Taking back freedom from government tyranny

This man speaks sound principles with passion and conviction - and there is no teleprompter - Colonel Allen West speaks from the heart.

Florida Congressional Candidate Allen West calls on all Americans to stand up against an out of control Federal Government.

Obama Bows Low to Japan's Emperor

President Obama must be a fan of Frank Sinatra as judged by his unusual low bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko upon arrival at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo

The White House claimed that the President was following protocol, but what protocol? The "I did it my way" protocol?

Obama bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito

Actually the US Protocol is that the President bows to no one; heads of states meet as equals. The US protocol is the same as every other sovereign state in the world. 

Heads of states do not bow to each other

There was a furor when President Clinton appeared to make an almost indiscernible bow to Emperor in 1994. At that time the New York Times made it clear that had Clinton actually executed a full bow, it would have destroyed a precedent dating to the founding of the Republic:

But the “thou need not bow” commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years.

But that was the slightest of inclinations of the head, nothing compared to Obama's full and deep bow.

Following the Japanese fiasco, the White House claimed "Protocol", but who's protocol were they following?

A compilation of photos of Emperor Akihito meeting with various foreign leaders shows 47 leaders meeting with the Emperor; tally: 46 hand-shakes and 1 bow 

46 hand-shakes -1 bow

According to the White House it is protocol for the US to bow - but apparently not the rest of the world. (warning this is painful to watch).



But this bowing cannot be explained away by respect for Japanese culture. Obama bowed very low to Saudi King Abdullah at a meeting of the G-20 in April of this year. 

Remembering that Saudi Arabia is an extremely repressive regime, and funds jihad and wahabi Islam, why I ask, would the President of the US, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful and influential nation on earth, act like a feudal subject to his overlord?

The President should be following established norms and protocols while he is the President, he has a duty to the citizens of the US, and is therefore he is not free to do as he sees fit - to make it up as he goes a along.

I wonder if he has been watching too much of Jimmy Carter's behaviour?
 

Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah, while Sarkozy and the King chuckle.

I saw the video of President Obama bowing to Vladimir Putin; the gesture of humility was not reciprocated by the ex KGB leader.

The leftist idea is that the US has to erase a legacy from previous administrations, but the attack on the  USS Cole was on October 12 2000 during the Clinton presidency, and the attack on the World Trade Centre was on September 11, 2001 during the Bush administration (sworn in on January of that year).

The theory that bowing to other leaders will increase the respect for the US is a wild fancy; a "vanity" in older language.

In fact the Japanese were embarrassed by it. It is embarrassing to everyone who looks to the President of the US to be a leader in the war against repression and terrorism. Unfortunately Obama does not recognise that there is a war; that is the first problem

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

US House backs resolution condemning Goldstone report

Some sanity reigns in the US and the EU

 
Further to my post on Lux et Veritas earlier (here)

According to the JP (full report here)

The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution on Tuesday condemning the Goldstone Report, that accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, and calling on the Obama administration to oppose its endorsement.

...and the EU is showing some backbone too:

Meanwhile, European nations launched intense negotiations with Arab states, ahead of a UN General Assembly debate on the report. 

In an attempt to scuttle efforts by Arab states to bring the matter to the Security Council, and from there to the International Criminal Court, EU states were backing new language emphasizing accountability for crimes against humanity and calling on Israelis and Palestinians to launch investigations into war crimes. 

The Obama administration has already condemned the report, which was expected to go to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, as unhelpful to its efforts to revive stalled Middle East peace talks.

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said:

"I think the UN report is unbalanced, and unfair, and inaccurate,"

Pandering to the propaganda of the Arab and Muslim states does not help move towards peace in Israel-Palestine; on the contrary it is a barrier because it gives hope to all those that support Palestinian terrorism will eventually be victorious in its stated aims to destroy Israel.

What is needed is for the message to go out to the Palestinians that there is only one outcome and that is a peaceful one - not a military victory through terrorism and destruction of Israel.

The lasting principle should be that Israel has the right to defend herself against attack.

To put it simply, there can be no peace until Israel's right to exist is recognised throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

The content of the resolution is very encouraging, clearly identifying Hamas' responsiblity; a large portion of the report is included below with some key phrases high-lighted.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

The actual words of the motion passed by the House of Representatives is interesting & illuminating:

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.

Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;

Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression’;

Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;

Whereas the `fact-finding mission’ included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s actions `war crimes’:

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon,Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission; Whereas, on September 15, 2009, the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ released its report;

Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;

Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding
officers `in the fog of war.’;

Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’, is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission’s evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.’;

Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;

Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;

Whereas the report usually considered public statements made by Israeli officials not to be credible, while frequently giving uncritical credence to statements taken from what it called the `Gaza authorities’, i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas;

Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;

Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]‘ specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.’;

Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission’s report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals’;

Whereas even though Israel is a vibrant democracy with a vigorous and free press, the report of the `fact-finding mission’ erroneously asserts that `actions of the Israeli government . . . have contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent with the government and its actions . . . is not tolerated’;

See more of the House Resolution at the Washington Independent here

Does the US Want Obama Health-Care Reform?

For Canadians the information has been somewhat distorted; I hear Canadians talking as though there is no safety net in the United States; that is not really true; they have Medicaid and Medicare.

Medicaid is available to certain low-income individuals and families  (see here)

Medicare is for people over 65 and some disabled people (see here)

Both programs are administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), both of which are generous programs and certainly not inferior to our general services here, possibly better.

Here's what the HHS says about itself:

The is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.

My understanding is that there are other safety nets, programs and clinics; stories that people get turned away from hospital and die in the streets are not true.

Canadians also seem to be under the misapprehension that the Republican Party, or GOP (Grand Old Party) as it is sometimes called, does not want reform, but the Obama Government does.

That is incorrect, both the GOP and the Democrats are in favour of reform; the GOP had a 4-point plan proposed by Senator McCain, whereas the Democrats have tried to implement a "universal" or "socialised" health-care system in the past.

President Clinton put forward a plan in 1993, however the Democratic Party itself  offered a number of competing plans of their own, and the plan was declared dead in 1994 by Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, who is the current special envoy to the Middle East for the Obama administration.

But where do the American people stand in the issue? Here's the results from "Pollster.com".

We see that there is a clear margin of Americans who oppose the Obama plans over those who support it.

Oppose = 47.8%

Favour = 44.9%

A word about the approach used by Pollster.com .
 
They do not conduct their  own polls, but analyze the results from a number of other major pollsters to arrive at a mathematical representation of all the polls under consideration. It is like an average, but it is more mathematically rigorous than that, and uses techniques used in science and statistics to properly treat the data (such as linear regression, least-squares regression); Pollster.com explains their methodology here, and the full result can be found here here.

Both Parties Propose Reform

The Official GOP Plan can be read here, but it's more instructive to look at the commentary by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post from August of this year; his opening statement summarises the Obama plans:

In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high-quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health-care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.

4-Point Reform favoured by Republicans (simplified)

1. Tort Reform
2. Real health-insurance reform
3. Health Insurance Across State Lines
4. Reduce fraud and waste in Medicare / Medicaid
   

1. Tort Reform: A significant portion of US health costs result from the huge awards by US Courts in malpractice suits. These awards result in much higher premiums than would otherwise be required, and forces doctors to practice overly defensive, and unnecessary, medicine to reduce the chances of litigation. Kruathammer calls it "an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune."

Tort reform has been proposed by the GOP for some time but it has been blocked by the Democrats because a significant part of their revenue comes from litigation lawyers; the Democrats will not embark on reform to avoid alienating their supporters.

Here's the extent of the problem:

An authoritative (study by the) Massachusetts Medical Society, found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits.

Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance). 

This one area of reform alone could have a huge impact on US health-care, but the Democratic party blocks it to protect their support base.

2. Real health-insurance reform (see the whole discussion here):

Tax employer-provided health-care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.

There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.

So why doesn't the Obama administration reform it?

Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.

3. Health Insurance Across State Lines: the current laws prohibit competition across states lines. This adds costs by duplication, causes problems with portability, and greatly adds to costs by eliminating widespread competition ensuring that rates remain high. This approach has also has been previously blocked by the Democrats.

4. Reduce fraud and waste in Medicare / Medicaid: the Democrats have blocked reforms to address this also on previous occasions. But savings have been included as part of the CBO's (Congressional Budget Office) financial plan for Obama's reform. The question is why wait for a massive, complex new bill to reduce fraud and waste? Why not start action on reducing fraud and waste the day after inauguration?

Obama's Plan
The core of Obama's plan is to ultimately replace the the US Medical Insurance industry with a single-payer, government run and controlled plan.

Chief objections to this are:

1. Governments are inefficient and wasteful, (example Medicare and Medicaid) therefore this will result in far higher costs than from private companies.
2. Government will be taking over control of one sixth of the US economy; Government control of business is opposed by many Americans on Constitutional grounds
3. Many people think that their health is a private matter between them and their doctor, therefore the Government should play no part in it. People see this as another intrusion by the Government into their private lives. 
   
4. It will be massively expensive (estimates of 1 -2 Trillion dollars, but nobody really knows), and will not reduce costs, which was Obama's original reasons for reform . The actual costs are likely to increase far more than estimated, probably by a factor of 2 or 3 or more (example Maine)
5. Emphasis should be on other more urgent issues, jobs, the war in Afghanistan, Iran and the burgeoning US deficit
6. The bill itself is not being developed along bi-partisan lines, and this is causing some concerns not only to Republicans, but also to Democrats. Members of both houses feel that the way to produce pass such major legislation is along bi-partisan lines. That is, both Republicans and Democrats work together to forge a bill.
7. Coupled with the lack of bi-partisan input, is the concern that the bill is being rushed through, and that such a large piece of legislation, with such major impact to the US economy and the US people, should be given proper time for consideration, debate, development and finally passage into law. Without proper time this presents an unreasonable risk without a corresponding benefit to the American people. The reason for the haste is political.
8. A very real concern is the complexity of the bill, which exists in 5 different versions and some as long as 1,500 pages. Can the bill administered effectively once passed into law? Or will the complexity lead tp  problems with administering this bill

Finally, Obama promised for open government - that was a very big point in his campaign. Obama said he would introduce a new way of government. In reality this bill and associated negotiations, have been done behind closed doors.

It was requested that the bill would be made available on-line for an adequate period of time to review. This request has been denied; the reason given is that it would be too complicated and too time consuming to do it. This is laughable.

Will it pass? Congressional elections are coming next year and many Democratic representatives fear for their seats and are unwilling to back an unpopular bill, so it is going to be interesting to see how this develops. My own hope is that the final bill is not the socialised form of medical care, but contains the reforms necessary to increase efficiency and lower overall costs, all of which will be good for Canada.


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

US Predominatly Conservative

Report from Gallup issued 2 days ago "Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group" here

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

When Pravda Says It - You Know It's Bad

The polices of this US Administration are vitally important to Canadians.

When Pravda Says You Are Too Liberal - you know that things are bad.

The economics of the Obama administration are vitally important to Canada and the whole world, so when Pravda criticizes the economic "tax & spend" liberal policies of the US, it should be time to wake up.

The deficit in the US has tripled in the first year of this administration. It is now three times what it was when Obama took office.

Why worry say some liberals? Well the answer should be obvious: foreigners hold nearly half the $7.5 trillion U.S. public debt. That means that the American taxpayers not only paid a massive $383.4 billion dollars in interest charges during the Obama's first year, but fully half of that money went overseas, without any benefit to the US economy whatsoever. Money down the drain - out the window - just to maintain the debt where it is.

$383.4 billion dollars in interest charges over the first year of Obama's administration; that averages to almost $32 billion per month in interest charges. Not one cent of that goes to schools, health care, roads, or to paying the ever increasing government payroll.

The data is taken from the US Treasury here

That $383.4 billion dollars is money that comes from the tax-payer; money that doesn't go to buying homes, paying off mortgages, or buying goods and services that help build the US economy. But here is the worst part - fully half of it goes overseas.

You have to be an ostrich if that doesn't frighten you.

BUT, it is going to get worse, because the Obama administration want to increase spending even more. There is the energy bill, the Cap and Trade bill that will add billions in costs to the economy, which must be born by industry and private citizens - it will be a disaster. (Millions of green jobs? Does anyone believe that?) Plus there will be a massive increase in costs to the US taxpayer as a result of the proposed health care reform in is current form, which will result in a further restriction on growth and recovery.

Cutting taxes helps the economy; increasing taxes slows down and stifles the economy.

It has been shown in the past that the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to cut taxes. A cut in employment tax for example, provides an immediate boost to industry, by reducing their costs. This produces a direct stimulus which acts fairly quickly. However, the current economic policy is exactly the opposite. That is why we should all be concerned; if the US economy falters the whole world will feel the effects. (Think of the huge amount of US aid that currently is distributed all round the globe; if the US economy is not strong how can they sustain this giving?)

The US with its massive spending is lagging the recovery of the rest of the world - not leading it. That should be proof enough. But tax and spend is at the heart of liberal dogma. It doesn't work but they are not about to let the facts get in the way of their liberal  ideology.

Where are the conservatives in Canada? We seem to be complacent up here.

If the US economy falls - we will be drowned in the tsunami.

"The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See" from Pravda:

It can be safely said, that the last time a great nation destroyed itself through its own hubris and economic folly was the early Soviet Union (though in the end the late Soviet Union still died by the economic hand).

Now we get the opportunity to watch the Americans do the exact same thing to themselves. The most amazing thing of course, is that they are just repeating the failed mistakes of the past. One would expect their fellow travelers in suicide, the British, to have spoken up by now, but unfortunately for the British, their education system is now even more of a joke than that of the Americans.

While taking a small breather from mouthing the never ending propaganda of recovery, never mind that every real indicator is pointing to death and destruction, the American Marxists have noticed that the French and Germans are out of recession and that Russia and Italy are heading out at a good clip themselves.

Of course these facts have been wrapped up into their mind boggling non stop chant of “recovery” and hope-change-zombification. What is ignored, of course, is that we and the other three great nations all cut our taxes, cut our spending, made life easy for small business…in other words: the exact opposite of the Anglo-Sphere.

That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course its making the bombs that end that human life, but that's a different topic).

Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry.

Even the Soviets never created such idiocy. The great famine of the late 1920s was caused by quite the opposite, as the Soviets collectivized farms to force peasants off of their land and into the big new factories. Of course this had disastrous results. So one must ask, are the powers that be in Washington and London degenerates or satanically evil?

Where is the opposition?

Where are the Republicans in America and Tories in England?

 Where are the conservatives in Canada? If the US economy falls - we will be drowned in the tsunami.

Read the "The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See" here


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

Prophetic Words from George Washington

History Repeats Itself - Prophetic Words from George Washington.
 
I received this quote from a contributor – stunning in its relevancy for today... History repeats itself.