The Big Picture

From a Reader: A Warning Against Permitting Unchecked Immigration of Haitians to the U.S.

I've been following the horrific effects of the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake.

Hundreds of thousands are homeless, the infrastructure of Haiti (the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere) is completely ruined, and there is going to be an imminent health problem due to all the cadavers piled the streets and trapped in rubble. The lack of water is also an a major issue.

These people do need to be, and deserved, to be helped by nations worldwide.

However, it is obvious that President Obama, in the spirit of 'compassion' will offer the US as a safe refuge and permanent home to tens of thousands of Haitians. The Clintons will probably be quite involved with this.

Deja Voodoo: It reminds me of the plight of Haitian political refugees in 1992. In that year, President Clinton, lifted the ban on the HIV-infected refugees who had been held in camps at Guantanemo Bay. By this act, he allowed nearly 300 known HIV/AIDS-infected refugees into the United States.

I fear that by doing this, many of the Haitians, we will be taking accepting, will be either infected with HIV or other diseases. Here is a site concerning HIV statistics in Haiti. We have also set up a partnership to fight HIV/AIDS in Haiti.

Additionally, the national prison collapsed and hardened criminals are roaming the country and could seek refuge here. This is a frightening thought.

Although I believe that many Haitians refugees should be allowed to immigrate here, Indiscriminate immigration would be disasterous to this nation. It will overburden our country, especially, the health sector. We need to make sure that the refugees we allow to enter are healthy and respectable as well as urge other nations to take their fair share of refugees.

We should then contribute, with other nations, to the rebuilding of Haiti.

Update 1-19-10 - from WFTV in Orlando, Florida:

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The American Red Cross says a plan to bring 45,000 evacuees from Haiti to Florida, and 4,000 of those to Orange County, is not set in stone. The Red Cross clarified Friday who could be involved in a plan to move people out of Haiti.

The Red Cross is preparing for two things: the repatriation of Americans living in Haiti and the possibility of a mass migration of Haitian nationals.

Update 1-21-10 - from the Miami Herald:

200,000 Haitian migrants could file for Temporary Protected Status

Federal immigration officials predict that up to 200,000 Haitians could apply for Temporary Protected Status, which would keep them from being deported. Applications will be accepted starting Thursday.

Update 1-22-10 - from Reuters:

TOLEDO, Spain, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Haitian citizens who arrive in the United States illegally after the Jan. 12 earthquake will be sent home, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

Although the United States has said it will allow eligible Haitians living in the …

MORE...

Obama: Government Will Discriminate Against Non-Union Workers

The unions had been opposing Obama's health-care bill due to the high tax it is to impose on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. Yesterday came news that Obama had gotten the union leaders on board. This post will show that Obama achieved this in a particularly vicious manner.

From Fox:

The breakthrough announced Thursday was a biproduct of the previous days talks: a deal on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. The White House and top union leaders heralded the agreement, which shields all union workers for five years from significant taxes on health benefit packages that non-union workers will face starting in 2013.

Obama lured in union leaders, not by offering them a way to improve the plan itself, but by telling them that the government will discriminate against non-unionized workers. For five years non-union workers will pay a tax that union workers will not.

This government-backed discrimination is vicious. It appealed to the worst instincts in the union leaders, who will use it as a hammer against non-unionized businesses.

Reid/Pelosi/Obama are Trying to Put Government’s Boots on Our Necks

Why are Reid, Pelosi, and Obama trying to push through the health care bill when the majority of the public opposes it?

Background: From Rasmussen polls, December 7th, 2009:

The Senate worked through the weekend on its version of the national health care bill, with President Obama stopping by for a rare Sunday visit, but for the second week in a row, only 41% of U.S. voters favor the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% oppose the plan. And as has been the case for months, the emotion’s on the sign of the naysayers: 40% Strongly Oppose the plan, while just 23% Strongly favor it.

As Megan McAardle puts it:

It's pretty clear at this point that any health care reform which passes is going to have more voters against it than for it.

There's exactly one explanation. Led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't care about the will of the people. They want to destroy democracy and put their boots on our necks. They're tired of being servants of the people. They don't like always being worried about losing their jobs in the next election, and they don't like having to answer to huge number of pesky "voters." What they want to do is give the government the power to control our health so that nobody will dare to oppose them again.

They must be stopped. Their agenda must be destroyed. And the American people owe a huge debt of gratitude and support to every Republican Congressman and Senator who is holding the line against them, because these Republicans are the only thing standing between us and the destruction of democracy by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and every Democrat who supports this health care bill.

A Warning to All Young Women Wishing to Meet a Dark Handsome Middle Eastern Man

The following remarkable document was sent to me by a reader, Huda N. (not her real name). It is a warning from someone who appears to be personally knowledgeable about the subject. I emailed back, asking, "Can you provide some background on yourself and your experience with the subject you are writing about, that I could pass along to readers?" She replied:"I am very sorry I can't provide you with more information about myself because you know that fundmantalist if they knew anything about me, about my family, and even my name i might be killed or one of my family members might be hurt or at least they might send threatning letters with abusive language. So if you want to post the article refer to me as Huda only."

I responded, "May I tell readers what country you are in?" She responded, "All I’ve talked about is in Islam as a religion. I have used verses from the Quran and stories from books of Hadith (Islamic interpretation books). Every thing is practiced in all Arab countries except for slavery. It is not practiced any more as it is not haram but it is condemned by the international society only. In Saudi Arabia they still consider Pilipino and Asian servants as (their right hand belongings, if you understand me). The more educated, far from Islam (liberal) citizens the more they tend not to follow the Islamic teachings. The more they are involved in Islamic believes the more they tend to practice these teachings and follow the path of their prophet."

Here now, is the testimony of Huda.

To all you young women wishing to meet a dark handsome Middle Eastern man

Be careful what you wish for you might get it.

by Huda N.

I have always wondered how can a woman walk into hell with her own legs, then I understood why? European women have this fantasy about Middle Eastern men as machos and strong dark handsome men who will protect his harem.

It is said that Islam has improved the position of women in Arabia. He has put an end to the Arab practice of infanticide. He forbade concubinage. He placed women on the same footing with man in legal process. And that he abolished the Arab custom of transmitting women as property from father to son. They keep repeating the hadith (prophet’s sayings) that “Paradise is at the foot of the mother.” So I thought I might give you a real look on how women in the Middle East are treated by Islam.

Women are deficient in mind and religion

Mohamed speaks of women as man’s supreme calamity, and suspects that most of them will go to hell. He says about women: "those deficient in mind and religion"

…

MORE...

Obama Wants to Destroy America’s Finances the Way Harvard University Destroyed Its Own Finances

Want to force out the people who know how to do the job? That's what destroyed the financial strength of Harvard University. From Vanity Fair:

The fall of Harvard Management Company
• The longtime head of Harvard Management Company, Jack Meyer, quit to start his own hedge fund in 2005 after growing fed up with criticism over the eight-figure salaries some of his managers were pulling down and with persistent meddling from top Harvard officials. Two particular annoyances were Summers, who had been questioning Meyer’s investment strategies, and Robert Rubin, a member of the Harvard Corporation, who frowned on Meyer’s aggressive strategies and wound up on the “warpath” with Meyer, as one person put it.

• When Meyer left, he took much of Harvard Management Company with him — including 30 portfolio managers and traders, as well as the chief risk officer, chief operating officer, and chief technology officer. The place became “like a Ferrari without the engine,” according to a portfolio manager who arrived after Meyer left. This angered Rubin, according to someone who knows him well: “In Rubin’s opinion, Meyer crippled the institution.”

Now Obama wants to inflict precisely this kind of destruction on the very companies he pretended he wanted to save with the bailouts.

The Obama administration is set to dictate incomes to Americans at companies who foolishly believed that accepting government bailouts didn't give the government the right to dictate to them what they could and could not do with their lives. From the NY Times:

Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in the government’s financial rescue, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.

Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. Their total compensation — including bonuses and retirement contributions — will drop, on average, by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup [C 4.42 -0.01 (-0.23%) ], Bank of America [BAC 16.51 -0.50 (-2.94%) ], American International Group [AIG 38.96 -1.47 (-3.64%) ], General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.

In March I posted:

Obama Wants to Turn the U.S. Into a Government-Managed “Planned Economy”

Obama is proving that some of the change he wants is to replace our market-driven economy, with one in which business decisions are made by the government and forced by law on we, the people. He wants greatly increased government control over health care, education, and energy......

Obama wants the government to control executive pay at all these financial firms. This kind of central planning of business decisions, controlled by the state, …

MORE...

The Dangerous Fallacy of Seeking to Save Medical Costs in the Final Two Years of a Citizen’s Life

We've been hearing a great deal from the Obama administration about saving Medical costs by cutting money spent on patients who are in the last two years of their life. From the Washington Post, June, 2009:

But it is the findings of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice that have generated the most excitement in the Obama administration, all the way up to the Oval Office. For more than a decade, the New Hampshire researchers have documented and mapped wide variations in the cost and types of care given to American seniors through the Medicare program, concluding that spending more on health care has not resulted in better health.

In the final two years of a patient's life, for example, they found that Medicare spent an average of $46,412 per beneficiary nationwide, with the typical patient spending 19.6 days in the hospital, including 5.1 in the intensive-care unit. Green Bay patients cost $33,334 with 14.1 days in the hospital and just 2.1 days in the ICU, while in Miami and Los Angeles, the average cost of care exceeded $71,000, and total hospitalization was about 28 days with 12 in the ICU.

Here's the dangerous fallacy of pursuing this argument: there are many cases in which people whose doctors expected they had little time left to live, went on to enjoy years of life, in which they were able to bring joy to their friends and loved ones.

One of my very good friends was told many years ago that he had at most a year or two left. He is still very much among us, a good father to his son, and contributing greatly through his work to many people's lives.

A quick Google search for "lived longer than doctors predicted" turns up numerous examples.

To sum up:

In many cases, possibly a majority of cases - particularly in cases of those who are elderly but not terminally ill - no one knows in advance when the last two years of anyone's life will be.

But Obama evidently seeks to have doctors make a decision about when the last two years of our lives have arrived, and then withhold medical care from that point forward, hastening an earlier death.

Here's the famous video of Obama, relevant to the subject:

Obama: "Maybe you're better off, not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer."

Do you want a doctor, very possibly acting in a way enforced by federal guidelnes written by bureaucrats in Washington, telling you when they must withhold medical care from your parents?

If that's not a death panel, it's too close to one for comfort.

Dems Try to Bribe Them, but Massive Number of Doctors Oppose Health Care

So many doctors oppose Obamacare. Sample headlines:

70 percent of specialty doctors oppose health-care reform proposals

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com

Doctors Oppose Healthcare "Reform"

IBD Poll: Doctors Oppose Healthcare Changes

So of course, since under Obama the Dems try to destroy public debate, and care nothing about the will of the people, and care nothing about the opinions of the people who actually are experts in the subject, today we see the Dems trying to bribe doctors into supporting health care. From AP:

Senate Dems seek higher doctor payments

WASHINGTON — Maneuvering to boost prospects for sweeping health care legislation, Senate Democrats hope first to win quick approval for a bill that grants doctors a $247 billion increase in Medicare fees over a decade but raises federal deficits in the process, officials said Wednesday.

If that isn't bad enough, it's part of a huge deception the Dems are hoping to perpetrate. The Dems are planning to claim that the main health care bill won't add to deficits (don't be fooled: a huge new study reveals it places tremendous costs on all Americans) -- all the while, packing the deficit-increasing items into a separate bill:

By creating a two-bill approach, Democrats intend to claim the more comprehensive health care measure meets President Barack Obama's conditions — that it will neither add to deficits nor exceed $900 billion in costs over 10 years.

The corruption, the intention to rule the people by force instead of representing them as public servants, is ghastly. Obama cannot be trusted to lead. All the Dems need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.

Dems Abuse Power of the State in an Attempt to Threaten Those who Criticise Healthcare

The health insurance industry criticized Obamacare, and immediately, in return, Democrats in Congress are actually threatening insurers with a legal change that would be harmful to them. This is a massive assault on free speech by the Democrats. They are actually attempting to use the power of the state to halt criticism of Obamacare.

Here are the specifics. From AP, two days ago:

Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.

At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.

Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.

...The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.

In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.

Today, the Democrats responded by abusing the power of the state to threaten the insurers with an attack. From Politico:

Democrats launch attack on insurer exemption

The long-simmering tension between insurers and congressional Democrats is erupting into open warfare, with lawmakers stepping up their push to revoke a key federal protection for the insurance industry.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday will call for an amendment to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry.

The Government is supposed to defend free speech; to be public servants, not …

MORE...

Obama Blows His Cover - Shows He is a Friend of the Enemy of the U.S., the Taliban

Before we get to Obama's offer of help to the Taliban, let's review who the Taliban are.

From Infoplease.com:

The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.

The Taliban, under the direction of Mullah Muhammad Omar, brought about this order through the institution of a very strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. Public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums. Frivolous activities, like kite-flying, were outlawed. In order to root out "non-Islamic" influence, television, music, and the Internet were banned. Men were required to wear beards, and subjected to beatings if they didn't.

Most shocking to the West was the Taliban's treatment of women. When the Taliban took Kabul, they immediately forbade girls to go to school. Moreover, women were barred from working outside the home, precipitating a crisis in healthcare and education. Women were also prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative—those that did so risked being beaten, even shot, by officers of the "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice." A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off. All this, according to the Taliban, was to safeguard women and their honor.

.....The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar.

The Taliban destroyed treasures of the world - the ancient statues of Buddha. From USA Today, 2001:

One of the Buddhas that have been destroyed. The two black figures in the center near the bottom are men who are sitting down.

In Afghanistan recently, supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued an edict against un-Islamic graven images, which means all idolatrous images of humans and animals. As a result, the Taliban are destroying all ancient sculptures. Explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan Province, 230 kilometers (150 miles) from the capital of Kabul.

The reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban, who were running Afghanistan, had aided Bin Laden, who had just killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11. From Wikipedia:

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military's Operation Enduring Freedom and the British military's Operation Herrick, was launched in response to the September 11 attacks.

The stated aim of …

MORE...

Catch Evan Sayet Live in New York This Week!

If you live in New York and love Conservative comedy, don't miss Evan Sayet, live, October 7th and 8th.

"Who makes me laugh? Easy, Evan Sayet." -- Ann Coulter

Evan Sayet is bringing his highly acclaimed “Right to Laugh – A Night of Conservative Comedy” to New York City for two days only as part of the New York Underground Comedy Festival, October 7 and 8.

This is an all-conservative line-up that includes PJTV’s al Sonja Schmidt – a beautiful, black, female conservative (with all the stories that entails) as well as Ellen Karis, former Wall-Streeter turned family values comedienne and Fox News Channel favorite.

Even though the shows are being held in comedy clubs, this is NOT your typical comedy club experience! Evan’s Right to Laugh nights have been running in Los Angeles for over five years, garnering a following that includes famous radio talk show hosts, best selling conservative authors, Republican television, movie and even rock stars (yep, they exist!), as well as leading political activists and elected officials.

“Evan has crossed that line from ‘funny’ to important” - Michael Barone

Evan has become the go-to guy for political comedy at high end Republican/conservative events like CPAC and David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. In fact, David describes Evan as “Simply the best political comedian working in America today.”

Tickets for the shows are just twenty dollars and are available online (highly recommended) as well as at the respective box offices.

Seats for The Oct. 7th show – at the world famous Comic Strip Live on 81st Street and Second Avenue at 8:30 can be purchased here: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/84639

Seats for the Oct. 8th show – at the beautiful Broadway Comedy Club on 53rd St. between 8th and 9th here: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/84709.

If you love to laugh but you’ve stopped going to comedy clubs because you don’t care to have your values attacked by shallow and angry Leftists, this is your night to return!

“Evan is one of my favorite cultural commentators” -- Tammy Bruce

“At last I can delight in a show that is genuinely funny” -- Larry Elder

"Evan Sayet explodes pernicious stereotypes with refreshing humor that is simultaneously thought-provoking and hilarious..." -- Michael Medved