Deposed Honduran Dictator Zelaya Claims “Israeli’s are attacking me with radiation and poison gases”.

What a nut job – Boy our President can really pick them can’t he. First Chavez and now Zeleya ………

They’re torturing me, Honduras’ Manuel Zelaya claims –

Honduras’ fallen leader told The Miami Herald he is being subjected to mind-altering gas and radiation — and that `Israeli mercenaries’ are planning to assassinate him.

TEGUCIGALPA — It’s been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He’s sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and “Israeli mercenaries” are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

“We are being threatened with death,” he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.

Zelaya said he is being subjected to toxic gases and radiation that alter his physical and mental state.

Israeli government sources in Miami said they could not confirm the presence of any “Israelis mercenaries” in Honduras.

Micheletti took Zelaya’s place after the military, executing a Supreme Court arrest warrant, burst into Zelaya’s house and forced him into exile. The country’s military, congress, Supreme Court and economic leaders have backed the ouster, arguing that Zelaya was bent on conducting an illegal plebiscite that they feared would ultimately lead to his ceasing power unconstitutionally and naming himself President for life.

“The embassy has been turned into a bunker for Zelaya,” Assistant Foreign Minister Martha Lorena Alvarado de Casco told The Herald. “He’s turned it into his headquarters, and he is using it to call for insurrection.”

(Brazil has severed diplomatic ties with Honduras, so the “former” Brazilan Embassy (you can’t have an Embassy in Country you don’t have diplomatic relations with), has no special protections under international law. The former Brazilian Embassy is just anotherr office building now. As Zeleya was removed from office legally, his calls for insurrection are acts of treason and the Honduran Government would be within the law to arrest Zeleya for treason …… The Honduran Government obviously recognizes the fact that Zelaya is just as “bonkers” as Quadiffi of Libya …… and has todate refrained from taking Zeleya into custody).

New Honduran elections had been scheduled for this November (2009) and are still scheduled to proceed. Zeleya was prohibited by the Honduran Constitution for running for re-election. Zelaya was replaced by his party’s second in command – current President Roberto Micheletti. Presdient Micheletti is also prohibited from running for re-election because the Honduran Constitution prohibits running for a second Presidential term.    


CBO Report Exposes Massive Cost Increases In Obama Care For Middle Class And Working Poor

The following was released by the Congression Budget Office. You can read the CBO release here: , 1). The Government will offer diferent plans at different prices- better coverge will cost you more ….. 2). Obama Care will include deductibles and co-payments – they won’t be called copays or deductibles – they are calling that “cost sharing payments” – how cute – “cost sharing” – we all like to share don’t we ….. FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE CBO – The analysis focuses on enrollees who purchase one of the low-cost “silver” plans offered in the exchanges because federal subsidies would be tied to the premiums of those plans. Such a plan would have an actuarial value of 70 percent, which represents the average share of costs for covered benefits that would be paid by the plan. Under the proposal, premiums would vary by geographic area to reflect differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, but the table shows the approximate national average of premiums—about $4,700 for single policies and about $14,400 for family policies in 2016. Enrollees could purchase more extensive coverage or a more expensive plan for an additional premium. (NOTE: These are “average” costs based on geographical region – certain areas will pay significantly more) Under the proposal, the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for a low-cost “silver” plan in 2013 would range from 3 percent for those with income equal to the FPL to 13 percent for those with income equal to 300 percent of the FPL. Those with income between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL would have the same 13 percent cap. After 2013, those income caps would all be indexed so that the share of the premiums that enrollees paid (in each income band) would be maintained over time. As a result, the income caps would gradually become higher over time; they are estimated to range from 3.2 percent to 13.9 percent in 2016. A family of four, for example, would have to pay premiums of about $1,400 if its income was $30,000 (about 125 percent of the projected FPL in 2016), or $8,300 if its income was $66,000 (or 275 percent of the FPL). Plus deductibles and co-pays. $8,300 – for the “low cost plan”. CBO also estimated the sum of enrollee premiums and average cost-sharing amounts (co-pays & deductibles) for the middle of each income band and the average share of income that such spending would represent. For single enrollees, premiums plus cost-sharing payments would range from about $1,200 for those with income of about $14,700 (8.1% for those with an income of $14,700 – th epoorest in the nation) , to $6,300 for those with income above $34,000 (or 18.5% of that income). For families, premiums plus cost-sharing payments (co-pays and deductibles) would range from about $2,900 for those with income of $30,000, to nearly $20,000 for those with income above $96,000 (or 21% of a family income of 96,000) – for the low cost “silver” plan. A family of 4 with an income of $96,000 is not rich – how can they possible afford a $20,000 premium – for the “low cost” silver plan. ,

Start Up Auto Maker Receives $528 Million Dollar Loan From US Taxpayers – To Build Vehicles In Finland

WASHINGTON – Fisker Automotive, a California manufacturer of luxury electric vehicles, will receive more than $500 million in federal loans to develop a plug-in hybrid sports car with a sticker price of nearly $90,000.

(Fisker Automotive, a California Company, is backed by former VP and current environmental huckster Al Gore.)

Fisker, launched in 2007, is expected to release its first vehicle, the Karma, in the summer of 2010. The $87,900 plug-in luxury sports sedan, which has solar panels on the roof and allows motorists to drive gas-free for 50 miles (80 kilometers), will be built in Finland by Valmet Automotive.


The 5 Health Care Promises Obama Won’t Keep – From CBS News/NY Times/Politico


On the campaign trail last year, President Obama laid out several specific promises for health care — both during the Democratic primaries and during the general election campaign. And in his first year in office, President Obama has made comprehensive health care reform the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

But what happened to those promises?

1. No Individual Mandate   (Long gone ……),  2. Complete Transparency – Candidate Obama promised that health care deliberations with Congress and special interests would be transparent to the extreme. (Democrats have now voted against posting the final bill along with the CBO cost estimate for 72 hours before a final vote). 3. Enable the Government to Directly Negotiate Drug Prices. 4. Allow Drug Importation, Drug prices and importation went out the window when Obama cut a “bcak room dela” with drug makers for cash that is being used to run the current “pro-reform” commercials. 5. Lower Premiums by $2,500 for a Family of Four, a real laugher –

CBS states the following – “If you’ve got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan,” Mr. Obama said in his Oct. 15, 2008 debate against McCain. “The only thing we’re going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.”  “recent studies also dispute whether Mr. Obama’s cost saving mechanisms will work.”, “Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall,” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf,

“the health care legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee could even actually result in higher premiums for customers — the insurance industry is threatening that the $6 billion industry-wide fee and other taxes Sen. Baucus has proposed will be passed on to consumers.”  (citing the NY Times – another conservative publication –  

More Unknowns

consumers will face what would amount to a tax on their health benefits. During the campaign, Mr. Obama adamantly opposed taxing health care benefits, but Baucus’ bill in the Senate would impose a tax on insurers for plans worth more than $8,000. The president endorsed this proposal during his speech to a joint session of Congress this month, even though nonpartisan analysis suggests the intent of the tax is to shift people to cheaper plans.                                                                                                                                                                                         (Citing a Politico article here: )

Read the whole CBS article here:

To these 5 broken promises you can add: 6). The plan will be deficit neutral, 7). That you can keep your current plan – read the Politico article which admits that the intended result is to “shift” those with “comprehensive”, “cadillac plans” to “cheaper” plans with the “saved” money be shifted to those currently without coverage, 8) there will be no cuts in medicare (say good bye to “Medicare Advantage”, it won’t be cut – it will be eliminated), 9). Federal Funding of Abortion – a dozen amendments have been offerred specifically stating that prohibition of Federal Funding of abortion will be extended to this reform – the Dems have voted down each and every amendment.

Contact Your Elected Officials Today:

Dems Reject Health Care Amendment To Prevent Federal Funding Of Abortion



WASHINGTON – A Senate committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Orrin Hatch’s amendment to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care reform bill to prohibit federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.

Hatch (R-Utah) was dismayed by the HELP Committee’s 12-11 vote against his amendment to the proposed Affordable Health Choices Act.

“The right to life is a fundamental value cherished by most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation,” said Hatch, a member of the HELP Committee. “Yet unless abortion is specifically excluded from this bill, the secretary of Health and Human Services could mandate coverage of abortion, arguing it is an ‘essential health care benefit’ and is ‘necessary for meeting minimum qualifying coverage.’ ”

Last week, the HELP Committee adopted language to require “essential community providers,” which includes abortion providers, to be included in health insurance networks. While Hatch was assured that amendment, which defines Planned Parenthood clinics as “essential community providers,” would not require insurance plans to cover abortion, he wanted language in the bill to ensure that did not happen.

“That is why today’s vote is so puzzling,” Hatch said. “If last week’s amendment does not sanction taxpayer-funded abortions, as its proponents have said, then why strike down an amendment to ensure that it doesn’t? That is hardly reassuring to Americans who believe in the sanctity of human life.”

Read what the Pro-Abortion site NARAL’s www.prochoice had to say about the vote and compare NARAL’s comments to the President’s:


Can’t we trust the Presdient at his word?

Contact your elected representatives:

Health Care Reform: Dems Defeat Amendment to Guarantee American’s Right To Keep Existing Insurance Policy

Senator Orin Hatch, Utah, made the following comments prior to submitting the following list of proposed amendments to the Health Care reform Act:

Hatch believes we should “do exactly what American families are demanding – step back, take a deep breath and start over on a truly bipartisan bill,” he filed numerous amendments in hopes to protect middle class families from tax increases, ensure continued access to quality care for seniors, promote prudent and proven tort reform, and stop out of control government spending. 

Hatch’s amendments include:

– An amendment to exempt any middle-class American family from tax increases of any kind in this bill.

An amendment to stop the implementation of the bill if more than 1,000,000 Americans lose their current health care coverage because of the bill.

– An amendment to prohibit federal health care funds from being spent on abortions.

– An amendment to restore and protect the Medicare Advantage Program, which is enjoyed by almost 10 million seniors

– An amendment to reign in trial lawyer awards in health care lawsuits.

– An amendment to preserve health flexible savings accounts — accounts which millions of Americans use to pay for health care services.

– An amendment to strike the new taxes being imposed on medical devices such as hospital beds and hearing aids, which will simply be passed on to American families.

– An amendment to protect tax payer dollars and prohibit funding in the bill from going to groups such as ACORN.

Hatch was one of the original members of the “Gang Of Seven”, working towards a bi-partisan health care reform, however, Hatch left the group in July, saying “Democratic leadership did not give Democrats enough flexibility to seek true compromise.”

Hatch complained Tuesday that the bill “contains almost $350 billion in new taxes on American families and businesses. This at a time when we are facing some of the toughest economic conditions our nation has ever seen.”


That is correct, Democrats rejected an amendment that would guarantee that Amewricans could keep the policy they currently have and that “if” the proposed health care reform would result in more than 1 Million Americans being forced to give up their current Health Care plan, implementation of the reforms would be blocked. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S REPEATED PLEDGE THAT NO ONE WOULD BE FORCED TO GIVE UP THEIR CURRENT POLICY ….. Why then did the Democrats vote down this Amendment?

Answer: Even at this early stage three of the President’s “promises” are being ignored and broken. 1) Medicare is being cut. 2). Seniors are being forced out of Medicare Advantage – 20 Million Seniors will lose that coverage – a coverage many seniors living in rural areas are dependent on and 3). The plan is not deficit nutral – that is why the Democrats also voted to proceed to a final vote before the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office can score the “true cost” of the final bill once it is drafted.

Why rush? Why not take the time and read the bill and get a final “projected” price tag before you force this mess upon the taxpayers. The Democrats also voted to  proceed to a final vote before the final bill is printed and placed on-line.

Just like with the other hugh spending bills – the Dmeocarts want to pass legislation in the dark of night, with as little transparency as possible.

Is this so they can later claim, “I don’t know what was in the bill, I didn’t have time to read it”. On a party line vote the Democrats voted down amendments to require that the CBO cost analysis and final draft of the bill be placed on line for 72 hours, prior to the final vote. A mere 72 hours. Just 3 days. What is the rush?

President Obama made a campaign pledge that in his Administration all legislation would be available on line for review by the American people, for 5 DAYS, before a final vote. 5 days not 3.

Isn’t this Presdient’s word worth anything?

“5 days”, transparency, “you can keep your policy”, “no abortion funding”, “deficit neutral”, “no medicare cuts” ………. wow, zero for 6!

Contact your elected officials today:

Another Blast From The Past – Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Calls On US Military To Shoot Down Israeli Jets

Just when I thought I’d  heard all there was to hear from the Carter Administration, the Administration that lost Iran to the militants and made America’s Military might a laughing stock on the world stage ….. now comes Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor with the unbelievable suggestion that the US should shoot down Israeli jets if Israel should attempt a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons program.

Clearly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama can’t tell our friends from our foes – or do they have a separate set of secret friends they don’t want us to know about?

How can American Jews continue to support this party when so many of its leaders are so anti- Israel?

From the Weekly Standard:

Brezinski Calls for Obama to Shoot Down Israeli Jets; “A Liberty in Reverse”

In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don’t read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites — the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:

 DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

 Contrary to Brezinski’s half-hearted disclaimer that no one wishes for such an outcome, there are plenty on the left who would delight in a pitched battle between the United States and Israel. Democrats in Congress routinely support resolutions affirming Israel’s right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to assure its own national defense. And Obama has at least paid lip service to the concept. But hostility to Israel among the rank and file is very real on the left — and among “realists.”

So conjure the image — the Obama administration sending U.S. aircraft up to protect Iran’s airspace and it’s nuclear installations from an attack by a democracy that is one of America’s closest allies. Unfortunately, this may not be so hard to imagine in Israel, where the number of people who believe Obama is pro-Israel is at just 4 percent — and falling. And given Obama’s (literally) submissive posture to the Saudis, his indulgence of the Iranians, and his simultaneously hard-line approach to Israel, it seems even some of Obama’s supporters can savor the possibility of a “reverse Liberty.”

%d bloggers like this: