Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Student Tells Pelosi Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control

By Craig Bannister - February 27, 2012

A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.
Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.

Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows.

"Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," Fluke told the hearing.

$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it.

Yes, us. Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from the health care insurance premiums you and I pay.

But, back to this woman’s complaint that she’s spending $3,000 for birth control during her time in college.

"For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary," she complains.

So, she earns enough money in just one summer to pays for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)

Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn't cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).

And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical.

Besides, maybe, these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who's got time for cable?

And, let's not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke's going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys?

All of this seems to suggest at least two important conclusions:

1.If these women want to have sex, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it, and
2.If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should've gone to law school

Cardinal George: Catholic Hospitals Will Be Gone in ‘Two Lents' Under Obamacare Regulation

I just don't understand democrats and liberalism.  For a group that claims concern for the needy and a desire to create jobs, they sure do let their ideals get in the way! 

Did you know that Catholic health care facilities form the largest not-for-profit health service sector in the United States. Catholic hospitals serve one in six patients in the United States.  They employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers.  The 620 Catholic hospitals across the country cared for more than 5.6 million people in 2008 and handled more than 98 million outpatient visits.  There are more than 1,400 additional U.S. Catholic long-term and other health care facilities and a prescence in all 50 states and handle a wide range of public health and specialty services traditionally considered “unprofitable", such as alcohol and drug abuse treatment, birthing rooms, breast cancer screening, child and adolescent psychiatric services, child wellness programs, community outreach, crisis prevention, dental services, geriatric services, HIV/AIDS services, neonatal intensive care units, nutrition programs, obstetrics, pain management programs, and various social work services. 

Are you aware that the Catholic Church manages 26 percent of health care facilities in the world?  The Church has “117,000 health care facilities, including hospitals, clinics, orphanages,” as well as “18,000 pharmacies and 512 centres” for the care of those with leprosy.

By Thomas Cloud - February 28, 2012

Unless the Obama administration’s mandate that all health insurers offer abortifacient drugs and sterilization is rescinded, Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in the United States will be gone in a couple years, said Cardinal Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago and former head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Cardinal George made his prediction in his weekly column for Catholic New World, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Chicago.

“If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir,” wrote Cardinal George. “On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.”

Under the Obamacare regulation, as finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), all health insurance companies in the United States must offer sterilization, artificial birth control, and abortion-inducing drugs free of charge to whoever may request them. The rule is set to go into effect on Aug. 1 and strictly religious institutions will have one more year to fully comply with the regulation.

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, all health insurers will have to offer these services and drugs. Individuals or businesses will not have to pay for them directly but the premiums they pay to the insurer, which keep the insurer in business, will indirectly subsidize abortifacient drugs, artificial birth control, and sterilization. These services are contrary to Catholic moral teaching (and the regulation has been denounced by leaders of several other religions and denominations).

As a result, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told that it must give up its health care operations, according to the cardinal. “Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching,” said Cardinal George. “The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.”

He continued: “What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.”

In his column, Cardinal George also argues that the Obamacare regulation would destroy religious liberty as understood and practiced for more than two centuries in the United States by essentially segregating faith to a church building and not allowing people to practice their faith outside their house of worship.

“Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship,” says the cardinal. “Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship -- no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.”

If the Obamacare rule is not rescinded, says Cardinal George, people will not be allowed to hold true to their religious beliefs in all areas of their lives because the federal government would be forcing them (or their employer) to subsidize a product that is in violation of their religious faith – or they can pay a fine.

Under Obamacare, if an employer drops its health insurance plan, it will face financial penalties. An employer with at least 50 employees, for instance, would be fined $2,000 per employee every year for the total number of employees minus 30, resulting in penalties of thousands of dollars.

The Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), for example, would face $620,000 in fines per year beginning in 2014, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The group says that Colorado Christian University, as another example, would face $500,000 in fines every year.

In conclusion to his column, Cardinal George wrote: “The observance of Lent reminds us that, in the end, we all stand before Christ and give an accounting of our lives. From that perspective, I ask lay Catholics and others of good will to step back and understand what is happening to our country as the church is despoiled of her institutions and as freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past. The suffering being imposed on the church and on society now is not a voluntary penance. We should both work and pray to be delivered from it.”

Michael W. Chapman contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Declines Challenge to Kagan Impartiality on Obamacare

Nothing like keeping the door open for judicial legislation!  This is why it is of upmost importance to make sure obama is defeated this November.  We must prevent the nation's highest court from being filled by blatant liberal idealists!!!  So much for checks and balances huh?!

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court have affirmed they are not willing to listen to arguments over Justice Elena Kagan’s impartiality on the issue of Obamacare, a case that’s to be before the court in a few weeks.

Kagan was solicitor general in the Obama White House when Obamacare was developed, and emails released from that time reveal she was rooting for its passage.

There are concerns she participated in strategy sessions to defend the law before Obama gave her a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court bench, where she now has great influence in a decision about the fate of the plan to nationalize health-care decision-making.

News of the court’s response comes from Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch USA.

Klayman had submitted a motion to reconsider after being turned down the first time. He wanted to appear at oral arguments, scheduled at the end of March, to emphasize the need for the court to respect the rules of judicial ethics and law and disqualify Kagan if she does not abstain from the case voluntarily.

Generally judges are to prevent even the appearance of partiality in a case on which they rule.

The issue remains before the court, in the form of a friend-of-the-court brief Freedom Watch filed.

The organization was the only interested party requesting to address during oral argument Kagan’s participation in the case.

“Regrettably, this decision comes as no surprise,” the announcement from Freedom Watch said. “Chief Justice Roberts recently commented in the Supreme Court’s annual report that its justices do not have to adhere to the rules of judicial ethics that apply to other federal judges, essentially stating that they are above the law. … It is Freedom Watch’s hope that the Supreme Court will sober up and realize that the integrity of the court must be beyond reproach.

“The integrity of the court is even more important than the issue of the constitutionality of Obamacare. Without a court that represents ‘We the People,’ Americans are left without any recourse to combat the tyranny of the other two branches of government. When the colonies saw that they had no recourse against the British crown, they declared their independence and waged a revolution to change their form of government and their rulers. Let us hope that this does not happen again, given the arrogance of establishment institutions like the Supreme Court, which seemingly think they are ‘above the law,’” state Klayman.

Regarding Kagan’s participation in the Obamacare case, Klayman said the justices need to squelch even the appearance of untoward influence on the court.

Klayman earlier cited statements in emails that reveal “Kagan’s personal bias in favor of the act.”

Among the evidence cited is an email from March 21, 2010, when Kagan, “then senior counselor for access to Justice Laurence Tribe, wrote, ‘I hear they have votes Larry!! Simply amazing . . . ‘ Tribe then responded, ‘So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.’”

Additionally, on March 16, 2010, there was an email from Kagan to David Barron, asking if he had seen a Wall Street Journal article on the issue.

And Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Kagan in a 2009 email, “We just got [Olympia] Snowe on health care.”

Klayman wrote, “Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the act will be seen as illegitimate.”

WND previously reported a former federal appeals court clerk has confirmed Kagan’s advocacy for an Obama-style health care policy dates back to the Clinton administration.

In a separate action, the Obama administration now has been sued under the Freedom of Information Act over details about Kagan’s exact level of advocacy for Obamacare.

Fannie asks gov't for almost $4.6B after 4Q loss

Never learning from mistakes, the obama administration continues to shell out our taxpayer money to failing companies, taking away any incentive to improve.  After Fannie's 3rd quarter loss of $5.1 billion, we again bailed them out with an additional $7.8 billion dollars.  Now they lose $2.4 billion in the 4th quarter and we get to bail them out with another $4.6 billion!!  Fannie had lost $1.3 billion in the 2nd quarter btw.  Total tab for Fannie Mae so far...a whopping $117.2 billion dollars and counting!!!  Fannie Mae has now reported losses in 17 of the past 18 quarters!!!  (the only quarter they reported a profit was due to a one-time payment from Bank of America.)

As for Fannie's evil cohort Freddie Mac, we see a similar story.  Loss after loss, bailout after bailout.  Freddie's 3rd quarter loss...$4.4 billion and a bailout of $6 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money.  Brace for their 4th quarter's coming!

So far...bailouts of the two is approaching $200 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money.  Time to dissolve the two money sieves!  Let's protect taxpayers and get the government out of the free market!!!

By Derek Kravitz - 2/29/2012

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mortgage giant Fannie Mae said Wednesday that it lost money in the fourth quarter and is asking the federal government for nearly $4.6 billion in aid to cover its deficit.

Washington, D.C.-based Fannie said it lost roughly $2.4 billion in the October-December quarter, stung by declining home prices. Revenue was about $4.5 billion.

The government rescued Fannie and sibling company Freddie Mac in September 2008 to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans. Since then, a federal regulator — the Federal Housing Finance Agency — has controlled their financial decisions.

Taxpayers have spent more than $150 billion to prop up Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The government estimates that figure could top $259 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments.

Fannie has received more than $116 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of a single company.

Fannie's bailout money totaled roughly $16.4 billion in 2011 after accounting for dividend payments. That's up from about $7.3 billion in 2010 but down from about $32.5 billion in 2009.

Fannie officials say losses have increased in recent quarters for two reasons: Some homeowners are paying less interest after refinancing at historically low mortgage rates; others are defaulting on their mortgages.

"While economic factors, such as falling home prices and high unemployment, produced strong headwinds for our business again in 2011, we continued to grow a very strong new book of business as we have since 2009," said Michael J. Williams, Fannie's president and CEO.

When property values drop, homeowners default, either because they are unable to afford the payments or because they owe more than the property is worth. Because of the guarantees, Fannie and Freddie must pay for the losses.

Fannie's $2.4 billion loss for the fourth quarter takes into account $2.6 billion in dividend payments to the government. That compares with a loss of $2.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010.

In November, Freddie requested $6 billion in extra aid — the largest request since April 2010 — after it reported losing $6 billion in the third quarter.

Fannie Mae and McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac own or guarantee about half of all mortgages in the U.S., or nearly 31 million home loans. Along with other federal agencies, they backed nearly 90 percent of new mortgages over the past few years.

Fannie and Freddie buy home loans from banks and other lenders, package them with bonds with a guarantee against default and sell them to investors around the world. The companies nearly folded more than three years ago because of big losses on risky mortgages they purchased.

The Obama administration unveiled a plan one year ago to slowly dissolve the two mortgage giants. The aim is to shrink the government's role in the mortgage system, remaking decades of federal policy aimed at getting Americans to buy homes. It would also probably make home loans more expensive.

The firms' regulator, the FHFA

Exactly how far the government's role in mortgage lending would be reduced was left to Congress to decide. But all three options the administration presented would create a housing finance system that relies far more on private money. ..

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Why do Americans spend more on healthcare? Because they can

By Christopher J. Conover - February 25, 2012

Americans have the highest health spending on the planet. Why? Because they can afford to do so. What few people realize is that the United States has increased its standard of living vis-à-vis its biggest competitors despite rising health expenditures (figure 1.6c).

It may seem trivial to observe that Americans spend more on healthcare because they can afford it. But it gets to the heart of an important question: Why are we so preoccupied with rising health costs in the first place? From the standpoint of the average American’s welfare—measured in terms of their standard of living—what really matters is how much they have to spend on everything else once healthcare has been purchased. We can approximate this standard of living by simply subtracting national health expenditures from the rest of GDP and then dividing by population. To make these comparisons, I have relied on Penn World Table estimates of GDP per capita, which have been carefully constructed to produce a standardized metric of living standards that allows for meaningful comparisons across countries and over time. That is, in these comparisons, a 2005 dollar has equivalent general purchasing power across each of the years and countries shown.

In the United States, real (inflation-adjusted) healthcare spending per capita has been rising faster than real GDP per capita for as long as we can measure it (back to 1929). Consequently, healthcare absorbs a growing share of GDP. But the same has been true for all our major competitors for as long as we can measure it (back to 1960). For purposes of discussion, I’m defining the nation’s major competitors as the rest of the countries in the G7 (Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Canada) since these represent our major industrialized trading partners. Countries such as China and India surely will grow in importance in the decade ahead, but right now their standard of living is far behind that of the United States.

The United States for many decades has enjoyed a far higher standard of living than in the rest of the G7. In 1960, non-health GDP per capita in Japan was 62 percent lower than in the United States. The rest of the G7 also lagged behind the United States, though by not quite as much (ranging from 43 percent lower in Italy to 19 percent lower in Canada, the country whose standard of living came closest to that of the United States). This should come as no surprise: the United States emerged as the world’s strongest industrial power after World War II, an advantage that could easily have been predicted to persist only 15 years later.

But here’s what may surprise many readers: in real dollar terms, the U.S. margin of advantage in non-health spending increased between 1960 and 2007 for every single G7 country except Japan. Moreover, even since 1980, this U.S. margin of advantage increased for every country except the UK (which saw a minuscule decline in this metric). This means that even countries which experienced a lower growth rate than the United States in real health spending per capita lost ground to the United States in their real non-health standard of living. How could that be? The absolute increase in real U.S. GDP per capita was more than enough to absorb the absolute increase in its real health spending per capita during the same period.

A concrete illustration will make this clearer. From 1980-2007, U.S. health spending per capita grew by 4.3 percent a year. In Germany, this increase was only 2.5 percent a year. One might suppose that this large difference in health spending growth rates would have allowed Germany to catch up with the United States in terms of its non-health GDP per capita. That is, if Americans were spending more on healthcare, they must be spending less on everything else. But that’s not what happened. Between 1980 and 2007, the difference between U.S. and German health spending per capita grew by more than $3,000 (i.e., Americans spent $528 apiece more than Germans in 1980, but by 2007, this difference had grown to $3,078). Had non-health GDP per capita grown by identical amounts in each country, this would have reduced the U.S. non-health standard of living by more than $3,000 vis-a-vis Germany. But the rise in U.S. GDP per capita instead was so large that it not only covered the $3,000 in added health spending, but increased the U.S. margin of advantage over Germany in non-health spending by nearly $4,000! This illustrates the enormous power of a growing economy: Americans literally were able to have their cake and eat it too.

This is a critically important truth: the United States spends more on healthcare in large part because it can afford to do so. And unless the United States suffers a sharp decline in its GDP growth compared to its competitors, this pattern can persist for many decades. Even today, the margin of advantage I have been describing remains so large that even for Canada (where the U.S. margin of advantage is smallest within the G7), the United States could afford to increase its health spending by 50 percent without entirely eradicating Americans’ higher non-health standard of living relative to Canadians.

A rich country has to spend its income in some fashion. Would critics of the U.S. health system feel better if all the extra income that found its way into the healthcare system had instead been devoted to buying pet food, lottery tickets, or fancier cars? Put another way: which would you rather be? The country that spent more on healthcare because its booming economy gave it the means to do so? Or the country whose growth in healthcare was constrained by lower economic growth? This is not to argue that we cannot and should not find ways to get rid of avoidable health spending where feasible. But it puts into perspective where the United States really sits relative to its competitors. The United States is not doing nearly as badly as some critics have alleged. Moreover, these figures raise serious questions about whether we really wish to go down the same path as other European social welfare states.

Does He Mean It?! Romney Supports Progressive Tax

I can't tell if he means it, or if he is just trying to appease lower income voters, or if it's a strategy to take away obama's talking points...but frankly it's ScArY to hear the Republican Presidential frontrunner joining obama, Warren Buffet, and the democrats on the issue of taxation and class warfare!!!

We had finally started moving in the right direction thanks to Herman Cain who introduced the idea of a flat tax (9-9-9) for the first time in a presidential race since Steve Forbes back in 1996.  Conservative voters flocked to Cain and soon all of the candidates jumped on the "flat tax bandwagon".  It appeared America was about to win and win big!!!  Now this?!  Say it aint so Mitt?!

Romney on Taxes: ‘I Want to Make Sure We Maintain the Progressivity of the Code’

Terence P. Jeffrey - February 27, 2012

( - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Fox News Sunday that he wants to maintain “the progressivity” of the tax code so that as Americans make more money they are required to surrender increasing percentages of their earnings to the federal government in taxes.
Romney has a long record of opposing a flat tax--even investing more than $50,000 of his own money during the 1996 presidential campaign to run newspapers ads attacking then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes’s flat-tax proposal as a “tax cut for fat cats.”

“What about the argument that you're saying the same class warfare?” Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Romney. “And you hear this from a lot of people. The Wall Street Journal, which generally liked your plan, says it's the same old Obama class war argument. Yes, you're going to reduce capital gains taxes for the middle class, not for the rich.”
“Well, obviously, I want to make sure that we maintain the progressivity of the code,” Romney responded. “And I want to help people who I think have been most hurt by the Obama economy--and that's middle income Americans.”

Romney, as summarized by Wallace, has proposed a tax plan that would cut the marginal income tax rates for individuals 20 percent across the board, and abolish the capital gains tax for people making less than $200,000 per year but not for people making more than that. Additionally, Romney’s plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Also, as summarized by Wallace, Romney would increase the age at which people become eligible to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits and pay smaller benefit increases to wealthier people.

In questioning Romney about his plan, Wallace said critics say he is “playing the Obama class war game.”

“Well, we have a progressive tax code right now, and what I'm talking about are pretty significant reductions in tax across the board,” said Romney. “And the reason I'm talking about those marginal tax reductions across the board is to create incentives for small businesses to start growing and hiring again.

“I'm not trying to change the progressivity of the code,” said Romney. “I'm not trying to say that one group or another is going to get a better deal. But what I'm trying to do is to make sure that under no circumstances is the middle class going to end up with a larger share of the tax burden.

“It's absolutely essential to me as a guiding principle that middle income Americans don't get hit with a bigger share of the burden,” said Romney. “That's the point that I'm making and I'm going to make sure that as we add it all up, that the middle income Americans are not getting a bigger burden.”

Wallace then asked Romney about the Wall Street Journal saying it “generally liked your plan" but "says it's the same old Obama class war argument.”

“Well, obviously, I want to make sure that we maintain the progressivity of the code,” said Romney. “And I want to help people who I think have been most hurt by the Obama economy--and that's middle income Americans.

“I'm not looking to change the deal that we have right now with regards to people looking at their share of the tax burden, but what I am looking to do is to lower the marginal rate for all Americans across the board,” said Romney.

“This is a pro-growth policy,” said Romney. “That's why The Wall Street Journal liked it, wrote a very positive editorial about it. That's why I think people look at President Obama's plan, which is calling on raising the marginal rate. That will kill jobs and make it harder for our economy to reboot. So, whatever choice of language I have to use, I want to make sure to get across to the American people, I'm cutting rates across the board by 20 percent and I'm not going to put a bigger burden on middle income Americans.”

During the 1996 presidential campaign, Romney, who was not running for office that year, invested what he said was more than $50,000 of his own money to attack Steve Forbes’s flat tax proposal in full-page newspapers ads in markets reaching Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary voters.

“Romney, the Republican millionaire who ran unsuccessfully against US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy two years ago, said the ads are aimed at voters taking part in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary to convince them that Forbes' plan will unfairly favor the rich,” the Boston Globe reported on Jan. 21, 1996.

"The problem with the Forbes flat tax is that it isn't flat at all--it's a zero tax on the wealthy and a 17 percent tax on working Americans," the Globe quoted Romney as saying. "I'm hoping that by running these ads voters will realize the Forbes flat tax is a gimmick, a phony, and not what it pretends to be."

The ad, which ran in the Boston Sunday Globe, the New Hampshire Sunday News and the Des Moines Register said: “The Forbes tax isn't a flat tax at all--it's a tax cut for fat cats!”

“Romney,” the Boston Globe reported, “said he is paying for the ads with more than $50,000 in personal funds."

obama to Cut Military Healthcare Benefits!!!

Clash of ideals!  It appears obama's disdain for the military (huge cuts in defense spending) and his push for universal healthcare have collided.  The loser?  American vets of course!!!  But take a second look.  Is this a calculated effort to push obamacare?! 

Just how big are these increases?  Over five years military personell would be facing a 345 percent increase in their annual premiums and an additional annual enrollment fee on top of the monthly premium!!!

It's also worth noting, "The massive increases beginning next year appear timed to avoid upsetting military voters while courting labor unions in an election year.  Government unions are the only segment of organized labor that has increased in recent years", so of course in true hypocritical obama fashion, civilian worker's benefits are left unchanged.

Bill Gertz -

Poll: Vast Majority of Likely Voters Think Rich Already Pay Their Fair Share

Washington Free Beacon-

High Gas Prices Part of obama's Plan

President Barack Obama cannot escape the following seven gas-related facts:

1. In September 2008, Barack Obama’s ”Nobel-prize winning physicist” of an Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

2. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama admitted that, like his future Energy Secretary Mr. Chu, he believed that high gas prices would be a good thing because they would force Americans to ween themselves off of oil, but that he would have “prefered a gradual adjustment.”

3. On January 19, 2009, the day before Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, gas prices were $1.84 a gallon. As of February 20, 2012 a gallon of gas cost $3.59.

4. As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson points out, “Offshore drilling permits are being issued at less than half the rate of the previous administration. The average number of leases issued on public lands is less than half than during President Clinton’s term.”

5. In 2008, Barack Obama seemed perfectly comfortable with soaring energy prices if they meant curbing green house gas emissions. As Mr. Obama confessed: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

6. As seen in this video, Obama’s own 2008 campaign rallies actually cheered higher gas prices because they would “force us to think about changing the culture to create more emphasis on mass transportation.” Following the sustained applause, then candidate-Obama proceeded to laud Europe (not unlike his future Energy Secretary Steven Chu) for its rail system.

7. Try as he might, President Obama’s campaign will try to distance themselves from the fact that a central pillar of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign was a pledge to reduce the “pain at the pump” caused by high gas prices. However, videos such as this reveal the extent to which Mr. Obama promised that, if elected, he would bring down the cost of gas for “everyday Americans.”

Missing no opportunity to invoke class warfare, Mr. Obama said: “For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance. But to most Americans, they are a huge problem, bordering on a crisis. Here in Indiana, gas costs $3.60 a gallon.”

That is almost the identical price as gas today, except that gas prices today are the highest they have ever been at this time of year before the summertime gas price spike takes place.

Try as he might, Mr. Obama will not be able to escape these facts. But voters in 2012 should hardly be surprised by the skyrocketing costs of fuel. After all, Mr. Obama telegraphed as much from the start.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

My Story...

I don't fit the stereotype of your upper-class, wealthy Republican. My parents (and extended family) were all very devout Republicans. Many in my family have served in the armed forces including three cousins (Navy), uncle (Vietnam, Navy Seal UDT), and grandpa (WWII Army vet). I grew up in a small town in a large, devout Catholic middle-class family. My mom was a hard working stay-at-home mother of six children with a college degree in nursing. My dad attended trade school and worked several manufacturing jobs after high school. He took over the family oil business (almost 100 years now) and worked hard to start several other small local businesses.

I'm very proud of my parents. My mom taught me the importance of faith and morals. My dad instilled the importance of hard work and pride in accomplishment. The importance of reputation and how easily it could be damaged. My parents are the type of people that never complained about not having as much as someone else. They didn't ask for handouts, instead choosing hard work, dedication, and saving to get ahead in life. My parents have always been very involved in serving others and charity work. They role modeled the importance of "serving others" but made clear that it was WRONG to live off of someone else's hard work or charity if you were capable of doing without or taking care of yourself.

I don't have ties to corporate America but my dad is a small business owner, employing a number of people in the small town I grew up in. He feels the burn of insurance costs on small businesses and the burden is intensified by the cost of his own personal health insurance (family) as type one diabetes was a reality that my family lived with...also known as a "pre-existing condition" to the insurance companies (four family members).

My family was involved with charity work and fundraisers as long as I can remember, but MORALS ALWAYS CAME FIRST. When my parents found out that the money they raised for the Juvenile Diabetic Foundation by putting on an annual charity horse-show each year was being used to fund embryonic stem cell research in an effort to find a cure for diabetes, (which creates a demand or incentive for abortions), they immediately began doing the charity horse show for the Nebraska Chapter of Right to Life. They wanted a cure for my brother and sister, but not at the risk of giving up their morals.

As for myself, I was a member of the Nebraska Chapter of Teens for Life and worked with many charities. My political views tended to be more conservative but naive. My political theories or even moral beliefs had not truly been tested yet. When I went off to college I read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, and Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn and even subscribed to Ad Busters Magazine. I learned it is difficult to avoid the indoctrination that comes at you from all directions at college.

As time went on and I learned more and more about government corruption. I didn't trust government and with the help and guidance of a good friend, I began my crusade against the establishment starting with my local government. First an initiative and referendum petition aimed at removing an overnight parking ban that the city government enacted to profit off of local college students. After city hall violated city codes and state statutes by changing the wording of my petition on the ballot to confuse voters, I demanded the issue be placed on the ballot for the next election "the correct way" as required by law. I called many meetings with the mayor and city council but they refused to budge stating, "You're just a punk college kid, who are you to come in and change OUR laws?"

After the councilman from my ward of the city refused to take my requests seriously, I took out a recall petition to remove him from office. The petition was successful and forced a special election. The councilman took the matter to court to try and stop the election from going forward but the judge decided in my favor.

I became a Notary Public for the state of Nebraska and I also became certified to register voters and went around the campus registering students to vote. My next item on the agenda that I was excited about...a petition to remove the four wards that divide the city. The city adopted the four wards to separate the college from the rest of the city, in an attempt to limit the influence of the college and its students on the city and its government.

I also battled city police and came to the aid of several students on various occasions who had been arrested or ticketed when police entered their residence without warrant. I encouraged students to fight the city police in court. I used my position as an editor on the college paper to keep check of the city police by publishing illegal activities the police were involved in. On more than one occasion, judges in county court sided against the police for overstepping their bounds.

By my senior year of college, I had become jaded with government and authority. I read the teachings of Emma Goldman "The Queen of Anarchy". I read Henry David Thoreau's essays on Civil Disobedience and I engrossed myself with John Stuart Mill's "Essays On Liberty".

I also began to study the United States Constitution more closely, and read The Federalist Papers of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay along with other historical documents on our revolution and Bill of Rights. I delved deeper into US history and read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". I began to see where we came from and why we are where we are today.

I believed and still do today, in what our forefathers intended for us in our Constitution. I began to see just why each Inalienable Right was so important to our freedom and must be protected. I began to see the failures of socialism which I had once embraced. How it eventually falls to the ever-present corruption within the government. How it destroys the incentive to work harder than you have to and how it promotes mediocrity because human nature doesn't drive us to do more than we have to do if we don't have anything to show for it. I adopted the philosophy of "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever."

I began to see that although corporations need to be monitored, it was actually government involvement (crony capitalism) that caused most of the problems. I learned that bigger government is NOT the answer! Forfeiting rights and freedoms to our government is NOT the answer. They are inalienable meaning they weren't given to us by our government so our government can not take them away from us.

I learned that "we the people" do a far better job of taking care of our poor and needy through charity and volunteering than our government does or ever could. That "forced charity" by our government is not the answer!

I moved to California and worked for the San Marcos Chamber of Commerce. I participated on the Government Affairs Committee and the Education Committee. I helped small businesses by joining an Ad-Hoc Committee and PAC set up to battle a slow growth initiative brought forth by a local group of citizens. I helped put together a book on how the city government and school district works in an effort to help educate voters. I learned a lot from my boss at the Chamber who took part in the recall of Governor Gray Davis and the election of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I decided to battle the credit card giants on a little known but illegal practice involving the creation of credit not backed by anything more than a "promise to pay". Credit accounts created by you and I. Making it impossible for the banks to provide requested debit information when credit accounts are created as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

For most that know me, they know how passionate I am about politics and my country. Some might believe that my passion for politics started AFTER my time in college; quite the contrary.

My passion for politics started when I was just seven years old. My earliest memories involve sitting around the living room with family at my grandparents house the Christmas after Kay Orr had just defeated Helen Boosalis to become the first female Governor of Nebraska (first female Republican Governor ever)! I was hooked! During high school I was selected to attend several leadership camps including Christian Leadership Institute and Hugh O'brian Youth Leadership Institute (HOBY). Around my junior year of high school I was selected by my local chapter of The American Legion to be my school's representative to Cornhusker Boys State, where I spent a week learning first hand about our government and how it works. Even working on legislation that could be introduced to our State Legislature and possibly become law. In college I found myself taking political science classes as electives and challenging City Hall with initiative and referendum petitions and recall elections.

After having children and moving back to Nebraska, I continued my career as a marketing director at a large biomedical company in Omaha. Eventually my wife and I decided to serve others by becoming Family Teachers (aka: house parents) at Father Flanagan's Boys Town. We lived with, took care of, and helped over 50 at risk teenagers over the course of 6 years. During my residence at Boys Town I ran for and was elected as a Trustee to the Village of Boys Town. I also started my own company "2-B Associates" in which I acted as the middle man procuring government contracts for civilian businesses. Eventually I took a position in administration with Boys Town and because my evenings and weekends were no longer occupied with work, I once again became involved with local politics. I began work on my Master's degree in Leadership from Bellevue University and I joined the Omaha chapter of the Nebraska Federation of Young Republicans where I was elected to and served on the Executive Committee. I also joined the Douglas Country Republican Party (Omaha) and was elected to the Central Committee to represent my Legislative District. I also serve on the Executive Committee and the Media/Communications and Social Media Teams for the DCRP, and am a member of Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom. I served as a delegate to the Douglas County Republican Convention (2012) and led my caucus (LD10) as caucus chair. I was elected to the State Republican Party's Central Committee (NEGOP), reelected to the County Party's Central Committee, and as a delegate to the Nebraska Republican State Convention (2012).

As for my future plans...stay tuned...tbd... =)

(updated 6/11/2012)

Friday, February 24, 2012

Poll: Millionaire Tax Popular, Spending Cuts Too

 I guess the majority of Americans DO still get it.

Feb 24, 2012 - By ALAN FRAM 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Most people like President Barack Obama's proposal to make millionaires pay a significant share of their incomes in taxes. Yet they'd still rather cut spending than boost taxes to balance the federal budget, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows, giving Republicans an edge over Democrats in their core ideological dispute over the nation's fiscal ills.

The survey suggests that while Obama's election-year tax plan targeting people making at least $1 million a year has won broad support, it has done little to shift people's basic views in the long-running partisan war over how best to tame budget deficits that lately have exceeded $1 trillion annually.

"Everybody should be called to sacrifice. They should be in the pot with the rest of us," Mike Whittles, 62, a Republican and retired police officer from Point Pleasant, N.J., said of his support for Obama's tax proposal for the wealthy. But Whittles said he still prefers cutting government spending over raising taxes because of federal waste and what he calls "too many rules, too many regulations."

Sixty-five percent of the people in the AP-GfK poll favor Obama's plan to require people making $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30 percent of their income. Just 26 percent opposed Obama's idea.

Yet by 56 percent to 31 percent, more embraced cuts in government services than higher taxes as the best medicine for the budget, according to the survey, which was conducted Feb. 16 to 20. That response has changed only modestly since it was first asked in the AP-GfK poll last March. The question on Obama's tax on the rich was not asked previously.

The poll showed that overall, more people have a positive view of Democrats than Republicans, a ray of hope for Obama and his fellow Democrats with the approach of November's presidential and congressional elections. Fifty-four percent in the poll gave Democrats favorable ratings compared to 46 percent for Republicans, similar to results in January 2011, at the start of the newly elected Congress in which Republicans have run the House and Democrats wield a slender Senate majority.

Though embraced by congressional Democrats, Obama's proposal on taxing millionaires more has virtually no chance of passage by Congress in the political heat of this year's campaigns. But it stands as a rallying cry for Democrats - about 9 in 10 of whom supported the plan in the poll - and it contrasts with proposals by the remaining major GOP presidential candidates, who would lower the current 35 percent top income tax rate.

Obama has spent months touting his plan, nicknamed the Buffett rule after Warren Buffett, the billionaire who has complained that the rich don't pay enough taxes and that his own tax rate has been lower than his secretary's. The wealthy Mitt Romney, a leading GOP presidential contender, has released tax returns showing he paid a rate of around 15 percent the past two years.

Illustrating the wide acceptance for Obama's tax proposal for the rich, the poll showed it was supported by nearly two-thirds of independents and 4 in 10 Republicans. It also won backing from 6 in 10 whites and half of conservatives, two groups that traditionally are more likely to support the GOP, as well as by 6 in 10 people earning at least $100,000 a year.
Not everyone supports the idea.

"If their money goes to taxes, how will they afford more employees, better equipment, better vehicles?" said Republican Cheryl Mickler, 31, of Hope Mills, N.C.

As for the differing strategies for deficit reduction, more than three-fourths of Republicans and the largest share of independents preferred cutting government services. Democrats leaned toward tax increases, but by a narrower 49 percent to 38 percent.

Republicans have an 8 percentage point advantage over Democrats in the public's trust for handling budget deficits, essentially unchanged in recent months.

The GOP has the same edge for protecting the country, an issue it usually dominates. Peoples' trust in the two parties is about even for handling the economy, taxes and job creation.

Congress continues to receive dismal reviews from voters. Just 19 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, virtually unchanged from last December. That's not far from Congress' worst-ever approval rate in the brief history of the AP-GfK poll of 12 percent last August, shortly after Obama and lawmakers resolved a stubborn standoff over raising the debt limit.

"We put them there to do their job and they're not doing their job," said Gary Witalison, 54, a residential painter in Fish Creek, Wis. "They're not working things out. Work together."

The AP-GfK poll was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications and involved cell phone and landline interviews with 1,000 randomly chosen adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

Russian Military Buildup (opposite of US)

Good news and bad news on the military budget front. The good news is that the military is now looking at an increase of $770 billion over the next decade. The bad news is that it's the Russian military. On Monday, Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that Russia must modernize its military in order to deter others from grabbing its resources. Putin, who faces a March 4 "election" to regain the Russian presidency, didn't name anyone specific who might have an eye on Russia's vast mineral wealth, though in the past he has accused the U.S. of threatening Russia. In light of what the Obama regime is doing to the U.S. military, he clearly shouldn't worry about that. We suppose he just has to have a bogeyman.

"We mustn't tempt anyone with our weakness," Putin said, using a well known axiom that Obama should take to heart. Reminiscent of the 1960s and 70s, Putin said that over the next decade Russia plans on spending about 23 trillion rubles ($770 billion dollars) for more than 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 600 combat aircraft, dozens of submarines and navy ships, and thousands of armored vehicles. Russia will develop weapons capable of penetrating any potential U.S. missile shield, as well as precision long-range non-nuclear weapons.

Russia's plans contrast with Obama's gutting of the U.S. military, with deep reductions in troops, aircraft, ships and other weapons systems -- all of which is also reminiscent of the 1970s when the second worst president in American history made deep cuts to the U.S. military and sullied the White House for one term. America needs to ensure that the worst president in American history follows that one-term example.

Competing Tax Visions (obama vs. Republicans)

Patriot Post - The Foundation - February 24, 2012

"Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson

The tax proposals of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney serve as alternative visions for the nation. Obama's stifles growth through higher rates on the productive and pays lip service to "fairness" and "fiscal responsibility." Romney's enables growth and builds upon the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. While Romney should have gone further, his plan is far preferable to Obama's.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. The Leftmedia trumpet Obama's plan to cut the corporate rate from 35 percent to 28 percent -- still above the world's average rate of 25. Yet his plan would merely move the U.S. from the second highest corporate rate in the world to the fourth highest -- with fewer deductions and new penalties to boot. For example, Obama would require for the first time that U.S. companies pay a minimum tax rate on any foreign earnings. His plan also distorts the playing field by favoring some industries over others he doesn't like. Overall, the administration says that American businesses would pay $250 billion more in taxes. It's important to note, however, that corporations don't pay corporate taxes; consumers and employees do through higher prices and lower wages.

By comparison, The Wall Street Journal reports, "All the Republican presidential candidates have called for lower corporate tax rates. Mitt Romney proposes reducing the top rate to 25%. Rick Santorum proposes a 17.5% general corporate tax rate and zero rate on manufacturers. Ron Paul proposes 15% and Newt Gingrich 12.5%."

The real economy crusher, however, could be Obama's proposal to raise the tax on dividends from 15 percent to a staggering 44.8 percent. This money is first taxed as profit at the corporate rate before it can be paid in dividends, making the effective tax rate on this money more than 64 percent. Also, by tripling the dividend rate, many corporations will simply stop paying dividends as they did in the 1990s when the rate was roughly twice that on capital gains. Republicans cut both rates to 15 percent in 2003, and by 2006 dividend income had more than tripled. Obama's plan wouldn't just hurt the "rich," as the White House would lead us to believe. More than 100 million people are shareholders in the market, and three-quarters of dividend payments go to retirees or near-retirees. These tax increases would make everyone poorer.

Romney's tax plan is quite different. It has five points: reduce marginal individual income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent; reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent; maintain the 15 percent rate on capital gains, interest and dividends for those earning more than $200,000 per year, while eliminating it for everyone else; abolish the death tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax; make the changes permanent, thus bringing much-needed stability to the tax code.

There is good and bad to his proposal. The bad is that Romney is still somewhat bound to the classism of the Democrats. For example, why play by their rules with capital gains or five individual rates? It's good that lower rates apply to everyone, though. The current top individual rate of 35 percent, which is set to skyrocket in 2013 to 41 percent (including the Democrats' surtax on the wealthy), would fall to 28 percent, the 33 percent rate to 26.4 percent, the 28 percent rate to 22.4 percent, the 25 percent rate to 20 percent, the 15 percent rate to 12 percent, and the 10 percent rate to 8 percent. Marginal rate cuts are by far the most economically effective tax cuts, but we would like to see fewer and even lower rates. The corporate rate should go lower, too. Flat or Fair tax, anyone?
Permanently eliminating the estate, or "death," tax -- often at least the third time that money is taxed -- is a great idea, as is casting the Alternative Minimum Tax on the ash heap of history. Also, making these changes permanent could do as much good for the economy as the rates themselves. As an aside, the proposal is good for Romney's candidacy because it gives him something to campaign for instead of merely citing his biography or attacking his opponents.

For the electorate, the competing tax visions provide a clear choice. As Ronald Reagan once put it, "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down." Obama, with his wealth redistribution and class envy, advocates the way down. Romney's proposal, while far from perfect, provides a way up to greater prosperity for all.

Iranian Scientist 'Sought Israel's Annihilation,' Says Widow

Semi-official Iranian news agency interviews widow of Mostafa Roshan – leaving no doubt as to nuclear program's goal.

By Gil Ronen - 2/22/2012

The wife of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated in Tehran in January, said Tuesday that her husband "sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly," according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency.

"Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," the agency quoted Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani as saying Tuesday.

Bolouri Kashani also underlined that her spouse "loved any resistance figure in his life who was willing to fight the Zionist regime and supported the rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation."

The report belies attempts by Iran to claim that its nuclear program is not military in nature.

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan is described as "a chemistry professor and a deputy director of commerce at Natanz uranium enrichment facility."

Fars says he was killed by Mossad agents, who used a method of attack similar to that used against Iranian nuclear scientist Massoud Ali Mohammadi in January 2010, as well as scientists Fereidoun Abbassi Davani and Majid Shahriari. Abbasi Davani survived the attack, but Shahriari died. Yet another Iranian scientist, Dariush Rezaeinejad, was assassinated by the same method in July of 2011.

Formerly Secret Telexes Reveal Iran’s Early Use of Deceit in Nuclear Program

By , Published: February 22

The reason for the unusual purchase — 220 pounds of highly caustic fluorine gas — was never explained, but someone at Iran’s Sharif University was clearly anxious to collect. For months, the mysterious buyer bombarded a British supply company with telexes, demanding to know when his 45 canisters would arrive.

“We have not received your reply,” complained one telex, sent from the Tehran school’s purchasing department and written partly in broken English. “We are awaiting for hearing from you as soon as possible.”

But the telex, sent in 1992 and made public here for the first time, was not what it seemed. The real purchaser was not a university but a secretive research institute working for Iran’s military. The fluorine gas, investigators later concluded, was to be blended with uranium in a nuclear program that would remain hidden for 10 more years.

The document is part a trove of 1,600 formerly secret telexes obtained by nuclear researchers seeking to unearth the early history of Iran’s clandestine pursuit of nuclear technology. While nearly two decades old, the records offer an unusually detailed glimpse into Iran’s alleged efforts to defy sanctions to obtain sensitive technology — tactics that intelligence officials say continue even now.

Experts who studied the documents say they were struck by patterns of behavior that began early in the program and involved some of the same individuals who run the country’s nuclear efforts today, under the oversight of the same supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who came to power in 1989. The telexes and other records show Iranians using subterfuge and deception to obtain the parts they needed, and afterward issuing vigorous denials to U.N. nuclear officials, even when confronted with evidence.

“They stick with absolutist lines, and it makes it harder to trust them,” said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector who obtained the documents and provided a sampling of several dozen copies to The Washington Post.

Iran’s history of concealment and deceit has become more relevant now because of concerns that it is nearing a critical phase in its ability to develop an atomic bomb. Although the government has consistently denied ever seeking nuclear weapons, inspectors have struggled to understand why the Iranians have sought to hide their activities if their nuclear program is, as they contend, solely for peaceful energy production.

A team of technical experts from the the International Atomic Energy Agency traveled to Iran this week to pressure Iranian officials to come clean about past nuclear activities, including alleged research on building nuclear warheads. But the trip ended in failure, with IAEA officials being barred from a key military testing facility.

Iran has repeatedly dismissed suspicious documents about past nuclear work as forgeries. State-backed news media have compared the allegations about an arms program to the unfounded suspicions that Iraq had obtained nuclear weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The documents obtained by the nuclear researchers are similar to telexes seen by inspectors, according to Olli Heinonen, who served as the IAEA’s nuclear safeguards chief until 2005. Heinonen said inspection attempts have faced not only evasive answers but also increased levels of official obstruction.

“Deceit and deception have been a regrettable part of the process,” he said.

The telexes, which cover a period from the late 1980s through the early 1990s, come from a time when Iran was first beginning in earnest to assemble and test components for a uranium enrichment plant. By then, Iranian leaders were already committed to expanding the ambitious nuclear program begun under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and accelerated near the end of the country’s disastrous, eight-year war with Iraq.

Iranian officials obtained blueprints for gas centrifuges — the machines used to make enriched uranium — from Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and then set about secretly acquiring the equipment they needed from Western companies.

Intelligence agencies routinely intercepted the orders and analyzed them for clues to Iran’s true intentions. Hundreds of the documents were quietly shared among governments as well as with IAEA officials who had access to Iranian facilities and could directly confront Iranian leaders about the purchases. Albright, the nuclear expert, said a Western source provided a large trove of the telexes to his organization, the Institute for Science and International Security, which collects and analyzes data about nuclear weapons programs.

An analysis of the telexes by ISIS highlights the hidden role played by Iran’s Physics Research Center, or PHRC, a now-defunct institute that served as a scientific arm of Iran’s military. U.S. intelligence officials believe the PHRC drove Iran’s secret nuclear research program during its first decade, after which its responsibilities were divided among other institutions. In 2004, when U.N. inspectors asked to visit the PHRC’s former headquarters, Iranian officials razed the building and even scraped away the topsoil around the front lawn.

The telexes confirm what IAEA officials believe was a lavish, global shopping spree that continued throughout the 1990s and beyond. Besides the fluorine gas, Iranian officials ordered mass spectrometers, crucial for analyzing the enrichment level of uranium hexafluoride gas, as well as highly specialized types of motors, pumps, valves and transducers used in manufacturing gas centrifuges.

“The fact that so many items are of the type used in centrifuges, and organized under one specific heading, stands out in the data,” ISIS said in a report analyzing the documents.

Privately, Iranian leaders have responded to evidence of duplicity and deceit by blaming the West, saying the United States and its allies unfairly sought to block Iran from its rightful pursuit of nuclear technology, said George Perkovich, a nuclear expert who has met with senior Iranian officials responsible for the country’s nuclear policy.

“The only way they could get what they need is to keep things secret and use duplicity,” said Perkovich, director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Iranian view, he said, is “if we didn’t use these tricks, we wouldn’t get the technology we needed, and to which we have a right.”

Many of the telexes were ostensibly orders from Sharif University of Technology, a prestigious school in the Iranian capital. Yet, the fax number and post office box on the return address belonged to the PHRC, ISIS said in its analysis. An Iranian scientist who headed the military research center, Abbas Shahmoradi-Zavareh, also kept an office at Sharif University. The president of Sharif University at the time was Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s current foreign minister and the one-time head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

One series of telexes that apparently raised eyebrows at spy agencies involved an attempt by Iran to obtain tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in gas centrifuges. Fearing perhaps that some of its efforts would be thwarted, Iranian officials sent requests to multiple companies at once, asking for as many as 30,000 magnets made from unusual alloys and cut to precise dimensions.

“Snd us a few samples for testing,” one order, written in the typical abbreviated English used by telex operators, began. “We are looking forward to yr early rply.”

It is clear from the telex exchanges that many of the orders were filled, though in some cases the Iranians were turned down when European company managers became suspicious that the purchase was intended for a nuclear program.

Some of the recipients of telexes forwarded the requests to their governments; others who sold goods to Iran would later contend that they were unaware of Iran’s true plans for the materials. Many items sought by Iran were considered “dual-use” — having both military and peaceful applications — and were not banned at the time.

One official for a German manufacturer of mass spectrometers warned the Iranians in a telex to be careful, saying he could get in trouble if government regulators suspected the parts had a nuclear purpose.

“The purchaser can appear only to be a civilian institution, not military or government,” he cautioned.

The request for fluorine gas was also turned aside, at least temporarily. In February 1992, the British firm that had so frustrated the Iranians with its slow response finally wrote to say that the fluorine canisters would not be shipped. The British government’s export office had denied an export license for the gas, a company official explained.

“As you will appreciate, this decision was outside our control,” the telex read. “We look forward to being of assistance on the future supply of other materials.”

Exclusive: State Department Quietly Warning Region on Syrian WMDs

My first issue with this breaking story has to do with the definition of WMD's.  It appears Hillary Clinton and the State Department have no problem referring to Syria's chemical weapons program, (which includes mustard gas and sophisticated nerve agents, such as sarin gas, as well as biological weapons) as WMD's.  How then, are the democrats able to claim that no WMD's were discovered in Iraq?  The whole world knows of Saddam's mustard gas that he employed on the genocide of Kurds in Northern Iraq.  We also know that missiles with XV nerve and sarin gas were discovered in Iraq.  Typical liberal rationalization if you ask me. 

For a look at items discovered in Iraq, refer back to comments on my post from May of 2005: "Was The War Justified?!"

As for the issue at hand.  My opinion is the same as it was on the issue of the war in Iraq!  Innocent people are being slaughtered by a tyrant.  They do not have the ability to defend themselves.  WE DO!!!  Evil flourishes when good men do nothing, and it is morally wrong to sit back and do nothing when we have the capability to stop this.  Instead, obama sits back on his haunches waiting for someone else to make the first move (just like the Iran/Israel saga), until this turns into another Rwanda and all there is left for us to do is to look back and say once again, "Never again!"

By Josh Rogin