Steve and I wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving and appreciate everyone for visiting here often. I thought I’d post the first Thanksgiving Proclamation ever made by George Washington requested by Congress. The first officially declared Thanksgiving established 1779, exactly 230 years ago today. Giving thanks to Almighty God for all the blessings bestowed on them. We continue this thank you still today for continued blessings on our country.

General Thanksgiving

By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789

Early America.com

I just read this on Worldnet Daily and can’t believe my eyes. What is wrong with Lou? Politics already? If this is it then he might have just lost a lot of conservative votes while courting the hispanic vote. I am very disappointed in Lou Dobbs. He might as well stayed on CNN if he’s going to do this.

What the … ? Lou Dobbs wants to legalize illegals

Ex-CNN anchor suddenly champions amnesty, ripped as ‘pathetic sellout’

Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, the illegal immigration opponent with possible presidential aspirations, is stunning many today as he recasts himself as a champion of Hispanic immigrants, now looking to legalize millions of illegal workers in the United States.

Despite his long-held opposition to “amnesty,” Dobbs now actually supports a plan to legalize undocumented workers.”

Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together,” he told Maria Celeste of the Spanish-language network Telemundo. (Click here for video of full interview). “I hope that will begin with Maria and me and Telemundo and other media organizations and others in this national debate that we should turn into a solution rather than a continuing debate and factional contest.”

posted with vodpod

“Many Hispanics consider you to be the No. 1 enemy of Latinos,” Celeste told Dobbs. “Do you think that the community is somehow misjudging you?”

“Oh, not somehow. Definitively, absolutely,” Dobbs responded. “By the way, I don’t believe for a moment that the Latino, Hispanic community in the United States believes that of me at all. It has been the efforts of the far left to characterize me in their propaganda as such.”

Twice during the interview, Dobbs mentioned plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens in America, saying “we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions.”

“What isn’t working is a penalty to those who are in this country illegally for whom we can both be building a bridge to the future in which there is legalization and at the same time constructing an environment in which everyone is clear and unequivocal about the need for border security and a regulated flow of immigration,” Dobbs told Telemundo.

Dobbs’ spokesman Bob Dilenschneider told the Wall Street Journal the former broadcaster draws a distinction between illegal aliens who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are “living upright, positive and constructive lives” who should be “integrated” into society. He said Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Hispanics and is “smoothing the water and clearing the air.”

Reaction from the public is already strong, including online comments such as: *

“Obviously, the old boy is losing his wits. Never trust a politician, which is what Dobbs now is.” *

“Well at least his disingenuousness is in keeping with a politician. On CNN: ‘I hate you dirty foreigners!’ Preparing to run for office: ‘I love you foreigners! And you’re not that dirty!’” *

“Just another pathetic sellout. Lou, don’t bother.” *

“The only thing Dobbs had going for him was his anti-illegal stance. He just blew it. Otherwise he’s just another pundit. He’s suddenly Bill O’Reilly.”

Dobbs, 64, of Wantage, N.J., has admitted an interest in politics, and the New York Times reports a run for the U.S. Senate is possible in 2012 before testing presidential waters.

Entire article at Worldnet Daily.com

From the UK Telegraph…collusion at it’s highest level, and it’s all coming out…for those who back Al Gore and the sky is falling crap, there’s going to be a lot of low priced carbon shares!

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

By James Delingpole November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” -  CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.  CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because  CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ ” Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?”

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don’t condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

Oops ! I don’t remember hearing anything about this on mainstream media. Obama lawyers going to defend Iran? I thought this was a president for change?

Obama Administration Willing to Dishonor Dead U.S. Marines To Not Offend Iran

Obama Administration is willing to turn his back on families of the dead U.S. Marines so as not to offend Iranian Terrorist-in-Chief.

The Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that lawyers for the dead Marines’ families want seized as restitution for the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Obama is contending that “it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.”

Adding insult to infamy, 26 years after the attack on Marine barracks in Beirut, families are stymied again in their bid for restitution, this time by Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.

In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims “can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.”

The Obama administration’s position is a blow to those like Devlin, who still waits for some measure of justice for her son.  Michael was 21 when Hezbollah terrorists rammed a suicide truck bomb into the peacekeepers’ headquarters.

“It is offensive that our government – the government that [the Marines] were fighting for, who sent them there – are against us collecting from Iran,” Devlin said in an interview this week. “I felt justice was going to be served, but so far it hasn’t.”

The lawsuit, specialists say, also demonstrates the enormous difficulty for terrorism victims in general to collect damages. Despite a host of court rulings in its favor and legislation passed by Congress to make it possible to sue foreign governments that sponsor terrorism, the executive branch has long resisted such payments, arguing that seizing the assets of another country could restrict the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy. There are also significant legal disagreements over what kind of assets can be seized.

Two branches are supporting [the families'] position and the executive branch is directly trying to undermine them. Even the courts have grown frustrated. Royce C. Lamberth, chief judge of the US District Court in Washington who ruled in favor of the Beirut families, wrote in a Sept. 30 opinion that “these case have consumed substantial judicial resources while achieving few tangible results for the victims.”  

Boston.com

Well guess they’ll have to call in Al Gore for help here as well.

Climategate: Oops We Got Caught

One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.

Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists.

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

In another of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), says that the journal in question, Climate Research, “encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’”.

Other emails show that some of the scientists declined to make their data available to independent scientists whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate – a core ethic of the scientific community.

Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals.

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.

“So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

We have long covered the fact that the so called “scientific consensus” on global warming is wholly manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists.

We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it’s scientific merit.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”

InfoWars.com

Have you been wondering what’s in the Senate’s version of the National Health Care Bill? Well here’s some of what’s in it…….Enjoy!

You can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. The alternate, non toll-free, number is 202-224-3121.

The following information is provided by Americans for Tax Reform

Read the  full bill

Read the tax revenue score from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)

Read the  budget and tax score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)   PDF of this Document

Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule

(capped at 8 percent of income)

Single              Single +1                     Single+2<

2014 $95                 $190                            $285

2015 $350                $700                            $1050

2016 etc. $750                $1500                          $2250

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil):

Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS.

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.

Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.

Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)

Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:

Many of us already knew this was what the G-20 and other groups were working on, while others called us conspiracy theorists. Now they just come out in the open and tell you, “we now have global government” (1m:56sec  into video) and most hardly noticed the change. Just as they denied the Council on Foreign Relations existing and now you see them on TV all the time as a “think tank”.

New EU President Rompuy announces 2009 as “first year of global governance”
Sees Copenhagen as additional step towards global management

By Daniel Taylor

The new EU President, Herman Van Rompuy, has proclaimed 2009 as the “first year of global governance.” During Rompuy’s intervention as President on November 19th, he stated,

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Rompuy attended a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels on November 15th, during which he announced a plan to implement EU wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels. Recently Mario Borghezio (Italy), member of the European Parliament, spoke openly against the influence of globalist organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. “Is it possible that no one has noticed that all 3 (EU Presidential candidates) frequently attend Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings?,” asked Borghezio. Rompuy will undoubtedly serve globalist interests during his reign of the European Union.

OldThinkerNews.com

Let’s keep those pink slips coming and hope for once they can get the message loud and clear. WE DON’T LIKE WHAT YOUR DOING & IF YOU CONTINUE IT WE WILL REPLACE YOU IN 2010 !

Boxed and ready to go

Pink Slip Tidal Wave Hitting Washington D.C.

The surge of pink slips being sent to Congress to warn members against more spending, taxing and government continued today, with the total number surpassing 6 million – of which 1 million have been dispatched in just the last 48 hours or so.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks on Tuesday was one of several members of Congress to endorse the “Send Congress a pink slip” campaign, organized by WND columnist Janet Porter and WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

“It’s an amazing feat, to get that many slips to Congress,” Rep. Steven King, R-Iowa, told WND. “If you look through them, you can index each one back to an individual. That’s powerful. There is a person behind each one of the slips.”

For just $29.95 you can send an individualized notice to every member of Congress in the form of a “pink slip.”

King and Franks were joined at the press conference by Reps. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., and Louis Gohmert, R-Texas.

In addition, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was interviewed about the campaign by Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren.

Capitol switchboard number: 1-202-224-3121

“This is putting everyone on notice,” he said. “And I think this is what the American people have been doing for months now, saying if you keep spending and borrowing, you’re going to get fired.”

Also, for the first time, CNN and other news outlets covered the unprecedented campaign that has generated more than 6 million pink slips to members of the House and Senate.

“Our goal from the beginning was to generate 5 6 million of these notices,” said Farah. “But it now appears we might just be getting started.”

Bachmann cheered the program on, saying she agrees with the campaign and that it is having a major impact on her colleagues. She said she was surprised that so many pink slips were generated even though most Americans had never heard of the program.

She said it’s clear the message – delivered through a stack of “pink slips” now standing more than five feet high in congressional offices – is getting through.

The “pink slips” remind members of Congress they actually work for the taxpayers and list four governmental plans that are unacceptable:

• government health care
• cap and trade
• “hate crimes”
• any more uncontrolled spending

“If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election,” it warns.

Read entire article at WorldnetDaily.com

Pastors Test Expanded Hate Crimes Law

Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law.

Calling the new law – which broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity – a clear threat to religious liberty, the group sought to defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths.

“You may choose to disbelieve or disagree with us but you have no right to seek to silence us,” said Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action, as pro-gay clergy and some from the gay and lesbian community gathered with signs reading “My love is legit.”

“If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Scarborough declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.”

After a decade-long dispute, the hate crimes legislation was tacked on to a must-pass defense appropriations bill this year and passed by the House and Senate. President Barack Obama signed the bill last month.

Clergy, religious broadcasters and conservative groups fear the legislation will subject them to prosecution for preaching what they believe the Bible says – that homosexual behavior is sin. While some believe they are exaggerating the effects of the expanded hate crimes law, the group on Monday was convinced they could be targeted for their speech and beliefs.

Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action and author of The Criminalization of Christianity, cited Title 18 of the United States Code regarding accessories to crime. It states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”

“That’s how they go after speech,” Porter explained at the rally.

The group also pointed to cases in Canada and the United Kingdom where Christians have already been feeling the negative effects of similar hate-crimes legislations.

Paul Diamond, a barrister from Great Britain, said people are scared to exercise their rights as a number of preachers, including Aake Green from Sweden, and other individuals have been threatened with imprisonment for preaching against homosexuality or for speaking out against its promotion.

“Our freedoms are very much inhibited in the last few years as Judeo-Christian values are driven from the public square,” he said. “We’ve been there. … We have lessons to tell you. And this is a road you don’t want to go down.”

Amid the arguments, a couple of ministers preached short sermons in hopes of sharing the Gospel with the homosexual community.

“God loves the homosexual,” the Rev. Grace Harley of Jesus Is the Answer Ministries in Silver Spring, Md., declared.

As someone who previously lived as a transgender (as a man) for 18 years, Harley testified that God set her free and can set others free from all kinds of sexual immorality, not just homosexuality. Jesus died on the cross so that you may be saved, she preached.

Offering a personalized version of the biblical passage Luke 13:13, she said, “Immediately she was made straight and glorified God.”

“I don’t just walk as a woman,” she noted, “but now I know the truth.”

ChristianPost.com

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent; that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.

It is perversely providing legitimacy, justification and political cover for undemocratic countries like China and Iran to hunt down dissidents online and censor free speech while using the Orwellian doublespeak of regulating to “preserve an open Internet.” Undemocratic regimes are always looking for “openings” and excuses to further crack down on their people’s freedom of speech and assembly. Surely, the FCC must appreciate that internationally, actions speak louder than words.

The FCC’s proposed “Open Internet” regulations are illegitimate. First, they offend constitutional due process in that they assume companies are guilty of anticompetitive behavior until proven innocent; the FCC would regulate roughly 2,000 companies, for what one has admitted it did, and for what the FCC alleges another has done. Second, they offend constitutional equal protection in that they treat similar companies very unequally. Third, they offend constitutional protection against Government takings because they ban competitive companies from pursuing business models that are legal today. Fourth, they offend constitutional free speech because the FCC apparently does not agree with the Supreme Court that companies have constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

The FCC’s proposed rules also overstep the FCC’s legal authority. Without congressional authorization of net neutrality legislation, the FCC is granting itself near limitless jurisdiction over the Internet. Moreover, the FCC’s proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious. They would arbitrarily reverse FCC precedent and factual determinations; arbitrarily move the competitive goalposts mid-game; and regulate competitive companies’ business practices more strictly than any monopoly in the last 75 years.

Further undermining America’s credibility to lead on the Internet policy going forward is that the proposed Internet regulations are not justified. They are a solution in search of a problem. The near perfect voluntary industry compliance over the last several years simply does not warrant a permanent ban on legal business behavior. To top all this off, the FCC has offered no evidence of market failure to justify regulating this competitive marketplace.

In sum, America risks both Internet freedoms and its Internet policy leadership when it proposes such a radical policy change without the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority or the justification of facts. International Credibility 101 says: if you want others to follow your lead, be worthy of following.

BigGovernment.com