Not Violent, Not Racist, No Longer Silent,question everything,expose all EXPOSE THE ENTITTLEMENT SOCIETY A Unionized and Socialist America IS NOT GOOD! SHEEPLE WAKE UP THERE IS A PLOY TO DESTROY!

Google Search


Monday, June 21, 2010

FROM A WATCHDOG THANK YOU READ AND PASS ALONG

NEWS FROM A WATCHDOG I SAY THANKS PASS ALONG THESE STORIES
Obama's Plan To Modify Your Behavior
Last week, with much of the news cycle focused intently on the oil spill disaster in the Gulf and the continuously weakening economy, Barack Obama quietly signed an executive order to establish the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/obamas_plan_to_modify_your_beh.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-establishing-national-prevention-health-promotion-and-public-health
While such a council isn't unusual given the president's preferred collegial approach to governance, and may sound innocuous, a deeper look is needed to understand exactly what this council is and what it aims to accomplish.
As the newest expansion to the Department of Health and Human Services, the council is headed by the Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, and is comprised of 13 other high-ranking officials of executive agencies -- including Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, and Arne Duncan.
Additionally, the council will oversee an advisory group of up to 25 non-federal government officials who will be appointed by Obama. Many of the president's appointees will be licensed health-care professionals with expertise in worksite health promotion, community services, preventive medicine, health coaching, public health education, geriatrics, and rehabilitation medicine.
Beginning this year, until 2015, the council will submit an annual report to the president and Congress that describes the progress it has made with its efforts to advance health promotion and disease prevention. Overall, it is expected to address "lifestyle behavior modification" of the American people, including, but not limited to, smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings.
Does the council still seem innocuous now?
Just in case a reminder is needed, this is the U-S-A, not C-U-B-A. Americans take pride in living in a free society, and we the people don't need a president who can't quit smoking, a surgeon general who has had to defend her own weight problem, government bureaucrats, and what will likely be an advisory group comprised of the crème de la crème of radical statists, to tell us what we should and shouldn't put in our bodies, in addition to, how to behave. New surgeon general is sworn in, defends her weight http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/01/new-surgeon-general-sworn-in-defends-weight.html
The last council the President created via executive order was the deficit commission that Congress had previously refused to create -- which came shortly after a New York Times report disclosed the President was preparing to rule more through executive decree -- and an explanation shouldn't be required as to why Obama didn't bother discussing the creation of this health council with the legislative branch
Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html
With the Democratic Party poised to lose its majority in Congress, Obama will have to intensify his presidential usurpation of legislative power to ensure that the re-creation of America in his image comes to fruition; it has to make one wonder, what else is to come?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Senate Candidate Helps Mexican Drug Lords Get U.S. Tax Dollars, Then Launches a Jihad Against Jim DeMint
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/20/a-senate-candidate-helps-mexican-drug-lords-get-us-tax-dollars-then-launches-a-jihad-against-jim-demint/
A few days ago, former Utah Senate candidate Cherilyn Eager, the woman who claimed Tim Bridgewater offered to pay off her campaign debt in exchange for her endorsement then denied that was a bribe before - you know - endorsing Bridgewater, came onto RedState and attacked Jim DeMint.
Eager claims that Jim DeMint and Mike Lee are both affiliated with some energy company I've never heard of and DeMint denies it. Best I can tell, the attack is as crazy as Cherilyn Eager is.
However, concurrent to Eager attacking Jim DeMint on RedState, Tim Bridgewater's campaign has been using the exact same attack against Jim DeMint in Utah via flyers, emails, and phone calls. Bridgewater is claiming DeMint is shilling for the energy company
Here is one of the emails circulating straight from the Bridgewater campaign. (PDF) http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2010/06/bridgewaterlie.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployed Dutch women offered government-funded makeovers to find husbands
Three city councils in the Netherlands have banded together to help women get off welfare - by giving them makeovers and a profile on a dating site so they can find husbands.
The councils say getting women dating and, eventually, married, will help them build confidence and boost their drive to succeed off social assistance.
Included in the makeover package, which costs about $1750, is a session with a life coach to provide them with tips to attract a man, a new hairstyle, outfit and a professional photo for their profile on the Dutch dating site Mens & Relatie (People and Relationships). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7147122.ece
This is a total concept of trying to get people out of social security," said Radboud Visser, the managing director of Mens & Relatie, which was hired by the three municipalities to find employed new partners for unemployed lonely-hearts. "We know from national statistics that people in a relationship have better health, more happiness, make more money and live longer lives.
They make less use of medical systems and social security. So in Friesland they thought, we can try to get people out of social security by bringing them to a nice new husband."
Not everyone is pleased with the scheme. Following scathing Dutch media reports, the councils voted to reconsider the plan.
But Mr. Visser is convinced it remains a smart idea.
He told the Times:
"If you go for a job interview or on an interview for a new partner, it is almost the same thing. You must be sure you look good, you take care of your body and your face and you say the right things.
"I am sure that people who have done this will be on social security for less time because they will find a job and a partner."
Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/11/unemployed-dutch-women-offered-government-funded-makeovers-to-find-husbands/#ixzz0rAkDwjjC
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/11/unemployed-dutch-women-offered-government-funded-makeovers-to-find-husbands/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extinct in 100 Years Are You Ready for Extinction? Just wait till Holdren gets his way
Do you wake up in the middle of the night worrying about the extinction of mankind and the death of the planet? If so, you should tune in to Frank Fenner. Otherwise, I suggest a BBQ this week end, and plan on a long driving vacation this summer. Why not use of the last of the oil readily available to us? In a year or less, a trip to the gas pump will be accompanied your friendly loan officier.
No amount of fear mongering has generated the uproar of the recent disaster in the Gulf. Right on cue the idiots joined the in the cry for the heads of BP executives. Anything less than reducing them (oil companies) to poverty ridden wretches is unacceptable.
Cue up the Marxist propaganda machine and you have a match made in heaven or this case for the wallets of Al Gore, the Chicago Climate Exchange and Goldman Sachs.
Yes, the populist idiots who hate success of anyone are lined up with "big money" to drain their own pockets. Which is why I can call them idiots. They have no reason to hate success except maybe their own small mindedness.
Or it might be years of listening to politicians rant about the evils of fat cats.
I have no allegiance to fat cats, but then I have no idea what a fat cat is other than a over-weight feline. I have met ruthless business men and I have met charitable ones. Some have been conscientious, others could care less about anything but their own success.
Businessmen come in all sizes, shapes, colors, religions, nationalities, personalities and worthiness. But one would never know that from listening to the politically correct media.
We may be extinct in 100 years but it won't be from global warming. It might be from a natural disaster such as an asteroid, or global extinction via nuclear holocaust either intentional or otherwise.
You think the gulf oil spill is bad. Multiply Chernobyl by 10 and try surviving that?
If you have an affinity for your gene pool, stop jumping on the populist bandwagon.
WE humans are about to be wiped out in a few decades. The grandchildren of many of us will not live to old age.
Hear it from Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University and the man who helped eradicate smallpox.
"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," he told The Australian this week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Fenner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle for liberty begins with guns
There is confusion within the conservative community – and even among some gun owners – over what exactly the gun-rights argument is all about. Similarly, there is confusion among some gun voters about the goals and objectives of the conservative movement.
The simple answer is that these battles are about freedom, individual liberty and the rule of law.
Our system of government is founded on principles of the rule of law and individual liberty. No man – or government agency – is supposed to be above the law, and all citizens are supposed to be able to go about their peaceful business, enjoying their "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without fear of harassment or any limitation beyond the rights of others and the basic rules spelled out in the Constitution.
The right to arms is a fundamental right that ensures that the weakest among us have the capacity to resist physical assaults and government excesses.
This right is no more negotiable than the right to freely exercise the religion of our choice or the right of free speech and a free press.
The right to arms also serves the role of safeguard for all of the other rights enumerated within the Constitution and of the limits imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.
Citizens have a responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution.
Within the Constitution we were provided with a number of tools with which to accomplish this mission: the right to petition Congress to let them know how we feel about their activities, the right to a free press to illuminate those activities and the right to arms as a last resort for the citizens to remind politicians just who is in charge and to force an end to unconstitutional activities if the other tools fail.
The Constitution also included a mechanism for making changes to it in case we the people ever decided that it needed amending. The power to make such changes was not given to politicians or to judges; it was reserved exclusively to the people, and it was structured in such a way as to ensure that only changes that are broadly supported by a strong majority of the people in most of the states can be enacted.
Fundamental rights are not open to restriction or limitation under the Constitution, and all attempts to do so violate not only the Constitution itself, but the principles of individual liberty and responsibility upon which our nation was founded.
When we barter with politicians over how much we are going to allow them to violate the Constitution, we have already lost the argument – just as all credibility in the debate over gun rights is lost the moment the pro-rights side accepts some "minor infringements" in the name of public safety or "common sense."
Whether the issue is registration, mandatory training, waiting periods, background checks or some other convoluted "common-sense" scheme, the fact is that gun-control laws infringe upon a fundamental right.
Even if such laws did not violate constitutional rights, they have been proven to be completely ineffective at their stated purposes. Gun-control laws have never resulted in any noticeable reduction in crime, accidents or suicide – they simply do not work.
What these laws do accomplish is systematic harassment and demonization of gun owners and deterioration of the Constitution, rule of law and the supremacy of individual rights.
Gun voters and gun-rights organizations are committed to restoring and protecting the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment exists as a safeguard to protect the Constitution as a whole. One cannot rationally work on behalf of the Second Amendment and simultaneously oppose other aspects of the Constitution. There can be no Second Amendment without the Constitution, and there will not long be a Constitution without the Second Amendment.
All parties involved in support and defense of any portion of the Constitution must support and defend all of it, or else their activities are in vain.
Similarly, those who support the Constitution and the rule of law must work on behalf of all aspects of the Constitution and its duly ratified amendments, or else their proclaimed support rings hollow and they are actually endorsing a "death of a thousand cuts" for our nation.
While opposition to some aspects or provisions of the Constitution is totally acceptable, such opposition must be couched within the framework provided by the Constitution. Anything less is truly un-American.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments: