When visiting your doctor be aware of how many carbon footprints it takes to get there...[Will they change miles per gallon (mpg) to 'carbon footprints per mile (cfpm)'?]

Source The Telegrph (United Kingdom)
Surgery bans elderly patient over her carbon footprint

An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the “carbon footprint” of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large.

Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the “green travelling issues” over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery. The surgery wrote to Mrs Mulcahy, telling her to register with a new GP within 28 days.

The letter said: “Our greatest concern is for your health and convenience but also taking into consideration green travelling issues. Re: Carbon footprints and winter weather conditions, we feel it would be advisable for patients to register at surgeries nearer to where they live.

"We would be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements to re-register at another practice.”

Mrs Mulcahy, a grandmother, believes the decision was made because she complained about a doctor.

“When I read through the letter, I found it absolutely ridiculous they were saying the reason was to decrease their carbon footprint,” she said. “I have been a patient at the practice for 30 years now, and there has never been any problem.
“To be treated like this, just because I live too far away or for what I feel is a reaction to my complaint, is disgraceful. It feels like they are just coming up with an excuse to get rid of me.”

Mrs Mulcahy said she was anxious and worried at having to try to find a new GP. “If they really cared, they could have found me a new practice instead of just basically saying do it yourself,” she said.

“It is a great worry to me as I am elderly and need to get repeat prescriptions for medication. This is really a stress I could do without. I won’t let it rest though, because I feel like I am being treated poorly.”

The West Road Surgery declined to comment. Andrew Stride, the head of governance, risk and customer services for NHS South Essex, said: “We would advise all patients who have concerns about any aspect of local NHS care to contact the patient advice and liaison service.

"While we are unable to comment on individual cases, we would like to assure patients there is a procedure GP practices need to follow before they can remove patients from their lists.”

This Man Obama: The worst that can happen will happen...Americans are not smart enough to dump him now...they'll wait for an election while he continues to do more damage...then it will be too late!

Unions...Are they a help or a hindrance?

Before you read this you might want to read Which States Have The Best Growth Rates In Personal Income? (Hint: It's not the union dominated states!)

See also: Government Workers Who Strike, Violate the Public Trust

Big Labor’s Top Ten Special Privileges
Source: National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.
The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation’s labor laws in their favor.

Privilege #1:	Exemption from prosecution for union violence. The most egregious example of organized labor’s special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2:	Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3:	Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation. Monopoly bargaining, or “exclusive representation,” which is embedded in most of the country’s labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4:	Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 27 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on “exclusive federal enclaves,” and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5:	Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering. The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6:	Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union’s collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7:	Right to trespass on an employer’s private property. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer’s property.
Privilege #8:	Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work. Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as “scabs” to set them up for retaliation.
Privilege #9:	Union-only cartels on construction projects. Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms. Such practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules. So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.
Privilege #10:	Government funding of forced unionism. On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to organized labor, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers. Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for “international labor programs” overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group. Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on “job training programs” that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. Union bosses also benefit from a plethora of state and local government giveaways.

Preventing Obama Care From Gaining A Foothold...a way to go!

Idaho Nullification of ObamaCare Steams Ahead Despite Media Attacks
Source: ReadPeriodicals.com

Idaho is widely considered to be a key state in the state nullification effort to stop the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 201 0." the two-part federal law more commonly known as ObamaCare. Last year the state's Republican-controlled Legislature passed, and Republican Governor CL. "Butch" Otter signed, the Health Freedom Act, directing the Idaho Attorney General to sue the federal government over an ObamaCare provision that requires citizens either to purchase health insurance or face a fine - and. possibly, even jail. Idaho joined more than a dozen other states in a joint lawsuit challenging the federal law on constitutional grounds that Congress had exceeded its enumerated powers. All told, 27 states have filed lawsuits to prevent imposition of the sweeping federal legislation upon their citizens. The lawsuits, however, may drag on for years, by which time much of Ihe foundation ofObamaCare may be laid, providing the program with a momentum and a large political constituency that will be difficult to overcome.
The nullification effort is aimed at preventing ObamaCare from being initiated in a significant number of states, by having the state governments utilize the principle of "interposition" - interposing themselves between the federal government's unconstitutional mandates and the citizens. Idaho's Gov. Otter spoke strongly against ObamaCare in January in his State of the State address, and specifically mentioned that Idaho is looking at the nullification approach. Idaho is considered by many political observers to be the state with the most favorable conditions for legislative enactment and signing by a Governor. Since Otter's speech, nullification moved from the theoretical level to the practical, as Idaho Representatives Vito Barbieri and Judy Boyle, and Senators Monty Pearce, Sheryl Nuxoll. and Steve Vick introduced House Bill 59 (H. B. 59) during the last week of January.
Anxious to prevent any nullification effort from gaining a foothold. ObamaCare supporters nationwide have been quick to try to stop the Idaho effort. John Miller, a Boise reporter for the Associated Press, has written several negative stories about the nullification proposal that have been given unusually prominent coverage in the national media. Although support for and opposition against ObamaCare have split generally along partisan lines, the Democrats received welcome aid from Idaho's Republican Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, whose office "blind sided" the nullification sponsors with an opinion strongly opposing their bill. The opinion was broadly circulated through Miller's Associated Press stories as H. B. 59 was about to be introduced.
The Attorney General's hostile opinion and the media kerfuffle caused a temporary delay in moving H. B. 59 forward, but as we write, the measure is scheduled for a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee on February 7. Senator Pearce informs The New American that he is "guardedly optimistic" that the bill will quickly pass both houses and be signed into law bv Governor Otter.

Read more: http://readperiodicals.com/201102/2275296931.html#ixzz1rJKucloh

Did Bill Clinton say that Obama is not eligible to be president?

Sheriff Joe expands Obama probe to Hillary supporters

Obama campaign, DNC accused of voter fraud in 2008

PHOENIX – Based on interviews WND conducted with insiders in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has decided to expand the scope of his law enforcement investigation into President Obama’s eligibility to include evidence and affidavits documenting alleged criminal activity by the Obama campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party primary race

Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano and Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas have given Arpaio’s investigators the names of dozens of Hillary Clinton supporters willing to come forward with evidence and affidavits. Among their claims is that the Clintons were the first to charge Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and that his birth certificate is a forgery.
Moreover, the Hillary supporters identified by Viviano and Thomas have argued that the pattern of questionable and possibly illegal activity suggests that the alleged act of producing forged birth certificate documentation for Obama may have been merely more of the same.
As WND reported, Viviano claims she heard Bill Clinton say that Obama is not eligible to be president. ...continues here