Hillary Commits to UN Gun Ban, says Dudley Brown
Dear fellow patriot,
With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
That’s why it’s vital you sign special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty!”
So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
Ever since it’s founding almost 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.
To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.
And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.
The fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.
They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.
But this time, time won’t be on our side.
In fact, we’re likely to only have a few days or weeks to defeat the treaty.
Worse, there’s no longer any pro-gun Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.
There’s no longer any Republican in the White House who has stated opposition to the treaty.
And you and I know good and well how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.
As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.
With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
First, you know just as well as I do that not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate are “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.
Second, even with the partisan rancor in Washington, D.C., many GOP Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President — especially with “international prestige” at stake.
They look at ratifying treaties much like approving Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.
And remember, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
A dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.
So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” we have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
(culled from newsmax.com)
Robert Murray fordwarded this..How much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?
Also if I may add, about 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together.” Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (’08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ’95) on how much oil was in this area of the western202/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana …. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves… and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for the next 2041 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn’t t hrow you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
– 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
– 18-times as much oil as Iraq
– 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
– 22-times as much oil as Iran
– 500-times as much oil as Yemen
– and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compac t area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you’re thinking about it …. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:
3. Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices— because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain
——–
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Robert Murray
Prerequisite for being a Presidential candidate
Prerequisite for being a Presidential candidate. I feel there needs to be an amendment to our US Constitution.
I believe that anyone running for President and anyone selected for Vice-President and anyone that is Speaker of the House, must must must:
(1) Be honorably discharged by the American Military. Having served a minimum of four years.
(2) Pass the same scrutiny and background investigation to qualify for a simple Secret Security Clearence.
You cannot responsibly be the Commander-in-Chief of the worlds greatest super power, if you don’t know a damn thing about the military.
If you’ve never been in a Boot Camp, you likely have little discipline or logical military thinking. You probably can’t think on you feet or make timely decisions as well as a GI.
You only have Acorn, a committee consciousness (that way you don’t have to take the blame for decisions you don’t make) and an entitlement mentality.
This doesn’t limit anybody with political ambitions, even obma could qualify under these rules. Yes, if you’re going to serve, then serve.
I’ve had a SSC, it no big deal if you keep a respectable life.
Imagine what a person could do, having the ability to control or know Top TOP Secrets.
What could they do with that info, during or after they leave office?
I remember a news story of hilary (who did not hold any office) had illegal copies of IRS or (fbi?) files of Republicans in her possession when bill was in office. She was promoting her brand of health care then. Was she thinking about pressuring someone ?
So if 1 & 2 had been in place way back then, that would have never happened.
What access does Acorn have right now?
.
America was attacked Tuday by a Nuke, obama said he’d decide in a month, what to do next!
He’s too busy with photo ops and david letterman to be commander in chief right now. First things first, keeping his face on the cover of a magazine or tv is obviously more important than military or security issues. “Tuday” being 12/28/2012. Decisions decisions…
(The title was a joke as was this paragraph.)
+++
However, on 11/18/09 the radio reported that obama announced that he is REAL close, within a month of deciding what to do about Afghanistan troops. Why was that news worthy?
+++
When is his face not on the magazine rack? Just like every other dictator.
How can he be on letterman so frequently, when he’s supposed to be making decisions that effect the whole world?
Another nail in the coffin, Sotomayor Adds Celebrity Element to High Court
I don’t think she can be an impartial judge. I wouldn’t want Paris Hilton determining my fate! Another nail in the coffin.
Story from The Associated Press:
Since becoming the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor has mamboed with movie stars, exchanged smooches with musicians at the White House and thrown out the first pitch for her beloved New York Yankees. A famous jazz composer even wrote a song about her: “Wise Latina Woman.” Few Americans can name most of the justices, but Sotomayor has become a celebrity — all without having made a single major decision at the nation’s highest court.
Another nail in the coffin, Sotomayor Adds Celebrity Element to High Court
I don’t think she can be an impartial judge. I wouldn’t want Paris Hilton determining my fate! Another nail in the coffin.
Story from The Associated Press:
Since becoming the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor has mamboed with movie stars, exchanged smooches with musicians at the White House and thrown out the first pitch for her beloved New York Yankees. A famous jazz composer even wrote a song about her: “Wise Latina Woman.” Few Americans can name most of the justices, but Sotomayor has become a celebrity — all without having made a single major decision at the nation’s highest court.
IRS Settles With 14,700 Over Foreign Accounts
IRS Settles With 14,700 Over Foreign Accounts
The Associated Press
More than 14,700 U.S. taxpayers came forward to disclose billions in offshore bank accounts in 70 countries under a voluntary Internal Revenue Service program allowing most to avoid criminal prosecution as long as they pay what they owe, IRS officials said Tuesday. Also Tuesday, the IRS unveiled the criteria being used to determine which American UBS accounts will be disclosed under an August agreement to obtain names of 4,450 U.S. taxpayers believed to be hiding assets in secret bank accounts.
obama warns that he’s spending too much money
BEIJING – President Barack Obama says he’s worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession.
That’s when the economy begins to recover briefly from a recession only to be dragged back under. Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that his administration is weighing tax breaks that could encourage businesses to begin hiring again.
But he added that it’s important to recognize that if the nation keeps adding to deficit spending through tax cuts or more stimulus spending, at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy and that could “lead to a double-dip recession.”
(Culled from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_re_as/as_obama_economy )
No American President Ever Bowed to a Foreign Leader — Until Now
Before we get to this news story from newsmax. I must say how embarrasing and belittling it is for obama to subject the greatest country on the earth to crap like this. obama likes people to like him, he craves it like candy. He never was a leader and never will be one. He is a little boy in awe of world leaders! He cannot grasp that idiots put him in this station. He thinks he is subservient to the world. Single handedly he will destroy this country.
+++++++++++++
Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:14 PM
By: Daniel Ruddy
President Obama created a new presidential precedent when he bowed to the Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko Saturday.
No president of the United States in the more than 230 years since the country was founded in 1776 had ever bowed to a member of royalty. That was until Barack Obama’s presidency.
In April, President Obama bowed to the Saudi king during the G-20 meeting. At the time, Obama’s deferential bow was somewhat obscured, and the White House insisted that the president simply had leaned forward to shake the king’s hand.
But the president’s recent demonstration of royal deference to the Japanese emperor and empress suggests his earlier action was no aberration.
What should we make of this? Is it trivial to worry about what on its face could easily be interpreted as nothing more than a polite gesture by our president to respect the culture of a country?
America was founded on republican virtues — small “r,” that is. Like the French Republic, our nation does not recognize royalty or social rank, especially from officials of the republic.
The conduct of our president when he deals with foreign leaders is a serious matter. After all, he represents the American people and our Constitution.
Indeed, when President Obama bows before a foreign leader, the whole country bows with him. It is difficult to grasp what President Obama’s motives are for bowing to foreign royalty (it would be nice if a reporter asked his press secretary Robert Gibbs why he does it).
But Obama’s motives do not really matter when we consider his behavior.
What matters is how the rest of the world will interpret his actions. When it comes to bowing before foreign leaders, there is a fine line between showing politeness and servility, between respect and weakness.
The United States leads the free world, and it goes without saying that our president as commander in chief is duty bound to protect the nation, and our allies by treaty. He should act in such a way that strengthens, not weakens, his position.
If we as American citizens wonder about how our president should act with foreign leaders when he meets with them in person, let us look to the history of the United States for guidance.
First, there is our cherished Constitution. When the Founding Fathers wrote it, they made abundantly clear their distaste of the hereditary forms of government that then dominated Europe.
Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
As the nation’s first constitutional leader, President George Washington set the tone. When it was proposed that he be called “His Highness the President of the United States of America and the Protector of Their Liberties,” Washington scoffed at the idea and demanded he be called simply, “Mr. President.”
No president better exemplified the republican virtues of the country than Thomas Jefferson, who had a purely American disdain for the pretensions of royal power which he believed were not legitimately derived from the people.
As he stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, power was not derived from bloodlines or royal coronations. Instead he argued that since “all men are created equal” a government should exist by “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Jefferson’s breezy indifference to the English monarchy was on display during his first days in the White House.
When the monarch’s new ambassador to the United States called for the first time to present his credentials he was not required to bow in front of the nation’s sovereign. In accordance with American values, he was assumed to be an equal, not a subject.
And so all he had to do was walk up to the White House and knock on the door (there were no guards or royal attendants).
Once he was beckoned inside, “a tall, high-boned man came into the room. He was dressed, or rather undressed, in an old brown coat, red waistcoat, old corduroy small-clothes much soiled, woollen hose, and slippers without heels. I thought him a servant,” said the visitor, “when General Varnum surprised me by announcing that it was the president.”
According to the historian Henry Adams, the casual dress and easy-going manners of the new president were more important than they might seem at first glance.
“The seriousness of Jefferson’s experiments in etiquette,” Adams observed, “consisted in the belief that they were part of a political system which involved a sudden change of policy toward two great powers. [They] were but the social expression of an altered feeling which found its political expression in acts marked by equal disregard of usage.”
The British ambassador and other diplomats to the United States were offended by Jefferson’s refusal to follow the rules of the Old World, but that did not matter to Jefferson or his countrymen, who re-elected him with a resounding majority of popular support.
Jefferson understood that symbolism was important.
Another president who promoted this egalitarian ideal was Franklin Roosevelt.
In 1939 he invited the king and queen of England to visit the United States to bolster Anglo-American unity in the face of the growing fascist threat. Roosevelt never bowed to the king or queen — or any foreign royalty, for that matter.
On this special occasion, he simply demonstrated American hospitality.
As the British journalist Alistair Cooke detailed: “Roosevelt took them [the Royal couple] off to Hyde Park [his Hudson River estate] and drove his own hand-run automobile into the grounds and gave them a hot dog lunch. Well, this was a shocker to the British, but it’s the thing he would do. You see, he was a natural aristocrat, Roosevelt was. He didn’t have to put on airs.”
Roosevelt was also an American through and through and secure in his standing as a world leader.
There is a lesson here for President Obama, who appears intent on upending more than two centuries of American protocol. When he as president bows before a Saudi king or a Japanese emperor, he is sending an implicit message to millions of people around the world that the leader of the free world accepts the notion that some people are born to a higher rank than others.
But when our president stands up straight and extends his hand in friendship to all civilized nations, there is no danger, there is only opportunity — opportunity to communicate the values and spirit that Jefferson so eloquently conveyed to the rest of the world — “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Daniel Ruddy writes on politics and history. His upcoming book, “Theodore Roosevelt’s History of the United States” (Harper Collins), is due out in April 2010.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Govt: Medicare paid $47 billion in suspect claims -AP
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON – The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient’s condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year.
Excerpts of a new federal report, obtained by The Associated Press, show a dramatic increase in improper payments in the $440 billion Medicare program that has been cited by government auditors as a high risk for fraud and waste for 20 years.
It’s not clear whether Medicare fraud is actually worsening. Much of the increase in the last year is attributed to a change in the Health and Human Services Department’s methodology that imposes stricter documentation requirements and includes more improper payments — part of a data-collection effort being ordered government-wide by President Barack Obama this coming week to promote “honest budgeting” and accurate statistics.
Still, the fiscal 2009 financial report — covering the first few months of the Obama administration — highlights the challenges ahead for a government that is seeking in part to pay for its proposed health care overhaul by cracking down on Medicare fraud. While noting that several new anti-fraud efforts were beginning, the government report makes clear that “aggressive actions” to date aimed at reducing improper payments had yielded little improvement.
In recent years, the suspect claims have included Medicare prescriptions from doctors who were dead, and requests for payment for medical supplies such as blood glucose strips for sexual impotence and diabetic shoes for leg amputees. Patients, many of them new citizens who barely speak English, are sometimes recruited by brokers who go door-to-door offering hundreds of dollars for use of their Medicare numbers.
Obama is expected to announce new initiatives this coning week to help crack down on Medicare fraud, including a government-wide Web site aimed at providing a fuller account of health care spending and improper payments made by various agencies. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also will launch a Web interactive next month that will allow users to track Medicare payment information by categories such as state, diagnosis and hospital.
According to the report, the Bush administration from 2005-2008 reported improper payments of roughly 4 percent in the fee for service program, or about $17 billion total in 2008. Government officials at the time, however, typically did not consider a Medicare payment improper if the medical documentation was incomplete or a doctor’s signature was illegible. Since these were flaws that ordinarily bar payment, that methodology drew complaints from government auditors that the figures were understated.
For fiscal year 2009, the Obama administration began counting those claims as improper, but was unable to complete an official tally based on the new methodology. As a result, it officially reported improper payments for its fee for service program at 7.8 percent, representing a partial tally under the new formula. But it considers the unofficial tally of 12.4 percent to be more representative.
Beginning next year, the 12.4 percent figure — or a total of $47 billion in improper payments when counting both Medicare fee for service and managed care — will be used as the baseline estimate. The federal report sets a target of reducing improper payments in the fee for service program to 9.5 percent by next year, which would represent a savings of roughly $9.7 billion.
The findings come as the Obama administration is making Medicare anti-fraud efforts an important priority. In recent months, HHS has said it was multiplying by 10 the number of agents and prosecutors targeting fraud in Miami, Los Angeles and other strategic cities where tens of billions of dollars are believed to be lost each year. The new partnership seeks to have better sharing of real-time intelligence data on health care fraud patterns.
Officials say they also want to increase training and outreach among Medicare providers to reduce documentation errors, while proposed health overhaul legislation would increase background checks on Medicare claimants and impose stiffer penalties for false claims.
Other findings:
_In the Medicaid program for the poor, roughly $18.1 billion, or 9.6 percent of claims, are believed to be improper payments.
_Using a baseline of 12.4 percent in improper payments in the Medicare fee for service program, HHS is setting targets of reducing fraud and waste to 9.5 percent, 8.5 percent, and 8.0 percent, respectively, for fiscal years 2010 through 2012.
Records released in the past week showed that CMS for three years ignored internal watchdog warnings about swindlers stealing millions of dollars by scamming several Medicare programs. The agency received roughly 30 warnings from inspectors but didn’t respond to half of them, even after repeated letters.
(culled from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_bi_ge/us_medicare_fraud)
Now ‘all Guns’ must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!
This was sent to me:
As if we didnt have enough to get upset about!
If you have a gun, I hope it isn’t registered!
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
This bill was introduced on Feb..24, 2009, by the Obama staff. BUT..this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all.
Trust Obama?…… you must be kidding!
The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, U.S. Senate http://www.senate.gov/ You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.
| You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.|
Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – U..S. … OpenCongress http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
Obama’s Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don’t fully comply.
It has begun . . .Whatever Obama’s secret Master Plan is…..this is just the ‘tip of the iceberg!’
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a ‘minor’ IRS revision, and, as usual, the ‘political’ lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009..
You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver’s License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.
This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not…
Search Results – THOMAS (Library of Congress) target=_blankhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45
H.R.45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – U.S. Congress – OpenCongress http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
H.R. 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) target=_blankhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.
I refuse to allow anybody to nullify the 2nd amendment!
Couple Sues AARP Over Health Plan Marketing
A Texas couple has filed a federal class action against AARP in the District of Columbia, alleging the group used misleading marketing to sell its health insurance policies.
The suit, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that James and Allison Halpern purchased an AARP Medical Advantage Plan in March 2008, after receiving an advertising packet touting it as a “primary insurance plan.” The couple dropped their old health insurance policy. But after Allison Halpern was diagnosed with breast cancer, they learned their new plan only provided limited coverage, and would not pay for the cost of a crucial surgery.
According to the complaint, AARP’s advertising materials did not indicate that the health plan only provided limited coverage. AARP suspended sales of the policies earlier this year when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) opened a congressional investigation into their marketing.
“AARP has preyed upon Plaintiffs and thousands of Americans over age 50 by luring unsuspecting consumers in need of affordable health care to enroll in AARP’s health insurance program,” the complaint states.
The suit accuses the company of violating the D.C. Consumer Protections Procedure Act. It argues the D.C. court has jurisdiction because AARP is located in the District.
An AARP spokesman declined to comment.
A lawyer for the Halperin’s, Jerome Noll, of counsel with White Plains, New York-based Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, said he knew of one other class action filed against AARP. That suit, also filed in D.C., targets United Healthcare as well, which partnered with AARP to sell the policies. A legal team from Venable including partner William Coston represents AARP in that case.
“We believe there’s a stronger case against AARP,” Noll said. “We allege that AARP’s marketing was deceptive and therefore in violation of the D.C. consumer protection act. [The Halperns] did not receive marketing materials from United Healthcare.”
Posted by Jordan Weissmann on November 10, 2009 at 04:53 PM in D.C. Courts and Government |
(culled from http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/11/couple-sues-aarp-over-health-plan-marketing-.html)
FBI: 10% of U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad
By: Ronald Kessler of newsmax
Imams preach jihad and extremism in 10 percent of the 2,000 mosques in the United States, the FBI estimates.
That sums up the problem facing us as we ponder the meaning of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s slayings of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Given his association with a pro-al-Qaida imam in northern Virginia and his preoccupation with radical Islamic Web sites, it’s clear that the radical element of Islam influenced Hasan.
(culled from http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Mosques_preach_jihad/2009/11/10/284270.html?s=al&promo_code=9099-1)
Looking for some tail? Help yourself help your parents
You may not care now, as a young person, most are selfish and just thinking about their next piece but consider this:
Someday you’ll be old too. This Health plan will rob Seniors of 30% of their current care. We are not allowed to work and nobody will hire us anyway. Employers try to dump people who reach 50 years old. So, we have no way of making additional income to replace what obama stole. I can tell you 50% of my income goes to my health care right now and for my mother it is closer to 90%.
In a since, you foolish kids are killing your parents with this plan. When an older person needs a doctor, they can’t wait 4 months to see one, yet think about it. obama wants to put 10 million NEW people on a health plan (that means doctors will be booked maybe 9 months in advance or more) and he’s going to tax YOU very heavily for that too. Yet when you reach my age, you will be in my shoes and paying higher taxes along the way.
If your going to do this then pass a law to put us old people out of our misery if we choose to. I’ll be damned if you get to decide when I die.
I’m going to get the last laugh after I move on to the next life and see the idiots suffering from their own vote to push this country down into a 3rd world country.
You children will never know the freedoms I enjoyed in my youth, you’re not even aware what you ignorantly gave up.
Your pot/dope smoking parents let some eastern guru in the 1960’s brain wash them and you’re now the product of that. That guru only knows the way he was raised. Raised in a 3rd world country.
Meanwhile, during that same time frame America’s western culture was for over 200 years the most powerful, most giving nation on the planet.
And now, because those pot smokers controlled you at home and at school, you want to be a 3rd world country. That’s the same way obama was raised.
Write your senators, stop this health care bill.
.
.
Judge David Hamilton is Anti-Jesus but Pro-Allah, stop the Get Senate Vote now!
reprint from newsmax
| URGENT PETITION! (Even if you’ve signed before, you can sign again & we’ll re-fax.) Please select, sign, and WE WILL FAX your petition automatically to ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS right away (saving you hours of labor!) Please forward widely. We’ve now sent nearly 700,000 faxes to the Senate. Can you help reach 1 Million? Surprise: Anti-Jesus Pro-Allah Judge David Hamilton Will Get Senate Vote Make the 17 phone calls listed below, today, to these key “undecided” Senators. On Thursday, Senator Harry Reid’s (D-NV) staff confirmed that Hamilton is “on the calendar” A VOTE IS POSSIBLE THE WEEK OF THE 9TH. So please auto-fax all 100 Senators to filibuster Hamilton. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wrote a letter to all Republicans on 30 Oct, asking for help in opposing Hamilton, who the Seventh Circuit Court rebuked for repeatedly “abusing his discretion,” and for a speech Hamilton gave saying the judge’s primary job is “write footnotes in the Constitution” for his own activist causes. To support Sessions and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who called for a filibuster, back in April & May 2009 we sent nearly 700,000 fax petitions to the full Senate against Hamilton, and we successfully persuaded all Republicans to unite against Hamilton, earning all 7 minority votes to block him in the Judiciary Committee. But all 12 committee majority Democrats voted against Jesus-prayers, and so forwarded Hamilton to the full Senate, where his nomination sat quietly without action for seven months, until now… On 4 June 09, the Judiciary committee voted 12-7 along strict party lines, to forward the nomination of Judge David Hamilton, the anti-Jesus Judge, the same judge who issued controversial rulings banning public prayers offered “in Jesus name,” (but allowing prayers to Allah), and hastening the abortion of unborn children. This vote came after we’d already sent nearly 600,000 faxes to the entire Senate opposing Hamilton, proving some Republicans listen to the voice of the people, and some Democrats remain deaf to our petitions. Now this anti-Jesus Judge Hamilton will face the full Senate, and the threat of filibuster by the pro-faith, pro-family Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). x Bill Nelson, D-FL 202-224-5274 y Judd Gregg, R-NH 202-224-3324 x Kay Hagan, D-NC 202-224-6342 y Richard Lugar, R-IN 202-224-4814 x Mark Pryor, D-AR 202-224-2353 y Olympia Snowe, R-ME 202-224-5344 xz Blanche Lincoln, D-AR 202-224-4843 y Susan Collins, R-ME 202-224-2523 z Chris Dodd, D-CT 202-224-2823 xy Kit Bond, R-MO 202-224-5721 z Barbara Boxer, D-CA 202-224-3553 z Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY 202-224-4451 z Michael Bennet, D-CO 202-224-5852 z Roland Burris, D-IL 202-224-2854 z Byron Dorgan, D-ND 202-224-2551 (x = Lives in the South. y = Voted for Sebelius. z = Facing re-election in 2010.) Judge Hamilton wrote: “The injunction orders the Speaker…that the prayers should not use Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal…If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic ‘Allah’…the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.” In other words, Judge Hamilton ruled the words “Jesus” or “Christ” or “Savior” are illegal words, prohibited for public speech, banned by the First Amendment, which somehow prohibits freedom of religious expression, and makes Christian prayers ILLEGAL, but prayers to Allah are TOTALLY LEGAL in a public forum. (What crazy version of the First Amendment is he reading?) Thank God, we took action in 2007 and provided legal arguments to the Indiana Attorney General who appealed to the 7th Circuit Court and WE WON a 2-1 decision overruling Hamilton, restoring the right to pray “in Jesus name” in Indiana. But if President Obama succeeds in promoting Hamilton to the same court that overruled him, that good reversal will be in jeopardy. We’re now the leading national voice against Hamilton, and we’re getting traction toward a successful Senate filibuster that can stop Hamilton’s confirmation, much to the horror of many liberal groups (including the National Abortion Rights Action League who is actively campaigning FOR Hamilton). But together, we can be a louder voice. SO PLEASE SELECT HERE TO SIGN AND WE’LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS, OPPOSING THE ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-CHRISTIAN JUDGE DAVID HAMILTON. READ THE FACTS: The Judicial Confirmation Network quickly opposed Hamilton’s nomination, stating that “President Obama’s first nominee to the federal appeals courts — specifically the appeals court based in Chicago — is an ultra-liberal named David Hamilton who is a former fundraiser for ACORN and former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. He was nominated to the district court bench by President Clinton even though he had no judicial experience and was rated as ‘not qualified’ by the American Bar Association.” Now newly promoted Judiciary Committee ranking minority Member Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), agrees with pro-faith Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), that we should oppose and filibuster Hamilton’s nomination to the 7th Circuit. Thanks in part to our public pressure, the Republicans and Sessions have twice succeeded in delaying Hamilton’s committee votes, saying “This a complex area of the law, I’ll admit, but it’s time for the federal court to get their heads straight on proper separation of church and state issues.” In 2003, Judge Hamilton struck down part of an Indiana law on abortion. The reasonable law had required abortion clinics to simply give women information about alternatives to abortion in the presence of a physician or nurse, 18 hours before the procedure, until Hamilton ruled to hasten abortions. But thank God, the 7th Circuit Court also reversed Hamilton’s bad decision in that case. If confirmed now Hamilton will sit on that 7th Circuit Court (the same court that frequently overruled him) with tyrannical power to rule the heartland of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin with his anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-Christian agenda. WE CAN WIN THIS BATTLE! We’ve already sent nearly 700,000 faxes to the full Senate, and we’re getting results! On April 1st and again on April 29th, Senator Orrin Hatch led all Republicans to walk out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in protest against the Democrat “rush job” to confirm Judge Hamilton. Senator Jeff Sessions said he was troubled by Hamilton’s ruling against a sectarian prayer to open the Indiana House of Representatives. Even Senator Arlen Specter expressed concern about Hamilton while serving as a Republican, but after switching parties he broke his promise to not become a “rubber stamp” for the Obama Administration, and voted to confirm Hamilton anyway. But will any Democrats oppose the anti-Jesus Hamilton? But first, take action right now! I pray you will not hesitate, but sign the petition and WE WILL FAX your petition right away, automatically to all 100 U.S. Senators. |
|
|
|
| P.S. Time is urgent! The full Senate could vote on Hamilton as early as this week. Select and sign today, & we will forward your name immediately. Please don’t wait another minute. Life, Liberty, and Jesus are too important to be banned by one extremist judge. Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying “in Jesus name” in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization |
Join AMAC because AARP has proven themselves to be a liberal leaning group
AMAC vs. AARP – David vs. Goliath
There are two organizations representing citizens 50 plus.
AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens has 10’s of thousands of members
AARP has 26 million Members.
The leadership of AARP has proven themselves to be a liberal leaning group that endorsed expensive Obamacare, without the consent of their members.
AMAC (pronounced A- Mack) is one of the leading groups fighting against President Obama’s health care initiative. AMAC has organized “Tea Parties” and participated in rallies against expanding government and raising taxes.
AMAC is pro-life, pro Second Amendment, and thinks government has grown too large and powerful. AMAC feels our elected officials are ignoring the will of the people. The proof of this can be seen in the way Congressmen and Senators have been treating their constituents at the various town hall meetings.
We need more members so we can have more clout with office holders. We need to counter the influence of AARP when they say they are speaking on behalf of Americans aged 50 and over.
AMAC will lead this fight knowing we can win, if you and other patriot Americans stand behind us.
Please go to www.amac.us and sign on as a member. For $12.50/year, you will know we are working on your behalf to stop socialism in America.
David conquered Goliath- and AMAC can beat AARP. Please check out our website and if you agree with us, please tell your friends.
Members receive our magazine and qualify for member discounts on Insurance and other services.
HELP US INFLUENCE CONGRESS
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR!!
Did AARP sell out Seniors? Duping all Americans not just Seniors.
According to Dick Morris & Eileen McGann,
The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off.
But President Bush passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician.
So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.
Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage.
The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP — which supposedly represents them — will make more money.
(If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)
(culled from http://www.newsmax.com/morris/healthcare_reform_bribe/2009/11/08/283349.html?s=al&promo_code=905C-1)
How you will be taxed for health care (45%)
The Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform outlines other taxes the will result if the Pelosi bill is passed:
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).
Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services. Managers’ amendment delays until 2012
Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Repeal in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Repeals the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act. Original bill merely delayed for nine years
Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
(culled from http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_heathcare_taxes/2009/11/08/283423.html?s=al&promo_code=905C-1)
Readthisorelse's Blog 
leave a comment