Vincent Gioia's Blog

‘Peace-loving’ Muslims (if there are any) are irrelevant

2009-12-20T10:53:00.000-08:00

There are two dangers facing the United States; one is a slow death and the other is faster.Under President Obama the country is losing its Constitution which is either ignored or revised by a Democrat controlled congress and the White House which should be repainted pink.

Around the world Islam is making headway and left unchecked will become the world religion (and I use the word "religion" loosely). Muslims are required by their holy book, the Koran, to eliminate everyone who doesn’t subscribe to Islam. The Islamic army comprises radical terrorists, also known as Jihadists, and those not yet terrorists. Past U.S. presidents at least recognized the threat posed by Jihadists and that they were Muslims. However President Obama, a one-time Muslim himself, apologizes for American action against Islamic terrorists and minimizes the danger of Islam.

In Obama’s speech on his Afghanistan strategy a few weeks ago he said in reference to Islamic terrorists, "As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."

Obama would have us believe that "a group of extremists" are the only terrorists slaughtering innocents but the truth is they are not a "small" group and they are not all members of al Qaeda. Poll after poll shows that at least 10% of Muslims favor terrorist actions; since there are 1.5 billion Muslims, there are at least about 150 million Muslims who are actual or potential murders. Yet the world takes no action to protect against the future Islamic takeover by both violence and the womb. The situation is analogous to what happened in Germany as the NAZI rose to power and implemented their horrifying goals.

It has been reported that a German (believed to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist) wrote the following:

"A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

Americans are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although there may be some truth in this at the moment, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics killing people across the globe in the name of Islam.

"The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers."

"The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous."

The same phenomenon where "peace-loving" people kept silent while a violent minority took over occurred in Russia, China and Japan.

In communist Russia most Russians just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. Most of China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not warmongering but Japanese murdered and systematically slaughtered 12 million Chinese killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet and still more across South East Asia.

Peace-loving Russians and Japanese were made irrelevant by their silence; and so do the Muslims.

In today’s world so-called "peace-loving Muslims" will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like the man from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them; and all of us will suffer for their silence.

Around the world peace-loving people who are in the majority must speak up against there fanatics before it’s too late to do any good. Like in Germany, they may find themselves, along with the rest of us, living under a regime like the NAZI who came to power as a minority.

The rest of us should not rely on an awakening by peace-loving Muslims to stifle the Islamic jihads threat. Unlike Obama we must identify the threat as Islam and do everything in our power to keep Muslims from over riding freedom and liberty we enjoy through our Constitution in the United States.

History lessons are often incredibly simple yet we are missing the most basic and uncomplicated of point, we cannot rely on others to protect us.

Leaving the US - why and why not?

2009-12-14T08:14:00.000-08:00

After the Bolsheviks took over Russia, many who lived there before were able to compare life before and after the Communist take-over. It became readily apparent that they had gone from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. However subsequent generations, having nothing to compare, had no idea what life could be under some other kind of government and simply accepted the regime as a way of life. Is this what will happen in the United States?

As we experience the "perfect storm" of leftist control of the government and the country, Americans stand to see our traditional way of life deteriorating under our very nose. Those of us who experienced life under less government control of our lives are outraged and oppose the direction of the Obama government and allies in congress led by Speaker Pelosi in the House and Senator Reid in the Senate. Clearly the views and beliefs of the people who are opposed to current Executive and Congressional action are not being represented in our so-called representative republican form of government. Sadly, our representatives choose to establish their agenda and care not if the public opposes the agenda. The leftist mantra is "if not now, then when?"

If successful, and there is presently no reason to expect otherwise, the total transformation of our country with less individual rights and freedom and more government control of our lives than ever envisioned by country's founders, is a virtual certainty.

In the years following the creation of the United States citizens would not tolerate any such transformation and would object at all costs. The inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is no accident; it was provided as a mechanism for the public to resist a take-over of constitutionally guaranteed rights by the federal government. It is a sad commentary on the evolution of our country that this form of patriotism has been replaced largely by apathy except for remaining patriots such as comprise the Tea Party members.

The federal government now possesses enormous power. The third branch of government, the judiciary, was to function as a check on the other branches but has not; instead, it has assisted the congressional and executive branches to expand their governmental roles by usurping the authority "not granted to the [national] government and reserved to the respective states and to the people." The consequence of current federal government power is the practical inability of Americans resist transformation by means other than the ballot box and this will likely prove insufficient to undo leftists' achievements.

If you doubt a transformation of our country is underway, consider what President Obama and the Democrats have done.

Obama has amazingly managed to convince millions of Americans that "black is white, that cold is hot, that the bad economy is the fault of George W Bush, and the only things standing between America and peace on earth are those darn Republicans and greedy capitalists." (Nancy Morgan)

Thomas Sowell, one of the best writers today, has pointed in "Is Reality Optional?"
"… social history in the last 30 years has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. And no-where is this more evident than in the 'change' Obama is foisting on the American people."

The empty rhetoric of 'social justice' and 'compassion' is convincingly and successfully being used to justify ever more ludicrous social policies, which just happen to come with a huge price tag and more government control - all outside the Constitution.

Failure of these policies has not prevented Obama and Democrats from advocating more and more of the same policies. Dr. Sowell points out, "The anointed are often wrong but never in doubt."

For another example, though 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance, Obama has declared a health care crisis. Obama and congress have devoted most of the year to try to impose government run health care on all citizens, despite the fact that 61% of Americans oppose it.

Similarly, despite convincing evidence undermining the dire claims of global warming and the falsification of data to support the bogus claim of man-made climate change, Obama and Democrats continue to ignore relevant science and insist that a massive redistribution of our wealth is needed in order to pay an imagined 'climate debt' to third world countries. Meanwhile, record unemployment and rising fees and taxes continue to devastate businesses and families across the nation. Only federal workers, who just got a 2% pay raise, are immune to unemployment because the government does not have to make a profit to exist and in the process severely undermines the rule of law and ignores the limitations imposed by our Constitution.

Excessive spending, such as record debt of over $14 trillion and a record $12 trillion dollars budget, is the result of evading the role of government as prescribed by the Constitution.

The policies of Obama and Democrats are destroying the dollar and bankrupting America. Moody's has issued a warning that our country's triple A rating is in danger and Obama is in the process of ceding American sovereignty to world bodies like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Once again, Thomas Sowell says it best: "We may be entering an era where the greatest dangers to the survival of Western civilization will come from internal social deterioration. Other great civilizations have declined and collapsed. We may be the first, however, to sink slowly into the quagmire, still beaming from ear to ear in self-congratulation at how 'innovative' we are in our social policies."

Obama is a dangerous man. He has convinced millions of Americans that they are entitled to the fruits of another's labor. "Virtually all of his policies to date have been designed to foster a dependence on government. But what the government gives, the government can take. As millions of enslaved peoples across the globe could attest - if they were allowed." (Marilyn Morgan)

The result of all this is that some people are considering leaving the United States. Ironically those who are considering such extreme actions likely comprise the strongest patriots because they are the ones who feel the most love of country but can't abide the destruction of the country they care about is being forced to take. Since remaining in the United States not only exposes them to life under the transformed government, it becomes frustrating to be unable to return to the type of government that the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, James Monroe and the others who risked life, limb and fortune to create.

So what to do - leave the United States - why not?

Leaving the US – why and why not?

2009-12-13T11:47:00.000-08:00

OIL - you better sit down

2009-11-08T06:52:00.000-08:00

Obama uses tax payer money to destroy the free market

2009-10-31T13:21:00.000-07:00

America became a great country by letting its people be all they can be without interference from government. In just less than a year all this has changed. We have seen the government dictate everything from toilets to light bulbs and take ownership interests in private enterprises in major segments of our economy. The formerly largest auto company has been taken over by the government and major banks now have the government sitting on their boards. The free market is no longer free and government expansionists are not through yet. We are looking at the one-fifth of our economy in the form our health industry becoming under the control of those running the government and under the guise of controlling alleged pollution virtually all the remaining remnants of the free market will be subject to bureaucratic regulation.

How did this happen and how does the government take over our lives? The answer is simple, with our own money – money earned under what once was a free market system and confiscated by tax laws.

Since the 1930’s under four-term President Franklin D. Roosevelt the government has spread tax money around beyond its constitutional role and infiltrated state governments and private enterprise. Under current President Barack Obama and with the aid of a virulent uncontrolled congress, government expansion has grown like an atomic mushroom cloud. By distributing tax payer money, often without being asked by recipients, the government has used this largesse as reason enough to dictate what those getting the money may or may not do.

Historically private enterprise has answered for the most part only to its owners, whether privately or publicly owned. However today we see and largely accept that if tax payer money finds its way into free enterprise in what should be a free market, the government which distributes the money can say how the business can be run, even to the point of dictating salaries and employee compensation.

There is much hysteria generated by government bureaucrats, the executive and legislative branches of government, broadcast by a sympathetic news media, who ask the question “how dare they pay executives (and others) huge salaries and bonuses when the government ‘bailed’ them out?” It seems that if money is given to a business, it has the right to become involved with how the business spends its money. There is virtually no publicly stated opposition to this idea even though the premise can be used to justify government intervention in almost all aspects of our lives – that the government has not as yet gone this far is only because those in charge have not thought of it, for now.

Let’s just see what could be done if we accept the idea that not only big business can be put under the government thumb but anything and anyone else that benefits from something the government does “for them.”

Money deposited in banks is insured by the FDIC, does this mean the government can tell the depositor how the insured money can be used?

Many students take out loans for their education. The government has recently decided that such loans must be given by the government and not privately owned banks (if there are any left). Can the government say what course of study the student borrower can have?

Home mortgages are often obtained directly or indirectly from the government or insured by government controlled agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why can’t the government use this link to approve or disapprove a buyer’s purchase selection or what the home owner wants to do with the house?

Government money finds its way into schools by one means or another and actually has enabled the government to dictate curricula and what students may eat at the school and what food may be served in government sponsored school lunches. As a result we see all manner of propaganda imposed on school children from programs praising the president to aggrandizing homosexuality. Private home schooling is discouraged because it is free from government control.

The federal government gives money to states and can then dictate speed limits (remember the 55 mph national speed limit) and all manner of rules and regulations which absent government money would be under the control of elected state officials.

The authority of the federal government of the United States is limited by the Constitution, intentionally, to prevent the government from taking over freedom and liberty; at least that’s how it supposed to work. But as you see tax payer money can be used by the government to extend its reach well beyond what the Constitution intended.

During the ten months or so Barack Obama has been president an enormous amount of money has been distributed to what had been publicly owned companies usually operated by company officers overseen by a board of directors on behalf of the owners, i.e. shareholders. This is how free enterprise works in a free market system but under the “hope and change” promised by Obama there is no boundary for the government.

Obama declared multiple crises and used the fear generated to invigorate dormant leftists members of congress to transform America into a socialist/Marxist society which has been their goal for years. The irony is that they did this with tax payer money for as long as it lasted and then with the printing presses in the Treasury Department under orders from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

With the aid, if not direction, of the Federal Reserve Bank leadership, billions and billions of dollars were given to businesses and banks under the guise of helping them out to avoid private bankruptcy and the financial disruption that would cause - even to banks who did not want government help. In return for this infusion of tax payer money, the government received ownership interests in the businesses receiving the government “bailout” money. With virtually no opposition, or much knowledge of the public, the federal government wound up with 60% ownership of General Motors; 35% of GMAC; 35% of Citigroup and 10% of Chrysler. The Obama administration used the rubric of the peoples’ money given to businesses to dictate not only how the businesses and banks are to operate, but what compensation can be made to company employees. One of Obama’s “Czars” went so far as to require compensation reductions of as much as 90%.

Let’s ask those business leaders and unemployed who supported Obama’s election – how is that hope and change working out for you?

The UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone report rewards terrorism

2009-10-29T17:13:00.000-07:00

For eight years, while Hamas indiscriminately shelled Israeli civilians with rockets provided by Iran, the UN stood did and said nothing. Only when Israel tried to stop this, did the Human Rights Council dominated by Muslim countries act. What did they do, they condemned Israel. This so-called Human Rights council passed a resolution calling for an investigation. Last month, the results of this "investigation" of Israel’s defensive action in Gaza were presented by Justice Richard Goldstone (a Jew) to the HRC. But the report did not deal responsibly with the issues it merely was a one-sided anti-Israel diatribe, as even Goldstone acknowledged as being one-sided. Goldstone is now trying to distance himself from the results of his own handiwork.

Last Friday he discussed his disappointment with the action taken by the HRC, telling the Swiss daily Le Temp: "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel, there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas."

We must now deal with the consequences. The council's adoption of the Goldstone report constitutes nothing less than a reward for terrorism in more ways than one. First, the resolution adopted Friday ignores the reality of Hamas criminality, blaming the victim, rather than the real perpetrator of war crimes in Gaza. The HRC ignored the war crimes committed by purposely firing thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians, endangering Gaza civilians by firing from populated areas and abducting Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens, made every effort to avoid confrontation and did all that it could to minimize civilian casualties. The only relevant consideration for the HRC was the fact that an opportunity had presented itself to demonize Israel in the international arena.

By ignoring the atrocities by Hamas, this resolution essentially grants immunity to the terrorists and prevents a law-abiding state from defending its citizens. The Human Rights council has sanctioned new form of warfare in which terror groups launch attacks against "enemy" civilians from behind a shield of "friendly" civilians.

The Goldstone snowball is gaining momentum since the report has now been passed to the UN General Assembly in New York for further action.

By the way, President Obama has reversed the Bush administration refusal to join the farcical Human Rights Council and has joined the Muslim-dominated UN agency and its Islamic crusade against Israel and humanity."

Isn't America under Obama great?

2009-10-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, Obama has proposed a new auto insurance reform plan with a public option. There are millions without auto insurance that need to be protected and it is not fair that they are not covered. The unfortunate who do not have documentation to prove they are American citizens must be also able to share the American dream of a car in every garage or front yard. Although children of the undocumented who are born in the United States would qualify for auto insurance, they may be too young to get a driver’s license at present.

Under Obama’s plan a Federal Auto Reform Tribunal (FART) will be established that will determine federal standards for what vehicles may be covered (for example, it may be that only "green" cars can be insured), and rules for what auto insurance coverage may be available and to whom, e.g. what vehicles may be insured and what repairs may be included. FART will also determine whether private insurance policies meet federal standards; only policies that meet these standards can be sold. Though FART will only make recommendations, once approved by the Secretary of HEW the recommendations will become law.

The Obama Insurance for National Coverage (OINC) reform plan focuses on late model vehicles. Clunkers, cars that have seen better days and usually require more repair at that stage of their life, will only qualify for reduced coverage and repairs because the cost of repairing the clunkers comprises the greatest amount of repair costs.

Auto insurance will be mandatory; everyone will be required to buy insurance. It has not yet been decided whether those not owning cars will also have to pay for national auto insurance under OINC. Anyone not buying auto insurance must pay an annual fine in an amount intended to encourage purchase of insurance. (Of course, fines for families will be greater than for individuals.)

So as to not be burdensome for those with low income, those with incomes under a maximum amount (to be determined) and members of ACORN will be reimbursed by the government for the cost of insurance. High income earners (earners who don’t qualify as low income earners) will pay an extra surcharge to assure OINC is made available to all and reduce the overall cost of OINC so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be able to report a lower overall cost of OINC.

In order to insure fairness, and help pay for OINC, private insurers offering auto insurance with coverage which exceeds the federal standards and those buying such insurance will have to pay a tax to make up the difference.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will enforce OINC to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

OINC also includes a government, or public, option that offers auto insurance that will compete with private insurance for the purpose of offering competition to state-limited private insurance companies. The government insurance will compete against private companies that are unable to sell across state lines. Since government enterprises are not required to make a profit, it is anticipated that government auto insurance will cost less than private insurance so those seeking to reduce their auto insurance cost will likely switch their insurance to the OINC, thus assuring that in time only the government option will exist as private companies cease to sell auto insurance.

Americans have often complained that private insurance company employees are too often difficult to deal with. OINC will offer everyone an alternative by allowing people to deal with government employees (sometimes referred to as government bureaucrats). This arrangement has the added advantage of increasing employment (albeit government employment) since a very large bureaucracy will have to be created to service OINC.

Another public complaint has been that insurance companies do not cover preexisting conditions. When insurance coverage is really needed because of prior injury, insurance companies refuse to offer coverage; and this is simply unfair. Probably the greatest benefit of OINC is that it remedies this situation by requiring auto insurance to cover preexisting conditions.

Under OINC if you have a car that has been injured you will be able to get auto insurance to cover repairs of the injured vehicle. It does not matter whether or not you have had insurance at the time of the injury; you will get the needed coverage and reimbursement for repair after the injury. No longer will car owners fear that they will not be able to afford putting their vehicle in like-new condition because they are unfortunately unable to afford the cost.

Isn’t America under Obama great or what?
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

New federal law will make thought punishable

2009-10-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

Passing a law that makes an act a crime does not stop such acts from occurring; it merely punishes a person who performs the act. There is nothing wrong with punishment for committing an act that society deems wrong but it should be recognized that punishment is a form of societal revenge and not a device to prevent offensive acts.

But there is a problem with what acts should be deemed punishable. Of course there will be general agreement about many acts which should be regarded as punishable acts, i.e. crimes, but there is a huge grey area where some acts may be regarded as worthy of societal retribution and others are simply an effort of behavioral modification, e.g. murder is wrong, punishment for not wearing a seat belt while driving is for behavioral modification, but society punishes both, albeit with different severity.

There are a great many arbitrary criminal laws that are in place in an ineffective way to dictate what a person should and should not do. The fact is that although some may be frightened for fear of punishment to conform to the societal dictate, not everyone will.

The theatre of the absurd is illuminated when society adds to the mix the concept of motivation to determine what is a crime or is not. Not only is it necessary to then “guess” at why a person does something but if the punishment for an act which has been previously deemed criminal is “enhanced,” then a situation is created where the untenable becomes the rule and anything becomes possible to criminalize and punish whether reasonable or not - which brings us to “hate crimes.”

What is a hate crime? The answer is whatever law makers say it is. And what do law makers say is a hate crime – whatever a sufficiently strong pressure group wants it to be. There need not be any logic to it.

Last July in another of the Democrat’s leader’s tricky moves, the senate voted to expand the 1969 federal hate crimes law to include people attacked because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability by attaching it to a “must pass” defense appropriation bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim."

The vote was 63-28 (nine senators did not vote). All 56 Democrats who were present and the 2 independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont) voted "for" the legislation. The Republicans who crossed party lines to vote in favor of the amendment were Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and George Voinovich of Ohio.

Recently a similar bill passed by the House, (HR 2647) - the Defense Authorization bill, also to which hate crimes legislation was attached. The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion defense allocation that now heads to the Senate. After the bill passes the Senate and the president signs it, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, "gender identity," or disability.

Homosexual advocacy groups and their Democrat allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. "It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.

It is noteworthy that the Senate and House leadership chose not to allow a separate vote for this but attached it to a totally unrelated, but necessary, bill to authorize critical defense spending; the reason is obvious, standing alone congress was unlikely to go along with this arbitrary absurdity.

"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources to those soldiers who need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana who is a member of the Republican leadership.

This is the first time in American history that thought alone is being criminalized. Until now the government has adhered to the admonition by Thomas Jefferson who said the reach of legislation should extend only to actions and not to opinions but now the law will punish people not just for what they did but what they were thinking when they did it.

Consider the effect this will have on the practice of religion and freedom of speech. Anyone speaking from a pulpit who preaches the biblical view of homosexuality may be subject to criminal prosecution.

Not only does the new law make thought a factor in criminality, it also extends the power of the federal government over the states. Despite many states also having enacted hate crimes legislation, it would provide federal grants to help with the prosecuting of hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes.

The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on a purported hate crime.

It in not likely that this law will be able to be repealed in the future so it will remain the law of the land and another triumph of a special interest group, in this case the homosexual community.

The government does not create wealth; it merely redistributes tax money received

2009-10-07T06:43:00.000-07:00

With all the government spending these days it’s easy to forget that the government does not create wealth; whatever the government gives to some it takes from others. The tax system is designed to be the vehicle for this transfer of wealth. Barack Obama said, famously, that he wants to spread the wealth but this was being done long before Obama had aspirations to become president. Once elected, Obama merely expedited the transfer of wealth and wants to bring it to new levels of “success.”

Today with as many people not paying taxes as do, it makes perfect political sense for a politician and a political party intending on remaining in power to practice what George Bernard Shaw observed: "The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

John Stossel wrote an article recently in which he cited some profound statistics. I don’t know if these statistics are correct but I trust Stossel to not put anything in writing that is incorrect.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently reported that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year and some will pay less than zero — meaning, they'll get money from those who do pay taxes.

The Tax Policy Center also reported that in 2009 the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy under the euphemistically entitled “Earned Income Tax Credit” will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax paid to the government under both this tax program and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.

The system already in place before Obama is geared to make sure the “rich pay their fair share.” The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent and don’t forget this does not include the many who don’t pay any taxes but receive a “tax credit,” that is, a welfare check paid out of money the 53 percent of us pays to the government.

According to Stossel, “Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economist, defined the state as ‘that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.’” Unfortunately one political party here has elevated this concept to a point likely not envisioned by Bastiat where one half of the population lives off the other half.

The founders who created this country wrote a constitution intending to limit the power of the federal government. The primary task they expected the government to fulfill was to provide security and protect the people and to do this properly people would support the government by paying taxes (but not income taxes, that was thought up much later by the same thinking that enlarged the role of the federal government). However today we live under a system where virtually nothing is beyond the reach of the national government so more and more of the income of working Americans and businesses must be confiscated to support the expanded range of government activities. There is no limit to what the federal government can do at our expense; if there is a limit, it’s only whatever the political mind can envision. The result is, as Stossel points out, a distribution “of special privileges, taking money from some and giving it to others. America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.”

As I said, the government does not create wealth; it merely redistributes the earnings of those who pay taxes.

Legislating in secret - or - the end of the era of transparency before it began

2009-10-06T21:23:00.000-07:00

When you don’t want people to know what you’re doing, what do you do – you don’t tell them. The robotic Obama Democrat congress is implementing the outrageous practice of shielding new legislation not only from the public but also from the legislators who vote on them. Thanks to Washington Examiner correspondent, Susan Ferrechio, we know that the Democrat leadership in congress is fighting against posting bills online - and winning.

Since President Obama took office, and even earlier during the last days of the Bush administration, laws have been passed that were deliberately made impossible for the public to read in advance and many in congress admit that they too have had no time to read and understand bills before voting – but they voted anyway – with the result that the Democrat congress succeeded in giving Obama whatever he wanted. Most often these bills had enormous price tags and the country’s debt mushroomed like an atomic cloud.

In the waning days of the Bush White House, first a "crisis" was declared in the financial industry and then a Democrat Congress passed a $700 billion financial sector rescue package on October 3, 2008. However, this 1,100 page costly bill was passed with only 29 hours prior notice to the public online before voting. Even those in the House and Senate were given only hours before the final vote.

Big numbers don’t scare Democrats but they might waken the public to what the Democrat congress under Obama is doing. So the non-stimulating 1,100 page, $790 billion Stimulus bill was passed February 14, 2009, after being available online only 13 hours before debate. Of course, there was another "crisis" that warranted immediate action, notwithstanding that almost all of this money was not to be spent for years while the economy continued to languish. Democratic leadership didn’t want the public to know where this money was going until after the law was passed; otherwise they might have learned about the "stimulation" of ACORN and like organizations with billions of dollars which is included in the law.

The Stimulus bill has been a resounding failure except to those sharing in the largesse, mostly supporters of Barack Obama’s election. Although the president promised that spending all this money would restrain unemployment to 8%, we have seen unemployment rising to nearly 10% with the true figure being closer to 17%.

The 1,168 page cap-and-tax law passed the House August 26, 2009, after being online only 15 hours before the vote. Many in congress, including the committee chair, Henry Waxman, admitted they did not know what was in the bill or had not read it before voting. Imagine, this so-called energy bill will affect the lives of all Americans in untold ways and increase costs to businesses and the public forever but the Democrat congress rushed the bill though in less time than most people could read over 1,100 pages of anything, let alone something as convoluted and far reaching as this bill.

The only good thing to come out of the Democrat spending spree is that it seems the people of America have finally been aroused to pay attention to what is happening around them. There were town hall meetings across the country this past summer that brought out formerly passive Americans who were angry about the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills. The stimulus bill has failed to provide help to the job market promised by Obama. Lisa Rosenberg, a lobbyist for the Sunlight Foundation that seeks to bring more transparency to government, pointed out "If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out."

Now that health care "reform" proposals are being pushed by Obama and Democrats, voters are starting to pay attention. Polls show that large majorities are against the Democrat proposals but that hasn’t stopped the Democrat railroading. Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi has dictated that a health care bill will be passed by the House with no input from Republicans and we can expect with little advance notice of its provisions to the public.

The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill very soon which also is written in hundreds of pages with no assurance that Senators and the public will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.

Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes. One Democrat aide said "The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill."

It is obvious that the public has no faith that congress will be doing the right thing for the country. "The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.

Heritage wants to have all bills posted online 72 hours before votes are taken but I believe even this does not provide sufficient time for analysis and publicizing the critical features of proposed laws. Furthermore, not only should there be adequate public notice and disclosure, it should be mandatory that every Senator and member of congress read or at least be intimately familiar with all provisions of bill they will vote upon before they become law.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

What is a misdemeanor under the constitution and why it is important

2009-10-05T11:10:00.000-07:00

Although I can be sympathetic to the effort to prove Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to be president, the simple truth is nothing will come of it. The fact is while Obama is in the oval office (even only occasionally as he seems to be) the president can and (with a robotic Democrat congress), is doing great harm to the country and more destruction is on the way.

However this quixotic effort is not the only way Obama could potentially be removed from office, but (unfortunately) with the same result, i.e., nothing will come of it. Nonetheless, unlike the eligibility issue, this one is more provable.

Can we actually impeach Barack Hussein Obama? Should we impeach Barack Hussein Obama?

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (Emphasis added)

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," imports a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is greatly either misunderstood or totally ignored today. "High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.

C-Span.org has succinctly and clearly summarized the historical significance of including the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:

"’High crimes and misdemeanors’ entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a ‘misdemeanor’ meant ‘miss-demeanor,’ or bad behavior."

In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act as many believe because our founding fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... egregious... grossly incompetence... grossly negligence... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."

The subject of impeachment was the subject of a great deal of discussion as the Constitution was debated as it was adopted from the English concept of this idea. In England impeachment was a device to remove from office someone who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown. (1) It was used in the early constitution proposals and the discussions concerned such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment. (2) The attention of the founders was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow focus are reflected in some of the things left unresolved by the language of the Constitution.

During the debate in the First Congress on the ''removal'' controversy, some contended by that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the Government from his post, (3). Madison said impeachment was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him ''even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers'' (4). However the language of Sec. 4 does not leave any doubt that any officer in the executive branch is subject to the power.

Examining records of the discussion of what should qualify as grounds for removal of the president is very interesting. At first it was determined that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ''of mal-practice or neglect of duty'' and subsequently this was changed to ''Treason, or bribery'' (5). Mason objected to this limitation, saying that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ''or maladministration'' following ''bribery.'' Upon Madison's objection that ''[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to tenure during pleasure of the Senate,'' Mason suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate. The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388 (6).

Treason is defined in the Constitution (7); however, "high crimes and misdemeanors, which, in England had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses (8), is not. In debate prior to adoption of the phrase (9) and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions (10) were to the effect that the [president] should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.

During the effort to impeach Justice Chase, the theory of extreme latitude was expressed by Senator Giles of Virginia during his impeachment trial... ''The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives; and the power of trying impeachments was given equally without limitation to the Senate. . . . A trial and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any criminality or corruption in him . . . [but] nothing more than a declaration of Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better.'' Though Chase was acquitted it had more to do with more to do with the political divisions in the Senate than to the merits of the arguments, it did establish that no indictable crime was necessary to impeach for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
　
This interpretation was used in the president Johnson impeachment.--President Johnson was impeached by the House on the ground that he had violated the ''Tenure of Office'' Act (11) by dismissing a Cabinet chief. The theory of the proponents of impeachment was succinctly put by Representative Butler, one of the managers of the impeachment in the Senate trial.

''An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose.'' (12)

In conjunction with later impeachments of federal judges, several successful impeachments in this Century support the idea that the constitutional requirement of ''good behavior'' and ''high crimes and misdemeanors'' may conjoin to allow the removal of judges who have engaged in seriously questionable conduct, although no specific criminal statute may have been violated. For example, both Judge Archibald and Judge Ritter were convicted on articles of impeachment that charged questionable conduct that did not amount to indictable offenses (13).

It’s not difficult to find high crimes and misdemeanors justifying impeachment according to the definition of the phrase as used by the founders and as described subsequently.

Here are just a handful of the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Barack Hussein Obama, our president:

- Obama has overseen the unconstitutional effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property.

- Obama has overseen the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property

- Obama has appointed countless "Czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These Czars don't have to be. Approved by the Senate. The Czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-Constitutional excrescences

- Obama lied to the American people when he said we could keep our private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation would inevitably drive private insurers out of business.
　
- Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Whereupon Obama vindictively fired Walpin to cover for Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin’s judgment in the matter.

- Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it would instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale and give the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses.

-Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just 9 months since Obama assumed office, our National Debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush 8 years to add 4.8 trillion to the National Debt.
And these matters are only some of the misdemeanors (as defined by the Founders). Doesn’t it appear as if Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country?

On numerous occasions in his world-wide apology tour Barack Hussein Obama said that America is not a Christian nation despite surveys that say the contrary. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote of Muslims and Arabic immigrants: "… I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." When he spoke at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, the White House insisted that the name of Jesus, be covered. Georgetown complied. In 2006, he said; "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation." He went to Egypt and said, "You might say that America is a Muslim nation."

Why go to such lengths to deny the Judeo Christian heritage of the United States? Surely Barack Hussein Obama knows that our personal liberties flow directly from our Judeo Christian heritage... that there is no surer way to destroy our republic than to deny that heritage.

There is no doubt that America was founded on Judeo Christian heritage.

President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

President Andrew Jackson called the Bible; "the Rock upon which our republic rests."

President John Adams said; "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."

Patrick Henry said, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."

George Washington, in his Farewell Address said; "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, wrote extensively on the relationship between the Christian religion and liberty in American: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

It is clear to patriots that every jab at the Judeo Christian heritage of this great nation is a blow to the very foundation of our nation and strikes at our freedom and liberty. Barack Hussein Obama hasn't only denied this heritage of this nation; he has as president bad-mouthed America itself at every opportunity.

For example, Obama said, "America has been arrogant." thus giving our enemies and our allies every reason to believe that we are less resolved to defend ourselves and hence more vulnerable to attack.

Following his inauguration, Obama ordered Gitmo closed within a year without having any idea where to put the terrorists, despite the fact that it was (and is) the best possible facility for detaining terrorists.

His first presidential phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah Party in the Palestine territory. According to press reports he told Abbas; "This is my first phone call to a foreign leader and I'm making it only hours after I took office."

His first one–on-one TV interview was not with NBC or ABC, but with Al Arabiya, where he said:

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

He immediately issued an Executive Order halting military commissions which resulted in charges being dropped against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the vicious terrorist accused of planning numerous terrorist attacks against Americans, including the USS Cole bombing in which 17 U.S.
sailors died.

While treating the Queen of England with casual familiarity, he obsequiously bowed from the waist to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, leader of a Muslim nation that won’t permit Christian worship within its borders... under penalty of death.

I believe that Barack Hussein Obama is one of the most dangerous men in the world today and when it comes to his plans for transforming the United States into his idea of a socialist utopia Obama is not yet finished.

President Obama is going all the way back to Karl Marx; he believes it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must suffer a lessening of our way of life. Barack Hussein Obama is a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to our personal liberty today.

To make sure Americans can do nothing to thwart his agenda, Obama appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder who despises the 2nd Amendment. If Holder had his way, he would take away our guns, leaving us defenseless not only against gangs and hoods, but also the encroaching federal government. It was the healthy and rational fear of government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.

We can but unfortunately won’t do something to stop this maniacal narcissist. There’s only one answer.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Barack Hussein Obama's words and actions clearly rise well beyond the level of "bad behavior" and our Founding Fathers left us a remedy for presidents guilty of bad behavior.

"The Obama presidency is the disease; Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, is the cure."

Footnotes

(1) W. Holdsworth, History of English Law (London: 7th ed. 1956), 379-385; Clarke, The Origin of Impeachment, in Oxford Essays in Medieval History, Presented to Herbert Salter (Oxford: 1934), 164.
(2) Simpson, Federal Impeachments, 64 U. Pa. L. Rev. 651, 653-667 (1916).
(3)Annals of Cong. 457, 473, 536 (1789), Id. 375, 480, 496-497, 562, Id., 372.
(4) W. Willoughby, op. cit., n.294, 1448. [This point was established by a vote of the Senate holding a plea to this effect good in the impeachment trial of Senator William Blount in 1797. 3 A. Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: 1907), 2294-2318; F. Wharton, State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia: 1849), 200-321].
(5) M. Farrand, op. cit., n.4, 88, 90, 230, 172, 186, 499.550.
(6) T. Howell, State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Times (London: 1809), 90, 91; A. Simpson, Treatise on Federal Impeachments (Philadelphia: 1916), 86.
(7) Article III, 3. [The use of a technical term known in the common law would require resort to the common law for its meaning, United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 630 (1818) (per Chief Justice Marshall); United States v. Jones, 26 Fed. CAS. 653, 655 (No. 15,494) (C.C.Pa. 1813) (per Justice Washington), leaving aside the issue of the cognoscibility of common law crimes in federal courts. See Act of April 30, 1790, Sec. 21, 1 Stat. 117.]
(8) Berger, Impeachment for ''High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' 44 S. Calif. L. Rev. 395, 400-415 (1971).
(9) See id., 64-69, and 550-551.
(10) E.g., 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Constitution (Philadelphia: 1836), 341, 498, 500, 528 (Madison); 4 id., 276, 281 (C. C. Pinckney: Rutledge): 3 id., 516 (Corbin): 4 id., 263 (Pendleton). Cf. The Federalist, No. 65 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 439-445 (Hamilton).
(11) Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States on Impeachment (Washington: 1868), 88, 147.
(12) Id., 409.
(12) Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 430.
(13) Broek, Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachments since 1903, 23 Minn. L. Rev. 185 (1939). [Grimes, Hundred-Ton-Gun Control: Preserving Impeachment as the Exclusive Removal Mechanism for Federal Judges, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 1209, and 1229-1233 (1991).]
　
　
　
　
　

Is the Federal Reserve Bank more powerful than the US government?

2009-09-24T09:37:00.000-07:00

Much has been written (especially here) about the Federal Reserve Bank but nothing previously revealed about the Fed comes close to the outrageous arrogance as displayed when they thumb their nose at the government in response to a simple legitimate request for information.

The Federal Reserve Board has rejected a request by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a public review of the central bank’s structure and governance. Let us also remember that the Fed has never been audited by the government since 1913 when this abomination was created at the urging of powerful domestic and international bankers.

The Obama administration, to the surprise of many of us, proposed on June 17 a financial- regulatory overhaul including a “comprehensive review” of the Fed’s “ability to accomplish its existing and proposed functions” and the role of its regional banks. The Fed was to lead the study and enlist the Treasury and “a wide range of external experts.”

But after agreeing to the review, the Fed leadership saw a potential threat to Fed independence after the Treasury released the proposal. The Obama plan said the Treasury would consider recommendations from the review and “propose any changes to the Fed’s governance and structure.”

“It is not obvious at all why that is a Treasury responsibility or even appropriate why the Treasury would undertake that kind of study,” said Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Vineland, New Jersey, and a former Atlanta Fed research director. “The Fed was created by Congress and it is not part of the executive branch.”

Indeed, the Fed considers itself above the government! So independent it regards itself that the Fed need not respond to requests by the President of the United States – what hubris!

Not only does the Fed ignore the Executive branch but even Congress doesn’t seem to be able to direct the Fed. U.S. lawmakers have also called for a review of the Fed’s power and structure because many in congress believe Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke overstepped his authority as he bailed out various businesses such as creditors of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc. while battling a crisis that led to $1.62 trillion in write-downs and losses at financial firms.

But nothing was done and the Fed stonewalled congress - no work has been done on the project, which was due October 1. Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams declined to comment as did Fed spokeswoman Michelle Smith – and of course the incompetent news media also did not seek answers.

The country is supposed to be satisfied with the Fed conducting its own investigation. We are told that the Federal Reserve Bank is performing its own reviews of possible operational changes following the financial crisis. Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke is leading an internal study of the roles of the directors that serve on each of the boards at regional Fed banks.

Vincent Reinhart, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the former director of Division of Monetary Affairs at the Fed Board said “The institution is trying to keep a low profile and to publish a report now invites comment on that report.” Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

By a vote of 96-2 the Senate passed a nonbinding budget amendment in April supporting “an evaluation of the appropriate number and the associated costs” of the district banks. This was sponsored by Senate Banking Committee by Connecticut Democrat Chairman Christopher Dodd and Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the panel. But if they were serious, why pass only a “nonbinding” resolution?

Even House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, called for more scrutiny of the central bank, saying he wants to probe how the 12 regional Fed presidents are appointed and their role in setting interest rates. The Fed banks are semi-private entities, each overseen by a nine-member board of directors. Barney, like Obama, says a lot of things that sound good but doesn’t actually do what he says.

Republican Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul, has been one of the few actually trying to do something about the Fed. He has introduced legislation calling for audits of the Fed and is getting increasing support in the House for this effort. There has been also legislation proposed in the senate for the same purpose as well as to look into the Fed’s monetary policies and operations. Thus far the Fed has managed to thwart any meaningful investigations into its affairs.

If it seems that Obama and Democrats are motivated by laudable purposes, do not be self deluded. The fact is that Obama and his government control advocates are preparing the Federal Reserve Bank for a larger role in tracking risks across the financial system and to make the central bank the lead regulator for the largest, most inter-connected financial institutions.

Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo, an Obama appointee, is working on changes to the supervisory process that will prepare the central bank for a larger role than it already has in the nation’s financial system.

Tarullo is focusing on bank-to-bank comparisons and quantitative scenario testing of bank portfolios. Under the guise that the Fed is examining the vulnerability of banks with assets under $100 billion to falling commercial real estate values, look for the Fed to dictate to banks of all size what they may or may not do.

Unfortunately only a few in congress recognize what a threat the Fed poses and have balked at the notion of giving the Fed more power and are leaning toward vesting authority over capital, liquidity and risk-management practices of big banks in a council of regulators.

As an example of the incestuous nature of banking regulation and the calls for “reform,” a review led by Duke followed the resignation in May of Stephen Friedman as New York Fed chairman because of ties to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Friedman is a director on Goldman Sachs’s board.

Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company in September 2008, a change that would have normally barred Friedman from continuing to serve in his New York Fed post. Officials gave him a waiver so he could remain in the job.

“Allowing local bankers to play a leading role in selecting reserve bank presidents is the most worrying aspect of the current system,” Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC, recently wrote to clients.

District bank presidents are nominated by committees made up of people whose institutions the nominees may have supervised.

“The conflicts of interest inherent in the current system are glaring,” Crandall said.

We have system where a group of people not responsible to elected officials of the US government have total control of the financial system in the United States and their authority and power grow continuously. Americans sheepishly allow this to happen. Instead of the U.S. Treasury Department being in charge, a group of largely unknown people from largely unknown Fed owners make monumental decisions that are more than not likely to reflect self interest rather than the interests of the American people or the country.

One only has to consider the arrogant refusal by the Federal Reserve Bank of a request for information by the Treasury Secretary to realize this.

A public service announcement about Medicare

2009-09-21T06:30:00.000-07:00

Here’s some information senior folks may find useful, if not discouraging. Remember this is what happens to us now; if Obama gets his way we will be even worse off than under the present diminishing coverage and higher costs for less.

Higher Medicare Advantage costs.

If you're one of more than 10 million subscribers to Medicare Advantage plans, expect to pay more for coverage next year. The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut 2010 subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans by 4% to 4.5%. Big private insurers offering the plans will be figuring out how to adjust to the reductions, but you can expect to see a combination of higher rates and drug costs along with reduced coverage.

The plans were created by the Bush administration as a private-sector alternative to traditional Medicare plans. But Medicare Advantage costs the government about 14% more per person than regular Medicare and thus became a target for expense cuts that could be used to help pay for the Obama administration's health-reform plan.

What to know about Medicare -- now

Get the most out of your health coverage. Here's how to sign up, avoid penalties and pick the plan that fits you best (it might not be last year's).By Kiplinger's Personal Finance MagazineThough you may not look forward to turning 65, Uncle Sam has a nice present for you when you do: government-subsidized health insurance.But Medicare won't cover all your health care expenses, so you'll still need to make some key decisions about how to fill in the gaps. Making the right choices could save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

Even if you are already eligible for Medicare, it pays to check out your choices each year during the annual open-enrollment period that runs from Nov. 15 to Dec. 31, when you can switch plans. Several new options appear every year, and the prices and coverage can vary greatly. The plan you picked in the past may no longer be your best option.

Here's what you need to know to get the most out of your Medicare coverage:

Sign up on time

You are eligible for Medicare at 65, even if your normal retirement age for full Social Security benefits is later. The initial enrollment period for Medicare Part B, which covers doctors' visits and outpatient services, runs for seven months, starting three months before your birthday month. To make sure your Medicare enrollment runs smoothly, you should contact the Social Security Administration (1-800-772-1213) three months before you turn 65.

If you miss the initial seven-month sign-up window, you'll have to wait until the next general-enrollment period, which runs from Jan. 1 to March 31 each year, for benefits beginning the following July 1.

For each year you wait beyond your initial enrollment period, you'll also incur a 10% penalty, which will be added to your monthly Part B premium (Part B premiums are deducted from your Social Security checks). You can sign up for premium-free Part A, which covers hospital services, at any time.

Special enrollment rules apply if you're eligible for Medicare and still on the job. If you have health insurance through your employer or your spouse's employer, you aren't subject to the 10% late-enrollment penalty if you sign up for Part B within eight months of losing that coverage. Similarly, if you have employer-provided prescription-drug coverage, you can avoid the late-enrollment penalty for the Medicare Part D drug plan. If you miss the initial seven-month enrollment period, you can sign up for prescription-drug coverage during the last six weeks of any year, for benefits beginning the following Jan. 1.

Review your choices

When it comes to filling the gaps in your health care coverage, you may have several choices.

Employer-provided retiree health insurance has traditionally been the best option. But don't assume that's still the case. Many employers have been cutting back on retiree coverage. Even if your employer provides retiree health insurance, you may be able to save money by switching to another plan, especially if your premiums have risen and your coverage has been scaled back over the past few years. Look at the big picture, and compare coverage for medical care and prescription drugs, as well as out-of-pocket costs and any restrictions on health care providers.

Medicare supplement plans, also known as Medigap policies, pay for many of the co-payments, deductibles and other expenses that Medicare doesn't cover. If you buy a policy within six months of signing up for Medicare Part B, insurers can't reject you or charge higher rates because of your health (see "The ABCs of picking a Medigap policy"). Medigap policies generally don't cover prescription-drug costs (and the old Medigap plans that do offer drug coverage are no longer a good deal). Instead, you'll need a Medicare prescription-drug plan, known as Part D.

Retirement planning for baby boomers

Here's what boomers can expect to get from pensions and Social Security, and what you can do to build your nest egg.

New pricing and options for Part D for the following year are unveiled each fall, and you have from Nov. 15 to Dec. 31 to switch policies. Premiums rose an average of 13.6% for the largest plans from 2007 to 2008 -- to $25 a month, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Beneficiaries in the most-popular plans faced the biggest monthly increases. For example, the average monthly cost of Humana's standard plan jumped nearly 69%, from $15.34 in 2007 to $25.88 in 2008. Because of major changes like these, it's a good idea to investigate your options during the open-enrollment season every year, even if you've been happy with your plan.

Premiums are only one cost to consider. You'll also need to calculate total out-of-pocket costs for the medicines you take. When you add up premiums, deductibles and co-payments, a higher-premium plan could end up costing less than a lower-premium plan that has hefty co-payments.

Continued: All-in-one plans

The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Finder can help you compare total costs for your medications under each plan available in your area. Click on "Find & Compare Plans" and then "Begin General Search."

Before you pick a plan, ask your doctor about substituting a generic for your brand-name medication. The plan with the best deal for brand-name drugs may not offer the best deal for the generic equivalents.All-in-one plansInstead of paying separately for Medicare Part B, a Medicare supplement policy and a Part D drug plan, you could sign up for a Medicare Advantage plan, which combines all of that coverage in one policy.

Medicare Advantage plans, which are sold by private insurance companies, come in three varieties. Medicare health maintenance organizations, or HMOs, typically offer the lowest premiums but have the tightest restrictions on the doctors and hospitals you can visit. Regional preferred provider organizations, or PPOs tend to cost a bit more, but they include a network of providers that usually spans several states.

Private fee-for-service plans usually cost the most, but you can use any provider who agrees to the plan's terms (ask your doctors if they participate). In addition to prescription-drug coverage, Medicare Advantage plans often offer extra benefits, such as eye exams, hearing aids and dental benefits.

You can sign up for a Medicare Advantage plan when you first become eligible for Medicare or during open-enrollment season in late fall. If you already have a Medicare Advantage plan, you can switch to another Medicare Advantage plan or back to Medicare plus a Part D plan between Jan. 1 and March 31.To find good deals, use the Medicare comparison tool by selecting your state under "Learn More About Plans in Your Area."

Some Medicare Advantage plans have very low premiums, and some charge nothing beyond your Part B premium because of rich government subsidies to insurers. But you need to look carefully at the co-payments and limitations.If someone has a history of frequent hospitalizations, Medigap coverage may be safer than a Medicare Advantage plan that has limits on the coverage for hospitalizations. Some Medicare Advantage plans don't cover the first 20 days in a skilled-nursing facility (which traditional Medicare covers); some charge higher co-payments for important services, such as chemotherapy; and some provide limited coverage when you travel out of state.

Take a look at the annual Cost Share Report, which provides out-of-pocket cost estimates for Medicare HMOs and PPOs that include prescription-drug coverage. You can look up the best value in your area in three health categories: good, fair and poor. Even if you're in good health now, it's important to see what a plan would offer if your health deteriorates during the year.Before signing up learn about the difference between Medicare Advantage and Medigap policies.

This article was reported and written by Kimberly Lankford for Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine.

Purported non Muslim President Obama makes high level Muslim appointment to DHS

2009-09-19T10:50:00.000-07:00

Purported non Muslim Barack Hussein Obama made a presidential appointment of Muslim Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan for a top job at the federal Department of Homeland Security. In his new job Arif Alikhan will be Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan has been Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles – in charge of public safety for the city.

Why Muslim Alikhan at the Department of Homeland Security you might ask? DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said Alikhan’s “broad and impressive array of experience in national security, emergency preparedness and counterterrorism will make him an asset” – yes, but on behalf of the US or Muslims? I am not sure what she is talking about and she probably doesn’t know either. www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=1132&Sid=1

Alikhan says a big part of his job will be fostering communication between agencies. Alikhan, like Obama, also wants to help improve America’s image with Muslims around the world. He will now set policy on security at the highest levels of the federal government. But what policies has the new Assistant Secretary embraced?

During his years in Los Angeles, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the Police Department’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas existed, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.

Alikhan is strongly anti-Israel; he has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement.” Hezbollah is on the US official terrorist list while being an affiliate of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Alikhan also opposed President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror.

In 2007 Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in LA. The Muslim ‘Mapping’ Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now “dead on arrival” according to Chief William Bratton. “It is over and not just put on the side,” said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California at that time. The meeting was moderated by Arif Alikhan.

Chief Bratton acknowledged the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the ‘mapping’ plan.

A major reason for the termination of the ‘mapping’ plan was the Muslim community’s vociferous opposition and active civic engagement in making themselves heard beyond Los Angeles. Muslim organizations demonstrated a strong unity of purpose and message on the issue of ‘mapping’ that led to a position of strength for Muslims in the meeting. Those involved in the initial phases of this controversy were the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California http://www.shuracouncil.org/ and the Council on American-Islamic Relations http://www.cair.com/ , the Muslim Public Affairs arm.

Muslim Democrats welcomed Alikhan’s appointment at a banquet/fundraiser for the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California recently where the first speaker was Arif Alikhan, a devout Sunni and the son of Pakistani immigrants, www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,505573,00 .

Other speakers included Professor Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Task Force (AMT) who spoke about “the struggle of the Muslim Community against the pervasive atmosphere of Islamophobia and hatred in the aftermath of 9/11.. It was a struggle against the tide – a very strong tide – to prevent Muslims in America from being marginalized and silenced.”

Professor Saeed issued five demands from Muslims to the Department of Justice. These demands included a cessation to the infiltration by spies of mosques and an end to the introduction of agents provocateur. In addition there was to be a cessation of attempts to undermine Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR was thrilled at the appointment: www.us4arabs.com/content/view/1590/31/

Last week, Napolitano swore in Damascus-born Kareem Shora, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)’s national executive director, to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, an outside-the-department group of national security experts that advises the Secretary. Shora is the first Arab rights advocate on the panel. Shora has with ties to terror backers www.creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/06another-jihad-nominee-atdept-of-homeland-security/

One may wonder how does an obscure (but Democrat) bureaucrat and devout Muslim come to the position of Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles – in charge of public safety for the city and now becomes Assistant Secretary to DHS under purported non Muslim Democrat President Barack Hussein Obama?

Obamacare H.R. 3200 – a study in obfuscation and plausible deniability

2009-09-17T14:12:00.000-07:00

Ultra liberals in the House and Senate, who were thwarted for many years, finally achieved the perfect storm of politics with them in charge of congress and an ultra liberal president in the White House. This deadly combination managed to have the government take over the auto industry, the banking system, and now has set the stage to extend control to Wall St., energy (with “cap and trade”) and the health care industry.

The auto industry and the banking system were easy. After declaring crises early in the Obama term take over was simple; the public and congress were persuaded only government, with the aid of the Federal Reserve Bank, could “fix” things. Large businesses and banks were too large to fail so with the printing presses rolling money was created to “bail them out.” When it came time to take over health care, the public became better informed and opposition to government’s control grew.

It’s not easy to learn exactly how the government will take over health care because Obama and his henchmen (and henchwomen) in congress tried hard to obfuscate their take over plans. How else can you describe writing a 1,017 page bill full of legalese and convoluted provisions (H.R. 3200) than obfuscation? Unfortunately for them many people actually read the bill, even if congressmen didn’t, and the health care hoax, called “Obamacare,” angered the populace as its provisions became known.

Obama and other ultra liberals can’t handle opposition to Obamacare so with the aid of their controlled news media they began a propaganda campaign which would make the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, proud. Opponents are accused of “scare tactics” to demean any discussion about what Obamacare really is and how it will destroy health care for everyone satisfied with the way they receive medical treatment now.

Many half-truths and actual lies are spewed by President Obama on a regular basis; no president has been featured on television as much as Obama has on the nation’s networks. Here are some examples.

Is health care rationing mentioned in H.R. 3200 – answer, yes and no?

The word ration is not mentioned but there is a limit on how much can be spent for health care, the effect of which is to limit, i.e. ration, health care provided.

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average)applicable to such year.

Another issue lied about or never mentioned by Obamacare supporters and even opponents is that there will be a Federal board and Commissioner that will decide whether and what health care will be provided. H.R. 3200 is very clear about this. Therefore it is not understandable why there is no outcry against Obamacare, if nothing else for this reason.

On page 30 the bill says a government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process). Page 42: a "Health Choices Commissioner" is mentioned who will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

Some have insisted that the Federal board only makes “recommendations” but while that is true, these recommendations once approved by the secretary become mandates on the medical practitioners and hospitals (see Section 124 below).

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.(a) ESTABLISHMENT.

(1) IN GENERAL.There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

(2) CHAIR.

The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.

(b) DUTIES.

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.

The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities. [The recommendations are submitted to the Secretary and once approved then become mandates to medical practioners and hospitals.]

SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.

(a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

(1) REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED STANDARDS.

Not later than 45 days after the date of receipt of benefit standards recommended under section 123 (including such standards as modified under paragraph (2)(B)), the Secretary shall review such standards and shall determine whether to propose adoption of such standards as a package.

(2) DETERMINATION TO ADOPT STANDARDS.

If the Secretary determines—

(A) to propose adoption of benefit standards so recommended as a package, the Secretary shall, by regulation under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, propose adoption such standards; or

(B) not to propose adoption of such standards as a package, the Secretary shall notify the Health Benefits Advisory Committee in writing of such determination and the reasons for not proposing the adoption of such recommendation and provide the Committee with a further opportunity to modify its previous recommendations and submit new recommendations to the Secretary on a timely basis.

(2) DEADLINE.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.(4)

BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED.

In this subtitle, the term ‘‘benefit standards’’ means standards respecting

(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and

(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).

(5) LEVELS OF COST-SHARING FOR ENHANCEDAND PREMIUM PLANS.

(A) ENHANCED PLAN.—The level of cost sharing for enhanced plans shall be designed so that such plans have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 85 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package describedin section 122(c)(3)(B).

(B) PREMIUM PLAN.—The level of cost sharing for premium plans shall be designed that such plans have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 95 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in section 122(c)(3)(B).

By the way, “actuararily equivalent” means consider the age of the health care recipient and whether it is cost effective to provide that care to such person, i.e. senior citizen.

Did you know that H.R. 3200 provides (at page 65) that taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (e.g. SEIU, UAW and ACORN)?

SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.(a) ESTABLISHMENT.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

Obama is fond of saying if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. However that’s not completely true for several reasons. First, your INSURANCE PLAN MUST COMFORM TO GOVERNMENT-SET STANDARDS OR YOU CAN’T KEEP IT, AND SECONDLY IF ANY CHANGES ARE MADE IN YOUR PLAN THEN YOU MUST ENTER THE GOVERNMENT PLAN.

(b) OUTLINE OF DUTIES OF COMMISSIONER.

In accordance with this subtitle and in coordination with appropriate Federal and State officials as provided under section 143(b), the Commissioner shall

(1) under section 204 establish standards for, accept bids from, and negotiate and enter into contracts with, QHBP offering entities for the offering of health benefits plans through the Health Insurance Exchange, with different levels of benefits required under section 203, and including with respect to oversight and enforcement...

PLAN DEFINED.—in this division, the term ‘‘Exchange participating health benefitsPlan’’ means a qualified health benefits plan that is offered through the Health Insurance Exchange.

SEC. 202. EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS.

ACCESS TO COVERAGE.

In accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.

There are many more excerpts from the full text of H.R. 3200 that can be cited and will be given in Parts II and III of this series.

Here are some examples of what will be reported in detail in the next two articles:

Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. •

Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. •

Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll •

Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll •

Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. •

Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). •

Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records (Your health records will no longer be private.). •

Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. •

Page 239: H.R. 3200 will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." •

Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same •

Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. •

Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. •

Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. •

Page 272: Cancer patients: will be subject to rationing! •

Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. •

Page 298: If a Doctor treats a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, he/she will be penalized by the government. •

Page 317: Doctors are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies •

Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. •

Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another acorn for ACORN. •

Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. •

Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. •

Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. •

Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). •

Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? •

Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. •

Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. •

Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. •

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. •

Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. •

Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more gifts to ACORN; Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: •

Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. •

Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Instant Federal access to your bank accounts, automatic debits if needed and the ID card.

Tune in later for more on Obamacare – if the above doesn’t wake you up to this threat to your life– nothing will.

Who is the president – Barack Obama or David Axelrod?

2009-09-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

Many people believe Obama is not the architect of the new socialism driving government policy these days but there is speculation about who is behind the smooth character behind the teleprompter. I don’t know the answer but at the very least it is clear that Obama’s Senior Advisor, David Axelrod, shares mouthpiece honors.

We frequently hear Robert Gibbs in his role as Obama press agent explain to the news media what the president means during his speech marathon but comments by Axelrod actually sound like the president speaking.

For example:

“We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod said in a telephone interview. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”

And on health care Axelrod announced in advance of the September 9th speech by Obama that Obama is (falsely) willing to forgo the public option

“We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,” an aide said. “There are lots of different ways to get there.”

“I’m not going to put a date on any of this,” Axelrod said. “But I think it’s fairly obvious that we’re not in the second inning. We’re not in the fourth inning. We’re in the eighth or ninth inning here, and so there’s not a lot of time to waste.”

Aren’t these things what one might expect the president himself to say?

Once again, sounding like Obama’s teleprompter, Axelrod said:

"His goal is to create the best possible situation for consumers, create competition and choice. We want to bring a measure of security to people who have health insurance today. We want to help those who don't have coverage today, because they can't afford it, get insurance they can afford. And we want to do it in a way that reduces the overall cost of the system as a whole."

You might recall that Obama has very recently began to advance his desire to add Wall St. to the list of businesses controlled by Obama but Axelrod actually presaged this new policy addition.

Axelrod said:

“Also this fall, Obama wants to slap new regulations on Wall Street firms.”

It was also mentioned by Axelrod in an interview that this is a goal that is now considered a higher priority than cap-and-trade energy legislation in the West Wing. White House officials think the legislation will show voters, especially wavering independents, that he is serious about making the culprits of the economic crisis pay. It also helps that it doesn't carry a big price tag, like other Obama priorities.

Nonetheless it is clear that health care remains front end center. According to Axelrod:

“I understand the governing wisdom here in town as to where this is right now. I feel good about where it is right now. I understand that there’s been a lot of controversy. I understand that there’s been a lot of politics. But the truth is we’re a lot closer to achieving something than many thought possible. People look to the president for leadership on this and other issues. He feels passionately about this, and you can look for him to provide that leadership.”

Later on, President Obama would essentially echo Axelrod’s remarks.

Even with respect to criticism of Obama for deciding to give Congress the primary role in developing the health care law (ever so slight in the news media) as Axelrod phrased it, Obama “allowed Congress to consider the whole range of ideas.”

Axelrod instead of Obama had this to say:

“History will judge whether this was right or it was wrong. We feel strongly that it was right. As a result of it, we have broad consensus on over 80 percent of this stuff, and a lot of good ideas about how to achieve the other 20. Now, people are looking to the president and the president is eager to help lead that process of harmonizing these different elements and completing this process so that we can solve what is a big problem in the lives of the American people, for our businesses and our economy.”

The August recess saw many Americans criticize Obamacare so Axelrod had to speak as president to minimize the significance.

“Part of it (Townhall outcries) is born of long experience. In Washington, every day is Election Day. I’d be lying to you if I told you I don’t look at polls -- I do. But I’ve also learned that you have to keep your eye on the horizon here and not get bogged down. I am not Pollyannaish, but I am also not given to the hysteria that's endemic to this town.”

So I ask you, who is the president; Obama, his teleprompter or David Axelrod?

An analysis of President Obama’s hard sell of socialized medicine

2009-09-11T05:28:00.000-07:00

It’s ironical that Obama spoke the truth during his campaign for the presidency and once elected does not. No one listened then but many are listening now.

Obama told Americans what he believed both by the people with whom he associated and the policies he would follow as president. No one listened then but many are listening now.

First to be exposed was his association with the country-hating Reverend Wright on whose knee Obama sat for twenty years. Then we learned that Obama began his run for election at the home of left wing Weatherman terrorist William Ayres and his co-conspirator wife Bernadine Dohrn. [Note: Obama himself said you could judge a person by the company he keeps.]

As for his political beliefs, Obama famously admitted he would “spread the wealth” if elected. He also said he would enact Health Care “Reform.” The only thing he didn’t expressly say was that he would expand government and government control over our lives. Nonetheless this was also apparent to anyone who listened carefully, but once again, too many didn’t listen.

Obama started by instituting government takeovers of the banking system and the auto industry then focused attention on the one-sixth of the economy, the health care system. When the president and his far left Democrat followers ran into trouble enacting this part of the agenda, our president turned to his one sure thing to garner public support, his teleprompter.

Let’s take a look at his oration from Mount Capital; the famous Obama speech on the imperative need for Obamacare.

The president first reminded us about what a good job he did lifting the economy. He did this by saying “thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.” However while patting himself on the back, he failed to explain why under his watch and policies the unemployment rate far exceeds the 8% he promised and at 9.7% is heading to double digits.

Obama then turned his, and our, attention the health care.

“Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

"Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.”

This mixture of half-truths is typical of Obama. What he failed to mention in his effort to mislead the public is that the uninsured “who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy” don’t have to spend a dime to get needed medical care because by law hospitals are required to care for these uninsured. This may not be the most economical way for taking care of uninsured but it does nonetheless address the problem.

Obama has alleged different numbers of uninsured as he tries to impress us with the calamity we face. Sometime the number of uninsured is 47 million but in his speech he said “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” Those who really analyze this say that at most the number is 12 to 15 million uninsured while 135 million families do have some form of health insurance, and according to polls most are satisfied with their insurance and therefore don’t need “reform.”

Another of Obama’s misleading contentions is “Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.” The fact is we are better off for our higher health care costs than countries like Canada and the U.K who have universal health care because deaths by prostate and breast cancer, for example, are significantly less.

The president would have us believe that Obamacare is supported by “an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies.” But the truth is support is from the American Medical Association and only 17% of doctors are members of the AMA. Pharmaceutical companies are at various time demeaned and referred to as supporters of Obamacare but if the roles of insured are increased as Obama says they should be, it is obvious that there would be more business for the drug industry.

After Obama portends of coming doom if Obamacare is not made law, he accuses opponents of “scare tactics.”

“But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge.”

By the way, you are permitted to wonder if the health care situation is in such bad shape, why is it that Obamacare won’t come into effect for four years.

Another thing Obama likes to say if you have health insurance now you can keep it.

“First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

But the public is wise to this half truth. If there is a “Public Option” (Government insurance option), it’s only a matter of time before private insurance becomes a thing of the past. Private companies can’t compete with the deep pockets of government which has no need of profit making.

Under Obamacare freedom of choice is so denied that participation is mandatory and anyone not participating in the program is deemed “irresponsible.” Furthermore, they MUST buy health insurance or they are fined. The IRS is made the enforcement arm of Obamacare.

“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage."

"The problem is such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.” “…businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in (i.e., be fined) to help cover the cost of their workers.”

“… we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees” – big brother says so.

Mr. President are you saying that everything that Americans do that adds to public costs should be government controlled? How about poor choices in eating habits that leads to obesity and/or illness, should that be under government edict? Slippery slopes lead to the bottom of individual freedom.

The president doesn’t stop at misleading statements, he can’t resist untruths.

“Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." This too is false. In fact the House bill on the table (H.R. 3200) does include illegal aliens.

“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Mr. President, read the bill, abortions are not excluded and every time Republicans submit legislation to omit illegal immigrant coverage and abortion coverage Democrats defeat them.

Sir Mr. President why is it that although every poll says Americans don’t want Obamacare you say: “... I believe a broad consensus exists …”? and -

“It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. "

Obama refuses to admit that Obamacare is government control of the health system but it is. Even Obama has publicly admitted the ultimate goal is nationalized medicine; here is what he said to mislead the public:

“Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a ‘government takeover’ of the entire health care system. Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly- sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight here.

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.”

It’s true the free markets work when people have choices but freedom of choice is not part of Obamacare; for example, a Federal Board and its Commissioner will decide who gets what medical care and who doesn’t get any needed health care – such as to prolong life. How does government decision making about medical treatment jibe with Obama's statement: “And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”

The president thinks that there is a lack of competition among insurance companies and this wrong:

“Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.”

But the answer is not government edict; it’s to let insurance companies compete across state lines.

Obama doesn't like profits. I guess he thinks private business should not profit from their enterprise but should operate for the benefit of the public, just communist countries do.

“But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. Now, it is...”

“Overhead gets eaten up by profits” - profits are overhead Mr. President? If universities are good example of competition, why do tuitions keep escalating?

The president knows that many people think Obamacare is too expensive so he said:

“Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future -- period. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.”

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you Mr. President; they say Obamacare will cost $1.6 trillion. Sir, your nose is growing.

Among the most insidious aspects of Obamacare is what it will do to seniors, including those who rely on Medicare. First a new Federal Board will determine if particular medical treatment needed by seniors is “cost effective” or not and then Medicare money will be reduced but Obama refuses to admit it so he obfuscates the issue this way.

“…not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. The only... The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies... . subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead."

Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. “

“That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.”

“Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. So the [Federal] commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.”

Yes, government control of health care is sooo good – if you are lucky enough to be granted the right to it by the Federal Board.

President Obama and his teleprompter make good speeches – that’s what got him elected. He is relying on the same thing to sell Socialized Medicine – we shouldn’t let him get away with it – fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you.

.

The devil is in the details

2009-09-08T07:31:00.000-07:00

The devil is in the details and nothing can be more devilish than having government bureaucrats decide whether you can or cannot receive needed health care.

While supporters and critics of Obama’s heath care “reform” argue about whether to have a “Government” (or “Public”) option, “Co-ops”, or a “Trigger” to activate the Public option, completely overlooked is the most insidious aspect of health care plans demanded by Obama and proposed by Democrats. Every one of these Democrat plans to change the health care system includes a "Government Health Care Board and Health Care Choices Commissioner" to dictate what and to which Americans medical care can be provided.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009, (CNSNews.com) that the health care bill (H.R. 3200) under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have the power to dictate the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.

These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which insurance companies can participate, which states can run their own health care plan, what medical care may or may not be provided to individuals on a cost effective basis and rules for enrolling individuals into the public insurance program.

The Bill calls for establishing a health insurance “exchange” where people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level will be able to purchase health insurance with the help of federal subsidies or given to them at no cost. This exchange would include a "public option" government-run health care plan as well as private plans that provide a minimum benefits package dictated by the government.

The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the Commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange, and also dictate what benefits or coverage cannot be made available. The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.

In addition the Commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange:

“The Commissioner shall provide a process under which individuals who are Exchange-eligible individuals described in subparagraph (B) are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange participating health benefits plan.” The legislation says, beginning on page 97: “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed the views of many of us about giving one bureaucrat this much power over the health insurance and medical care of Americans and the fact that this is among the least noticed provisions of the legislation.

“The American people want two things from health care reform: lower costs and more choices,” Boehner said in a statement. “Yet Democrats have done exactly the opposite coming up with a bill that actually raises costs--increasing the deficit by $240 billion--and letting a new federal bureaucrat make health care decisions that should be left to patients and their doctors.”

The legislation also gives the commissioner sole power to determine who can participate and under what conditions.

“The Commissioner shall have the authority to establish such rules as may be necessary to deal with special situations with regard to uninsured individuals and employers participating as Exchange-eligible individuals and employers,” the bill says on page 82, “such as transitions periods for individuals and employers who gain or lose, Exchange-eligible participation status, and to establish grace periods for premium payment”

The Commissioner would also decide the “cost sharing” difference between each available plan, according to pages 85-87 of the legislation.

Supporters say the national exchange would not replace state Universal Health Care programs, such as the Commonwealth Connector in Massachusetts but this is not entirely true. State plans would only be approved if the state plan meets federal criteria set by the Commissioner. Otherwise, the commissioner could shut the state plans down.

“The Commissioner may terminate the approval (for some or all functions) of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange,” the legislation says on page 114. Page 112 of the legislation says a state plan “must demonstrate the capacity to provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that the State-based Health Insurance Exchange will carry out the function specified for the Health Insurance Exchange in the State (or States) involved.”

The health care “reformation” contemplates making insurance coverage available to some 45 million or so alleged uninsured which is certainly an idealistic result that satisfies our altruistic better nature but at the cost of ruining health care now enjoyed by the 135 million families and individuals who are happy with their existing insurance coverage. The Democrat proposals also fail to deal with the obvious shortage of medical care providers needed to treat the increased number of people insured. This in itself would necessarily lead to delays in medical treatment which, like in Canada and the UK, can be fatal.

Furthermore, concern for the cost of the Democrat universal health care plans has injected the concept of “cost effectiveness” in the decision making by the "Health Choices Commissioner” and the national board as they dictate who can receive needed health care and what treatments are covered and available to a particular individual on a cost effective basis. It does not take a genius to realize this means providing treatment to seniors is not as cost effective as providing such treatment to younger people. Giving power to make such decisions to government bureaucrats and a single Commissioner amounts to allowing them to decide who lives or dies.

This is the ultimate in government control sought by Marxist/Socialists.

Democrats and Obama must think Republicans are idiots but they are only partially right

2009-09-06T15:01:00.000-07:00

Having failed to sell the “co-op” option as a substitute for the “government option,” Obamacare fanatics are now pushing the “trigger” option. Of course, any thinking Republican (which excludes Olympia Snowe) sees right through this scheme.

This new proposal to help Democrats pass Obamacare is submitted by no other than Senator Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), with whom Republicans can do without. The so-called "trigger" plan has been suggested by Snowe who is a member of the "gang of six" Senate negotiators who are trying to broker a bipartisan compromise. Under such an option, if agreed-upon goals are not met by the insurance industry, then that would pull the trigger on government-run insurance; thus keeping a government-run insurance plan on reserve. Liberals complain “the trigger would likely prevent a public option from ever being implemented. Conservatives complain, to the contrary, that it would act as a surefire public option -- only several years down the road.” (Fox News) The liberals’ complaint is specious because in the end they will accept anything that can be represented as “bipartisan health care reform.”

"If you say to the government bureaucracy, 'As long as you find it has failed, you get to build a brand-new bureaucracy,' you have a guarantee the trigger's going to go into effect. I mean, you're only delaying for four years what will become a 100-year problem," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently.

Howard Dean also voiced opposition:

"The problem is it won't work. It doesn't add anything. If you're going to do that, just do the insurance reform. So you know, I'm very hopeful that (Obama) will stick to his guns and that we'll have the reform we were promised in the campaign. If, for whatever reason, he chooses to go in a different direction, then I'd scale back the bill. I wouldn't spend five cents on it."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged talks over the trigger option and seemed to speak approvingly of it. But hours later, she issued a statement reaffirming her commitment to a "strong public option." Dean suggested an all-or-nothing approach, urging Obama to "stay the course" on a public option.

"If you don't use your majorities, you lose your majorities," Dean said.

Very disheartening to conservatives is the apparent potential support for health care reform advocated by some Republicans. Senator Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.), and Gingrich suggested the administration take a more incremental approach to reform. Alexander said Obama should declare to the American people on Wednesday that it's time to "start over." It’s not clear what exactly Alexander means by his “incremental” comment but there are so many things wrong with any version of Obamacare out there that any suggestion to go with an incremental approach may still leave us without the health insurance coverage most Americans have now and favor.

For example, unless the appointed government board that decides who can receive health care on a cost effective basis, and what medical care can be given, is deleted, many Americans will be denied life-extending medical care. Furthermore the problem of more people insured than available medical care providers to render medical care will necessarily lead to rationing and long waits for service.

There are some issues about health insurance that likely should be addressed but they don’t need 1,000 pages to describe. Such things as coverage for pre-existing conditions and insurance portability are good candidates for reform but will likely increase not decrease insurance cost. On the other hand allowing insurance companies to compete nationally by removing state border limitations will decrease insurance costs. Furthermore the 47 or 50 million uninsured in the country used to garner support for “health care reform” is totally bogus as explained many times by writers addressing this subject. The truth is that there are probably 15 million or less unable to afford health insurance, although these people are not denied health care under the law. There are simple and less expensive ways to provide them with health insurance if indeed that is the goal and not expanding government and government control.

Right now we have the ridiculously entitled “earned income tax credit” which is not a credit at all but out-and-out government welfare checks given to people who pay no taxes. It would be far less costly and less damaging to our health care system to simply enroll these people in a private health insurance plan.

The huge backlash to all the proposed health care reform bills does not sway any of the dedicated socialists in congress nor the chief socialist in the White House because they don’t care what the public thinks or wants. As good socialists they know what’s best for us and by God they will give that to us come hell or high water. But the secret behind their dedication is that it is expanded government control they want (with them in charge) and not improving the country.

Obama is about to make a national speech about what he calls health care reform. You can be certain he will say all the right things as he always does but he won’t change his objective of government control of this one-sixth of our economy no matter how he wraps it.

Hobson's choice - does the EPA or Congress dictate CO2 regulations

2009-09-02T08:19:00.000-07:00

In 2007 Justice Anthony Kennedy decided that what we exhale every second of our lives, carbon dioxide (CO2), is a pollutant. As a result of this one man’s opinion, Americans will be subjected to government regulations that will change their world.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens the U.S. Supreme Court said the language of the Clean Air Act, defining "air pollutant" is a “sweeping definition, and the greenhouse gases”, namely carbon dioxide, “fit well within the definition of air pollutant.” It was the vote of Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the liberal block that decided the issue; all four sensible Justices, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, dissented.

The case concerned the refusal of the EPA in the Bush administration to use its powers under the US Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles by establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards, with a view to tackling the issue of climate change.

The EPA's grounds for refusal were that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, as it does not pose a direct health risk and, even if it had the authority to regulate, it would be neither effective nor appropriate for it to do so. The EPA's decision was challenged by various US states, nongovernmental organizations and others before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, by a majority, agreed that the EPA had properly exercised its discretion in denying the petition.

The petitioners then appealed to the US Supreme Court, where a majority (five to four, as said) upheld their appeal. The Supreme Court judgment deals with three important issues: (i) the standing of petitioners to challenge the EPA's decision; (ii) whether carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are air pollutants under the Act and can be regulated by the EPA; and (iii) the adequacy of the EPA's reasons for determining not to regulate GHG emissions.

Unfortunately the dissenters made there case on procedural grounds regarding whether states could legislate regarding air pollution without addressing the important matter of whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. By deciding that states have a right to address air pollution, the majority of the Court gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to determine if CO2 is a pollutant. The courts said that EPA has to come up with reasons that form a scientific judgment, and the reasons it gave were not in that category. So EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and against the Clean Air Act.

The resulting determination by the EPA was a foregone conclusion since Obama had announced during his campaign for the presidency what he would do about this issue if elected president. On October 16, 2008, Bloomberg reported that through his energy advisor, Jason Grumet, Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions and that Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers. Obama would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet also said in an interview in Boston. This action will halt construction plans on virtually all of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

States where coal-fired plants will be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

William Kovacs, Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers said "Once carbon dioxide is regulated, they can no longer contain the Clean Air Act...and it would completely shut the country down."

In April this year, the EPA released its finding that man-made pollution is a cause of global warming. The EPA issued its determination based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that greenhouse gases, e.g. carbon dioxide, are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger. However there was no actual finding or evidence that carbon dioxide is a health risk. How could they; to declare CO2 a health risk would mean that breathing is dangerous to your health? Thus, the EPA did not follow the Supreme Court decision, it merely made an arbitrary ruling based on the false notion that carbon dioxide causes global warming and not that there are any health implications.

It is becoming increasingly clear that scientists disagree with the idea that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature changes. For example, MIT scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen, has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Professor Richard Lindzen’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

“The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.”

“More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade ‘global warming’ must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the ‘official’ theory that ‘global warming’ will happen on anything other than a minute scale.”

In addition to carbon dioxide, the EPA said five other emissions are believed to cause warming when they concentrate in the atmosphere: methane, which is emitted by gassy cows, as well as steam boilers; nitrous oxide, found in cooking sprays and used as anesthesia by dentists, better known as laughing gas; hydro fluorocarbons, which are used in refrigerators and aerosols; per fluorocarbons, a gas permeated by fire extinguishers, refrigerators and high end ski waxes; and sulfur hexafluoride, more commonly known for its use in circuit breakers, switchgear and other electrical equipment.

This leaves Americans between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”; the EPA rule making can be circumvented by Democrats desire to enact “Cap and Trade” legislation which would itself place draconian restrictions on Americans and the economy, or let the EPA do it by simply issuing regulations.

Will Americans stand up for freedom and liberty or will they go meekly into the world George Orwell described?

2009-09-01T06:32:00.000-07:00

Obama became president by promising “change” and change is what we got. However while those who didn’t vote for Obama feared the kind of change that would occur with Obama as president, many of his supporters ignored what he said he would do as president to the detriment of us all and voted with their hearts and not with their heads.

Never in the history of our country has a president sought and succeeded in achieving revolutionary changes in a system of government as has Obama as president together with a compliant congress dominated by extreme leftists of like mind – you might call this “the perfect storm” in it’s cataclysmic results.

It is interesting to review what Obama has done to our country in much less than one year and what he plans for us; consider this:

1. President Obama has placed the federal government in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries and 19 of Americas largest banks have been supervised by the federal government in unparallel ways while being forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government to decide if they are sufficiently capitalized according to new government standards.

2. The federal government has become the largest shareholder in automakers General Motors and Chrysler and has fired the CEOs of these companies while appointing executives in their place with absolutely no experience in the auto industry and dictating what executive compensation will be without the approval of the Board of Directors or share holders.

3. President Obama has appointed 44 “Czars” (at last count) without congressional approval who are accountable only to him, not congress or the voters, and have control over a wide range of federal policy decisions. Among these Czars are a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and dozens of other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over domestic and foreign policies and some of clearly Marxist ideology.

4. President Obama has increase the federal deficit by trillions of dollars triple the $454.8 billion deficit in 2008 for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. Obama and the Democrat-dominated congress approved a $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010 when our gross domestic product is only about $14 trillion (before Obama, no telling what it is now) and the projected deficit over the next ten years is greater than $10 trillion.

5. The Obama Justice Department has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there and several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo were sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government while our returning US veterans are labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

6. The Obama Justice Department has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether CIA agents broke the law (what law?) interrogating captured terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack on our country, to elicit information about the attackers and plans for future attacks.

7. Under President Obama the federal government has sought powers to seize key companies whose purported failures could jeopardize the financial system, as solely determined by the federal government. Obama has proposed a new regulatory agency to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

8. Obama traveled around the world early in his term to apologize for Americas past imperialist” actions, gave a speech in the Middle East lauding the (false) contributions of Muslims in America while bowing before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologized for Americas past actions. Obama also traveled to South America, embraced Hugo Chavez and sat passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.

9. It’s no secret that Obama and his new Marxist appointee to the FCC now want to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new Fairness Doctrine-like regulations without congressional consent and to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, radio or advocacy ads.

10. Obama and the Justice Department want to limit our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and Obama appointed a Justice to the Supreme Court with a record of limiting Second Amendment rights. The Obama Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

11. Obama has a plan to eliminate states’ rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people such as controlling the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every American and to “spread the wealth” ala Marxist philosophy.

12. Obama has repeatedly ignored the Constitution by seizing powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict.

13. Obama insists upon destroying our health care industry by law with draconian limitations on medical providers and the public such that the 185 million here with health care coverage would have their health care diminished in order to provide health insurance to about 10 to 15 million who have no health insurance despite the fact that they are not now being deprived of health care when needed.

14. At Obama’s urging laws are being passed (one has already been passed by the House, “Cap and Trade”) that will drastically curtail the life style of Americans while grossly increasing costs of everything literally from “soup to nuts” and especially electricity.

Obama campaigned on the promise of providing “hope and change” but in reality what he has given us is hopeless destruction of the fundamentals which have made the United States great and the envy of the world. Will Americans stand up against the Obama revolutionary changes now that they know what Obama really stands for or will they go meekly into the world that George Orwell described?

Just as Democrats lied about Social Security, they are lying about Obamacare

2009-08-29T15:44:00.000-07:00

Many seniors rely on social security to support themselves, in whole or in part. When social security was enacted into law during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a number of promises were made.

For example Democrat FDR promised:

1.) That participation in the Social Security Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) that the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Social Security as promised by President Roosevelt does not exist and you may be interested in knowing why.

In 1958, a Democrat controlled congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove some funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for congress to spend. From what I understand, congress’ logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended and set aside for.

During the administration of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson and with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, the entire Social Security Trust Fund was placed in the general fund so congress could spend it on the failed “War Against Poverty.”

The presidency of Democrat James Earl Carter, Jr. was a dismal failure and a catastrophe for the United States on many levels but under President Carter and a Democrat controlled congress, immigrants, including illegal immigrants, were given the right to receive Social Security payments at age 65 even though they never paid anything into Social Security.

When Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was president, the income tax deduction for Social Security was eliminated. The Democrat Party with Democrat Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. as Vice president was able to accomplish this because a tie vote in the Senate was broken by Democrat Vice President Gore in his role as President of the Senate.

Despite the fact that Democrats in congress and Democrat Presidents violated every one of the promises made by President Roosevelt at the inception of Social Security, we are told over and over that Republicans want to take Social Security away from seniors. By the way, did you know that congress gives themselves 100% retirement for serving only one term?

Now President Obama wants to reduce benefits to seniors even more. All the health care bills in congress as prescribed by President Obama provide paying for universal health care by reducing the amount spent on Medicare for seniors. These bills would also establish a government board that will dictate the medical care which can be provided on a “cost effective” basis such that older people will be deprived of needed life-extending medical care because it is not cost effective to spend money on those with comparatively shorter life spans. Furthermore, with more people having health insurance, and no increase in the number of health care providers, rationing of health care is assured.

Obama and Democrats say that it is “scare tactics” to tell people what actually is in the Democrat Obamacare bills wending their way through congress but I believe telling the truth is what Americans expect and unfortunately do not get from Democrats; the history of Social Security is an example.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson

Another government intrusion of Obamacare revealed

2009-08-27T21:47:00.000-07:00

Much has been written about H.R. 3200, the bill to nationalize health care, but most of the truth about it has only appeared on the internet and by some political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. As time goes on we find out more and more hidden in this House bill that boggles the mind.

We know about the creation of a panel of Washington bureaucrats to be formed to apply “cost effectiveness” when deciding what medical care may or may not be approved for individual patients but whose real purpose is to deny medical treatment to elderly to reduce costs. We also know about mandated health insurance coverage for all Americans while not increasing the supply of medical providers. But particularly insidious provisions have only now come to light.

Declan McCullagh (AP) has revealed that one of the problems with the proposed 1,000 page law to destroy health care for Americans is in Section 431(a) which says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose purportedly is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank) asked "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

But the Obamacare bill is not the only intrusion on privacy; we already have something in place that came in under the radar with the stealth Stimulus bill. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

This is more of the “hope and change” Americans voted for; but I wonder if ceding their privacy for all eternity is what they had in mind.

The law of supply and demand applies to health care too

2009-08-26T06:14:00.000-07:00

What happens when the supply of widgets needed to sustain life is less than the demand or said another way, the supply of widgets is far less than the number of widgets people need to stay alive? Based on current evidence, everyone but Democrats would understand that the cost of widgets will go up in a free market and distribution of available widgets would have to be limited in some way, in other words, rationed. If the free market is eliminated by government control, the price of widgets may not increase but there still would not be enough to satisfy the demand; the only result would be that widget suppliers would not gain from the shortage but there would be fewer people interested in becoming widget suppliers.

If a widget is health care, then when more people are added to the reservoir of people entitled to health care by including them in health insurance programs and the supply of health care providers and the cost remains the same, just like the example above health care must be rationed. Rationing health care under any circumstance is evil but if you inject the element of rationing according to cost effectiveness, then the result is fatal to older people.

Applying the principal of “cost effectiveness” in health care rationing decisions obviously suggests that younger people with more years of life statistically remaining are favored over older people with fewer statistical years of life left. If you are an older person you will lose life’s lottery.

But as bad as that is, it’s not the only consequence of health care supply and demand. Analyzing what happens when more people are placed under health insurance in a static situation is made easier by looking at what happened in the laboratory of Massachusetts where universal health care was put into effect by law in 2006.

If Massachusetts is any guide, the passage of Obamacare is almost certain to increase demand and worsen the shortage of doctors. Access to health care doesn't mean much if there's no doctor to provide it. If the Massachusetts paradigm becomes law as Obamacare, the United States will be short 124,400 physicians by 2025, according to the Association of Medical Colleges, and that does not include the 15,585 new primary-care providers Obamacare is estimated to require.

Kevin Pho, a primary care physician in Portsmouth, N.H., wrote on CNN.com that while Massachusetts is often held up as a model for national health reform, the reality is different. About 97% of Massachusetts citizens have health insurance, which is the highest percentage in the country. The state also has the highest concentration of doctors in the country. Although this seems ideal, Pho says that "less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system."

The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the time for a new patient to find a primary care doctor now ranges from 36 to 50 days. Half of all internal medicine physicians have closed their practice to new patients.

Another consequence of Massachusetts’ mandated health insurance for every citizen, is that visits to the state's emergency rooms jumped 7% in two years because many people did not have access to a primary care physician. This increases costs since emergency room care can be up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit for the same condition.

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told the Washington Examiner. "Promised coverage is not the same thing as care. All you're getting is a place in the waiting lines."

Those lines get even longer as overburdened physicians cut their workload or retire altogether. A survey last fall of 270,000 primary care physicians by the Physicians Foundation found that 30% expected to see fewer patients, 13% would find something that did not involve patient care, and 11% planned to retire.

Dick Morris, the well known former Clinton advisor, asks "How is Obama going to cover 50 million new people without any more doctors or nurses? The answer is he is not. What that's going to mean is rationing."

There is another serious problem. According to FactCheck.org, abortion will be a covered service under the House bill (H.R. 3200). Without the conscience clause allowing medical care providers to decline to provide abortions on moral grounds, and the Freedom of Choice Act still looming, what will Catholic physicians do?

According to the Catholic Health Association, Catholic hospitals make up 13% of the nation's nearly 5,000 hospitals and employ more than 600,000 people. CHA says one of every six Americans hospitalized in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital. Obamacare will likely deny health care to millions if Catholic Hospitals are forced to close to avoid breaking the law.

All of you out there who wanted “hope and change,” how is that working for you?

Political correctness run amok

2009-08-24T12:49:00.000-07:00

Let’s hope Democrats don’t read the London Times. If they do they might learn that the English language is being censored in the rush to be politically correct. Under this philosophy we must be careful to not offend anybody no matter how ridiculous the effort is in practice.

Dozens of taxpayer-funded organizations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence. Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised their staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.

The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that their staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable; after all they wouldn’t want to offend left-handed people, which in the United States include a number of US presidents, including Barack Obama.

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

“Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin color but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white,” according to the South West Regional Development Agency.

“For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase ‘whiter than white’ is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.”

But not everyone in England is on board with the extension of political correctness. Anthony Horowitz, author of the Alex Rider children’s spy books, said: “A great deal of our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. A ‘white collar worker’, for example, probably doesn’t wear one. An ‘able seaman’, under new regulations, could well be neither. ‘Spanish practices’ can happen all over Europe. We know what these phrases mean and we can find out from where they were derived. Banning them is just unnecessary.”

I have a suggestion; maybe the Navy should stop calling their non commissioned officers Petty officers, how demeaning is that? They also overlooked Bing Crosby dreaming of a White Christmas, and how about “green with envy?”

Marie Clair, spokeswoman for the Plain English Campaign, said: “Political correctness has good intentions but things can be taken to an extreme. What is really needed is a bit of common sense.”

Oh really, we certainly can’t expect that from our government?

Obama wants the government to decide about your health care

2009-08-21T15:07:00.000-07:00

Those who were not overcome by the Barack Obama mystique recognized Barack Obama as not the Messiah that his wide-eyed followers thought him to be. We saw an extreme liberal with no real world experience other than as a rabble rouser masquerading as a “community organizer," someone with no experience running anything of importance even so much as a Dairy Queen. For this we were accused of everything from being racists to being right wing extremists. Unfortunately for our country, we were correct and over 52% of Americans were wrong.

Obama implemented what his Chicago thug of an office manager, Rahm “dead fish” Emanuel, proclaimed that never let a crisis go to waste, whether the crisis is real or manufactured. Democrats in congress finely had a Socialist/Marxist they could work with and finally achieve programs rejected over the years by the public and more sensible representatives and senators with Republican presidents in office. For them this is a crucial time when the public can be ignored because they have a large majority in the House led by the Queen of Arrogance, Nancy Pelosi, and the bland but highly partisan Harry Reid leading a veto-proof Senate (thanks to the election stole by ridiculously incompetent Al Franken).

Obama was successful early in his presidency to get congress to allocate billions, without any congressional supervision, to solve the housing, banking, and “toxic mortgage” crises (has anyone heard anything about “toxic mortgages” lately?). He also succeeded in getting through Congress the non-stimulating Stimulus bill which made billions of dollars available to fellow travelers in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to reward Obama supporters and favored Wall Street tycoons and to begin the process of nationalizing important industries. Using tax payer grants to businesses gave Obama the power to dictate new rules and regulations by which these hapless businesses must operate and going so far as to dictate salaries and pay checks that their employees should or should not get, and who should run these formerly private enterprises.

But the greatest prize for socialists in the “change” Obama promised was “healthcare reform.” The far left have long sought government control of the health care system which amounts to one-sixth of the US economy to convert America from capitalism to socialism. All dictatorships of the past have used socialized medicine as a vehicle to cement control over the masses (along with gun control, another shibboleth of leftists). A compliant public enamored with the Messiah in the oval office could be counted on, or so they thought, to ignore the scheming in Washington to achieve this end. But unfortunately for them, the not-yet silenced alternative media made the diabolical plans known to the public and once actually informed, Americans rose up and rebelled against this government takeover. The result is that overwhelming majorities are against the Democrats plan to usurp individual control of their health care decisions.

Resorting to what Democrats always do when faced with opposition based on reality about their schemes, they mobilized their news media house organs to rail against the opponents and deliberately lie and mislead the public about the truth of what they want to inflict on the country (Obama being the master liar of all). As the leader of this effort, President Obama plied his charm, his teleprompter and his best “trust me” mode to fool the public into believing the unbelievable. Of course, one of the tools of his trade is to identify demons that would thwart his plans to the alleged detriment of the public.

Rather than listen to the concerns of the people who elected them about the Obama and Democrat health care bills, Democrats want to ram the total revision of health care in the country down the throats of Americans and through Congress without bipartisan input. The Obama administration is playing the blame game labeling opponents as alleged obstructionists. As usual the list of those they blame is just plain ridiculous.

1. Conservative groups

The news media, trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, labeled protests of everything George Bush said or did as “grassroots democracy.” But when conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments about Obamacare known to their congressmen, it’s called un-American, disruptive and the work of right-wing extremists.

2. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the hypocrite

Liberals conveniently forget when Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a supporter of protests when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. She even praised violent anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco as democracy in action. Now that Pelosi and Democrats control the house the protests by opponents are not to be tolerated even though, unlike the bussed-in and often paid Democrat protesters, opponents of Obamacare are ordinary Americans energized by the debate, frustrated at not having a voice and motivated to exercise their right of free speech. Democrats attempt to smear opponents and shut down debate and label them un-American.

2. Insurance Companies

Obama is seeking support for Obamacare now by labeling it health-insurance reform. This is done by demonizing insurance companies despite the fact that insurance companies like Obamacare and spend millions in propaganda to support it, but critizing insurance companies resonates with the public who all have had a problem with their insurance company at one time or another. After all, insurance companies work through faceless employees who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage sometimes.

But the facts simply don’t support Obama’s rants. “If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders.” His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. “There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal says.

Health care does not need to be overhauled; if there are things that should be corrected, like coverage for pre-existing ailments, they could be addressed without destroying the whole health care system.

3. Sarah Palin – the scapegoat once again

There is a school of thought that the reason the left in the media and in those in office continue to attack Sarah Palin is because they fear her. The reasoning goes that Sarah receives such vituperation because the Left actually fears her because she is one of the people and a large segment of the electorate relates to her.

Sarah Palin tells the truth and truth is an anathema to the Left. She tells it like it is about Obamacare and people listen; therefore, Sarah must be destroyed. Democrats don’t like it when Sarah says the obvious that in order to cut health costs medical care must be rationed because it will be an even scarcer resource. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate. If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will bureaucrats use to determine who gets what care and who doesn’t?

4. Democrat’s confusion is a good thing

Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama’s own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to “get this right,” not meet some “specific timetable.” He said the Senate lacks enough votes to pass a bill with a public option. “To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.” Nonetheless the real Leftists who have been waiting decades for governmental control of health care and Socialism don’t want any softening of government control. The fact is though these Lefties may squawk, there’s no way they won’t vote for whatever passes that can be labeled “Health Care Reform.”

Don’t be fooled by the co-op option of healthcare

2009-08-18T14:08:00.000-07:00

Obama and his Democrat minions in congress are a shifty bunch. First we are told that the death option is or will be taken off the healthcare bill (whichever of the three that will be passed) and then Obama says the “government option” may also be stricken to be replaced by something called “co-op” plans. But the truth is that they have no intention of letting go of their master plan; government control of health care available to Americans. Most successful dictatorships in history have started with or included a form of government controlled medical care and our would-be socialist/Marxist leaders are no exception.

First of all, whatever way they go, the outright “public option” or “co-op plans”, the basic premise is that health care costs will be controlled by reducing availability of medical care. This can only be done by limiting health care in some way and by reducing payments to health care providers.

Obama has gone on record as favoring depriving older people of medical care in order to extend life and by appointing Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezikiel Emanuel, in effect as healthcare Czar, the philosophy of end of life medical deprivation is assured if the president is successful with Obamacare. (See article “God does not endorse Obamacare” on this blog). This is done by establishing a Federal Board independent of congress that will dictate what medical treatment and medication can be given to people taking into consideration cost effectiveness. Therefore since older people with a shorter remaining life span will not benefit as much as younger people with similar needs, precluding the senior from needed medical care will keep medical costs down and be more "cost effective."

The second way medical costs will be contained is by limiting payment to healthcare providers and by providing incentive to them to minimize prescribing what could be life-saving tests and treatments.

Any method of reducing healthcare cost will necessarily involve some form of rationing. The proclaimed intention of Obamacare is to provide health insurance to those who have none now. Whether this number is the 47 or 50 million Democrats allege or an actual much smaller number, adding to the rolls of those entitled to health insurance without increasing the number of medical care providers will obviously reduce the “supply” while increasing the “demand” and cause everyone (other than the legislators and Executive Department) to wait a long time for diagnostic tests needed and ultimate treatment. It should be noted that Obama speaks about providing health insurance not medical care. The reason is that under our present system no one is deprived of medical care whether or not they have health insurance.

It is important to realize that regardless what version of healthcare Democrats come up with; there will be creation of a government-run healthcare system. Even non profit co-op plans will be controlled by the government. Furthermore the remaining parts of the proposals in Congress would leave us with a system in which government mandates that individuals buy insurance or pay a tax and that employers must offer insurance or pay a tax and the government would define what constitutes insurance. Medicaid would be expanded dramatically to cover illegal aliens.

Under the House bill (H.R. 3200), people would be forced to purchase their insurance from a government-run exchange. And though the policies offered at this exchange would be nominally "private" they would be designed by government bureaucrats. In the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions bill, a new Medical Advisory Council would be tasked with defining “qualifying” coverage; in the House bill, all Americans are required to have coverage that is deemed “acceptable” by a Health Choices Commissioner. Regardless whether there is a “public option” or a “co-op” system, there is no doubt that the creation of a new government-run plan will evolve into a pure single-payer system, which is what Obama has said he wants in any case.

Americans must not be fooled by any “compromise.” Some compromisers say that that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?

Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op and congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name.

The most important part of the Obama administration sales pitch on their “public option” has been if we increase competition, prices would come down. That’s what they tell us. Yet if that were really the aim of Democrats, they would break down the barriers that would allow the purchase of heath insurance across state lines, like your car insurance options.

Democrats are only interested in having the government control the national healthcare system and all of the controls over the public that go along with that. As part of this control, Democrats want to control every health care dollar spent in this country. Instead of offering tax credits to the poor to purchase their own health insurance and making health insurance tax deductible for workers, Democrats have been demanding a “public option” that facilitates a government takeover of the entire heath care economy. Furthermore Democrats say their public option plan would do away with exclusion of pre-existing conditions but this could be accomplished by simply saying so without changing the health care system in the country.

Replacing the public option with co-ops is a Trojan horse. It is vital to understand what the role of these co-ops will be. Democrats are merely changing terminology yet again in their attempt to cloak their plans for a government takeover of health care. These “exchanges” aren’t just places to buy insurance. They will have regulatory authority over what you can buy.

In H.R. 3200, the government would have the authority through these exchanges to approve the benefit levels and content of all health insurance plans in the country. If you like the insurance that you have and would like to keep it (as Obama famously says), you will be taxed 2.5% of your annual income if that plan is not approved as part of the exchange by government bureaucrats.

If you keep your private insurance, it would not be allowed to change at all. For instance, if a newly-discovered cure for cancer becomes available, your insurance would not be allowed to cover it. So if you were initially lucky enough to have a private insurance plan that these bureaucrats deigned to approve, and something were to change, your insurance plan would be null and void.

Your insurance company would not be allowed to cover this new cancer treatment. If you needed it, you would be forced into the government exchange. So your private insurance that you liked so much before the bureaucrats got a hold of it would not be able to improve with medical advances and technology. Again, keep in mind that after 2013, all new health insurance policies would have to be purchased through this government exchange. It’s all about control.

The so-called co-op compromise that Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee are now proposing is a government-chartered exchange funded by federal taxpayer dollars. It’s being pitched as a solution to offer more competition, yet a series of quotes from prominent Democrats reveal that they view the co-op concept as merely another way to enact the “exchange” to facilitate a government takeover of health care:

“I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition [of a ‘public option’].” -- President Obama, July 29, Time Magazine

“We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.” -- Senate Majority Leader Reid, July 10, Washington Post

“You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan.” -- Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, June 27, Bloomberg

“Chairman Baucus has asked me to sit down with [Sen.] Kent Conrad to see if we can use the co-op model to achieve the same goals as a public plan.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, June 15, Roll Call

“We don’t care what it’s called. We need something that’s going to keep the insurance companies honest.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, July 9, Fox News

“It will have, coming out of the House, a public option. The only debate on that is what it will be called.” -- Speaker Pelosi, July 13, Reuters

Remember what Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said – quoted earlier:

“The [co-op has] to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” – Senator Max Baucus, June 12, Politico.

The objectives of the “public option” are exactly what the American people overwhelmingly object to: the government takeover of health care. The objectives have been exposed over the August break at one town hall meeting after another through the reading aloud of H.R. 3200. Since their elected Democrat representatives aren’t reading the bill, their constituents are reading it to them.

As formulated by Democrats, the “public option” is designed to force private insurance out of existence leaving in its place the single-payer system created and controlled by federal government bureaucrats. As with every government-run health care system ever done throughout history, rationing and “pulling the plug on grandma” become a vital part as costs spin higher and out of control.

Artificial government competition resulting in a takeover through coercion is not the answer. Dropping government barriers to the purchase of health insurance across state lines would actually increase competition without a government takeover, co-op or otherwise.

America don’t be fooled; any health care system approved by a Democrat House and Senate and signed by President Obama will destroy medical care in the United States forever; we must do all that we can to see NO healthcare plan becomes law.

.

God would not endorse Obamacare

2009-08-14T16:33:00.000-07:00

When one consider the decline in the number of people going to church regularly or being a member of an organized religion, it is not surprising that Barack Obama is as successful as he is in reforming the United States into a Marxist image. Communism is the antithesis of religion and regards religion as the "opiate of the masses." Socialism is not too far behind Communism in the condemnation of God and religion in the lives of the masses. If you keep this in mind you can understand why a program such as socialized medicine is advocated by leftists in the pursuit of expansion of government control, just as in dictatorships whether under Nazism or Communism; i.e. the devaluation of human life.

The "universal healthcare" program advocated by today’s version of "liberals" (who now choose to call themselves "progressives") as embodied by the H.R.3200, the house bill, epitomizes all that is wrong with socialism and the departure from religious values that hold all human life to be sacred and worthy of protection.

The basic premise of Obama healthcare as represented by the House bill is that not all human life should be protected; only that which the government regards as productive. Thus those under two and over sixty five should not expect to receive the same degree of healthcare as those in the productive age group. If you don’t believe this, consider that Obamacare features government-paid (tax payer paid) abortions and rationed care for the elderly. Under the system being advocated a government board will pass upon what medical care should or should not be administered taking into account the cost effectiveness of such care. In other words, if a senior citizen needs chemotherapy or a hip operation, money spent for these purposes is not as cost effective as if such treatment is given to someone in the "productive years" of life.

Consider what the new Obama appointed health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Research, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, had to say on the subject of health care delivery. Incidentally, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama’s health policy advisor propounds discrimination against the elderly and other less than productive patients. In the medical journal Lancet he wrote in January:

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [an irrelevancy] discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

As for the less than productive, in a Hastings Center Report Dr. Emanuel has written, that medical care be withheld from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Thus the state should decide when and if you get treatment. Does that not have a Nazi-like ring to it? President Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster for Obamacare since he suffered from Alzheimer's late in life.

Surely reflecting Obama’s healthcare philosophy as manifested in the House bill, Dr. Emanuel suggests how to cut costs of healthcare: (from the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 2007):

"Too much money spent on health care reduced [sic] the ability to obtain other essentials of human life as well as some goods and services not essential to life but still of great value, such as education, vacations, and the arts."

He actually said "vacations and the arts." Therefore once we have Obamacare, and one of us is waiting for a hip replacement or some life-saving cancer treatment or a CAT scan, remember that tax payer money is being better spent on vacations or perhaps the performance art of that "artist" who immerses a cross in urine rather than on the elderly.

Those of us who believe in God and the teachings in the bible about the sanctity of life quickly realize that saving life is not the objective of Obamacare; government control is and cost containment is just a vehicle to achieve this result. Sure more money is spent on healthcare for the elderly because they need more care; does that make it wrong to provide what is needed to prolong life? Healthcare is provided to the ill; what a surprise! If we were only worried about cost, then why provide healthcare to ill people? Let’s just give health insurance to the young and those less likely to need healthcare.

Since Obama only went to Reverend Wright’s church, it is no wonder he has no appreciation of God’s teachings and of the bible; if he did, he wouldn’t be demanding a healthcare system that denies life instead of protecting it.

The fight against government controlled healthcare is a struggle for survival of freedom

2009-08-14T13:59:00.000-07:00

There is little doubt we are in a struggle for the American way of life that has endured for centuries. Although individual freedom and liberty have been under attack since the FDR days, President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat controlled federal legislature is accelerating the decline. Democrats in Congress have long-held intentions to remake our country which were restrained by some Republican presidents and a combination of past sensible Democrats and more traditional Republicans in the House and Senate, however those restraints are no more. With leftists Democrats and RINO Republicans and Obama in office, the danger is greater than ever.

It seems like a long while ago now but Obama, the most dangerous person ever to reside in the White House, has succeeded in pushing through Congress and enact into law substantial expansion of government control starting with "emergency" allocation of billions of dollars to fix the "toxic mortgage problem" but which was diverted to control the banking industry. Similarly, a huge "stimulus" bill of over $700 billion was quickly passed and turned out to be as many feared not an economic stimulus at all but monetary rewards for Obama and Democrat supporters. The economy, behind a somewhat improved stock market (it’s forgotten how far down the market is from before the OBama, and yes, George Bush, spending sprees last Fall and Winter) the Democrat news media and the president proclaim economic recovery is underway. Of course this is nonsense; just ask the millions of Americans out of work.

Statistics may never lie but liars can manipulate statistics. The government says unemployment is 9.4%, purportedly down from 9.5%, but neither number is an accurate reflection of reality. Many people who have given up looking for a job and those whose unemployment insurance has run out are excluded from the count. According to truthful economists unemployment is over 16% and growing.

Now that the banking and auto industries are firmly under government control, nothing can better illustrate the real agenda of remaking the country under socialist/Marxist principles than the attempt by Obama and Democrats to control the health industry which accounts for one-sixth of the total economy. But the danger to Americans is not only government expansion but what will be done to our healthcare system in terms of destruction of the best medical care in the world, notwithstanding the negative propaganda about our medical system promulgated by Democrats and echoed by the Democrat house organs in the news media.

Democrats and their sympathizers squeal when comparisons are made with the National Socialist Party (NAZI) in Germany. However the comparison as far as government growth and control are concerned is quit legitimate. By imposing a national health program, socialized medicine, the government not only takes over a large proportion of the economy but is able to appropriate all manner of private information which in the computer age is easily maintained in a data base. For example, all information about an individual’s health is recorded, all medical service needs are available for government healthcare decision makers and data maintained by the government is either publicly available or easily hacked (remember even critical secret military data has been accessed by hackers).

Barack Obama is not an Adolph Hitler but the attempt to control the economy and the people’s lives is eerily similar. If Obama and Democrats are successful, Americans will be susceptible to any imposition the government chooses to exert, just as in NAZI Germany.

Blue Dogs more bark than bite (not original with me)

2009-07-29T13:26:00.000-07:00

By now most folks keeping up with the news know (comparatively) “conservative” members of the House, known affectionately or otherwise as the “Blue Dogs,” have caved in to Democrat arm-twisting and came to some sort of compromise to enable the Healthcare Destruction Bill (H.R. 3200) to come out of Committee but supposedly not to be put to a vote of the full House until September. What this means is that no matter what they say, Democrat dogs will ultimately show their true color which is a strong shade of yellow.

Although it is incredible to me, most everyone in congress is focusing entirely on the Obamacare cost. While I appreciate any reason for opposing this monstrosity, there are so many substantive reasons for consigning Obamacare to the trash which Democrat members of the House refuse to acknowledge or discuss.

The Blue Dog compromise would cut the cost of the "$1 trillion-plus package" by $100 billion, according to one member of the Blue Dog Coalition. [However the cost is much greater than $1 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office.] I wonder how they can feel shaving a mere ten percent assuages their “fiscally conservative” mind set. They also seem to think that their deal would also ensure that the proposed government-run insurance program would not be forced on anyone; but note: a government-run insurance program is still in the bill. No one ever complained about a direct mandate to enter a government program; what anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows is that private businesses can’t compete with the endlessly deep pockets of government so there is no level playing field.

Seven Blue Dogs had held up passage of the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee over concerns about cost and the speed at which Democrats were advancing the legislation. The committee is the only House panel that hasn't voted on the bill because of this opposition. Not only was the cost compromised but their principles as well since the Democrat leadership is still rushing the House to vote on the bill at breakneck speed considering the importance of revamping our entire health care system.

Chief Blue dog barker, Representative Mike Ross, (D-Ark.) said "We have reached an agreement that will allow health care reform to move forward." Ross said four of those seven colorful dogs agreed to the compromise Wednesday which is enough for Chairman Henry Waxman, (D-CA) to get passage of the bill out of committee.

As the Blue Dogs surrendered, the chief of the kennel has looked at focus group poling and reworded his pitch for demolishing the finest medical care in the world. The Obama news media calls this “retooling his message.” Now Obama is attacking the insurance companies and says that his plan would protect Americans and limit insurers' power.

Obama told people gathered in a North Carolina high school gymnasium: "We have a system today that works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn't always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass these reforms, are health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable."

Obama also mentions insurance portability and coverage for pre-conditions but fails to say that both of these issues can be addressed without draconian changes in the current health care system and without spending $2 trillion.

The failure of the bill to address the supposed goal of providing health insurance to all (including illegal immigrants) is also unmentioned. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that there would still be millions uninsured even if Obamacare becomes law.

Since both the House and Senate have sufficient majorities to pass whatever they want, the only hope is that when the Blue Dogs return home for the summer recess their constituents will tell them that unlike these pseudo conservatives their bite is greater than their bark.

Our New President: Disaster In The Making?

2009-07-29T07:01:00.000-07:00

Once in a while I come across something that is so noteworthy it deserves as much attention as it can get. This is the case with a recent article by Thomas Sowell; Mr. Sowell expresses this important message far better than I could so I tip my hat to him.

Vincent

"Our New President: Disaster In The Making?

By THOMAS SOWELL

After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

When that person is the president of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.

Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.

He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle — and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse
us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror.

Conceivably, Israel can spare us that fate by taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, instead of relying on Obama's ability to talk the Iranians out of going nuclear.

What the Israelis cannot spare us, however, are our own internal problems, of which the current flap over President Obama's injecting himself into a local police issue is just a small sign of a very big danger.

Nothing has torn more countries apart from inside like racial and ethnic polarization. Just this year, a decades-long civil war, filled with unspeakable atrocities, has finally ended in Sri Lanka. The painful irony is that, when the British colony of Ceylon became the independent nation of Sri Lanka in 1948, its people were considered to be a shining example for the world of good relations between a majority (the Sinhalese) and a minority (the Tamils).

That all changed when politicians decided to "solve" the "problem" that the Tamil minority was much more economically successful than the Sinhalese majority. Group identity politics led to group preferences and quotas that escalated into polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil
war.
Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.

The desire of many Americans for a "post-racial" society is well-founded, though the belief that Barack Obama would move in that direction was extremely ill-advised, given the history of his
actions and associations.

This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites — and ultimately the No. 1 elite, Barack Obama himself.

Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the prospects of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power.

Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.

During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

In reality, it was not Emperor Hirohito who surrendered on the battleship Missouri. American troops were already occupying Japan before Hirohito met Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the first time.

This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know. Barack Obama is doing that on a lot of issues, not just history or a local police incident in Massachusetts.

While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price."

A broad view of Obamacare

2009-07-28T09:22:00.000-07:00

By now most of you reading this have received information about some of the draconian provisions of the Obama and Democrats bill that would irreversibly change the health care we are able to get in the United States now but won’t if they succeed in rushing through their “healthcare reform” through congress. Democrats like to say that the final bill is not yet written and there are several different ones on the table, therefore it is unfair to criticize the bills now. However it is clear that the bills all contain provisions that most Americans don’t want and that will destroy the best medical care and treatment in the world. If you don’t think we have the best medical care in the world, then explain why people come here for medical care and no Americans go elsewhere for theirs.

One of the criticisms of the present healthcare system is the cost. However what these critics want us to ignore is that our healthcare system embodies the most advanced medical devices and scientific equipment designed to diagnose and treat medical problems and which extend the lives of Americans. Statistics show, for example, that survival rates from cancer far exceed those in other countries, and in particular countries with government run health care systems.

Another criticism Obama and Democrats like to advertise is that there are form 47 to 50 million (depending upon the degree of exaggeration they choose) “uninsured “ in the United States and this condition must be corrected. There are two fallacies in this argument: (1) there are not millions of people as alleged who are unable to get health insurance if the wish, the number includes illegal aliens and many people are only temporarily uninsured (usually because they are between jobs), and (2) being without health insurance does not mean they are unable to receive health care.

There are over 1,000 pages in the most discussed House health care bill and virtually all representatives admit they haven’t read the bill, including the strongest advocates. All the information about the bill crossing the internet comment on the first 500 pages of the bill leaving another 500 pages or so un-reviewed. I’m not sure why that is except it may have to do with reader fatigue. Anyone wanting these details can readily find them if they haven’t already received e-mails describing them. However, if you are someone not on e-mail distribution lists, send me an e-mail (gioia@gte.net) and I will send it to you.

I believe it is important to understand how Obama and Democrats want to change the medical care we receive today and the way we receive the medical care, and how they are going about trying to inflict these changes on Americans.

Democrats and Obama’s health-care sales pitch obfuscates who is likely to get hurt by their “reform.” For example at a recent press conference Obama was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises. Obama insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not true or credible.

Of course most Democrats dispute claims that individuals will lose their existing coverage under their reform plans but on other issues many Democrats privately acknowledge some people will indeed get hit to pay for government health care.

With the help of the Democrat house organs known as the “news media” Democrats have brilliantly kept knowledge about their healthcare bills and the pain and sacrifice the would entail from the public, except for the blogosphere, talk radio and conservative columnists who continue to inform the public wherever possible. One way they have done this is to convince health-care industry groups not to run the kind of “Harry and Louise” type of ads that helped sink HillaryCare in 1993. Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” Newt Gingrich said “Groups were told if they [ran these ads] did they’d give up their seat at the table. What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”

Taking a broad look of what would happen if Obamacare becomes law, here are some of the groups that will be affected:

If the government successfully mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. According to John Fund: “The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. ‘They’ll have sticker shock,’ says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.”

Employers who don’t provide coverage will be required to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. However even those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.

According to the Treasury Department eight million Americans are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a HSA savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.

Obamacare will severely limit this ability. According to the Senate plan a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan sets the “acceptable” limit at 70%. Roy Ramthun who implemented the HAS regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003 says that’s not the way these plans are set up to work. And the new regulations would be crippling. In a recent interview Ramthun says “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market.”

Medicare Advantage programs most Medicare-qualified individuals have will be severely cut back if not virtually destroyed. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back medical care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.

Medicare Advantage plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it but millions of people disagree or they wouldn’t be paying and subscribing for these plans. Statistics show that 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.

At least one Democrat governor also disagrees with this aspect of Obamacare; Oregon’s Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”

Obamacare will cut $156 billion in Medicare Advantage over the next decade which will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense and less coverage.

The Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have greater benefits and lower deductibles and co-payments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.

Even some Democrat senators, so-called Blue Dog Democrats, are leery of plans to affect Medicare Advantage programs because they know that their reelection can be at risk when seniors learn how the Democrat health “reform” will affect them. Yet the only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if they can impose costs on seniors and other vulnerable segments of the population.

Obama throws old people ‘under the bus’ with Obamacare

2009-07-25T07:35:00.000-07:00

“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Would you vote for a person to be president if you knew when elected he would appoint someone who thought and said this, Obama did? The President appointed Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel added to his comments that Doctors take their jobs too seriously and need to change to reduce costs – “Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients,” he wrote.

Emanuel knows that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. You know what this means; if you are old it’s not cost effective to keep you alive, the money is better spent on a younger person. In the world of Obamacare no longer will doctors try to keep patients alive, they will be told that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

To defend discrimination against older patients, Emanuel says: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

Medicare was started in 1965 and since then seniors' lives have been extended by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These procedures have allowed the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal is another key Obama adviser; he agrees with Emanuel and recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending. Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he says whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost is “debatable.” (If you or a loved one has cancer, do you think it’s debatable - delay lowers your chances of survival?)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology. This is a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically delivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor, thinks you need to know who will be involved in your healthcare decisions and provided the information about Drs. Emanuel and Blumenthal, two of the Obama appointees who will be carrying out Obama’s orders to control lives by controlling what medical care people (other than Obama, congress and government bureaucrats) receive.

“Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (Betty McCaughey - JAMA, June 18, 2008).

The Democrat news media house organs will not tell Americans the thinking behind government health “reform” nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support by Democrat opponents in the House and Senate. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

The health bills in the House and Senate will put decision-making about your care in the hands of presidential appointees with the beliefs of Emanuel and Blumenthal who likely reflect what Obama himself thinks. These people will decide what medical insurance plans cover, how much flexibility your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

This is what we got when voters responded to the clamor for “change” and elected Barack Obama – Obama has showed a willingness to throw folks “under the bus” when it suits him and old folks are no exception.

Where is “Deep Throat” when you need him?

2009-07-23T10:13:00.000-07:00

The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. Instead, his campaign has only released his certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of birth information that can be submitted by foreign born people.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Senator John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama. Obama could likewise put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certificate of live birth.

As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth and relatives in Kenya say he was born in Kenya and some say they were present at his birth.

Obama has not released many other documents in addition to his birth certificate conveniently for Obama did not press for their release after Obama said he would release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

It is astonishing to me that with all the documentation that might answer the question concerning the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under our constitutional requirements for that office, no one has appeared to reveal documents that would shed light on the issue. Where is “Deep Throat” when you need him?

Consider the following:

1. Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

2. Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

3. Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008, but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

4. Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University and the University will not release them. [By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block access. Obama doesn't want anyone to see those records; he is still trying to hide them and the financial records also have not been released.]

5. Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

6. Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

7. Obama did not release or authorize records of documents from his time at Harvard Law School.

8. Obama has not released his passport and passport files to show how he traveled abroad.

9. Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)

10. Obama/Dunham marriage license

11. Obama/Dunham divorce documents

12. Soetoro/Dunham marriage license

13. Soetero/Dunham Adoption records

Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Senator Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules while Obama has been far more secretive about his public life and has refused to allow access to normal documents that are routinely made public by candidates for office.

So the question is – how come no one comes forward with copies of relevant documents that should exist. The New York Times has no problem getting a hold of classified information that damages the security of the United States but anything that might show Americans Obama is not the legitimate president is unavailable – makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

We recognized the threat of Communism once; why can’t we recognize Islam as our enemy?

2009-07-22T06:57:00.000-07:00

In the federal government, President Harry Truman's Executive Order 9835 initiated a program of loyalty reviews for federal employees in 1947. Truman's mandate called for dismissal if there were "reasonable grounds...for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States. Communism was considered an existential threat to the United States and the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. The possibility of the overthrow of our government was considered real and needed to be guarded against.

When President Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, he strengthened and extended Truman's loyalty review program. Similar loyalty reviews were established in many state and local government offices and some private industries across the nation. In 1958 it was estimated that roughly one out of every five employees in the United States was required to pass some sort of loyalty review.

There were many anti-Communist committees, panels, and "loyalty review boards" in federal, state, and local governments, as well as many private agencies that carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their work force.

Fast forward to 2009. A group obsessed with creating a Caliphate based on Muslim religious law -- Sharia Law -- in the United States and other nations held their first US conference in Chicago and there is no reaction by the government and little by the public yet the threat posed by Islam and their Jihadists is greater than any ever posed by Communists in the United States.

The conference is titled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," and was held at the Hilton Hotel in a suburb of Chicago. The shocking part of this is that the majority of congress is silent about this gathering of dedicated enemies of the US Constitution and American values, yet they are voicing their outrage over a CIA proposal to "terminate" terrorist leaders overseas. The Obama Administration and most of the news media are also remaining silent.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the international movement to re-establish an international Islamic state or Caliphate, started their campaign to win American recruits in a Chicago suburb and nearly 300 people packed the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel for its Khalifah Conference to listen to Islamic ideologues blame capitalism for World War I and World War II, the U.S. sub-prime mortgage meltdown, the current violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, world poverty and malnutrition and inner-city drug use. A speaker (Abu Atallah) even blamed capitalism for the late singer Michael Jackson's decision "to shed his black skin."

In the ballroom where the conference took place, men and women were largely segregated, with men in the front and women in the back. Reacting to criticism of this segregation, one of the speakers said "Men and women must be kept separate to prevent people from behaving like animals."

According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world's social and economic problems will not be fixed until the world (obviously including the United States) is governed by Shariah and the government controls all major industries. "Secular capitalism has made me devalue my skin" and "has kept my family in ghettos," said one speaker, an African-American who went on to blame it for the fact that he smoked marijuana and his grandmother played the lottery. Capitalism, he added, is a form of economic "terrorism" and "causes us to be sent to mental hospitals." In an interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, a deputy spokesman Mohammad Malkawi refused to specifically condemn Al Qaida and the Taliban.

Despite all this Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government and it insists it is only interested in instituting radical change by nonviolent means. But the organization’s alumni include 9/ll mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the late Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi and would-be Hamas suicide bombers, and the group's pro-jihadist rhetoric has led critics to label it a "conveyor belt for terrorists."

Even a Muslim American group condemned Hirb ut-Tahir but not the US government. They issued a statement in advance of the conference condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir's radical ideology and challenging others to follow suit.

"Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches an ideology that calls for the destruction of the principles that America is founded on," said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy. "While their words are protected by our First Amendment, their actions and movement must not be allowed to take hold. The silence of American Islamist organizations like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] CAIR and [the Islamic Society of North America] ISNA in condemning the ideologies of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their agenda of insurgency in America speaks volumes to their own, albeit, more camouflaged Islamist agenda."

How “non violent” can this organization be? One panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago. A speaker identified by conference organizers as Imam Jaleel Abdul Razek said that "if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life - we should never do that, ever do that - unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt."

Does this sound like a peaceful organization to you?

There was a dialogue between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States

Audience member: "Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?"

Imam: "Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone."

Audience Member: And so if the United States was in a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?"

Imam: "If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would."

Audience Member: "And the Constitution gone. That's all."

Imam: "Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone."

Clearly Hizb ut-Tahrir's is not only is determined to destroy capitalism -- it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.

Could domestic Communists in the 1950’s have done worse? What has happened to America when we once recognized the threat of Communism but fail to recognize the far worse threat – Islam?

The latest Obama outrage; controlling the internet

2009-07-20T10:07:00.000-07:00

In the world of Obama there cannot be any dissent or criticism of the master designer (no, not God – President Barack Obama) and any attempts to impugn the Obama plans for “change” must be demolished. So if negativity comes from the internet, then of course the blogosphere must be added to litany of government control and censorship.

The recent Obama intended appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein will have powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the new position to which Sunstein is about to be appointed, the powers with which Sunstein will be endowed are very, very, troubling.

The Wall Street Journal reported that "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."

As an indication of where Sunstein is coming from, his previous book, “Nudge,” suggests that government ought to “gently force people to be better human beings.” Sunstein reviews the way views get cemented when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary in his "On Rumors." He says he is concerned that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." He has written “We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"

Sunstein will be another Obama “Czar” but will really be the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who will be in charge of public cyberspace believes that - "Whether you're a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your comments say." Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for comments on service providers would be "a considerable burden."

But who cares about a burden when insults to Obama and Obama plans are concerned; according to Sunstein we must exert a “chilling effect” on those who would spread destructive falsehoods” and this “can be an excellent idea," he says.

The soon to be internet Czar has written "As we have seen, falsehoods can undermine democracy itself;" but what he really means is that he doesn't like what he considers false rumors about Obama, his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague.

In his book on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) Sunstein strives to denounce the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama palling around with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. Although the facts got out the public chose to ignore this and other revealing facts about Obama and chose “change” over common sense.

Sunstein wants a system that includes a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commentators. This is more than a “nudge,” it is outright censorship. The way this works is that a blogger would get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post. How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Nobody will care about that but it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

Consider that the legal bill for bloggers to fight this would be staggering. Bloggers already have plenty of reason to be careful about what they say, even if they don't much fear a libel conviction, but add to that the costs of defense against a plaintiff with unlimited money and you have a clear subversion of the First Amendment.

"We could also imagine a future in which those who spread false rumors are categorized as such, discounted and marginalized . . . people would approach rumors skeptically even they provide comfort and fit their own biases," Sunstein writes. But if his warnings don’t work, Sunstein will likely make good on the implicit threat that runs through his book: that he would redefine libel as the spread of false information and hold everyone up along the way responsible.

Since Sunstein would declare war on bloggers, we should pre-empt him by declaring war on Sunstein, while we still can. Sunstein is an enemy to every news organization and blogger. We should return the favor and declare war on him.

Before we leave Sotomayor as she inevitably reaches the Supreme Court...

2009-07-17T09:10:00.000-07:00

Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina:” Perjury?

2009-07-17 08:50:45-04

By Joel McDurmon

“Sotomayor” is Spanish for “great thicket.” In the hearings for her Supreme Court nomination this week, Sonia Sotomayor is hoping we won’t see the forest for the thicket. She has used every weasel word, evasion, and even plain language in an attempt to divert attention from the one huge fact we all know: she’s a liberal, feminist, radical judge just waiting to grab power before she unleashes her radicalism. This fact has most clearly shown through in her comment that a “wise Latina woman” can reach a better decision than a white male, and this is why this particular comment of hers has received the most public scrutiny (despite her pretended dismay over the fact). Many have already tired of this issue, but I hope the following paragraphs will persuade you why we should not yet let this go.

In defense of herself she has argued that her critics have pulled the statement from its context. In context she says she only meant to “inspire” young Latino lawyers “to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”[1]

Then she spoke very clearly and sternly against her critics’ perception. This statement is very important. She said,

I want to state up front, unequivocally, and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has any advantage in sound judging. . . . The words I used, I used agreeing with the sentiment that justice Sandra Day-O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be. . . that both men and women were equally capable of being
wise and fair judges.[2]

In saying this I believe she may have perjured herself, because this was expressly the opposite of what she says in her now well publicized speech. In that speech she clearly expresses disagreement with Day - O’Connor’s view that, as she puts it, “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”[3]

She expresses her disagreement with these words:

I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.[4]

There is no escaping the fact, therefore, that she delivered her infamous “wise Latina” comment as a rejection of Day - O’Connor’s view of equality. No honest interpreter could accept this as anything other than a confirmation of a form of racial and gender superiority. Furthermore, she offered this comment in support of her earlier argument in favor of the fact that racial and gender difference must inevitably affect judicial decisions. She puts it this way:

Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. . . . [E]nough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.[5]

Again, she says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”[6] She embraces this fact, and looks forward to her own “difference making”:

Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[7]

She encourages other young minority lawyers to embrace this attitude as well, and let it infect their legal decisions:

For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? . . . For all of us, how do [we] change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?[8]

And she directs “men lawyers” (presumably “white” males) to consider how they can improve themselves, presumably by approximating the role of previous liberals who have made decisions favoring minorities: “For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”[9]

It remains clear to me that she intended to mean not that a minority could judge equally as well as anyone else, but as she plainly said, an ethnic or gender minority could “more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” If our legislators cannot understand that this clearly expresses racism and sexism, then America is truly lost in a great thicket of political incompetence and prejudice.

I can’t believe this woman would get off the hook by merely saying she believes in equality and that she was agreeing with Day-O’Connor. Both points made in her hearings flatly contradict what she said and wrote in her speech. The Senate Judiciary Committee should not accept this evasive testimony, and ought to look into it as a possible case of perjury. Worse yet, to confirm her nomination would be the least wise thing they could do at this point.

Endnotes: [1] See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLq021igc (accessed July 16, 2009). [2]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLq021igc (accessed July 16, 2009). [3] Cited by Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2[4] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[5] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[6] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[7] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2[8] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).[9] Jennifer Rubin, “A Wise Latina Woman,” Weekly Standard (Vol. 14, Iss. 37), June 15, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/587tzqjm.asp?pg=2 (accessed July 16, 2009).

Congress should not rush through something as important as changing our healthcare system

2009-07-16T13:05:00.000-07:00

In the finest tradition of the car salesman who says “Here is my best deal but you have to take it right now,” House and Senate Democrats at the urging of President Obama want to push through legislation by the end of August that will transform Americans’ health care, probably irreversibly. Imagine; a complete overhaul of medical care in the United States, said to be about one-sixth of the total US economy, to be rushed through congress with virtually no review, analysis or deliberation by the Senate and House. More time is likely spent on mundane things like national recognition of one or the other organization or person than on something as important as enacting a system that will change how Americans receive medical care in the future or, indeed, whether or not they will receive any healthcare at all.

Until now opposition has focused almost entirely on the cost of the Democrat/Obama healthcare plans. Although the cost is a legitimate issue to consider, there are far worse things in store for Americans if the Democrats are successful. [This will be addressed in a future article,]

At an estimated cost of $1.5 trillion, there is no doubt that Americans will be required to shoulder enormous tax burdens. However the purported cost estimate is specious; the actual cost will like be twice or more this estimate. Add the cost of the healthcare program to already-incurred other costs of the no stimulus “Stimulus Bill and other spending for the budget deficit, TARP, et al, and you have a total expenditure and deficit which is unimaginable even in modern times.

President Obama has made clear he plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts on schedule in 2011; this would mean hiking the top marginal capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 25.4 percent--much higher than Obama promised during his march to the presidency, and near the 28 percent rate existing before the Republican-inspired 1997 Bill Clinton tax cuts. However, the tax increase on capital gains would pale compared to the new top rate on ordinary income, already scheduled to go from 35% to 39.6 percent in 2011, but now pushed up to 45 percent with the new surtax, and actually substantially higher than that as a percentage of taxable income because the new 5.4 percent surtax is applied to adjusted gross income (AGI).

As bad as this is, it actually gets a lot worse. Employers would also be mandated to provide health insurance under the bill, and the cost of health insurance would likely skyrocket because of new regulations called guaranteed issue and community rating. The only alternative, which many companies would either be forced into by cost considerations or choose for simplicity, would be to pay a payroll tax of as much as 8 percent. That's on top of the existing 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, creating a new total payroll tax of 23.3 percent.

There would also be a new tax on individuals who don't have health insurance, despite President Obama's campaign promise not to require people to be insured or to impose taxes on those making less than $250,000. That tax would be another 2.5 percent of AGI.

Add to these tax figures state and local taxes, (which are also rising in most of the country) and Americans who work to support those that don’t will be taking home much less than half of the money they earn.

It’s not “rocket science,” as they say; it's actually pretty simple economics. The government does not create anything by spending; it simply moves money around. Every dollar the government spends has to come from somewhere, but there are only three options and all make people poorer. Higher taxes take money out of people's pockets and deny them the freedom to spend, save, or invest that money according to their own wishes. Merely printing money is inflationary and destroys the value of every American's savings, slams people on fixed incomes, usually the elderly, with higher prices, and creates a huge hurdle to new investment. The only other option, which we have relied on to the tune of over a trillion dollars already this year, is to borrow. But borrowing is no panacea either; every dollar borrowed by the government is a dollar no longer available for private investment. Moreover, we and future generations have to pay back all the money we've borrowed, with interest. It also will become increasingly difficult to borrow the huge sums required to support our deficits as other countries and wealth funds become skittish about the American economy. Furthermore if some like China, Russia and India succeed in having the world replace the dollar as a global currency, the aftermath will be additionally devastating. Therefore in the long-run the only two practical options are huge tax hikes or skyrocketing inflation.

It is impossible for government spending to make us richer when every way the government can raise money makes us poorer. We can't afford another stimulus, a government takeover of health care, the cap-and-trade energy takeover, or any other radical big government policy. We already have a six-month deficit of over a trillion dollars, how much will the deficit be after 12 months?

Congress must take time to really consider what they are about to do. Don’t give us the car salesman treatment. Conscientious members of the House and Senate must step up and stop the head long rush to economic and healthcare oblivion.

Did you know this about Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

2009-07-16T02:00:00.000-07:00

“The Pentagon provides the House speaker with an Air Force plane large enough to accommodate her staff, family, supporters, and members of the California delegation when she travels around the country. But, Pelosi wanted routine access to a larger plane. It includes 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16. Pelosi wanted "carte blanche for an aircraft any time," including weekend trips home to San Francisco. Pretty nice but a very expensive perk! Her Air Force C-32 costs approximately $15,000 an hour or approximately $300,000 per trip home.

And she has the guts to confront the Big Three CEOs for flying their corporate jets to Washington! YOU WOULD THINK SHE, ALONG WITH A HUSBAND WORTH AN ESTIMATED BILLION DOLLARS, WOULD LEASE OR BUY AND FLY THEIR OWN PLANE, OR FLY FIRST CLASS ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES LIKE OTHER RICH PEOPLE. NANCY PELOSI FACTS:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco. Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic development credit in American Samoa.'

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "CORRUPT”!!

How do you spell "HYPOCRISY”??”

EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT NANCY PELOSI AND BECOME ANGRY ENOUGH TO THROW OUT PELOSI AND HER CRONIES IN THE HOUSE.

By the way, Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served in the House from Georgia from 1978 and as House Minority Whip in 1989. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. During that time, he never made use of military aircraft.

Obama uses your taxpayer money to stifle dissent

2009-07-15T07:11:00.000-07:00

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has been a conservative critic of Obama tax and spend policies and, in particular, of the “no stimulus” Stimulus bill. In a show of Chicago-style politics operating out of the White House, Obama is hitting Senator Kyl hard where it hurts, in his home state.

The Stimulus Bill has money for all sorts of “buy into Obama” projects; dollars replace ethics and purchase support for the administration.

The White House recently released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, that cite Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way and unnecessary money is cut from the Stimulus Bill. Kyl has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He has on his Senate Web site comments to the effect that spending not already allocated be halted.

Obama shrewdly placed Rhino Republicans in his cabinet and at least one rewarded Obama with an attack on a fellow Republican. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his criticism of Kyl for trying to save tax payer money.

LaHood wrote Arizona Governor Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."

LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.

Obama’s Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.

The Obama underhanded approach is working: The governor’s spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.

"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.

Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.

"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."

One of the few coming to Kyl’s defense was the president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; he posted an article on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."

"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.

On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.

"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."

Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."

Of course Senator Kyl is correct; that’s what steams the Obama Chicago-style machine in the White House – can’t have anyone oppose the grand Obama plan to create dependency on tax payer money to implement the government control strategy.

Congress, if you won’t read Waxman-Markey (aka American Clean Energy and Security Act ) before voting, at least read this

2009-07-11T08:54:00.000-07:00

Clear thinking people owe a debt of gratitude to authors Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson who wrote an article for National Review that outlined no less than 50 outrageous features of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Some refer to the bill by the acronym “ACES” which is not only correct but also prescient; ACES is the “Aces and Eights” dead man’s hand for America.

Like most legislation passed by the House of Representatives ACES was not read before it was voted upon. Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw to it that there was no time for those who might have wanted to understand what was in the bill had time to digest it. Even the author Waxman famously said in answer to a question about the bill “You don’t expect me to know everything in this bill, do you?”

However if one takes time to read the over 1,000 pages of this legislation you will understand that it will not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and relies upon the concept of carbon offsets, “which can be manufactured out of thin air and political imagination.” By use of so-called carbon credits, it will eliminate most of the demands that the legislation puts on industry but will nonetheless increase prices consumers pay for every product that requires energy for its manufacture — which, of course, is everything. Waxman-Markey represents the worst abuse of the public trust and even worse in cost than the stimulus and the bailouts put together.

As Spruiell and Williamson wrote:

“Waxman-Markey creates a permanent new regime in which environmental romanticism and corporate welfare are mixed together to form political poison. From comic bureaucratic power grabs (check out the section of the bill on candelabras) to the creation of new welfare programs for Democratic constituencies to, above all, massive giveaways for every financial, industrial, and political lobby imaginable, this bill would permanently deform American politics and economic life.”

“ACES” has four major objectives: giveaways to special-interests, regulatory mandates having nothing to do with climate change, and a wish list of left wing ideology. Every knife in the heart of American independence cannot be cataloged in a short summary but as Spruiell and Williamson identified here are some of the 50 most outrageous provisions that would change our lives in America forever.

1.Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction — they will be given away for free to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and an array of politically connected businesses, however higher costs are in our future. This is the reason big business supports cap-and-trade.

2. Wall Street investment bankers whose money got Obama elected will be enriched, For example: Goldman Sachs is heavily invested in carbon-offset development and carbon permissions. According to CNN:

“Less than two weeks after the investment bank announced it would be laying off 10 percent of its staff, ***Goldman Sachs confirmed that it has taken a minority stake in Utah-based carbon offset project developer Blue Source LLC. . . . “Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the U.S. is growing rapidly,” said Leslie Biddle, Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman, “and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk.”

3. The legislation includes corporate subsidies and special set-asides for politically connected industries, a new corporate interest group, USCAP, the United States Climate Action Partnership, was formed. This group is largely responsible for the fact that carbon permits are being given away like rather than auctioned. The Canada Free Press listed the following participants of this group who will be benefited:

Alcoa, American International Group (AIG) which withdrew after accepting government bailout money, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Chrysler LLC (which continues to lobby with taxpayer dollars), ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp. (now owned by the Obama administration), Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc., National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, Inc., Pepsico, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, World Resources Institute, Xerox Corporation.

Major recipients of this largesse in the form of carbon permits are the electric utilities such as those represented by the Edison Electric Institute. Together with the coal and steel companies, the utilities are positioned to receive a huge portion of the carbon permits have become among the nation’s highest-spending lobbies who work to ensure that their interests are served by cap-and-trade.

4. Waxman-Markey will also create “offsets” with the result that nearly all of the bill’s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement.

If you wish, you can also earn an offset that can be sold. Buy a farm and profit through such methods as, “improved manure management,” “reduced tillage/no-tillage,” or “afforestation of marginal farmlands.” What this means plant some trees around the house and claim some extra credits on the land.

5. Because the cap-and-trade regime will disadvantage domestic oil refineries vis-à-vis foreign competitors, Waxman-Markey will buy them off with free permits — 2 percent of the national total will go to domestic refineries, at no cost.6. Again, to enlist more support, Agribusiness is exempted from cap-and-trade controls but farmers will be given permits to sell and to profit from anyway.

7. Some in congress voted for the bill because it supposedly strips the EPA of its oversight role when it comes to managing the offsets associated with American farms. However this is specious reasoning because at the urging of Cargill and other big farm aggregates oversight will be entrusted to the USDA — known to be “basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the agriculture cartel, one of America’s most rapacious special-interest groups, which already is stuffed with subsidies and sops.”

8. Waxman-Markey protects the discredited ethanol industry by directing the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels. The huge subsidies given on the farm lobby through the ethanol program that encourages farmers to clear forest land to plant corn is preserved notwithstanding that ethanol is a net environmental loss since the use of ethanol does nothing to offset carbon “pollution.” The EPA will be forbidden to change the ethanol program for a minimum of a five years “study” required before a ruling on whether ethanol should be treated the same as any other fuel, and the EPA, USDA, and Congress all must agree to act beforehand.

9. How about this one; farmers will be rewarded for such things as “no till” planting, in which farmers forgo plowing and plant seeds directly into the soil. Two peer-reviewed scientific papers suggest that no-till either does nothing to decrease carbon dioxide or actually increases the level of greenhouse-gas emissions by upping emissions of nitrous oxide — a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Of course weed control will be more difficult the market for herbicides such as Monsanto’s RoundUp will be increased and guess who is spending millions lobbying for no-till?

10. Waxman-Markey will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not enacted similar legislation. This gives Obama an opportunity to develop politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures. As the New York Times wrote:

“A House committee working on sweeping energy legislation seems determined to make sure that the United States will tax China and other carbon polluters, potentially disrupting an already-sensitive climate change debate in Congress. The Ways and Means Committee’s proposed bill language would virtually require that the president impose an import tariff on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions. Directed primarily at China, the United States’ biggest manufacturing competitor, the provisions aim to protect cement, steel and other energy-intensive industries that expect to face higher costs under a federal emissions cap.”

11. Big Labor. A huge supporter of democrats and Obama, will benefit hugely. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these “investments” pay out inflated union wages. And it’s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the “plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.”

12. The renewable electricity standard in the bill requires utilities to supply 20 percent of their power from renewable energy sources (or “increased efficiency”) by 2020. The bill would create a system of renewable electricity credits similar to the carbon offsets mentioned above — utilities that cannot meet the standard could purchase credits from other utilities but one way or another the cost will be passed along to us.

13. The renewable standard excludes sources of power like nuclear and coal gasification even though these sources are cleaner than traditional coal-burning plants. “Qualified hydropower” is also narrowly defined to exclude hydropower from Canada. Why is that if not to protect profits of domestic industries at the cost to the public?

14. Waxman-Markey calls for the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation (CSRC) to direct $1 billion annually into the development of carbon-capture technologies. The CSRC would be funded via assessments on utility companies. This is another charge that will be added to electricity bills.

15. Carbon capture will require a whole new bureaucracy and new regulations. The bill requires the EPA to create a permitting process for geologic sequestration (burying captured carbon emissions in the ground), regulations to keep the buried carbon from escaping into the air, and regulations to keep it from escaping into the water supply, much of the technology required for this does not yet exist.

16. We know about the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents already mandate, but the new bill regulates every light fixture under the sun. There are rules governing fluorescent lamps, incandescent lamps, intermediate base lamps, candelabra base lamps, outdoor luminaries, portable light fixtures. The government actually started down this road by regulating light bulbs in the 2005 energy bill. This bill tightens the regulations, which means the unintended consequences produced by the 2005 bill — use of more expensive light bulbs that burn out quicker — will get worse.17. Waxman-Markey will also dictate what appliances we can use. Clothes washers and dishwashers, portable electric spas, showerheads, faucets, televisions — all these and more are covered specifically in the bill. How do you feel about the government telling you what appliances are good for you or not?

18. Appliances will be required to come with “carbon output” labels, and retailers will get bonus payments for marketing those that are certified “best-in-class.” The bill sets up a payment schedule to reward the manufacturers of these “best-in-class” products: $75 for each dishwasher, $250 for each clothes washer, and so on. It’s best to buy that appliance of your dreams now because soon you will be told what you should be dreaming about

19. Homes are not exempt from government regulation because under Waxman-Markey the EPA is required to establish environmental standards for residences, meaning a “federally dictated one-size-fits-all policy for greening every home in America.” New houses in particular will be affected by these regulations mandated by “ACES.” Of course the house of your dream will have to be green, may not include all you want and will cost more – but, hey, you will be helping to save the planet from a nonexistent threat.

20. All commercial buildings also would be governed by a “national energy efficiency building code” that would require 50 percent reductions in energy use in all buildings by 2018, followed by 5 percent reductions in energy use every three years after that through 2030. Everyone knows these changes will be costly, but Waxman-Markey supporters argue that they will pay for themselves through lower energy bills which is nonsense because energy costs will also be rising. Businesses and homeowners will pay twice — once to retrofit or build and again through the energy bill.

21. EPA is given broad power to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, boats, planes, and trains – nothing is beyond the control of government.

22. Even non-mobile sources are to be regulated by the EPA as well. The Supreme Court cleared the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions by declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Just think about it, you are polluting the air with every breadth you exhale. There is no doubt President Obama will move forward with this even if Congress fails to pass the cap-and-trade bill. He has already announced a strict national fuel-efficiency standard for cars, and the implications for other sources of greenhouse-gas emissions are not good.

23. Waxman-Markey requires the EPA to establish a federal greenhouse-gas registry. Businesses would be required to collect and submit data on their emissions to the EPA, creating yet another compliance cost for them to pass on to their customers.

24. The bill does away with the 10th Amendment by prohibiting states from creating their own cap-and-trade programs. Nearly half of all U.S. states have already taken some sort of action to cap greenhouse-gas emissions by forming regional compacts and implementing their own emission standards. Understandably, these states support a federal cap so that they are not at an economic disadvantage to states that do not cap emissions. If these states want to destroy their own economies in the pursuit of green goals but states that don’t see any reason to do so should not be forced to share in their in that destruction.

25. The government having acquired automobile companies will be forcing the public into green electric put putts. Utility companies are directed by ACES to start laying the groundwork for a glorious future in which everyone drives a plug-in car. The legislation directs them to start planning for the deployment of electrical charging stations along roadways, in parking garages, and at gas stations, as well as “such other elements as the State determines necessary to support plug-in electric drive vehicles.”

26. Waxman-Markey requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a large-scale vehicle electrification program and to provide “such sums as may be necessary” for the manufacture of plug-in electric-drive vehicles, including another $25 billion for “advanced technology vehicle” loans. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations requiring that each automaker’s fleet be comprised of a minimum percentage of vehicles that run on ethanol or biodiesel. Forget about that SUV or other unapproved vehicle you may want, the government will tell you what you want.

27. You may recall that Congress passed (and Obama signed) a “cash for clunkers” program as part of the war appropriations bill this month. Under the program, you get a rebate for trading in a used car for one that gets slightly higher mileage. The Waxman-Markey bill takes this concept and applies it to appliances, electric motors — basically anything that can be traded in for a more energy-efficient version. These types of programs hugely fail cost-benefit analyses because more energy goes into the production of the new appliances than would have been used if the old ones had just run their course.

28. Democrats and Obama know that money alone won’t make green mandates cost-competitive and that only carbon rationing can achieve that; that’s why they are pushing a carbon-rationing bill.

29. Waxman-Markey includes $7.5 million to establish a National Bioenergy Partnership to promote biofuels. Economic barriers to the commercial viability of biofuel as an energy source have proven to be so insurmountable that even with all of the federal mandates and subsidies already thrown their way, the ethanol companies lined up with everyone else for a federal bailout when the financial crisis hit. “The last thing consumers need is another full-time, federally subsidized lobbying arm for that industry.”

30. ACES (and eights) also takes care of Obama’s most reliable constituencies; college administrators, will be given billions of dollars to play with through the creation of eight “Clean Energy Innovation Centers,” university-based consortia charged with a mission to “leverage the expertise and resources of the university and private research communities, industry, venture capital, national laboratories, and other participants in energy innovation to support cross-disciplinary research and development in areas not being served by the private sector in order to develop and transfer innovative clean energy technologies into the marketplace.”

31. Of course, another Obama constituency, the community-organizing political arm of the democrat Party — i.e., ACORN — is amply rewarded by Waxman-Markey for their heroic efforts of fraudulent elections of the past and the future. ACORN and the like will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill “authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.” Federally subsidized “community organizers” will be paid $55 an hour to share their energy expertise with businesses.

32. Waxman-Markey also enables Obama “spread the wealth” by using the tax code to transfer wealth from people who pay taxes to people who don’t, mainly from likely Republican voters to likely Obama voters. The bill “amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow certain low income taxpayers a refundable energy tax credit to compensate such taxpayers for reductions in their purchasing power, as identified and calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting from regulation of GHGs (greenhouse gases).” Not only will Waxman-Markey slip more redistribution into the tax code, it will establish a new monthly welfare check. It will create an “Energy Refund Program” that will “give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act.” If all this wasn’t bad enough, another new class of government dependents will be created by Waxman-Markey. Americans put out of work by Waxman-Markey will be eligible to participate in a program to distribute “climate change adjustment assistance to adversely affected workers.”

33. With unemployment abounding, Waxman-Markey will create new jobs in government. The bill creates: a new United States Global Change Research Program, a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, a National Climate Service, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy office at the White House, and an International Climate Change Adaptation Program at the State Department; imagine the hundreds of thousands dependent on the government, and Democrats, for their livelihood – how do you think they will vote?

34. It’s easy to see why many states support cap and trade legislation; it allows each state to set up a State Energy and Environment Development (SEED) account into which the federal government can deposit emission allowances. States can then sell these allowances and use the proceeds to support clean-energy programs. They must set aside a certain amount of the money to fund federal mandates, but they are given broad discretion to use the rest by making loans, grants, and other forms of support available to favored constituencies. Once again the 10th amendment is reduced by the federal government using the greed lure of money.

35. Waxman-Markey doesn’t overlook the health care debate; it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a “strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change.”

If legislators don’t want to take the time to read the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I hope they at least have time to read these outrageous encroachments on our constitutional freedoms and liberty before they vote on this calamity again.

Obama's Documented Lies: 158 and remarkably still growing

2009-07-08T05:54:00.000-07:00

From Obama WTF (What's The Facts?). This is the original, and most comprehensive, authoritative site about the life, votes, and positions of President Barack Hussein Obama and his political backers. [August 11, 2008]

· 158 Obama claims he wrote letter to US Treasurer to try to prevent the housing crisis; but he acted only AFTER he had caused it by blocking McCain's bill
· 157 Obama claims he is bipartisan ; Congressional Quarterly shows he voted with his party 97% of the time
· 156 Obama's dirty lie scares seniors: falsely claims McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare: liar liar liar says Annenberg Factcheck
· 155 Obama lies about his mother turning to food stamps AND still sending him to top schools; his grandmother paid for education
· 154 Obama lied about being asked to wear dead soldier's bracelet: family had asked Obama to stop wearing it
· 153 Obama claimed all new spending is economic plan was self-funding; short by $3.5 Trillion says nonpartisan Tax Policy Center
· 152 Obama denied Admiral Mike Mullen had called Obama's Iraqi troop plan "dangerous"; Mullen made comment on Fox in July 2008 according to WaPo
· 151 Obama lied about Kissinger's views of diplomacy during first debate; Kissinger confirms the lie
· 150 During Debate 1 Obama denied voting to tax some people making $42000 a year: Annenburg Factcheck,org confirms Obama is lying
· 149 After Debate 1, Team Obama denied Obama ever said, "Iran's not a threat": Video proves Obama DID say "Iran is NOT a threat."
· 148 Obama claims under McCain employers would be taxed on the health care benefits it grants to workers; he's lying
· 147 Obama refers to an Iraqi surplus of $79 billion and says US should have it; its $60 billion and dwindling
· 146 Obama claims only 5% of Americans would see tax increase; he's grossly understating the number of people effected
· 145 Obama accuses McCain of lying about Biden being against clean coal; video proves Obama is lying
· 144 Obama claims McCain is opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest; McCain has never held that position.
· 143 Obama accuses McCain of making an ad about Obama's vote to approve leaving babies who survive abortion procedures to die; McCain did not make the ad
· 142 Obama's ad on abortion claims BHO always supported medical care to protect infants; text of the Bill he supported shows he wanted babies born alive after abortions to be left to die
· 141 Obama's ad on abortion uses quotes by journalists who made negative comments about a McCain ad; but Obama is misleading because both journalists have been proven to be incorrect
· 140 Obama's lying when he says McCain's ad misstated BHO's Sex Ed for Kindergartners Bill: McCain's ad was accurate; here's the Sex Ed Bill text
· 139 Obama and Biden both truncate McCain's comments on the strength of the economy's fundamentals: deliberate distortion
· 138 Biden claims McCain tried to hurt our veterans by denying them educational benefits; NewsWeek confirms Biden is lying
· 137 Obama claims under McCain, Elderly would have had Social Security tied up in the Stock market; Newsweek cries BS
· 136 Obama claims his opponent will cut social security in half: NOT true; Obama guilty of scare-mongering aimed at Seniors
· 135 Biden claims McCain wouldn't help small borrowers hurt by housing crisis; this is untrue according to Newsweek
· 134 Obama claimed during the primary he had more Ex President Clinton Foreign Policy advisers than Sen. Clinton; she had 70% more
· 133 Obama claimed his father served in World War 2: his Kenyan-born father never served
· 132 Obama grossly misquoted Sen.Clinton about her vote on a banking bill; BHO used the false quote to show why voters don't trust Government
· 131 Obama claimed employers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be prosecuted for employing illegals; Gov stats prove he's lying
· 130 Pushing his Green agenda Obama claimed Japanese Car average 45 mpg fuel efficiency; its actually around 29 mph
· 129 Obama disparaged the President saying he hadn't met with auto makers until the sixth year of his presidency; GWB met automakers in April 2003
· 128 Obama disparaged the efficiency of our healthcare system saying the U.S. spends twice per capita than other countries: WaPo proves he's lying
· 127 Obama claims President Clinton's Labor Secretary said BHO's healthcare plan, "Does more than anybody to reduce costs"; Robert Reich did NOT say it
· 126 Obama falsely claimed he won the Michigan Democrat primary: he was not on the ballot
· 125 Obama's Spanish language ad lies about McCain's position on immigration; tries to stir race-war: lies debunked by ABC
· 124 Obama lies about his interference in Iraqi negotiations; but his campaign admits his treachery
· 123 Obama took credit for the economic stimulus package passed in Feb 08; BHO's colleagues on Capitol Hill cry BS
· 122 Obama claims Big Oil is ignoring 68 million acres of oil fields they could be drilling; most fields are being worked
· 121 Obama claims never questions his opponent's patriotism; asks of McCain "WHICH country first?": ABC says he's questioning McCain's patriotism
· 120 Obama claims personal savings rates are lowest since the Great Depression; currently higher than under President Clinton
· 119 Obama claims on this video that he doesn't switch positions; list of 31 flip flops show he's lying
· 118 In the Primaries Obama puffed his resume claiming he was a "Professor"; State Senate bio shows he was not ; he now agrees
· 117 When Obama ran for US Senate his web site claimed "5 years as a community organizer"; he admits it was only 3 years
· 116 Obama's attack ad in Michigan claims McCain doesn't support loan guarantees for auto-industry. McCain DOES support them
· 115 Obama says "if we're STILL in recession when he takes office...etc"; the economy is NOT in recession
· 114 Obama claims he signed up for Selective Service when he graduated from High School; records show he did NOT until he'd been at college 1 year
· 113 Attacking Palin, Obama has the audacity to claim,"Words mean something; you can't just make things up "; BHO makes stuff up
· 112 Biden claims McCain will increase taxes for workers & Obama will only increase taxes on those making $435k: he's lying
· 111 Biden claims Obama drew the Nation's attention to problems at Walter Reed Army Hospital; it was two WaPo reporters that reported the issues to the Nation
· 110 to make Obama seems more American/less exotic, Biden tells Scranton crowd Obama grew up in Kansas; BHO grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia
· 109 Obama lies yet again to disparage Gov. Palin; ignores her executive experience as Governor of Alaska
· 108 Obama says the US economy has failed under Bush; World Bank stats proves Obama's been lying; US a world leader in growth, employment, incomes
· 107 Obama claims if you are born into poverty in America you are on your own: there are many government programs
· 106 Obama claims he's bi-partisan: voting records prove Obama is #11 most partisan
· 105 Claimed Hillary would be on anyone's short-list; Hillary wasn't on Obama's short-list
· 104 Obama claims abortion rates have not gone down under the Bush Administration; stats show they have gone down
· 103 Obama dismissed Bomber Bill Ayers as "some guy who lives in the neighborhood";they had a close working relationship
· 102 Obama claims there's no charge to attend his acceptance speech: CBS 4 in Denver proves he's lying; some tickets cost $1000
· 101 Obama used being a first-time-buyer to justify consulting with Rezko before he bought his house; BHO had already purchased a residence
· 100 Obama lies about his support for infanticide; campaign concedes in 03 he opposed a bill stopping the killing of kids born alive after abortions
· 99 Obama overstates Oil Industry's contributions to McCain; ignores cash the Oil industry gave BHO; Newsweek debunks
· 98 To belittle America,Obama exaggerated the growth in Debt under the current Administration; debunked by WaPo
· 97 Obama claims President George W Bush had not left the country before he became President; WaPo confirms he's lying
· 96 To promote "green", Obama claimed he drove a vehicle that uses ethanol; GM confirmed the model was NOT ethanol-ready
· 95 Obama claims he's taking his family for a week's rest in Hawaii with no campaigning; schedules a rally for first day
· 94: Obama claims "properly inflating tires" will save as much energy as we could drill offshore; analysis shows not even close
· 93 Obama denies accusing McCain of using race against him; ABC, NYT confirm Obama did accuse McCain of making racial attacks
· 92 Obama claims he's not being political when he's flip-flopping; timing & direction of major flip-flops show he's lying
· 91: Obama INVENTS a wall between Christians and Jews; deceptively omits the major religious wall is caused by a "fatwah" to kill American Christians and Jews
· 90 Obama claims he made a substantive call for Germany to help in Iraq; Berlin speech transcript proves he's lying
· 89: Obama admits he underestimated the decline in violence from the Surge; falsely claims McCain made same mistake
· 88 Obama turned a disappointing crowd of 20,000 into media reports of 200,000
· 87 Obama lied about his father's religious upbringing! half-brother confirms Obama's father was "RAISED Muslim"
· 86 Obama claimed we only made one fundraising trip to Florida during the Primary; Florida papers proved he lied
· 85 Claims reducing obesity to 80's levels would save Medicaid ONE TRILLION DOLLARS; not even close
· 84 To make Iraq/Afghan Wars look bad, Obama claimed demands on Nat Guard personnel hurt flood relief; Guards prove lying
· 83 Claimed due to overseas commitments, too few helecopters were available to help with Midwest flood relief; now concedes not true
· 82 Starting in Iowa, Obama claimed Clinton's healthcare plan would "punish families that couldn't afford healthcare"; NYT calls BS
· 81 Obama claims McCain's tax plan will do nothing to help the middle-class: The Tax Policy Center proves he's lying
· 80 claims the use of an Email with a big red DONATE button is NOT a fundraising solicitation
· 79 Obama claims his trip to Europe was non-political: uses video of Berlin speech to raise money within hours
· 78 Tells NBC that during the debate on the Surge he said the Surge would work in Baghdad; video proves during the debate he said the opposite
· 77 Obama's "Changing World" ad claims he'll fast-track alternatives to oil to stop us buying from hostile nations; "fast track" is totally misleading
· 76 Obama tells Israeli media that he's a member of the Senate Banking Committee; CNN confirms he's delusional
· 75 Obama claims Lou Dobbs caused hate crimes against Latinos to double; the FBI and CNN confirm Obama is lying
· 74 Obama claims the military brass think like he does; top US commanders say his plan for Iraq is unworkable
· 73: Obama promised to filibust FISA; later Obama voted for FISA and now denies changing his position
· 72 Obama belittles Americans claiming we can't speak European languages; he's talking merde; mierda; Scheiße
· 71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim
· 70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"
· 69 Claimed in Feb 08 he got 90% of funds from donors giving $25, $50; fed filings show he got only about a third from donors below $200
· 68 Obama rewrites history about what specifically he had said during his October 2002 anti-war speech
· 67 Obama claimed in 04 that he had never supported bringing troops out of Iraq; rare video of 03 Teamsters rally shows he's lying
· 66 Obama lied about the softness of the Stock Market to support his false claim the War was being used to distract the public
· 65 To justify move to private funds, Obama claims McCain's campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCain's money
· 64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs
· 63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96
· 62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for
· 61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several
· 60 Obama claims he wants a vigorous and open debate on the issues: then goes out of his way to avoid it
· 59 Obama omits key details about a false rumor re video of Michelle's "whitey" rant to justify breaking his public funding promise
· 58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth
· 57 Trying to claim patriotism Obama says his grandad signed up the day after Pearl Harbor; army records disagree
· 56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves
· 55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position, but denied he had done so
· 54 To further his own agenda, Obama grossly overstates the number of potential African-American votes in MS, GA, SC
· 53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible
· 52 Obama omits to mention his 3 week trip to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until it slips out trying to out-do Clinton
· 51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying
· 50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
· 49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan
· 48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
· 47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
· 46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
· 45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
· 44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
· 43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
· 42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
· 41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
· 40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
· 39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
· 38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
· 37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86
· 36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
· 35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
· 34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
· 33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
· 32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
· 31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
· 30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
· 29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
· 28 Obama claims never said he wouldn't wear US flag-pin; video shows he did
· 27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
· 26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
· 25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
· 24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
· 23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
· 22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
· 21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
· 20 Claimed would not run for President, as he would not be qualified by 2008: confirmed 3 times to Tim Russert in one 2006 interview
· 19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
· 18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
· 17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
· 16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
· 15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
· 14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
· 13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
· 12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
· 11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
· 10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
· 9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
· 8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
· 7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
· 6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
· 5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
· 4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
· 3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
· 2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
· 1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied

Obama WTF defines "DOCUMENTED LIE " as :
1) a statement by one or more reliable news agencies or credible authorities citing supporting verifiable facts which rebut a reported statement by Obama.2) observable video/transcript contradictions3) the omission of an important fact the exclusion of which defies common sense unless the intent is to deceive.

This therefore EXCLUDES unintentional gaffes e.g. the Auschwitz Memorial Day blip; the 57 States etc which can be found at New Gaffe City This also excludes Flip Flops unless
a) Obama is seen to be holding multiple positions depending on the audience, e.g. The Jerusalem flip flop...where his position was altered with 18 hours, talking to different audiences, or b) Obama lies about holding a different position e.g denying he favored gun control.

Credit to each of the following news outlets who are some of the most cited in the List of Documented Lies:
1. Annenberg Factcheck.org; at U Penn
2. At the St Petersberg Times; www.politifact.com
3. Washington Post Fact Checker ...Michael Dobbs
4. Top of the Ticket Blog at the LA Times;
5. Political Punch at ABC News.com.
6. Dozens of other major news orgs are quoted to provide support for one or more lies

Memories

2009-07-05T12:38:00.000-07:00

Wouldn’t it be nice if the computers in our brains had a “delete” button to erase unwanted memories? If I had a delete button I would be able to sleep a whole lot better. The longer the life, the more times the delete button would be used.

There are many kinds of memories I would erase. All the occasions when I screwed up and lost someone special would be gone in a New York minute; they are just reminders of how stupid I can be and how much better life could have been. (“Woulda, coulda, shoulda?”)

How about the memories of things you don’t and never will understand? I don’t know about others but the most frustrating things to me are those for which there seems to be no explanation; of course these always involve other people. How many times can you ponder and review something in your mind without ever coming to any conclusion - only so many. After a while such things are “accepted” and you promise yourself you won’t think about them anymore – but you do because the memory lingers on. Push delete and zap they are gone.

How many times do you replay in your mind events and interactions to consider alternate scenarios that might have been better for you? Deleting memories that cause you to push replay would go along way toward avoiding fruitless musings and further frustration.

It’s a nasty mind game to wonder about how things would have gone if you did something you should have or not have done something you did. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to relive those moments to change the outcome? But you can’t, so with delete, the whole thing doesn’t exist and more unnecessary frustration is avoided along with sleepless nights.

Replacing bad thoughts with good ones is a good idea but seldom possible because to do that you have to push aside those pesky bad thoughts. If we could cut and paste it might work but the brain’s computer doesn’t operate on Windows.

Of course what we’re saying is that mental hurt is far worse than physical pain. The body can heal itself but the brain can’t.

Some painful memories are good though and should be kept. Pictures of man’s inhumanity to man need to remain in the computer. Remembering the atrocities of the Nazis and of Muslims are important because they remind you of the need for vigilance against those who would perpetrate such things if they come into positions of power and achieve the ability to repeat their inhumane behavior. If only more of us would recognize the slippery slope of allowing such people incremental advancing steps that inevitably lead to horrors. How silly of the world to condemn childish pranks or physically harmless practices during incarceration of enemies while avoiding speaking about real inhumanity like cutting off heads or stoning people.

Obama and his Joseph Goebbels running the news media have the right idea; control what people know and you control how people think about things. If the masses only conjure up memories of what you say and not what you do, you can get away with anything. There’s another use of that darn delete button if you had one. Delete the b--- s--- and you can clean up the slippery slope and make things go in the direction they should.

Do you think there is anyone is congress that would ”pledge their sacred honor” for the country like the men did in a hot and sticky court house in Philadelphia in 1776? (Do they have any sacred honor?) Hell, they can’t even fulfill their oath to protect and defend the constitution – most of them should be tried for perjury.

If I can’t have a delete button, I’ll settle for a toke, a glass of Kool-Aid and an on/off switch.

Isn’t it about time congressmen are required to read what they are about to vote on?

2009-06-28T22:47:00.000-07:00

Once again, like the Stimulus bill earlier, congress was willing to vote upon, and enact, a lengthy bill no one could possibly have fully read. All representatives in congress, both those who were for and those against were not allowed to read the Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) Climate Bill. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi wanted to pass this legislation on a rush basis before too many people became aware of the draconian affect it has on American people and our way of life.

Representative House Minority Leader John Boehner tried to delay the roll call vote by using the Minority Leader’s prerogative of unlimited speaking to read aloud the 300-page Amendment to the bill presented by Democrats at 3:00 AM but he eventually gave up this mini filibuster. Boehner read page after page of the late filed Amendment including passages related to the usage of "qualified youth corps" to regulate energy efficiency in regards to "the sustainability of low-end income communities." "I wonder if ACORN qualifies for these grants," Boehner joked (but the joke was too serious to be funny).

By objecting to the fact that 300 pages were added to the bill at 3 a.m., Boehner gave some time for colleagues and aides to scan the unread extra passages and present certain excerpts on the floor. Speaking for the Democrats, Politico blasted this effort by Boehner:

“Boehner seemed to relish the hour-long stunt, picking out the bill’s most obscure language and then pontificating about what it might – or might not – mean.”

No mention was made by Politico that Democrats presented the amendments in the early hours giving opponents no chance to read let alone argue against the added provisions to the bill.

It is no surprise that the bill co-sponsor Henry Waxman objected to Boehner’s reading the bill on the House floor; he even tried to prevent it on procedural grounds so that it's contents would remain unknown and no one would shift support or delay the bill’s passage. Who can deny passing “laws” in secret is not law at all – it is tyranny and corruption of constitutional ideals - it is a shameful but not unexpected ploy by Democrats in these times.

Waxman also wondered if any “historical records would be broken” by Boehner reading part of the bill and queried whether the tactic was “an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” And "so what?" I might respond. Is it an acceptable tactic to call up legislation for vote without giving members of congress time to read it?

The biggest scam of all; cap-and-trade

2009-06-27T09:30:00.000-07:00

It is truly amazing how anyone really familiar with the so-called cap-and-trade bill could actually accept this legislation, or in congress, vote for it.

First, it is erroneous to think that it would have any effect on global warming because carbon dioxide is not the cause, it is the effect but unfortunately that battle won in the halls of science is lost in the halls of congress.

Second, it is also erroneous to say that the bill would cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions because most “greenhouse-gas emissions” are water vapor – carbon dioxide is a relatively small portion of such emissions.

The House bill is falsely alleged to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It would also establish a new Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would force utilities to supply a minimum amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. The result will be: (1) everything used by the public will increase in price because of increased costs to producers from the need to acquire “carbon credits” for their operations will be passed on to consumers and, (2) requiring utilities to change their the means of power production from whatever is being used now to “renewable energy sources,” however defined, will necessarily increase the cost of electricity to homeowners because new “sources” will be more expensive to use that currently used fossil fuels.

The bill supposed to result in achieving carbon-dioxide emission targets by establishing a cap-and-trade system, which would require heavy emitters of carbon dioxide, and the oil and gas industry, to buy annual emissions permits from the government or through a secondary market. It is not rocket science to understand that any money spent on acquiring “annual emissions permits” is simply another expense of utilities and by law and public utility regulations in all states public utilities are guaranteed to earn minimum profits since they are regulated monopolies. In order to “earn” their minimum profits, the cost of electricity to consumers, residential and commercial, has to be increased.

The plan, as written by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would auction a small percentage of the available permits, or allowances, directly to companies. The rest, more than 85 percent, would be given away to selected industries, local utility companies, states and Indian tribes. The idea itself is ludicrous but it would be nice if congress could explain why Indian tribes would be given available permits – surely casinos don’t emit much “greenhouse gas”, unless you consider cigarette smoke in that category.

Democrats and Republican supporters contended the legislation would help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, increase the use of renewable energy such as solar and wind power and increase employment in clean energy industries. How ridiculous that is. Most oil is used to produce fuel for the transportation industry, cars for example. How will solar power and windmills power automobiles and trucks? Not only that, it has been established that production of renewable fuels such as ethanol consume more energy than produced by the products and also involve substantial emissions of “greenhouse gas,” e.g. carbon dioxide. The claim of reducing either reliance on foreign oil or reduction of greenhouse gas is a plain lie.

Obama said “This is a jobs bill” and would increase employment in clean energy industries. There may well be new jobs created but they will be more than offset by the numbers of jobs lost. As manufacturing costs increase businesses will have no choice but to reduce employment as will businesses that depend on those manufactured products. Increased unemployment will also reduce consumer income thereby accelerating the downward spiral of our economy. House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said the bill will cost the economy up to 2.7 million jobs and he may be underestimating the effect.

"When it comes to energy, Washington Democrats, I think, are poised to make matters worse by imposing a job-killing energy tax, courtesy of Speaker Pelosi. This is going to force small businesses and their workers and families to pay more for electricity, gasoline, and other products that are made in America that have high energy content."

The basic idea behind cap-and-trade is simple: Government experts assess how much pollution can be “safely” put into the environment, then shares (sometimes called permits or allowances) equaling that amount are given or auctioned by the government to those who have historically emitted the pollutant. How do you suppose “safe” limits of carbon dioxide can be determined? Will continued emission of carbon dioxide exhaled by us be taken into account?

Polluters then must return to the government enough permits to cover their emissions every year. If they fall short of permits, emitters must buy them from those who have a surplus. The number of permits available decreases annually until a "safe" level of emissions level is reached.

The bill would direct 2 billion free allowances to domestic and international conservation, known as "offsets," which would allow companies to buy emissions permits by effectively paying farmers here and abroad to preserve trees and employ environmental planting practices. I would like to form a business to sell emissions permits by using the money to “preserve trees” by letting them continue to grow; would anyone like to join me?

The legislation would require utilities that provide more than 4 million megawatt hours of electricity a year to buy a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources; thus assuring the cost of electricity will increase.

The amount starts at just 6% in 2012 and gradually increases to 20% in 2020, although utilities could meet up to 8% of the mandate through reduced energy usage by their customers. In other words, the government will figure out some way to make us use less energy (a very broad term) other than by increasing the cost – I wonder what that may me, government controlled thermostats?

Right now renewable energy accounts for about 8.5% of domestic electricity generation, but the House bill's renewable mandate would not recognize all of that as renewable. Hydropower, for example, which makes up a large chunk of current electricity generation, is not all counted as renewable toward the new mandate, nor is geothermal energy.

A new amendment added by speaker Pelosi requires the president to impose trade tariffs on trade partners that do not limit their carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020. To get representatives farm states on board, provisions easing rules on corn-based ethanol production and putting the permit program under the Agriculture Department rather than the Environmental Protection Agency was included.

The bill would have far reaching effects on energy users at all levels of the economy, from giant manufacturers to utilities to individuals. For instance, new government imposed buildings standards would be mandated and some household items will be required to use less energy than they do now. These items include backyard spas, lamps located above art work, drinking-water dispensers and light bulbs in outdoor light fixtures. Are you prepared to live with that?

The bill would force companies to phase out allegedly inefficient products of the kinds described and replace them with allegedly more efficient - and more expensive and less desirable - versions. For example presently used incandescent light bulbs, now costing less than a dollar, will have to be replaced by required compact florescent light bulbs (those curly things), that already cost more and will cost still more in the future when they are the only light game in town.

The bill would also make changes to the government's Energy Star program, which recognizes dishwashers, refrigerators and other appliances that save energy. The tougher standards would mean these "energy saving" products would cost more than regular products and it would take longer for consumers to recoup the extra costs through savings on their energy bill.

"It doesn't do any good to have high-price, energy-efficient products if people will just pay to have their old appliances fixed," said Kevin Messner, vice president of government relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

If you think you can avoid this by repairing older appliances, think again, everything will wear out sooner or later.

The Obama teleprompter lies about Obamacare

2009-06-26T01:08:00.000-07:00

I’m not especially a fan of Dick Morris but I find I agree with him more these days since he has become a serious thorn in the sides of both Clintons. For example, here is what he said recently:

"Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their (Obama and Democrats) secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care – and right now. These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor’s opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat’s and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford."

Morris also warns us: "But this is just the very beginning... rationing is coming, and coming soon." To paraphrase Morris; if you need a CAT scan or an MRI, forget it. If you need antibiotics, forget it. As for potentially life-saving or life-extending treatments, take a number and stand in line.

Obama describes his health care plan through his lying teleprompter and claims his plan will reduce healthcare costs and provide the same medical care we receive now. Obama has told us that if you want to keep your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you want to keep your present health plan, you'll be able to keep your present health plan. Specifically, Obama said: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away." But Obama doesn’t keep his promises and everyone but the public sheep knows that; Obama can't keep that promise and he knows it.

If the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies by increasing employees’ share of contributions to the company plan so as to persuade some employees to take the public option of the Obama healthcare plan in exchange for the company provided insurance. The rationale is workers could buy their own coverage in the government public option plan or perhaps employers will even fund part of their workers’ participation in that plan, which will also reduce the company cost substantially.

The Obama’s takeover of health care is nothing more than an unmitigated power grab, even more than his takeover of the banks and the automobile industry. Obama’s goal is not to improve health care but to extend government control of our lives.

If Obama and his Democrat minions in congress are successful, we will lose what many believe is the finest medical care in the world, (why else are people coming to the United States for medical care?).

To reduce costs of healthcare according to the Obama plan it is necessary to reduce payments to medical care providers and/or ration medical care. One critical component is to target the elderly, the already-handicapped and the unborn. Consider Obama's own words and remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and learn for yourself.

“Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill.... There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."

What do you think that means? Obama’s top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old or sick individuals. One Obama adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel. Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel’s views: “He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: ‘Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.’ We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just.”

These are scary times and if you’re over the age of 55, be very scared. If you’re chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis – or have heart disease or cancer – your future doesn’t look very bright, and not only because of your disease. Do we want to give Obama the power of the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide how long we should live? If we are not entirely convinced of this possibility, do we really want to find out the answer the hard way?

Obama claims that his health plan won’t involve rationing or reduced care. But that’s ridiculous, because all government-run health systems suffer from those drawbacks. For a real-world example, take a look at the Canadian system.

Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian-trained physician who practices in the United States, describes his own revelation about Canada’s medical system:

“On [my way to medical school class]… I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers – waiting, moaning, (and) begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care – not only in Canada, but also in the United States. … I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."

How about the similar system is France? In a French journalist’s words reprinted by the Heritage Foundation:

“The majority of France’s state-owned hospitals are managed in a way that is reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. ... In the average French public hospital, it is not uncommon for every window to be open, even in winter, because the heating system in the building cannot be regulated. With the only options being no heat or unbearably high heat, everyone opts for the latter. Predictably, this is not very cheap.”

Germany is also no exception to the pitfalls of a universal healthcare system. The British medical journal Lancet has an article that says that system is facing bankruptcy on an unprecedented scale.

In Great Britain, one current cost-saving measure is the denial of essential medications to women in advanced stages of certain cancers. Notwithstanding these examples; on June 15th Barack Obama told the American Medical Association (AMA) that other developed countries – he meant nations like Canada, Germany, France, and Britain – pay much less per capita for health care than Americans. Even if this is true, you also get exactly what you pay for; is denying available medicine and treatment to those who need it a viable option to reduce cost? So why does Obama want to bring millions of people into the system literally overnight?

What happens when there are suddenly many more patients than there are practitioners to care for them? Will we have to wait in doctor’s offices like the wait in emergency rooms? And if you’re really sick, what are the chances that you might die in line, waiting for treatment that simply does not come in time? Remember what Dr. Gratzer told us about what’s going on in Canada, one of systems Democrats would like us to emulate?

In his talk to the AMA, Obama implied that costs were rising because patients were getting unneeded care. In fact, the opposite is true. A 2003 survey by the Rand Corporation found that only 11% of patients got treatments they didn’t need – while a whopping 46% failed to receive needed care.

There is a great irony in Obama’s rush for action toward a government-run system; in Great Britain, France, Germany, and even Canada, there’s a growing push to get people back into private insurance systems, taking the pressure off public facilities and doctors. They say it’s a move toward – hold onto your seat – government cost savings.

When is meddling not meddling?

2009-06-24T03:12:00.000-07:00

The answer to the question depends on whether President Obama is talking about Iran or Israel.

President Obama waffles about Iran and is "appalled" at the behavior of the Iran Super Leader toward the brave Iranian protesters as he decides whether strong condemnation may interfere with his plan to charm the Iranian leaders out of developing nuclear weapons but he has no qualms about bullying Israel.

Our glorious leader, to use a phrase common in dictatorships like North Korea, is pressuring the Netanyahu government mercilessly to diminish Israel's security and to accept the terrorist group and Iran puppet Hamas as a negotiating partner, despite Hamas’ express policy that it intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Obama demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance when it comes to the Middle East and like the laughing stock former President Jimmy Carter unquestioningly swallows the propaganda of the Arabs. As expected, this propaganda is repeated uncritically by most of the Obama-fawning media; how else could Obama get away with one distortion of history after another, all of them aimed at glorifying Islam and discrediting the West, in his Cairo speech?

If Obama knew anything about history, he would not have said that Israel came into existence because of the world's guilt for the Holocaust. Our president does not seem to know or understand that there is a 3,400-year-old connection by Jews to the land now known as Israel where Jews have lived continuously since ancient times. Obama does not know that in 1845 Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 in Jerusalem and were the largest ethnic group in the region, according to a census at the time. Unfortunately in this ignorance President Obama is not alone; many members of congress and most of his adoring press are also unaware of these historical facts or otherwise choose to ignore them.

Of course what can we expect from someone who for 20 years listened to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright - the pastor who recently told a reporter that "them Jews ain't going to let him [Obama] talk to me."

Not long ago Obama was seen in an official White House photo of the president talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu on the phone where he showed the soles of his shoes in the foreground. In the Muslim world this is a sign of grave disrespect which was not lost on Muslim terrorists around the world. A spokesman for a terrorist organization commented:

"It's a sign of humiliation that shows Obama thinks the Israeli government and the Jews don't deserve more than shoes. This proves Obama is disgusted with the Israelis.... With Obama's shoes, change will come."

We don’t know, and doubt, that the president did this on purpose. But President Obama is clearly naïve and inexperienced in Middle East protocols. In any case there is no doubt that Obama’s approach to foreign policy is to treat our enemies well and our friends badly.

David Horowitz calls Israel “the canary in the coal mine.” By that he means that Israel represents the sacrificial lamb in Mid East politics. Obama fails to understand that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of America and all of western civilization. If Obama follows the agenda of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Palestinian groups, Israel will soon be just a memory and our enemies will achieve a victory by their terrorism which they could not otherwise realize through military action.

Obamacare is too expensive but it’s even worse than that

2009-06-22T20:17:00.000-07:00

Most Americans are quite satisfied with the way they receive medical care under the present system. Cost of medical care has risen but so has most everything else. If Americans are satisfied for the most part with their healthcare, then why must the entire medical care system be discarded, and on a rush basis at that?

We also are told that millions and millions of people in America do not have medical insurance and the cost of healthcare is rising. We are also supposed to believe that these are such urgent matters there is no time to consider these and other problems in any sort of rational way; "reforming" healthcare must be rushed through congress right away to meet President Obama’s deadline.

To solve this newly identified “crisis”, Democrats in the House and Senate have worked mightily to come up with health care plans that would satisfy President Obama’s sense of fairness on an expedited time basis. Addressing this healthcare crisis urgently looks amazingly like the previous crises of toxic mortgages, an economy that would become non existent if a stimulus program proposed by Obama was not enacted; and we were told both of these crises had to be addressed and solved the day before yesterday; so it is with healthcare which will have the same feeble crisis-solving result.

Under the best of circumstances, other than the military, congress and the government do not function well when given a lot of time to deal with issues deemed important, let alone when done on an emergency basis. As a result we have a number of inefficient and failed government run programs and others that are totally unnecessary for the proper function of government as the founders of our country envisioned. Moreover, only by disregarding the constitution do much of our country’s laws and regulations exist – and the inevitable tinkering with what is believed by many to be at least a satisfactory, and by many others as the best in the world, will destroy medical care as we know it, probably forever.

It has never been required by those seeking to do good in the name of the government to be consistent if consistency interferes with their vision. But the issue of medical care as currently promoted by Obama and Democrats constitutes the greatest invasion of privacy ever contemplated. Some years ago the U.S. Supreme Court somehow found a guarantee of privacy in the constitution and based their decision to remove restrictions on abortion (the infamous Roe vs. Wade case) on the newly discovered constitutional right of privacy. However Obama and Democrats now propose sweeping laws and regulations that will interfere with a citizens’ right of privacy in selecting, requesting and receiving medical care. Furthermore, Americans’ private medical records will be assembled in data bases and be made available to others without their permission. Nonetheless Democrats and many Republicans are willing to subscribe to this hypocrisy.

It is also interesting to note that objection to sweeping government takeover of healthcare, fully one-fifth our total gross national product, is that the takeover will be expensive. Just how costly is debated; Obama and Democrats are low-balling the numbers and the Congressional Budget Office is estimating almost twice the Obama number. The unfortunate thing however is that both sets of numbers are surely wrong and the actual fiscal cost will likely be at least double any estimates.

However I am grateful for any opposition to the government takeover of healthcare regardless of the reason given but the reality is that there is so much to oppose that singling out only the cost seems needlessly minor.

Surprisingly Americans seem to understand that besides the cost of government-run insurance, millions of Americans would lose their current coverage if government run healthcare became law. A New York Times poll also identified other concerns Americans have about government run health care. In the event a government created a system of providing health care for all Americans would be created, 63% of those surveyed were concerned that the quality of their own health care would get worse; 68% were concerned that their own access to medical tests and treatments would be more limited; and 53% were concerned that they would be required to change doctors.

The American people know what the true costs of government-run health care would be: lower quality, less access, and less choice. As the health care debate continues, and the reality behind Obama’s rhetoric is exposed, it will be interesting to see how many people will still support a government-run health insurance plan. Unfortunately the ideas of rationed healthcare and senior citizens being deprived of healthcare, has not sunk in yet.

As a partial answer to concerns of Americans, President Obama has claimed that under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it.” But the White House has begun to “clarify” the President’s claim. It turns out he didn’t really mean it. According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” It is fair to interpret this assurance to mean that people will not be forced at the point of a gun to accept government healthcare but all other means are available to them.

Depending on the final outcome of the government health plan enacted by Congress, millions of Americans will lose their existing coverage. By opening the public plan to all employees and using Medicare rates, the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, has said that the public plan could result in 119.1 million Americans being transitioned out of private coverage, including employer based coverage, into a public plan. With employers making the decision, millions of Americans could lose their private coverage, regardless of their personal preferences in this matter. This is a logical result since most employers would be very willing to forego cost of private insurance in favor of a government plan.

Obama, Democrats and too many Republicans are fond of saying there are almost 50 million people without health insurance and that this essentially amounts to a crime against nature. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that a government overhaul of Americans health care system would cost at least $1.6 trillion and would mean the loss of private coverage for an estimated 23 million Americans, according to a recent preliminary analysis.

Even the CBO says that, if enacted, the bills before congress would break a key promise made by Obama: that those with private health insurance would not be harmed.

The number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, the report says. Such programs as Medicare and Medicaid will be replaced and the CBO concludes that the bill will have a major impact on the lives of Americans. The CBO said the Obama and Democrat plans would have significant effects on the number of people who are enrolled in health insurance plans, the sources of that coverage, and the federal budget.

Even senator Dodd, the chief Obama healthcare advocate in the Senate, says “everyone would be affected by this legislation and any reform will touch everyone’s lives; this bill is [going to affect] 100 percent of the population of our country, every consumer, every provider and every business.”

Star Parker had an interesting analysis of the alleged millions of people estimated to be without health insurance.

“According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, June O'Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.

According to 2007 census data, 20 percent of uninsured households earn over $75,000.

Regarding the remaining 57 percent, the authors call them ‘involuntarily’ uninsured because they can't afford insurance. But ‘involuntarily’ is also a misnomer, because it implies no connection in how they choose to live to the fact that they can't afford insurance.

The study provides the following portrait of this population: About a third is high school dropouts; they are disproportionately young; about a third are immigrants, mostly Hispanic non-citizens; about half are single without children; about 40 percent did not work during the year.”

According to "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens. Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more. If they don’t have health insurance, it’s not because they can’t afford it. Subtract non citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it and the number of uninsured falls dramatically. "Many Americans are uninsured by choice," wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." As George Will points out, 60% of people in San Francisco without health care are not citizens (read that illegal aliens)

Do you still think it is correct to use so-called millions of people without health insurance as an excuse to demolish our medical system?

Al-Qaida: We Would Use Pakistani Nukes On America

2009-06-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

I have never done this before on this blog but with all the Obama hype and a non-foreign policy, I include this here with a question - are you Obama supporters happy with the security of America under President Obama?

From NewsMax:

"Al-Qaida: We Would Use Pakistani Nukes On America

Monday, June 22, 2009 9:08 AM

DUBAI — If al-Qaida were in a position to do so, it would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.

Pakistan has been battling al-Qaida Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 60 miles northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.

'God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans,' Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al-Qaida's in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.

Abu al-Yazid was responding to a question about U.S. safeguards to seize control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case Islamist fighters came close to doing so.

'We expect that the Pakistani army would be defeated (in Swat) . . . and that would be its end everywhere, God willing.'

Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al-Qaida ) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny: the United States.

'That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially.'

The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group's unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter.

'Our goals have been the Americans . . . and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims.'

'There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader.'

Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al-Qaida will continue 'with large scale operations against the enemy' — by which he meant the United States.

'We have demanded and we demand that all branches of al-Qaida carry out such operations,' he said, referring to attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The militant leader said al-Qaida would be willing to accept a truce of about 10 years' duration with the United States if Washington agreed to withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and stopped backing Israel and the pro-Western governments of Muslim nations.

Asked about the whereabouts of al-Qaida's top leaders, he said: 'Praise God, sheikh Osama (bin Laden) and sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri are safe from the reach of the enemies, but we would not say where they are; moreover, we do not know where they are, but we're in continuous contact with them.'"

Our two-party system: the evil party and the stupid party

2009-06-18T08:12:00.000-07:00

For sometime many of us have recognized that the Republican Party can no longer be regarded as a conservative party. Conservative M. Staunton "Stan" Evans explained how the two-party political system in the United States actually works – Evans said “there are only two parties in the United States, the ‘evil party’ and the ‘stupid party’."

Unfortunately under the present system conservatives have no alternative and must support the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils.

Evans goes on to say: “On occasion the "stupid party" and the ‘evil party’ come together to do something that is truly ‘stupid and evil’ and that we call that ‘bi-partisanship’” – with which I heartily agree.

Most Republicans in congress view their job as trying to “compromise” or “get the job done” or “fix” or “tinker” or “propose alternate plans” (they want to try to come close to the original “evil” plan so as not to appear the “party of ‘no’) and the result is the Republican Party no longer acts like an opposition and inevitably accepts the evil plan in whole or in part. Today’s Republicans never seem to learn that “half a loaf” may be okay for eating but in politics leaves the country with policies as laws that expand government control and reduce constitutionally provided freedom and liberty for all.

There is a solution to the loss of conservative representation in the Republican Party and little or no representation in congress. A third party representing conservative ideals and principles will enable conservatives to express their political views on a national level and need not damage election outcomes like past third parties have done – the notable example being the Ross Peroit candidacy which left us with two terms of President Bill (the morally corrupt) Clinton in the oval office, and adjacent offices, for eight years.

Consider the last presidential election - the Republican Party chose a Democrat-lite candidate, John McCain, for president, conservative Republican Party members held their noses and voted for McCain. If there had been a Conservative Party in place, and the number of votes cast by their members exceeded the regular Republican Party votes, a strong message would have been sent to the Republican Party and the country as a whole that conservatism is an important political force. Furthermore there will be a good chance that conservative Republican Party members will join the Conservative Party so they can get the representation thy deserve. The Republican Party will have no choice but to take into account the beliefs of conservative voters, thus increasing conservative influence in Republican Party decisions. Eventually, I believe the Conservative Party will take precedence and the roles will be reversed. Of course, the Republican Party will be shaken up so people like Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Colin Powell will migrate to the Democrat Party where they belong and perhaps make the Democrat Party more conservative in some respects.

A new Conservative Party will not compete for office with the Republican Party; it will compete only for party registrations. If all conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, register and vote as members of the Conservative Party, their numbers at the polls will show that they truly are the majority not only of the Republican Party but of the voting public.

According to Gallup, who says there is a +/- error of 3%, so far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents an increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008 and returning to the 2004 level. That 21% call themselves liberal is a reflection of the dumbing down of our education system.

According to Gallup:

“These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year's figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant. To measure political ideology, Gallup asks Americans to say whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal.”

It is also encouraging that there is a distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. “While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page -- 73% call themselves conservative -- Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.”

Some may argue that it would take a lot of money to launch a third party, but not as much as you may think. Although it obviously is expensive to attempt to advance third party candidates, a Conservative Party not competing for election but only for voter registrations will cost much less. Setting up a national organization and a national education and information effort to launch the Conservative Party are essential but likely can be financed by conservatives of large and modest means.

Conservative leadership is the key and we must encourage those who agree with the concept to come forward. I believe such patriotic men and women do exist and will answer the call just as those founding the country did two hundred years ago – the stake for liberty and freedom is no less severe.

I will contribute and will walk the streets for Conservative Party registrations; how about you?

It took God six days to create the world – not being God, Obama takes five months

2009-06-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

Obama lies to the people and changes America into his own image.

It hardly seems possible that Barack Obama has only been in office about five months. Even Adolph Hitler as head of Germany did not accomplish as much as Obama has in such a short time. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about the slaughter of people, I’m referring to how the government and the country was changed in mere months after taking office.

The reason Obama has been able to do so much so quickly is that the checks and balances written into the Constitution don't always work. In the United States there are supposed to be three separate and equal branches of government and the press was expected to be an independent scrutinizer of government actions. Unfortunately the American system falls apart when a similar anti-American ideology controls the Executive and Legislative branches and dominates the judicial branch – and the press is a cheerleader for that ideology rather than a scrupulous protector of people’s rights.

It took over two hundred years following the blueprint of the Constitution to build the greatest country the world has ever seen – using the free market system, individual liberty and freedom from government intervention in the lives of Americans. Incredibly two hundred years of success has been undone in just a few months by Barack Hussein Obama after being elected president and taking office January, 2009.

Here is Obama’s scorecard so far – and the worst is yet to come.

The Wall Street Journal summarized the onslaught against American capitalism succinctly:

“Since the onset of the financial crisis nine months ago, the government has become the nation’s biggest mortgage lender, guaranteed nearly $3 trillion in money-market mutual-fund assets, commandeered and restructured two car companies, taken equity stakes in nearly 600 banks, lent more than $300 billion to blue-chip companies, supported the life-insurance industry and became a credit source for buyers of cars, tractors and even weapons for hunting.”

Everyday the government at the request of the Federal Reserve Bank prints more money to finance all this government intervention – and what a sweet deal the Fed has in this imbroglio. By law the Fed has the right to request the Treasury Department to print money FOR THEM. The Fed then loans the newly printed money to the government AT INTEREST so the Obama government can exercise its newly assumed power over American industry and the banking system. The result is the owners of the PRIVATELY-owned Fed, (many of the Fed owners are not Americans or American companies) reap a handsome profit as the American economy goes down the drain.

Not only is this a boom for the Fed, imagine the power that Obama has because the government has acquired ownership interest in so much of American enterprise. For example, Obama effectively owns about 60 percent of Citi Bank. Citi finances much of the business transacted in the United States and other countries. As owner of the bank, Obama can dictate how Citi uses its money; in other words, who wins and who loses. The same may be said of AIG who is a huge financier of businesses and institutions around the world – and the government owns 80 percent of AIG.

The Wall Street Journal says the government “has taken stakes in nearly 600 banks.” Try to imagine the scope of the expanded government authority and control of our country, of our not-so-free-enterprise and the American people, by dictating lending practices of so many banks!

We are told that the health industry is one-fifth of our economy; amounting to about $2.3 trillion of our gross national product. Obama’s latest push is to impose control of healthcare for all Americans and illegal aliens. The president is seen on television and in other venues everyday advancing his agenda to bring the entire health industry under government, and his, control. The sycophant news media helps Obama by re-broadcasting Obama’s lies and filtering any criticism.

The phony war on global warming, now called climate change, provides another opportunity for Obama and the government to expand control over American lives and assure an income stream to the government and chosen environment activists. This too is an Obama goal being advanced in the first five months of his administration and dutifully advocated by the Democrat leaders in the House and Senate – and of course the leftist news media.

We have yet to hear about “immigration reform” which will become a Democrat voter registration program by granting amnesty and “legal” voting privilege to illegal immigrants. This is to be another initiative achieved before the 2010 elections which carry a risk of loss of Democrat majorities in the House and/or the Senate. However, the Republican Party as it is presently constituted is hardly a dependable opponent of Obama’s plans and cannot be relied upon to do what’s necessary to thwart government takeover and further encroachment of our freedoms and the capitalist system of free enterprise.

If you doubt Republicans cannot be relied upon to do the right thing for our country and oppose Obama, consider that the Stimulus Bill which could only have been passed with Republican senate votes and the House passage of the “Hate Crimes” law and the GIVE Act, both of which saw Republicans “reach across the aisle” in congress joining with Democrats to pass such legislation because in their view these bills “contain some beneficial provisions.” When will Republicans learn you can’t make a bad law better and remember that half-a-loaf is only good for eating; not for the rights of Americans?

It’s time for a new “Republican Party”; more about that later.

Let’s think about carbon dioxide seriously

2009-06-12T13:48:00.000-07:00

Can you remember when during the war against pollution it was considered great progress that catalytic converters were required in automobiles to change poisonous carbon monoxide to benign carbon dioxide? It’s more than ironic then that we now consider CO2 itself a pollutant.

Can you also remember when scientists told us global cooling was the problem? (Funny, no one said we should produce more CO2 to warm the atmosphere.)

As a result of an unscientific decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant which enables congress and the EPA to regulate the carbon dioxide we exhale as a pollutant. By the logic of the Supreme Court and the EPA, the Creator seriously goofed.

Carbon dioxide, the newest designated pollutant, is a fundamentally important factor in our food chain because it nourishes plants, animals are nourished by plants, and humans are nourished by animals and plants. It can be realistically said that without carbon dioxide all living creatures would cease to exist and the planet Earth would look like Mars.

Aren’t pollutants supposed to be harmful?

Of course it is true that too much of even a good thing can be bad. For example, it is possible to die if fed large amounts of water and too much oxygen can also pose a danger to human life. So then the question is: “how much carbon dioxide is bad for you?” Is there an acceptable amount of CO2 for our atmosphere? There is likely no right answer to this question. Furthermore, the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere has fluctuated greatly over the history of the planet and long before humans appeared on earth; at various times being far greater than it is now.

Presently the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is about 385 parts per million. Some scientists say that 1,000 parts per million would provide an ideal atmosphere for plant life, would accelerate plant growth, would increase plant production and would be able to feed far more animal and human life than is currently possible. Clearly without a scientific answer, whatever CO2 standard Congress, Al Gore or the EPA selects will be purely arbitrary.

Of course we are told the problem is carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm and this is somehow very bad for polar bears and sandy beaches. So how can we explain that for 7,000 of the last 10,000 years the earth was cooler than it is now and we find that living things prospered more when the climate is warm than when it is cold? We also learned that the Antarctic icecap was significantly larger during the warmer mid-Holocene period than it is today. Are we sure warmer is bad?

And what roll does the sun play in all this; is the temperature of the atmosphere only affected by carbon dioxide? We might also ask how does Congress, Obama and Al Gore propose to regulate the earth's temperature when as much as 3/4 of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining 1/4 due to changes in the earth's orbit, axis, and reflectivity? A reasonable person might say mankind can no more regulate earth's temperature than the ocean tides.

A review of scientific journals and reports by world renowned climatologists has revealed several things which show the foolhardiness of attempts to affect climate change at all, let alone by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Consider the following:

1. Human activity (according to NASA data) accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. (This shows the ignorance of the Supreme Court and EPA's decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant because if CO2 is a pollutant as a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all - water vapor, which accounts for almost 75% of the atmosphere's greenhouse effect - should be regulated, too. The EPA isn't going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.

3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economically and the world population increases (largely due to Muslims).

Clearly, it is beyond the ability of mere mortals to say what is the right concentration of CO2 is or the optimal global average temperature is or how to control CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Congress is hell bent on enacting a climate control bill and Obama is drooling over the prospect of increasing government control still more. However Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson, an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, has asked the following questions of Congress and the EPA:

“Who will be forced to drive and fly less often? (If we quit using every gasoline-powered vehicle in the country, we still wouldn't reduce CO2 emissions as much as Al Gore wants.)

How much economic pain should be imposed on Americans for heating and cooling their homes? (Your 75-percent-higher electric bill will fund President Obama's “green jobs” machine.)

Which businesses will need to move offshore to power their operations at a competitive cost? (This is nothing new. EPA regulations started causing off-shore oil-refinery jobs decades ago.)”

The impact of CO2 regulations will hurt us far more than CO2 itself ever could.

When Obama and his sycophant congress penalize carbon, the good question to ask is what the cost will be to Americans. By reducing the amount of carbon dioxide by producers of products used by us, the output of such goods will be lower than it otherwise would be. So if we legislatively require a smaller volume of CO2 output, we should also consider what the trade off will be.

A cap-and-trade system like in the Waxman-Hardy bill (regardless what they call it) would raise the price of anything that, directly or indirectly, depends on the burning of fossil fuels. Electricity especially would become very much more expensive because much of our electricity production is from coal-fired power plants. There is no doubt the cost to Americans will be greater than it would have been without a climate-change policy.

It may not be easy to calculate the extent but the latest UN's IPCC report (AR4) says that action against greenhouse gas emissions (like the of cutbacks required in Waxman-Markey bill) is very aggressive in the range of models studied by the IPCC and could cost up to 5.5 percent of global GDP by the year 2050, relative to the baseline trajectory of GDP if no carbon caps are imposed. If you doubt this, take a look at the Heritage Foundation report on the subject; here is the example they give (for efficient use of revenues).

"For simplicity sake, if your household income is $100,000, then the carbon legislation could raise the prices of goods and services which you might use could make you spend more than $5,500 annually in time."

However, the Heritage foundation says these numbers rely on efficient use of revenues and the real cost gets worse. These MIT and IPCC estimates assume an optimal enforcement of the climate policies, for all major governments and for one century. The actual IPCC report has the following caveat:

“It is important to note that for the following reported cost estimates, the vast majority of the models assume transparent markets, no transaction costs, and thus perfect implementation of policy measures throughout the 21st century, leading to the universal adoption of cost-effective mitigations measures, such as carbon taxes or universal cap and trade programmes…. Relaxation of these modeling assumptions, alone or in combination (e.g. mitigation-only in Annex I countries, no emissions trading, or CO2-only mitigation), will lead to an appreciable increase in all cost categories. (Working Group III, p. 204, emphasis added)”

If history is a guide, the government will spend more money than estimated. The cost is likely to reach much more than it otherwise would if it has hundreds of billions in cap and trade revenues at its disposal every year.

The government income from cap and trade will not be used to reduce the deficit, or be used to reduce taxes. Costs will be far greater and the government will end up squandering far more than 5.5 percent of total output of the GNP in the year 2050, even if all of the other modeling assumptions are taken at face value.

With such higher cost to Americans from the Waxman-Hardy bill, it’s interesting to see to what extent the planet would “benefit” from the public's sacrifices.

According to this estimate by climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would lead to a planet that warmed 9/100ths of a degree Fahrenheit less than would otherwise be the case, by the year 2050. As the Mises Daily Report by Robert P. Murphy says “In case you think Knappenberger's figure is bogus, look at the reaction by NASA scientists and others at a leading pro-intervention blog. They don't dispute the figure; they instead say that the United States must show leadership by capping its own emissions.”

Obama sympathizer Paul Krugman has tried to support the concept of restricting carbon dioxide emissions but it is noteworthy that at the time of the urgency to pass the Stimulus Bill, Krugman argued that an inadequate measure could be worse than nothing, because it would squander President Obama's political capital. So if there is a showdown on the subject in congress, and the result is a law that does very little to change global temperatures, it would be actually be worse than if nothing were achieved legislatively.

It should be obvious to everyone that the idea of global warming has now been completely politicized and the effect will be another huge seizure of property rights not only without compensation required by the Constitution, but with severe costs to all of us – all because we did not think about carbon dioxide seriously.

Obama’s three (of many) great lies

2009-06-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

We’ve all heard the joke that about the three great lies that begins with “the check is in the mail.” There is a new joke on Americans but it isn’t funny. What is it you may ask, it’s Obama in general and what he has said in the past about his socialized healthcare plan in particular.

There are so many Obama contradictions it would take a professional to catalog them all. Even in the same speech Obama can say one thing and then announce something else in direct contradiction. The “government news media” as Rush Limbaugh like to call them, does not make any effort to call attention to these ‘Obamaisms’ and will do anything to suppress whatever Obama says or does that might open him up to criticism. Remarkably, this same news media howls when accused of bias.

For most Americans the present healthcare system is quite satisfactory and they would not change it if given half a chance to vote on it “directly.” I say directly because it is widely assumed - mostly by Obama, Democrats and the news media - that the last election expressed voters’ desire for “change”, including in the healthcare system. However I believe the election result may reflect a wish to replace George Bush with a new face (a more or less black one at that), but voters were not actually approving either the Obama “spread the wealth” message or voting for socialized medicine. Certainly, Americans had no idea they were in effect voting for nationalization of private industry and financial institutions. Do you think voters had any idea their vote would bring about another government Czar, one who would dictate the pay of executives?

But getting back to the three great lies masquerading as truths, consider what Obama first said and what he now advocates as part of his plan to take over the healthcare industry, fully one-seventh of the entire US economy.

During the campaign Obama’s lame opponent came up with some pretty outlandish ideas; for example, John McCain actually at one point said we should consider taxing healthcare benefits. Obama and his media allies jumped all over this. Obama said on the campaign trail (Newport News, Va., October 4, 2008):

“So here’s John McCain’s radical plan in a nutshell: he taxes health care benefits for the first time in history… Well, I don’t think that’s right.”

So the first great Obama healthcare lie concerns taxing such benefits. What is Obama’s position on this now? Obama ally Senator Max Baucus told the Washington Post that Obama is now willing to tax employer-provided health benefits. Baucus said: “Yeah, it’s something that he might consider. That was discussed. It’s on the table.”

“Limiting or ending the tax-free status of health benefits makes sense if it’s used to cut other taxes and put all health insurance—employer-provided or not—on a level playing field. The existing benefit is an artifact of World War II-era price controls and creates a tax penalty for people who buy their own insurance.” (President Barack Obama)

Yeah sure; other taxes will be cut if healthcare benefits are taxed – Brooklyn Bridge for sale anybody?

Interestingly, the Obama healthcare benefit tax plan would go much further than even the hair brained McCain idea. Unlike the McCain plan, which would have taxed employer-provided health benefits and used the money to pay for a new health care tax credit, the plan now being considered by Obama and the Democrats would tax employer-health benefits to fund increased government health care spending. For the 250 million-plus Americans who already have health insurance, this is an especially raw deal—they pay more taxes and get nothing in return.

In another speech on the campaign trail Obama laid the basis for big lie number 2 – “You won’t be forced to buy health insurance.”

Here’s what Obama said on the campaign trail (Janesville, Wis., February 13, 2008):

“The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t and I won’t.”

Obama has later said, and repeated in his current healthcare plan described in a letter to Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy and Max Baucus - using the new code word “responsibility” to refer to the same kind of mandate he slammed in Hillary’s plan:

“I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility — making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost. I share the goal of ending lapses and gaps in coverage that make us less healthy and drive up everyone’s costs, and I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility.”

There is no reason to have a mandate other than to force people to buy insurance who don’t want to, mostly young people who are healthy, and think they’ll never die and want to spend their limited income on their careers, families or just having a good time. According to the Census Bureau, about 60 percent of the uninsured are under age 35, with the highest rates in the 18-24 bracket (28.1 percent uninsured) and the 25-34 (25.7 percent uninsured) bracket. This is about forcing some people who don’t want health insurance to pay for other people through a new government program. It’s more of “spreading the wealth around.”

The first time around when Hillary proposed her healthcare “reform”, the health insurance companies were major opponents and sponsored the “Harry and Louise” TV ad that helped to derail HillaryCare. This time Obama learned his lesson and inserted a provision to buy off insurance companies; he and Democrats learned a lesson from the 1993 HillaryCare fight when the insurance companies stopped a Washington health care takeover. The Obama mandate is a giveaway to insurance companies to buy their support this time by forcing healthy young people who use less health care to pay insurance premiums.

For big lie number 3, let’s look at his tax proclamations. Obama made a big thing during his campaign that only rich people would see their taxes raised. Here’s what Obama said on the campaign trail (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.):

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Like in the other examples given, Obama has changed his tune now that the election is over and he sits comfortably in the oval office.

These days’ new ideas are floated every day, but they all would involve taxing people who make less than $250,000. In fact, even his income tax hikes for the rich have now been dropped down to start at considerably lower than the $250,000 threshold. In addition we now see proposals for a soft drink excise tax, cap-and-trade energy taxes, and most recently the VAT, a form of national sales tax that is actually the first “non-progressive” tax if unaccompanied by tax payments to the ”poor” (like the so-called earned income tax credit). And of course the tax on health benefits I mentioned above would also break the only-tax-the-rich pledge.

It’s easy to see what the Obama “three great lies” have in common: those working for a living will all pay huge amounts, likely trillions of dollars, in higher taxes for “free” government health care. In fact, probably the biggest lie of all is that government health care is free.

Figuring out why healthcare costs are rising is not difficult; and the reason is not what you may think

2009-06-10T23:41:00.000-07:00

Healthcare reform is on every Democrat mind and the cheerleader in chief is President Barack Obama. We are told healthcare costs are increasing so fast that if Obama’s Healthcare plan is not adopted immediately, if not sooner, we will all die of dysentery tomorrow. Of course, similar urgency was claimed in advance of the TARP bail out of toxic mortgages and the Stimulus Bill to take us out of the impending recession – both cries of wolf were hoaxes and excuses to slide along the path to socialist Gomorrah.

The big bugaboo in the case of healthcare is said to be the rising cost. For example, since Medicare was created in 1965, U.S. health spending has risen about 2.7% faster than the economy and on current trend would hit 20% of GDP within a decade. Every public or private attempt to arrest this climb has failed: wage and price controls in the 1970s, the insurance industry's "voluntary effort" in the '80s, managed care in the '90s. The increase in cost is not surprising given the way it is being handled but what is surprising is why people in and out of government can’t understand why costs are rising as they are – and it has nothing to do with increases in the quantity and quality of care provided.

Let me give you an analogy that will explain my theory of the reason healthcare costs rise.

During the housing boom everyone who sold a house expected to make a profit or at least recover their costs of selling commissions, improvements, etc. The result was that a house was expected to be sold for a higher price than paid by the previous owner. Obviously this led to a continuum of ever increasing housing costs.

Now let’s consider the healthcare industry. To maintain or reduce costs the government and allied insurance companies reduce the payments to doctors and providers. But the cost sustained for service by providers and medical equipment manufacturers does not get lower and in fact increases. Expenses of Doctors for office staff, space and equipment rises, not to mention malpractice insurance without tort reform. Medicare, Medicaid and Insurance companies pay the provider a percentage of the amount billed to the patient; and the percentage keeps decreasing in the false belief that is the way to reduce the cost of medical care. However, if medical providers are to maintain their standard of living, the amount they charge has to be increased as reimbursement decreases.

If you don’t believe me, here is a real life experience I had. Because I am (hopefully) a cancer survivor, I go for periodic PET scans to see if I remain free of the nasty cancer cells. If I use my medical insurance to pay for this, the PET scan charge to the insurance company is $4,200; if I pay for the procedure myself, the cost is $1,200. Why the difference you ask, well the service provider knows the insurance company will only pay a fraction of the amount billed. So to recover actual costs and a decent profit, it is necessary to ask the insurance company (or Medicare) for more money for the service. When I pay out of my pocket, the service provider gets to keep the entire amount charged and there is no voluminous paper work and payment time delay involved.

Medicare is an example of government interference that results in higher healthcare cost because it reflects the entire practice of medicine but distorts it like a funhouse mirror. It simply fixes the prices for thousands of services and procedures, usually well below those of private payers. There is no way of knowing if these administered prices are the "right" level, and, either way, marginal costs adapt to what is paid, creating perverse incentives of their own. Congress also regularly uses Medicare to skew the distribution of medical resources, such as extra payments to teaching hospitals or rural areas.

But the worst aspect is that, as has been said, “Medicare is an ocean of money surrounded by people who want some.” It is not only an entitlement to beneficiaries, but a de facto revenue entitlement to hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, durable medical equipment suppliers and the rest provided they keep raising prices in proportion to the decreasing reimbursement by the government.

Then there is the element that the healthcare industry is big business. Unlike the individual medical practitioner, for profit hospitals and medical equipment manufacturers are big business. As a result, de facto revenue entitlements go to hospitals, nursing homes, durable medical equipment suppliers and the rest. In terms of effect on profits to these groups, even a tweak to the Medicare fee schedule is a small-scale equivalent to trimming farm subsidies. The system will never be as rational as we might want unless it is severed from politics, but doing that in a way that does not impose a financial burden to the medical profession or the result will be ever increasing healthcare costs and a likely decline in the quality of medical care.

Unfortunately, the entire Obama agenda is about increasing political, rather than individual, control of the health markets. The Ted Kennedy proposed healthcare bill would provide insurance subsidies up to 500% of the poverty line (for a family of four, that's $110,250). In that kind of world, all costs will climb even higher as people use far more "free" care and federal spending will reach epic levels. Bureaucrats watching the bottom line will try to ration care or reduce further reimbursements to Doctors. Naturally, adding to the Obama socialist theories, Congress will get involved and make things worse, as it always does. Us hapless patients will be caught in the political crossfire as we always do except that rationing will mostly affect older folks who the government will say to provide them medical care is not cost effective.

America descends into Marxism while Europe escapes socialism

2009-06-08T19:38:00.000-07:00

For years Europeans were chastised by Americans for their slide into the Gomorrah of socialism while the United States remained the bastion of free market capitalism. That’s why it is with more than a little irony we now see European conservatism emerging while America plunges into the depths of a centralized economy where the government nationalizes major segments industry and banking with more to follow. Healthcare which comprises one seventh of our economy will soon be taken over by the hydra of government.

In recent elections Europeans (except for Greece where the governing conservatives were defeated because of corruption scandals) reduced the number of socialists in government and increased or kept in place conservative majorities. Even in some of Europe's largest economies voters replaced socialist left parties in the parliaments of France, Germany and other countries. Leftists in The European Union dominated for years but now center-right have taken most seats, (267 of 736 in the European parliament) whereas the number of center-left leaning parties were reduced (159 seats). Opponents of socialists also are leading in Britain and Spain. In Germany Social Democrats got 20.8 percent; their worst result since World War II in any nationwide election.

Volker Kauder, the leader of Merkel's party in the German parliament said "We are the force that is acting level-headedly and correctly in this financial and economic crisis."

Socialists in France lost to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing conservatives. The Socialists dominated the last vote in 2004 but were defeated in the recent elections and barely held on to second place in the voting.

The results in the EU parliament are particularly important because the Parliament has evolved over five decades from a merely consultative role to one having the power to vote on or amend two-thirds of all EU laws. Lawmakers get five-year terms and residents vote for lawmakers from their own countries. The parliament can also amend the EU budget and approve candidates for the European Commission, the EU administration and the board of the European Central Bank.

Graham Watson, leader of the EU's center-right Liberal Democrats said "People don't want a return to socialism and that's why the majority here will be a center-right majority."

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' anti-Islamic party took 17 percent of the country's votes, taking four of 25 seats.

In Austria as well the main rightist party gained while the ruling Social Democrats lost substantially. The big winner was the rightist Freedom Party, which more than doubled its strength over the 2004 elections to 13.1 percent of the vote - they campaigned on an anti-Islam platform.

The Hungarian far-right Jobbik party won three of 22 seats, while the main center-right opposition party, Fidesz, won 14 seats to the governing Socialists only four.

Italy also leaned to the right with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's Freedom People's Party having a lead over his main center-left rival.

An exit poll in Poland showed Prime Minister Donald Tusk's pro-business Civic Platform party with 45.3 percent leading the left party with 29.5 percent; this was also a shift to the center-right for Poland at the European parliament.

But the most interesting of all was that Pravda – the voice of the “Evil Empire” – chastised the United States for what writer Stanislav Mishin called “the American decent into Marxism.” Mishin said this “… is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.” Isn’t it amazing that someone in a communist country can recognize what is happening in the United States and Americans cannot?

Here is how Mishin described the America “descent” into Marxism:

“First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our 'democracy'. Pride blind the foolish."

"Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the 'winning' side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the 'winning' side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America."

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.”

I think Mishin is right on.

The Pravda writer also understood better than Obama worshipers that the US financial wizards “… are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.”

How demeaning is it that an outsider can see what people here can’t?

“Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.”

Is he wrong when he says “The American president has followed this up with a ‘bold’ move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies.”

Mishin is not alone in noting the American “descent into Marxism,” even his leader Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Browne, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster.

Who can disagree with Stanislav Mishin – “The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.”

Obama panders to Muslims and minimizes American military efforts to protect freedom

2009-06-07T13:39:00.000-07:00

There is so much to talk about President Obama and what he is doing to the country someone like me who wants to get “the word out” would have to write an article every hour to address all of Obama’s statements, actions and America-destroying proposals. It was said, erroneously, that Rush Limbaugh would have a tough time after Bill Clinton left office by that was not true and there was plenty to highlight during the George W. Bush administration. Now with Obama doing or saying something Anti-American in his effort to “change” the country so often, there is so much to report for all to become aware of that the shear volume of such things becomes the problem.

Since it is the most recent manifestation of the Obama willingness to belittle America, let’s take a look at his pandering speech in Cairo.

The only improvement in Obama’s behavior during this trip to the Arab world was he didn’t bow to the Saudi King; in fact, although Obama’s supporters strenuously tried to explain Obama didn’t bow last time despite video to the contrary – he just bent over because the King is shorter than him – this time he didn’t bend even when presented with an expensive gold necklace (wonder where that will end up).

The presidential campaign last year was full of cries of “racism” whenever anyone used Barack Obama’s middle name “Hussein.” Even the pitiful challenger, Senator McCain, criticized anyone on his staff if they dared use Obama’s full name. So what happened – Obama himself used his Muslim name when he was sworn in as president. This presaged Obama’s speech in Cairo where he glorified his Muslim roots and let the Muslim audience believe here was a new US president that understood them and didn’t mind that they wanted to take over the world and develop nuclear capability.

Obama said it was all right if Iran wanted to develop nuclear energy for power plants as long as they said they were not going to build atomic bombs in the process. Obama tried to minimize the danger of this permission by quoting Ronald Reagan “trust but verify.” The unresolved question is what happens if Iran breaks their promise after being allowed unfettered nuclear development programs and actually makes atomic bombs in secret. Remember, Muslims are allowed under the Koran to make false promises if it suits them. Will the next Obama apology be to Israel for the destruction of their country?

By the way; there are two things of note in this – first, why does Iran need nuclear energy for power production when it sits on huge oil reserves and is not restrained by environment wackos and how come nuclear power is OK for Iran but not for the United States?

As part of the Obama Muslim buttering-up, he said that "One of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Really, do the 2.3 million or so Muslims in the US (according to the Pew Research Center) make us “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”?

Obama went so far as to tell Muslims “It is part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Now isn’t that special – I didn’t see that in the Constitution where it describes the job of president and where was that exactly in the oath of office he took? I also don’t remember Obama saying to a Jewish audience or the Christian audience at Notre Dame that it was his responsibility to fight for them.

There were many unfortunate things Obama said before his world-wide Muslim audience that are despicable but none more so than his remarks denigrating the performance of our brave military in the war on terrorism; which can be better described as a war of defense against Muslims and Islam.

Barack Hussein Obama did not take the opportunity to tell about the hard work and sacrifice of our troops in the Mid East to bring freedom to Muslims and appeared ashamed of the efforts and sacrifices made by our military in the war on terror despite the importance and success of our military’s efforts to keep America safe in the process of saving Muslims. While our troops are putting their lives on the line daily in order to protect us from terrorism and the ideology of Jihadism, their Commander in Chief refuses to use either term, ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihad’, in his entire speech addressing the issues facing the US relationship with the Muslim world even though it is evident that Jihadists want to kill us.

Obama fell all over himself to impress the Muslim audience that the US has a new leader in charge. It was disappointing to say the least to see Obama minimize the significance of American troops in preserving American national security. Freedom does not come from his rhetoric, but from the blood and sweat of our heroic military men and women.

Obama could also have reminded the Muslim audience that America saved their collective asses in many places like Kosovo, victims of the Tsunami in Indonesia, torture chambers in Iraq, Saddam invasion of Kuwait, female victims of the Taliban in Afghanistan, aid to Muslims in Africa being killed, starved and raped by other Muslims, billions to help Muslim AID victims in Africa – BUT Obama did none of that.

I ask all of you who read this, if the president won’t support our military don’t that mean we must do what he will not? It seems to me any of our soldiers on the front line in the war to defend America against Islam’s destructive forces deserve our fullest support. I believe that our troops do not hear that they are supported enough. They get discouraged when they see the far left politicians who are in power continuously call into question the legitimacy of their missions and suggest their work may be pointless or misguided. President Obama says that we responded to 9/11 in ways that were “contrary to our ideals” and that we were driven by “fear and anger” but we know that the duty of our troops has been selfless and valiant, their task vital, and their conduct honorable.

Many people are far too comfortable taking our troops for granted and focusing only on where some individual goes wrong. Our media is complicit in encouraging the practice. Most Americans, especially those who have observed the work and the character of our military men and women understand the overwhelming reality: our troops carry out our nation’s most important work, they do it under terrible conditions, and they ask for little in return. But they deserve all the thanks we can give them.

Let’s turn out July 4th in TEA parties around the country to show our patriotic feelings for America and to praise our brave men and women in the military.

Sotomayor has decided that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states

2009-06-04T02:07:00.000-07:00

If you thought the Bill of Rights gives you constitutional protection for freedom of speech, of religion and a free press; you are wrong according to Obama Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The likely newest member of the high Court decided that all these rights guaranteed by the first Ten Amendments which make up the Bill of Rights can now be taken away from us at the whim of our state legislatures - who would have imagined.

Sotomayor has been criticized for racist statements and a belief that courts set "policy" not just issue decisions based on the law, and it has been noted that she meets the Obama intention of appointing a Supreme Court judge with "empathy," but her credentials as judge have been accepted without question - this is a big mistake.

Sotomayor was on a panel of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit which issued an unsigned opinion dismissing a challenge to a New York law that banned a martial arts weapon despite the earlier Supreme Court ruling in Heller v District of Columbia which struck down a ban on handguns and said individuals have the right to keep arms at home for self defense. Contrary to the Heller decision, the panel on which Sotomayor served said (in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo) that it was clear from the Supreme Court precedent (the Heller case) that the Second Amendment could be applied only to the federal government, or in a federal enclave such as Washington. It said the Supreme Court has "the prerogative of overruling its own decisions," but why is that relevant?

The issue raises the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. Lawyers challenging gun restrictions and legal scholars contend that they do through the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment and that was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a case earlier this year. The Supreme Court's decision last year in the Heller case decided for the first time that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to bear arms.

If the 2nd Amendment can be said to not apply to the states and local governments, then why should the other rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights apply?

A recent decision of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the Sotomayor conclusion in a ruling rejecting a challenge to a tough Chicago suburb handgun law. Her supporters say the similar opinion by the 7th Circuit somehow makes the nominee immune to criticism on this issue but no one explains why the Sotomayor view of the 2nd Amendment can be distinguished from the other first eight Amendments that include the First Amendment that provides freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press and the right of peaceful assembly. In fact, the First Amendment specifically says "Congress shall make no law …." if the first ten Amendments are not applicable to the states than according to Sotomayor each state may establish their own limitations on these basic rights. As my mother used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

In my view our constitutional rights hang in the balance with the appointment Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. A powerful revolution expanding government authority is underway with Obama's election as President, and the Democrats about to obtain a 60-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. But an adverse Supreme Court can stop and undo a lot of that but appointing judges like Sotomayor will prevent even this small possibility.

David Souter was a surprise to the Republicans who appointed him and worked for his confirmation. His vote made a difference on the side of many important issues in many Supreme Court decisions. Justice Anthony Kennedy cannot be relied upon; adding another judicial activist to the Supreme Court will take the country still further away from the one created by our founders.

We cannot afford or risk an even worse appointment than Souter who seems to believe her opinion caries more weight than a white person and that the court makes policy, not just applies the law - a Justice who seems to have an insufficient passion for protecting and strengthening the freedoms that make our country great.