Wednesday, April 28, 2010

MSNBC Frets Over Arizona Becoming 'the Most Conservative State' in the U.S.

[UPDATE BELOW: Tamron Hall responds on Twitter.] MSNBC's Tamron Hall on Wednesday worried that Arizona may be turning into the "most conservative state in the nation." A graphic on the liberal cable network chided, "Arizona Too Conservative?" [Audio available here.]

Hall talked to Zachary Roth from the Talking Points Memo web page. His site first sounded the alarm over the threat from this right wing state with an article entitled, "Crazy Arizona: How A State Went From Swinging In '08 To Out On A Limb In 2010."

After discussing several conservative initiatives that the state House has passed, Hall linked the tough new immigration law and other proposals to bigotry: "Here you have a state that could be one of the first with a dominant population of Latino and Hispanics. Is that, perhaps, why we're seeing this conservative push so appealing with people there?"

Read more:

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Phoenix Mayor Gordon

Last Friday, Governor Jan Brewer took decisive action combating illegal immigration in our state and signed Senate Bill 1070. I applaud her for her courage.

Unfortunately, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is asking the City of Phoenix to file a legal challenge to fight this new law. Instead of filing frivolous lawsuits against our state and finding ways to avoid the law, we should be developing an implementation plan that ensures we comply with the law. Government creates the law and we should expect government to abide by the law.

SB 1070 will soon become law and we need to uphold the rule of law in Arizona. We should not be filing frivolous lawsuits that will waste taxpayer’s dollars, as Mayor Phil Gordon wants to do.

That is why I am emailing you today. I need your help.

On Tuesday, Mayor Phil Gordon is trying to push the Phoenix City Council to spend taxpayer dollars to bring a lawsuit to block SB 1070.

Its absurd for him to be spending your tax dollars on his own political agenda and that of President Obama, Al Sharpton and the east coast press.

Please contact the Mayor and other members of the Phoenix City Council and tell them you do not want them to use taxpayer money to fight SB 1070. Or, please come to tomorrow’s city council hearing and voice your opinion. The meeting starts at 2:00 and is held at the Phoenix City Council Chamber – 200 West Jefferson Street in Phoenix.

Thank you and I would be grateful to hear your thoughts on this important issue via email at

To contact Mayor Phil Gordon, please use the information below:

Mayor Phil Gordon

To contact other City Council Members, please use the information below:

Claude Mattox: or (602) 262-7446

Michael Nowakowski: or (602) 262-7492

Tom Simplot: or (602) 262-744

Thelda Williams: or (602) 262-7444

Peggy Neely: or (602) 262-7445

Bill Gates: or (602) 262-7441

Michael Johnson: or (602) 262-7447

Saturday, April 24, 2010


Kelsey Grammer is starting a NEW network--Out this summer. He's is also following 6 candidates, and it's called RUNNING--Trailer Above.

His web site is

Arizona's immigration law too tough? Not if you live there.

Rick Moran
You can dress your opposition to the new Arizona immigration law up any way you want to, but if you're so all fired concerned about it, I suggest you move to the border towns that are under virtual siege by drug gangs and do your protesting there. The number of kidnappings and murders related to illegal crossings of the border have skyrocketed and the feds seem powerless to stop it.

It is a tough law for tough times, and under ordinary circumstances, would be seen as "draconian." But given the fact that it is impossible to delineate where the US border ends and where Mexico's begins in many places in that state, the right of sovereignty should rule.

Even the New York Times admits that the law basically calls for enforcement of existing statutes:

While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.

Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics' concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law's sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, "We have to trust our law enforcement."

Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.

It requires police officers, "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime - a misdemeanor - to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

President Obama is going to use this common sense law to push his version of immigration reform that won't do anything to stop the flood of illegals from crossing the border and will probably act as a catalyst for increased illegal immigration.

But it is interesting to note that a state law that only asks that existing law be enforced and followed is so violently opposed by the open borders crowd. Once again we have the spectacle of people demanding that the law of the land not be enforced, that we shouldn't be serious about illegal immigration.

Arizonians took care of that notion.

GOP Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Tough Immigration Bill into Law - Video 4/23/10

Palin on Ariz. Immigration Law Controversy,2933,591446,00.html

VAN SUSTEREN: Indeed, and I hope everybody gets the message out there that it is a crime and they will -- people will get prosecuted for it.

All right, now to the other question. (INAUDIBLE) big picture of Governor Jan Brewer down in Arizona has been -- she's got a big immigration issue on her hands, illegal immigration issue. And -- and I'm wondering -- it's, like, how tough is it as a governor to try to get the federal government to help you out of a jam? Now, they finally have passed a bill. They've now got the attention of the federal government. But it has taken this far to have the federal government say, Look, we're going to -- we're going to try to do something about illegal immigration. But what's the difficulty for a governor?

PALIN: Well, in this day and age, when it doesn't seem there are a lot of federalists in the federal government understanding 10th Amendment rights and a state's rights, it is quite difficult to have that good communication and working relationship between the feds and the state government in order to best serve the people whom you are to be serving. So more power to Jan Brewer for deciding that she was taking on an issue. And it is a states' rights issue, and she was going to decide with her lawmakers what they could do to tackle this huge issue of some immigration problems.

As a governor, you know, I faced the same thing, when I was governor as Alaska and had to sue the federal government over abuse of the Endangered Species Act -- that was under President Bush -- and then having to butt heads with President Obama over the stimulus funds, when I vetoed some of the stimulus funds that came to our state, and then my veto of those funds was overridden by the legislature.

But there is -- there is always that good, healthy kind of conflict between the state and the federal government, but a state governor has got to make sure that they are remembering who they are serving. It's the people who hired them, their state's voters, and they do what's best for the people who did hire them. Sometimes that is in conflict with the federal government.

But Jan Brewer, I think, in doing the right thing for her constituents and standing up for her state, and now it's a matter of working with the feds to kind of mesh what the mission is that they are on to make sure that this immigration reform that she wants to work on, that due respect is given to the state in this case.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's a very important issue, and I think now the state of Arizona finally has the attention of the federal government. And so we'll see what happens as they -- as the days and weeks go on. Thank you, Governor.

PALIN: Thank you


The NEW Rebel Flag

Friday, April 23, 2010

SHE DID IT--WE DID IT--NOW WE ARE ALL (fill in the Blank)

Sitting here at home, Arizona Gov Jan Brewer just made a speech after signing the Immigration Bill.
Oh, yeah, that is the SAME Bill that Obozo (Who won't do JACK about the problem) just criticized
Obama Blasts Pending Arizona Immigration Law: "Irresponsibility"

Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill
Head of L.A.’s Catholic archdiocese likens the bill to techniques used by Nazis and Communists.(WHO THE HELL DOES HE THINK IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE?)
This bastard is the reason I left the Catholic Church. I refuse to give a penny because it will go in some Illegals pocket

BUT, since we (Arizonans) are racist, bigoted Homophobes, WE MUST BE DOING WHAT AMERICANS WANT

Sunday, April 18, 2010

“They Called Me Everything But My Name”

Florida Congressional Candidate Lt. Col. Allen West on Defending America

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Arizona Enacts "Constitutional Carry" For Firearms

"Freedom To Carry" may replace so-called "Right To Carry" nationally

by Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press

PHOENIX -- With governor Jan Brewer's signature on the new "Constitutional Carry" firearm law today, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue.
Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.
Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of "blood in the streets" preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as "Freedom To Carry," appears at the end of this article.
Arizona's extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor.
The intrusive government "permit" system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise "rights" is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state's population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called "fees."
"This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people," said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. "The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties." A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest.
The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. §13-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English and posted by next week. The new law will become effective 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July.
"Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law", said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, the book that describes the state's gun laws in plain English. "Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We're anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes to spring up statewide," he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes.
"We sold The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide by the truckload for five years before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business," Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book's publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.
The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under "reciprocity," which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety).
In addition, since permitees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government "authorization" card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends.
Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn't ban possession and the person doesn't drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time.
Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal.
According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies. Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. "Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed," according to the California-based civil rights group,
Sales of small easily carried sidearms and accessories are expected to increase with passage of the new law.



Q: Why is the CCW permit being eliminated?
A: The CCW permit is not being eliminated -- that appears to have been misinformation designed to scuttle the bill. The permit system remains completely unaffected by Freedom To Carry. The permit, its advantages, the training, reciprocity schemes, the classes, fees and taxes are unchanged. That all remains voluntary as it always has been. Anyone who meets that law's requirements can apply. Shame on the "news" media that has repeatedly said otherwise.

Q: What's the difference between Constitutional Carry and Freedom To Carry?
A: There's no difference, they're just two names for the same thing. Constitutional Carry, the more formal term, comes from following the Arizona Constitution's provision that "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired...". Freedom To Carry (no government interference with the right to arms) refers to the next step after so-called Right To Carry (massive government interference with the right to arms).

Q: If people can just carry guns, won't crime and gun problems skyrocket?
A: Half of Arizonans keep and bear arms now, without any of the CCW red tape and government supervision, and without any "skyrocketing" problems. Removing the requirement to only carry openly doesn't change who people are or how they act, it just restores their rights. Restoration of rights and becoming mentally unhinged are not related -- but the same arguments have been made everywhere CCW programs passed.
It's commonly recognized that some folks, especially people who lean left politically, do seem to equate discreetly bearing arms and becoming unglued. Decades of experience however provide no evidence of any such behavior. Those concerns have been repeatedly proven false and often turn out to be irrational fear mongering. Government permission slips for the exercise of rights have not turned people into homicidal maniacs. Restoring the right to discreetly bear arms will not change people into something they are not, and brings the state into proper compliance with its Constitution.

Q: Can anyone carry a gun?
A: Anyone who could legally carry a gun previously can legally carry under this law, no more, no less. "Prohibited possessors" -- criminals, illegal aliens and others forbidden to carry arms remain banned as always. The main change is that now a woman can put a handgun in her handbag without being subject to arrest for carrying discreetly without a government permission slip (and a man has equal right to carry a gun in any discreet manner -- under a sport coat or shirt, in a pocket or pants holster, fanny pack, attaché case, etc.)

Q: Training is a good thing, why was it eliminated?
A: Training is indeed a good thing and it is not eliminated. Anyone can and should take as much training as they want, which is voluntary. What has changed is that you are no longer forced to take government-mandated classes, registration and taxes before you can exercise your right to carry discreetly. This is the same formula working in Arizona since statehood for open carry (which includes concealed carry in your home, business, land, vehicle (with some minor conditions), and in a visible scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons, or in luggage. Now that the half of the public that bears arms can do so discreetly, many experts expect statewide gun training to flourish.

Q: Won't people shoot each other if they're not required to take the training?
A: Twelve states currently issue CCW permits without a training requirement and they're doing just fine. Half of Arizonans exercise their right to arms without government-demanded training and they're doing just fine. The idea that you're only safe if government requires training is statist, foolish and incorrect. That said, responsible people should get education and training for firearms—and swimming, machine tools, medical care, raising children, being married, owning a home, preparing food, writing articles, etc., without government mandates.
If government could require training for everything that has risk, your freedom would be evaporated and your government would be out of line. Government has no legitimate delegated authority in this country to be your nanny like that, or to require anything beyond the specific, limited delegated powers given to it in the Constitution and subsequent valid legislation. The fact that government has in many cases abandoned those constraints is part of why the Tea Party movement has gained such ground and, in some cases, driven the public out into the streets with pitchforks (figuratively).
Currently, 11 states issue carry permits without training and they're fine (AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA). Because Arizona recognizes all other permits, many of our snowbirds have been carrying under those permits, without problems.

Q: Why are children of any age going to be allowed to carry guns to school?
A: That is total nonsense. No such thing occurs. The bill has no effect on children. That appears to be part of a misinformation campaign designed to scuttle the bill. There is no change as to who has the right to keep and bear arms. School grounds are unaffected by the law. That question is typical of similar lies and disinformation used to defeat and mislead the public about many good bills that seek to restore our civil rights. It's almost as bad as the lies told about blacks during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Almost.

Q: Will other states imitate Arizona and enact Constitutional Carry?
A: Many people hope so, and it has the backing of the gun-rights groups.


There is one reason and one reason only why this got done --
The Arizona Citizens Defense League.
That small handful of guys running this group, the two full-time volunteer lobbyists Dave Kopp and John Wentling, and the thousands of members who supported the effort with their tiny membership dues are exactly and precisely why our rights have expanded.
It was a deliberate, conscientious, focused and tireless effort from what must be a candidate for the best pro-rights organization in the nation. Get your friends to join, send a donation or buy a t-shirt or hat, attend the meetings, and in your little way, make a difference and preserve our rights.

One other tidbit -- the NRA was rightfully nervous about this whole Freedom To Carry, permitless, no training, no red tape expansion of our rights. They dragged their feet at first, that's putting it mildly, and I can't say I blame them. An awful lot was on the line.
They wanted to be prudent. Limit exposure and risk. They have all their trainers to think about and that revenue stream. The chance of falling flat on your face in total embarrassment is a serious concern. The ease with which the antis might cast us as dangerous gun-toting (their media's favorite slur) nuts is a real issue.
I personally debated hard with some of the top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board. Some gun owners like to pick on the NRA, but the NRA is going to be at the forefront of this battle. The Constitutional Carry issue does make sense, for them and for us. It will be a winner in some states, maybe yours, and does advance everything for which NRA members stand.
Yes, some of those members, steeped in darkness, or hooked on the government-permit feed trough, believe that red-tapeless carry is a bad idea. They crave government supervision. They want that permission slip in their wallet. They'll learn, and come around. And continue to get fine training from NRA certified and other trainers because it's the right thing to do, not because the government commands it. Appleseed is doing a phenomenal job in the training arena too, check them out while you're at it.

I have finally completed the long-awaited analysis of the oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban case. Both attorneys took a whupping, but I think our rights came out on top. Justices showed their true colors (like Breyer comparing free speech to death by gun). It's fascinating if you're into this sort of thing, and way easier than plodding through the transcripts. Sorry it took so long.


NOTE: On my website at last -- The Woman's Page

Friday, April 16, 2010

My kind of man

Here is a great video of an NBC Reporter at a Tea Party Rally yesterday, where she asked a man if he "ever felt uncomfortable" at the rally since there are not "a lot of African-American men" there.

The video is great on two counts:

1. It shows the absolute bias of the liberal media. The reporter was not there to report on what was being said by the citizens who assembled. She was looking for a way to try and discredit the Tea Party Movement. Their reporting is not always this blatantly biased, but it shows their true motivation.

2. Most importantly, this man gave a stunning answer! Notice he said, "These are my people - Americans." Wow! Such an answer never occurred to this reporter! The Left is all about breaking Americans down into ethnic groups and interest groups - bringing division. This man does not see himself as a "black man" or an "African-American man." He sees himself as an "American!" What a novel idea!

God bless him, and may we come to the day that we all see each other as "Americans."

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Monday, April 12, 2010

Transfer of Responsibility

How the world works lately...

If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work,he blames the restaurant.

If you smoke three packs a day For 40 years and die of lung cancer,
your family blames the tobacco company..

If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he blames the bartender.

If your grandchildren are Brats without manners,you blame television.

If your friend is shot by a Deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer.

And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the pilot at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead,the mother of the crazed deceased blames the airline.

I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is anymore.


Let's start in 1849. People loaded up a wagon, pulled by horses or oxen, loaded all their possessions plus food and bedding, and set out across the west to go to California.
There were no cell phones, no freeway call-boxes, no responding police or cavalry.
There were hostile natioves who kind of resented the white eyes encroaching on their land. These natives did not contact an attorney. They responded like they had for hundreds of years--by killing the intruders.

Those going West did so for a promise. The promise was that it was there, and if you found it or woked for it, you could keep it.


Men looking for jobs during the Depression

Now, let's go up to 1929. People out in the area now called "Flyover Country" still believed in earning and working for income. Goods and services were paid for by cash (Gold or greenbacks)
Meanwhile, back in New York, people who believed in making promises to pay on paper had over done it, which led to a crash, which led to a lot of people losing jobs.

So, these people who were out of work were emotionally impacted. The American Way was to earn your own way. But, due to circumstances beyond their control, they now had no way to earn that income.

The first Socialist President , Franklin Delano Roosevelt, invented the Liberal concept of Compassion (TRANSLATION: Take money from the people who have some money, and give it to those who don't. NOTE: You don't give them yours--You tax investors, wage earners, and producers)

Those who did not work could not expect to live like those who did.
I recall living next to the AT&SF in the 40's. Hobo's (homeless drifters who stole rides on freight cars) would appear at our door and knock. Their first statement was "Do you have some work a man could do for a meal?"

Now, move up to 1964:

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years. It spawned dozens of programs, among them the Job Corps, whose purpose was to help disadvantaged youth develop marketable skills; the Neighborhood Youth Corps, established to give poor urban youths work experience and to encourage them to stay in school; Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), a domestic version of the Peace Corps, which placed concerned citizens with community-based agencies to work towards empowerment of the poor; the Model Cities Program for urban redevelopment; Upward Bound, which assisted poor high school students entering college; legal services for the poor; the Food Stamps program; the Community Action Program, which initiated local Community Action Agencies charged with helping the poor become self-sufficient; and Project Head Start, which offered preschool education for poor children.

ALL OF these programs were paid for by taxes. ECONOMICS 101: To get tax money for some "Program", someone has to PAY taxes.
Again, taking from those who earn or invest, and giving to those who do not.

It started in 1929. Then you could have dignity and self-respect, and the positive regard of your community only if "You earned your own way"

Gradually, like the story of a frog who gets cooked by being put into cold water, then heat gradually increased, we have transitioned to the belief that we are "Owed". Life now owes us a home, food, medical care, an education, a car, tickets to rock concerts, color TV's, and trips to Disneyland.
There is no guilt for taking these hand-outs.

My remedy: Let's start "Guilting" people who are capable of working--but don't.

Medicaid Drops Coverage For Mom With Cancer

Diana Smith has gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy -- one week out of every month. She fears she will die without the bone marrow transplant scheduled for Tuesday.

FORT LAUDERDALE (CBS4) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
Diana Smith has gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy -- one week out of every month. She fears she will die without the bone marrow transplant scheduled for Tuesday.

A woman battling a cancer battle was dealt a surprise blow by Uncle Sam this month.

Diana Smith has gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy -- one week out of every month. She is in remission and had a donor for a transplant; being in remission is prerequisite for the transplant.

But her hopes of receiving the transplant were dashed in March, when she says, the Social Security Administration contacted her –without her soliciting it -- and told her that her three year-old son was entitled to receive Social Security disability payments. Even though she didn't ask for it, she signed the form and received her son's first check check.

In April, Medicaid canceled her universal health care policy because her income level had risen with her son's payments – making her ineligible for the insurance program.

The problem is Jackson Memorial Hospital cannot provide the procedure because the risk is too high. The universal policy from Medicaid helps shield the hospital from liability in this kind of case. Without it, they are subject to liability issues.

Even though Smith offered to cancel her son's disability benefits, she was told it's too late.

"She's gone through six months worth of radiation and chemo, her body can't take anymore. If they don't allow her to have this transplant coming up right now next week, they're in effect signing her death warrant," said her friend Tom Noonan.

"I want to live to see my son grow up and get on with my life," Smith told CBS4's Ted Scouten.

As a result of the WFOR CBS 4 report, State Sen. Dave Aronberg is prepared to take action over the weekend. Social Security officials are also looking into the case to make the surgery happen on Tuesday as had been planned.

Here's another often-occuring scenario that happens and one that gets no publicity

Joe six-pack has worked his whole life at various jobs. He is now 70, won't get hired by any one, and is forced to live on his social security.

One day, he gets a notice from the SS Administration: It says his payment is being cut because he earned too much last year.

Joe knows there is an error, but it will take the effort of rebuilding Hoover Dam to correct it.

What happened?
Jose DeLeon-Mendoza, AKA Juan Garcia-Lopez, AKA Miguel Castro-Hernandez, sneaked into the US. The Man at the Landscape company told him that he had to have a Tax Number (Also known as SSN). Jose made one up, or bought one from a fake ID seller, --which just happened to be Joe Six Pack's same number.

In investigating Worker's Comp Fraud in California, I found this to be the norm. Every time, I notified the SS Administration. The only time I reveived any call for further information was from the FBI when the perpetrator's name was similar to Haji Hassan.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Something for nothing

My father had an 8th Grade education, but he was a very wise man.
One of his sayings was "You never get something for nothing--unless someone, somewhere, is getting nothing for something".

Well, you can see the logical result: The ones getting nothing for something will stop producing that something, regardless of whether it isw a product or a service.

Yet, Liberals have two hallmarks: Fantasy and Hypocrisy.

Under their Fantasy heading, they started making bankers and lenders accept nothing for something in 1977 with the Community Re-Investment Act (Sounds like an Obama theme song, doesn't it?)

The original Act was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 12, 1977 (Pub.L. 95-128, 12 U.S.C. ch.30). Several legislative and regulatory revisions have since been enacted.
The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act.

The CRA followed similar laws passed to reduce discrimination in the credit and housing markets including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA). The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires that financial institutions publicly disclose mortgage lending and application data. In contrast with those acts, the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.

Before the Act was passed, there were severe shortages of credit available to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. In their 1961 report, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that African-American borrowers were often required to make higher downpayments and adopt faster repayment schedules. The commission also documented blanket refusals to lend in particular areas (redlining). The "redlining" of certain neighborhoods originated with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in the 1930s. The "residential security maps" created by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) for the FHA were used by private and public entities for years afterwards to withhold mortgage capital from neighborhoods that were deemed "unsafe". Contributory factors in the shortage of direct lending in low- and moderate-income communities were a limited secondary market for mortgages, informational problems to do with the lack of credit evaluations for lower-income borrowers, and lack of coordination among credit agencies.

In Congressional debate on the Act, critics charged that the law would create unnecessary regulatory burdens. Partly in response to these concerns, Congress included little prescriptive detail and simply directs the banking regulatory agencies to ensure that banks and savings associations serve the credit needs of their local communities in a safe and sound manner. Community groups only slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations
Yeah, right. During Bubba Clinton's reign, Janet Reno threatened lenders with prosecution if they failed to lend to low- or no incomers.

Then, Ted Kennedy and his fellow senator from Massachussets gave us:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004, or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate. Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented." More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care. There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.

Illegal immigrant ALIEN residents
According to the Census Bureau, some 9.7 million of the nation's 45.7 million uninsured people in 2007 were non-citizens. Access by illegal immigrants to U.S. health care through EMTALA remains a source of controversy. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 contains a provision for $250 million per year for fiscal years 2005-2008 in payments to eligible providers for emergency health services provided to undocumented aliens and other specified aliens.

According to a 2007 analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, uninsured adult low-income non-citizens were the least likely to use emergency rooms, with only about one in ten reporting a visit in the past year. Adult non-citizens most often rely on clinics and health centers, many of which are funded by charities as well as hospitals seeking to unburden their emergency rooms.

However, immigration restrictionist groups like the Center for Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform have argued that illegal immigrants still disproportionately burden the emergency rooms as they are uninsured to a far higher extent, and are therefore to a much higher extent unable to pay for their emergency room visits. Also, they claim that because the children of illegal immigrants are often U.S. citizens, the cost of treating them is ignored. Nevertheless, since non-citizens make up 21.2% of the uninsured, and they are the least likely of the uninsured to use emergencies rooms, their cost is at most $8.6 billion per year.


And getting up to date:

Valley doctors worry deep Medicare pay cuts may remain in place

Read more:
By Barbara Anderson / The Fresno Bee
Medicare patients in the central San Joaquin Valley could have a harder time getting medical attention this year, if the government goes ahead with a deep pay cut for doctors.

Congress cut doctors' reimbursement by 21.2% this month, and doctors say the cut could force many of them to drop out of the insurance program.

In the past, Congress has rescinded such pay cuts, and it could still repeal this year's reduction. But already one attempt to scrap it has been blocked. Doctors worry the cut will stand.

"If this cut goes through, we will not be able to see new Medicare patients," said Dr. Cynthia Bergmann, a Fresno gynecologist. "And we will have to look hard at what we have to do with our current patients, whether we can afford to take care of them."

It's not as bad in the Valley as in many other places, because many doctors here will be eligible for a 10% Medicare pay increase next year as part of the health reform package. Doctors in designated health-professional shortage areas will qualify.

Even so, the bonus wouldn't offset a 21.2% pay cut -- and some physicians have already made a decision to curtail Medicare practices.

Community Medical Providers in north Fresno, a 10-doctor office, decided last year not to add new Medicare patients, except for patients referred to it by a Medicare health maintenance organization that has a contract with the group.

"Basically it is the reimbursements," said Walene Herzog, office manager. "We all knew the cutbacks were coming -- and it's already started."

In the Valley, more than 220,000 patients rely on Medicare, the federal insurance program for the elderly and those with disabilities. Nationwide, about 40 million are enrolled.

Fixing the formula

Medicare payments are set by a complicated formula known as the SGR, which stands for "sustainable growth rate." The payment rate -- established in 1997 to cut Medicare costs -- is based on the gross domestic product.

When the economy is booming, rates go up. When the economy stalls, they can go down.

Doctors have been pushing Congress to change the formula to reflect rising health-care costs.

"We're not saying let physicians spend whatever they want -- have strong accountability and utilization controls -- but give a stable reimbursement system," said Elizabeth McNeil, vice president of government relations for the California Medical Association, an organization representing 35,000 doctors.

Doctors say that even in a recession, the costs to practice medicine keep increasing.

"Everything is more expensive today," said Dr. Michael Krueger, a Fresno cardiologist. "Physicians' incomes are way down."

But most Valley doctors are waiting to see what happens before limiting the Medicare patients in their practices.

Congress returns Monday from spring recess and could move to scrap the pay cut.

So far, nationwide access to doctors has remained good for Medicare patients, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Council, which advises Congress on Medicare payments.

A 2009 nationwide survey found most Medicare enrollees have doctors. Only 6% were looking for a new doctor.

Of those, about 25% reported having some trouble finding one.

But the survey did not look specifically at areas such as the Valley.

"I think there can be regional differences and regional spot shortages of doctors, and we need to take a close look as to why that's happening," said Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, a nationwide consumer service organization.

Most Medicare patients are unaware of the payment turmoil. Doctors say that's because they shield them from it.

"We want to take care of patients, and we want to take care of them well," Bergmann said.

Lee Coulter, 76, of Los Banos, has used Medicare more than most. She's had 28 surgeries and had cancer twice. She has not had a problem finding doctors, she said.

Medicare and a supplemental insurance policy cover her out-of-pocket costs, she said. But she has seen her medical bills and what Medicare paid her doctors. "Sometimes, they've hardly paid anything," she said.


So, more and more doctors are saying,"Screw it --I can't pay my costs with the money that the Government pays me". Result: Doctors retire, change careers or refuse to take Medicare Patients.

And OBamacare will only worsen this getting nothing for something scenario

Allen West New Face for Washington

Written by Marshall Frank
SUNDAY, 11 APRIL 2010 09:14

The most vital threat facing the future of America, is not health care, not inflation or housing, the sinking dollar, not our image abroad. It's Radical Islam and the inroads that global jihad is making toward the ultimate goal of world domination either through terror or by infiltrating our infrastructure.

Related articles on Allen West

All other issues are trumped by this threat, because if they succeed, none of the above will be relevant any more. There won't be a constitution to protect any of us. We will be ruled by Sharia Law. Well...our grandchildren will.

That's why we need leaders, now, who are willing to fearlessly bring these issues to the attention of Americans, and to fight against this enemy as strongly as we fought against Nazis, Imperial Japanese, and the Communist Soviet Bloc.

The 535 members of congress - 100 senators and 435 House members - are too smart, too close to the facts and too well informed, not to know about this threat. Most are short sighted - only concerned with winning their seats, and dealing with the "Now" issues. This is not about Democrat and Republican, conservative or liberal. It's about protecting the liberties of our great grandkids in future generations.

Sue Myrick is one Congressional representative (R-NC) who has had the guts to speak out and call it what it is. Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker, has had the guts to speak out in clear language, how serious this threat really is. There are few others. They are too afraid. Political correctness will be the death of us.

Along comes a fellow, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Allen West, (Ret.) From Palm Beach County, Florida. West is not afraid. West has self-educated himself to the history and world dynamics of global jihad and makes no secret of where he stands. He is running for congress this year in Florida's 22nd District.

West is a multi-decorated veteran, including the Bronze star, having served in Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq. His one career tarnish stems from a 2003 accusation of prisoner abuse during an interrogation of a suspect in Taji in which his troops had allegedly struck the man. West admits that he fired his pistol into a barrel, near the man's head. At the military hearings, West was asked if he would do it again. His response: "If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

The suspect cracked and coughed up information about a planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack. According to West, there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he left his leadership post on October 4, 2003.

If true, the shot into the barrel was worth the bullet, and the suspect's soiled underwear.

During his campaign, West - an historian as well - has demonstrated his awareness of radical Islam's sordid history and the impending threat to the free world. He is one politician that is unafraid. He is someone we should be listening to. And, if he makes it to Washington D.C., there might well be more that will follow his lead.

That's what this blog is all about, electing American patriots into office, versus...the non-patriots.

Please view a couple of videos which highlight the view of Col. West and judge for yourself.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Free or "Kept"



I am wondering how many others have thought about this comparison.
The first set of photos compares wild mustangs with Premarin mares.
Premarin is Horse - Pregnant Mares Urine (PMU) Farming - 01) The largest source of female hormone replacement therapy (HRT) medications comes from pregnant mares urine. The name Premarin is an acronym of its source PREgnant MARes urINe. These drugs are prescribed with no concern for the pain and suffering of many mares like these.

The second set compares a wild Jackrabbit with a rabbit farm.

In both second photos, the animals are given just enough space and food to be kept alive and to produce a product.

In both first photos, the animals have FREEDOM. Yes, it is up to them to find food and shelter, and avoid predators, but the can do what they want to, wehen they want to, and how they want to.

Now, this freedom was what we had. It has been eroded and sliced away a bit at a time. It was taken, in return for guaranteed food, shelter,and security.

So, it appears to me that there are humans living like the rabbits in the rabbit farm, and the Premarin mares, in "Government Assisted Housing", and eating Government supplied food.

So what product does the Government expect from these people.

Their only product is their votes. As long as they deliver VOTES, the Government will keep them alive-but not comfortable. And the Government will sustain them with the proceeds of the tax money extorted from people who work, invest, and earn their own way

A realization came to me. You can live on Government assistance--All you have to do is give up your pride and self-respect.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

We Will Remember Them

'We Will Remember Them'
Stars Record Tribute to Troops

A cast of 200 Donate their Time to Raise Money In Abbey Road Studios Biggest Ever Recording Session

"We will remember them, Give thanks and honour them, For our tomorrow, They gave their today"

Released on Sunday 8th November on iTunes and various other download stores.

Music stars have gathered to record a moving tribute to British Armed Forces past and present.

On Sunday 1st November 200 people spilled into Abbey Road Studios, donating their time and talent to record an Anthem as a Thank You to all our Military personnel who have served our country protecting our freedom.

This was the biggest ever 1 day session to be staged at Abbey Road in the history of the famous recording studios.

Multi-million selling artists from Michael Bolton to Robin Gibb, to Hayley Westenra contributed to the song, written by A1's Mark Read and Robert Hart (Bad Company, Distance, The Jones Gang).

They performed alongside The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Pipes & Drums from the Army School of Bagpipe Music and Drumming, Bugles from The Academy of Music at Kneller Hall, a Choir of Celebrities and the Carmel Thomas Youth Choir.

Paul Carrack, Kenny Jones, Paul Rodgers, Lee Mead, Mark Read, Mica Paris, Natasha Hamilton, Haley Westenra, Carol Decker, Nell Bryden and Liz McClarnon also starred.

"I never miss an opportunity to thank our troops," said Michael Bolton, who dropped everything while rehearsing for performances at the Royal Albert Hall this week to take part. "They are the bravest people you'll ever meet."

'We Will Remember Them itself goes back to the the first world war', explains Robin Gibb, 'but it's very significant and it makes people stop and think just what these guys are doing for their country'.

Joseph star Lee Mead: 'Two or three hours in a recording studio on a Sunday is nothing compared to what our troops go through every day'

'I know people out there in the military, someone close to me was in Afghanistan and was blown up in his tank,' says Natasha Hamilton os Atomic Kitten, 'He has been in rehabilitation for many months. When it's someone that you know that's been out there fighting, it brings it home how important it is to remember through song.'

ALL proceeds go directly to the Royal British Legion and the Help For Heroes charity by SRLV Accountants and Coutts Bank. The money will help support injured troops and their families whose loved ones have paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country.

"This is an appeal to raise funds to help and support the families who have lost or suffered horrendous injuries in their Military service", says Kenny Jones. "In addition, the Anthem will also remember all our Service Men and Women from all past conflicts."

From the artists

I am delighted to have the opportunity to add my support to the servicemen and women and their families who put themselves on the line for us all.

Paul Carrack

I was invited to sing and participate in the recording of 'We Will Remember Them' whilst touring the UK recently. Supporting our troops, and showing our appreciation on their return is something that is essential to me.

Micheal Bolton

I am so grateful to all our boys and girls risking their lives to protect ours for this I consider it an honour to be apart of this contribution in song

Mica Paris

I participated in the “We Will Remember Them” song because I have always felt passionate about the soldiers who sacrificed their lives in two World Wars so that countries in Europe could be free, including Germany. I feel just as strongly today for the brave soldiers who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, who, every day are putting their lives on the line so we can have peace in the world. They are the very few who are prepared to pay the ultimate price, so we should respect, support and above all, honour them, and we must not let them down.

Robin Gibb

We thought that this was a fitting time for us to get into the studio together for the first time in ages. It was such an emotional song to record, and of course to be part of such an important message just made it even more special. The artists all giving up their time to perform just shows how important the troops are to all of us.

Liz McClarnon & Natasha Hamilton