Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

If they cannot get information from the courts, there is nothing to report!

Posted By: Amanda on 2009-06-10
In Reply to: The media seem to voluntarily - C. Mudgeon

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

No, it's not complete......still in the courts
Obama and hs lawyer have tried to get this entire thing dismissed but to no avail. I guess this judge can't be bought. We'll see.
So you say, but evidently the courts
I have a tendency to agree with them....so do an overwhelming majority of rational citizens who are just as disgusted as I am over the mental illness that is the driving force behind this lunacy.
The courts aren't allowing it - the
REPUBLICAN leaning Supreme Court denied this today, so hopefully the ones clinging to this nonsense will open their eyes and see that it was baseless all along.
It has been release, viewed by the courts
Sme people just want to live inside the lies they create...and often are not able to distinguish reality from fiction. Most children outgrow this but, on the other hand, some never do.
I love it...when the courts decide against liberals...
they are biased and wrong. When they decide for liberals...they are right on and good old boys. Can we just admit it...you don't care what the facts are. Conservatives are wrong and Bush is wrong...every time posting, every time opening mouth.

If Bush was a Democrat, we would not be having any of these discussions.

What a twisted value system. Twisted.
So if this is true, then just produce your BC to the courts, hmmm...




Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"

Of course he is, dummy..

"But how do you know?"

Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.

"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."

The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.

"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."


Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.


"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."

Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"

I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.

"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"

I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.

"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."

Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"

I have no idea.


As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.

Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....

"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"

I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.

"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.



Duh!!! You know what else courts aren't keen on? TAZERING CHILDREN!
xx
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...


also, courts ruled the draft was not forced servitude in Butler v. Perry. nm
x
Report says no PENALTY for this????? nm

xox


Yes I read the report...

It can be argued both ways and it is being done so as we speak.  The document does not matter much to me. As I said, the NIE has been wrong before but I see what I see and I hear what I hear and the white house is the only place where rosy scenarios are being played out. It is getting old.


What would I have done to stop al-Qai'da?? I would have gone to Afghanistan with all the support and good will behind me that was available at that time. I would have **stayed the course** there until OBL was found. I would have implemented democratic policies there and hope that they would spread altho I believe the chances of that happening are slim to none. I would never never have gone to Iraq. I would have finished Afghanistan, rebuilt, and come home.  I really believe that democracy does not come through the barrel of a gun and we cannot force democracy on people. I also do not believe that a perceived failure in Iraq will defang al-Qai'da et al.  These are tribal people who have been fighting amongst themselves for 100s of years. It is what they know. That combined with the illiteracy that is prevalent (and I believe that plays a big part in what the people believe - without knowledge how can they formulate ideas and make decisions...they can't). They believe their leaders and follow them.  I think we would have made much more progress had we **stayed the course** in Afghanistan.


Well, go read the report out by the
You will see about earmarks and how terribly the democrats did. In fact, Biden got a rating of ZERO.  Yeah, Obama and Biden care about the taxpayer, ha!. They do not. -dare you to take a look
New investigative report, etc.

Sunday, October 5, 8:00 EST
**ONE HOUR SPECIAL**
Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism:
'Hannity's America' investigates Obama's college years, time as a community organizer and numerous controversial relationships.  


http://www.foxnews.com/hannitysamerica/


Mike Huckabee has a new show on FNC, too (Sunday, 8 EST).


Fox News Watch is another good show on Saturdays.  foxnews.com


I think that was a bogus report...

How convenient for it to come out when it did.  Sure expedited the process for the beggars.


It wasn't a Fox report, D.A.
It was an independent filmmaker who caught those dim-witted Obots on film.

You were third from the left, weren't you?
First, I posted a report above and you

could read it, paying attention to pages 8,9,10, and 11 in part 1, then pages 4 and 5 in part 2.


Secondly, it was both the dems and pubs that passed that bailout. Bush suggested a bailout plan but the dems and pubs are the ones who make and pass the bills into law. Bush signed it, yes, but I betcha he didn't read it, just like this stimulus plan of late.


I see nothing wrong with the report.
I see not one single fact that can be disputed by rational people with a realistic outlook on the current state of our country. What exactly do you dispute in the document?

Btw, I could care less about whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or a Whig. You hate Obama and everything he does; we get that. Party affiliation or not at all does not matter, which is why you have no clue what mine is.

As an aside, perhaps people would not jump all over you making false assumptions if you did not do so first.

Here's the video of the above report

 


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22386366/acorn-allegations.htm#q=acorn+investigation


maybe next time he should report to
you which sort of toiletpaper he prefers?
Rapture righties would report you to FBI....
If you said that about Bush. Calm down, the nurse has your shot of Thorazine ready.
Don't know. It was just a 1 minute report on the news (nm)
nm
Fox has nothing to do with it, they just happened to report it first....grow up, and allow others th
I'm starting to dislike you dems more and more every day. Keep sinking, along with that sex article you forgot to publish the link to. You are all smut and no substance, most of the time.
just hit the report message button
that's what it is there for.
The full report is due to come out today. The..sm
preliminary report is that the first dude lied and did talk to multiple government officials, not just one as he says, regarding the case, and he relentlessly pushed to get the trooper fired. It will be interesting to see what the full determination will be.
Please report which link so it can be removed. nm

Spinning the report won't change it.
My guess is that DHS knew very well that this report WOULD be leaked to the press (they had "don't leak to press" on the first page), and used it to try to suppress attendance at the tea parties. The timing is MIGHTY suspicious.
Saw another estimate of $30 grand, and then a report that
Is that arrogant or what?
we should report these 3 comments to the moderator,
this is a reason for a ban!
Report: 1 in 31 U.S. adults in prison system


Updated: 8:07 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005

WASHINGTON - Nearly 7 million adults were in U.S. prisons or on probation or parole at the end of last year, 30 percent more than in 1995, the Justice Department said Wednesday.


That was about one in every 31 adults under correctional supervision at the end of 2004, compared with about 1 in 36 adults in 1995 and about 1 adult in every 88 in 1980, said Allan J. Beck, who oversaw the preparation of the department’s annual report on probation and parole populations.


Beck attributed the overall rise in the number of people under correctional supervision to sentencing reforms of the 1990s. The nation’s incarcerated population has been increasing for more than 30 years, with sharp growth in the last decade.He said crime rates have fallen in recent years, which helps account for slower growth among people on probation — those allowed to live in the community with some restrictions rather than being incarcerated.


The number of people on probation in 2004 grew by 6,343 to about 4.2 million in 2004, the report said.


Nearly 50 percent of all probationers at the end of last year were convicted of a felony. Twenty-six percent were on probation for a drug-law violation, and 15 percent for driving while intoxicated, said the annual Justice Department report.


Racial imbalance persists in probation
Whites made up 56 percent of the probation population and only 34 percent of the prison population, according to Wednesday’s report and another Justice Department report released last month.


“White people — for whatever reason — seem to have more access to community supervision than African Americans and Hispanics,” said Jason Ziedenberg, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, which promotes alternatives to incarceration. He called probation a cheaper and more effective form of rehabilitation.


Blacks, he noted, comprised 30 percent of probationers and 41 percent of prisoners at the end of 2004. Hispanics made up 12 percent of the probation population and 19 percent of the prison population


Parolees grew fastest among those under correctional supervision. They are criminal offenders who rejoin society with restrictions for a time after they complete a prison term.


Number of parolees grows
The adult parole population grew 20,230, or 2.7 percent, during the year, more than twice the average annual increase of 1.3 percent since 1995, the report said. The total number of parolees at the end of 2004 was 765,355.


Beck said a late 1990s spike in prison populations is now showing up in the number of parolees, as the number of prisoners released rises.


The parole population grew during 2004 in 39 states, with double-digit growth in 10 states, led by Nebraska’s 24 percent increase. The number of people on parole decreased in nine states and didn’t change in Maine.


About 187,000, or 39 percent of discharged parolees went back to prison or jail in 2005. While the number has grown, the rate has held relatively stable since 1995, when 160,000, or 39 percent of discharged parolees returned to incarceration.


The total number of people incarcerated in the United States grew 1.9 percent in 2004 to 2,267,787 people, according to the report released last month.


© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

GAO Report indicates possible 2004 election fraud

 GAO Report indicates possible election fraud


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyn-l...-c_b_11483.html

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman October 26, 2005


As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as conspiracy theories adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received more than 57,000 complaints following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines. The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected. In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate. Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level. 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a widespread conspiracy but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf


You must be referring to the Scranton rally (2nd report).
very much under investigation. By the way, did you forget to post the link? I don't see it here.
The left media won't report on it. More's the pity.
They're in the tank for Obama and the dems, so what do you expect.


If Pelosi has her way, she'll do it. She should have been tried for treason. What a joke.
Err, you mean the link to Commonwealth Fund report
"It has to do with Medicaid." Yes, Medicaid is mentioned in the report, but ONLY within the context of expanded eligibility (by various states) based on INCOME, not on age. Furthermore, the feds are actually trying to limit, as in RESTRICT, this type of expanded Medicaid coverage.

It also talks about the interplay between Medicaid and private companies and how it is picking up some but not all of the fallout from private insurance eligibility restrictions. The report goes on to say that Medicaid is functioning AS IT WAS INTENDED, thus lending credence to the assertion in the OP that the SCHIPS program being administered like Medicare and Medicaid is a good thing.

Here's a suggestion. Do a find/search on Medicaid within the article and then try to identify any single statement that indicates Meicaid AGE guidelines have been revised upward. Certainly, you will find nothing anywhere to support the hogwash in the other post that suggests it is now or ever going to be 30.

Here's a few more clues for you. In the excerpt from the other post, terms and phrases such as "nothing to do with federal mandate, their parents' INSURANCE POLICIES and allow INSURERS to set their own dependent age limits" can in no way be interpreted as referring to state funded insurance programs.

Bottom line, once again, is that the aim of health care reform is to INSURE folks, not EXCLUDE them. Raising age (and other) restrictions by private insurance companies is one of many creative ways of keeping folks OFF of state and federally funded health insurance programs.
You will have to ask him not to call you; report to supervisors if he continues - nm
x
Obama conceals environmental report.....
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=580722
Brian Williams had report called "A Day with the President"
How could anyone stand to be around 5 minutes let alone a WHOLE DAY! Just put bamboo shoots under my fingernails!
Report clears Palin - link inside

 


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D947PVBG0&show_article=1


If y'all have a lot of time to read a 450 page report,

check this out. It has some interesting info: Part 1 is a synopsis and most interesting is pages 8,9,10, and 11. I got as far as Pt. 3 and there is a table of contents on the first few pages to explain everything that is in that part of the report.


"Vol. 1, Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD."


http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?pageNumber=1&freqReqRecord=undefined&refinedText=undefined&freqSearchText=undefined&txtSearch=911&exactPhrase=undefined&allWords=undefined&anyWords=undefined&withoutWords=undefined&documentNumber=undefined&startCreatedMonth=&startCreatedDay=&startCreatedYear=&endCreatedMonth=&endCreatedDay=&endCreatedYear=0&startReleasedMonth=&startReleasedDay=&startReleasedYear=&endReleasedMonth=&endReleasedDay=&endReleasedYear=0&sortOrder=DESC


Report: 50% rise in violent hate groups

Southern Poverty Law Center: 50% rise in violent hate groups






David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday April 15, 2009



A new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks the activities of violent hate groups in the United States, has found an alarming rise in the number of such groups, from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2008.

This comes on the heels of a controversial report on "violent extremism" from the Department of Homeland Security, which has outraged many conservatives by seeming to lump them in with extremists.

Morris Dees, the founder of the SPLC, told CBS's Harry Smith on Wednesday that he believes the two reports do "synch up pretty much" and that "the report from the Department of Homeland Security should be taken very seriously."

However, the SPLC's own report focuses very narrowly on groups which actively preach violence, including neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the "racist skinhead subculture." It also notes the surprising rise of "anti-Semitic black separatists calling for death to Jews on bustling street corners in several East Coast cities."

"A key 2008 hate group trend was the increasing militancy of the extremist fringe of the Hebrew Israelite movement," the report states, "whose adherents believe that Jews are creatures of the devil and that whites deserve death or slavery. These radical black supremacists have no love for Barack Obama, calling him a 'house nigger' and a puppet of Israel. They preach to inner-city blacks that evil Jews are solely responsible for the recession."

Dees told Smith, "The political climate, the election of Obama, the immigration issues ... and now, especially, the economy is almost causing a resurgence of what we saw in the days of Timothy McVeigh, almost a militia movement that's being reborn. ... I think that an American person is much more likely to be harmed by a domestic terrorist extremist group than by one from abroad."

Dees also emphasized that many extremist groups are recruiting Iraq veterans and even active-duty members of the military because of their expertise with arms and explosives. "It's a serious issue," he stated, "especially with a lot of these guys coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, coming back to a failing economy, the inability to buy a home and get a job and get credit."


This video is from CBS's The Early Show, broadcast Apr. 15, 2009.


Video at:  http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_50_rise_0415.html





You guys remember the homeland security report...(sm)
that warned of extreme right-wing terrorist acts that you guys raised cane about?  After the recent incidents, including the newest shooting at the DC museum, do you still think it was out of line?  It seems to me it was right on target.
You guys remember the homeland security report...(sm)
that warned of extreme right-wing terrorist acts that you guys raised cane about?  After the recent incidents, including the newest shooting at the DC museum, do you still think it was out of line?  It seems to me it was right on target.
Colbert Report: Senator Allen and His Ethnic Friends

This is sooooo funny.  When I first saw the clip of Allen's Macaca comment, I actually emailed the Colbert Report and wrote, **Help.  Senator Allen needs Stephen's help in getting some new ethnic friends** because this true story reminded me so much of the comedic segments on the Colbert Report regarding Stephen's search for a new **black friend.**  I think they call this life imitating art!  LoL!


http://www.crooksandliars.com/


Please report to ACORN headquarters for your electronic ankle bracelet.
And please turn in your hand grenades.
Really good, balanced, historical report, SO GLAD you posted!! Something for everyone to learn in t
nm
This will get you the information

www.operationmilitarypride.com


 


some information...

I had the privilege and honor of seeing Mother Teresa some years ago in D.C. The audience was made up of a few ordinary people and mostly political and/or media types. The woman did not mince words. She did not hesitate to tell everyone in the audience how she felt that intolerance, indifference, selfishness, materialism and consumerism, the treatment of and attitudes towards the poor, the sick, the imprisoned run rampant were things that incited people to take up arms against each other, to hate one another, etc. and that Americans might want to look a good look at themselves and give some thoughtful prayer to what part they may play in the situations they so despised. Some of the people were so moved by her that they talked to her about going to India. They wanted to work in her clinics, her hospitals, on the streets. She laughed out loud and I will never forget what she said. She said, and I quote, ** You do not have to go to another country to do God's work. Take a look around you. Man's inhumanity to man is evident everywhere. Go into your own cities and find the poor, the needy, the imprisoned, the sick, the haters with hardened hearts, whatever. They will always be with us and they are everywhere. I believe sincerely that peace is God's work, perhaps in the highest form. You think we live in peace here in this country; as Mother Teresa said, look around you. The war is but 1 faction of a very very sick society, a sick world. I was born into peace and nonviolence. I have practiced it all my life. Protests are really quite a small part of my nonviolent lifestyle. There is plenty enough hatred, violence, intolerance and indifference to keep the peacekeepers busy until the end of time, right where they live, wherever that may be.  We also unfortunately have, in this country, warmongering and war profiteering and people in power who could care less about exploiting our troops and whomever they may be fighting. War is a big money maker for some folks. I do protest here but these days it is mostly letters to the editor, letters to senators, clergy, manning phones, that sort of thing. Another thing I believe is that the Creator is the changer of hearts and minds, not men, and that prayer changes things. You asked what I did besides whine on the other board, where were my legs...you asked for it, here it is.


1. I train service dogs for the disabled. I do this for all sorts of people, some of whom happen to be veterans whose welcome home from their government is, in my opinion, nothing short of betrayal. The wonderful projects, facilities that have sprung up to help these vets are all and I mean ALL privately funded, quite a few of the dogs I train have been purchased or **sponsored** meaning covering all costs and it is quite expensive,  from the bleeding heart liberal pinko commies as you refer to us. They pay the fee, anywhere from $12,000 to $25,000 so that people who cannot afford it or whose government does not think them or their service  important enough to provide them everything they could possibly ever need can get something they desperately need. My portion of this 2-year training program is the last leg, the month where trainer, new owner and dog are put together to learn the mechanics of what they are doing together and to learn each other. At this point the dog, its care, individualized training, all vet bills have been paid for. Normally I charge for this month of training that I do one-on-one.  I have NEVER charged 1 red cent to any veteran for my services and I never will. This is one of the ways I support the troops but not the mission. You see, it can be done.


2.  I have belonged to a prayer and meditation for peace group since I was a child. If I go somewhere where I can't find one, I start one or I hook up with the Mennonites or Friends, the original civil disobeyers. We PRAY for peace, for everyone, everywhere.


3.  I work with St. Vincent de Paul (Catholic organization for the needy),


4.  I do meals on wheels (substitute only now, too busy with everything else),


5.  I go with a group of Indians to elementary schools throughout the Tampa Bay area in full regalia with drums, flutes and stories to share with them to try to give them a good honest look at indigenous people. This seems to be going over very well. We have more dates than we can actually handle. I am very proud to do this work.


Those are my legs and I have had them for a long time.  As I recall, this is our board, the L board, so I can post whatever I like and you don't have to read my posts because you always find fault with whatever I said but I will continue to **preach to the choir** as long as I feel like it because it is the liberal board and the liberals don't mind hearing about nonviolence. As Ghandi said, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. And, for further perusal, here's a bit of history on Ghandi.


After one year of a none too successful law practice (in England), Gandhi decided to accept an offer from an Indian businessman in South Africa, Dada Abdulla, to join him as a legal adviser. Unbeknown to him, this was to become an exceedingly lengthy stay, and altogether Gandhi was to stay in South Africa for over twenty years. The Indians who had been living in South Africa were without political rights, and were generally known by the derogatory name of 'coolies'. Gandhi himself came to an awareness of the frightening force and fury of European racism, and how far Indians were from being considered full human beings, when he was thrown out of a first-class railway compartment car, though he held a first-class ticket, at Pietermaritzburg. From this political awakening Gandhi was to emerge as the leader of the Indian community, and it is in South Africa that he first coined the term satyagraha to signify his theory and practice of non-violent resistance. Gandhi was to describe himself preeminently as a votary or seeker of satya (truth), which could not be attained other than through ahimsa (non-violence, love) and brahmacharya (celibacy, striving towards God). Gandhi conceived of his own life as a series of experiments to forge the use of satyagraha in such a manner as to make the oppressor and the oppressed alike recognize their common bonding and humanity: as he recognized, freedom is only freedom when it is indivisible.


Aho.


Where did this information come from?....
the Obama website? I am not trying to start a fight either, but what makes this information any more accurate than the other poster's? Who has independently verified any of it?

The only one who knows how "indoctrinated" Obama is with the Muslim religion or how much he ascribes to it, supports it or it influences him, is Barack Obama. And I think anyone who thinks differently is fooling himself/herself.

As to the United Church of Christ...it has a flagrantly racist agenda, and regardless of what he says he has to know that if he was listening to any of the sermons...Jeremiah Wright did not wake up the morning of Obama's candidacy a racist and that church did not turn racist overnight...

Don't trust Obama. I have read up about his Chicago days and ties to Daly...the most corrupt political machine in the history of this country.

Nope, don't trust him. Not a bit.
Information is the key
Ladies/gentlemen, we can go back and forth on the candidates and their character, however, as we all know candidates can and will promise anything while running for president and promises are conveniently forgotton once in office.  To find out what is in a candidate's heart, read each party's platform which is easily assessible on the internet. The platform will let you know what the candidates will be focusing on once in office. Since each candidate's economic or tax plan really cannot be tested until they are in office, look for issues that concern you morally. Regardless of which candidate wins, let's vow to be united once it is over.
I believe you get your information
from blogs.
where do you get this information?
I have not heard anything whatsoever about this - can you give me something more?
Add the URL for this information.