the Sleight of Hand. wherein the magician tricks us to focus on something irrelevant while he conceals the real card or coin.

That’s what’s going on with ObamaCare.

The bi-partisan crooks in Congress are determined to ram ObamaCare down our throats whether we want it or not, and in one guise or another.

While we’ve been focused on HR 3200 and its various amended versions, such as the current Baucus plan, Congress has another nationalized health care bill waiting in the wings.

It’s the Healthy Americans Act (HHA) or Wyden-Bennett bill.

HHA may well be what Obama, the Dems, and the enabling RINOs want all along. It is the most dangerous threat to our liberties and already has a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors in the Senate.

Tell your senators you oppose the Healthy Americans Act!

~Eowyn

………….
A sham ‘compromise’ health care bill waiting in the wings

By Dennis B. Cooke MD & Carolyn Cooke – September 26, 2009 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/a_sham_compromise_health_care.html

In the background, behind all of the noise around the Baucus bill and the endless appearances by Obama, is another healthcare bill that has been given little attention. A flawed bill this worrisome legislation appears to be waiting in the wings. The Healthy Americans Act (HHA), or Wyden-Bennett, was re-introduced to Congress in February, 2009. Written by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) and Utah Senator Bob Bennett (R), it has a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors in the Senate.

Will Wyden-Bennett be trotted out as another “grand compromise” piece of legislation? A coalition of Senators from both sides of the aisle may very well intend to ride in on their white horses with a massive public relations campaign in hopes of convincing the American people they have listened to our outrage. They are already saying they have crafted a bipartisan solution to America’s healthcare problems that offers universal coverage while preserving the free market. Sen. Wyden says his plan will be the one, speaking at a meeting with directors of the Pima County Medical Society in Oregon in May, 2009

The truth is Wyden-Bennett is a backdoor takeover by the Congress of the entire insurance marketplace. The result would lead to a complete nationalization of our healthcare system. It may well be the bill Obama and members of the United States Congress have intended to legislate all along.

Wyden-Bennett is the most overreaching and dangerous threat to our liberties of any of the bills in existence.

The Healthy Americans Act is the plan former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed from the very beginning of the healthcare debate. Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, said she would sign this bill if she was elected president. Interesting endorsements for a supposedly free-market plan!

Under Wyden-Bennett, the insurance market is 100% regulated by the federal government. This plan mandates Congressional approval of all insurance plans including the premiums the insurance companies may charge. The government will approve or disapprove insurance claims.

The insurance companies as we know them today will exist in name only to promote the façade of a free market. They will only exist as purveyors of nationalized healthcare. With only government improved plans and premiums, the incentive for innovation and competition in the insurance market will be crippled.

Make no mistake, the private plan you enjoy now will be gone. The standard benefits package will be the BlueCross/BlueShield Plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This plan is designed for older, financially secure federal employees. The average 2009 family premium is $13,440 per year.

Under federal mandate all Americans will be forced to buy the FEHBP as their minimum allowable coverage. The ability of the insurance company to offer any lesser coverage will be gone — the needs and wants of the individual will no longer be taken into consideration. The young healthy individual, with a lower salary and little need for extensive benefits, will be forced to purchase the same policy, at the same premium, as an older life-long smoker or diabetic. In effect he will be subsidizing their care. Many young Obama supporters are going to be very unhappy with this plan.

Michael F. Cannon, Director of the Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, states that 30-50% of Americans will be forced to pay more than they need or want for healthcare in order to subsidize others. Often those others may be people that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles.

The penalty for failure to comply will be the average monthly premium plus 15% for each uncovered month.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will expand further into our personal lives. The premium will be taken out of paychecks, thus removing any transparency from the system and diminishing the consumer’s ability to make responsible choices. The IRS will be in charge of all collections, disbursements and the garnishing of wages for penalties. Checks for claims, payments for hospitals, clinics and healthcare providers will be written by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and administered through the sham insurance carriers. The IRS may collect the money for fines out of your bank account.

Widen-Bennett involves the taxation of your government controlled health insurance plans up to 25% and other taxes, including many deceptively hidden ones. Another attack on innovation will come from an exorbitant tax on device and drug companies doing research and development.

Proponents say this bill will deliver a ‘revenue neutral’ plan. However, you may rest assured it will only remain so by raising the cost of the premiums you will be forced to pay over the years or by reducing the number of services covered in policies.

HAA is almost identical to the Massachusetts Healthcare plan Kennedy touted. The cost of family healthcare premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the nation, projected to rise to $26,370 per year by 2020, according to the Commonwealth Foundation. According to the Mr. Cannon at the Cato Institute, Healthcare costs in Massachusetts have risen 60% over what they would have if no reform had been passed. He reports the average wait time in Boston to see a specialist is 50 days-29 days longer than the average in most American cities, even though there are more doctors per capita.

Imagine the extraordinary costs under this possible scenario

American taxpayers will be subsidizing the premiums of those up to 400% above the poverty line. Already Americans are upset with the costs of the healthcare plans in the forefront of the debate. If amnesty is passed, as Congress intends, Americans will be forced to subsidize the 12-20 million predominantly low-skilled illegal aliens that are already in this country and the many millions more of their relatives that will enter this country through chain migration.

Who Stands to Benefit from Wyden-Bennett

The beneficiaries of this plan will be the elected officials in Washington, D.C. who will be lining their already deep pockets with more lobbying money. No thought will be given to the effectiveness of the treatments covered in the plans but instead lobbyists will line up to promote their devices and services in the same way Medicare is handled now. Efficacy of care will be thrown out the window with our freedom to choose our coverage.

Leftist Senator Ron Wyden introduced the bill in the Senate Finance Committee along with Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett. Wyden, an attorney, hails from a state that has a government run public option. Recently, a 64 year old cancer survivor died because her Oregon government plan did not cover a potentially life-saving drug, prescribed by her doctor who thought it had a good chance of helping her survive. Her government option was a $50.00 assisted suicide pill. Wyden wants Oregon care for all Americans and this plan will deliver it when cost dictates force cuts in benefits.

Senator Bennett has always wanted to nationalize healthcare. He was enamored with HillaryCare in the 1990’s until he was forced to go along with the other members of the party in opposition because of the strong resistance of the American people. So anxious is he to institute a government takeover, he is willing to lie to achieve this goal by pretending the free market principles are being applied to the insurance marketplace.

Four other RINOs, Republicans-In-Name-Only, have joined Democrats to co-sponsor the Healthy Americans Act (S 391). The RINOs on the Senate Finance committee who have so far formally given support by signing on as co-sponsors of the bill are Lindsay Graham (SC), Michael Crapo (ID), Lamar Alexander (TN), and Judd Gregg (NH).

The lack of integrity demonstrated by the Republicans and Democrats who are co-sponsoring and supporting this government takeover of healthcare is matched by the lack of respect they demonstrate for the American people who have spoken loudly against more government intervention in the system. They either still believe “we the people” are stupid or complacent.

If their intention is to lie about Wyden-Bennett and sell it as a necessary ‘compromise’ that satisfies the concerns of the American people, they have another thing coming.

No Health Insurance? Jail!

Those so-called “representatives” in Washington, DC, just refuse to listen to us.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 56% of American voters nationwide now oppose the health care “reform” proposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats. This is the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

But they are hell-bent on ramming ObamaCare through.

To add injury to insult, if you refuse to buy health insurance under ObamaCare, you’ll be subject to the following punishment:

• A fee of $1,900
• A charge of misdemeanor, leading to
  
• A year in jail or a $25,000 penalty.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) obtained confirmation of the above this past Thursday, Sept. 24, 2009, in the form of a handwritten note from the Chief-of-Staff of the Congressional oint Committee on Taxation, Tom Barthold. The note was written on JCT letterhead and was signed “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

H/t sane GiovanniWorld member Steve!

~Eowyn

Insanity!

Please check in from time to time during the day tomorrow (Saturday Sept 26th). I’m going to post some stuff that proves we have left sanity in a trash dump somewhere known only to the crazies.

Stay tuned for “Insanity, American Style”.

Gio-

Public Option Obamacare?

Geeesh, just when I thought people had come to their senses, the loons on the far left bring up the Public Option again and seem to think it will pass muster this time. And their reason for such a cheery outlook… The Washington Post (the Obama Administration Newspaper) and ABC News (Obama’s official presidential News Channel) conducted a poll.

So let’s put this in perspective. The Washington Post is the second most liberal large Newspaper in the country, and ABC News practically has an office in the Obama’s living quarters in the White House. So what type of an audience do you think those two news outlets have? Left, Center, Right? See my point? It should be a surprise to nobody that 55 percent of those want a Public Option in the Obamacare bill.

Here’s my solution to the whole problem… Go ahead and insert the Public Option back into the bill, then take the bill to the floor and vote to KILL THE DAMN THING!

Gio-

Senate Panel Breaks for Weekend Without Tackling Public Option

 

By Scott Butterworth and Ceci Connolly

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 25, 2009; 1:28 PM

 

Senators debating a much-watched bill that would overhaul the nation’s health-care system broke for the weekend Friday without tackling an issue that has split the American public: whether the government should sponsor a insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

A group of Democrats had announced Thursday that they would bring up the so-called public insurance option in a meeting Friday of the Senate Finance Committee. That panel is considering hundreds of amendments to a health-care bill written by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

But the committee, which has slogged through the long list of amendments, recessed before the issue could come to the floor. It will not reconvene until Tuesday morning, in observance of Yom Kippur on Monday.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month showed that the idea of a public option had support from 55 percent of those surveyed, but the proposal also has drawn intense objections. Baucus has said that he did not include it in his bill because he didn’t think it could pass the Senate.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), a committee member, predicted Thursday that his colleagues would come to view the government plan as the most effective way to control spiraling health-care costs.

“There really isn’t an alternative, except the status quo,” Rockefeller said. “This whole health-care fight is about getting away from the status quo so people can have health insurance they can afford.”

In the House, Democratic leaders did discuss the public option on Friday, in a 3 1/2 -hour meeting. The shape and format of such a government-sponsored alternative is the central issue holding up House Democrats as they aim to bring a health-care bill to the floor by mid-October.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that some ideas proposed by centrist Democrats in a meeting Thursday were not acceptable. She rejected a proposed “trigger” that would implement the so-called public option if affordable coverage is not available to the majority of Americans after several years. “A trigger is an excuse for not doing anything,” she said, summing up what she described as the “attitude” of many colleagues.

If the trigger is off the table, the key decision ahead for Pelosi’s leadership team is choosing between competing versions of the public option that House committees have approved. One is preferred by the party’s dominant liberal wing, while another is backed by a large bloc of moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee voted to stick by a deal struck months ago by the Obama White House, Baucus and the drug lobby, despite objections from Democratic senators on the panel.

Under the agreement, negotiated by the White House, drug companies pledged to contribute $80 billion in discounts and fees over the next decade in return for a universal health-care bill that could deliver 30 million newly insured customers.

Democrats not privy to the closed-door talks chafed at the deal, accusing the administration of settling too early for too little.

“The so-called pharma deal, cut with whomever, was pretty lenient,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a supporter of the amendment.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) led the attack, arguing that his amendment would recoup money the government lost when it moved elderly Medicaid beneficiaries into Medicare. Drug companies pay 15 percent rebates on Medicaid drugs but not on Medicare prescriptions.

In the end, three Democrats — Baucus; Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), whose state is home to pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca; and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), whose state is home to drugmakers Johnson & Johnson and Merck — joined with the committee’s Republicans to defeat an amendment that would override the deal.

Carper and Menendez said it would be unfair — and politically risky — to back out of the deal.

“I hope it passes here or on the [Senate] floor,” Schumer said.

Patriotic Resistance ALERT

A message from Admin. Asst., Dee to all members of ACTION ALERT E-Mail Tree on Patriotic Resistance!

I received this from one of our members:

Subject… Question Obama!
I am working to try and get out word for a Letter to Congress that folks can sign online. Darla was kind enough to post a link on the homepage, but Jeff suggested I contact you and see if you would mind including it in the email newsletter. We are a long way off from the 20,000 signature goal and I believe many many more people would sign it if they saw it.

Here is a link to the letter.
http://www.questionobama.com/petition/letter-congress

Pass the word to all groups you belong to and let’s get the signatures needed on the letter! (Don’t forget to sign it yourself)

Dee

Visit ACTION ALERT E-Mail Tree at:
http://www.resistnet.com/groups/group/show?id=2600775%3AGroup%3A704581

Jewish Policy

The following is something that was sent to me by the “Jewish Policy Center”. I found it to be an interesting read.

Gio-

CHOSEN PEOPLE, CHOOSING LEFT
In the presidential election, Barack Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote

By Richard Baehr
Wall Street Journal
September 25, 2009

In a conference call with more than 1,000 rabbis before Rosh Hashanah, President Barack Obama encouraged the religious leaders to use their sermons on the Jewish New Year to promote health-care reform. It is more than ironic that liberal Jews, who call for a complete separation of church and state, saw nothing wrong with the president scripting their sermons. The reason may be that the script came from a modern sort of Jewish holy book, what Norman Podhoretz calls the “Torah of liberalism.”

“Why Are Jews Liberals?” is a fine and bracing examination of a question that has vexed Mr. Podhoretz for decades. He displays, along the way, the skill for supple reasoning and pugnacious argument that was the hallmark of his long editorship of Commentary magazine. Mr. Podhoretz grew up on the political left and remained there until the late 1960s, when he moved to the right. In “Why Are Jews Liberals?” he ponders, with a sense of deep frustration, why so few other Jews have made his journey.

Acknowledging that the allegiance of Jews to liberalism was once understandable, Mr. Podhoretz claims that the allegiance has now become irrational—and yet liberal Jews, which is to say most Jews in this country, show no sign of changing. “I cannot for the life of me give up the hope that the Jews of America will eventually break free of their political delusions,” he writes, “and that they will begin to recognize where their interests and their ideals, both as Jews and as Americans, truly lie.”

What is the Torah of liberalism? Mr. Podhoretz says that the 11th commandment for liberal Jews guarantees abortion rights, which is a major reason why Jews vote for Democrats. But their devotion to the Democratic Party long predates Roe v. Wade. As Mr. Podhoretz notes, with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1980, in presidential elections “the Democratic candidate has scored a landslide among Jewish voters . . . the overall average since 1928 is a stunning 75%.” Last year, Barack Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote.

It will be dangerous to the Jewish future, Mr. Podhoretz says, for Jews to continue down the path of reflexively supporting not just Democrats but also the party’s liberal wing. Unlike every other ethnic or religious group, he notes, Jews do not become more conservative as their income and wealth rise. The reason for such steady liberalism, it is often claimed, is that Jews care about those who are marginalized in America, as Jews themselves were once marginalized both here and in other countries.

But Mr. Podhoretz maintains that Jews are voting against their own interests. Jews advanced in America in the mid-20th century when the meritocracy took hold, individual effort and achievement were rewarded, and group quotas, which limited Jewish educational opportunity and economic advancement, were eliminated. How odd, then, to see Jews aligned with the party that embraces identity politics, affirmative action and quota-driven policies. Democrats also favor higher taxes and more government regulation, neither of which tends to produce the sort of economic expansion that benefits everyone, including the marginalized.

Another danger to the Jewish future, Mr. Podhoretz says, is the commitment of Jews to secularism and social liberalism. Jews are the least religious group in America—just 16% of Jews attend services at least monthly, and 42% of Jews attend not at all. Even those Jews who do go to synagogue often find a way to remain comfortable in their political beliefs: Mr. Podhoretz describes how liberal Jews—rabbis and worshipers alike—routinely cherry-pick passages from the Torah to buttress favored social policies. The Hebrew word for charity, tzedakah, he says, has been seized on by liberal Jews over the years to promote FDR’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and “social justice.” Mr. Podhoretz quotes a professor of modern Jewish history who said the Torah’s instruction made voting for John McCain last year impossible because he had opposed raising the minimum wage.

As Jews have traded Judaism for secularism, their birth rate has fallen well below the replacement level. As Mr. Podhoretz observes, this is only part of the new demographic reality. Fully half of Jews who marry these days choose a non-Jewish spouse, and a majority of the children in these marriages are not reared as Jewish. Not surprisingly, the Jewish population in America has begun to decline. Over the past 60 years, while the U.S. population doubled, the number of Jews has at best remained steady at about six million. Orthodox Jews, whose politics tend toward the conservative, have accepted the biblical directive to be fruitful and multiply. Their share of the American Jewish population is rising, and now stands at about 10%. But the demographic time bomb among non-Orthodox Jews, Mr. Podhoretz says, may be unstoppable.

Finally, there is Israel. Mr. Podhoretz once hoped that American Jews would move to the right when faced with the rabid anti-Zionism that has the infected the left in recent decades, but he was disappointed. While many liberal Jews insist on their support for Israel, somehow they seem far more passionate about abortion rights and government-run health care than about preventing Iran, Israel’s sworn enemy, from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That Jews rejected the adamantly pro-Israel John McCain in favor of Mr. Obama, whose views on Israel were vague at best, confirmed Mr. Podhoretz in his belief that “their commitment to liberalism, and to the Democratic Party as its principal political vehicle, was still so deep and so powerful that anything threatening to shake it would be fended off with willful blindness and rationalizations built on denial.”

During Rosh Hashanah services last weekend, I saw these words embedded in a stained-glass window at my synagogue: “God, the Torah and Israel are One.” I’m still willing to accept that most American Jews believe these are the cornerstones of their faith. What is less clear is whether for many liberal Jews their Torah is Jewish law or the Torah of liberalism that Mr. Podhoretz describes with unsettling clarity.

Mr. Baehr is the chief political correspondent for the online magazine American Thinker and a Distinguished Fellow of the Jewish Policy Center.

Abortionists Hate God

“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in  me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,  and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

Dear friends of Giovanni’s World:

As some of you know, Gio and I derive no monetary compensation from posting on this blog. We spend hours each day on Gio’s World — finding news and pics, posting them, and writing editorial comments — because we are deeply worried about the deterioration of America’s politics, economy, and culture.

Like you, I’m troubled by the bad news that each day brings. What I found today brought a chill to my heart and soul.

A pro-life group in Rockford, Illinois, has produced a video, “Signs of Evil,” on an abortion mill called the Northern Illinois Women’s Center (NIWC). This video clearly shows that abortionists hate God, Christianity, and Christians.

The NIWC boasts of having performed 50,000 abortions in the last decade.

In a window display, this abortion mill mocks Christ by placing a rubber chicken over a large crucifix. Another window sign proudly proclaims “NIWC 50,000, JC (Jesus Christ) 50” — that is, the NIWC has killed 50,000 vs. pro-lifers having saved only 50 babies. Yet another window sign reads: “No Job too Big or Too Small.”

(Source: “Signs of Evil: Northern Illinois Women’s Center. House of Horrors. Hatred of Christians,” by Deacon Keith Fournier, 9/23/2009, http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=34477)

Here’s the video. You are forewarned!

GOD HELP US.

~Eowyn

New Obama-Joker Poster

Someone in Los Angeles is waging a guerrilla-war art campaign against The Narcissist-In-Chief.

New Obama-Joker posters have appeared, plastered on the outer wall of the Old Spaghetti Factory on Sunset Blvd between the Hollywood Freeway and Gower, in Los Angeles — in the very heart of Hollywood.

H/t American Thinker!

~Eowyn

Rush On Leno

Enjoy!

Make sure you also watch the second shorter video

~Eowyn

Liberal Lie About Joe Wilson

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) made headline news when he intemperately yelled “You lie!” when Obama, in his speech to Congress, said that the health care “reform” bill does not allow illegal migrants to access ObamaCare.

Immediately after, the Left began a smear campaign against Wilson, claiming that he’s a hypocrite because — so they say — Wilson had voted in 2003 to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ health care.

But liberals are lying about this!

Wilson’s vote was on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, specifically Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008, for government reimbursements to hospitals that provide treatment for uninsured illegal aliens.  

Presently, our hospitals are legally obliged to provide medical care for uninsured illegal immigrants.  The legal instrument is section 1867 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd).

In other words, Wilson’s vote was to assist our hospitals by seeing to it that the federal government fulfill its responsibility to reimburse hospitals for their expenses on illegals. Wilson was NOT voting in favor of illegal immigration.

A big “Thank You” to 24Ahead.com for this information!

~Eowyn

Whites Must ‘Step Down’

A monumental h/t goes out to Jan & Cecil Moon over at Zion Beckons for this racist piece! I know, I know, just calm down and read. The truth is revealed.

This story should make you angry, if it doesn’t, then you need to start paying attention!

(Diversity boss says)… Obama appointee declares positions of power should go to ‘people of color, gays’.

With former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones gone, along with his views about whites directing poisons to minorities, focus is now shifting to race-based views of “diversity czar” Mark Lloyd, who has suggested “white people” step down from positions of power to allow “more people of color, gays” and “other people” to take those positions.

Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission chief diversity officer appointed to the newly created position by President Obama in early August, has talked about issues such as a 100 percent tax on broadcast outlets to collect money to provide alternative viewpoints, mandatory diversity in station ownership and the idea of requiring broadcast businesses to cater to the demands of local activism committees. 

It’s time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

Prior to his recent appointment, Lloyd was vice president for strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He was also a senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and has worked as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN.

At a May 2005 Conference on Media Reform, Lloyd appeared as a speaker in a discussion on why media policy should be considered from a “racial angle.”

First, he addressed affirmative action policies:

“During the Clinton administration, largely because of Congress, who was then very concerned about affirmative action and believed that – although affirmative action largely benefited white women – that affirmative action was largely viewed as something that was benefitting blacks – not necessarily any of the other racial groups [chuckle] but by blacks. And that blacks had gotten enough and it was time to do something about this. These affirmative-action programs needed to be stopped. We have not made much improvement since we had begun to pull back from those things in the mid-1990s.”

Lloyd also spoke about the challenge of communication in “rooms full of whites.”

The conversation about how we communicate with each other despite being aware of the clear impressions that I know that I make in rooms that I walk into, when people hear my voice, is a challenge. How much do I express the … I think really pretty obvious complaints of black Americans in rooms full of whites.

He later spoke about his concerns about whites occupying important leadership positions:

“There’s nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions,” Lloyd said. “And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.”

He continued, “We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

The following is an audio recording of his statements: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYhY68kwAxg

Lloyd has pushed for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” and, according to the Washington Times, “spoken publicly of getting white media executives to ‘step down’ in favor of minorities” and prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful. 

Lloyd’s comments also sparked controversy when he praised Chavez during a June 2008 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, saying the Venezuelan president had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”

The following is a video of that comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk

Chavez kicked the nation’s oldest television network, RCTV, off the air in 2007 by refusing to renew its license, the Washington Times reported. He replaced it with a state-run station that aired cartoons and old movies while protesters marched in the streets. Chavez has also indicated that he may try to close down Globovision, a TV station that has criticized him.

In addition to his comments at the May 2005 Conference on Media Reform about affirmative action and rooms “full of whites,” Lloyd also told the crowd, “There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men.

“Here I am,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Common Sense Conservative

Palin: ‘Common-sense conservative’

Common sense conservatism deals with the reality of the world as it is. Complicated and beautiful, tragic and hopeful, we believe in the rights and the responsibilities and the inherent dignity of the individual.
“We don’t believe that human nature is perfectible.

“We’re suspicious of government efforts to fix problems because often what it’s trying to fix is human nature, and that is impossible. It is what it is. But that doesn’t mean that we’re resigned to, well, any negative destiny. Not at all. I believe in striving for the ideal, but in realistic confines of human nature.

The above was taken from her speech given in Hong Kong just a few days ago.

—————

I wish I knew how to get rid of this yellow highlighting thingy!

Anyway… Good old fashioned common sense needs a comeback, and I like many others, hope that Sarah Palin is the one to lead the charge. You go girl!

Gio-

Obama Not So Dumb After All

With all the bad things that can be said about Obama, I have to give credit where credit is due… At least he’s figured out early in the game that he’s a one termer! And according to the video below, he’s already accepted his fate.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/cnsnewstv/video.aspx?v=Gdnz6UZuuz

Have You No Shame?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations today. You can read the full transcript of his speech here… “What You Didn’t Read in the NYT”. It was an excellent speech, so I suggest you read the transcript and watch the two minute segment below.

89% Say Media Elected Obama

File this under “We already knew this!”

What I really want to know is…

WHO ARE THE 10.7% MORONS WHO DON’T THINK THE MSM HELPED ELECT OBAMA?

~Eowyn

…………..

Poll: 89% Say Media Helped Elect, Promote Obama

By Dan Weil – Sept 24, 2009 – http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_media_election_poll/2009/09/24/264298.html

It’s not just conservatives who accuse the media of showing a liberal bias.

A new survey from the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute shows that 89.3 percent of Americans believe the national media played a sizable role in helping to elect President Obama.

And 69.9 percent of respondents view the national news media as intent on promoting the Obama presidency, while 26.5 percent disagreed, and 3.6 percent were unsure.

More than half of those surveyed, 56.4 percent, said the news media are promoting Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3 percent disagreed, and 4.3 percent were unsure.

A majority, to the tune of 57.6 percent, also maintain that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. More than a third (34.6 percent) disagreed, and 7.9 percent were unsure.

“It is sad when we find that only 55.9 percent say they expect the media to tell them the truth today,” Jerry Lindsley, director of the Polling Institute, said in a statement accompanying the survey.

“This perception of bias will eventually catch up with the news media outlets. We found 45.9 percent have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias.”

The poll was released days after Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander acknowledged that his newspaper doesn’t give enough credit to conservative media.

It just may be that that “traditional news outlets like The Post simply don’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoint,” Alexander writes.

“Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up by non-ideological media because there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms,” Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, told Alexander.

“They just don’t see the resonance of these issues. They don’t hear about them as fast, (and) they’re not naturally watching as much.”

Obama Hates America

There is no other way around it.

Barack Hussein Obama truly hates America.

The Obama administration is planning to reduce the number of Border Patrol agents along the 8,607 miles long US-Mexico border by 384, from the present 17,399 to 17,015 agents.

The reduction will begin October 1, despite the fact that:

• Almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control;
• The Department of Justice admits that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached”;
• The Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year.

To read the rest of the CNS news article, go HERE.

~Eowyn

What You Didn’t Read in the NYT

Israel is 1/20th the geographical size of California, with 1/5th California's population

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the United Nations’ General Assembly. Did you know that? You wouldn’t know, if you had relied on the New York Times.

I just scoured the New York Times‘ website. I don’t see anything on Netanyahu.

What I did find is that the most-emailed NYT article today is this one on “coming out” as gay in middle school.

So, to make up for New York Times‘ non-coverage of Netanyahu’s speech, here it is!

~Eowyn

………….

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to the UN General Assembly, September 24, 2009
Courtesy Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee.

There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances — by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing — absolutely nothing — from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians — Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here’s why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us — my people, my country — of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples — a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachibility of mankind” is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Political Thought Of Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd

Surprise! Mark Lloyd thinks we're racist!

The 34 “czars” appointed by Barry Obama are not cabinet posts and therefore do not require the Senate’s approval for their confirmation. This, of course, means that they also are not scrutinized by the Senate. In effect, through this proliferation of “czars,” Obama is bypassing the Constitutional mechanism of checks and balance.

Why is Obama doing this?

The reason is because these Czars are far-far-Left ideological extremists — just as Obama himself is.

Giovanni’s World has examined the racist communist beliefs of green czar Van Jones and regulatory czar Cass Sunstein. The former is now gone, due to conservatives’ outrage when Jones’ beliefs were publicized. Sunstein, however, is still in office.

Another “czar” is Mark Lloyd, the “chief diversity officer” — a newly created position — of the Federal Communications Commission. Lloyd comes with impeccable far-Left credentials. Prior to being appointed diversity czar by Obama, Lloyd was:

• A senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress;
• A reporter and producer at NBC and CNN; and
• Vice president for strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Let’s take a look at “diversity czar” Lloyd:

• He thinks Americans are racists. At a May 2005 Conference on Media Reform, Lloyd told the crowd, “There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am!”
• He complained about how “challenging” it is for him and other black Americans to “walk into” and speak “in rooms full of whites.”
• He favors a radical “Affirmative Action” policy. He suggested that “white people” step down from positions of power to allow “more people of color, gays” and “other people” to take those positions. “We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”
• He wants to end the dominance of conservative talk radio by reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine”; getting white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities”; levying a 100% tax on broadcast outlets to collect money to provide “alternative viewpoints”; mandatory diversity in station ownership; and requiring broadcast businesses to cater to the demands of local activism committees.
• He thinks Venezuela’s president-for-life Hugo Chavez is just peachy. In a June 2008 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Lloyd said that Chavez had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.” In 2007, Chavez kicked Venezuela’s oldest TV network, RCTV, off the air by refusing to renew its license, and replaced RCTV with a state-run station — despite protests in the streets. Chavez has indicated he’ll close down Globovision, a TV station that has criticized him.

Here’s a video of Lloyd extolling Chavez:

Here’s an audio recording

of Lloyd’s statements:

To read the WND article on Lloyd, go HERE.

~Eowyn

Canadians Say “Baa” to H1N1

According to a survey, a majority of Canadians are willing to suspend their individual rights and liberties in the name of a flu epidemic.

A whopping 85% agreed that governments should have the power to suspend some individual rights, such as traveling, the right to assemble, and school closures. Half of those surveyed also agreed that violation of a quarantine order would be tantamount to manslaughter.

The survey was conducted for the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics. The sample of 600 Canadians (500 surveyed by phone, and 100 from town hall meetings) was random, which means that the results can be generalized (applicable) to the entire population. The survey was taken between August 2008 to February 2009 — just before the outbreak of the second wave of the H1N1 “swine” flu.

To read more, go HERE.

~Eowyn

Obama & Ahmadinejad Separated At Birth?

Iran’s president extols himself and denounces Israel

Yes, it’s a joke but it sure makes you wonder. The headline you see above in blue, was taken directly from the Los Angeles TIMES.com. If you followed the speech that Obama gave much earlier in the day, it would be an easy edit to simply replace Obama for Ahmadinejad. Like this…

America’s president extols himself and denounces Israel

For our friends on the left (yes, I know you come and read the stuff posted here)…. in case you missed it, Obama and Ahmadinejad presented their speeches by giving themselves credit for being themselves, and for telling Israel to go to hell.

And a quick note to our Jewish friends… We are honored if you spend time here at Giovanni’s World. And please know that the majority of Americans support you and your country. Stay strong and fight the good fight, just find ways to go around Obama until we can kick him out in 2012!

Gio-

This insane Lady will have to stand in line if she’s serious. (See below)

He does stay busy……

See what I mean?

.