Maintaining The Secret

The Grady Task Force is a group that I will definitely give a great deal examination to in the near future, however in the meantime, I will cede to Ron Marshall again who is well versed in it himself.

Every time the public ask can we get a look at certain documents, or ask why we weren’t invited to the meetings. We are denied answers. Then the public ask why are you having secret meetings and why can’t we see these document from these meeting. Why are we denied? Some of our elected politicians are not asking. We have become a secret society that has levels of secrecy that only the secret privileged who are a secret themselves know the secret. There is an abusive attitude for power here. By training the workers to keep the secrets, intimidation and retaliation has made robots out these workers and the one’s that want to speak out or expose the secrets they are kept in check or worse.

Emory and Grady secrets have paralyzed open and transparency laws and it seems the thought of having a Sunshine Law is a fraud. Over the years I have been trying to get these and other records the show how the robbery of Grady has been commented. This has not been a Secret to the New Grady Coalition not a secret that Grady and Emory have been keeping the illusion they are clean. Emory and
Grady are not tainted by anything like threatening employees if they speak out
or retaliate against the ones that do. Have they lost their humanitarian equilibrium?

It is not a secret Emory and Grady have kept secrets on how money has been diverted to different owned entities to make them rich and keep the workers under the arm pits of threats that if they spoke out, we will get you. It is not a secret that Grady has over paid management and too many managers on staff, that unqualified workers working in areas where a certification is a must or has management that stole money through bonus payments. We don’t know if the pension funds have been threatened, that’s a secret.

And again the board selected an advisory board that consist of the foxes watching the hen house so the continue pattern of secrecy adds to our concern, is all government and public officials bought and paid for. We also know that Grady and Emory pay large sums to keep their secrets. Hire top lawyer firms to protect their secrets. We know that Emory hired a PR firm to cover up their secrets. It is not a
secret that Emory threatens and retaliates against students that attend its prestige school if they speak out against how Emory treats the student body. Emory is not in the helping poor people business. So we have to ask why all the secrets. Is money and power the ultimate secret?


The local press has said the people who want to know the secrets are just making
things difficult, they are called brow beaters by the press but we keep showing you the secrets. Is the media bought and paid for? I guest if you were a sheep herder you have to keep your sheep in place. One way is by allowing the secret meetings and payoffs to be conducted secretly. Go to this site http://www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter15.htm and start looking at the plan that is bigger than Grady and Emory but they use the same technique to accomplish the ultimate goal, get rich and let you die trying.

Ron Marshall
The New Grady
Coalition

Mr. Marshall mentions uses the metaphor the fox guarding the henhouse when describing the Grady Task Force. The best illustration of this metaphor is Robert Brown, and I wrote about him and his role in the task force here.

L.O.S.T Coming Up For a Vote

I have to admit ignorance vis a vis the L.O.S.T. treaty. Thus, my go to guy is Mark "Snooper" Harvey over at Take Our Country Back. The vote is coming and L.O.S.T. threatens our sovereignty and sounds like exactly the sort of thing that George Soros would love.


Theoretically, all we need is for 34 Senators to be against this retarded "treaty" for it to be quietly removed from the Senate calendar.Get on the phones...jam the email servers.JUST SAY, "HELL NO!" TO GIVING AWAY OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIONAL SECURITY to a defective, defunct and waste of an organization such as the United Nations. The ONLY thing the United Nations is united for is to be against the United States.Paul Weyrich has a must read column at Townhall. We have until 11/1/2007 to swamp our Senators as we did with the Shamnesty deal.Get off your rumps and make your voices heard!Cliff Kincaid has an article at The August Review as well and it also is a must read.

Can the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty not only be delayed but defeated outright in the Senate? That's the question that conservatives are delightfully pondering as a remarkable series of events has put the pact, supported by the Bush Administration and the liberal leadership in the Senate, in serious jeopardy. Perhaps the most significant development is the announcement by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that he will oppose the White House and vote against the treaty.As opponents of the treaty make their case in advertisements and on cable TV and talk radio, Republican senators are increasingly hearing from their constituents that they don't want the treaty ratified because it will undermine American Sovereignty and hand more power over to the United Nations.[...]Read the two articles and I also have a herd of pieces on LOST right here.

Say no to L.O.S.T.

I haven't posted anything about this treaty because I must admit, I don't know much about it. That said, Snooper over at Take Our Country Back has put together a great piece...

Why, you ask? Because Ronald Wilson Reagan did and here is why he totally rejected the premise.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - commonly known at the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST - is the darling project of the transnational progressives, or "transies." Their goal is nothing less than the establishment of world government at the expense of traditional sovereignty.Any questions?Another U.N. Power Grabby William P. Clark and Edwin Meese, 10-8-07

Don't give U.N. keys to Earth's treasuresby Tom Marzullo, 5-18-07

The thing won't die! by Henry Lamb, 5-17-07

How Americans lose under LOSTby Rebecca Hagelin, 5-17-07

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Risks Outweigh the Benefitsby Edwin Meese III, Baker Spring and Brett D. Schaefer, 5-16-07

A L.O.S.T. Presidencyby Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., 5-14-07

Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty5-13-07

Reagan Would Still Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty by Edwin Meese III, 4-25-05

Law of the Sea Treatyby Doug Bandow, 3-16-05

Out to SeaEd Feulner commentary, 3-08-05

Skeptical Senate eyes sea treatyThe Washington Times, 3-07-05

Should the U.N. be lord of the oceans?Pat Buchanan column, 2-28-05

Conservatives denounce GOP support of treatyThe Washington Times, 2-19-05

Letter (signed by Phyllis Schlafly and others) to Sen. Richard Lugar (PDF), chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 2-18-05

Protect U.S. Sovereignty: Sink the Law of the Sea TreatyHuman Events, 1-28-05
Center for Security Policy

The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development The Liberty Committee

Ronald Reagan's concerns with LOST

LOST poses fundamental threats to U.S. sovereignty

LOST empowers the United Nations

LOST demands damaging technology transfer

LOST is a mechanism for international taxation

LOST will restrains the operations of the U.S. military

LOST will subject the U.S. to dangerous litigation and regulation

LOST creates rigged-game decision mechanisms

LOST provides a backdoor for U.S. accession to the Kyoto Protocol

LOST creates dangerous precedents for other "international commons"

LOST creates mandatory dispute settlement mechanisms

China can use LOST to undermine U.S. interests in Asia

Russia can use LOST to support its aggressive territorial claimsAbsolutely amazingCPASEverything you ever needed to know about the United Nations take over of American Soil. Sink The Law Of The Sea AgainPhyllis Schlafly Column, 9-26-2007

Time To Stand Up for AmericaPhyllis Schlafly Report, June 2007

Deep-Six The Law Of The SeaPhyllis Schlafly Column, 5-23-2007

Defeat the UN Law of the Sea Treaty!Phyllis Schlafly Report, Feb. 2005

Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law Of The Sea Treaty Phyllis Schlafly Column, 2-09-2005

We Should Drown Law Of The SeaPhyllis Schlafly Column, 3-17-2004

(10/9/07) Frank Gaffney, "A Navy LOST?" Washington Times

(10/5/07) William Scally, "Law of the Sea Treaty is Being 'Rubber Stamped,' Critics Charge," Congressional Quarterly

(10/5/07) Adm. James Lyons, "U.S. LOST at Sea?" The Washington Times

(10/4/07) Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, "Two Witnesses, Fifteen Minutes of Fame," CPAS Press Release

(10/04/07) Frank Gaffney, "Ronald Reagan Was Right: The Law of the Sea Treaty Was And Remains Unacceptable," Submitted Testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Conservatives Head for Cliff Again

There are so many important topics that need discussion and I just don't have time to discuss them all. Sometimes, I am not enough of an expert to make good analysis. The potential bolting of Social Conservatives is just one of those topics. I did find a fine piece that I would like to share with you from Gerry Phelps that analyzes the situation.

It was the Democrats in 1968 - so angry at having Humphrey as their
candidate that they stayed at home. And brought themselves years of earned
liberal misery under Nixon.
It was the conservative Republicans in
1992. They were so angry that Bush Sr. broke his "no new taxes" pledge
that they stayed at home, or voted for Perot. And endured 8 years of
earned conservative misery under Bill Clinton.

Now a group of conservative evangelicals have denounced Republican
candidates Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney, here.
They say they would stay at home or vote for a 3rd party candidate rather than
vote for any of them. And they are urging others to follow their
lead.

What? They would prefer Hillary Clinton? Possibly for 8
years? Are they masochists? Or just ignorant of the lessons of the
past? Do they really think Hillary would meet their requirements better
than any viable Republican?

Are Christian conservatives yearning to drive over that cliff
again?

Please, fellows. Think again. Please!

For my money it is far too early to start worrying. I also firmly believe that so called social conservatives are not homogenous and so frankly aren't going to vote for one candidate as a block. I found this analysis at Power Line to be fairly right on. In short, don't fret Republicans Rudy is an astute politician and he isn't going to get plowed over by social conservative leadership or by any third party candidate.

S-CHIP:The S is for Socialized Medicine

I would like to introduce Fault Line USA for some guest commentary about the battle over SCHIP.

““You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the House can look at themselves in the mirror”

Daily Kos

“Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties ever looking into the
mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!”

– Faultline USA

Here’s an excerpt of ABC’s blather that passes for journalism these days.. . .

Gathering on the White House lawn and the steps of Congress, the throngs
were joined by children who pulled red wagons filled with over a million
petitions, urging Congress to expand health insurance coverage for children.Yet,
it appears that the effort may be in vain after Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday
that would have renewed and expanded SCHIP. . .Health policy experts now say low
and moderate income families like the Taylors will be hit the hardest if the
veto stands, and individuals fear the social and financial consequences.Congress
has already passed legislation which would reauthorize and expand the program by
adding $35 billion over five years, and covering an additional 4 million
children — a plan funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1
per pack. . .

Sweets & Light has a great response to ABC’s blatant pandering to the left on the SCHIP veto.Here’s an excerpt (but please go read all of it).. . .

Never mind that President Bush only vetoed a $35 billion dollar expansion of the
SCHIP program. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this suddenly
precious boondoggle (that most people had never even heard of before) will be
eliminated. . .. . .But just look at this exercise in objective journalism. See
if you can find any mention of any possible objections to the SCHIP program. .
.Did ABC News speak to anyone except those who were benefiting from the
taxpayers’ (unwitting) generosity? Did this reporter ask any hardworking
families what they thought about paying for other peoples’ kids health
insurance? . . .. . .Unfortunately, every day we are fed an endless stream of
execrable, agenda-driven articles like this one, masquerading as news. Articles
so blatant in their purpose they would have even made Hitler or Stalin’s minions
at their respective ministries of propaganda blush.But because our watchdog
media think they are serving such a noble purpose they are proud of their
efforts rather than ashamed.Of course that is exactly what they believed in
Hitler and Stalin’s ministries as well

.Politico writers Kady II and O’Connor believe that an override veto is unlikely. . .
Here’s an excerpt.It’s highly unlikely any House Republican will turn 180
degrees and vote to override President Bush’s veto, but nonetheless, Democrats
have decided to draw the issue out for two more weeks, until they hold the veto
override.Interviews with several of the targeted House Republicans — all of whom
are considered vulnerable in next year’s elections and are under pressure to
change their vote on State Children’s Health Insurance Program — give little
indication that any of them would flip-flop on such a high-profile issue.

If an override passes, the Daily Kos confirms our worst fears with typical
forked-tongue twisting. No I won’t hyperlink this far left nutcase blog. Here’s
the link.www(dot)dailykos(dot)com/storyonly/2007/10/4/81915/3035Here’s an
excerpt:Which uninsured children are the wrong people? And who is this program
intended to help?This report provides an overview of citizen and noncitizen
children in immigrant families in the United States and their access to SCHIP.
The section entitled "Immigrant
Children at Risk" describes the population, their rising numbers, and their
lack of health insurance. The next section reviews the effects of the 1996
welfare reform law on immigrants' eligibility for health care, and studies that
indicate enrollment is down even for eligible immigrant families. The report
then examines some of the factors affecting enrollment, such as fears of public
charge, verification of citizenship and immigrant status, and language and
cultural barriers. Finally, the paper outlines examples of state responses
through state-funded health care and improvements in outreach, application and
enrollment. Examples from California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida are given.
The appendices include definitions for common immigration terms and a
description of federal funds available for outreach and enrollment to the
immigrant population (SCHIP, Medicaid, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program.). . . While Boehner appeals to Fortress America, state
legislatures are trying to sign these eligible kids up, because we all pay for
their care in ERs when they don't get care in a medical home. That's why 45
governors support SCHIP, from Jodi Rell (R-CT) to Arnold Schwarzenegger
(R-CA).You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the
House can look at themselves in the mirror.

Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties looking into the mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!

Silence in Syria and Panic in Iran

This is cross posted from Snooper over at Take Our Country Back

Come to think of the situation, I find it "Rather" curious why the Little Man from Iran really came to the United States strutting his Little Man Syndrome and then traveling to Venezuela, further strutting his Little Man Syndrome with another Little Man.

A few weeks back, Israel performed a deep penetration into Syria to take out an unspecified target or targets. The mission was a success but how successful is still unclear seeing that Israel knows how to deal with loud-mouthed Press Schnooks...State Secret Leakers are severely dealt with, unlike here in the US, much to our detriment and due to the plethora of cowards in DC to prosecute such cretins.

There is much speculation as to that which was attacked and/or destroyed. It could be it was the Nork "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria to be used to make "dirty" nukes; it could be the stockpile of Zilzal missiles recently shipped to Syria from Iran to be used to attack Israel; it could be that someone found the WNDs that Saddam had which was reportedly shipped to Syria before the US took Saddam out. After all, Saddam said that he might go into exile if he could take his WMD data to Egypt.

Be that as it may, the real story is the successful penetration of Syria by Israeli war planes. Syria and Iran have spent untold amounts of money to the old USSR (soon to make a come-back) for the theoretical state of the art high-tech air defense systems...which didn't work.Syria is silent. Iran is panicked. Why? They are defenseless. That is why.Others are talking about this and have been for at least since the Israeli attacks into Syria:WizbangOpinion JournalReutersFree Republic
The Astute Blogger
Tail Rank
And this just in:

Israel lifted its official veil of silence over last month's strike in
Syria on Tuesday as army radio
said that the Jewish state carried out the attack deep inside its arch
foe's territory.
The Israeli military censor lifted a blackout on publishing
the information on the September 6 strike, in which Syria had said its air
defences fired on Israeli warplanes that dropped ammunition deep inside its
territory.

"The military censor has authorised for the first time the publication of
the fact that Israeli combat planes attacked a military target deep inside
Syrian territory on September 6," the radio said."It is the only element that
the censor allowed to be published," it added[...]In an interview aired by the
BBC on Monday, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad identified the target of the
strike as an "unused military building" and said that the warplanes had hit
"nothing of consequence."[...]Yahoo
News:
[...]

Foreign reports, quoting unidentified U.S. officials, have speculated that
Israel attacked a weapons shipment destined for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon,
or attacked a nuclear facility built with North Korean technology.
North
Korea, which provides missile technology to Syria, has denied any nuclear link.
Syria also has denied receiving North Korean nuclear help.
[...]

And what most fail to remember:

[...]Syria and Israel are formally at war. Peace talks between them collapsed in
2000 over the scope of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, a plateau
which the Jewish state captured from Syria in 1967.[...]Syria is shamed and
silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. And the friends of our enemies here in
the states are shrill

One More View of Barack Obama's Latest Proposal

My good friend Josh Levy of Win The War gives yet another perspective of Obama's latest speech at Depaul University here in Chicago. (for full disclosure I am a contributing editor at Win-The-War)

In Sen. Obama's latest speech on the war, he summarized his position on the Iraq War as follows:

But it's also time to learn the lessons of Iraq. We're not going to defeat the threats of the 21st century on a conventional battlefield. We cannot win a fight for hearts and minds when we outsource critical missions to unaccountable contractors. We're not going to win a battle of ideas with bullets alone.

Let's put aside the fact that al-Qaeda itself wants very much to to fight and defeat us on the battlefield, and considers Iraq the most important battlefield.

Let's put aside also that the solution to outsourcing critical missions is to increase the military so that it can accomplish those missions.

Let's put aside, finally, that by providing greater protection (i.e., manpower and bullets) to the Iraqis under the new strategy of Gen. Petraeus, we are in fact winning the battle of ideas. Sunnis and Shia both are giving us immense help and cooperating more with each other at the local and regional levels.

All that aside, Sen. Obama wants to leave Iraq and never discusses the probable consequences of our departure. He does not consider whether leaving will bolster the power of al-Qaeda or reduce it, whether it will increase unity in Iraq or lead to greater civil conflict, whether Iran and Syria will try to dominate the country or cease providing men, money and arms, whether America's reputation in the minds of its enemies will be burnished or blemished.
In other words, Sen. Obama wants to abandon the war effort merely on his principle that it was wrongly begun.

Sen. Obama believed that the war would hurt more than help American interests and security. He isn't asking himself the same questions about the consequences of retreat.
Any candidate who proposes, in effect, abandoning our allies to slaughter, yielding territory unconditionally to determined and fierce foes, and casting disgrace upon America's image abroad, is unfit for the presidency.






Now, after reading this, I just have one question for Josh, Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Nuclear Disarmement: We Go First

I spotted this story earlier today and if I wasn't, you know, working, I would have gone ahead and seen this speech live at Depaul University.

That said, I would like to introduce guest commentator Todd Anthony, of Twin Cities Conservative, with his thoughts which I have cross posted here...


This article is typical of the unreal, utopian message to which the Left espouses.
How are we supposed to take the Left seriously, when they’re not dealing with a full deck? They live in a world where ultra-violent Islamofascists are subject to negotiation and appeasement, where Judeo-Christianity is the TRUE enemy in our country.

In this report, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons, including the American nuclear stockpile. Here’s the primary issue that I’m sure most of you can identify: he assumes that rogue nations currently developing a clandestine nuclear program (see: North Korea and Iran) can be counted on to willfully disarm (i.e in good faith).

Is anyone surprised that the Democrats assume we can negotiate with despotic regimes? This is the same group of people that believed negotiations with Hitler would prove to be more fruitful. This is the same group that believes our exit from Iraq will magically halt all terrorist attacks against American citizens and interests within our borders and abroad.
Note the following points:

“In his speech, Senator Obama asserted that the US should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.”

Naturally, this comment is indicative of the anti-American rhetoric uttered from the Left. Along the same lines as the defeatist language expressed by the Democrats regarding Iraq, the message that terrorists hear is this: 1.) attack us with WMD, our response will be weak and timid; 2.) wait us out by (insert deadline); 3.) it’s our fault that you’re angry and violent.

“Senator Obama called for a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.”
Two words: wishful thinking. Obama and his Leftist ilk are under the delusion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il are trustworthy partners. How many times, for example, did the North Koreans renege on nuclear proliferation deals since the 1994 deal brokered by President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright?

Basically, Obama’s message is more of the same: America is bad. We’re the sole cause of anger in the Muslim world. Furthermore, we’re emasculating ourselves; this is akin to the gun dilemma in our country. The Democrats wish to strip all gun owners of their weapons, thinking this is the magic cure for gun violence. Yet, who will have guns? The criminals…
The same logic applies here; if a terrorist outfit wishes to use a nuclear device against an American interest, Israel, or God Forbid, within our borders, what’s to stop that group?
Nothing…

Here’s the complete article:
Obama seeks world nuclear ban
Jeff ZelenyOctober 3, 2007

PRESIDENTIAL hopeful Barack Obama overnight proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons, saying the US should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism.
In a speech in Chicago that was due to have been delivered early today, Senator Obama was to add his voice to a plan endorsed this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the Cold War era, who say the US must begin building a world consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons.

Senator Obama, according to details provided by his campaign, was to call for vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a world ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.

"In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together," according to an excerpt of his remarks.

"If we don't seize that moment, we may not get another."

The Bush Administration has tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons in the past year, putting it on track to halve US stockpiles by 2012.

The number of weapons being dismantled, like the overall stockpile, was secret, but the total number of American nuclear weapons would be at its lowest since Dwight Eisenhower was president from 1953 to 1961.

Under a 2002 treaty, the US and Russia agreed to limit operational nuclear weapons to between 1700 and 2200 by 2012.

Senator Obama is seeking to draw attention to his foreign policy views with the approach of the fifth anniversary of the congressional vote authorising military action in Iraq.

Senator Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters the Iraq war has consumed foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to tackle other threats to the US.
In his speech, Senator Obama asserted that the US should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.

If elected, he said, he would lead a world effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites in four years.

He pledged to end production of fissile material for weapons, agreed not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.

Senator Obama called for a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
Senator Obama is endorsing a call for "urgent new actions" to prevent a new nuclear era, which was laid out in January in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal by several former government officials.

The authors of the article were George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William Perry, secretary of defence in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.