Saturday, December 5, 2009

Barney Frank..."Drunk with power!"

Barney Frank Commands Police To Arrest Constituents? source: Sonoran Weekly
Angel Fleming

Angel Fleming

Two concerned citizens from Massachusetts, Shane Hayes and Angel Fleming, traveled to Washington DC to protest the Health care bill and to confront their representatives.

Shane and Angel decided to make a “Blogumentary” about the 5th of November, and this story instantly became a wakeup call to many Americans. This “Blogumentary” can be viewed at:

While Fleming and Hayes intended to capture “history-in-the-making” that fateful day in front of the steps of Congress, they walked away with much more. In the aforementioned link, Ms Fleming and Mr. Hayes provide a story no one else could. You see, Ms Fleming’s representative is the one and only Barney Frank.

While thousands of people ran through the halls of Congress seeking their elected officials, Ms Fleming was the ONLY ONE who was from Barney Frank’s district. She, therefore, was able to not only sit down with him behind closed doors, but she challenged him on the Constitution in ways no one else ever has.

November 5th Washington DC

November 5th Washington DC

Barney Frank quickly grew very argumentative with Ms Fleming at first and challenged her in her support of democracy; Ms Fleming interrupted him and fired back with “Sir, we do not have a democracy; we have a REPUBLIC and our founding fathers warned against the dangers of democracy. Democracy leads to partisan politics and what eventually happens is there becomes a ruling party to control all branches of our government-one branch kowtows to the next and that is an OLIGARCHY which is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

Mr. Frank went cross-eyed at the word “oligarchy” and decided to ignore Ms Fleming by pretending to read a newspaper. Ms Fleming then went on to call Frank “drunk with power”. She told him he’d been in office too long; he doesn’t even know what his job description is. She told him to stop acting childish and listen to her…

When Frank got bored with the “I’m not hearing you” game, he ordered a Capitol Police officer to arrest her. The “Blogumentary” also covers Ms Fleming’s detainment with the officer. Shane Hayes managed to get secret video of the exchange with the police, exposing not only the cop’s honest surprise that ANYONE got in to see Frank, but the cop changed his mind in arresting Ms Fleming when she demanded to know what law she was breaking. The cop said that he’s not sure what he could have “gotten her on” but “that’s what they have lawyers for.” He pretty much admitted the capitol police that day were looking to “cuff and stuff” these peaceful protesting citizens on PUBLIC PROPERTY and sort it out later legally. You can view this exchange below.

This story has become quite an expos√© of the “goings on” in DC and people have responded overwhelmingly to Fleming and Hayes’ little blogging venture. We feel this story should have national exposure in order to reach more citizens who maybe haven’t quite realized just how bad our politicians have become. They’re elite and arrogant and truly think they’re better than us. We can sum this up in the moment Ms Fleming was being forcibly removed from Frank’s office, Barney Frank yelled to her as she was just out of his door “Good riddance, bigot!”

Please take a moment to view the “Blogumentary” and see if we can get the word out on this. Ms Fleming has vowed that she will do everything within her power to remove this hack from office.

Shane Hayes

Angel Fleming
twitter: angelCOTErack

Will Congressional Scrooges End Christmas As We Know It?

Miniumum Wage Law Meets It's Kin ...shh don't tell anyone, but we will soon have a maximum pay law

Click on picture to enlarge.
Senate Democrats target pay of health insurance executives
By Alexander Bolton

Senate Democrats will offer an amendment this weekend to curb the pay of executives at health insurance companies that benefit from federal subsidies, fueling the growing feud with the powerful industry.

Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have sponsored an amendment that would prohibit health insurance companies from deducting more than $400,000 in executive compensation per individual. The cap would apply to companies that earned 25 percent or more of their income from Americans who buy insurance from government-created exchanges.

The Senate will debate the measure Saturday morning and is expected to vote on it around 3 p.m.

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats started the healthcare debate earlier this year by forming a tentative truce with the insurance industry but that now appears finished.

Democratic rhetoric against the insurance industry has become increasingly critical as the debate has progressed.

Earlier this fall, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed a proposal to revoke the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies have enjoyed since the mid-1940s. Reid later backed off, however, and decided to not to include the provision in the Senate healthcare bill.

But other Democrats have set their sights on the profitable industry as lawmakers look for innovative ways to curb healthcare costs and avoid the perception that the pending Senate legislation amounts to a massive giveaway to healthcare companies. Some liberal critics charge the legislation would not do enough to curb the excesses of health insurance companies, especially if it does not include a government-run insurance program.

“By eliminating an enormous tax deduction that allows insurance companies to line the pockets of their executives, this proposal will raise about $651 million over the next 10 years, which will be required to go toward the Medicare trust fund,” Lincoln told reporters Friday afternoon.

Lincoln noted that if healthcare reform legislation becomes law, insurance companies would receive millions of new customers.

“Our amendment will make sure that premiums these new enrollees are spent on better care and not executive salaries,” she said.

Lincoln on Friday reiterated her opposition to the public option, which some liberal Democrats believe is essential to prevent the bill from becoming a multi-billion dollar giveaway to the insurance industry.

“I’ve been very clear, I don’t support a public option that is government-funded or government-run that puts the taxpayer at risk in the long run,” Lincoln said.

The Arkansas lawmaker said she would even oppose setting the public option to a trigger if the insurance program ultimately implemented would be controlled or funded by the government.

Lincoln said she was skeptical of the claims of other Democrats that a public option would be self-sufficient and would not rely on a stream of federal revenues.

“I haven’t seen the mechanisms that make that happen yet,” she said. “I will reassure you that I am going to look at everything and am going to judge it based on that. I’m going to judge it based on whether or not there is long-term risk to the taxpayer and whether government-funded and government-run.”


Farah and the Major...The Story Behind The Picture

Source: Michael Yon online

First Published May 14, 2005


Major Mark Bieger found this little girl after the car bomb that attacked our guys while kids were crowding around. The soldiers here have been angry and sad for two days. They are angry because the terrorists could just as easily have waited a block or two and attacked the patrol away from the kids. Instead, the suicide bomber drove his car and hit the Stryker when about twenty children were jumping up and down and waving at the soldiers. Major Bieger, I had seen him help rescue some of our guys a week earlier during another big attack, took some of our soldiers and rushed this little girl to our hospital. He wanted her to have American surgeons and not to go to the Iraqi hospital. She didn’t make it. I snapped this picture when Major Bieger ran to take her away. He kept stopping to talk with her and hug her.

The soldiers went back to that neighborhood the next day to ask what they could do. The people were very warm and welcomed us into their homes, and many kids were actually running up to say hello and to ask soldiers to shake hands.

Eventually, some insurgents must have realized we were back and started shooting at us. The American soldiers and Iraqi police started engaging the enemy and there was a running gun battle. I saw at least one IP who was shot, but he looked okay and actually smiled at me despite the big bullet hole in his leg. I smiled back.

One thing seems certain; the people in that neighborhood share our feelings about the terrorists. We are going to go back there, and if any terrorists come out, the soldiers hope to find them. Everybody is still very angry that the insurgents attacked us when the kids were around. Their day will come.

[Post Script]
The reaction to my photo of Major Bieger cradling Farah, the little girl who died in his arms, provoked a flood of messages and heartfelt responses from caring people around the world. I have spent the last several days trying to read every message, and respond to as many as possible, but the flow has finally outpaced me, much as the swiftness of a river will finally defeat even the most determined swimmer.

This morning there was a banging on my door. It was “Q,” loaded for battle, weapon in hand, wearing the military radio headphones with the microphone that wrapped around his face. Bang, Bang, Bang! Q hit my door.

“Mike! Where are you?!”
“Hold on,” I said, opening the door.
“Why aren’t you ready! Grab your gear . . . we’re going!” My worn-out boots sat empty in the corner.
“I can’t go today,” I said, glancing in the direction of my laptop.
“Just tell them I can’t go today.”
“Okay!” And Q trotted off back to his Stryker, leaving me behind. The soldiers rolled out on their mission without me.

And now I sit here, answering a few final emails, while the men of Deuce Four patrol in Mosul. My hands may be here, but my head and heart are on the streets in the struggle. I’ve been riding the wave of interest and feedback from that photo, but I need to get back to what I seem best equipped to do–posting dispatches about what is happening here in Iraq. I will continue to read every message, and I offer my sincere thanks in advance for everyone who takes the time to send one, but, alas, with this dispatch, I must swim to shore.


Friday, December 4, 2009

What if... Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck receives the following e-mail...I'll give you time to read it... ... ... ... ... ...
Good, now that you've read it what do you think? Is the message threatening or just wishful thinking. Read it again, "I think you should be...executed." Threat or no-threat?
If someone thinks about execution (murder/killing) are they capable of following through with their thoughts? Would you call this thinking premeditation? Is premeditation a crime? Premeditated murder is a crime. In my humble opinion all murders are premeditated (except in a war zone where one kills for self preservation...the ole kill or be killed philosophy.) Do law enforcement agencies have any jurisdiction or interest in this email? Can they arrest the writer? (I think they should.)

Now that you have thoroughly analysed the email let me change the subject slightly. Do you value the life of one person over another? Two strangers...are they equal. One stranger, one friend...are they equal? One friend, one relative, are they equal? In other words would you place more value over your kinfolk being murdered versus the stranger. I think I know your answer. What would you say should happen to Mat (the author of the email) if you or your mother received the message? If Barack Husein Obama received such a message I believe the secret service would be at Mat's door in very quick time. And with that said, I believe that Glen Beck's life is just as valuable as that $(%@#*! in the White House therefor Mat should be checked out by the very quick time! ~ Norman E. Hooben

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself."

A Swiss Entitlement...ammunition! Now that's a novel idea. I'll have to suggest this to our Liberal friends in Congress. At least the cause will be worthy. What could be more worthy than freedom?

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Scientists lied, Kyoto died. Hallelujah. - "Told you so."

It has once been said that nobody likes an 'I-told-you-so'. Well in this case it's, "We told you so!" And I'm proud to be a member of the 'We' group! All the people of whom I associate with, both personally and professionally, are one-hundred percent in unison over the so-called man made global warming issue...otherwise know as anthropological global warming. That is not to say I do not know anyone who believes otherwise... the quacks are out there! Most of them are in Congress and at least one resides in the White House. As for those who don't like us, that would include the main stream media who have taken sides with the Al Gore fear mongers, the so-called scientists who manipulated data (see the damning emails chart below), and the worst of the worse, the United Nations.

Source: Daily Mail

If we could place the blame for all the climate change controversy on one party then that would be the United Nations...they're in it for the money and more importantly 'control'...control over you and the rest of the world! (We told you about this before!)

Oh, and before I forget, Al Gore must really be storming mad for he was just about to be recognized at the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to promote his book, "Our Choice" when he suddenly cancels his trip. What's up Al, does this inconvenient truth exposed by the whistle blower hit a little to close to home? And if you went to Copenhagen, do you think they might ask that you return that undeserved Nobel Peace prize...poor baby! ~ Norman E. Hooben
Chris Horner: Climate-Gate E-Mails Released by Whistleblower, Not Hacker

I O U O we owe ...How can we control this run away debt?

Source: The Heritage Foundation

To Control National Debt, Congress Needs to Tackle Entitlements

For most individuals, maxing out one's credit card is usually a sign of a spending problem -- but not if you're Congress. For the first time in history, the national debt has hit $12 trillion, and it will soon exceed the $12.1 trillion maximum amount of debt allowed by law. Yet Congress needs only to vote to give itself a higher credit limit to keep spending. An increase is inevitable because the government must fund current programs and make interest payments on existing debt, but this time will likely be the single greatest one-time increase in history, with initial estimates ranging between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.

Such red ink is unsustainable over the long-term, which is why this increase should compel Congress to control spending. The main drivers of spending now and in the future are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and Congress ought to recognize that it is time to fundamentally reform these programs as it takes a shameful vote to saddle future generations with more debt.

Why Does Debt Matter?

When Congress raises the debt limit, it ups its ability to issue two kinds of debt that each have different economic consequences. The first type is debt held by the public, which is the total of all past budget deficits plus interest and is owned by individuals, corporations, and foreign governments. The second part is debt held by the government, which represents money that was borrowed by the government from surpluses in the Social Security trust fund and other accounts and spent by other government entities.

The public debt, which makes up $7.6 trillion of the $12 trillion total debt subject to limit,[1] has the greatest economic significance for two key reasons. First, government must pay interest expenses on it to avoid default. In fiscal year 2009, interest payments on the public debt were $202 billion, or roughly 1.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[2] The larger these interest payments become, the less budgetary flexibility Congress and the President have to fund other spending priorities.

Second, publicly held debt has a direct effect on credit markets. Treasury securities must be sold to finance the federal deficit, which reached a record $1.4 trillion this year, and these securities compete with private securities for buyers and reduce national savings.[3] As the money available for private investment is diminished by government borrowing, private investment decreases, leading to lower productivity, wages, and economic growth.[4]

Debt held by the government, which stands at $4.4 trillion, can be thought of as future debt whose economic consequences will not be felt for some time. Because government debt is issued from one part of the government to another, it is effectively an accounting mechanism that has no impact on current credit markets.

However, eventually the government will have to repay debt it has loaned itself. For instance, the Social Security trust fund, which is the largest financer of inter-government debt, contains IOUs that will need to be repaid beginning in 2016. Unless other spending is cut to fund repayment, new publicly held debt would have to be issued at that time, resulting in a dollar-for-dollar shift from government to public debt.

This shifting of government debt to public debt would not, by itself, cause the total stock of debt to change. However, as the new public debt accrues interest, the compounding would cause the public debt to rise significantly.

It's All Downhill from Here

The recession and excessive spending have caused the debt held by the public to grow sharply to 56 percent of the economy, topping the historical average of 36 percent. Publicly held debt must not grow faster than the economy if it is to be sustainable; otherwise the demand on capital markets would be so severe that private and foreign lenders would stop buying U.S. securities. Yet the U.S. is rapidly headed in that direction.

Credit rating agencies have recently signaled that current and projected deficit levels threaten America's AAA credit rating.[5] But as early as a year ago, Moody's warned that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures posed a severe threat to ratings over the long term.[6]

Such warnings have not gone unnoticed by major U.S. lenders, particularly China, which holds more than $1 trillion of U.S. debt and whose citizens have even laughed at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for claiming that their investments in treasury securities are "safe."[7]

This new $1 trillion debt increase will certainly capture the attention of creditors and taxpayers.

No One Said This Would Be Easy

Americans are rightly intolerant of congressional profligacy, and this monumental increase in the debt limit will demonstrate Congress's poor record of fiscal restraint. To avoid scrutiny, congressional leadership will likely try to sneak the debt limit increase into a "must-pass" measure, such as a continuing budget resolution or the defense appropriations bill.[8]

Such parliamentary gamesmanship would tie the hands of those Members who want to have a full debate about this ruinous spending. Instead, Congress should recognize its past overspending mistakes and take a standalone vote on the increase.

Because this will be a difficult vote, many in Congress may be inclined to increase the limit by an amount large enough to avoid another increase before their next election, but such evasion should not be tolerated by taxpayers. Any increase this year should also be no larger than what is required to fund necessary spending.

Time for Serious Action

To avoid perpetual trillion-dollar debt limit increases, Members of Congress should also finally address the long-term entitlement-driven budget problem. Adding to today's deeply troubling spending-driven public debt levels, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that as Social Security IOUs are redeemed and rising health care costs drive up expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid, the publicly held debt will exceed 320 percent of GDP by 2050. Net interest expense by that time will increase nearly tenfold from today's level of 1.4 percent of GDP to 13.5 percent.[9]

One way to address this issue would be to establish a commission to address entitlement reform as part of an agreement to increase the debt limit. A growing number of Members -- led by Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) in the Senate and Representatives Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Jim Cooper (D-TN) in the House -- are calling for a vote that would require exactly that.

An effective commission would require that Congress restrain entitlement growth by placing the programs on long-term budgets, which would prevent the national debt from growing on autopilot. Congress should also rethink the entire notion of what debt "matters" and include a measure of the long-term entitlement obligations -- equal to about $44 trillion (net present value) -- in the federal budget. Indeed, it is impossible to have an honest conversation about a $1 trillion debt increase without an acknowledgement of future debt as well.[10]

Do It for the Kids

Today's $12 trillion debt is small compared to the debt that future generations stand to inherit from unchecked entitlement spending. Congress should build budget controls to spare them this crushing and immoral burden. Reforming entitlement programs, which are the main drivers of government spending and borrowing, should be front and center in this effort.

Failure to act will guarantee that future Congresses will have to raise the debt limit many more times and that future generations will pay the price. Responsible fiscal stewardship requires hard choices. Congress must prove it is up to the task by debating the issue on its own merit and taking this hard vote without the subterfuge of burying it in "must-pass" legislation.

Nicola Moore is Assistant Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation

[1]U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It," at (November 25, 2009).

[2]Congressional Budget Office, "Monthly Budget Review," November 6, 2009, at (November 17, 2009).


[4]See J. D. Foster, "Keynesian Fiscal Stimulus Policies Stimulate Debt -- Not the Economy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2302, July 27, 2009, at

[5]Lita Epstein, "Moody's Warning on the U.S. Credit Rating: A Bit of Payback?," Daily Finance, Oct. 22, 2009, at
(November 23, 2009).

[6]Reuters, "Moody's: U.S. Rating Could Be Pressured in Long Term," January 10, 2008, at
(November 23, 2009).

[7]Reuters, "Geithner Tells China Its Dollar Assets Are Safe," June 1, 2009, at
(November 25, 2009).

[8]In fact, the last time the debt limit was increased was with the passage of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which occurred during a time of economic crisis.

[9]Congressional Budget Office, "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," June 2009, at (November 23, 2009). Figures are drawn from CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario.

[10]See Stuart M. Butler, "Bipartisan Entitlement Commission Needed to Control Spending and Debt," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2698, November 16, 2009, at

Tiger the real story unfolds

If this statement is true then you don't have to understand Chinese to know what really happened. "Celebrity Web site reported that a source said Nordegren scratched Woods’ face after she went berserk and chased him with a golf club, striking his vehicle as he ran from the home." Source:Tiger Woods 'Mistress' Rachel Uchitel Flees NYC (Photos, Video)


Picture Of The Day ...moment of truth

H-T to Texas Fred

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 wasn't always ice and snow...and now the European Union knows! (When will Al Gore give up?)

Several weeks ago during our regularly scheduled radio program The Constitutional Americans, (WJRM) while discussing the global warming fiasco I brought up the Greenland example...just as this fella did (I just thought it was a coincidence that his words mirrored mine)
~ Storm'n Norm'n

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

"Environmentalism" ...This 'WILL' be your religion! (If the United Nations has it's way!)

This is scary stuff! When you're finished here go here for more scary stuff. Why are you not worried? The UN will soon control everything you do!
While you are perusing ask yourself this, "Would you rather we make the rules for ourselves or they make the rules for you?" ...we are long past the time to get out of the United Nations the most corrupt organization ever devised by man! ~ Norman E. Hooben
Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks
Source: FOX News

By George Russell

Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.

The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world's top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to "the center of political and economic decision-making" around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

The positions argued in that paper now appear to be much closer at hand; many of them are embedded in a four-year strategy document for UNEP taking effect next year, in the immediate wake of the much-touted, 11-day Copenhagen conference on "climate change," which starts on Dec. 7, and which is intended to push environmental concerns to a new crescendo.

The major difference is that the four-year UNEP plan expresses its aims in the carefully soporific language that U.N. organizations customarily use to swaddle their objectives. The Swiss document makes its case passionately — and more plainly — than any U.N. official document ever would.

The ambitious paper, entitled "The UNEP That We Want," was the product of a select group of 20 top environmental bureaucrats and thinkers, including UNEP's current No. 2 official, Angela Cropper. The document was later delivered to UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

Other participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen; Julia Marton-Lefevre, head of the World Conservation Union; Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, a Bulgarian academic who is director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

Another important attendee was John Scanlon, listed on UNEP's website as principal advisor to UNEP's Steiner. Among other things, Scanlon is credited in his UNEP biography with being the leader in developing UNEP's new medium-term strategy, "Environment for Development," covering the period from 2010 to 2013. The draft version of the strategy was presented to a UNEP's Governing Council and a meeting of the world's environmental minister's in February 2008, and subsequently approved.

The Swiss paper was written not by Scanlon but by Mark Halle, the Europe-based director of trade and investment for an influential environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which originated in Canada and now operates in some 30 countries. IISD, which still has heavy Canadian government support, bills itself as a research institute promoting policies that are "simultaneously beneficial to the global economy, the global environment and to social well-being."

Even though all of the Swiss participants took part in the brainstorming, the responsibility for the ideas in the paper are his own, Halle emphasized to Fox News, after he was contacted last week about the document. The paper itself says it offers "elements," not a "complete offering," of what UNEP should consider for its role in the years ahead.

Despite those limitations, the report was "very well received" by UNEP's hierarchy, according to Halle, and "it has had a great impact internally." He added, "I have participated in several discussions and presentations of the ideas."

Click here to read Halle's document.

In fact, there is a high degree of overlap between the ideas pulled together at the small Swiss meeting of experts and the ideas that also appear in the new strategic plan for UNEP, a copy of which has been obtained by Fox News.

Click here to read the UNEP four-year strategy.

Those ideas are being espoused at a highly charged time. Both environmentalists and the entire United Nations, led by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are still fervently pressuring governments around the world to sign a legally binding and more global successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas suppression, which expires in 2012. At the moment, that deal appears likely to be delayed, at least until next spring, as some wealthy countries, including the U.S., balk at the high cost and potentially crippling economic impact of targets to reduce carbon emissions into the earth's atmosphere, even though President Barack Obama supports an ambitious Copenhagen deal.

But UNEP's strategic plan, as well as the IISD document that grew out of the Swiss gathering, look well beyond the horizon of Copenhagen in suggesting the outlines of the world's environment-centered future, to what the strategic plan calls "the next phase in the evolution of UNEP."

Among other things, both documents argue for:

—a "new and central position for environmentalism in the world's thinking," as the Swiss paper puts it. "The current environmental challenges and opportunities will cause the environment to move from often being considered as a marginal issue at the intergovernmental and national levels to the centre of political and economic decision-making," says the medium-term plan.

—a new position in the international power game for UNEP, reaching far beyond the member governments that currently finance its core budget and make up its normal supervisors. "It will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency," as the Swiss paper puts it.

UNEP will "actively reach out to Governments, other United Nations entities, international institutions, multilateral environmental agreement secretariats, civil society, the private sector and other relevant partners to implement the Medium-term Strategy," says the UNEP document.

—a major restructuring of international institutions to merge environmental issues with economics as the central priority. "We require an Environmental Bretton Woods for the 21st Century," Halle argues — a reference to the meeting that laid the foundations of Western international finance and economic regulation after World War II. "The linkages between environmental sustainability and the economy will emerge as a key focus for public policymaking and a determinant of future markets opportunities," according to the UNEP strategic plan.

—new environmental rules, regulations and standards, and the linking of existing environmental agreements, in a stronger global lattice-work of environmental law, with stronger authority to command national governments. The Swiss paper calls it a series of "ambitious yet incremental adjustments" to international environmental governance. Indeed, the document says, UNEP's "role is to 'tee up' the next generation of such rules."

The UNEP four-year strategy puts it more obliquely, and only in a footnote on page 7 of the document: "UNEP will actively participate in the continuing international environmental governance discussions both within and outside the United Nations system, noting the repeated calls to strengthen UNEP, including its financial base, and the 'evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.'"

—an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to "children and youth" as well as business and political groups, to support UNEP strategic objectives.

As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP "should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP's stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world's governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector." At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be "harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments."

The official four-year plan uses more restrained language in declaring that "civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns.... Civil society will also be engaged to assist with UNEP outreach efforts." (The term "civil society," as used by the U.N., usually refers to organizations and associations that have received formal recognition from one branch or another of the sprawling world organization.)

—along with increased political leverage for UNEP, bringing increased financial leverage to its cause, once again by reaching beyond the national environmental ministries that traditionally are the organization's financial base to more powerful sectors of government as well as business and other interest groups that will see profit and advantage in the new, environment centered approach.

Says the Swiss paper: "UNEP must focus on priorities that meet two characteristics: they should appeal to the more powerful [government] ministers responsible for economic policy; and they should empower environmental ministers at the cabinet table. UNEP's message is not for environment ministers — the already converted.... It must aim higher."

As UNEP's four-year strategy more circumspectly puts it: "Mobilizing sufficient finance to meet environmental challenges, including climate change, extends well beyond global mechanisms negotiated under conventions. It will require efforts at local, national and global levels to engage with Governments and the private sector to achieve the necessary additional investment and financial flows."

As far as UNEP itself is concerned, the document says, the organization "will raise contributions from the private sector, foundations and non-environmental funding windows…Funds will also be drawn from humanitarian, crisis and peacebuilding instruments, where appropriate."

—Perhaps the most important function both documents see for the newly enhanced UNEP is to seek influence as the world's guiding arbiter of a new measurement of human development. "We believe the environmental argument should be recast in terms of its importance for and potential contribution to prosperity, stability and equity," the Swiss paper argues.

Or, more discreetly, as the strategy document puts it: "Integrated environmental assessments that highlight the state of the environment and trends will be used to inform decision-makers and ensure UNEP plays its lead environmental role in the United Nations system and strengthens its capacity to respond better to the global, regional and national needs of Governments."

According to Halle, however, in an e-mail exchange with Fox News, there are signs that the hugely ambitious role he and his fellow-thinkers sketched for UNEP as religion's main competitor are "beginning to happen." Halle pointed to UNEP's espousal this year of a so-called Green Economy Initiative, a proposal to radically redesign the global economy and transfer trillions of dollars in investment to the world's poorest developing countries, but one that is couched in terms of providing new green jobs, an end to old, unfair carbon-based energy subsidies, and greater global fairness and opportunity. Halle called the development "quite exciting."

The Green Economy Initiative, also called the Global Green New Deal, is a major counterpart to the new treaty on greenhouse gas suppression that all branches of the United Nations, and a horde of environmental organizations, are lobbying loudly to bring to agreement at the environmental summit in Copenhagen.

It is certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.

The Invasion it becoming the forgotten war?

In case you have forgotten we are being invaded on our southern border... we speak!
What happens to the captives?
Whatever happens remember this, "You're paying for it!"

Monday, November 30, 2009

Manufactured Healthcare Crisis ...can we spread this around to the politically inactive

Note: The people who should be reading this will not because they are psychologically captive. Rationale can be found here. ~ Norman E. Hooben
As a nation we have been asleep for years. Lulled by affluence and self-indulgent apathy, our collective awareness has grown dim. This has created an opening for our enemies, one that may ultimately prove fatal. This is the truth and what we do, or don't do, will determine the consequences, for better or worse. It is time to decide. ~ Source: Truth & Consequences

Manufactured Healthcare Crisis

These are perilous times. Last November’s election of Barack Obama and a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in both houses allowed a virulent criminal cabal to capture our nation’s seat of power. As with the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006, it was a disaster of epic proportions. With one shocking, enormous, blatantly partisan, self-serving and destructive proposal following on the heels of another, the sheer enormity of their power grab defies description. But as each new proposal moves forward, the hand of the Crisis Strategy becomes clear.

If there was ever any doubt that Barack Obama personifies the Crisis Strategy, it should long since have been removed for anyone with a mind. Since so many Americans seem to have lost theirs, I address this to the rest of you. For with God’s help, it is you and I, not our gutless, hapless, corrupt politicians, nor our sleeping populace that will save this country or allow it to fall.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, the Crisis Strategy was the brainchild of two radical socialist college professors, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The idea was to overwhelm government with demands for services to the point where the system would collapse and provide an opening for the socialists to take over.

Their strategy was behind creation of the National Welfare Rights Organization in the 1960s and 1970s which dramatically increased the welfare roles and caused the near bankruptcy of New York City in 1975; creation of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), prime instigators of the mortgage meltdown; the national Motor Voter law signed by President Clinton in 1993, which opened the floodgates to vote fraud by ACORN and similar groups; and the illegal immigrant amnesty movement. As we all should know by now, Barack Obama worked with and trained ACORN workers for many years, and is known and supported by all the major players in this movement.

Healthcare nationalization is a major component of this strategy. As Lenin said, “Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” The Left has agitated almost since the turn of the last century for some kind of socialized healthcare system. In fact, from 1939 forward, practically every Congressional session proposed national healthcare legislation. As aptly described in an incisive analysis of Medicare by the Cato Institute:

For more than 50 years before the 1965 enactment of Medicare, the American people repeatedly rejected the idea of government-mandated health insurance. Yet advocates of such federal power inside and outside of government did not take no for an answer. Year after year they kept coming back--pursuing incremental strategies, misrepresenting their proposals, even distributing propaganda paid for with government money in apparent violation of existing law.

Their dream was partially realized with creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." The stated goal of these programs was to provide comprehensive healthcare for seniors and the poor. As the programs grew, the Left clamored for ever more benefits to these groups and ever expanding definitions of covered individuals. Illegal immigration, also encouraged by the Left, contributed to a rapidly growing pool of beneficiaries.

Like any free good, demand for services under these programs has skyrocketed. Spending levels were insignificant in the early years, but today Medicare and Medicaid today comprise 36 percent of total US healthcare spending.

Medicare was originally to be funded with “Hospital Insurance” (HI) premiums tacked onto the Social Security FICA tax. No one seriously believed the HI tax would cover all costs. And despite more than quadrupling the HI tax rate from 0.7 percent to 2.9 percent, it hasn’t. Today HI taxes cover a mere 40 percent of Medicare spending. About 21 percent comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries and other sources. Fully 39 percent comes from general revenues (i.e. you and me, pal.) Citation here.

Medicaid is funded roughly 50/50 by federal and state governments. As an essentially free benefit to the poor, Medicaid has no tax associated with it, so it is covered by state and federal income tax revenues – that’s you and me again, sucker. In 2006, Medicaid spending alone totaled $314 billion. For perspective, this is roughly equivalent to the baseline defense budget (i.e. excluding war spending like for Iraq/Afghanistan). State Medicaid programs are the largest single recipient of all federal grants, comprising 43 percent of the total.

In 2008, federal Medicaid and Medicare spending totaled $656 billion. Comprising only 2.8 percent of the federal budget in 1967, these two programs today consume 22 percent of total federal spending. This is the largest component of the federal budget, even exceeding total wartime outlays for national defense.

Corrected for inflation, Medicare and Medicaid spending has increased by 2,735 percent since funding began in 1967. That is a real annual growth rate of 8.5 percent, almost three times the annual rate of economic growth for the same period.[1]

All these effects were predicted by economists, and we were repeatedly warned. The Left knew.

These spiraling costs have to be covered somehow. The Left knew this too. Besides raiding the General Fund, the federal government has used its monopsony power to strong arm ever greater price concessions from the healthcare industry. Medicare and Medicaid reimburse doctors a small and shrinking portionof the fees needed to cover their costs.

For example, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recently responded to President Obama's wildly false claim that Surgeons charge "$30,000, $40,000 [or] $50,000" for a foot amputation. Instead they say, "Medicare reimbursements to physicians for foot amputations range from approximately $700 to $1200 which includes the follow up care the surgeon provides to the patient up to 90 days after the operation." That is simply outrageous!

Private insurance on the other hand, provides a larger reimbursement, and uninsured individuals who do not qualify for the government programs pay full price. These prices are much higher than they would be in absence of the government programs because medical providers have to recoup their costs somehow. And because the pool of Medicare and Medicaid recipients continues to grow, prices keep going up.

So while private citizens pay the lion’s share of taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid, we are also cross-subsidizing these government programs through higher insurance premiums than we would otherwise pay. This is a primary reason medical care has become more expensive.

The left has attacked the private healthcare system from another angle as well: malpractice lawsuits. It has gone largely unreported in the mass media, but the dramatic expansion of all forms of liability lawsuits since the 1960s is the result of a deliberate, organized effort by leftist law professors to turn civil courts into agents of income redistribution. By undermining contract law and expanding the definition of liability – ideas advocated at leading law schools – legal precedents have allowed trial lawyers to pick the pockets of American business as never before. Liability costs have skyrocketed as a result.

We see the consequences of their handiwork directly in the increased cost of products, liability insurance of all kinds, and the decline or in some cases elimination of domestic industries. According to a study performed by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), the United States pays out $589 billion per year in excessive tort litigation. That is approximately 5 percent of GDP and costs a family of four on average about $8,000 per year.

Glorified ambulance chaser and Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards made his millions suing doctors for procedures that are inherently risky, and greatly increased jury awards with a new innovation: suing nurses, anesthesiologists, hospitals and anyone else in his path. Following is a quote from one doctor:

"The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care."

Following are some statistics on medical malpractice liability from the PRI report:

  • Approximately $124 billion dollars is spent annually by the health care
    profession to avoid medical liability.

  • About $30 billion more is spent on direct liability lawsuit costs.

  • Malpractice liability cost is 1 percent of GDP and increases the cost of healthcare by approximately 7 percent.

  • These added costs deny health insurance coverage to between 2.4 and 4.3 million people, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The increasing costs of medical care resulting from Medicare, Medicaid and the dramatic growth of malpractice lawsuits have provided activists with the rationale they need to agitate for socialized medicine. But this has been their strategy all along. Medicare and Medicaid were designed to undermine private healthcare, making it ever more expensive and unmanageable, until enough interest could be generated for systemic change. Similarly, changes in tort law aimed at turning our courts into vehicles for income redistribution have overburdened our legal system with massive caseloads and the highest liability costs in the world.

While doubtless many thought they were doing good, the ultimate goal, as elucidated by the Left, has everywhere and always been Socialism.

Furthermore, they grossly overstate the problem. We hear constantly about the “47 million uninsured.” These figures include 10 to 25 million illegal immigrants, 14 million people who are already eligible for medical benefits but haven’t availed themselves, and 10 million people earning $75,000 or more who could presumably afford their own insurance if they chose to. Even assuming the lowest estimate for illegal immigrants, the true number of uninsured would be only 13 million. Yet the Democrats want to nationalize the entire industry, currently 17 percent of GDP, to provide benefits to 4 percent of the U.S. population.

And while medical costs increase due largely to government manufactured problems, shrinking returns in the healthcare industry put doctors and hospitals out of business. Meanwhile, the astronomical cost of medical school plus this increasingly hostile atmosphere toward the private medical market is turning more and more qualified people away from the medical field entirely. Costs increase while supply decreases, the classic consequence of government intervention.

Yet Obama and the brain-dead Democrat Congress want to give us a government-run system that will guarantee magnitudes more of the same.

Can you see the Left laughing at you?

However, their true motives have finally been exposed. For seniors Obamacare essentially advocates euthanasia. Benefits will be drastically cut, and in some cases will become completely unavailable. As Obama said publicly: “Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” In other words, if you think you are going to die anyway, why don’t you just save us the money and go ahead…

For others it will mean a dramatic reduction in both the availability and quality of care. Obama’s health policy advisor Ezekiel Emmanuel (brother of Rahm Emmanuel) admits as much. He even wants doctors to reconsider the Hippocratic Oath:

Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider "social justice" (emphasis mine.) They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere.

Who in God’s green earth are these people?

The Left has relentlessly insisted for decades that we pay every penny for care of indigents, the poor, illegals and elderly to the point where hospitals are closing their doors because they can no longer afford it. But once given the opportunity to transfer this responsibility to the government, their message to the elderly and the rest of us is essentially: drop dead!

Let me put this as bluntly as possible. The Left has never cared about the elderly or the poor, but ruthlessly uses them as part of their long-term strategy to overburden private healthcare until it ultimately collapses. The same Leftists who so passionately demanded free healthcare for all now want euthanasia for seniors and dramatically lower services for the rest of us. It is a power grab, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it.

The Dems won’t cut benefits to the poor just yet though, because they still need their votes. Later on they will need them as hired muscle. But once they secure unchallengeable power, do you think they’ll care? They have willfully worked to destroy every beneficial thing in our society. These are vicious, selfish, utterly corrupt parasites. They have spent a lifetime abandoned to a philosophy that makes excuses for everything and anything in the service of one ultimate goal: absolute power.

These people have to be stopped. NOW.

I went to Senator Ben Cardin’s town hall meeting last Monday and came across a woman who had worked as a nurse in Britain’s public health system. She provided a personal anecdote which is little peek into what we can expect should we adopt the Democrats’ plan. Catherine Midkiff, RN RSN, has been a nurse since 1979 and lived in the UK in 1991 and 1992. She earned $10 per hour there, compared to the $22 per hour then being earned by nurses in the US. As an agency nurse she earned more than staff nurses. Those women had to live in a dormitory on site as their pay would not afford them private residences.

She said at St. George’s Hospital she worked on a seniors ward where 23 elderly men and women shared the same room. When she asked where the code cart was, her British counterparts laughed, saying, “Oh you must be from America…” For non-seniors, most British hospitals put six people in a room. Wait lists are extremely long. An elderly British citizen she knew came to the US to get heart surgery after waiting a full year in the UK system. Others weren’t so lucky. For many years, British hospitals had no trauma centers. Thousands died as a result.

For his part, Cardin simply perpetuated the smear against Obamacare protesters, claiming they were Republican stooges spreading disinformation. However, there were over 2,000 of us and only a handful of ACORN, union and party thugs. That we are no longer being fooled is becoming more and more apparent. The Dems control both houses of Congress so this remains an uphill battle, but if enough get the message that their careers are on the line, these utterly self-serving urchins may actually come around to our point of view, simply for sheer survival purposes.

We cannot let up. Not for a minute.

posted Friday, August 14, 2009

[1] Calculations based on Office of Management and Budget historical tables using OMB deflators.

Comments (2)