Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Posted By: MT on 2005-07-20
In Reply to: Pillars - Tee-Tee
Jews and communism. It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually). It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on. This is indisuptable and absolute. Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism.
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
I guess Henry Ford and Churchill were big fat liars, too, gt. sm
MARCH OF THE TITANS -
A HISTORY OF THE WHITE RACE
Chapter 64:The Racial State - The Third Reich
Part Four: The "Final Solution": Nazi Policy towards Jews
The Third Reich and Adolf Hitler will always be associated with an outburst of anti-Jewish sentiment not seen since the Crusades or the Middle Ages. Despite countless books and films having been created on the actual anti-Jewish activities themselves, almost none have focused on trying to explain why Hitler and the Nazi Party were anti-Jewish.
Nazi anti-Jewishness was based on three pillars:
• First, Jews were identified with political subversion and Communism in particular. (See chapter 61:"Jews and Communism") As outlined earlier, this sentiment was by no means a Nazi invention, and had been written about in public by Winston Churchill and a host of others including Henry Ford in America; the political subversion of which Jews were accused ranged from the fantastic (the Protocols of Zion) to the promotion of pornography, racial mixing, degenerate art ("modern art") and other issues identified as problematic by the Nazis;
![](http://www.white-history.com/hwr64iv_files/nazi_propaganda.jpg")
Above: Nazi propaganda depicting Jews (Stars of David); Capitalism, (Dollar Signs) and Communism (Hammer and Sickles) all as part of the disease under inspection. |
• Secondly, the Nazis associated Jews with super capitalism and economic exploitation. This descended directly from the traditional and pre-Christian objections to Jews. Hitlerian anti-Jewishness also accentuated the links between Jewish super capitalists and Communism, personified by the financing of the 1917 Russian Revolution by the American Jewish banker Jacob Schiff; and
• Thirdly, the Nazis associated Christianity with Jews, arguing that this religion was the product of Middle Eastern thought and not native Europe. The Nazis did not however dare to attack Christianity openly, rather leaving it alone to wither by itself, something that has to a large degree started to become reality by the end of the 20th century. Nonetheless, if the private comments of Hitler himself on Christianity are read, it can be seen that Hitler clearly identified Christianity with Jews.
Only in this light can an understanding of the motivating factors behind the state that Hitler created be gained: a tradition of anti-Semitism going back centuries, modern political thought associating Jews with Communism and subversion, the degradation of Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, economic collapse, and the outstanding oratorical ability of Hitler himself. All of these factors combined to propel the Nazi Party to power in 1933.
Ward Churchill.
Ward Churchill is not a half breed. It has come out since his statements after 9/11 that the tribe he was supposed to have belonged to, he didn't at all. The fact is, he was an *honorary* member and he is not Native American at all. They have since disowned him. In other words, it was a lie. He is a fake. He used his supposed Native American status to take advantage of Affirmative Action in order to get through school. He is also a plagarist. A little about Ward Churchill. Lurker, you may well be the only Native American who still thinks Ward Churchill is Native American other than himself.
- Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder
- Regards the victims of 9/11 as Little Eichmanns
- Regards America as a genocidal nation
- Falsified his Indian background to qualify for an affirmative action position in Ethnic Studies
- Accused of plagiarism
- Lamented that the terrorism of 9/11 proved insufficient to accomplish its purpose of destroying the United States. Commented: What the h**l? It was worth a try.
Thanks in large measure to the impassioned public outcry prompted by an invitation to speak at Hamilton College to replace the previously invited convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, the disquieting (but by no means untypical) aspects of Ward Churchill's career became common knowledge. The hundreds of professors and thousands of students who supported him in the wake of the public outcry are an indication of the degree to which Churchill is the symbol of a much larger problem.
Ward Churchill has a BA and MA in Communications from Sangamon State, an experimental school for student radicals in Illinois. His academic expertise is as an artist. Yet on the basis of his claim to be a member of the Ketoowah Cherokee tribe (it has since been revealed that the membership was honorary and has been revoked and that Churchill is not an Indian) the PhD-less Churchill was made a tenured Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder and head of the Department.
Professor Churchill's moment of fame came when an essay he had written was disclosed in which he waxed rhapsodic about the September 11 terrorist attacks as chickens coming home to roost, while vilifying the innocent victims inside the World Trade Center as little Eichmanns. The article was known to UC Boulder officials long before, and considered normal academic fare. Less well known is the fact that Professor Churchill's academic career and academic oeuvre was built around the theory that the United States is a genocidal nation, worse than Nazi Germany because its genocides began with its settlement and have continued to the present.
Professor Churchill regards American history as one unbroken procession of genocidal tyranny, beginning in 1492, which unleashed a process of conquest and colonization unparalleled in the history of humanity. Always ready to draw sinister parallels with Nazism, Churchill routinely equates Columbus with Gestapo chief Heinrich Himmler. He titled a 1997 book A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 through the Present. Other Churchill books, among them Fantasies of the Master Race (1992) and Colonization and Genocide in Native North America (1994), also equate the United States with Nazi Germany. Past students at the University of Colorado have reported that Churchill's conception of America as the newest rendition of the Third Reich invariably finds its way into his lectures, particularly in the undergraduate class he teaches titled, American Holocaust.
While defending his notorious article and utterances as free speech, Professor Churchill himself has been accused of stifling -- once by violent means -- speech he did not like. In 1993, following his ouster from the radical American Indian Movement, Churchill reportedly retaliated by spitting in the face of the Movement''s elderly leader, Carol Standing Elk, while a younger accomplice broke her wrist. Ten years later, Professor Churchill and his political allies attempted to obstruct a Columbus Day Parade in Denver. He was acquitted by like-minded judges who accepted his claim that a parade celebrating Columbus was tantamount to hate speech.
In Professor Churchill's view, revolutionary violence against oppressive America is not only justified, it is indispensable. One of the things I've suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness. Lamenting that the terrorism of 9/11 had proved insufficient to accomplish its purpose of bringing the United States to its knees, Churchill shrugged, What the hell? It was worth a try.
When I started out it was 'U.S. out of Vietnam,' he declared in an August 2004 speech, and then that was changed and it became 'U.S. out of Indochina,' and then it became 'U.S. out of Southern Africa,' and it was 'U.S. out of the Caribbean and Central America,' and then it became 'U.S. out of the Persian Gulf.' I agreed with every one of those, but ultimately there's only one way that any of them will be possible and that is: US out of North America, U.S. off the planet, and take Canada with you when you go!
Professor Churchill's hatred for America is really a projection of self-hatred. He is an Anglo-Saxon white man posing as an Indian. An in-depth genealogical investigation tracing Churchill's ancestry back over 100 years, conducted by the Rocky Mountain News, concluded that there is no evidence of a single Indian ancestor in Churchill's long family history in America. Churchill nonetheless describes himself in the following way: Although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my [Native American] wife's uncle. Far-Left presses have obligingly released books by the Keetowah Cherokee activist, Ward Churchill. In a recent speech in Vancouver, Churchill introduced himself thus, I have to say, I have to bring you greetings from the elders of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, my people. Not exactly: the Keetoowah Band, in which Churchill and Bill Clinton once had honorary memberships has disowned Churchill as an imposter.
Imposture is likewise the distinguishing feature of Churchill's academic work. A two-month investigation of the professor's scholarly portfolio, carried out by the Rocky Mountain News in June of 2004, revealed that Churchill had a long history of inventing historical facts to suit his polemical purposes, and on numerous occasions had passed off the work of others as his own. Among the paper's findings: Churchill baselessly accused the U.S. army of spreading smallpox among Missouri Indians in 1837, brazenly citing books that expressly contradict his claims; published a 1992 essay taken almost verbatim from the work of Canadian professor Fay Cohen, over Cohen's objections, and on at least four other occasions, had claimed credit for the work of others. Churchill could produce no evidence to disprove the paper's findings. Instead, in characteristically mendacious fashion, Churchill sought to explain away his serial plagiarism as harmless creative editing, not dissimilar, according to Churchill, to the efforts of a rewrite man at a newspaper who edits articles as he sees fit.
As a tenured professor in the field of American Indian studies at the University of Colorado, a position for which he has no evident qualifications, Churchill takes home a $115,000 annual salary (for teaching three hours a week), not counting benefits and speaking fees.
Henry Kissinger
x
Thanks for your thoughts, will check out Ford.
I'm in my 50s and never paid much attention to politics until just before this past election. Now I'm trying to make up for lost time, I guess......it's too bad that the abysmal condition politics is in right now is what finally prompted me to get interested!!
I'm with you on the chevy/ford thing --
I don't know why, but I have always preferred Chevy over Ford. I've had 4 vehicles in my life -- my dad bought my first one -- an olds, then the first I bought was a Nissan, and my last 2 have been chevy's. Right now I'm looking at a Cadillac Escalade.
Ford's just never seem to fit me right. Can't explain it. Just don't like 'em. I dislike Dodge even more. They seem to be made for shorter people -- no head room.
kind of interesting about Ford plant
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
Note the comment about UAW at the end.
You should explain your wisdom to Harold Ford and John Tanner.
These lawmakers obviously have no idea what it truly means.
The way I read it is as nothing more than a badly worded symbolic gesture of no real significance other than to *express the sense of Congress.*
You're entitled to agree with the lone 19 Republicans regarding our troops.
I choose to agree with the vast majority who are *expressing* that they support our troops, particularly Ford and Tanner, whose comments are below.
Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.
Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."
Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html
Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
this is just one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
Many interesting articles on this site...
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.
BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.
I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.
All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.
If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.
You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.
No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.
For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.
And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.
Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.
If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?
I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.
I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin? She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her. By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing. We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.
A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm
I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
Lots of them are nm
nm
You know they will have lots to say. sm
After making all those concessions about those stupid tax cuts that the pubs wanted so badly (when it has been proven time and again they don't work), and then they didn't even vote for it. And I'll bet all the whining pubs on here sure won't turn down their checks when they come!! That tax cut money should have gone instead to creating and boosting those industries that could generate jobs!! They are all like vultures -- circling around and gleefully waiting for failure. I say they are no better than the terrorists they so rabidly fear!! 
There are lots of people
who make loads of money, and why would you choose these two? If you are a Republican, there are rich ones. If you are a Democrat, there are rich ones.
lots of books on this - even old ones
http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-Str-William/dp/0767900464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223520209&sr=8-1
No harm in trying....lots more not to.
you have nothing to fear from tighter gun control laws. Nobody but hunters are worried about hunters. By your logic, why incarcerate people? They'll just keep on committing crime anyway, so what's the point? Ridiculous.
lots of difference..........sm
Treatment for alcoholism, STDs, obesity, and all other medical "conditions" do not require the taking of a human life. Abortion does.
I had a cousin who had a baby born with hydrocephalus and that child lived for 6 years. It was a very hard delivery for Sherry and she knew that Scotty would never be able to sit up or talk or play or do anything else like other children. Yet there is no way she ever even considered abortion. Scotty was a beautiful child. Yes, he brought a lot of work into Sherry's life, but he brought a lot of joy as well.
Put lots of pepper on it will ya? LOL n/m
Why are lots of CEO, CFO's leaving
Medquist CFO quitting. Symantec CEO retiring. Yahoo CEO quit. There are some other companies too. Why? Because they already know how good they have it and decide to take what is left of the their money and run?
Lots of times...
because their behavior is DISGUSTING and that's what we teach our kids, to bash the behavior. Just like any other bad behavior. If you want to label yourself as a sick behavior then accept the consequences of being bashed.
Lots of cheap shots there.
Especially Reagan, but nothing new.
The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.
The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?
If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.
But wait! There’s more!
If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.
Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.
Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.
Have read lots about Obama -and know he is
nm
So this Halloween, what'll you bet there are lots
lots of fish hang around those
offshore drilling rigs. huh huh huh.
Jealousy? HARDLY. Try uneasiness. LOTS of it.
nm
There are atrocities in lots of countries
and nobody seems to give a dam@. We are only interested in countries that have something we want.
as are lots of Obama supporters...nm
nm
Said he had lots of money, I know I gave as much as I could.
NM
Lots of people have, but Obama
and he may be smart, but no common sense.
It made lots of sense, and it's something
references to Jesus in Christianity, Judaism (sp)? and Islam. I've often wondered, given the language differences, if they all have more in common than disagree.
And lots of people are good at
POUNCING. ;-)
Well we own a gun, I think 9 mm, a stun gun, lots of knives - my husband's
a collector of knives, all kinds and yeah we're in BAMA, but terrorist don't want to go toe to toe with Americans, they're going to try to sneak us everytime.
That goes for New Yorkers too, they don't want to go toe to toe with them either. I despise Ann Coulter. She doesn't think when she talk. What ever comes up comes out. I think she is obnocious (sp) and has no respect for the left, and she gets as good as she gives from me.
She'd probably be the first chicken liver hiding under her desk.
Bravo to them. Lots of cancer in my family.
Great article. Thanks for posting it! I applaud them. Obviously early detection is key, and it makes sense that many people without insurance are not getting regular screenings done.
Lots of websites offering bankruptices for $599
My son-in-law emailed me this, and this is what I sent him in response:
Nuttin' made in the USA any more
(except for declarations of war).
Give it back to China so they can keep
sending us stuff to sell real cheap.
"Leaden" our kids and poison our pets,
and the rich get richer with no regrets!
I keep seeing websites offering bankruptices for $599. With no health insurance, mounting medical bills, a car repossession, dwindling income and a fatal disease, that may wind up being my way of "keeping it" in America. My preference would be to buy a $600 American-made car, maybe something like a 1983 Ford Escort, anything to get me from Point A to Point B safely.
Thanks, Mr. Bush. 
Lots of folks DO hate her. Something underneath all the
gives lots of people the heebie-jeebies. "Got that born-again look", ya might say.
So, lots of people have tanning beds
If I lived in Alaska I'd have one too. Looking at the pics of her it doesn't look like she uses it in excess. My cousin has one and says it does not use a lot of energy (they told me this about 7 months ago).
So maybe you don't think she should have a microwave or toaster or even a coffee pot either.
|
