YID With LID

71 Years Ago--> Kristallnacht "The Night of Broken Glass"

2009-11-08T21:58:00.001-05:00

Kristallnacht also known as Night of Broken Glass was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany on November 9th-10th 1938. Kristallnacht was the day Hitler's final solution "came out of the closet" It is viewed by many historians as the beginning of the final solution, leading towards the genocide of the Holocaust

In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 99 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and placed in concentration camps. 267 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked. This was done by the Hitler Youth, Gestapo,and the SS. Kristallnacht also served as a pretext and a means for the wholesale confiscation of firearms from German Jews. Kristallnacht was part of a broader Nazi policy of antisemitism and persecution of the Jews.Kristallnacht was followed by further economic and political persecutions.

Tomorrow, through out the world we remember Kristallnach, the night the Nazi's began the Holocaust in earnest. Its amazing how little has changed in almost seven decades. Arab countries children textbooks are filled with anti Jewish Hatred. Islamic Clerics call for the death of Jews. In Venezuela and Iran leaders are whipping the population into Anti

Semitic fervor. Frankfort Germany's annual book fair many of the books on display from turkey showed the worst kind of Jewish stereotypes. The Wiesenthal center has warned of major up tics in anti-Semitism in the UK, France and Greece. Polls have shown that a significant part of the world population believes that the Jews were behind 9/11.

The UN continues to demonize Israel as their new way of attacking Jews. This year they ran "Darfur II" a follow up to their anti-Semitic conference of 2001. The second conference had the same theme as the first. The UN investigated the Gaza War and published "The Goldstone Report" a one-sided tome, accusing Israel of War Crimes and Ignoring Hamas Terrorism.

Even in the US ! College campus' have become a safe haven for anti-Semitic professors. Professors from the U of Chicago and Harvard published a book rousing the stereotype that "Jewish Lobby" controlled the government. The President who was elected last year counts many people who agrees with those professors as his advisers. MSNBC a mainstream news network, has a holocaust denier, Pat Buchanan as its Chief Political Analyst. In January cities such as NY, San Fransisco and Chicago saw protests against the Gaza War, protests that were ripe with Anti-Jewish posters and slogans.

Its sad how very little has changed in 71 years. The world is still a very dangerous place for Jews.

Ft. Hood Mass-Murderer Told Military Doctors "Infidels Should Have Their Throats Cut"

2009-11-08T19:43:00.001-05:00

Investigators are still trying to figure out what made Ft. Hood Major Nidal Malik Hasan, kill 12 of is fellow soldiers and injure another 31. Little by little some disturbing facts are beginning to sneak out.

Like his scream of "Allahu Akbar!" as he ruthlessly murdered his fellow soldiers last week. Or those reports that about six months ago, investigations of Hasan were initiated by enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

The initial news reports said that Hasan has a history of psychological issues. As an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some "difficulties" that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time. According to reports by the UK Telegraph while he was at Walter Reed he also gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats:

Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut

By Nick Allen in Fort Hood

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

It was the latest in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, on Thursday.

Hasan, armed with two handguns including a semi-automatic pistol, walked into a processing centre for soldiers deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, where he killed 13 and injured more than 30.

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty."

Selena Coppa, an activist for Iraq Veterans Against the War, said: "This man was a psychiatrist and was working with other psychiatrists every day and they failed to notice how deeply disturbed someone right in their midst was."

One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base.

A civilian police officer who shot him, bringing the rampage to an end, said Hasan appeared "calm" during the massacre, hiding behind a telephone pole and shooting fellow soldiers in the back as they tried to get away.

"He was firing at people as they were trying to run and hide, said Sgt Mark Todd. "Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired."

Hasan flinched after he was shot and slid down against the pole still clutching his gun, which had a laser sight on it. The officer kicked away the weapon and handcuffed him.

He said: "The guy was breathing, his eyes were blinking. I could tell that he was fading out and he didn't say anything. He was just kind of blinking."

Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security, said there had been "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamist extremist".

The committee would ask "whether the Army missed warning signs that should have led them to essentially discharge him, he said. He added: "The US Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."

But General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, said it was "speculation" that military authorities failed to pick up on warning signs. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.

Asked if military authorities had missed warning signs Gen Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, added: "We have to go back and look at ourselves ,and ask ourselves the hard questions. Are we doing the right things? We will learn from this.

"It's too early to draw conclusions but we will ask ourselves the hard questions about what we are doing and the changes we should make as a result of this."

The tragedy of Ft. Hood is that the higher ups in the Military knew about Major Nidal Malik Hasan but did nothing because of political correctness.

SEIU Thugs Beat Up State Worker at Meeting

2009-11-08T19:16:00.000-05:00

SEIU is so much more than just the union partner of ACORN. They are among the President's top advisers. Last week when the White House released its first "visitors list" the most frequent visitor was the head of the ACORN affiliated Union the SEIU Andrew Stern who showed up on the visitors roster twenty times.

The Union has also been acting as the President's personal thugs. In the beginning the congressional town halls might have been loud but they were never violent, but once the Democrats began urge the SEUI to confront the opponents of Obamacare, that all changed. It started with the indecent in Saint Louis, where Kenneth Gladney was attacked by members of the SEIU. Then there was the rally in Thousand Oaks California were we learned never say bite me to an Obama thug as a 65 year old man had his finger bitten off.

The SEIU is still in thuggery mode, the other night they sent a state worker to the hospital because he was looking to expose some of the Union's corruption:

State Worker Beat Up At SEIU Meeting
A state worker is recovering after a bloody brawl at a union hall. He says members of the local SEIU 1000 beat him up and sent him to the hospital all because he wanted to expose allegedl corruption within the union.

Ken Hamidi is a state worker at the California Franchise Tax Board. Last night he walked into a union hall in Sacramento for an SEIU local 1000 meeting.

"We had every right to be here, very simple; it wasn't anything private or anything exclusive," said Hamidi.

But Hamidi says the union members did not want him there.

"Three, four people jumped at me, wrestled with me, then did all that," said Hamidi. "I was covered in blood and then over to the emergency room."

Photos of Hamidi in the hospital show him bloodied from the brawl. So why did this happen? Besides being a state worker, Hamidi says he's an unpaid reporter for a cable access show and a vocal critic of the SEIU. He calls the state workers' union corrupt.

"This is a union hall that is leased and is being furnished and equipped and everything with our money," said Hamidi.

Hamidi says he came to the hall to expose how he says SEIU union leaders are spending tens of thousands of dollars on a political race, he claims, they have no right to do. After he and a photographer walked in to the meeting, it didn't take long for Hamidi to be right out the door and on his way to the hospital.

We called SEIU union leaders to get their side of the story, but they refused to comment.

No criminal charges have been filed in this case.

Obama's Mid East Policy Falls Apart as He Continues to Move AGAINST Israel

2009-11-08T17:17:00.001-05:00

President Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. While the US continues to press Israel for a settlement freeze (and a freeze on Jerusalem) his strategy is falling apart piece by piece. He has turned the Israeli populace against him and strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Netanyahu. At the same time he has eroded his own support among American Jews and other US friends of Israel. Which is why he has pressured political hacks such as Congressman Steve Israel to lend their names to the Anti-Israel Group, J-Street.

The Arab League nations answered no to the Presidents request for a peace gesture and the President of the Palestinian Authority has used Obama's settlement pressure as his "out" from re-entering negotiations. Settlement Building didn't start with Netanyahu, but it didn't become a roadblock to negotiations until Obama was elected.

The entire settlement issue was caused by Administrations naivete. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession, a settlement freeze, was not perceived by Israel as a minor concession. This was a major error by the administration. Their insistence for a freeze and the constant public berating of the Jewish State has turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who the President would look to for support.

His public blasting of Israel has weakened his support among American Jews who initially "bought into" his pledge that he was a "friend" of Israel. Especially when the news came out that Obama was breaking a pledge made to Israel by the Bush administration about natural expansion in existing settlement.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a week ago began lowering expectations on negotiations and praised what Israel is prepared to do - namely, not constructing new settlements in the West Bank, but putting no limits on construction in East Jerusalem - as an "unprecedented" concession. The Palestinian's went crazy, so Clinton changed her story.

In remarks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit following their November 4 talks in Cairo, Clinton said the United States would like all current and planned Israeli settlement activity to be halted. The U.S. policy opposing Israeli settlement activity has not changed, she said.

She also said Israel’s offer to halt all new settlement activities, to end the expropriation of land and issue no permits or approvals, while “unprecedented,” is “not what we would prefer.”

“We would like to see everything ended forever,” she said. However, she added that it is “at least a positive movement.”

In a November 4 interview with Jackie Northam of National Public Radio, Clinton said the issue of settlements has been “a terrible flashpoint” in the region. Settlements never have been a precondition for negotiations in the past, she said, adding that the Israeli government has gone further than its predecessors in its offer. However, she acknowledged that Arabs and Palestinians have said “it wasn’t far enough.”

If you are looking for the US Demand of some sort of move from the Palestinian side, don't hold your breath, the Obama administration does not pressure the Arabs, only the Jewish State, even though Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas continues to order terrorist acts against Israel. In a new "ploy" Mahmoud Abbas, citing the deadlock, said he would not seek another term in elections scheduled for January.

On Thursday, U.S. Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham acknowledged during a public appearance in Tel Aviv that "there is doubt" among Israelis about Mr. Obama's friendship, the Jerusalem Post reported.

That doubt is well placed during the first ten months of his term Mr. Obama has shown sympathy for the people who would destroy Israel and little sympathy to the Israelis. Worse than the lack of sympathy he has shown a desire to cast Israel as the hold up to peace at every opportunity,through his statements, the statements of his subordinates and his appointments including:

His first week in office when he sat down with Al-Arabiya Arab TV, Ignored Palestinian Terror and indicated that the Israeli government had no desire for peace.

His Naming of Samantha Power to a key NSA position. Ms Power has suggested that America invade Israel to enforce a peace plan.

America folding it hands and not answering Anti-Israel motions at the Durban II planning meetings.

Hilary Clinton's February demand to open boarder crossings to terrorists.

$1.6 to Gaza, for reconstruction, money that will fall in the hands of Hamas.

The SHMOTUS Joe Biden has said that Israel should "get used to" a nuclear Iran.

Ignoring previous agreements with Israel, to call for the end of natural growth of settlements.

Using a Speech to the Muslim world in Cairo as an excuse to throw Israel under the Bus.

Using a trip to Buchenwald to side with Arab Propaganda that Israel's legitimacy comes from the Shoah

His UN Team apologized for not attending Anti-Israel Durban II Conference.

Sent Key adviser to anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic ISNA Conference.

Has worked to Legitimize anti-Israel organization J-street to push his pro-terrorism agenda. Has gotten Democrats such as Steve Israel, to abandon Israel and help push his J-Street agenda.

The President has made only tepid objections to the Goldstone report.

The Appointment of Anti-Israel Chuck Hagel to his administration.

And of course there is the appeasement of Iran.

Last October, just before the election I wrote this about Barack Obama:

Folks the truth is I had many issues with the way George W. Bush ran middle east policy. But there are a few things that are admirable. Bush was the first president that considered a terrorist attack in Israel just as bad as one elsewhere it the world. He constantly supported Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, and praised her as America’s number one ally in the Middle East. He also authorized an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces including intelligence sharing, anti-terror training, and the joint development of missile defense systems.

A Barack Obama Presidency would return US/Israel relations back to the days of James Baker's "They have my number they can call me." A US trying to impose a dangerous one-sided solution on the Jewish State.

I hate admit it, but that prediction was very wrong. Barack Obama has turned out to be much worse than I could ever imagine, just examine the facts and you will agree that in only ten months of work, his policy has fallen apart and he now ranks among the worst Presidents in American History with regards to Israel and the Middle East.

Congress To America--> We Don't Care What YOU Think

2009-11-08T14:05:00.001-05:00

Last night the Democratic party said to hell with America and passed the Pelosi version of the Obamacare bill by a razor thin margin. The final vote was 220-215, with one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.),voting for the bill, 39 Democrats voted against the legislation.

Most polls ( those not run by the daily Kos) show that anywhere from 55-60% of the American people did not want this form of health care legislation passed. But the Democratic party does not care what the people think.

The health care bill passed by the House took another step towards transferring power over over our own lives from individuals to bureaucrats in Washington and would dramatically shift America’s health care system from one that is largely private to one that is subordinated to government control. Heck, this bill even controls vending machines (does anybody you know go to a vending machine for an apple?).

The addition of the public plan, a new federal health care entitlement, would add to the crushing tax burden Americans already face from exiting entitlements.The CBO reports the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period. Even worse, millions of Americans would be pushed out of their existing health care coverage, not by the government but by their employers.

The bill would create massive bureaucracy. In total there are 111 new bureaucracies created by this bill. Under the bill, the new health care commissioner would in fact become a health care czar. This bureaucrat would exercise unprecedented power over the kinds of benefits and medical services available to individuals and families.

Contrary to the promises of the President, the House bill would impose new taxes on all Americans regardless of class or income. The employer mandate and the individual mandate would tax the middle class. While the country is trying to recover from a deep and dangerous recession, it is ironic that the day after the jobless rate officially reached 10.2% that Congress would pass a bill slowing the economy even further, imposing more taxes on individuals and businesses.

The good news is the battle is not over. There is consensus in the U.S. for serious reform of the health care system. The battle to save America from a government takeover of our turns to the Senate.

It is less than one year to election day, to all those who voted for this bill over the objections of the people they serve, election day 2010 should be the day they lose their jobs.

For More I recommend you take a look at Ed Morrissey's take on the Passing of the Obamacare bill in the House--Click here to read it.

Fort Hood Killer Shared "Spiritual Adviser" With 9/11 Hijackers

2009-11-07T20:48:00.000-05:00

“Jihad is the greatest deed in Islam and the salvation of the ummah is in practicing it. In times like these, when Muslim lands are occupied by the kuffar, when the jails of tyrants are full of Muslim POWs, when the rule of the law of Allah is absent from this world and when Islam is being attacked in order to uproot it, Jihad becomes obligatory on every Muslim. Jihad must be practiced by the child even if the parents refuse, by the wife even if the husband objects and by the one indebt even if the lender disagrees.” --Anwar al-Awlaki “44 Ways to Support Jihad”

Al Awlaki is a U.S. citizen, who served as an imam in Colorado, California, and Washington D.C. and worked as the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington Univ. He was the “spiritual advisor” to 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

The Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 reported that “the FBI agent responsible for the September 11 investigation informed staff that ‘there’s a lot of smoke there’ with regard to…[al Awlaki’s] connection to the hijackers.” Returning to Yemen, he was arrested in 2006 and held for over a year.

The Telegraph in the UK is reporting that Major Nidal Malik Hasan the Fort Hood mass-murderer had a relationship with Al Awlaki :

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists
By Philip Sherwell and Alex Spillius

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.

As investigators look at Hasan's motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists.

Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers... who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen".

Last night Hasan remained in a coma under guard at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and was said to be in a "stable" condition. Born in America to a Palestinian family, Hasan, 39, was an army psychiatrist who had chosen to sign up for the US military against his parents' wishes.

But he turned into an angry critic of the wars America was waging in Iraq and Afghanistan and had tried in vain to negotiate his discharge.

He counselled soldiers returning from the front line and told relatives that he was horrified at the prospect of a deployment to Afghanistan later this year – his first time in a combat zone.

Whether due to his personal convictions, his stress over his deployment or other reasons, Hasan is alleged to have snapped and gone on a murderous rampage with a powerful semi-automatic handgun after shouting "Allahu Akhbar" ("God is great"), according to survivors. He had earlier given away copies of the Koran to neighbours.

Investigators at this stage have no indication that he planned the attacks with anyone else. But they are trawling through his phone records, paperwork and computers he used before the attack during an apparently sleepless night.

Five of the 13 victims were fellow mental health professionals from three units of the army's Combat Stress Control Detachment, it was disclosed yesterday.

It is understood that Hasan had been due to be deployed with members of those units in coming months. Whether he deliberately singled out other combat stress counsellors is another key question.

What does seem clear is that the army missed an increasing number of red flags that Hasan was a troubled and brooding individual within its ranks.

"I was shocked but not surprised by news of Thursday's attack," said Dr Val Finnell, a fellow student on a public health course in 2007-08 who heard Hasan equate the war on terrorism to a war on Islam. Another student had warned military officials that Hasan was a "ticking time bomb" after he reportedly gave a presentation defending suicide bombers.

Kamran Pasha, the author of Mother of the Believers, a new novel relating the story of Islam from the perspective of Aisha, Prophet Mohammed's wife, was told of the al-Awlaki connection from a Muslim friend who is also an officer at Fort Hood. Using the name Richard, the recent convert to Islam described how he frequently prayed with Hasan at the town mosque after Hasan was deployed to Fort Hood in July. They last worshipped together at predawn prayers on the day of the massacre when Hasan "appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous".

But Richard had previously argued with Hasan when he said that he felt the "war on terror" was really a war against Islam, expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

"I asked Richard whether he believed that Hasan was motivated by religious radicalism in his murderous actions," Mr Pasha said.

"Richard, with great sadness, said that he believed this was true. He also believed that psychological factors from Hasan's job as an army psychiatrist added to his pathos. The news that he would be deployed overseas, to a war that he rejected, may have pushed him over the edge.

"But Richard does not excuse Hasan. As a Muslim, he finds Hasan's religious perspectives to be fundamentally misguided. And as a soldier, he finds Hasan's actions cowardly and evil."

Fellow Muslims in the US armed forces have also been quick to denounce Hasan's actions and insist that they were the product of a lone individual rather than of Islamic teachings. Osman Danquah, the co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, said Hasan never expressed anger toward the army or indicated any plans for violence.

But he said that, at their second meeting, Hasan seemed almost incoherent.

"I told him, 'There's something wrong with you'. I didn't get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn't seem right."

He was sufficiently troubled that he recommended the centre reject Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood.

Hasan had, in fact, already come to the attention of the authorities before Thursday's massacre. He was suspected of being the author of internet postings that compared suicide bombers with soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to save others and had also reportedly been warned about proselytising to patients.

At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American "aggressors". He made no attempt to hide his desire to end his military service early or his mortification at the prospect of deployment to Afghanistan. "He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there," said his cousin, Nader Hasan.

Yet away from his strident attacks on US foreign policy, he came across as subdued and reclusive – not hostile or threatening. Soldiers he counselled at the Walter Reed hospital in Washington praised him, while at Fort Hood, Kimberly Kesling, the deputy commander of clinical services, remarked: "Up to this point, I would consider him an asset."

Relatives said that the death of Hasan's parents, in 1998 and 2001, turned him more devout. "After he lost his parents he tried to replace their love by reading a lot of books, including the Koran," his uncle Rafiq Hamad said.

"He didn't have a girlfriend, he didn't dance, he didn't go to bars."

His failed search for a wife seemed to haunt Hasan. At the Muslim Community Centre in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring, he signed up for an Islamic matchmaking service, specifying that he wanted a bride who wore the hijab and prayed five times a day.

Adnan Haider, a retired professor of statistics, recalled how at their first meeting last year, a casual introduction after Friday prayers, Hasan immediately asked the academic if he knew "a nice Muslim girl" he could marry.

"It was a strange thing to ask someone you have met two seconds before. It was clear to me he was under pressure, you could just see it in his face," said Prof Haider, 74, who used to work at Georgetown University in Washington. "You could see he was lonely and didn't have friends.

"He is working with psychiatric people and I ask why the people around him didn't spot that something was wrong? When I heard what had happened I actually wasn't that surprised."

Indeed, many of the characteristics attributed to Hasan by acquaintances – withdrawn, unassuming, brooding, socially awkward and never known to have had a girlfriend – have also applied to other mass murderers.

Hasan was born and brought up in Virginia to parents who ran restaurants after emigrating to America from the West Bank. He graduated from Virginia Tech university – coincidentally, the scene of the worst mass shooting in US history in 2007 – with a degree in biochemistry and then joined the army, which trained him as a psychiatrist.

Relatives said that he was subjected to increasingly ugly taunts about his religion and ethnicity from other soldiers after the September 11 attacks. But his uncle insisted yesterday that Hasan would not have been driven to mass murder by revenge or religion.

Speaking in the West Bank town of al-Bireh, Mr Hamad said his nephew "loved America" and could only have been caused to snap by an as yet unexplained factor. "He always said there was no country in the world like America," he told The Sunday Telegraph. "Something big happened to him in Texas. If he did it – and until now I am in denial – it had to have been something huge because revenge was not in his nature."

Louisiana Raids ACORN to Get To Bottom of Rathke Embezzlement Scandal

2009-11-06T22:21:00.000-05:00

According to a July 9, 2008 article in the New York Times, Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN’s founder, Wade Rathke, “embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000.” The Times reported Dale Rathke embezzled $948,607.50, “carried as a loan on the books of Citizens Consulting Inc., which provides bookkeeping, accounting and other financial management services to Acorn and many of its affiliated entities.” ACORN “chose to treat the embezzlement of nearly $1 million eight years ago as an internal matter and did not even notify its board.” According to an October 10, 2008 New York Times report, ACORN “had failed to disclose the theft for eight years.” Dale Rathke remained on ACORN’s payroll until June 2008, when news broke of his wrongdoing.

Like all seeds this ACORN Grew... Back in October Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell charged that the embezzlement of one million dollars was actually FIVE Million Dollars. Today the AG executed a search warrant on ACORN's New Orleans offices and removed about 100 computers with the purpose of learning more about the Rathke embezzlement and the subsequent ACORN cover-up:

ACORN hard drives to be returned after data is copied by state investigators
By Brendan McCarthy, The Times-Picayune

Agents from the state Attorney General's Office executed a search warrant Friday on ACORN's local headquarters, seizing roughly 100 computers and files as part of an ongoing state embezzlement and accounting fraud investigation.

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell has been investigating the community organizing agency since June.

The seizure on Friday focused on computers and "electronic media," such as e-mail and files, said David Caldwell, an assistant attorney general and son of the attorney general.

"The search was pretty broad," said the younger Caldwell, who heads a state public corruption unit. "Now we don't have to start worrying about them (computers) walking off."

About 100 computers were taken from the agency's offices in a seizure that lasted most of the day.

David Caldwell said the probable cause cited in the search warrant stemmed from ACORN's own acknowledgement that one or two recently terminated employees may have taken computers or other pertinent materials from the office.

In the state investigation, ACORN attorneys are citing an accountant/client privilege as the basis for withholding financial files, Caldwell said.

The Attorney General's Office issued subpoenas in August seeking documents related to former ACORN International President Wade Rathke and his brother Dale Rathke, who kept the group's books. Those subpoenas were focused on possible ACORN violations for nonpayment of employee withholding taxes, obstructing justice and violating the Employee Retirement Security Act.

Early last month, Caldwell's office issued other subpoenas for records from ACORN's New Orleans office in the 2600 block of Canal Street, where the organization -- now moving its national headquarters to Washington -- has long been based. The seizure on Friday was an outgrowth of those subpoenas, according to Caldwell's office.

ACORN Deputy Director of National Operations Brian Kettenring released a statement Friday noting that agency has been cooperating with a "variety of governmental entities across the country to provide" requested information and documents.

"We were told that the AG's office has no criticisms of ACORN's cooperative efforts, but rather that the warrant was issued because of concern that former local ACORN staff members had and may intend in the future, to remove or alter electronic documents."

The state investigation is taking place as the community organizing behemoth undergoes seismic shifts, and has seen some members form a reform group.

David Caldwell said state investigators will copy the hard drives from ACORN's computers and return them next week. The computers contain payroll information for the national organization. Caldwell noted that some computers were not taken Friday because they would have affected the agency's immediate payroll, and forced some to go without paychecks. Caldwell said investigators worked with ACORN members and will pick up those items in the near future.

People inside and close to ACORN were angered by news last spring that Dale Rathke had taken close to $1 million from the organization, which is billed as an advocate for poor and working-class people.

But in the subpoenas, the state attorney general's office suggested that the embezzlement may have been on the order of $5 million, and that ACORN's current CEO, Bertha Lewis, acknowledged as much at an Oct. 17, 2008 board meeting, soon after she assumed the position.

Lewis blasted the Attorney General's investigation last month, saying the state agency had bought a misleading version of events that she said was being peddled by disgruntled former ACORN board members.

Some ACORN members created a reform group, dubbed ACORN 8.

"The ACORN 8 have always sought a forensic examination and an independent audit of ACORN and its related entities," group President Marcel Reid said in a statement released Friday. "And we were thrown off the board for attempting to investigate a $1 million embezzlement."

Amid the infighting, the agency recently faced a firestorm of criticism by the release of embarrassing videotapes in which ACORN workers in several cities appeared to be offering helpful business advice to a young man and a woman posing as a pimp and prostitute.

Obama's Tax LIES and BROKEN PROMISES

2009-11-06T21:00:00.101-05:00

During the campaign, Obama made a definitive promise not to raise any taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” (September 12, 2008, Dover, NH)

"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."(Joe Biden, Oct. 3, 2008, Vice Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO)

On Tax Day White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if the President’s tax pledge applies “to the health care bill” Gibbs assured us that it did:

“The statement didn’t come with caveats.”

On August 3, 2009, Gibbs was asked again about the Obama'ss tax pledge, Gibbs replied:

“I am reiterating the President's clear commitment in the clearest terms possible, that he's not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year.” (White House Briefing)

The more we read about the about the House's $1.8 Trillion Obamacare bill and its $1 Trillion in new taxes, the more we see that many of those new taxes do not conform to Obama’s promise of not raising taxes to people making under $250,000. But promises don't really matter when one is trying to redistribute income. Today Obama endorsed H.R. 3962, which is loaded with tax hikes on families making less than $250,000 per year. Here’s how:

Health Insurance Mandate Taxes on Working Families

·        Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest. There is no exception for families making less than $250,000.

·        Employer Mandate Payroll Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to the following schedule:

Payroll Tax Rate

Average Payroll Size

N/A

<$500,000

2%

$500,000-$585,000

4%

$585,000-$670,000

6%

$670,000-$750,000

8%

$750,00<

Small business owners pay their taxes on their owners’ personal tax returns. Since this provision does not exempt business owners making less than $250,000 per year, this employer mandate tax will violate President Obama’s promise in some cases.

Tax Hikes on Healthcare Spending Accounts



·        Cap on Flex-Spending Account (FSA) contributions at $2500 (Page 325): Currently, the contribution level is unlimited

·        Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Americans would no longer be able to purchase over-the-counter medicines with their FSA, Health Savings Account (HSA), or Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA)

·        Increase in the Non-Qualified HSA Distribution Penalty from 10% to 20% (Page 326): This makes HSAs less attractive, and paves the way for HSA pre-verification

There are 30 million Americans with FSAs. About 8 million Americans have an HSA. Virtually all of them make less than $250,000 per year. These are clear tax hikes on these families

      Making Legal Tax Deductions Not So Legal

·        Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

There is no exception for families making less than $250,000 per year.

Source ATR

White House Tells Democratic Political Strategists: STAY OFF FOX !!!

2009-11-06T13:52:00.048-05:00

Shortly after the White House declared "war" on Fox's news division last month, calling it an arm of the Republican Party and attempting to freeze it out of a pooled press briefing, pundits on both the left and the right cried foul, summoning up comparisons to Richard Nixon's paranoid, vindictive presidency and based on the transcript of a Nixon tape below that comparison is very justified:

Nixon Tapes Transcript
December 11, 1972
President Richard Nixon: Hi Ron
Press Secretary Ron Ziegler: Yes Mr. President.
Nixon: Yeah.
Ziegler: I just talked to Connie. She fully understands the Washington Post, uhh, situation. There was no reporter today at the uhh, at the uhh, uhh, ceremony. There was a photographer there. But, apparently they, uhh, screwed up on their desk assignment today and uhh, there was no reporter present, from the Post.
Nixon: I want it clearly understood that from now on, ever, no reporter from the Washington Post is ever to be in the White House. Is that clear?
Ziegler: Absolutely.
Nixon: (Unintelligible)
Ziegler: Yes sir. In the briefings here, but…
Nixon: Not at briefings
Ziegler: But, n..
Nixon: But never, never in the White House. No church service, nothing with Mrs. Nixon does. You tell Connie don’t tell Mrs. Nixon, because she’ll approve it. No reporter from the Washington Post is ever to be in the White House again. And no photographer either. And no photographer. Is that clear?
Ziegler: Yes sir.
Nixon: None ever is to be in. Now that is a total order. And, and if necessary I’ll fire you. Do you understand?
Ziegler: I do understand.
Nixon: Okay, alright, good, thank you.

History does indeed repeat itself

The White House has not been happy about Fox's relentless pursuit of the truth, unlike the rest of the mainstream media Fox has covered ALL the news including tea party rallies, anti-health care reform town halls, ACORN's missteps and White House adviser Van Jones' unveiling as a radical Marxist 9/11 "truther."

In September, Obama froze out "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace after appearing on five other Sunday shows to tout health care reform. Then, on Oct. 11, Anita Dunn, White House Communications director, went on rival cable news channel CNN to declare "the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," a sentiment echoed by presidential adviser David Axelrod, who said "they're not really a news station."

Recently there have been rumors of a pending truce, but the White House seems to be ratcheting up the battle. There are reports the White House is telling Democratic Political Strategists do not appear on Fox--or else:

White House: FOX off-limits -- strategist
by Peter Nicholas

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, "We better not see you on again,'' said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue.''

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.

A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. For their part, White House officials appear on Fox News -- but sporadically and with "eyes wide open,'' as one aide put it.

David Plouffe, the president's campaign manager and author of a new campaign book, The Audacity to Win, was scheduled to appear on Fox's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren last night as he promotes his book. His appearance, pre-empted by the breaking news of the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, has been rescheduled for Monday.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues'' and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an email.

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for Democratic President Jimmy Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that,'' he said.

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not too subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself.''

The White House has taken an aggressive stance toward Fox. When President Obama appeared on five separate talk shows one Sunday in September, he avoided Fox.

"It would be foolish for us to just treat it like it's CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS,'' said a White House aide. "That doesn't make any sense. That would be like saying we're going to do [interviews] with the news magazines and we're going to do Time, Newsweek and the [conservative] National Review.''

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to talk more openly about the White House's thinking.

Last month, Dunn told CNN that Fox was, in effect, an "arm'' of the Republican Party. Dunn said in an appearance on the rival cable network: "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is.''

As the dustup played out, Fox's senior vice president of news, Michael Clemente, countered: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. ''

Fox's commentators have been sharply critical of the Obama administration. After the president won the Nobel Peace Prize, Sean Hannity, who has a prime-time show on Fox, said he got the award for "trashing America.''

The two sides seemed interested in easing tensions. On Oct. 28, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met privately with Clemente.

But White House aides haven't changed their underlying view of Fox.

Fox's audience is by far the largest of the cable networks, with an average of more than 2.1 million viewers in prime-time this year. CNN is second with 932,000 prime-time viewers.

Fox's viewership is not what worries the White House, though. More troubling to White House aides is that other news organizations may uncritically follow stories that Fox has showcased.

The White House aide said: "Where some of the falsehoods become dangerous is when the rest of the media accepts them as fact and reports on them, either out of a desire to tap into Fox's news audience - which you can understand, given where circulation and viewership rates are - or as some sort of knee-jerk fear of being considered liberally biased, which is what conservatives have been saying of the mainstream media for years.''

The White House's pugnacious approach to the network leaves some Democrats troubled.

Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, said in an interview: "This approach is out of sync with my conception of what the Obama administration stands for and what they're trying to do. I think they'll think better of it and this will be a passing phase.''

Was Ft. Hood Killer Was Praising Suicide Bombers on the Internet ?

2009-11-05T23:05:00.001-05:00

Investigators are still trying to figure out what made Ft. Hood Major Nidal Malik Hasan, kill 12 of is fellow soldiers and injure another 31. Little by little some disturbing facts are beginning to sneak out.

Hasan has a history of psychological issues. As an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some "difficulties" that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.

The AP is reporting that about six months ago, investigations of Hasan were initiated by enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan's computer in order to determine if the Nidal Hasan praising terrorism on the net was the same Nidal Hasan that killed a dozen comrades today.

Below is one of the posts which generated the interest of investigators:

NidalHasan scribbled: There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Accosting to Wired.com, Hasan also wrote online of his admiration for suicide attackers. “Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i[f] you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam.”

May God Comfort the mourners of the Ft. Hood Dead and grant a speedy recovery to the wounded,

More to come...

Democrats Block Amendment To Guarantee Fair Census

2009-11-05T20:48:00.001-05:00

The "straw-dog" that comes out of the liberal circles is asking people if they are in the US legally during the census is a horrible act of racism. In actuality it is simply an attempt to guarantee all US Citizens the right to equal representation in Congress and equal access to Congressional funds and programs.

As set up by the constitution, the purpose of the US Census is to determine the amount of congressional representatives each state receives

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Counting the slaves as "3/5ths of a person" was eliminated via the 14th amendment.

Republican Senators Vitter (La.) and Bennett (Utah) introduced an Amendment to the Census bill that would require the 2010 Census to ask all individuals whether they are citizens or lawful residents of the United States.The bill also stipulates that for purposes of planning congressional seats, the population should be based on the number of legal residents of the United States. Today, the Democrats used a technicality to block the amendment:

Senate Blocks GOP Effort to Include Census Citizenship Question

The proposal by Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Robert Bennett of Utah was aimed at excluding non-citizens from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state.

Senate Democrats on Thursday rejected a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to include a question about citizenship status -- an effort opponents called anti-immigrant.

The proposal by Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Robert Bennett of Utah was aimed at excluding non-citizens from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state.

But the Vitter plan fell after a 60-39 procedural vote made it ineligible for inclusion in a bill funding the census.

The "relevancy" test, called "germaneness," is a very strict one, and often can exclude a measure that is seemingly relevant. The spending bill, for instance, funds the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments; the census is part of the Commerce Department.

Critics said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive. They also said that it's long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state, regardless of whether they are citizens. A separate survey already collects citizenship data.

The Commerce Department estimated that making the change on census forms would have cost the federal government $1 billion, but Vitter, after weeks of requesting supporting data, said the explanation fell short.

"After three weeks of asking for the data behind that $1 billion claim, they sent us one piece of paper with 10 bullet points on it, all very general statements and suggestions, and with the final bottom line, a nice, even, round figure of $1 billion. That's very unimpressive, in my opinion, in terms of any precise accounting for $1 billion," Vitter said.

And citing what he called the Census Bureau's "horrendous record" of cost estimation, Vitter noted a nonpartisan General Accounting Office study that noted: "Given the bureau's past difficulties in developing credible and accurate cost estimates, we're concerned about the reliability of the figures that were used to support the 2010 budget."

Census data is also used to distribute billions of dollars in federal aid.

"The current plan is to reapportion House seats using that overall number, citizens and non-citizens," Vitter said. "I think that's wrong. I think that's contrary to the whole intent of the Constitution and the establishment of Congress as a democratic institution to represent citizens."

If Vitter were successful -- and if non-citizens were excluded from the census count for congressional apportionment -- states with fewer immigrants would fare significantly better in the upcoming allocation of House seats.

States such as California and Texas would fare worse than they would under the current way of allocating seats, which under the Constitution is based on the "whole number of persons" residing in a state.

Louisiana stands to lose one of its seven House seats in the upcoming round of reapportionment. Vitter says that if non-citizens were excluded, Louisiana and eight other states would keep or gain congressional seats that would go to California, Texas, Illinois and New York.

In a floor speech before the vote, Vitter pleaded in vain for support from his colleagues.

"This is an important question, and we simply shouldn't forge ahead when Americans have a fundamental problem with not even asking the citizenship question and with, therefore, forging ahead with the plan to reapportion the entire U.S. House of Representatives, putting noncitizens in the mix when the whole notion of a representative democracy and of Congress is to represent citizens of the country," he said. "I urge my colleagues to support that position."

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., managing the spending bill on the floor, said Republicans missed the boat to make changes to the census.

"The time to stand up was in April of 2007," Mikulski admonished. "Did you know that the census is mandated by law to submit the questionnaires to congress? And they did.

"So for one year, from April 1, 2007, to the close of the review by congress one year later, April 2008, there was plenty of time to say, 'We don't like the questionnaire. We want to add a citizenship question,'" she added. "That was the time and the place."

Pelosi/Reid SCAM America on CBO Cost For Obamacare->House Bill Costs $1,8 TRILLION

2009-11-05T18:29:00.000-05:00

Each of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) costs for Obamacare released by the leaders of the Senate and House respectively were totally honest, and totally full of crap ! Its all a matter of timing. In their efforts to gain support for the government take over the health care industry Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid are Running a scam on the American People.

Here's how it works, each plan starts the taxes in year one, but they back loaded costs. The house bill for example doesn't start spending real money until 2013, year 4 of the plan. The CBO measures costs for ten year periods (2010-2019). The Congressional leadership chose to release the CBO's 2010-2019 estimate, but if they chose to release the estimate for the actual first 10 years of the plan The CBO reports the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion:

Prescriptions for disaster

By BENJAMIN E. SASSE & JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Don't buy the claim that the Sen ate health-care bill is substantially more moderate than the House measure. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislation is even more onerous than the package created by Sen. Max Baucus and now championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the larger story is how similar the two Democratic bills are.

First, we need to get past the misleading accounting games. Each bill is routinely "scored" for its 10-year costs from 2010-19. Yet this includes several years when the spending wouldn't yet have kicked in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, fully 99.9 percent of the Pelosi bill's costs would hit from 2013 onward. Similarly, 98.3 percent of Reid's spending would come after 2014.

If you start the tally when the bills' spending would actually start (in 2013 for the House bill and 2014 for the Senate bill), then the bills' real 10-year costs become clear -- and are remarkably similar.

The CBO reports that, in their true first 10 years, the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans' taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion.

And the House bill would siphon about $800 billion from Medicare to spend it elsewhere, while the Senate bill would suck out about $900 billion.

So the financial bottom lines are almost the same.

And if we discount the bills' claims to divert hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare (which is already on the edge of insolvency), the CBO says the House bill would raise our national debt by about $650 billion in its real first decade, while the Senate bill would up it by $740 billion.

So, the bills would either sock older Americans by taking huge sums of money from Medicare -- or hit future generations with huge tax hikes to cover the shortfall.

Whether it's our grandparents or our grandchildren, someone is going to pay.

To give an idea of how much $1.7 (or $1.8) trillion is, let's compare it to private insurance companies' profits. The 10 largest insurance companies in America (according to the Fortune 500) last year had combined profits of $8 billion. You could double that, and it still would be less than 1 per cent of $1.7 trillion.

The House and Senate bills are similar in another important way. Each seems to mandate that insurers cover all comers at any time, at only nominal added cost for waiting to sign up.

This would provide a perverse incentive for young, healthy people to avoid carrying insurance -- knowing that they could just wait until they're sick or injured and buy it then. Without question, that would cause premiums to skyrocket for most Americans who now have insurance.

Recent studies by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Oliver Wyman and Wellpoint all support this conclusion. Top Democrats in Congress dispute those findings -- so they should agree to let the CBO do an independent study of the question, before any floor vote on the legislation.

Yes the House and Senate bills differ in many ways, with the Senate approach being generally a bit less regulation- and bureaucracy-heavy. But it's really just a question of degree -- and either one is more than capable of sinking our already badly leaking federal budget.

The Obmacare bill continues to look like a disaster for America, and that only includes the problems we know about. Based on their track record it is very likely that the democratic leadership is hiding other skeletons in the Obamacare closet.

Payroll Tax Rate	Average Payroll Size
N/A	<$500,000
2%	$500,000-$585,000
4%	$585,000-$670,000
6%	$670,000-$750,000
8%	$750,00<