OTR bet you can guess who this is from.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Pakistan to seek terror charges against Americans
I swear it's like they were reading my blog! Just kidding but still, this is a perfect tie in of the Interpol story and the International Criminal Court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101211.html?hpid%3Dtopnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101211.html?hpid%3Dtopnews
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Agenda 21 and the takeover of private property
Did you know 40% of American soil belongs to the government or is under their direct control? There is a move to get the rest. All in the name of environmentalism.
Watch this, there will be more (each section opens new window):
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
Watch this, there will be more (each section opens new window):
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
For your right to criticize...
This is making the email rounds but I like it so here it gets a home for all my military buds.
One of my sons serves in the military. He is
still stateside, here in California . He called me
yesterday to let me know how warm and welcoming people were
to him and his troops everywhere he goes, telling me how
people shake their hands and thank them for being willing to
serve and fight for not only our own
freedoms,but so that others may have them also.
But he also told me about an incident in the grocery store
he stopped at yesterday on his way home from the base. He
said that ahead of several people in front of him stood a
woman dressed in a burkha.
He said when she got to the cashier she loudly remarked
about the U.S. flag lapel pin the cashier wore on her smock.
The cashier reached up and touched the pin, and said proudly,
'Yes, I always wear it and probably always will..'
The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier when she was
going to stop bombing her countrymen, explaining that she
was Iraqi.
A gentleman standing behind my son stepped forward.
Putting his arm around my son's shoulders and nodding towards
my son, he said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi woman:
'Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like this
young man have fought and died so that YOU could stand here,
in MY country and accuse a check-out cashier of bombing
YOUR countrymen. It is my belief that had you been this
outspoken in YOUR own country, we wouldn't need to be
there today. But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak
out so loudly and clearly, I'll gladly buy you a ticket and
pay your way back to Iraq so you can straighten out the
mess in YOUR country that you are obviously here in MY
country to avoid.
Everyone within hearing distance cheered!
One of my sons serves in the military. He is
still stateside, here in California . He called me
yesterday to let me know how warm and welcoming people were
to him and his troops everywhere he goes, telling me how
people shake their hands and thank them for being willing to
serve and fight for not only our own
freedoms,but so that others may have them also.
But he also told me about an incident in the grocery store
he stopped at yesterday on his way home from the base. He
said that ahead of several people in front of him stood a
woman dressed in a burkha.
He said when she got to the cashier she loudly remarked
about the U.S. flag lapel pin the cashier wore on her smock.
The cashier reached up and touched the pin, and said proudly,
'Yes, I always wear it and probably always will..'
The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier when she was
going to stop bombing her countrymen, explaining that she
was Iraqi.
A gentleman standing behind my son stepped forward.
Putting his arm around my son's shoulders and nodding towards
my son, he said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi woman:
'Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like this
young man have fought and died so that YOU could stand here,
in MY country and accuse a check-out cashier of bombing
YOUR countrymen. It is my belief that had you been this
outspoken in YOUR own country, we wouldn't need to be
there today. But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak
out so loudly and clearly, I'll gladly buy you a ticket and
pay your way back to Iraq so you can straighten out the
mess in YOUR country that you are obviously here in MY
country to avoid.
Everyone within hearing distance cheered!
Play pen for "you may be a Taliban"
Look to the right. See the funny? Okay all non-pc comments here to be deleted at a moment chosen by the moderator.
Oh that be me...
Oh that be me...
Monday, December 28, 2009
Obama may put Americans under power of International Criminal Court
World Net reported on November 19, 2009 that President Obama was sending a delegation to the Hague and as Secretary of State Clinton remarked that the US will end its “hostility” towards the Court.
As Senator Obama was quoted Yes[.] The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.
So we really shouldn't be surprised he would think the international court could supersede our own constitution. That was the main reason President Bush rejected the ICC saying "it no longer considered itself bound to the jurisdiction of the ICC."
Here's a What If for you: we've been using drones in surgical strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, there have been some civilian casualties. With the new powers recently granted Interpol by Obama (see previous post), they could come here, arrest the person operating the drone and haul him/her in front of the International Court.
Scary enough for ya?
As Senator Obama was quoted Yes[.] The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.
So we really shouldn't be surprised he would think the international court could supersede our own constitution. That was the main reason President Bush rejected the ICC saying "it no longer considered itself bound to the jurisdiction of the ICC."
Here's a What If for you: we've been using drones in surgical strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, there have been some civilian casualties. With the new powers recently granted Interpol by Obama (see previous post), they could come here, arrest the person operating the drone and haul him/her in front of the International Court.
Scary enough for ya?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas from our buddy butt neckid
He wanted to share with you guys that visit here and misbehave, er, I mean chat.
Important foods
Important foods
UPDATED 01/08/10***Interpol given authority to operate freely on US soil -thanks to Obama
Update: Glenn Beck said last night (01/07/10) that this is one of the most emailed stories he's had in awhile. His show tried to contact the White House. His concern is WHY this was considered necessary and WHO requested it. No response from the White House as of yet.
Update: Newt Gingrich brought this up on The Factor today, he seems to be as concerned as we are. Story also a "Nuze" item on Boortz. The word is getting around.
UPDATE: David Horowitz has given his analysis of this EO and has another angle that is just as disturbing if not more so:
Given the EPA’s recent license to regulate CO2 it is especially noteworthy that INTERPOL is tasked to seek and arrest EPA fugitives, defendants charged with environmental crimes who have fled the court’s jurisdiction. We will have to wait to see how the EPA criminalizes CO2 violations to determine the true risk of their ruling to American citizens.
(right click)
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/30/could-obama-use-interpol-to-evade-constitutional-law/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you thought it was safe to prepare for the holidays, another WH Bomb.
There are many sources reporting this story, Obama has issued an executive order rescinding Reagan's order
And it is indeed on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 as follows:
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
http://www.newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/12222009.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlpBB4o8xq8 video from Alex Jones
=========================================================
What does all this mean? Breaking it down section by section.
Barack: Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c)
What was Section 2(c) in the Reagan Executive order? Actually, both of these Executive Orders are revering to International Organizations Immunities Act from 1945.
Property and assets of international organizations wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
That's the way the original Act read in 1945. That was not good. Reagan in Executive Order 12425 amended the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA for future reference) to exclude that privilege. Rational right?
Barack's Executive Order effectively reinstates their immunity.
=============================================================
Section 3
IOIA original language: Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.
Sure, just let them bring anything in!
Reagan amended it to delete the sections relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes. Obama again, gives them that tax & duty free status.
============================================================
Section 4 and 5
He just says "Section 4"? Section 4 has subparts a thru i, so pardon me if I don't post the entire section here and just paraphrase, please feel free to click on the link above and verify my interpretation.
Section 4 and 5 are about the Internal Revenue tax code as it applies to international organizations. If I am reading it right, in the original IOIA, they were exempt from taxes on income in the form of wages, stocks, property, etc. That's not good! Reagan again, eliminated this privilege.
And Obama put it back? Is he crazy? Someone else please read this and tell me if I have it right.
===============================================================
Section 6 is basically the same language applied to property taxes, excluding them. Reagan takes away this language (they have to pay) and Obama puts it back.
===============================================================
The biggest thing about all this is how now Interpol has all the rights and privileges previously held for visiting dignataries of foreign governments, ambassadors and their staff, etc. Their records cannot be searched by ANY American authority. That is indeed a scary thing.
And the foreign dignataries, etc., no longer have to pay tax on anything earned while in the US????
Yet again, The White House moves while we are looking elsewhere, preoccupied with our daily lives.
Merry Christmas, I look forward to your comments.
Update: Newt Gingrich brought this up on The Factor today, he seems to be as concerned as we are. Story also a "Nuze" item on Boortz. The word is getting around.
UPDATE: David Horowitz has given his analysis of this EO and has another angle that is just as disturbing if not more so:
Given the EPA’s recent license to regulate CO2 it is especially noteworthy that INTERPOL is tasked to seek and arrest EPA fugitives, defendants charged with environmental crimes who have fled the court’s jurisdiction. We will have to wait to see how the EPA criminalizes CO2 violations to determine the true risk of their ruling to American citizens.
(right click)
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/30/could-obama-use-interpol-to-evade-constitutional-law/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you thought it was safe to prepare for the holidays, another WH Bomb.
There are many sources reporting this story, Obama has issued an executive order rescinding Reagan's order
And it is indeed on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 as follows:
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
=========================================================http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
http://www.newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/12222009.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlpBB4o8xq8 video from Alex Jones
=========================================================
What does all this mean? Breaking it down section by section.
Barack: Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c)
What was Section 2(c) in the Reagan Executive order? Actually, both of these Executive Orders are revering to International Organizations Immunities Act from 1945.
Property and assets of international organizations wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
That's the way the original Act read in 1945. That was not good. Reagan in Executive Order 12425 amended the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA for future reference) to exclude that privilege. Rational right?
Barack's Executive Order effectively reinstates their immunity.
=============================================================
Section 3
IOIA original language: Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.
Sure, just let them bring anything in!
Reagan amended it to delete the sections relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes. Obama again, gives them that tax & duty free status.
============================================================
Section 4 and 5
He just says "Section 4"? Section 4 has subparts a thru i, so pardon me if I don't post the entire section here and just paraphrase, please feel free to click on the link above and verify my interpretation.
Section 4 and 5 are about the Internal Revenue tax code as it applies to international organizations. If I am reading it right, in the original IOIA, they were exempt from taxes on income in the form of wages, stocks, property, etc. That's not good! Reagan again, eliminated this privilege.
And Obama put it back? Is he crazy? Someone else please read this and tell me if I have it right.
===============================================================
Section 6 is basically the same language applied to property taxes, excluding them. Reagan takes away this language (they have to pay) and Obama puts it back.
===============================================================
The biggest thing about all this is how now Interpol has all the rights and privileges previously held for visiting dignataries of foreign governments, ambassadors and their staff, etc. Their records cannot be searched by ANY American authority. That is indeed a scary thing.
And the foreign dignataries, etc., no longer have to pay tax on anything earned while in the US????
Yet again, The White House moves while we are looking elsewhere, preoccupied with our daily lives.
Merry Christmas, I look forward to your comments.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Reid bill trying to prevent future action
Senator Jim Demint on the floor last night raised this objection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
"and I quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
This is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. "
Rule changes require a 2/3 vote. This bill is bypassing that requirement.
At the same time Senator Lindsay Graham is challenging the constitutionality of the "bribes" given for votes especially that for Nebraska. If the rest of us are going to have to subsidize them, seems that is against the Bill of Attainder and also the Regulate Commerce clause which is to "make regular" business between states. This gives Nebraska an unfair advantage.
Good for South Carolina. And now a word from our Georgia Senators.... cricket....cricket...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
"and I quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
This is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. "
Rule changes require a 2/3 vote. This bill is bypassing that requirement.
At the same time Senator Lindsay Graham is challenging the constitutionality of the "bribes" given for votes especially that for Nebraska. If the rest of us are going to have to subsidize them, seems that is against the Bill of Attainder and also the Regulate Commerce clause which is to "make regular" business between states. This gives Nebraska an unfair advantage.
Good for South Carolina. And now a word from our Georgia Senators.... cricket....cricket...
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Move to eliminate term limits for President
Well this sucks big time.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
These are the people you need to tell "HELL NO" in the Judiciary Committee:
This committee has 40 members. Use the buttons below to see all of the members.
Chair
NOTE: right click to keep me open (OTR you are killing me)
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]
Ranking Member
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI2]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA28]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]
(no photo available)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA10]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA4]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX20]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R-MS3]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA4]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
Rep. Steve King [R-IA5]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA16]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
Rep. Daniel Maffei [D-NY25]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY8]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2]
(no photo available)
Rep. Mike Quigley [D-IL5]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R-FL16]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D-CA39]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA29]
Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA3]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI5]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA35]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC12]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY9]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL19]
Res.Com. Pedro Pierluisi [D-PR]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
These are the people you need to tell "HELL NO" in the Judiciary Committee:
This committee has 40 members. Use the buttons below to see all of the members.
Chair
NOTE: right click to keep me open (OTR you are killing me)
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]
Ranking Member
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI2]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA28]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]
(no photo available)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA10]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA4]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX20]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R-MS3]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA4]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
Rep. Steve King [R-IA5]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA16]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
Rep. Daniel Maffei [D-NY25]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY8]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2]
(no photo available)
Rep. Mike Quigley [D-IL5]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R-FL16]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D-CA39]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA29]
Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA3]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI5]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA35]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC12]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY9]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL19]
Res.Com. Pedro Pierluisi [D-PR]
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Weather Beatdown Of Nancy Pelosi
Seems Mother Nature doesn't much care for Nancy Pelosi! Both of these articles headlined on Climate Depot, the LARGEST website dedicated to refuting the manmade climate change charges and proud of it they are.
Snow storms force Nancy away from Copenhagen early.
Surprisingly, this is not the first time her travels in relation to a climate meeting have been changed due to weather.
Don't mess with Mother Nature...
Snow storms force Nancy away from Copenhagen early.
Surprisingly, this is not the first time her travels in relation to a climate meeting have been changed due to weather.
Don't mess with Mother Nature...
Copenhagen
I'm still flabbergasted that there was a country that did not want to sign away its' sovereignty.
And that country was
FREAKING CHINA
So how is it they are more concerned than we are? Well, luckily, there was only an agreement, more verbal than anything.
Bet those nations wished they had our EPA!!!
And that country was
FREAKING CHINA
So how is it they are more concerned than we are? Well, luckily, there was only an agreement, more verbal than anything.
Bet those nations wished they had our EPA!!!
Friday, December 11, 2009
An Auntie Em Prediction
We've heard enthusiastic reports of sales being up for this holiday season. Personally I think they will be a little better than last year, but then that wouldn't take much, so we'll still be down drastically from where we should be.
So here's where my prediction comes in. Gold starting dropping when these "positive" reports started coming, closing today at 1115. Hong Kong and Sydney are still going but we'll settle for New York here.
Now we have Congress raising the debt ceiling another 1.8 trillion, which if they spend it all, will take our deficit to 14 trillion. The spending bill currently up for vote.... oh you didn't hear about that? Yeah Congress is about to run out of money so there is a 2500 page $400billion+ bill up for grabs ..... so anyway, when that goes through along with the increased debt ceiling, you'll see gold jump back up again on Monday. Don't know if it'll be at the 1215 again but I'll say 1150 by weeks end.
We'll talk again.
So here's where my prediction comes in. Gold starting dropping when these "positive" reports started coming, closing today at 1115. Hong Kong and Sydney are still going but we'll settle for New York here.
Now we have Congress raising the debt ceiling another 1.8 trillion, which if they spend it all, will take our deficit to 14 trillion. The spending bill currently up for vote.... oh you didn't hear about that? Yeah Congress is about to run out of money so there is a 2500 page $400billion+ bill up for grabs ..... so anyway, when that goes through along with the increased debt ceiling, you'll see gold jump back up again on Monday. Don't know if it'll be at the 1215 again but I'll say 1150 by weeks end.
We'll talk again.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A "Visual" of our Prez and his history
I've been reading about and preaching about this, but our buddy butt (lol) found the visual. If it's too small for you to read I can email you the file to print out your size!!! emstownhall@yahoo.com
During the 2008 Presidential campaign (now known socialist) Senator Barack Obama told audiences "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."
During the 2008 Presidential campaign (now known socialist) Senator Barack Obama told audiences "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."
Okay, comrade ...... we WILL:
click on it, way easier to read
click on it, way easier to read
GAIA at work
Picked this up from an Australian forum unsigned so can't give he/she credit but it is a great read:
H2O is water. CO2 is carbon dioxide.
Lets see, CO2 + H20 + Light energy and photosynthisis strips the Carbon from the Oxygen in CO2, the Hydrogen from the oxygen in the Water, and gives Carbon and Hydrogen compounds (celulose or wood) + O (oxygen).
Later, when the lightning strikes, the oxygen recombines with the carbon and the hydrogen in the celulose (wood) and the rusulting fire gives you CO2 and water as the products of combustion. A natural carbon cycle.
Lots of CO2 and heat? Lots of plants and trees. Too many plants and trees? Lots of oxygen and fuel. One ligtning strike and the cycle repeats. Man is totaly unnecessary.
The FOOD CHAIN is dependent on that horible toxic chemical CO2? You mean CO2 may not be a polutant after all? It just might be necessary for life on earth as we know it? "Gaia" uses a CO2 cycle to produce life. The warmer the big bright thing in the sky makes things, the more CO2 gets driven out of soulution in the ocean.
Yes photosynthesis is working in the ocean as well. Remember phytoplankton? OK, ever see bubles come out of Coke as it warms up? Thats CO2 just in case you never took the time to think about it. And the big bright thing in the sky? Astronomers call it a variable star. That means it's heat output is not constant. Nor is our orbit around the sun a perfect elipse.
Ever have a top when you were a kid? It starts to wobble when the spin slows down right? Physics calls that precessional rotation. The earth does that. The rotational period is 23,000 years. The same ice age cycle that was noticed in the 1.5 mile deep ice core sample taken in Antartica that reads like tree rings going back 150,000 years. Yup, the traped gas bubles in the ice can be read for exact % of CO2, CH4, O and N in a gas chromatograph.
When the north pole is pointed more directly at the sun, the ice melts at the north pole. Simple enough. The list of things that give us climate change is very long and we have not even discoverd half of whats on it, none of which are caused by man. Most of the natural causes of our climate change make what man does on this earth laughably insignificant. One big forest fire puts out more CO2 than the UK can possibly tax in 10 years.
By the way UK, follow the money! Our climate is driven by the sun. Not by George Soros and his progressive team mates in the UN and our government.
H2O is water. CO2 is carbon dioxide.
Lets see, CO2 + H20 + Light energy and photosynthisis strips the Carbon from the Oxygen in CO2, the Hydrogen from the oxygen in the Water, and gives Carbon and Hydrogen compounds (celulose or wood) + O (oxygen).
Later, when the lightning strikes, the oxygen recombines with the carbon and the hydrogen in the celulose (wood) and the rusulting fire gives you CO2 and water as the products of combustion. A natural carbon cycle.
Lots of CO2 and heat? Lots of plants and trees. Too many plants and trees? Lots of oxygen and fuel. One ligtning strike and the cycle repeats. Man is totaly unnecessary.
The FOOD CHAIN is dependent on that horible toxic chemical CO2? You mean CO2 may not be a polutant after all? It just might be necessary for life on earth as we know it? "Gaia" uses a CO2 cycle to produce life. The warmer the big bright thing in the sky makes things, the more CO2 gets driven out of soulution in the ocean.
Yes photosynthesis is working in the ocean as well. Remember phytoplankton? OK, ever see bubles come out of Coke as it warms up? Thats CO2 just in case you never took the time to think about it. And the big bright thing in the sky? Astronomers call it a variable star. That means it's heat output is not constant. Nor is our orbit around the sun a perfect elipse.
Ever have a top when you were a kid? It starts to wobble when the spin slows down right? Physics calls that precessional rotation. The earth does that. The rotational period is 23,000 years. The same ice age cycle that was noticed in the 1.5 mile deep ice core sample taken in Antartica that reads like tree rings going back 150,000 years. Yup, the traped gas bubles in the ice can be read for exact % of CO2, CH4, O and N in a gas chromatograph.
When the north pole is pointed more directly at the sun, the ice melts at the north pole. Simple enough. The list of things that give us climate change is very long and we have not even discoverd half of whats on it, none of which are caused by man. Most of the natural causes of our climate change make what man does on this earth laughably insignificant. One big forest fire puts out more CO2 than the UK can possibly tax in 10 years.
By the way UK, follow the money! Our climate is driven by the sun. Not by George Soros and his progressive team mates in the UN and our government.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The "Nuance" of Progressivism
Ran across this article from June 2009 and several parts caught my attention. Excerpts in italics.
It's that "using narratives and frames that his audience will accept" that first made me think hmmmm. Remember, he's creating a feeling. It's not so much what he says but also what he doesn't say and where he is leading you.
how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary
Created the Conditions necessary. By not using the word terrorists, he had the Arabs actually listening.
How many times has he done that to us?
We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
Oh we were all so tired of the Bush years and the lying Republican politicians, change sounded so good that we didn't stop to think that in order to "fundamentally" change the United States of America we would have to set aside our Founding Fathers vision of America since we no longer resembled that anyway. We didn't stop to think that in order to "fundamentally change" we would have to give up our liberty and freedom. Our property rights would be forfeited for "the common good".
The writer of the article thinks Obama may be pretending to be "centrist" (writers choice of words not mine) in order to make the Republicans look more extreme, to basically trick the moderates into giving him a second term. The writer thinks he is appeasing the Republicans. Again, don't know if I agree with that but this is interesting:
Will the American public pick up that nuance? Or will they buy the Republican rhetoric that Obama is a socialist dictator running our economy into the ground?
Will we?
Even more so, will packaging progressive ideas in moderate language make more Americans open to progressive policies...
Open to Progressive policies! How marvelous!
This is not one of the movement's better writers, but was probably more open and honest than most, or even more so than they would like for us to see. This is why you have slowly heard more and more politicians and public figures talking about the necessity of a little bit of socialism, it won't kill ya!!!! Heard the expression "nickel and dime ya to death"?
I've always heard that the best way to defeat an enemy is to understand him. We all need to read more of their (gag) writings. Saul Alinsky for starters.
As an example of how ignorant the referenced writer is, here's a post blasting Bush for saying Iran has or ever will have nukes. Gee, just two years after and where is Iran with it's nuclear program now?
Unfortunately for us, not all their supporters are this inept.
But most dramatic of all was what he omitted – any reference to ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’.
Wow, who would have thought that word would not come out of an American President’s mouth in a foreign policy speech until 2030? Obama certainly has dramatically shifted the foreign policy tone of the Bush Administration.
This shift in tone is highly welcome. Obama once again showed he has a grasp of using narratives and frames that his audience will accept. If you are speaking to an Arab group and state that Israel must dismantle its settlements, you immediately open them up to your message. That is one example of how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary for his Arab listeners to even consider other messages, such as women’s rights.It's that "using narratives and frames that his audience will accept" that first made me think hmmmm. Remember, he's creating a feeling. It's not so much what he says but also what he doesn't say and where he is leading you.
how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary
Created the Conditions necessary. By not using the word terrorists, he had the Arabs actually listening.
How many times has he done that to us?
We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
Oh we were all so tired of the Bush years and the lying Republican politicians, change sounded so good that we didn't stop to think that in order to "fundamentally" change the United States of America we would have to set aside our Founding Fathers vision of America since we no longer resembled that anyway. We didn't stop to think that in order to "fundamentally change" we would have to give up our liberty and freedom. Our property rights would be forfeited for "the common good".
The writer of the article thinks Obama may be pretending to be "centrist" (writers choice of words not mine) in order to make the Republicans look more extreme, to basically trick the moderates into giving him a second term. The writer thinks he is appeasing the Republicans. Again, don't know if I agree with that but this is interesting:
Will the American public pick up that nuance? Or will they buy the Republican rhetoric that Obama is a socialist dictator running our economy into the ground?
Will we?
Even more so, will packaging progressive ideas in moderate language make more Americans open to progressive policies...
Open to Progressive policies! How marvelous!
This is not one of the movement's better writers, but was probably more open and honest than most, or even more so than they would like for us to see. This is why you have slowly heard more and more politicians and public figures talking about the necessity of a little bit of socialism, it won't kill ya!!!! Heard the expression "nickel and dime ya to death"?
I've always heard that the best way to defeat an enemy is to understand him. We all need to read more of their (gag) writings. Saul Alinsky for starters.
As an example of how ignorant the referenced writer is, here's a post blasting Bush for saying Iran has or ever will have nukes. Gee, just two years after and where is Iran with it's nuclear program now?
Unfortunately for us, not all their supporters are this inept.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Notes for climate change debate
These are a lot of miscellaneous notes I've been collecting on global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it. Enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane gas levels are a key element of Anthroprogenic Global Warming BUT they are NOT INCREASING as required by the Goracle's poition (how inconvenient):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/that-worrisome-methane-beast-apparently-is-still-not-awake/#more-11616
And ocean tempatures are falling, as a result, sea ice amounts are increasing, which is not in the Goracle's plans (remeber the Polar Bears?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/ocean-heat-content-dropping/#more-11620
And finally, more truth about the debate in IRANIAN newspapers than the New York Times and other American newspapers.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_dacf39c7-c2f8-5718-a5a0-d0cfb39f80bc.html?mode=comments&page=2
Conclusion: If it weren't for the internet, The Goracle and his liberal allies would have won this argument through the control of information if it weren't for alternate information sources.
Much of our MEDIA HAVE TURNED INTO WHORES WHO PRODUCE OPINIONS RATHER THAN PRESENT NEWS AND FACTS.
Consensus among scientists? Hardly. 31,000 have said no.
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis on Cap & Trade by US House of Representatives, Oversight Committee:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14848063/Report-CapAndTrade-Energy-Tax-Will-Cause-Redistribution-of-Wealth-among-States-and-Working-Families
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And one of my favorite items:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
A sub surfacing in open water - AT THE NORTH POLE! In 1959 no less.
We can and should continue to find sources of energy that are sustainable, cheap and non-polluting. But there is NO scientific consensus that we should run for the hills, under a table, quit eating meat, etc. Infact, the only reason man became an intelligent part of the earth was through the protein from meat and COOKING it! Ask any anthropologist. We NEED that meat. Course that could explain why libs are so stupid.... pardon me I digress.
NO to Copenhagen, NO to the crap & tax bill. That would destroy our economy and then where would we be, warming and cooking with charcoal and wood fires, now THAT is what is called an unintended consequence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane gas levels are a key element of Anthroprogenic Global Warming BUT they are NOT INCREASING as required by the Goracle's poition (how inconvenient):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/that-worrisome-methane-beast-apparently-is-still-not-awake/#more-11616
And ocean tempatures are falling, as a result, sea ice amounts are increasing, which is not in the Goracle's plans (remeber the Polar Bears?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/ocean-heat-content-dropping/#more-11620
And finally, more truth about the debate in IRANIAN newspapers than the New York Times and other American newspapers.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_dacf39c7-c2f8-5718-a5a0-d0cfb39f80bc.html?mode=comments&page=2
Conclusion: If it weren't for the internet, The Goracle and his liberal allies would have won this argument through the control of information if it weren't for alternate information sources.
Much of our MEDIA HAVE TURNED INTO WHORES WHO PRODUCE OPINIONS RATHER THAN PRESENT NEWS AND FACTS.
- http://johngalt.podomatic.com/
Consensus among scientists? Hardly. 31,000 have said no.
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis on Cap & Trade by US House of Representatives, Oversight Committee:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14848063/Report-CapAndTrade-Energy-Tax-Will-Cause-Redistribution-of-Wealth-among-States-and-Working-Families
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And one of my favorite items:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
A sub surfacing in open water - AT THE NORTH POLE! In 1959 no less.
We can and should continue to find sources of energy that are sustainable, cheap and non-polluting. But there is NO scientific consensus that we should run for the hills, under a table, quit eating meat, etc. Infact, the only reason man became an intelligent part of the earth was through the protein from meat and COOKING it! Ask any anthropologist. We NEED that meat. Course that could explain why libs are so stupid.... pardon me I digress.
NO to Copenhagen, NO to the crap & tax bill. That would destroy our economy and then where would we be, warming and cooking with charcoal and wood fires, now THAT is what is called an unintended consequence.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Glenn Beck Refounders as of 12/01/09
They now number 10!
One of them is saying you can count on your hands the number of people that have read the Afghanistan report. That's a shame, it's reported that the information in that report is "eye-opening".
One of them is saying you can count on your hands the number of people that have read the Afghanistan report. That's a shame, it's reported that the information in that report is "eye-opening".
Monday, November 30, 2009
What I would do about Iran
Seems the more we, the United States and a handful of other nations try to do to curb Ahmadinajad from continuing his march toward nuclear arms, the more he and the mullahs demonstrate they have no intention of giving in to any pressure.
So what to do?
1. Admit once and for all that Iran wants nuclear weapons and do not care what the UN or anyone else in the world thinks about it.
2. Tell Iran, fine, go ahead and build your weapons. But if we see you even look cross eyed at another nation with your weapons, we'll just wipe you off the face of the earth.
Period. Move on to next problem.
So what to do?
1. Admit once and for all that Iran wants nuclear weapons and do not care what the UN or anyone else in the world thinks about it.
2. Tell Iran, fine, go ahead and build your weapons. But if we see you even look cross eyed at another nation with your weapons, we'll just wipe you off the face of the earth.
Period. Move on to next problem.
Newt Quote
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - - Newt Gingrich
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
We're off on one of our infamous road trips so I'll check back on probably Saturday.
Meanwhile consider this: while Congress is off for the holiday they can't pass during the dead of night any bills.
See, just one more thing to be thankful for.
Meanwhile consider this: while Congress is off for the holiday they can't pass during the dead of night any bills.
See, just one more thing to be thankful for.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Senate Votes for Sales - get yer Senator right here, top bid!!!
And they BRAG about how much they get?!! What has happened to America?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html
So it looks like Harry Reid will get his debate November 30th. How many other deals will be made leading up to the final vote?
We desperately need legislative reform. Each bill should be one subject, no tag ons, add ons or hidden agendas.
This is disgusting and the people of Arkansas and Louisiana should really think about how they want to be represented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html
So it looks like Harry Reid will get his debate November 30th. How many other deals will be made leading up to the final vote?
We desperately need legislative reform. Each bill should be one subject, no tag ons, add ons or hidden agendas.
This is disgusting and the people of Arkansas and Louisiana should really think about how they want to be represented.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
HR 615 - If Congress wants a health care bill then they should use it too
This is one of a number of emails going around, you may have received one, but if not check out the website below:
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.
Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)
Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition. The process is very simple. I have done just that at:
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.
Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)
Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition. The process is very simple. I have done just that at:
http://fleming.house.gov/index.html .
Fill out name address, etc...click "YES" and submit!!
Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians. Regardless of your political beliefs, it sure seems reasonable that Congress should have exactly the same medical coverage that they impose on the rest of us.
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Understanding Muslims
This is an amazing article giving insight into the thought process.
http://www.meforum.org/2496/islamist-perfidy-western-naivety
http://www.meforum.org/2496/islamist-perfidy-western-naivety
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Think outside the box
Did you know that the states, without any input from either part of Congress, has the constitutional right to enact Amendments to the Constitution? There are two methods to amend the Constitution.
From the Constitution:
From the Constitution:
Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The second method, application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, has never been used.
The President has no veto power over this method. Infact no politicians currently in Washington need be involved at all!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you imagine, just try, if the states as a group were to decide to nullify all non-constitutional acts taken by Congress in the last 100 years!!!!!!!!!! Eliminate income tax. Eliminate Social Security tax and return the care of the elderly and infirm to the state control. Eliminate the Department of Education, return the education of our children to the state and local level with direct involvement of parents.
Return the selection of Senators to the state legislature where it was designed by the founding fathers.
Our states were designed to operate as their own soverign entities. As Reagan said "you can always vote with your feet" but with the federal government making all our decisions and governing, hell RULING every aspect of business, education, where and how we live, there is no longer any difference between states. This separation of states was the entire reason for the Declaration of Independence leading to the Revolutionary War and also why we fought a second war, the Civil War.
We like the diversity of our states, Texas is different than New York. North Carolina is different than Oregon. We would like to keep it that way.
So I ask again, can you imagine.....
Think about it, you will be hearing more about this as many states are indeed, considering this action.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
This person does NOT get it.
Posted on Boortz: "it's going to be hard for the GOP to win the important elections if they keep throwing out people who have been there for them for years.
By X Republican"
Been there for who? Washington? Yeah that makes sense.
These RINO's sure haven't been there for the voters. That is why they have to go.
I keep running into these morons who claim they are conservative and they are oh so worried about the Republican party, afraid the party is being hijacked by talk radio, etc., blah blah blah.
Find it very hard to believe they think it is better to let the party keep supporting for election, politicians who continue to spend all our tax money plus more and vote away our rights! Yeah that's good for the country!
Maybe they are actually plants...
By X Republican"
Been there for who? Washington? Yeah that makes sense.
These RINO's sure haven't been there for the voters. That is why they have to go.
I keep running into these morons who claim they are conservative and they are oh so worried about the Republican party, afraid the party is being hijacked by talk radio, etc., blah blah blah.
Find it very hard to believe they think it is better to let the party keep supporting for election, politicians who continue to spend all our tax money plus more and vote away our rights! Yeah that's good for the country!
Maybe they are actually plants...
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Liberal Minds
I like to go back and read posts and comments from the past. It's funny sometimes how right they were.
This from a good friend:
Acouple of quotes for you by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr. M. D. from his book called THE LIBERAL MIND;THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MADNESS (2008)
"The roots of liberalism-and its associated madness-can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind."
" Like spoiled, angry children, they {liberals} rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
And not an exact quote from the book but the ideas here condensed:
While we do not say that liberals are ipso facto clinically mad, there are many characteristics of liberalism that are associated with the classic symptoms of madness, including:
*creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization
*satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation
*augmenting primitive feelings of envy
*rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
I have seen so many people like this in my career. People who never grow up and never want to. They think the world owes them a living as my grandma used to say.
This from a good friend:
Acouple of quotes for you by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr. M. D. from his book called THE LIBERAL MIND;THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MADNESS (2008)
"The roots of liberalism-and its associated madness-can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind."
" Like spoiled, angry children, they {liberals} rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
And not an exact quote from the book but the ideas here condensed:
While we do not say that liberals are ipso facto clinically mad, there are many characteristics of liberalism that are associated with the classic symptoms of madness, including:
*creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization
*satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation
*augmenting primitive feelings of envy
*rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
I have seen so many people like this in my career. People who never grow up and never want to. They think the world owes them a living as my grandma used to say.
Republican Health Care Plan 3962
This is more like it, 230 pages with benefits available January 2, 2010, not five years from now.
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Clarification on Health Care desparately needed!!!
I have noticed on more than one forum a GRAVE MISUNDERSTANDING of the cost of any of these health care bills.
Over and over I see "well 1.2 trillion over 10 years for 300 million people is only....".
PEOPLE LISTEN UP!!!! That 1.2 trillion (that will grow) is to cover the people who cannot get insurance now because of pre-existing conditions OR they can't afford it. Actually most of it is administrative costs.
You will STILL have to pay your own premium. Okay? You will NOT get a break with this plan. If anything, the costs of all health related items will go up, since medical equipment companies, drug companies, etc., are going to be taxed more to pay for this. Well they will just raise their prices which will effect ALL of us.
The "rich" will also be taxed more, which means they will lay more people off or raise their prices or both.
Okay, just wanted to make sure no one thought the 1.2 trillion was going to pay for their insurance too.
Over and over I see "well 1.2 trillion over 10 years for 300 million people is only....".
PEOPLE LISTEN UP!!!! That 1.2 trillion (that will grow) is to cover the people who cannot get insurance now because of pre-existing conditions OR they can't afford it. Actually most of it is administrative costs.
You will STILL have to pay your own premium. Okay? You will NOT get a break with this plan. If anything, the costs of all health related items will go up, since medical equipment companies, drug companies, etc., are going to be taxed more to pay for this. Well they will just raise their prices which will effect ALL of us.
The "rich" will also be taxed more, which means they will lay more people off or raise their prices or both.
Okay, just wanted to make sure no one thought the 1.2 trillion was going to pay for their insurance too.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Scozzafava dropping out of NY race!!!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/BREAKING_Scozzafava_drops_out_of_NY_23.html
This is huge! Now Hoffman can kick out the democrat.
What Scozzafava fails even now to admit, it wasn't that her opponents were able to spend more, it was her willingness to spend the taxpayers money! She was running as a Republican but was the epitome of what we call RINO - Republican In Name Only. You can't spend like a Democrat and expect to retain your republican base.
This is a perfect example how we have to be willing to vote for the true conservative in our elections, not just the person with the "R" next to their name. I hope this serves as a warning to other RINO's coming up for reelection next year. You may be in for a surprise.
Congratulations Doug Hoffman, this should be a sweet victory for you in more ways than one. You stuck to your principles and it paid off. Now, don't let us down, we'll be watching.
This is huge! Now Hoffman can kick out the democrat.
What Scozzafava fails even now to admit, it wasn't that her opponents were able to spend more, it was her willingness to spend the taxpayers money! She was running as a Republican but was the epitome of what we call RINO - Republican In Name Only. You can't spend like a Democrat and expect to retain your republican base.
This is a perfect example how we have to be willing to vote for the true conservative in our elections, not just the person with the "R" next to their name. I hope this serves as a warning to other RINO's coming up for reelection next year. You may be in for a surprise.
Congratulations Doug Hoffman, this should be a sweet victory for you in more ways than one. You stuck to your principles and it paid off. Now, don't let us down, we'll be watching.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
New & Improved Pelosi Plan!
1990 pages! Outrageous. Can't wait to see what CBO makes of it. I've been flipping through the Brief Summary and the Detailed Summary, here's just a few pieces I've found so far:
HSA reimbursements: do you have one? enjoy using it for over the counter medications? Well that will end under this plan. Also contributions will be limited to $2500 a year and withdrawal for non-medical will increase from 10% to 20%. Yeah. Swell.
Affordability Credits for up to 400% Federal Poverty Limits. Oh great! that should help struggling families with the cost of insurance! One little problem, the credits are ONLY if you participate in the exchange (government option). Yeah. Swell.
Think you'll be able to get only the coverage you need and leave out the crap coverage like maternity care (I'm 53, no thanks). No. Sorry. Plans are still all inclusive. Some savings there.
Wanna keep your current plan? Make sure it's acceptable or you'll pay an additional tax. How do you tell if it's acceptable? Heck if I know. Read this and see if you can understand it: Sec. 501. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage. Provides for a 2.5% additional tax on the modified adjusted gross income of an individual who does not obtain acceptable health coverage for the individual or dependents claimed on the individual’s tax return. Authorizes the Department of Treasury and the Exchange to establish a hardship exemption from the additional tax. Acceptable coverage includes grandfathered individual and employer coverage, certain government coverage (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, certain coverage provided to veterans, military employees, retirees, and their families, and members of Indian tribes), and coverage obtained pursuant to the Exchange or an employer offer of coverage. Did you understand any of that? Didn't think so.
And in a few places I think I am seeing some reduction in pre-tax advantages..... more swell.
Sec. 541. Disclosures to carryout health insurance exchange subsidies. Permits the Exchange to receive taxpayer return information from the Internal Revenue Service in order to assist the Exchange in determining subsidy eligibility. Insert raised eyebrow....
I skipped over the Medicaid/Medicare parts, sorry, but I'm not that versed in the subject to tell when they are getting screwed. I'm sure they are.
Here's a link if you want to check it out: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_section_by_section.html
It loads very SLOWLY!!! I only got to page 40 something of 61 Detailed Summary before my computer said ENOUGH!
HSA reimbursements: do you have one? enjoy using it for over the counter medications? Well that will end under this plan. Also contributions will be limited to $2500 a year and withdrawal for non-medical will increase from 10% to 20%. Yeah. Swell.
Affordability Credits for up to 400% Federal Poverty Limits. Oh great! that should help struggling families with the cost of insurance! One little problem, the credits are ONLY if you participate in the exchange (government option). Yeah. Swell.
Think you'll be able to get only the coverage you need and leave out the crap coverage like maternity care (I'm 53, no thanks). No. Sorry. Plans are still all inclusive. Some savings there.
Wanna keep your current plan? Make sure it's acceptable or you'll pay an additional tax. How do you tell if it's acceptable? Heck if I know. Read this and see if you can understand it: Sec. 501. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage. Provides for a 2.5% additional tax on the modified adjusted gross income of an individual who does not obtain acceptable health coverage for the individual or dependents claimed on the individual’s tax return. Authorizes the Department of Treasury and the Exchange to establish a hardship exemption from the additional tax. Acceptable coverage includes grandfathered individual and employer coverage, certain government coverage (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, certain coverage provided to veterans, military employees, retirees, and their families, and members of Indian tribes), and coverage obtained pursuant to the Exchange or an employer offer of coverage. Did you understand any of that? Didn't think so.
And in a few places I think I am seeing some reduction in pre-tax advantages..... more swell.
Sec. 541. Disclosures to carryout health insurance exchange subsidies. Permits the Exchange to receive taxpayer return information from the Internal Revenue Service in order to assist the Exchange in determining subsidy eligibility. Insert raised eyebrow....
I skipped over the Medicaid/Medicare parts, sorry, but I'm not that versed in the subject to tell when they are getting screwed. I'm sure they are.
Here's a link if you want to check it out: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_section_by_section.html
It loads very SLOWLY!!! I only got to page 40 something of 61 Detailed Summary before my computer said ENOUGH!
Monday, October 26, 2009
Glenn Beck Refounders as of 10/26/09
He's up to 9 now! Watch out Washington, you just never know when you could be talking to a Beck snitch!!!!!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Fall of the Republic
This is a series of 14 youtube videos about the Federal Reserve, the criminal activities of Ben Bernanke and many more. The corporate also are pointed out in great detail. This was put together by Alex Jones, who I am NOT a big fan of, but this series does indeed have merit. Rep. Ron Paul has been pushing for years to submt the Federal Reserve to a first time in 96 years audit.
You have to watch these.
http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2009/10/fall-of-republic.html
You have to watch these.
http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2009/10/fall-of-republic.html
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Death Panels - who really began that issue?
And I bet you thought it was Sarah Palin? Or it just had to be that evil Glenn Beck. Hmmmm, you might be surprised to learn it was an Obama Advisor in September 2007!
Listen up.
Listen up.
They've lost their mind - control of ALL waters?
Congress Moves To Seize Control of All US Waters
This is one (of many) part that worries me:
The proposed definition states: "The term 'waters of the United States' means all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tides, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes [a flat dried up area, esp. a desert basin...] natural ponds and all impoundment of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."
The "impoundment"???? I don't think so Scooter!!!!!!!!!!! What they hell are we doing? We have a well, does that mean they know control our water? Tell us to convert to county system and pay for what we previously owned?
Has anyone heard of this before? Of course not! Congress just draws up this crap and tries to pass it before anyone sees it. Luckily SOMEONE is checking the voting schedules of Congress or we'd never know what was going on. WHY? Because what is supposed to be the people's Watch Dog, the media, no longer does their job.
This could have a profound impact on farmers, orchards, cattle ranches, just think of any place or business that uses water. I bet this is a back door way for them to push through parts of their Cap & Tax bill, because they know it will not pass in it's original form. No means No!!!!!!!! They don't get that.
Once again it is up to us. Call, write, email your Representatives and Senators that this is wrong.
This is one (of many) part that worries me:
The proposed definition states: "The term 'waters of the United States' means all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tides, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes [a flat dried up area, esp. a desert basin...] natural ponds and all impoundment of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."
The "impoundment"???? I don't think so Scooter!!!!!!!!!!! What they hell are we doing? We have a well, does that mean they know control our water? Tell us to convert to county system and pay for what we previously owned?
Has anyone heard of this before? Of course not! Congress just draws up this crap and tries to pass it before anyone sees it. Luckily SOMEONE is checking the voting schedules of Congress or we'd never know what was going on. WHY? Because what is supposed to be the people's Watch Dog, the media, no longer does their job.
This could have a profound impact on farmers, orchards, cattle ranches, just think of any place or business that uses water. I bet this is a back door way for them to push through parts of their Cap & Tax bill, because they know it will not pass in it's original form. No means No!!!!!!!! They don't get that.
Once again it is up to us. Call, write, email your Representatives and Senators that this is wrong.
Friday, October 16, 2009
How Many Refounders Does Beck Have?
Someone asked this question so thought I'd post where he is so far and I believe he is now at 5. Sounds like one might even be in the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Anita Dunn - admires.... wait for it.... Chairman Mao!!!
I'm sure by now you have heard, at least on CNN, how Anita Dunn, The White House Communications Director, has accused Fox News of being nothing more than the "investigative" arm of the Republican Party. They certainly aren't "a real news source like CNN".
Anita has some very good credentials for being able to twist the truth and put forth propaganda to promote her chosen agenda, or in this case, President Obama's agenda.
But now Glenn Beck has one of his secret Refounders sending him this video of Anita Dunn. Quite amazingly, turns out that Anita's two favorite and most admired political philosophers are Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa we can all understand but Mao????
Here's the part that urks me the most. Her speech is for high school students. Is history being rewritten to the point where someone responsible for up to 70million deaths is a person to be admired??? Do you want your kids to think he's a good guy?
Yet again, we find another person close to the President with questionable motivations.
But wait you say, they will just let her "resign" in the middle of the night, just like Van Jones, so no biggy right? I'm pretty sure they thought of that when the decision was made to attack Fox. Could she have been chosen specifically for this job? Knowing, she was expendable? She is after all, only in this position temporarily:
Why Anita Dunn
Anita has some very good credentials for being able to twist the truth and put forth propaganda to promote her chosen agenda, or in this case, President Obama's agenda.
But now Glenn Beck has one of his secret Refounders sending him this video of Anita Dunn. Quite amazingly, turns out that Anita's two favorite and most admired political philosophers are Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa we can all understand but Mao????
Here's the part that urks me the most. Her speech is for high school students. Is history being rewritten to the point where someone responsible for up to 70million deaths is a person to be admired??? Do you want your kids to think he's a good guy?
Yet again, we find another person close to the President with questionable motivations.
But wait you say, they will just let her "resign" in the middle of the night, just like Van Jones, so no biggy right? I'm pretty sure they thought of that when the decision was made to attack Fox. Could she have been chosen specifically for this job? Knowing, she was expendable? She is after all, only in this position temporarily:
Why Anita Dunn
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
New World Order - Part Two
On May 1, 2009 I issued the following challenge:
I DARE you to watch this video to the end.
***http://***www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSVDM2LZhOs*** unfortunately it has since been removed from YouTube, hope you saw it. Search YouTube for New World Order, you'll find lots.
***http://***www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSVDM2LZhOs*** unfortunately it has since been removed from YouTube, hope you saw it. Search YouTube for New World Order, you'll find lots.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
"An Inconvenient Truth" in your child's school?
Health care discussions winding down, time for the Crap & Tax crowd to come back out to push their agenda.
Did you know many schools show Al Gore's documentary (gag on that) "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of their curriculum? A truck driver in Britain took it to court to keep it out of their schools. The court found 11 inaccuracies with the movie, I've pulled this from a Newsbusters story:
Back to LW: Folks, we have a dilemma here, and it is not climate related. Everyone involved in this Cap & Trade scheme stands to make a LOT of money, especially Al Gore. Gore will be directly involved in setting up the trading system, making it yet another "commodity exchange" just like the Chicago Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange.
GE is heavily invested in manufacturing of wind turbines and special batteries, which is explanation for why the CEO Jeffrey Immelt has his media outlet, NBC News so dedicated to pushing Obama's agenda. Which also explains Janeane Garofalo's incessant beat down on conservatives, she is employed by NBC.
Gore was questioned by a journalist about the inaccuracies listed above during a recent environmental meeting, amazingly the journalists mike was cut off. He never got an answer. I think Mr. Gore needs to be willing to have a serious debate before running our electric bills up and creating yet another entitlement program for those who can't afford to pay.
Did you know many schools show Al Gore's documentary (gag on that) "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of their curriculum? A truck driver in Britain took it to court to keep it out of their schools. The court found 11 inaccuracies with the movie, I've pulled this from a Newsbusters story:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
- The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Back to LW: Folks, we have a dilemma here, and it is not climate related. Everyone involved in this Cap & Trade scheme stands to make a LOT of money, especially Al Gore. Gore will be directly involved in setting up the trading system, making it yet another "commodity exchange" just like the Chicago Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange.
GE is heavily invested in manufacturing of wind turbines and special batteries, which is explanation for why the CEO Jeffrey Immelt has his media outlet, NBC News so dedicated to pushing Obama's agenda. Which also explains Janeane Garofalo's incessant beat down on conservatives, she is employed by NBC.
Gore was questioned by a journalist about the inaccuracies listed above during a recent environmental meeting, amazingly the journalists mike was cut off. He never got an answer. I think Mr. Gore needs to be willing to have a serious debate before running our electric bills up and creating yet another entitlement program for those who can't afford to pay.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Followup to "Where are they taking us?"
American Daughter's segment on "Hate Crimes Legislation-Back Door Censorship" was more than timely when viewing this headling from today:
Hate Crimes Measure as part of Defense Funding
This makes me ill when they attach a bill onto another totally unrelated. And both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. If it's a worthy bill, it should be able to stand on it's own!!!
Hate Crimes Measure as part of Defense Funding
This makes me ill when they attach a bill onto another totally unrelated. And both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. If it's a worthy bill, it should be able to stand on it's own!!!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Where are they taking us?
With the ease of a progressive, they will slip right in there, "what's so bad about socialism", "we are part of a global community", "collectively we can get more accomplished", "it's morally the right thing to do".
Words are important things people. We were told early on what would happen in just this four year period, "fundamentally transform" and we didn't stop to think what that really meant. We have been asleep for a very long time while they slipped in during the dark of night (ok getting melodramatic here but it's fun) to feed us little bits and drabs of socialism till we wake one day only to realize we've given away our rights and our children's rights.
Goals to take over or collapse our system to be replaced with their own include gaining control over:
transportation
communication
food
healthcare/medicine
manufacturing
finance
Keep the list handy and check off each item as it happens. But only if you are too stupid or asleep to stand up and stop it BEFORE it happens.
I know, you sit there and think that the liberals haven't succeeded in anything substantial in decades so why the alarm bells? Why when all the policies they get in place actually end up failing? But are they failing? Or do they actually have a plan, a plan to overload the system, create their crisis (never let a good crisis go to waste).
That is exactly the strategy put forth in the sixties by Cloward & Piven, radical leftist Columbia University professors.
Cloward and Piven stated that the ruling classes used welfare (Democrats!!) to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. This all began with the Los Angeles Watts riots for Cloward & Piven but the Progressive Movement began much earlier.
American Daughter has an excellent three part series on Cloward & Piven with a final installment entitled "Hate Crimes Legislation - Back Door Censorship". What is especially eye catching to me is the dates - all before the election. They were warning us about Obama BEFORE he won the election. And we didn't listen.
But back to Cloward & Piven. Overloading the system to prove it's inadequacies became their modus operandi. They organized to bring more and more onto the welfare rolls. They started voting rights groups that eventually grew into what we now know as ACORN. They also have strong ties to George Soros' Open Society Institute.
Discover The Networks also has a great write up of our lovely couple. And they are an excellent source of information in general.
If you can read these articles and still sit back to watch Survivor or The Good Wife well, then I have nothing for you. Here's hoping at least a seed has been planted.
Words are important things people. We were told early on what would happen in just this four year period, "fundamentally transform" and we didn't stop to think what that really meant. We have been asleep for a very long time while they slipped in during the dark of night (ok getting melodramatic here but it's fun) to feed us little bits and drabs of socialism till we wake one day only to realize we've given away our rights and our children's rights.
Goals to take over or collapse our system to be replaced with their own include gaining control over:
transportation
communication
food
healthcare/medicine
manufacturing
finance
Keep the list handy and check off each item as it happens. But only if you are too stupid or asleep to stand up and stop it BEFORE it happens.
I know, you sit there and think that the liberals haven't succeeded in anything substantial in decades so why the alarm bells? Why when all the policies they get in place actually end up failing? But are they failing? Or do they actually have a plan, a plan to overload the system, create their crisis (never let a good crisis go to waste).
That is exactly the strategy put forth in the sixties by Cloward & Piven, radical leftist Columbia University professors.
Cloward and Piven stated that the ruling classes used welfare (Democrats!!) to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. This all began with the Los Angeles Watts riots for Cloward & Piven but the Progressive Movement began much earlier.
American Daughter has an excellent three part series on Cloward & Piven with a final installment entitled "Hate Crimes Legislation - Back Door Censorship". What is especially eye catching to me is the dates - all before the election. They were warning us about Obama BEFORE he won the election. And we didn't listen.
But back to Cloward & Piven. Overloading the system to prove it's inadequacies became their modus operandi. They organized to bring more and more onto the welfare rolls. They started voting rights groups that eventually grew into what we now know as ACORN. They also have strong ties to George Soros' Open Society Institute.
Discover The Networks also has a great write up of our lovely couple. And they are an excellent source of information in general.
If you can read these articles and still sit back to watch Survivor or The Good Wife well, then I have nothing for you. Here's hoping at least a seed has been planted.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Was Joe Wilson right?
No, I'm sure President Obama was just "incorrect", wink wink nudge nudge.
There are numerous links in the article which I have posted in it's entirety below but did not have the patience to edit the codes to open new pages. Read below first, then click away. You can go here and check them out for yourself: ARTICLE
You Mislead!
Fact-checking Obama. By Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru
It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse. By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims (note from Joyce, actually it's 21) in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.
1. “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.” The Congressional Budget Office writes, “Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” It is true that individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded.
2. “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”An outright falsehood, whether you use the president’s noncitizen-free estimate or the standard, questionable estimate of 46 million uninsured residents. A study prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted as “uninsured” in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12 million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford estimate that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase coverage, but choose not to do so.
3.“And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” The paper that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses would continue forever. Applying that paper’s methodology to a broader period of rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces a figure below 9,000. It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the 46 million Americans we label “uninsured,” many of those 9,000 will regain coverage after a number of months. (David Freddoso illustrates the absurdity of assuming that all coverage losses are permanent.)
4. “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.” He didn’t die because of it. The originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy Noah, has admitted he got it wrong.
5. “Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.” Scott Harrington supplied more facts in the Wall Street Journal: “The woman’s testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist’s chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.” The woman deserves sympathy, but Obama has stretched the truth here.
6. Rising costs are “why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance.” Perhaps no other issue generates as much of a consensus among health-care economists as this one: The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. In this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic truth. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill.
7. Rising costs are “why American business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage.” False. The rising cost of health benefits does not increase employers’ labor costs because, again, wages adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama economic aide Christina Romer has called this competitiveness argument “schlocky.”
8. “Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.” That number comes from a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report mentioned above reached the same conclusion.
9. At this point, Obama said, “These are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” This comment continues Obama’s already long tradition of trying to curtail debate by denying that anyone disagrees with him.
10. “[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” In July, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said, “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” The CBO projects that the legislation that Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has since introduced “would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to that under current law, during the decade following the 10-year budget window,” but hints that the 40 percent cut in Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which helps Baucus achieve that feat, is politically unrealistic. (More on that below.) Health economist Victor Fuchs writes that the proposals before Congress “aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction.” Obama and his allies have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.
11. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” Obama’s wording is lawyerly: While not denying that his plan would cause people to lose existing coverage with which they are satisfied, he leads us to believe that he is denying it. But even on its own terms, Obama’s claim is false. The CBO estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.” It would also cause some people to lose their coverage.
12. Requiring insurers to cover preventive care “saves money.” Nope. According to a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”
13. “The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens . . . is a lie, plain and simple.” Sarah Palin claimed that Obama’s “death panels” would deny people medical care, not actively kill them. If Palin believes her claim, it is not “a lie, plain and simple.” Most important, the substance of Palin’s claim is, in fact, true. Obama himself proposed a new Independent Medicare Advisory Council with the authority to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled.
14. “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” For better or worse, the president’s plan would, in his words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies, immigration critics, and the media all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible aliens to enroll. The House Democrats’ health-insurance exchange, which Obama supports, would “apply to” undocumented aliens. The CRS writes that the House legislation “does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present.” Nor does it require that the legal status of people receiving subsidies be verified.Finally, Obama supports granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, which would make them eligible for government benefits under his health plan.
15. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Unless Obama refers to some draft legislation inside his head, this claim is false. The House bill allows the “government option” to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House and Baucus bills would subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. (See Douglas Johnson’s comment on this article.)
16. Critics of the public option would “be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” How quickly we forget the example of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washington would not allow the program to fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates. (During the Clinton administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its less-subsidized competitors.
17. “And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.” Unless the president proposes to abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what patients “need.” Such tensions are sure to arise under the president’s IMAC proposal.But even if a new program would be “administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare,” it would interfere in those decisions. As an administrative-law judge wrote to one of us after Obama’s address: “I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and the care prescribed by the physician.”
18. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” “The plan will not add to our deficit.” None of the bills before Congress can credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest, the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller cuts.19. “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” Even the supposedly parsimonious Baucus bill would cost closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion once we “add it all up.” The CBO says that bill would spend a mere $774 billion over ten years, in part because the spending begins late in that ten-year window. Republican staffers on the Senate Budget Committee estimate that the Baucus bill would cost $1.7 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation. Moreover, the preliminary CBO score does not measure the full cost of the bill because it does not include the mandates Baucus would impose on states (about $37 billion) and the private sector (not yet estimated, but 60 percent of total costs in Massachusetts). The other bills would cost even more.
20. “The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn’t a tax, he should listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers, or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied. Both liken the “individual mandate” to a tax, as do other prominent health economists like Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton) and Jonathan Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms that the penalties for non-compliance “would be equivalent to a tax or fine.”If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn’t pay the taxes he wants to impose on the “drug and insurance companies,” he should read this CBO report or talk to the junior senator from West Virginia, who accurately describes those levies as a “big, big tax” on middle-class coalminers.
21. “I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” Who are these special interests? In case Obama hadn’t noticed, everyone from the drug-makers to the unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has promised to buy them off with middle-class tax dollars.
When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.
— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.
There are numerous links in the article which I have posted in it's entirety below but did not have the patience to edit the codes to open new pages. Read below first, then click away. You can go here and check them out for yourself: ARTICLE
You Mislead!
Fact-checking Obama. By Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru
It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse. By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims (note from Joyce, actually it's 21) in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.
1. “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.” The Congressional Budget Office writes, “Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” It is true that individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded.
2. “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”An outright falsehood, whether you use the president’s noncitizen-free estimate or the standard, questionable estimate of 46 million uninsured residents. A study prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted as “uninsured” in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12 million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford estimate that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase coverage, but choose not to do so.
3.“And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” The paper that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses would continue forever. Applying that paper’s methodology to a broader period of rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces a figure below 9,000. It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the 46 million Americans we label “uninsured,” many of those 9,000 will regain coverage after a number of months. (David Freddoso illustrates the absurdity of assuming that all coverage losses are permanent.)
4. “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.” He didn’t die because of it. The originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy Noah, has admitted he got it wrong.
5. “Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.” Scott Harrington supplied more facts in the Wall Street Journal: “The woman’s testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist’s chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.” The woman deserves sympathy, but Obama has stretched the truth here.
6. Rising costs are “why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance.” Perhaps no other issue generates as much of a consensus among health-care economists as this one: The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. In this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic truth. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill.
7. Rising costs are “why American business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage.” False. The rising cost of health benefits does not increase employers’ labor costs because, again, wages adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama economic aide Christina Romer has called this competitiveness argument “schlocky.”
8. “Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.” That number comes from a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report mentioned above reached the same conclusion.
9. At this point, Obama said, “These are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” This comment continues Obama’s already long tradition of trying to curtail debate by denying that anyone disagrees with him.
10. “[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” In July, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said, “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” The CBO projects that the legislation that Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has since introduced “would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to that under current law, during the decade following the 10-year budget window,” but hints that the 40 percent cut in Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which helps Baucus achieve that feat, is politically unrealistic. (More on that below.) Health economist Victor Fuchs writes that the proposals before Congress “aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction.” Obama and his allies have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.
11. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” Obama’s wording is lawyerly: While not denying that his plan would cause people to lose existing coverage with which they are satisfied, he leads us to believe that he is denying it. But even on its own terms, Obama’s claim is false. The CBO estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.” It would also cause some people to lose their coverage.
12. Requiring insurers to cover preventive care “saves money.” Nope. According to a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”
13. “The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens . . . is a lie, plain and simple.” Sarah Palin claimed that Obama’s “death panels” would deny people medical care, not actively kill them. If Palin believes her claim, it is not “a lie, plain and simple.” Most important, the substance of Palin’s claim is, in fact, true. Obama himself proposed a new Independent Medicare Advisory Council with the authority to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled.
14. “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” For better or worse, the president’s plan would, in his words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies, immigration critics, and the media all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible aliens to enroll. The House Democrats’ health-insurance exchange, which Obama supports, would “apply to” undocumented aliens. The CRS writes that the House legislation “does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present.” Nor does it require that the legal status of people receiving subsidies be verified.Finally, Obama supports granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, which would make them eligible for government benefits under his health plan.
15. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Unless Obama refers to some draft legislation inside his head, this claim is false. The House bill allows the “government option” to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House and Baucus bills would subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. (See Douglas Johnson’s comment on this article.)
16. Critics of the public option would “be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” How quickly we forget the example of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washington would not allow the program to fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates. (During the Clinton administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its less-subsidized competitors.
17. “And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.” Unless the president proposes to abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what patients “need.” Such tensions are sure to arise under the president’s IMAC proposal.But even if a new program would be “administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare,” it would interfere in those decisions. As an administrative-law judge wrote to one of us after Obama’s address: “I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and the care prescribed by the physician.”
18. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” “The plan will not add to our deficit.” None of the bills before Congress can credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest, the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller cuts.19. “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” Even the supposedly parsimonious Baucus bill would cost closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion once we “add it all up.” The CBO says that bill would spend a mere $774 billion over ten years, in part because the spending begins late in that ten-year window. Republican staffers on the Senate Budget Committee estimate that the Baucus bill would cost $1.7 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation. Moreover, the preliminary CBO score does not measure the full cost of the bill because it does not include the mandates Baucus would impose on states (about $37 billion) and the private sector (not yet estimated, but 60 percent of total costs in Massachusetts). The other bills would cost even more.
20. “The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn’t a tax, he should listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers, or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied. Both liken the “individual mandate” to a tax, as do other prominent health economists like Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton) and Jonathan Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms that the penalties for non-compliance “would be equivalent to a tax or fine.”If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn’t pay the taxes he wants to impose on the “drug and insurance companies,” he should read this CBO report or talk to the junior senator from West Virginia, who accurately describes those levies as a “big, big tax” on middle-class coalminers.
21. “I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” Who are these special interests? In case Obama hadn’t noticed, everyone from the drug-makers to the unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has promised to buy them off with middle-class tax dollars.
When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.
— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Lesson for Americans
Had to post this from another forum:
Unfortunately, Americans never seem to learn
What you should really take from this story is the true way our founding fathers envisioned this country working. That is, the vast majority of the power over our everyday lives residing in our state and local governments with our Federal government only being responsible for a very narrow list of items.
And why, you might ask, is this so important. Because when a state or local government gets horribly bad, YOU CAN MOVE. This was the ultimate check and balance on governmental power. How can a government be oppressive when it has no one left to govern?
And it works no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on. You think gay marriage is a great idea but your state doesn’t recognize it, move to a state that does. You believe the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to carry a concealed weapon, move to a state that allows that. You think government healthcare is the solution, move to a state that provides it. You think low taxes and minimal government regulation is the kind of place you want to start a business, move to a state that provides those.
See, our founding fathers understood that there is no perfect governmental system. They didn’t write the constitution to be conservative or liberal. What they did was create a system that would allow the different governmental ideas to compete within a framework of liberty. As long as a State government doesn’t violate the constitution, it is free to be as socialist or capitalist as it wants, with one important restriction, you can’t lock your citizens in or keep other citizens out.
You see, if a State government screws up so bad that they ruin the prosperity of the citizenry, the citizens can leave and stay in America. But when the Federal government screws up, then we are all stuck with the consequences. So please, to my fellow citizens on the left and right, stop supporting laws that empower the Federal government, because while the power you give them today may be used to do what you think is right, they power could very well be in the hands of the other side tomorrow.
By paganposts @ 09/29/09 09:48:29 AMreport abuse
Unfortunately, Americans never seem to learn
What you should really take from this story is the true way our founding fathers envisioned this country working. That is, the vast majority of the power over our everyday lives residing in our state and local governments with our Federal government only being responsible for a very narrow list of items.
And why, you might ask, is this so important. Because when a state or local government gets horribly bad, YOU CAN MOVE. This was the ultimate check and balance on governmental power. How can a government be oppressive when it has no one left to govern?
And it works no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on. You think gay marriage is a great idea but your state doesn’t recognize it, move to a state that does. You believe the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to carry a concealed weapon, move to a state that allows that. You think government healthcare is the solution, move to a state that provides it. You think low taxes and minimal government regulation is the kind of place you want to start a business, move to a state that provides those.
See, our founding fathers understood that there is no perfect governmental system. They didn’t write the constitution to be conservative or liberal. What they did was create a system that would allow the different governmental ideas to compete within a framework of liberty. As long as a State government doesn’t violate the constitution, it is free to be as socialist or capitalist as it wants, with one important restriction, you can’t lock your citizens in or keep other citizens out.
You see, if a State government screws up so bad that they ruin the prosperity of the citizenry, the citizens can leave and stay in America. But when the Federal government screws up, then we are all stuck with the consequences. So please, to my fellow citizens on the left and right, stop supporting laws that empower the Federal government, because while the power you give them today may be used to do what you think is right, they power could very well be in the hands of the other side tomorrow.
By paganposts @ 09/29/09 09:48:29 AMreport abuse
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Are we heading for war?
The headlines lately have me very concerned.
Iran test-fires short-range missiles...
'Could reach Israel'...
Revolutionary Guards begins war games...
Venezuela exploring uranium deposits with Russia...
China to display upgraded missiles in Oct 1 parade...
India raises nuclear stakes; Can make high-yield weapons...
The above all come from today's Drudge report, but you can find these and versions just about anywhere you look.
Brazil also wants their own nuclear arms, course they have been secretly working on this for awhile:
We have some very unstable individuals in charge of these weapons. The centrifuges Iran has been working on (one plant in secret it seems) are of the most modern technology. Thirty to forty years ahead of our own. More efficient, faster turn around.
I wouldn't want to be a harbinger of doom, but these are important issues and the players need to be watched.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
