DHS: Statement by Secretary Napolitano on the Introduction of Pass ID in the Senate

Release Date: June 15, 2009

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

Contact: 202-282-8010

“Today’s introduction of Pass ID in the U.S. Senate brings us closer to greater compliance with federal standards for secure driver’s licenses and better protection against terrorists and other threats nationwide,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Pass ID is a cost-effective, common-sense solution that balances critical security requirements with the input and practical needs of state governments. I am committed to supporting this important bill and it is my hope that Congress will pass it into law as quickly as possible.”

via DHS: Statement by Secretary Napolitano on the Introduction of Pass ID in the Senate.

Hitler’s T4 Program Revived In Obama’s Healthcare “Reform” | LaRouchePAC

I don’t necessarily totally agree with the assessment herein, I cannot deny the stratagem that appears to be playing out again in history.

In July of 1939, a conference of medical professionals was held in Berlin, Germany. Participating were the regular professors of psychiatry and chairmen of the departments of psychiatry of the leading universities and medical schools of Germany, many of them the most respected professionals in their fields. The subject? What would be the criteria for determining what patients would be considered to have “lives unworthy to be lived,” and what was the most “practical and cheap” manner of removing them from being burdens on the health care system—by death.

Thus, the bureaucratic machine began to be cranked up for what is known as Adolf Hitler’s program of genocide through “euthanasia,” a program which killed hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Germans, and eventually millions of Jews and non-Germans as well.

That program, which had already begun years before, against concentration camp inmates and handicapped children, was officially put into effect in October 1939, when Hitler penned his own personal, and secret, authorization for the program under the title “The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life:”

“Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be accorded a mercy death.”

via Hitler’s T4 Program Revived In Obama’s Healthcare “Reform” | LaRouchePAC.

Iran – truly a crisis for democracy?

First, let me say I am saddened by the treatment we see on TV of the Iranian people, and the farcical appearance of their voting process.

But at the same time – we can’t forget Obamagate, as I call it.  [the gate to free enterprise is slowly closing, once closed, be nigh impossible to open].

“It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.” -Ronald Reagan.

That being said, should we not strive to keep things in perspective- what is the real issue in Iran? Are we indignant over the results or the treatment of the people?

Religious beliefs in a Iran (The Republic of Islam)  have a fundamental role in their elections or democracy, the state religion is the only allowed participant and standard. They are a theocracy, not a democracy – I.e. their democracy, “capacity of mankind for self government”, is restricted by their supreme religion. They elect people (Islam only) to carry out their government administration, subject to the religious beliefs and objectives of their religion, Islam and the ultimate authority: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Despite our enthusiasm, Mousavi/Karroubi are not advocating an overthrow of that form of government.

In the final analysis, whomever wins in Iran – the policies don’t change much, just the tactfulness of their execution. Mousavi wants us to see that destroying Israel is in the worlds best interest (the opposition) while Ahmadinejad doesn’t care whether we agree or disagree. Same policy and same intent, only different set of players. I almost think I prefer Ahmadinejad since I know where he is coming from – doesn’t believe in the holocaust, thinks U.S. is the great Satan, wants us out of Iraq – and for that matter wants us out of all of middle east.

Mousavi/Karroubi aren’t much different, we are still a sinful and satanic country and should leave the middle east, Israel must go, but willing to grant women some rights so they will support the growth of the “Republic of Islam” (Iran)  throughout the Middle East. One plus, the free enterprise system has some place in their economic theory, where Ahmadinejad wants more government control (fascism) and Mousavi believes in a more socialistic approach to the economy. And, on one primary and important topic – none of the popular candidates advocated substantial change in Iran’s nuclear program or defense initiatives.

I didn’t write this to be an in-depth piece on the Iranian government, its social structure or cultural history – I only wanted to wake some people up to asking the right questions before becoming full time supporters of a theocratic society and government; that regardless of outcome – will still be opposed to the U.S. in principle and not an ally. Before being overly supportive, actually read and look at what the opposition platform is, and see what is the difference from the incumbent party.

Support that they are pursuing a democratic approach, but don’t think that makes you them an ally or a friend.