“WE NOTICED”
This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett’s widow……..
“WE NOTICED”
President Obama:
Today I read of your administration ‘ s plan to re-define September 11 th as a National Service Day.
Sir, it’s time we had a talk………
During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.
YES, “We noticed.”
During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say you intended to visit all 57 states.
We all know that Islam, not America , has 57 states.
YES, “We noticed.”
When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.
YES, “We noticed.”
Every time you apologized to other countries for America ’s position on an issue we have wondered why you don’t share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us . In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.
YES, “We noticed.”
When your pastor of 20 years, “God-damned America , ” and said that 9/11 was ” America ’s chickens coming home to roost , “ and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so. (Since the inauguration, Jeremiah Wright has been your guest at the White House at least six times.)
YES, “We noticed.”
When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, “if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn’t be sitting in the White House now.” Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.
YES, “We noticed.”
All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions
YES, “We noticed.”
You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care / insurance ”reform” package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.
YES, “We noticed.”
We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled “un-American”, “racist”, “mob . ” We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your inauguration, Americans always had the right to speak out.
YES, “We noticed.”
On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.
And YES, “We noticed.”
There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.
YES, “We noticed.”
September 11 th is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a “National Service Day . ” While we know that you don’t share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is … a disgrace.
YES, “We noticed.”
You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.
YES, “We noticed.”
We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.
Take notice.
Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”
Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.
Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.
Written by: Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights
Get Ready for the U.S. Census Fight, Chicago-Style
![[Rahm+Emanuel+--+With+Obama.jpg]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejogZw/SY34TPp4KsI/AAAAAAAACJU/j-AyWxdXjYo/s1600/Rahm%2BEmanuel%2B--%2BWith%2BObama.jpg)
(FROM: The Washington Post) Typically, responsibility for the U.S. Census has fallen into the hands of the Commerce Department. Now, because of questions into Commerce Secretary-designate Judd Gregg’s commitment to funding the census raised by minority groups, the White House has taken over the whole deal (gee, does ACORN do census-taking, too, or are they just limited to voter fraud?). Now, the idea behind the census, as set in our Constitution, is that the whole process should be as far removed from political winds as possible. That’s how our founders wanted it, and that’s why it has been under the scope of Commerce. Here, however, we have it now presumably in Rahm Emanuel’s portfolio, and along with it all of the downhill consequences which stem from the census at the start of each decade — including apportionment when it comes to federal spending, as well as the reapportionment and re-drawing of congressional districts from coast to coast. While politicization of redistricting maneuvers is hardly anything new, the hijacked responsibility for the 2010 Census seems a little scary to me nonetheless.
No American Should be Scared Living in America – Until Now!
America, what is happening?
Our founding fathers knew what was needed to establish the foundation that would create the greatest nation on earth. The founding fathers were passionate about their dedication towards a young America. They put in place the greatest constitution ever to be penned, and America became the greatest nation on earth following the passion they scribed.
The authors of our great constitution knew firsthand the obstacles that plagued the countries of the “old” world and focused on what was good for America when they wrote our constitution. Century old countries had a history of selfish governments that focused on self interests rather than what was right for the people. Knowing this, they created a system of checks and balances that would allow collective growth while protecting against individual interests…until now.
What has happened?
Over time our country has been infiltrated with self interest individuals who seek personal power at the expess of the country as a whole. As time has gone on, individual power spread to create party power; power of the political party became the focus again at the expense of the country as a whole.
We have seen this gradually becoming the norm. Individuals within the government appear not tobe proud to be an American, but rather they become proud to be of a specific political party. The days of what is best for America have sunken to the level of what is best for our political party; again at the expense of the American people.
The American people have also be snatched up in this web of selfishness. People now are more concerned with what’s best for the “party” than what might be best for America. Their associations appear more towoards their party affiliation than their association for being American; so much that hatred is now being spewed out of the mouths of many who place “party” over being American. They have become Democrat or Republican first, American second…at least that is how it appears.
The parties themselves have become small countries within a country. Hatred towards opposing party has become vicious. The effort to promote their party ideologies have been replaced with effort to destroy the opposing party – at any expense. Although occurring in both major parties, the mass majority of hatred and destructive effort seems to be greater within the Democratic party, and the American people have been suckered into the war and has lost focus.
People will usually mimic their leaders, good or bad. When a people become selfish and the leaders play into the selfishness for political gains, America as a whole suffers. Selfish politicians will use smoke screens that will create the appearance of caring government, while using the misguided allegiance as an avenue of power. It is like cancer that feeds upon itself. Selfish politicians want power so they cater to a selfish person or group. Using smoke screens to create the appearance that they care, they gain popularity of the people or groups. As the group grows, so does the power of the selfish politician/party.
Rather than promote hard work and enthusiasm, let’s give more to those who have not – this creates dependency on government and the party that supports socialism gains in strength and numbers.
And it all sounds so righteous.
And today we are faced with this delema. Socialism is knocking on our door. Selfishness and the desire for power has taken us to this point. We have an individual whom we know very little about, but know an enormous amount in their personal life – but people are so selfish they only care about “what’s in it for me”.
Individual selfishness, individual power and individual gains have replaced the American Dream. The dream our forefathers had when they penned the constitution. The dream to make America the greatest nation on earth was achieved but personal interest overcame that achievement, and we are now facing a questionable future.
I strongly recommend you watch this video clip CLICK HERE
I am an optimist, but I am very concerned and worried what tomorrow may bring.
Think America – think hard!
The NYTimes would like you to know how bad we are!
While sipping my coffee this Sunday morning, spending time before I would be leaving to go to church, I came across an article that hit a nerve.
Here is an excerpt:
“Eight years ago, Mr. Jiménez, 35, an illegal immigrant working as a gardener in Stuart, Fla., suffered devastating injuries in a car crash with a drunken Floridian. A community hospital saved his life, twice, and, after failing to find a rehabilitation center willing to accept an uninsured patient, kept him as a ward for years at a cost of $1.5 million.”
The article, posted in the NYTimes web site, talks about the poor individuals who appear to be deported by hospitals, making this look like a mission by many hospitals to deprive individuals proper care. These individuals are illegal immigrants. The NYTimes, in my opinion would like to make the hospitals look like the villian and the illegals look like the victims.
There once was a time when the people of the USA stood up for what was right and just. Looking out for each other first, as a family looks out for each other before worrying about the family in the next town over. In other words, as compassionate as we are for those who might be less fortunate, we always looked out for our family first. This is not the tone of today’s society, at least in the liberal arena where socialism pushed heavily.
I care for all people of the world, but first and utmost I care for my family, my town, my state and my country. I cannot be a provider for the world if I cannot be a provider for for my family.
America is constantly whining about increased health care costs and health care coverage for all people, but does this include free coverage for illegal immigrants and others who come here to sponge off of the American system? I say adamantly NO! How can we expect the health care system foot the bill for those who cannot and do not pay? Sure, I am in favor of the health care system providing emergency care for all people; which in fact they do, but to provide for ALL care? Absolutely not.
I believe the NYTimes should extend the helping hand. Instead of spinning the story and making the less fortunate victims (illegal immigrants and such) , I propose they themselves take their hard earned dollars and subsidize the health care of those who cannot afford it….INSTEAD implying it is the responsibility of the health care system to provide long term care for those who cannot pay.
How about the NYtimes providing free newspapers for all Americans and illegal immigrants? I think they should. They want everyone to know the problems of this country (even if fabricated by their reporters). If it is so important for them to degrade our country and feel it is so important to report such stories, then they should become a free paper!
If someone loses their job and cannot afford to pay the subscription price of their trashy paper, will they provide it free? Of course not. They would be out of business very fast – but then again, it is ok for the hospital to provide free care.
The truth of the matter is, the NYTimes WANTS the healthcare system to fail. That way, socialism could jump in and take over all health care in this country. That is right up their alley – one step closer to a socialized society – communism.
The liberal left is praying for such a failure. Create unwarranted sympathy for the victim at the expense of others.
Read the story and then tell me how I am wrong…..
Read the story here: Immigrants Deported by US Hospitals
