A man claiming to be a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, called for a press conference on Climate Change, only he was not with the COC, he was a fraud. The real representative of the COC showed up and disrupted the event and exposed the deception. However, if the real representative would not have shown up the so-called mainstream media were so gullible they would have ran with the story.
Rick Sanchez of CNN, the so-called mainstream media gave credence to this fraud by granting him an interview. The frauds name is supposedly Andy Bickelbaum, aka. Hengo Sembra of the Yes Men and is a proponent of Climate Change and says it is human caused.
Sanchez stated there is a lot of political pressure on this President from the right on climate change. He continued stating, “People deny global warming is even happening.” So, Sanchez believes it. Although, there are scientists that have debunked the theory of man made global warming. Let’s not be objective and interview a real scientist that opposes the theory of man-made climate change. After all CNN is supposed to be a news organization.
The Climate Change hype just like this fake representative is a HOAX. Cap and Trade legislation and the Climate Change summit in Copenhagen and subsequent Treaty they want Obama to sign are not in the best interest of America. These fools that believe we are destroying the planet want to punish us for our prosperity calling it “Social Justice.” There are scientists who have debunked the theory of man made global warming, but no one is listening because it is all about the money. People and corporations pushing this legislation are making green by going green.
Unfortunately, President Barack Hussein Obama is a proponent of climate change legislation and he will likely sign the treaty. Under this treaty the U.S. will lose it’s sovereignty and our energy costs will increase. The treaty will have to be ratified by the Senate and hopefully for the sake of this country they will do the right thing and oppose it.
Greg Zotta
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Obama, the Troops Are In Harms Way
During a visit to a Naval Air Station in Jacksonville on 10/26/09, regarding troops being sent to Afghanistan, President Barack Hussein Obama said, "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary."
President Obama this is your war. General Stan McChrystal, whom you put in charge, has requested additional troops. After McChrystal made a comment to the press you finally found the time to speak with him for about 30 minutes. I believe you were chastising him for his comments to the press. You gave more time to Obermann and Maddow than you gave to the General.
Now, you've been flying across the country doing fundraisers. I'm sure you are reimbursing the taxpayers from your campaign fund! You have delayed sending the troops because you say you won't risk the lives of the additional troops unless it is absolutely necessary. Hey, there are troops over there now and they are dying. The General needs more troops to support and defend the soldiers that are there. Excuse me, I don’t want to interrupt your partying/campaigning, but my suggestion would be to give the General what he needs, because you should assume he knows what he is doing. After all you are not only the Community Organizer in Chief, but also the Commander in Chief.
Greg Zotta
President Obama this is your war. General Stan McChrystal, whom you put in charge, has requested additional troops. After McChrystal made a comment to the press you finally found the time to speak with him for about 30 minutes. I believe you were chastising him for his comments to the press. You gave more time to Obermann and Maddow than you gave to the General.
Now, you've been flying across the country doing fundraisers. I'm sure you are reimbursing the taxpayers from your campaign fund! You have delayed sending the troops because you say you won't risk the lives of the additional troops unless it is absolutely necessary. Hey, there are troops over there now and they are dying. The General needs more troops to support and defend the soldiers that are there. Excuse me, I don’t want to interrupt your partying/campaigning, but my suggestion would be to give the General what he needs, because you should assume he knows what he is doing. After all you are not only the Community Organizer in Chief, but also the Commander in Chief.
Greg Zotta
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Journalism is Dead, 1st Amendment Under Attack
President Barack Hussein Obama stated he was open to the idea of bailing out the newspapers with government funds. This is not a good idea.
Obama said he is a "big newspaper junkie", and that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but he also expressed concern about blogging:
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."
Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks in her parting column on April 9,2009 wrote,"Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off. I can't imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed."
When the news media is controled by the government, all you will get is “propaganda.” Wouldn’t that be more dangerous?
Obama is concerned about bloggers not fact-checking their stories implying the so-called mainstream media does. Let’s see, Rick Sanchez of CNN and David Shuster of MSNBC, put out an erroneous story about Rush Limbaugh without verifying the facts. After the damage was done Sanchez apologized for putting out a story that was not verified.
Thanks Rick, for somewhat admitting that you LIE & after the damage is done you apologize for it. CNN is not BIASED in ANYWAY This so-called news organization fact checks a skit from SNL a comedy show because it was about Obama.
Shuster, on the other hand did not apologize, but stated the erroneous story was not verified, implying that he believed the LIES to be true. This coming from a man that made disparaging remarks about the protestors calling the “tea-baggers,” using sexual innuendo. He also had to apologize for remarks he made about Chelsea Clinton. This PUTZ works for MSNBC, the company run by Jeffrey Immelt, and it is not BIASED, NO!!!
A man claiming to be a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, called for a press conference on Climate Change, only he was not with the COC, he was a fraud. The real representative of the COC showed up and disrupted the event and exposed the deception. However, if the real representative would not have shown up the so-called mainstream media were so gullible they would have ran with the story.
The first amendment states; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Obama Administration has shut out Fox News claiming they are not a real news organization. Although, Fox News did break the ACORN story and exposed the radical Czars in the Whitehouse.
Obama said he was going to be transparent, unfortunately he does not know the meaning of the word. He does not want to address any tough questions because he wants to put through his Marxists policies. Obama believes in clearing the path of opposition and has and makes enemy’s lists like Fox news, COC, insurance, oil & car companies, doctors etc; after all it's the Chicago Way.
What the Obama Administration and the Democrat/Socialist Party are doing is not in the best interest of this country and the regulation and legislation they are proposing are attacks on our freedoms. If the Government controls the newspapers they will control the content. How objective would the papers be if the government was cutting the checks? The news media is supposed to be objective and be the watchdogs over government.The attacks on the First Amendment are as follows:
Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed legislation in March that would allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt nonprofits as long as they don't endorse political candidates.
The FCC wants to pass Net Neutrality that will eventually give the government power over content of the internet.
The Cyber Security Act of 2009, gives the government the power to shut down the internet and cell phones in case of an emergency.
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd will regulate content on the radio. He apparently will decide what is acceptable over the airwaves, and fine the stations 100% of the operating budget if he deems the content not “diverse” enough. Sounds like the “Fairness Doctrine” repackaged to me and it’s meant to stifle conservative speech.
“Diversity” czar, Mark Lloyd stated his view on the First Amendment is, “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press…This freedom is all too often an exaggeration…At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.” These Democrats/Socialists believe in free speech as long as you’re saying what they believe and want to hear. People need to stand up, contact their representatives and oppose these attacks on our freedoms.
Greg Zotta
Obama said he is a "big newspaper junkie", and that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but he also expressed concern about blogging:
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."
Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks in her parting column on April 9,2009 wrote,"Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off. I can't imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed."
When the news media is controled by the government, all you will get is “propaganda.” Wouldn’t that be more dangerous?
Obama is concerned about bloggers not fact-checking their stories implying the so-called mainstream media does. Let’s see, Rick Sanchez of CNN and David Shuster of MSNBC, put out an erroneous story about Rush Limbaugh without verifying the facts. After the damage was done Sanchez apologized for putting out a story that was not verified.
Thanks Rick, for somewhat admitting that you LIE & after the damage is done you apologize for it. CNN is not BIASED in ANYWAY This so-called news organization fact checks a skit from SNL a comedy show because it was about Obama.
Shuster, on the other hand did not apologize, but stated the erroneous story was not verified, implying that he believed the LIES to be true. This coming from a man that made disparaging remarks about the protestors calling the “tea-baggers,” using sexual innuendo. He also had to apologize for remarks he made about Chelsea Clinton. This PUTZ works for MSNBC, the company run by Jeffrey Immelt, and it is not BIASED, NO!!!
A man claiming to be a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, called for a press conference on Climate Change, only he was not with the COC, he was a fraud. The real representative of the COC showed up and disrupted the event and exposed the deception. However, if the real representative would not have shown up the so-called mainstream media were so gullible they would have ran with the story.
The first amendment states; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Obama Administration has shut out Fox News claiming they are not a real news organization. Although, Fox News did break the ACORN story and exposed the radical Czars in the Whitehouse.
Obama said he was going to be transparent, unfortunately he does not know the meaning of the word. He does not want to address any tough questions because he wants to put through his Marxists policies. Obama believes in clearing the path of opposition and has and makes enemy’s lists like Fox news, COC, insurance, oil & car companies, doctors etc; after all it's the Chicago Way.
What the Obama Administration and the Democrat/Socialist Party are doing is not in the best interest of this country and the regulation and legislation they are proposing are attacks on our freedoms. If the Government controls the newspapers they will control the content. How objective would the papers be if the government was cutting the checks? The news media is supposed to be objective and be the watchdogs over government.The attacks on the First Amendment are as follows:
Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed legislation in March that would allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt nonprofits as long as they don't endorse political candidates.
The FCC wants to pass Net Neutrality that will eventually give the government power over content of the internet.
The Cyber Security Act of 2009, gives the government the power to shut down the internet and cell phones in case of an emergency.
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd will regulate content on the radio. He apparently will decide what is acceptable over the airwaves, and fine the stations 100% of the operating budget if he deems the content not “diverse” enough. Sounds like the “Fairness Doctrine” repackaged to me and it’s meant to stifle conservative speech.
“Diversity” czar, Mark Lloyd stated his view on the First Amendment is, “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press…This freedom is all too often an exaggeration…At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.” These Democrats/Socialists believe in free speech as long as you’re saying what they believe and want to hear. People need to stand up, contact their representatives and oppose these attacks on our freedoms.
Greg Zotta
Monday, October 19, 2009
Goofy Gordon Brown & 50 Days to Save the World
Goofy Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, stated climate change is killing 300,000 people a year, and we only have 50 DAYS to save the world. This clown is talking about the global warming summit in Copenhagen this December. He is encouraging President Barack Hussein Obama to sign the treaty on Global Warming, because he says the world needs America’s support.
He stated the International Community must take the lead in addressing climate change. He stated 98% of those affected by climate change live in the poorest countries, yet they contribute to 8% of the emissions. “This is the great injustice of climate change, those being hit the first and hardest by climate change are those who have done the least to cause it.”
Man made global warming is a hoax, being sold to the American people by snake oil salesmen. There are scientists who have debunked the theory of man made global warming, but no one is listening because it is all about the money and control. The corporations that are pushing for it are making money from it. They are making green from going green.
America is the greatest country in the world. When there is a crisis, the world looks to the United States for help. Now people like Gordon Brown wants to punish this country because they envy our lifestyle and success. Instead of helping those countries come up to America’s standards Brown’s answer is to reduce America to a Third World Status.
Unfortunately, Obama is a proponent of climate change legislation and he will likely sign the treaty. The treaty will have to be ratified by the Senate and hopefully for the sake of this country they will do the right thing and oppose it.
Greg Zotta
He stated the International Community must take the lead in addressing climate change. He stated 98% of those affected by climate change live in the poorest countries, yet they contribute to 8% of the emissions. “This is the great injustice of climate change, those being hit the first and hardest by climate change are those who have done the least to cause it.”
Man made global warming is a hoax, being sold to the American people by snake oil salesmen. There are scientists who have debunked the theory of man made global warming, but no one is listening because it is all about the money and control. The corporations that are pushing for it are making money from it. They are making green from going green.
America is the greatest country in the world. When there is a crisis, the world looks to the United States for help. Now people like Gordon Brown wants to punish this country because they envy our lifestyle and success. Instead of helping those countries come up to America’s standards Brown’s answer is to reduce America to a Third World Status.
Unfortunately, Obama is a proponent of climate change legislation and he will likely sign the treaty. The treaty will have to be ratified by the Senate and hopefully for the sake of this country they will do the right thing and oppose it.
Greg Zotta
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Geraldo and Rush Limbaugh
Geraldo, on his show, was gleefully talking about Rush Limbaugh being removed from the group wanting to purchase the St. Louis Rams. He stated Rush’s comments were too divisive that the group no longer wanted him. He had on his show Mike Huckabee and Al Sharpton, but did not have Rush on the show, nor did he say he tried to contact him for his comments on the subject.
Sharpton said he was going to sue Rush Limbaugh for comments he made in an op-ed piece regarding Sharpton playing a role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot and the 1995 Freddie’s Fashion Mart riot. Sharpton denied any involvement in the incidents and Geraldo did not question him further.
Huckabee joked that he and Al should try to get a team.
Geraldo then brought on Trent Lott the former Majority Leader of the Senate for his opinion on the subject. Perhaps he thought Trent could sort of speak for Rush because of what happened to him. There was a 100th birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond that Trent Lott attended and he made the following statement:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Jesse Jackson and Al Gore said the comment was racist and Jackson called for Lott’s resignation and Gore called for his censure. He was accused of being a racist because Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist. Even though Trent would have been 7 years old when Thurmond ran for the Presidency and he might not have known that Thurmond ran as a segregationist. I believe Obama’s excuse regarding Bill Ayers was he was only nine years old when Ayers was doing his terrorist acts.
Lott was trying to be a nice guy and say kind things about Thurmond who was retiring from the Senate. Lott apologized stating "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement." Nevertheless, Trent Lott was pressured to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate on December 20, 2002.
Trent Lott believed Rush should have been able to participate in the purchase of the Rams. However, he stated his comments about Donovan McNabb were divisive and he probably should not have said them. Trent, the comments he made about McNabb were true; the media were hyping him just as they have done for Obama.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the race hustling extortionists, began to put pressure on Dave Checketts who could not take the pressure and forced Rush out of the group.
Jackson and Sharpton pressured Lott to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate, pressured Don Imus to be fired and now pressured Checketts from dropping Limbaugh from the group. Not to mention the numerous corporations that pays them to keep from being harassed and picketed by their groups.
They call themselves Reverends but where is their church? What seminary or school did they go to become Reverends? I believe they do it for tax-exempt status. Sharpton and Jackson are the ones that are divisive and do nothing but exacerbate the problem of race relations in this country. Geraldo, O’Reilley and other news shows lend credence to these two charlatans by giving them a forum to speak. When are people and corporations going to wake up and stop giving in to the Sharpton’s and Jackson’s of the world?
Geraldo says that 68% of the NFL is African-American. I believe Geraldo is in favor of affirmative action, therefore since blacks make up 12% of the population the NFL should reduce the number of black players to reflect the population.
Geraldo, I believe you call yourself a journalist, so why didn’t you get both sides of the story? Why did you not seek a comment from Rush? Could it be that you did not ask for Rush’s side of the story because you are an Obamamaniac and Rush strongly opposes his Marxists policies? Could it be that you are for open borders and amnesty regarding illegal immigrants and Rush, like so many other Americans, believe in legal immigration, but oppose amnesty and want the illegal immigrants to be deported? Geraldo, how can you be in favor of illegal immigrants being in this country when it is akin to slavery?
Greg Zotta
Sharpton said he was going to sue Rush Limbaugh for comments he made in an op-ed piece regarding Sharpton playing a role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot and the 1995 Freddie’s Fashion Mart riot. Sharpton denied any involvement in the incidents and Geraldo did not question him further.
Huckabee joked that he and Al should try to get a team.
Geraldo then brought on Trent Lott the former Majority Leader of the Senate for his opinion on the subject. Perhaps he thought Trent could sort of speak for Rush because of what happened to him. There was a 100th birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond that Trent Lott attended and he made the following statement:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Jesse Jackson and Al Gore said the comment was racist and Jackson called for Lott’s resignation and Gore called for his censure. He was accused of being a racist because Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist. Even though Trent would have been 7 years old when Thurmond ran for the Presidency and he might not have known that Thurmond ran as a segregationist. I believe Obama’s excuse regarding Bill Ayers was he was only nine years old when Ayers was doing his terrorist acts.
Lott was trying to be a nice guy and say kind things about Thurmond who was retiring from the Senate. Lott apologized stating "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement." Nevertheless, Trent Lott was pressured to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate on December 20, 2002.
Trent Lott believed Rush should have been able to participate in the purchase of the Rams. However, he stated his comments about Donovan McNabb were divisive and he probably should not have said them. Trent, the comments he made about McNabb were true; the media were hyping him just as they have done for Obama.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the race hustling extortionists, began to put pressure on Dave Checketts who could not take the pressure and forced Rush out of the group.
Jackson and Sharpton pressured Lott to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate, pressured Don Imus to be fired and now pressured Checketts from dropping Limbaugh from the group. Not to mention the numerous corporations that pays them to keep from being harassed and picketed by their groups.
They call themselves Reverends but where is their church? What seminary or school did they go to become Reverends? I believe they do it for tax-exempt status. Sharpton and Jackson are the ones that are divisive and do nothing but exacerbate the problem of race relations in this country. Geraldo, O’Reilley and other news shows lend credence to these two charlatans by giving them a forum to speak. When are people and corporations going to wake up and stop giving in to the Sharpton’s and Jackson’s of the world?
Geraldo says that 68% of the NFL is African-American. I believe Geraldo is in favor of affirmative action, therefore since blacks make up 12% of the population the NFL should reduce the number of black players to reflect the population.
Geraldo, I believe you call yourself a journalist, so why didn’t you get both sides of the story? Why did you not seek a comment from Rush? Could it be that you did not ask for Rush’s side of the story because you are an Obamamaniac and Rush strongly opposes his Marxists policies? Could it be that you are for open borders and amnesty regarding illegal immigrants and Rush, like so many other Americans, believe in legal immigration, but oppose amnesty and want the illegal immigrants to be deported? Geraldo, how can you be in favor of illegal immigrants being in this country when it is akin to slavery?
Greg Zotta
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Newt Gingrich/ Conservative Republican?
You have to question Newt's motives when he teams up with a race hustling extortionist in Al Sharpton on education and Nancy Pelosi on the hoax of climate change. Why did you do it and were you paid anything for these photo-ops?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Swine Flu Vaccines/Government Propaganda
Healthcare workers in hospitals, clinics and home care are mandated by state regulations to get flu vaccinations this year with the threat of being fired if they refuse to get one. Other employers are threatening their workers if they refuse to get the flu shot. It should be up to the individual, whether or not to get the vaccine and your livelihood should not be threatened.
Some people are saying no one has the right to refuse vaccination in a civilized society and risk the lives of others and their children. How is someone not taking the vaccine a risk to others or their children? If the OTHERS and their children received the flu shot they supposedly should not be at risk. History shows that sometimes the vaccine was worse than the flu. In 1976 the government’s propaganda about the swine flu caused more than 46 million people to receive the vaccine and more people were paralyzed and died from the vaccine than the actual flu. (See CBS ‘60 Minutes’ 1976 swine flu report).
We have been told that the vaccination is only effective if you get it before the start of the “flu season” which is usually around September-October. In 2004 there was a shortage of the flu vaccine and there were calls for the Federal and State governments to declare a state of emergency. Some people were panicked because the government had told them that 30000 people die from the flu each year. The government encouraged only those in high-risk areas, those over 50 and young children, get the flu shots due to the limited supply. However, after the flu season was over that year and more vaccines became available the people were encouraged to get the vaccine. Why? They said the vaccine is effective if the person receives it prior to the start of the flu season, so why would the people be told to get the flu shot after it. Could it be because of money?
Kathlene Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary is encouraging all Americans to get the swine flu vaccination and stated, “This is definitely a safe vaccine for people to get.” Does she know what is in the vaccine? The ingredients for the H1N1 vaccine are chicken embryos, formaldehyde, (embalming chemical) squalene adjuvant, polysorbate 80 (a carcinogenic preservative) aluminum, and thimerosal, a (mercury (poison) derivative). What is Sebelius’s definition of “safe?”
Data from two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from 10 different labs in the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia claim squalene-based adjuvants can induce rheumatoid arthritis and can produce injury to the nervous system and brain. Mercury is a poison. Formaldehyde (an embalming chemical) and Polysorbate80 both are known carcinogens.
The government mandates the use of seatbelts when driving because they say it saves lives. However, the government does not tell us how many people died because they were wearing seatbelts. The government tells us it is about “safety.” However, the seatbelt law generates revenue to the states because of the fines. So is it about the money? Is it about control?
People’s rights and freedoms are being eroded when Government and employers want to mandate that you receive a vaccination under penalty of law or the threat of being terminated. I say people need to “question authority.” It should be up to the people whether or not they get the vaccine.
Greg Zotta
Some people are saying no one has the right to refuse vaccination in a civilized society and risk the lives of others and their children. How is someone not taking the vaccine a risk to others or their children? If the OTHERS and their children received the flu shot they supposedly should not be at risk. History shows that sometimes the vaccine was worse than the flu. In 1976 the government’s propaganda about the swine flu caused more than 46 million people to receive the vaccine and more people were paralyzed and died from the vaccine than the actual flu. (See CBS ‘60 Minutes’ 1976 swine flu report).
We have been told that the vaccination is only effective if you get it before the start of the “flu season” which is usually around September-October. In 2004 there was a shortage of the flu vaccine and there were calls for the Federal and State governments to declare a state of emergency. Some people were panicked because the government had told them that 30000 people die from the flu each year. The government encouraged only those in high-risk areas, those over 50 and young children, get the flu shots due to the limited supply. However, after the flu season was over that year and more vaccines became available the people were encouraged to get the vaccine. Why? They said the vaccine is effective if the person receives it prior to the start of the flu season, so why would the people be told to get the flu shot after it. Could it be because of money?
Kathlene Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary is encouraging all Americans to get the swine flu vaccination and stated, “This is definitely a safe vaccine for people to get.” Does she know what is in the vaccine? The ingredients for the H1N1 vaccine are chicken embryos, formaldehyde, (embalming chemical) squalene adjuvant, polysorbate 80 (a carcinogenic preservative) aluminum, and thimerosal, a (mercury (poison) derivative). What is Sebelius’s definition of “safe?”
Data from two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from 10 different labs in the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia claim squalene-based adjuvants can induce rheumatoid arthritis and can produce injury to the nervous system and brain. Mercury is a poison. Formaldehyde (an embalming chemical) and Polysorbate80 both are known carcinogens.
The government mandates the use of seatbelts when driving because they say it saves lives. However, the government does not tell us how many people died because they were wearing seatbelts. The government tells us it is about “safety.” However, the seatbelt law generates revenue to the states because of the fines. So is it about the money? Is it about control?
People’s rights and freedoms are being eroded when Government and employers want to mandate that you receive a vaccination under penalty of law or the threat of being terminated. I say people need to “question authority.” It should be up to the people whether or not they get the vaccine.
Greg Zotta
Monday, October 5, 2009
Obamas Healthcare Speech/Lies to Congress
President Barack Hussein Obama made a speech to Congress regarding healthcare. He made several assertions about his proposal to overhaul the healthcare system that I believe are inaccurate. He stated, “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about…they delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.”
The truth is the man did not die because of delays; his insurance policy was reinstated within three weeks and later received a stem cell transplant and died this year nearly four years after initial problems with his insurance. The man’s sister, Peggy Raddatz stated he received the treatment that extended his life approximately three years.
In Oregon, there was a woman, Barbara Wagner that wanted to get treatment for cancer but the state refused to pay for the treatment. She was 64 years old and the treatment would be too expensive, but the state run healthcare plan offered to pay $50.00 for the suicide pill. The state offered to pay to have her euthanized! Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of Oregon’s Health Policy and Research stated, “We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer’s dollars.” Therefore, would this be considered a “Death Panel” decision?
Obama has denigrated Doctors with comments like, if there was a red pill and a blue pill the doctor would prescribe the more expensive pill, or if your child has a sore throat the doctor may recommend taking the child’s tonsils out to make more money. Obama claims doctors would not treat diabetics so they would be able to amputate the patients’ feet to make more money, which he said ranged between $30,000 and $50,000 for the surgery. Actually, Medicare reimbursement to the surgeons for that type surgery ranges from $740 to $1140 according to the American College of Surgeons.
These would be ridiculous statements coming from anyone, let alone the President. President Obama, do you realize doctors take the Hippocratic oath where they swear to practice medicine ethically. You have traveled the world apologizing for America; I think you owe an apology to the doctors that you have denigrated with your outrageous statements
During his many speeches on healthcare Obama has never praised the greatness of our system. Our healthcare system has created innovative drugs, medical devices, and prosthetics, advanced surgical techniques, transplants etc. Doctors and nurses are dedicated to their profession and work long and hard to treat the sick. People from around the world come to this country for healthcare, contrary what Michael Moore would have you believe, they are not going to Cuba.
Obama wants to set up an exchange where people can go to on the Internet and choose the coverage they like. With the exchange, he says costs will be reduced because of competition among the insurance companies. Ultimately, Obama is looking for a single payer government run system. However, he said it would take 4 years to set up. If you do a Google search you can get a list of insurance companies and various coverages today. So, why would it take 4 years to set up? Why not let the insurance companies offer their services across state lines? This would create competition, which would lower costs and could be done in a matter of days instead of years.
He says everyone will be required to have health insurance, and if an individual refuses to get it will be fined $3800.00 under one bill and up to $25,000 along with a year in jail under another bill. The Government through the healthcare plan will have access to your medical records, tax returns and bank accounts. Thus they will be able to control individuals by having access to their records and will tell you what you can eat, and what you will be able to do because it will be tied to healthcare. The government will be able to control our lives, thus the loss of liberty
Obama wants to force individuals to purchase health insurance and compares it to having automobile insurance, where it is mandated by the states that you must have coverage. The comparison to auto insurance falls short because everyone does not own a vehicle or drive, therefore everyone does not purchase auto insurance. You are mandated to have liability insurance only, which covers the other person in case you have an accident with them. Furthermore, insurance does not cover maintenance on an individual’s vehicle; if the vehicle needs an oil change or gas etc. it is paid out of the persons pocket.
So, how can the government force you to buy something you do not want? Would it be constitutional?
He stated there are 100’s of billions of dollars in waste and fraud in the system and this will lead to reduced costs after the healthcare plan is passed.
What does passing the healthcare plan have to do with waste and fraud in the system? If the assumption is true about the waste and fraud then I have to ask, “Why is Obama, or any politician not doing something about it now?” The Government should be investigating and prosecuting any wrongdoers, and it should have been done “Yesterday.”
Some politicians want to tax the healthcare insurance provided to employees by their employers. There is opposition to that proposal, but when you think about it, it should be taxed because it is compensation. However, regarding taxes, I am for a flat tax, but that’s another discussion.
My preference would be that employers pay their workers for the work they do and not provide healthcare for their employees. The following are the problems with employer provided healthcare:
The companies choose the policy, which may or may not be in the individual’s best interests.
The policies are not portable, so the individual has to continue working for the company to keep their healthcare.
People should be compensated for the work they do and be able to buy what they want to buy when they want to buy it.
Why not expand heath savings accounts where it gives the power to the people over their money and treatment?
What I want to emphasize in the Government’s proposal to overhaul the healthcare system is it is about control and the loss of freedoms. The loss of freedom will occur because you will be told what you can do and what you can eat etc. because it will be tied to healthcare. To pay for it Obama wants to put the squeeze on doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals reducing their compensation. Taxes on beer, wine, liquor, and tobacco would go up. Soda and other sugary drinks and cereals would also be taxed because they lead to obesity. The idea behind the proposed increases is to tax lifestyle choices that contribute to rising medical costs, thus controlling our lives!!
Solutions to healthcare: Eliminate the waste and fraud and recoup that money.
Eliminate employer provided healthcare coverage; individuals should by their own insurance.
Expand medical savings accounts, which would give people control over their money and treatment.
Allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines; this would increase competition.
Tort reform; doctors are doing defensive medicine because of lawsuits.
The United States has the greatest healthcare system in the world. Sure it needs to be fine-tuned but we do not need socialized medicine or universal single-payer healthcare (Obamacare). I urge everyone to contact their representatives in government and have them oppose this government takeover of the healthcare system.
Greg Zotta
The truth is the man did not die because of delays; his insurance policy was reinstated within three weeks and later received a stem cell transplant and died this year nearly four years after initial problems with his insurance. The man’s sister, Peggy Raddatz stated he received the treatment that extended his life approximately three years.
In Oregon, there was a woman, Barbara Wagner that wanted to get treatment for cancer but the state refused to pay for the treatment. She was 64 years old and the treatment would be too expensive, but the state run healthcare plan offered to pay $50.00 for the suicide pill. The state offered to pay to have her euthanized! Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of Oregon’s Health Policy and Research stated, “We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer’s dollars.” Therefore, would this be considered a “Death Panel” decision?
Obama has denigrated Doctors with comments like, if there was a red pill and a blue pill the doctor would prescribe the more expensive pill, or if your child has a sore throat the doctor may recommend taking the child’s tonsils out to make more money. Obama claims doctors would not treat diabetics so they would be able to amputate the patients’ feet to make more money, which he said ranged between $30,000 and $50,000 for the surgery. Actually, Medicare reimbursement to the surgeons for that type surgery ranges from $740 to $1140 according to the American College of Surgeons.
These would be ridiculous statements coming from anyone, let alone the President. President Obama, do you realize doctors take the Hippocratic oath where they swear to practice medicine ethically. You have traveled the world apologizing for America; I think you owe an apology to the doctors that you have denigrated with your outrageous statements
During his many speeches on healthcare Obama has never praised the greatness of our system. Our healthcare system has created innovative drugs, medical devices, and prosthetics, advanced surgical techniques, transplants etc. Doctors and nurses are dedicated to their profession and work long and hard to treat the sick. People from around the world come to this country for healthcare, contrary what Michael Moore would have you believe, they are not going to Cuba.
Obama wants to set up an exchange where people can go to on the Internet and choose the coverage they like. With the exchange, he says costs will be reduced because of competition among the insurance companies. Ultimately, Obama is looking for a single payer government run system. However, he said it would take 4 years to set up. If you do a Google search you can get a list of insurance companies and various coverages today. So, why would it take 4 years to set up? Why not let the insurance companies offer their services across state lines? This would create competition, which would lower costs and could be done in a matter of days instead of years.
He says everyone will be required to have health insurance, and if an individual refuses to get it will be fined $3800.00 under one bill and up to $25,000 along with a year in jail under another bill. The Government through the healthcare plan will have access to your medical records, tax returns and bank accounts. Thus they will be able to control individuals by having access to their records and will tell you what you can eat, and what you will be able to do because it will be tied to healthcare. The government will be able to control our lives, thus the loss of liberty
Obama wants to force individuals to purchase health insurance and compares it to having automobile insurance, where it is mandated by the states that you must have coverage. The comparison to auto insurance falls short because everyone does not own a vehicle or drive, therefore everyone does not purchase auto insurance. You are mandated to have liability insurance only, which covers the other person in case you have an accident with them. Furthermore, insurance does not cover maintenance on an individual’s vehicle; if the vehicle needs an oil change or gas etc. it is paid out of the persons pocket.
So, how can the government force you to buy something you do not want? Would it be constitutional?
He stated there are 100’s of billions of dollars in waste and fraud in the system and this will lead to reduced costs after the healthcare plan is passed.
What does passing the healthcare plan have to do with waste and fraud in the system? If the assumption is true about the waste and fraud then I have to ask, “Why is Obama, or any politician not doing something about it now?” The Government should be investigating and prosecuting any wrongdoers, and it should have been done “Yesterday.”
Some politicians want to tax the healthcare insurance provided to employees by their employers. There is opposition to that proposal, but when you think about it, it should be taxed because it is compensation. However, regarding taxes, I am for a flat tax, but that’s another discussion.
My preference would be that employers pay their workers for the work they do and not provide healthcare for their employees. The following are the problems with employer provided healthcare:
The companies choose the policy, which may or may not be in the individual’s best interests.
The policies are not portable, so the individual has to continue working for the company to keep their healthcare.
People should be compensated for the work they do and be able to buy what they want to buy when they want to buy it.
Why not expand heath savings accounts where it gives the power to the people over their money and treatment?
What I want to emphasize in the Government’s proposal to overhaul the healthcare system is it is about control and the loss of freedoms. The loss of freedom will occur because you will be told what you can do and what you can eat etc. because it will be tied to healthcare. To pay for it Obama wants to put the squeeze on doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals reducing their compensation. Taxes on beer, wine, liquor, and tobacco would go up. Soda and other sugary drinks and cereals would also be taxed because they lead to obesity. The idea behind the proposed increases is to tax lifestyle choices that contribute to rising medical costs, thus controlling our lives!!
Solutions to healthcare: Eliminate the waste and fraud and recoup that money.
Eliminate employer provided healthcare coverage; individuals should by their own insurance.
Expand medical savings accounts, which would give people control over their money and treatment.
Allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines; this would increase competition.
Tort reform; doctors are doing defensive medicine because of lawsuits.
The United States has the greatest healthcare system in the world. Sure it needs to be fine-tuned but we do not need socialized medicine or universal single-payer healthcare (Obamacare). I urge everyone to contact their representatives in government and have them oppose this government takeover of the healthcare system.
Greg Zotta
Olympic Rejection
According to Michelle Obama, the Obama’s made a huge SACRIFICE for the people of this country to bring the Olympics to the city of Chicago. They were rejected. So, how did they SACRIFICE? Michelle and Barack flew over to Copenhagen on separate jets where they were wined and dined and made their pitch to the Olympic committee. Also,I believe they took separate jets when they went on their trip to Europe.
What were the costs to the taxpayers? What about their carbon footprint by flying two planes; after all they believe in CLIMATE CHANGE and he is a supporter of Cap and Trade legislation.
Why were they rejected? Could it be the IOC was not impressed with their self-grandiose statements about themselves? Could it be that he called for a boycott of the Olympics in Bejing? Could it be that the IOC heard some of Barack Hussein Obama’s numerous speeches where he denigrates this country? Or, could it be that they did not bribe the IOC enough? By the way, for all of you Obamamaniacs, “It was Bush’s fault.”
Greg Zotta
What were the costs to the taxpayers? What about their carbon footprint by flying two planes; after all they believe in CLIMATE CHANGE and he is a supporter of Cap and Trade legislation.
Why were they rejected? Could it be the IOC was not impressed with their self-grandiose statements about themselves? Could it be that he called for a boycott of the Olympics in Bejing? Could it be that the IOC heard some of Barack Hussein Obama’s numerous speeches where he denigrates this country? Or, could it be that they did not bribe the IOC enough? By the way, for all of you Obamamaniacs, “It was Bush’s fault.”
Greg Zotta
Thursday, October 1, 2009
What’s Wrong with this Picture? Saturn vs. Finland
Former Vice President Al Gore gets a $529 million dollar U.S. government loan for a car company in Finland to build an $89,000 (green car) hybrid. The loan comes from a $25 billion program established by Congress in 2007 to help automakers meet a congressional mandate on fuel efficiency.
Usually companies go to private venture capitalist to finance projects such as this. Did the company approach any private venture capitalist companies for financing? Could it be that no private company was interested in the project?
How is loaning money to a Finnish car company going to help Americans and the economy?
Chrysler and General Motors received government bailout money, even though Chrysler was a privately held company. Saturn was a unit of GM and was in talks to be acquired by Penske. Saturn was named Car of the Year in 2007 and Best Family Car in 2008.
When the Saturn Penske deal fell through GM announced it will be shutting down the Saturn unit and closing over 400 Saturn dealerships, putting more Americans out of work. One of the reasons for the deal not going through was Saturn did not have a plant to produce the cars.
What is wrong with this picture? The U.S. is loaning money to a car company from Finland, yet the Saturn car company is being closed.
There is a closed Chrysler auto plant in Fenton Mo. Did the Saturn representatives contemplate getting a loan from the above fund and open up the Fenton plant? Wouldn’t it be better to loan the money to an American company, to build cars by Americans in America?
Greg Zotta
Usually companies go to private venture capitalist to finance projects such as this. Did the company approach any private venture capitalist companies for financing? Could it be that no private company was interested in the project?
How is loaning money to a Finnish car company going to help Americans and the economy?
Chrysler and General Motors received government bailout money, even though Chrysler was a privately held company. Saturn was a unit of GM and was in talks to be acquired by Penske. Saturn was named Car of the Year in 2007 and Best Family Car in 2008.
When the Saturn Penske deal fell through GM announced it will be shutting down the Saturn unit and closing over 400 Saturn dealerships, putting more Americans out of work. One of the reasons for the deal not going through was Saturn did not have a plant to produce the cars.
What is wrong with this picture? The U.S. is loaning money to a car company from Finland, yet the Saturn car company is being closed.
There is a closed Chrysler auto plant in Fenton Mo. Did the Saturn representatives contemplate getting a loan from the above fund and open up the Fenton plant? Wouldn’t it be better to loan the money to an American company, to build cars by Americans in America?
Greg Zotta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
