----- Original Message -----
From: Jackie Brown
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: The new AARP...
I hate their guts and always have! For reasons you mention plus the fact that they lobbied for a bill a few years ago that caused people who had both Social Security checks and pension checks (in the public sector) to have their hard-earned SS reduced to just a fourth of what they otherwise would have gotten. I worked in private industry for 20 years and public sector for 20 years - I was due over $l200. a month from SS and when their bill was passed, I got $300. a month - the S.O.B.'s - because they called it "double-dipping"....my arse it was...and this bill didn't apply to those who work in the private sector but still get a regular pension on top of full SS benefits. The management is comprised of goofy liberals and self-interested morons who want hideous travesty of a health bill passed because it means much more money in their pockets! Congrats for what you did - wish all seniors would do the same!
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: DDPAISLEY@aol.com
To: DDPAISLEY@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 1:06 PM
Subject: The new AARP...
Yes, since they consistently ignore the wishes of their constituents (just like your US Congress), then I say to hell with the 'uber-liberal' AARP (American Association for Retired People). I have been a member for twenty-eight years (except for a period when they had my membership screwed up). They have now gone 'gaga' for Obamacare, despite the fact that two-thirds of 'us sheep' don't want it; even fewer among so-called 'senior citizens.' I have sent my shredded membership card to AARP and joined the 'new' AARP.
Let me get this straight. Obama's 2,000 page health care plans have been written (supposedly) by congressional committees whose Senate Chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed in the House by members who acknowledged that they didn't read it, will be signed by a narcissistic, deceptive President who apologizes to our enemies and who smokes, funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes, despite reimbursement by his employer, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is hopelessly in debt.
"A fine mess you've gotten us in to, Ollie!"
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thanks Jackie Brown! Swiss voting into law ban on construction of muslim minarets
Publication:The Columbus Dispatch; Date:Dec 9, 2009; Section:Opinion; Page Number:A11
Swiss have their reason for minaret ban
Georgie Anne Geyer writes for Universal Press Syndicate.
Oh, the poor Swiss! Usually they’re in deep water — though many of them live upward of 10,000 feet in the air — because they won’t reveal some poor Kuwaiti’s or Saudi’s wealth stashed away in a Swiss bank account. Other times, they’re the object of jealousy for their prosperity and their self-righteous, Calvinist ways.
But this time, it’s so very different. This time, large parts of the world, including voices from the United Nations, are criticizing the 7.6 million Swiss, 57.5 percent of whose voters just had the unfashionable temerity to vote into law a constitutional ban on the construction of Muslim minarets on sacred Swiss territory.
Voters responded with remarkable agreement to the nationalist Swiss People’s Party labeling of the minarets as the forerunners of a feared Islamic takeover of the state.
It’s all quite terrible, isn’t it? But let’s think for a moment. For in fact, the Swiss are simply behaving in their usual way, being cautious about liberally embracing trends that are gnawing at all of Europe — and that have already transformed the continent, not for the better.
In fact, the Swiss are taking the fall for trying to get out ahead of a feared “Islamization” of Europe that has the French banning Muslim headscarves, the Dutch forcing would-be Muslim immigrants to watch movies showing Dutch men kissing Dutch men and, on the geopolitical scale, Turkey having all but lost out on its long-held hope of joining the European Union.
In reality, the Swiss are only trying to stop Muslim religious expansion before it becomes radicalized and transforms their peaceable little state into something nobody wants — often called “Eurabia.”
In Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and The West, an excellent book on the larger European subject, Christopher Caldwell pauses to recall how it all began. After World War II, the European states, forced to adopt certain liberal assumptions about human nature such as the idea that all cultures were basically equal, opened their doors.
Immigrants would be few in number and would assimilate. “That they would retain the habits and cultures of southern villages, clans, marketplaces and mosques was a thought too bizarre to entertain,” he writes.
And today? “Europe is now, for the first time in modern history, a continent of migrants. Of the 375 million people in Western Europe, 40 million are living outside their countries of birth. In almost all Western European countries, the population of immigrants and their children approaches or surpasses 20 percent.”
Most important, instead of assimilating and becoming “good” Parisians or Amsterdammers, too many of the Muslim immigrants often only were grabbing onto the European welfare state. Worse, they began to insist that Islam be recognized as equal to Christianity, or even as superior. The next step was terrorism from within “European Islam,” as has happened in Britain and Holland and elsewhere.
Caldwell points out, for instance, that two-thirds of French imams are on welfare; that mosque-building began to become “particularly alarming to Europeans” in the last decade because it was a “declaration that people intended . . . to live henceforth as they had in the old country from time immemorial”; that the riots in the Paris suburbs were Muslim youth-inspired; and that the bloody street murder of a prominent Muslim critic in The Netherlands means that “for the first time in centuries, Europeans are living in a world they did not, for the most part, shape.”
What Europeans did not understand, he goes on, was that immigration “means importing not just factors of production but factors of social change.”
Meanwhile, for those who doubt that all of this is really very serious, consider the story of Marseille. “Ah, oui,” you say. “Marseille, that great French city on the Mediterranean, with its Notre Dame de la Garde, the elegant Roman Catholic basilica that has watched over the French fishermen with such tenderness and concern for 150 years. I remember it well.”
You do? Well, then you will know that the church is about to be outranked in size and influence by a $30 million Grand Mosque of Marseille, to spiritually guide the 200,000 Muslims of the metropolitan region. You will surely know that, only this November, young men of North African origin twice bombarded the streets, some destroying cars and boats, letting out their feelings about Algeria’s loss and later its victory in the World Cup soccer games. They were totally uninterested in the French team.
But to get back to the oftenlabeled “self-righteous” Swiss, they can hardly be blamed, because they have acted to protect their culture and their principles. There is everything wrong with prejudice and hatred. But there is also something very wrong with not being permitted to defend what you have against those who would not join it but change it.
GEORGIE ANNE GEYER
Swiss have their reason for minaret ban
Georgie Anne Geyer writes for Universal Press Syndicate.
Oh, the poor Swiss! Usually they’re in deep water — though many of them live upward of 10,000 feet in the air — because they won’t reveal some poor Kuwaiti’s or Saudi’s wealth stashed away in a Swiss bank account. Other times, they’re the object of jealousy for their prosperity and their self-righteous, Calvinist ways.
But this time, it’s so very different. This time, large parts of the world, including voices from the United Nations, are criticizing the 7.6 million Swiss, 57.5 percent of whose voters just had the unfashionable temerity to vote into law a constitutional ban on the construction of Muslim minarets on sacred Swiss territory.
Voters responded with remarkable agreement to the nationalist Swiss People’s Party labeling of the minarets as the forerunners of a feared Islamic takeover of the state.
It’s all quite terrible, isn’t it? But let’s think for a moment. For in fact, the Swiss are simply behaving in their usual way, being cautious about liberally embracing trends that are gnawing at all of Europe — and that have already transformed the continent, not for the better.
In fact, the Swiss are taking the fall for trying to get out ahead of a feared “Islamization” of Europe that has the French banning Muslim headscarves, the Dutch forcing would-be Muslim immigrants to watch movies showing Dutch men kissing Dutch men and, on the geopolitical scale, Turkey having all but lost out on its long-held hope of joining the European Union.
In reality, the Swiss are only trying to stop Muslim religious expansion before it becomes radicalized and transforms their peaceable little state into something nobody wants — often called “Eurabia.”
In Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and The West, an excellent book on the larger European subject, Christopher Caldwell pauses to recall how it all began. After World War II, the European states, forced to adopt certain liberal assumptions about human nature such as the idea that all cultures were basically equal, opened their doors.
Immigrants would be few in number and would assimilate. “That they would retain the habits and cultures of southern villages, clans, marketplaces and mosques was a thought too bizarre to entertain,” he writes.
And today? “Europe is now, for the first time in modern history, a continent of migrants. Of the 375 million people in Western Europe, 40 million are living outside their countries of birth. In almost all Western European countries, the population of immigrants and their children approaches or surpasses 20 percent.”
Most important, instead of assimilating and becoming “good” Parisians or Amsterdammers, too many of the Muslim immigrants often only were grabbing onto the European welfare state. Worse, they began to insist that Islam be recognized as equal to Christianity, or even as superior. The next step was terrorism from within “European Islam,” as has happened in Britain and Holland and elsewhere.
Caldwell points out, for instance, that two-thirds of French imams are on welfare; that mosque-building began to become “particularly alarming to Europeans” in the last decade because it was a “declaration that people intended . . . to live henceforth as they had in the old country from time immemorial”; that the riots in the Paris suburbs were Muslim youth-inspired; and that the bloody street murder of a prominent Muslim critic in The Netherlands means that “for the first time in centuries, Europeans are living in a world they did not, for the most part, shape.”
What Europeans did not understand, he goes on, was that immigration “means importing not just factors of production but factors of social change.”
Meanwhile, for those who doubt that all of this is really very serious, consider the story of Marseille. “Ah, oui,” you say. “Marseille, that great French city on the Mediterranean, with its Notre Dame de la Garde, the elegant Roman Catholic basilica that has watched over the French fishermen with such tenderness and concern for 150 years. I remember it well.”
You do? Well, then you will know that the church is about to be outranked in size and influence by a $30 million Grand Mosque of Marseille, to spiritually guide the 200,000 Muslims of the metropolitan region. You will surely know that, only this November, young men of North African origin twice bombarded the streets, some destroying cars and boats, letting out their feelings about Algeria’s loss and later its victory in the World Cup soccer games. They were totally uninterested in the French team.
But to get back to the oftenlabeled “self-righteous” Swiss, they can hardly be blamed, because they have acted to protect their culture and their principles. There is everything wrong with prejudice and hatred. But there is also something very wrong with not being permitted to defend what you have against those who would not join it but change it.
GEORGIE ANNE GEYER
2010 Elections- Mad at elitists!- Kick 'em out!
*
The 2010 Election Day
Your U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
1. They voted to not give you a S.S. cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
2. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years and you will not get the 3% COLA or $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is $1,600 or $3,200 for husband and wife. Plain enough??????
3. Every member of Congress will get an added$10,000 which is putting them very close to $ 200,000 per year. Sounds like an elite class to us.
*
*
*
4. *Do you feel SCREWED?* They vote themselves a raise and better benefits. They only care about WE THE PEOPLE on election day, right? You never did anything about it in the past. *The time for action is near!!!!
*
5. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?
*SEND THE MESSAGE-- You're FIRED.
*
*
***** **THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES! IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE ENTIRE SITTING CONGRESS, Up to 1/3 OF THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.**
**The election in 2010 will be a sea-change to the mindset of any member of Congress who may survive.
*
*MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN **NOVEMBER 2010 **AND REMIND THE REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW UP LIKE THE GUYS THEY ARE REPLACING.*
The 2010
--
Sincerely, Judi Cole Realtor and Relocation Specialist CENTURY 21 Joe Walker & Assoc.
614-895-7578
614-562-7578 (cell)
614-899-0955 (fax)
Ask me how I can help you or someone you know move anywhere!
c21judicole@gmail.com
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
The 2010 Election Day
Your U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
1. They voted to not give you a S.S. cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
2. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years and you will not get the 3% COLA or $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is $1,600 or $3,200 for husband and wife. Plain enough??????
3. Every member of Congress will get an added$10,000 which is putting them very close to $ 200,000 per year. Sounds like an elite class to us.
*
*
*
4. *Do you feel SCREWED?* They vote themselves a raise and better benefits. They only care about WE THE PEOPLE on election day, right? You never did anything about it in the past. *The time for action is near!!!!
*
5. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?
*SEND THE MESSAGE-- You're FIRED.
*
*
***** **THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES! IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE ENTIRE SITTING CONGRESS, Up to 1/3 OF THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.**
**The election in 2010 will be a sea-change to the mindset of any member of Congress who may survive.
*
*MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN **NOVEMBER 2010 **AND REMIND THE REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW UP LIKE THE GUYS THEY ARE REPLACING.*
The 2010
--
Sincerely, Judi Cole Realtor and Relocation Specialist CENTURY 21 Joe Walker & Assoc.
614-895-7578
614-562-7578 (cell)
614-899-0955 (fax)
Ask me how I can help you or someone you know move anywhere!
c21judicole@gmail.com
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Jud Cole forward- By the numbers- Politicians don't want to understand
Thanks Judi,
Stark differences in percentages. I'll take the free system vs. government controlled health care. Our elitist 'representatives' are not representing the American people on this one.
I would like to see a bunch of American service people return and be voted into office. Qualifications- smolifications( not a word), they have protected us. Let them represent us. I doubt the libs could buy them off as they have our elitists.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: judith Cole
Health care percentages in USA, England, and Canada
Very interesting.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a
survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .
Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
SHIP HIS ASS TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !
=
Stark differences in percentages. I'll take the free system vs. government controlled health care. Our elitist 'representatives' are not representing the American people on this one.
I would like to see a bunch of American service people return and be voted into office. Qualifications- smolifications( not a word), they have protected us. Let them represent us. I doubt the libs could buy them off as they have our elitists.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: judith Cole
Health care percentages in USA, England, and Canada
Very interesting.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a
survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .
Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
SHIP HIS ASS TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !
=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)