Saturday, February 20, 2010

2 Days to Stop Abortion Expanding Health Care!

This is it.

Congressional Quarterly is reporting that the final health care proposal is going to be released by the White House "as early as Feb 21," just three days from today.

Democrats are aggressively putting together a coalition to get a health care bill passed. With a final version coming out as early as Sunday, it is clear that Democrats know they are on the verge of having the votes they need to move forward, and they have a way to do it that is filibuster-proof:

"The most likely way forward is for the House to clear the Senate’s health care bill (HR 3590) and for the Senate to pass a package of changes to it, using the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process. That set of changes would incorporate the deals struck with the House, which would then send the new package to the White House. Obama would first sign the original Senate bill, then the “corrections” package. The last measure signed into law would be the one that dictates the final shape of the overhaul."

You see, the House passed Stupak language that saves lives and protects taxpayers from funding abortion, but it was stripped in the Senate version. With pressure mounting for the House to pass the Senate version, lives are at stake.

Obama has refused to address the issue of abortion and I have zero confidence that he is going to keep abortion funding out of his proposal. And with the immense amount of pressure that Pelosi and Reid have been applying on pro-life Democrats, we cannot let a single one of them cave.

That's why we must move quickly. We've been working around the clock to put together a coalition of like-minded groups, leaders, and activists to press for Stupak language that protects innocent human life in the final bill.

We are in the final stretch. This is when your help -- your financial support and prayers -- counts the most. We must keep up the pressure on these pro-life Democrats to hold their ground, stick to their principles, and stand for women and the unborn.

Please donate whatever you can afford to give today. We've accomplished so much leading up to this point, we simply can't afford to back down with so many unborn lives hanging in the balance.

Sincerely,



Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

PS: We are in the final stretch. It has been a long, tiring battle, but one we must win, which is why we must continue to fight. If we lose, the consequences would be detrimental to the fabric and conscience of our nation as we would have to endure the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. We have put together a fragile coalition of pro-life Democrats, and now it is time to ramp up the pressure to ensure they do not cave. Please make a generous gift today so we can act quickly and effectively. Thank you for your continued generosity and your commitment to protecting life.

White House Preparing to Ram Through Abortion Expanding Health Care with Budget Bill

New Plan to be revealed as early as Sunday or Monday - would only require 51-vote majority


2
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, DC, February 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life leaders on Capitol Hill are once again rolling up their sleeves for the health care fight after the White House announced it would publish a compromise bill as soon as Sunday to push through abortion-expanding health care.

In a New York Times report Thursday, Democratic officials confirmed that President Obama's proposal was being designed for attachment to a budget bill, which would require only a 51-vote majority in the Senate through a process known as budget reconciliation.

If the new legislation (which is essentially a package of compromises to satisfy House Democrats) passes, the House would be forced to swallow whole the health bill the Senate passed in December. The House-passed bill, which included the Stupak language barring government monies from funding abortion, would be completely discarded in favor of the abortion-expanding Senate bill.

While Democrats originally intended to ram through a reconciled version of the House and Senate bills, that plan was dropped after Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown's win in January unexpectedly snatched away the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority.

Officials told the NYT that the president would post the new plan on the Internet by Monday morning. A Congressional Quarterly report claimed the release could come as early as Sunday.

The reception by Congressional Democrats of Obama's proposal is not yet certain: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel that she could not agree to a proposal until the end of the recess. House Democrats are expected to meet Monday evening.

The White House also threw down the gauntlet to Republicans, inviting party lawmakers to a televised summit Feb 25 to discuss the GOP's solutions for health care reform. "I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama told CBS's Katie Couric earlier this month. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table."

Republicans have countered that their own proposal for health care reform has been publicly available for months, while the White House has all but completely shut out GOP members from negotiations throughout the long health care push. Michael Steele, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, blasted the proposed summit as "an infomercial" to push the unpopular bill.

“How will they incorporate our ideas? Will they abandon their plans to jam through their latest backroom deal?" asked Steele. "Or is this just an infomercial for the same government takeover of health care that the American people have rejected again and again?”

In a letter to Rahm Emanuel this month, Boehner and Republican Whip Eric Cantor wrote: "We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats."

Once again, the question of abortion funding is poised to throw a wrench in the delicate scheme: a Capitol Hill Democrat admitted to the Times that abortion remains "a wild card" for the health bill's future. The House bill passed by a razor-thin margin, relying on votes that insiders say will vanish when faced with a bill that lacks Hyde-amendent protection against abortion funding.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com last week, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, expressed certainty that pro-life Democrat representatives would hold out for a Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding.

"They will. I’ve talked to many of them," said Smith. "They have hardened their position. I think they’ve seen how noble their position is. They are not going to go for a phony compromise. They are not going to go for weakening language no matter how cleverly it is presented."

Just before the Senate passed its health bill last year, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the final Democrat holding out against the bill and citing opposition to abortion funding, suddenly reversed his decision and endorsed a bill without the Stupak language.

Leaders in the Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition urged pro-lifers to contact their senators and representatives urging opposition against the vast abortion expansion the health bill promises.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Revelations of St. Teresa of Avila

http://www.doeshellexist.com/blog/?p=35

“While I was at prayer one day, I found myself in a moment, without knowing how, plunged apparently into Hell. I understood that it was Our Lord’s will that I should see the place which the devils kept in readiness for me, and which I had deserved by my sins. It lasted but for a moment, but it seems to me impossible that I should ever forget it even if I were to live many years.

“The entrance seemed to be by a long narrow pass, like a furnace, very low, dark, and close. The ground seemed to be saturated with water, mere mud, exceedingly foul, sending forth pestilential odors, and covered with loathsome vermin. At the end was a hollow place in the wall like a closet, and in that I saw myself confined. All this was ever pleasant to behold in comparison with what I felt there. There is no exaggeration in what I am saying.

“But as to what I then felt, I do not know where to begin if I were to describe it; it is utterly inexplicable. I felt a fire in my soul but such that I am still unable to describe it. My bodily sufferings were unendurable. I have undergone most painful sufferings in this life, and, as the physicians say, the greatest that can be borne, such as the contraction of my sinews when I was paralyzed, without speaking of other ills of different types – yet, even those of which I have spoken, inflicted on me by Satan; yet all these were as nothing in comparison with what I then felt, especially when I saw that there would be no intermission nor any end to them.

“These sufferings were nothing in comparison with the anguish of my soul, a sense of oppression, of stifling, and of pain so acute, accompanied by so hopeless and cruel an infliction, that I know not how to speak of it. If I say that the soul is continually being torn from the body it would be nothing – for that implies the destruction of life by the hands of another – but here it is the soul itself that is tearing itself in pieces. I cannot describe that inward fire or that despair, surpassing all torments and all pain. I did not see who it was that tormented me, but I felt myself on fire, and torn to pieces, as it seemed to me; and I repeat it, this inward fire and despair are the greatest torments of all.

“Left in that pestilential place, and utterly without the power to hope for comfort, I could neither sit nor lie down; there was no room. I was placed as it were in a hole in the wall; and those walls, terrible to look on of themselves, hemmed me in on every side. I could not breathe. There was no light, but all was thick darkness. I do not understand how it is; though there was no light, yet everything that can give pain by being seen was visible.

“Our Lord at that time would not let me see more of Hell. Afterwards I had another most fearful vision, in which I saw the punishment of certain sins. They were the most horrible to look at, but because I felt none of the pain, my terror was not so great. In the former vision Our Lord made me really feel those torments and that anguish of spirit, just as if I had been suffering them in the body there. I know not how it was, but I understood distinctly that it was a great mercy that Our Lord would have me see with my own eyes the very place from which His compassion saved me. I have listened to people speaking of these things and I have at other times dwelt on the various torments of Hell, though not often, because my soul made no progress by the way of fear; and I have read of the diverse tortures, and how the devils tear the flesh with red-hot pincers. But all is as nothing before this: It is a wholly different matter. In short, the one is a reality, the other a description; and all burning here in this life is as nothing compared with the fire that is there.

“I was so terrified by that vision – and that terror is on me even now as I write – that though it took place nearly six years ago, the natural warmth of my body is chilled by fear even now when I think of it. And so, amid all the pain and suffering which I may have had to bear, I remember no time in which I do not think that all we have to suffer in this world is as nothing. It seems to me that we complain without reason. I repeat it, this vision was one of the grandest mercies of God. It has been to me of the greatest service, because it has destroyed my fear of trouble and of the contradictions of the world, and because it has made me strong enough to bear up against them, and to give thanks to Our Lord who has been my Deliverer, as it now seems to me, from such fearful and everlasting pains.

“Ever since that time, as I was saying, everything seems endurable in comparison with one instant of suffering such as those I had then to bear in Hell. I am filled with fear when I see that, after frequently reading books which describe in some manner the pains of Hell, I was not afraid of them, nor made any account of them. Where was I? How could I possibly take any pleasure in those things which led me directly to so dreadful a place? Blessed forever be Thou, O my God! And oh, how manifest is it that Thou didst love me much more than I did love Thee! How often, O Lord, didst Thou save me from that fearful prison! And how I used to get back to it contrary to Thy will.

“It was that vision which filled me with very great distress which I felt at the sight of so many lost souls, especially of the Lutherans – for they were once members of the Church by Baptism – and also gave me the most vehement desires for the salvation of souls; for certainly I believe that to save even one from those overwhelming torments , I would willingly endure many deaths. If here on earth we see one whom we specially love in great trouble or pain, our very nature seems to bid us compassionate him; and if those pains be great, we are troubled ourselves. What, then, must it be to see a soul in danger of pain, the most grievous of all pains, forever? It is a thought no heart can bear without great anguish. Here we know that pain at last ends with life, and that there are limits to it, yet the sight of it moves us so greatly to compassion; that other pain has no ending, and I know not how we can be calm when we see Satan carry so many souls daily away.

“This also makes me wish that, in a matter which concerns us so much, we did not rest satisfied with doing less than we can do on our part – that we left nothing undone. May Our Lord vouchsafe to give us His grace for that end.”

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Is Obama a CIA Banker?

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2009/Obama-Strange-Rise3jan09.htm

The Strange Rise of Obama
Progressive Review 3jan2009

As we have noted, one of the unanswered questions about Barack Obama is how a young politician of such little achievement got so far so fast — from state senator to president in four years. Bill Blum provides new light on the subject. To understand this phenomenon, it is important to recognize that if a young Obama was vetted or otherwise used by the CIA, it was not all that unusual. From the 1950s on, the agency repeatedly interfered in the education of the talented young by recruiting or co-opting them for its own purposes. Yale's Skull & Bones Club, for example, was a classic case of a recruitment camp for future intelligence types. The purpose — for the short run — is more information, and — for the long run — a supply of US future government officials whom the agency trusts and can use. And it often begins with a bright college student an insider thinks might fill the bill. . . .



Bill Blum, Anti-Empire Report — The question that may never go away: Who really is Barack Obama? In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer." The odd part of Obama's story is that he doesn't mention the name of his employer.

However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation [1]. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960. [2]

The British journal, Lobster Magazine — which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters — has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji. [3] In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls. [4] After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington's nuclear desires, was reinstated to power.

In his book, not only doesn't Obama mention his employer's name; he fails to say when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left — including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) [5] — it's valid to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world.

[1] New York Times, October 30, 2007
[2] New York Times, December 27, 1977, p.40
[3] Lobster Magazine, Hull, UK, #14, November 1987
[4] William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, pp.199-200
[5] Carl Oglesby, "Ravens in the Storm: A Personal History of the 1960s Antiwar Movement" (2008), passim
William Blum - Homepage: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer65.html


Colony Net, 2008 — In an effort to shore up his foreign policy credentials during the primary campaign, the junior senator from Illinois — then in a tight primary contest with Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania — bragged about the time he had spent in Pakistan. He argued that Clinton's foreign policy "experience" consisted only of quick photo ops, while he had spent "quality time" with "real people." Not only that, he had actually gone on a partridge-hunting trip near the Pakistan city of Larkana. His partridge-hunting apparently impressed the gun owners of Pennsylvania very little, inasmuch as Clinton won that primary by 10 per cent.

Eager to impress the Pennsylvania crowd with his "foreign policy experience" and knowledge of guns, Obama thus let slip the fact that he'd been to Pakistan. (It is believed that he made two trips to Pakistan.) There must have been more to that trip than meets the eye, however, because the candidate has said virtually nothing about it since. You won't find anything on the Obama campaign site. . .

Astute readers may have begun to wonder how a struggling young college student with a divorced, middle-class mother managed to fund a three week trip to Pakistan. . . But Barry Obama-Soetoro was off shooting partridges in Pakistan, hosted by a young man named Muhammed Hasan Chandio. Chandio's family owned a substantial amount of land in the region, and Obama apparently met him while both were students. (Chandio is currently a financial consultant in New York, and a donor to the Obama campaign.). . .

Another of Obama's hosts in Pakistan was Muhammadian Mian Soomro, Obama's senior by about 11 years, son of a Pakistani politician and himself a politician, who became interim President of Pakistan when Pervez Musharraf resigned in August of 2008. Soomro has said that "someone" personally requested that he "watch over" Barack Obama, but will not name that individual . . .

A trip to Pakistan is no doubt more than a jaunt to a Florida beach. Few Americans would consider traveling there now, thinking it to be a dangerous place. In 1981, when one of Obama's possible two trips there occurred, it was less safe. Because of the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, millions of Afghan refugees fled to Pakistan, which was under martial law. The Afghan "mujahedeen" fighters had bases in Pakistan, and they moved back and forth to fight the Soviets. . .

In the early 1980s, Pakistan was one of the destinations Americans were prohibited from visiting — it was on the State Department's list of banned countries. Non-Muslims were not welcome, unless they were on official business, formalized through the embassy of the country of origin. The simple truth is that no young American would have a reason to or be able to visit Pakistan in 1981, unless he was on official government business of which the State Department was aware. . .

Adding to the mix is the fact that Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, had visited at least 13 countries in her lifetime, and had worked for companies that required travel to Pakistan. Her employers appear to have included the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Ford Foundation, Women's World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. Note that USAID and the Ford Foundation have (allegedly) been used as covers for CIA agents. . . .

The story of Business International also includes its 1960s joint meetings with members of SDS at the prodding of Carl Oglesby. Not everyone was happy at the idea — including Bernadette Dorn — and probably for good cause.

Obama also was one of eight students selected to study sovietology by Columbia professor Zbigniew Brzezinski who, if he wasn't a CIA official, was as close as you can otherwise get. Brzesinski is now a member of Obama's inner circle.



If the Obama Pakistan story sounds somewhat familiar, it may because the Review was one of the few places that reported one of Bill Clinton's similarly interesting trips:

"1960s: Bill Clinton, according to several agency sources interviewed by biographer Roger Morris, works as a CIA informer while briefly and erratically a Rhodes Scholar in England. Although without visible means of support, he travels around Europe and the Soviet Union, staying at the ritziest hotel in Moscow. During this period the US government is using well educated assets such as Clinton as part of Operation Chaos, a major attempt to break student resistance to the war and the draft. According to former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich Clinton is told by Oxford officials that he is no longer welcome there."

source: 6jan2008

Monday, February 01, 2010

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INVASION: WHO CAUSED IT

http://kandylini.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/the-tequila-trap-the-real-story-behind-the-illegal-alien-invasion/


THE TEQUILA TRAP: THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION
Posted by kandylini on March 16, 2008

Here’s an excerpt from The Web of Debt. A nice refresher into what happened in Mexico, and good to keep in mind when we want to blame “them” for our economic problems when in fact they were manufactured by our own government.

By 1994, Mexico had restored its standing with investors. It had a balanced budget, a growth rate of over three percent, and a stock market that was up fivefold. In February 1995, Jane Ingraham wrote in The New American that Mexico’s fiscal policy was in some respects “superior and saner than our own wildly spendthrift Washington circus.” Mexico received enormous amounts of foreign investment, after being singled out as the most promising and safest of Latin American markets. Investors were therefore shocked and surprised when newly-elected President Ernesto Zedillo suddenly announced a 13 percent devaluation of the peso, since there seemed no valid reason for the move. The following day, Zedillo allowed the formerly managed peso to float freely against the dollar. The peso immediately plunged by 39 percent.5

What was going on? In 1994, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office Report on NAFTA had diagnosed the peso as “overvalued” by 20 percent. The Mexican government was advised to unpeg the currency and let it float, allowing it to fall naturally to its “true” level. The theory was that it would fall by only 20 percent; but that is not what happened. The peso eventually dropped by 300 percent – 15 times the predicted fall.6 Its collapse was blamed on the lack of “investor confidence” due to Mexico’s negative trade balance; but as Ingraham observes, investor confidence was quite high immediately before the collapse. If a negative trade balance is what sends a currency into massive devaluation and hyperinflation, the U.S. dollar itself should have been driven there long ago. By 2001, U.S. public and private debt totaled ten times the debt of all Third World countries combined.7

Although the peso’s collapse was supposedly unanticipated, over 4 billion U.S. dollars suddenly and mysteriously left Mexico in the 20 days before it occurred. Six months later, this money had twice the Mexican purchasing power it had earlier. Later commentators maintained that lead investors with inside information precipitated the stampede out of the peso.8 These investors were evidently the same parties who profited from the Mexican bailout that followed. When Mexico’s banks ran out of dollars to pay off its creditors (which were largely U.S. banks), the U.S. government stepped in with U.S. tax dollars. The Mexican bailout was engineered by Robert Rubin, who headed the investment bank Goldman Sachs before he became U.S. Treasury Secretary. Goldman Sachs was then heavily invested in short-term dollar-denominated Mexican bonds. The bailout was arranged the very day of Rubin’s appointment. Needless to say, the money provided by U.S. taxpayers never made it to Mexico. It went straight into the vaults of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other big American lenders whose risky loans were on the line.9

The late Jude Wanniski was a conservative economist who was at one time a Wall Street Journal editor and adviser to President Reagan. He cynically observed of this banker coup:

There was a big party at Morgan Stanley after the Mexican peso devaluation, people from all over Wall Street came, they drank champagne and smoked cigars and congratulated themselves on how they pulled it off and they made a fortune. These people are pirates, international pirates.10

The loot was more than just the profits of gamblers who had bet the right way. The pirates actually got control of Mexico’s banks. NAFTA rules had already opened the nationalized Mexican banking system to a number of U.S. banks, with Mexican licenses being granted to 18 big foreign banks and 16 brokers including Goldman Sachs. But these banks could bring in no more than 20 percent of the system’s total capital, limiting their market share in loans and securities holdings.11 They wanted the whole enchilada. By 2004, all but one of Mexico’s major banks had been sold to foreign banks, which gained total access to the formerly closed Mexican banking market.12

The value of Mexican pesos and Mexican stocks collapsed together, supposedly because there was a stampede to sell and no one around to buy; but buyers with ample funds were sitting on the sidelines, waiting to pick over the devalued stock at bargain basement prices. The result was a direct transfer of wealth from the local economy to international money manipulators. The devaluation also precipitated a wave of privatizations (sales of public assets to private corporations), as the Mexican government tried to meet its spiraling debt crisis. In a February 1996 article called “Militant Capitalism,” David Peterson blamed the rout on an assault on the peso by short-sellers. He wrote:

The austerity measures that the U.S. government and the IMF forced on Mexicans in the aftermath of last winter’s assault on the peso by short-sellers in the foreign exchange markets have been something to behold. Almost overnight, the Mexican people have had to endure dramatic cuts in government spending; a sharp hike in regressive sales taxes; at least one million layoffs (a conservative estimate); a spike in interest rates so pronounced as to render their debts unserviceable (hence El Barzon, a nation-wide movement of small debtors to resist property seizures and to seek a rescheduling of their debts); a collapse in consumer spending on the order of 25 percent by mid-year; and, in brief, a 10.5 percent contraction in overall economic activity during the second quarter, with more of the same sure to follow.13

By 1995, Mexico’s foreign debt was more than twice the country’s total debt payment for the previous century and a half. Per-capita income had fallen by almost a third from a year earlier, and Mexican purchasing power had fallen by well over 50 percent.14 Mexico was propelled into a crippling national depression that has lasted for over a decade. As in the U.S. depression of the 1930s, the actual value of Mexican businesses and assets did not change during this speculator-induced crisis. What changed was simply that currency had been sucked out of the economy by investors stampeding to get out of the Mexican stock market, leaving insufficient money in circulation to pay workers, buy raw materials, finance loans, and operate the country. It was further evidence that when short-selling is allowed, currencies are driven into hyperinflation not by the market mechanism of “supply and demand” but by the concerted action of currency speculators. The flipside of this also appears to be true: the U.S. dollar remains strong despite its plunging trade balance, because it has been artificially manipulated up by the Fed. (More on this in Chapter 33.) Market manipulators, not free market forces, are in control.

This entry was posted on March 16, 2008 at 7:03 pm and is filed under Politics, economy. Tagged: economy, mexico, nafta, Politics, web of debt. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.