Altameroy Blog

A watchdog press, unfortunately, will often invite the government leash. To the extent that the press adopts an adversarial position vis–vis the government, it makes many government officials consider it a nuisance to their agenda. If unconstrained by the First Amendment and the courts, government officials have often turned to regulation of the media to prevent this “nuisance.” As Justice Douglas has noted, when the press does its job under the watchdog model, “the press is often engaged in projects that bring anxiety or even fear to the bureaucracies, departments, or officials of government. The whole weight of government is therefore often brought to bear against a paper or a reporter.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 722 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting). This phenomenon has been noted by commentators whose work suggests that the subjects of unwanted media attention often target the press, criticizing their investigative methods as offensive and seeking to curtail them. See Sandra F. Chance, The First Amendment In The New Millenium: How A Shifting Paradigm Threatens The First Amendment and Free Speech, 23 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 169, 179 (2000) (describing intense public criticism of the methods of investigative reporters who documented Watergate, the Civil Rights struggle, and the Vietnam War). The desire to avoid criticism and to control the discussion of one’s actions is a basic human emotion, and it just as surely exists in the military context as in the civilian government. When investigative journalism comes into conflict with national security, members of the military have advocated and might turn to measures to control information that can only be described as draconian (such as seizure of cameras and film, exclusion of the media from specific sites, and prohibition or delay of live television broadcasts). See Captain Porcher L. Taylor, III, The Installation Commander Versus an Aggressive News Media in an On-Post Terrorist Incident: Avoiding the Constitutional Collision, 1986 ARMY LAW. 19, 27-29 (1986) (analyzing a scenario involving a terrorist attack and concluding that each of the listed activities could be constitutional).

III. Issues Regarding Embedded Journalism

The rise of embedded journalism as a new method of media coverage of conflicts has generated substantial controversy about this new relationship between journalists and the government. In coverage of past conflicts, journalists have largely relied on outside, independent reporting to find out information. Joe Strupp, Newspapers Pull Reporters From Embed Slots, EDITOR & PUBLISHER, April 28, 2003. In the 2003 Iraq War, however, journalists were given an opportunity to cover the war from the front lines, traveling along with the military to gain firsthand information about the war. At its peak, there were nearly 800 journalists embedded with U.S. military units. Id. The number dwindled rapidly after major combat operations ended, but nearly 200 reporters remained with military units to cover their continuing activities. Id. Having so many journalists follow the conflict firsthand was an unprecedented change in military coverage of warfare.

The rise of embedded journalism as a new method of media coverage of conflicts has generated substantial controversy about this new relationship between journalists and the government. In coverage of past conflicts, journalists have largely relied on outside, independent reporting to find out information. Id. The embedded media program, like any change, has generated both positives and negatives for media coverage. This section will analyze the costs and benefits of shifting toward embedded journalism as a major source of information about war.

A. Benefits of the Current Approach

Embedded journalism has been credited with a number of potential benefits and lauded as a new method of journalism that will revolutionize the coverage of wartime events. Proponents claim that embedding provides accurate, frontline coverage of warfare that could not be obtained through other sources. Regardless of the criticisms leveled at embedded journalism, it is plain that it offers some important potential improvements in war coverage.

One major benefit of embedded journalism may be an increase in the safety of reporters. Of over a dozen reporters killed during fighting in the Iraq War, only two were embedded with military units. Martin Bell, Media: Say No to News on Tap, THE INDEPENDENT, Dec. 16, 2003 Five reporters were killed by American fire, and they presumably would not have risked this danger had they been embedded with American units. Id. The reduction in danger that these statistics suggest adds several benefits to any military embedding program. First, the lives of reporters are protected to a greater degree in war zones, certainly a beneficial development. While a complete separation of reporters and the military during times of war may preserve the independence of the two groups, that very independence can be dangerous when the military is unaware of what journalists are doing or unable to distinguish them from the enemy. Second, an increase in the safety of reporters may persuade more of them to enter the area and report on the conflicts. This could provide benefits to the values behind freedom of speech by increasing the number of diverse voices with access to firsthand information about the battlefield. Of course, these benefits of protection are contingent on the American military holding a decisive advantage in terms of military force in whatever conflict is being covered. Should America get involved in a war with an enemy with greater military capabilities, it would obviously be more dangerous to be paired with American soldiers than to operate independently and under the protective banner of neutrality. Frank Smyth, On Assignment: Covering Conflicts Safely, Report, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS, 2003, (noting that embedded journalists who wear the uniforms of combatants can easily be mistakenly attacked). It may thus be inappropriate to make generalizations about the safety benefits to reporters without advanced knowledge about the specific conflict in which a reporter will be embedded.

Many supporters of embedding have also pointed out that a flawed or restrictive embedded journalism program may still provide more public access to information than the prior model of indirect information filtered through military bureaucracy. During the War in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf War, information was dramatically less available then under the current embedding system because reporters could usually collect only what information the military chose to release. Howard Kurtz, Front-Line Reports Mostly Accurate, Media Group Finds, WASHINGTON POST, April 3, 2003, at A29. At least one independent analysis has shown that information reported by embedded journalists was 94 percent accurate. Id. One should keep in mind, however, that factual accuracy may be wholly irrelevant in trying to determine the existence of bias or in answering allegations that the program turns the media into a propaganda wing of the government. These are not allegations of a problem in accurately reporting facts but rather are allegations of the propriety of which facts were selected to be reported. For those who adhere to the informer model of the media, reporting the facts about the war is perfectly adequate - so long as the public is more informed than it would be absent the embedding program, the public is being served by its existence. For those who adhere to the watchdog approach, there is still the nagging question of whether accuracy alone serves the needs of the public.

Teve Torbes is a prolific author about such subjects as fleas along with his favorite thing which is an air bed. He has also created a valuable air purifier site.

Comments Off

$130 Billion Dollar Medicare Rip-Off

On July 6, 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (IG) released a report stating that former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Thomas Scully pressured the agency’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, to withhold cost estimates of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill when it was being considered by Congress in 2003.

Foster had claimed that Scully ordered him to withhold estimates that showed the bill would cost between $500-$600 billion, well above the $395 billion estimate on which members of Congress were set to base their vote.

Specifically, Foster’s estimates were anywhere from 25 to 50% higher than those provided to members of Congress, and showed that rather than helping seniors lower prescription costs, the bill would be a windfall for drug companies, HMOs and insurance companies.

For instance, Foster’s estimates projected that the new plan would boost Medicare payments to private health plans by $46 billion (over 3 times the $14 billion Bush estimate), and that drugmakers would collect $100 billion more than the estimate provided to Congress.

Bush knew about Foster’s higher projections. On March 20, 2004, The Washington Post reported that, Trent Duffy, a Bush spokesman, acknowledged that the actuary’s cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill.

The key to the success of Medicare scam was to hide Foster’s estimates from members of Congress until after they voted to pass the bill, and the strategy worked.

If revealed, Foster’s figures definitely would have threatened the passage of the bill because 13 Republicans had vowed to vote against it if the cost went over $400 billion. Even at the lower cost of $395 billion, the bill only passed by 5 votes. Had members of Congress known the truth, the bill may well have been doomed.

In January, 2004, upon submitting his budget, Bush was forced to admit that the bill would probably cost $534 billion, not $395 billion.

When Foster’s claims became public, Democrats were rightfully angry about being duped. They contend that Scully’s actions forced them to vote on a bill without full knowledge of its cost. Rep Charles Rangel, senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said: “All I know is that the Congress did not have the best information available to make a judgment on vital legislation. … We asked for it. We were not given it.”

Many Republicans were also upset. Rep Trent Franks (R-Ariz) told the New York Times, “If anyone was truly pressured by a superior to withhold information from Congress, that is profoundly unethical and inappropriate,” New York Times, 3/18.

Rep Sue Myrick, one of the 13 Republicans who were set to vote against the bill, said she was “very upset” when she learned of the higher estimate. “I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered (voting for the bill), because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line,” Myrick said.

Who Asked For The Estimates?

Members of Congress had been requesting Foster’s estimates for months. According to the New York Times, Cybele Bjorklund, an aide to California Rep Pete Stark, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, began to press Foster for his estimates in June, 2003. She said that after sending Foster an e-mail on June 17, and receiving no response, she called him on June 24. Bjorklund said that Foster told her, “I cannot give it to you; I’m afraid I could be fired.”

She then called Scully, who she says told her, “If Rick Foster gives that to you, I’ll fire him so fast that his head will spin.” Scully said that he recalls “a heated conversation, but says he never threatened to fire Mr. Foster,” the New York Times reports.

Foster told colleagues that he would be fired if he revealed the estimates. “This whole episode which has now gone on for three weeks has been pretty nightmarish,” Foster wrote in an e-mail to colleagues on June 26. “I’m perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policy makers for political reasons.” Knight Ridder obtained a copy of the e-mail.

Bjorklund told the New York Times that in January 2004, she received a fax revealing Foster’s cost estimate for the Medicare legislation, the New York Times reports. The fax was dated June 11, 2003, and had “no hint of the sender” (New York Times, 3/18).

Scully Denial

In an interview with Knight Ridder, Scully denied Bjorklund’s assertion that he had threatened to fire Foster. He said he curbed Foster on one specific request, made by Democrats on the eve of the first House vote in June, because he thought they would use the cost estimates to disrupt the debate.

Otherwise, Scully said that Foster was available to lawmakers and their staffs.

“… I don’t think he ever felt I don’t think anybody (in the actuary’s office) ever felt that I restricted access. … I think it’s a very nice tradition that (the actuary) is perceived to be very nonpartisan and very accessible, and I continued that tradition.”

Scully said Liz Fowler, the chief health lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, could confirm the actuary’s independence. Fowler did not. “He’s a liar,” she said of Scully, according to Knight Ridder.

Results Of Investigation

After completing the investigation, the IG said that Scully may have violated ethical standards, but since he is no longer at CMS, recommended that no administrative action to be taken against him. She released a statement that said that Scully:

• Failed to produce premium estimates for drug coverage under the bill;

• Failed to provide congressional staff with total estimates and other information;

• Warned CMS’ chief actuary, Richard Foster, that “disciplinary action” would be taken if Foster provided certain information in response to Congressional requests;

• Warned a Congressional staffer that Richard Foster would be fired for releasing information.

The report admitted that on 5 occasions between June and October 2003, which means before the bill was voted on, Scully blocked efforts by Foster to comply with requests from members of Congress for information about the cost of the Medicare drug bill.

And yet, the report concluded, “Our investigation failed to produce evidence that criminal statutes were violated in connection with the failure to respond to congressional requests.”

Supposedly the legal question weighed was whether Foster could speak independently of his boss or needed to obey his boss. Drews concluded that Foster’s job provides him “freedom from supervision in performing actuarial duties, not supervision of disclosure of Department records or information to the Congress.”

“Since the Chief Actuary is subject to CMS supervision, the Administrator has the right to direct the Chief Actuary, just as any other CMS employee, to provide the Administrator with information for review prior to the information being provided to the Congress, or even direct that the information not be provided,” Drews wrote.

Before Bush took office, the Medicare actuary’s estimates were customarily provided to lawmakers who were debating Medicare legislation. This finding begs the question of how is Congress supposed to legislate when experts in the executive branch fail to share information about the cost of government programs?

Results Of Other Investigations

The finding that Scully’s actions violated no laws is contrary to an April, 2004 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that also investigated the matter. The CRS concluded that Scully’s threats to fire Foster probably violated a 1912 statute that says a federal employee’s right to communicate with and provide information to Congress “may not be interfered with or impeded.”

However, Justice Department lawyers claim that Scully was within his rights to order Foster to withhold information, as long as the directive was “not based upon an invalid or unlawful reason,” wrote Katherine Drews, a Justice Department associate general counsel.

Now what the hell does that mean? In plain language please.

Am I missing something here? Since when did it become lawful for the president to conspire with policy officials to provide members of Congress with phony cost estimates on pending legislation in order to funnel $139 billion to cronies in the health care industry?

Foster sure doesn’t agree with the findings. According to Knight Ridder, he stands by his position, “My perception remains that Mr. Scully withheld that information for political purposes. And regardless of his legal right to withhold it, I continue to believe that it’s wrong and unethical to withhold technical information from Congress.”

Where Is Scully Now?

Unbeknownst to Congress, Scully was trolling for a job within the industry at the same time that he was working on the final Medicare bill. Knight Ridder reported that Scully “was exploring jobs in the private sector while he was pushing for passage of the prescription-drug bill, thanks to a waiver from Thompson that allowed him to conduct job interviews while he was still a federal employee.”

So that means that at the same time that he was browbeating Foster, Thompson told Scully that he didn’t have to abide by the federal law that bars presidential appointees from discussing employment with companies conducting business with their own department or agency. And neither Thompson or Scully felt a need to notify Congress of the waiver.

Where does Scully work these days? According to the July 7, 2004, Washington Post, Scully is registered as a lobbyist for major drug companies, including Abbott Laboratories and Aventis; for Caremark Rx, a pharmacy benefit manager; and for the American Chiropractic Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, among others.

All of these clients are affected by a bill that Scully helped write. But not to worry, according to Knight Ridder, the “White House announced in February that President Bush’s appointees no longer would be permitted to job-hunt while on the federal payroll.”

Who Else Was Involved In The Scam?

James Capretta, another top official on Medicare policy at the OMB, was also shown Foster’s cost estimates for the bill. So he knew that the cost of the bill was far more than Bush had advertised.

Another official in on the scam was Doug Badger, Bush’s top health policy adviser on Medicare. On March 20, 2004, The Washington Post reported that, Bush spokesman, Trent Duffy, acknowledged that “the actuary’s cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill.”

On March 24, 2004, Foster told the House Ways And Means Committee that he had shared the estimates with Doug Badger and that Badger seemed to be directing Scully in imposing the gag.

One might say that Badger waltzed through the revolving door backward. He quit his lobbying job to become a Bush adviser. Before accepting the White House position, he helped bring in more than $1 million for the firm of Council Ernst & Young, from clients like Aventis, Baxter Healthcare, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer.

And this is not Badger’s first trip through the revolving door. He became a lobbyist after working as chief of staff to Sen Don Nickles (R-Okla) and staff director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. He also has held positions at the DHHS and the Social Security Administration.

Others Also Left For Private Employment

By now there must be a well-beaten path between the backdoor of the White House and companies in the Health Care Industry. Scully wasn’t the only guy trolling for private employment. Once the bill passed, members of the administration couldn’t get to their new high-paying jobs fast enough.

The bill was signed into law on December 8, 2003. Exactly one day later, Thomas Grissom, director of the CMS, left to become a lobbyist for medical device maker Boston Scientific. Grissom had been in charge of developing policies and regulations for the Medicare fee-for-service program and for overseeing Medicare’s $240 billion contractor budget.

I wonder how he was able to land a job the day after he quit his last one, especially in such a dire employment market? Maybe he could give some tips to the other people who are unemployed.

In January 2004, Dallas “Rob” Sweezy, the director of public and intergovernmental affairs at CMS, took a job with National Media Inc, which just happens to be the same firm that Bush paid $12 million to produce the phony TV ads touting the new bill, that the GOA determined were illegal and fraudulent.

National Media and its partner Alex Castellanos also served as consultants to both Bush campaigns and produced ads for the industry front group Citizens for Better Medicare.

However, Sweezy didn’t last long at National Media. In May 2004, he went to work for the lobbying firm Loeffler, Jonas and Tuggey, which represents Bristol-Myers Squibb, Purdue Pharma, First Health and PacifiCare.

James Capretta, Bush’s top official on Medicare policy at the OMB, left in June 2004 to join Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, where he will likely represent clients from firms like Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, PacifiCare and Wyeth.

Now where have I heard the names of those companies before?

Medicare Scam Will Cost Bush The Election

“The truth of the matter is that the only way this President and the Republican Congress could pass the fatally flawed Medicare bill was to deceive Congress,” said George Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans.

By Evelyn Pringle
e.pringle@sbcglobal.net
Miamisburg, OH 45342

Comments Off

In the Name of Allah vs. In the Name of Liberty

The West–specifically, the European West–stands aghast at
Islam’s violent reaction to its comedic caricature of the
Prophet and ponders: Shall we who enshrine our sacred rights to
human expression suffer these cultural indignities and blatant
intimidations designed to ultimately extinguish “our rights?”
This is outrageous and morally repugnant to cower before a
medieval culture that treats women, religious minorities and all
things “civilized” with intolerance. Alas! Let us speak out in
vehement solidarity against this “Scourge of Green” which seeks
to smother some 500-years of Enlightenment!

Reaction to the West’s Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment,
and social revolutions which gave birth to Democracy-Capitalism,
Socialism and even Communism–yea, to the “absolute profane” of
SECULARISM, where the triumph of the individual and of the
“rights of man” are worshipped with such unwavering
adulation–have now collided with Islam’s sacred honor in a
crescendo of religio-philosophical disparity that not only
refuses to go away, but is exploited by both the Axis of Evil
(Syria and Iran), as well as welcomed (by Bush and the Neo-con all-out
war throng).

As implacable a foe as the New World’s citadel of American
Christian fundamentalism is to Islam, even so, is the “Religion
of Secular-Humanism” found in Western Europe as much, or more,
an enemy to Islam. Indeed, the “righteous indignation” found
throughout the Western European media in response to the
desecration of her embassies and trade throughout the Islamic
World, because of these cartoons, goes beyond a wakeup call for
European secularism.

What could not be understood by the effete secularists of
Western Europe–viz. the absolutism and moralisms of American
rhetoric following 9/11 (”This crusade, this war on terrorism is
gonna take awhile.” - “We’re going to find those who — those
evil-doers, those barbaric people . . .” The White House,
September, 2001), can certainly be understood by those same
European secularists when couched in terms of Islamic
fundamentalism designed to inflict maximum damage to their
sacred freedoms. The Europeans have no intention of allowing
Islamic radicalism to infringe upon their liberties–liberties
for which they have so valiantly fought for (though beclouded
from time to time) throughout the past 500 years!

What once was America’s War on Terror is fast becoming Europe’s
War on Cultural Intolerance. It is one thing for Bush to
announce democracy’s extension into the Middle East as an
expression of Western ideals–freedom, liberty, tolerance,
ad nausea, ad infinitum–as a guise to buttress
cheap oil prices and to further addict the world to the
petrol-DOLLAR . . . it is quite another thing for Europe to
rally its indifference, mediocrity and effete cultural pride to
assail the Islamic hoards who, like the barbarians vs. the Roman
Empire, now threaten to bring Europe to its effeminate knees and
end her much-vaunted openness and age of tolerance!

Islam, though it knows not, is awakening the Crusader Demons of
yesteryear–the Knights Templar of the European media have
arisen to confront the Prince of Persia who, as the new Saladin,
leads the charge against the infidels and the hated Jew who
occupies the Sacred Lands of Islam.

What an ironic twist that Europe could find philosophical
kinship, rivaling religious zeal, with America’s
Christian fundamentalists who support the War on Terror–a
war that most Europeans despise with unmitigated distain. But
now–that which they feared the most has come upon them: Now we
see what the Americans are fighting (sort of)! The Europeans
find themselves–grant it, from a most unlikely position–allied
with Bush’s War on Terror because Terror in another form has
wafted upon their secular shores.

Could it be that the enemy of my enemy really is my friend?
Well, if that enemy continues to assail what you deem
incontrovertible rights each time you seek to assert them, then
in all likelihood, the “enemy across the pond” will slowly
become your friend–since Bush’s enemy is already the enemy of
what’s becoming your enemy!

Meanwhile, the Saudis et al can recall and even shut down their
embassies and renounce all trade from these blasphemous European
capitals which cannot control their unbridled presses–all in
the name of Allah! But, according to the Chief Imam of Mecca, the Danes
are beyond repentance–suffer their dastardly deed to be met
with trial and final judgment (no doubt some form of Islamic
fatwa that damns the Danes to the perpetual fires of hell–here
on earth and elsewhere).

The Danes–who clearly express overall European sentiment–will
not cave to Islam’s disgrace, to wit:

“The jab at the Danish government and public was in reaction to
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s decision not to
intervene in the affair, on the grounds of freedom of
expression. An opinion poll also showed that 79 per cent of
Danes thought Rasmussen should not issue an apology, and 62 per
cent said the newspaper should not apologize.” (Al Aram, Issue 780)

The greater the reaction wrought by Islam–especially from the
isolated likes of Syria and Iran or the disenfranchised of Fatah
amongst of Palestinians–the more the Knights Templar broadcast
their outrage throughout the capitals of European enlightenment.
Sure, the ever-effluent progressive types who adhere to the
religion of cultural progressivism plead their case for
immediate and future tolerance–let us acquiesce to the demands
of the religiously intolerant to unite in fighting against
Bush’s unjustified War on Terror–but is anyone in Europe now
listening? I don’t surmise such is the case.

Yet, as the subways of Europe are blasted to smithereens; as
thousands of cars in France and elsewhere in Europe are torched
by Moslem malcontents; and as Europeans brace themselves for the
unending CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATION in their own backyard–war is
now being waged upon their sacred cows of liberty, fraternity,
and equality–all fence sitting with the Americans and their War
on Terror appears doomed. . . awful thought: My enemy is my
friend!

A MARRIAGE MADE IN HELL!

The world awaits the secularists of European Enlightenment and
the Crusaders of American Christian fundamentalism to
embrace–at last, reason for martial bliss has been discovered.
Imagine “harmony and perfect love” between the absurdities of
nihilism, permissiveness, licentiousness, agnosticism, atheism,
and secular humanism AND the righteous indignations of
militarism, economic globalism, and the Church’s religious
apostasy in America (led, in the main, by the politicization of
the Evangelical and Catholic Churches) . . . caught walking hand
in hand down the aisle of matrimonial concupiscence; indeed,
what an oxymoronic witness have we here? And yet–the vows
commence!

Oh, and think not that Condi Rice’s remarks relative to blaming
Iran and Syria for permitting such violent reaction to Europe’s
comedic desecrations went unnoticed and unappreciated by the
Europeans. Also note with whom her chiding remarks were made:
Israel’s Foreign Minister. Both (and, again, think not the
Moslem world did not notice these TWO WOMEN) condemned Iran and
Syria for exploiting their people in allowing them to attack the
embassies of Western European nations; and in capitals
throughout the Islamic world to decry as blasphemy the
complicities of press and state in European society. What better
way to express the West’s indignation to the complicity of both
Iran and Syria than to have two women–one a Jewess and the
other a Black American–renounce Islam’s outrage!!!

“But yes, there are governments that have also used this
opportunity to incite violence. I don’t have any doubt that
given the control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the
control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn’t
even hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out
of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own
purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All
responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for
violence. We all need to respect each other’s religions. We need
to respect freedom of the press.” (Feb. 7, 2006, Transcript of
Remarks by US Condoleezza Rice, Israeli FM Tzipi Livni at
Press Conference, Palestine Media Center)

Listen, neither I nor anyone else around these parts, needs to
enflame the passions of Islam relative to these goings on. To
think that the Bush Administration somehow orchestrated this
whole business by planting these cartoons and their publication
and announcements before the Islamic world borders on
intellectual insanity–the Bushies may be clever, but the Left
is utterly insane to countenance such conspiracy. On the other
hand–nothing like an unintended positive consequence from a
rather bizarre set of circumstances that can be totally
manipulated for effect by those who despise the Axis of Evil.

DOOM’S DAY SCENARIO & THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN LEFT!

A foregone geopolitical conclusion can be achieved once the dots
are connected–and what dots might they be? March 28, 2006–the
date of Israeli elections and the simultaneous attempt by Iran
to dump the US Dollar as the world’s singular exchange for oil.
Saddam tried to do that back in 2000 and America invaded.

Now, the Totalitarian of Teheran (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad),
who not only denies the Jewish Holocaust, but counters the
West’s desecration of the Prophet’s image by establishing his
own international cartoon competition to poke fun at that same
genocide, alienates the Islamic forces arrayed against their
Western foes. This is the same “caricature” who today pronounced
the Holocaust a “fairy tale.”

“‘We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago
(i.e., Israel) and if they do not listen to our recommendations,
then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do
this for them,” Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th
anniversary of the Islamic revolution. ‘Do the removal of Israel
before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of
regional nations,’ the ultra-conservative president said. He
once again called the Holocaust a ‘fairy tale’ and said
Europeans have become hostages of ‘Zionists’ in Israel….” (Jihad Watch, Feb. 11, 2006).

Is it any wonder that some of the most vociferous outbursts
against the Danish cartoons and against the embassies of Europe
have come from Iran and Syria–who jolly well know that America
and her Coalition of the Willing or Unwilling are about to
pounce upon them with a furious assault that will make “Shock
and Awe” look like Little Bo Peep–speaking of fairy tales.

If you think for one moment that the “merchants of the Earth”
have any intention of allowing such an assault upon the almighty
dollar–then, you have bought my latest offer of Floridian
swampland and exchanged it for acreage somewhere near Katrina’s
worst landfall in Louisiana!

Then there’s the insipid American Left who–though blindly
well-intentioned–takes squirt-gun in hand against this raging
forest fire and spurts out:

“It now falls upon people of conscience to create and organize a
mass movement of nationwide non-violent resistance - in the
spirit of Dr. (Martin Luther) King and Mohandas K. Gandhi - that
will stop the war (in Iran this March) before it starts. At the
rate the White House rhetoric is beginning to boil, this
movement must start now and swing into full action by the early
days of March (2006). The only way to stop another senseless and
unnecessary war is with a mass movement rooted in a moral
strategy that brings people together. This movement must also
earn the sympathy and trust of those who are undecided about the
necessity of another Middle East war . . . without a moral and
unifying strategy that spells out specific non-violent tactics
to achieve our goal, the power elite and the corporate media
will ignore or marginalize our efforts. Remember the moral
claims for justice and the appeals to America’s founding ideals
during the civil rights movement, and you’ll understand the type
of strategy we need today.” (Mike Kress, The Urgency of Now:
Stopping the War on Iran, Feb. 11, 2006, In
formation Clearing House . . . “News you Won’t Find on CNN”
- and I can see why—my profundity).

Mike, just as you were about to launch Operation Peashooter, a
marriage made in hell just came off, and it’s all over but the
shoutin’. Let me disabuse you and the marginalized American
Left–let alone the conflicted European Left–there’s this huge
Green Monster that’s coming at you and another one painted red,
white and blue. Both could care less about Messrs. King and
Gandhi. You and the defiance of the Chinese man who stood before
the tank in Tiananmen Square have a great deal in
common–neither has a sense of size!

(Please view complete article/links/graphics @ The Tribulation
Network

Comments Off

BONDS, TAXES, LIES AND MORE LIES.
IT’S TIME FOR REFORM! We, the Taxpayers, are more than fed-up with all the above and we are not
going to take it anymore. It looks as though we are going to have to stop all Elections until
we can get the State of North Carolina back on the right track.
It’s time to pass a law “ELIMINATING Property Taxes”! By stopping the taxes
& bonds, we can put our children back into neighborhood schools or send them to a good
Christian School. Why should a child be away from his or her parents or on a school bus (which
Taxpayers can no longer afford to buy) most of the day? Exactly what are they learning while they
are ‘riding’ around?
There are many more good reasons that we should make this a permanent law:
Just to name a few:
(1) Taxpayers’ Money being spent frivolously.
(2) Overspending for all their “Pet” projects. Passing Laws in
County and State for their “Own” welfare should be stopped! THIS MUST STOP!
If these elected people want their areas cleaned up and re-built, let them
borrow from the Banks like everyone else has to do or get “Private” Business
people to put their money into these projects.
Oh, I forgot, this was the “OLD-FASHIONED” way of doing business when people
were honest,bought their own property, started their own business on their own money,
employed workers, and paid them from earnings from the business!
(3) All jobs lost in North Carolina with no chance of ever turning
around, unless we “ELIMINATE PROPERTY TAXES” then maybe, JUST MAYBE, companies will want to come here, bring their families, and to do
business here;thus, creating JOBS!
I just heard a comment made by a person that just moved his company here and
I quote “I would have come to your State “without” any incentives, but I do wish to thank
you!”
(4) “Private Businesses being given Taxpayers’ monies by elected
Officials and Politicians!” Who ever started given these “INCENTIVES” TO ANY BUSINESS
should be held accountable and something should be done with all of them!
(5) PRIVATE business should be just that “Private” and Taxpayers’monies
should be “Taxpayers’ Monies”.
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN PRIVATE BUSINESSES!

“STOP ALL ELECTIONS!” It’s now time to take a look at all the Bond Issues,
How many Bonds and actual amounts for each, the Tax Issues, the School Issues, and all the
“Pet” projects - “the Endless Money Pits”going on as we’ll never see the end of the tunnel!
THINK ABOUT IT! IF YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO PAY ALL THESE HIGH PROPERTY TAXES, YOU COULD PUT
YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN INTO A GOOD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL WHERE
THEY CAN FACE THE FUTURE WITHOUT CONFUSION, DISTRUST, AND MORAL DECLINE!

About the Author

Artist, Activist, Environmentalist. Author of several published articles.

Comments Off

Last week, the media coverage called the airplane crash in Canada a miracle because all of the passengers survived. However, what they are calling a miracle is really teamwork. The media believes that they know what constitutes a miracle. According to the dictionary, the meaning of a miracle is: Marvel; Supernatural Event. The supernatural event was the lightening that struck the plane, right?

However, the media wants to report the miracle as “nobody died.” What can I say to make the media understand that they are loosing creditability in America? The media talking heads are bringing their own attitudes to the story which they report and not the information we as Americans need to understand the event they are reporting. The media then puts a spin on the story to make it more interesting than it needs to be in order to keep our attention. Then the media talking heads are trying to become more powerful people by getting in bed with politics. So! When I listen to the people who report the news, all I hear coming out of their mouths is, “Please, listen to my personal opinion so that I can keep my job!” What do you hear? You know the Lord Jesus Christ said, “Be not deceived.”

This is the same media who did not give America the complete truth surrounding the events of 9/11. I suggest that you take a look at the following website: www.911inplainsight.com and tell me what you think. After you read all the information, share it with your elected representative who voted for the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act. Both of these newly ratified laws, takes away many of our Constitutional Rights.

I believe the OATH that each representative, Judges, Governors, and President takes is to protect the constitution of the United States from foreign and domestic enemies. Right? “Many will try to deceive you, but go not after them (Luke 17:23.) I will be waiting to hear from all the true Americans. I got a little winded about this topic.

Diane Williams, also known as Mrs. Fox is a unique character based from Nevada York’s novels, Caught Up and Mahogany’s Revelations. [ http://nevadayork.com ] She is an old soul at heart, who loves to tell it like it is! She firmly believes the real war on Earth is a spiritual war: Good vs. Evil. Diane’s goal is to make sure that every person is aware that ones spirituality needs must out-weigh one’s physical and mental desires. She currently resides in Idaho where she strives to “keep it real.” http://nevadayork.com

Comments Off