Not to belabor a point, but to give you fodder for cocktail parties and family gatherings I present the following with the note that whatever they turned in to the CBO for scoring was in no way representative of the mechanisms they are building. This will prove that:
From a pdf document located at http://donyoung.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Healthsum.pdf comes the following info:
159 Ways the Senate Bill Is a Government Takeover of Health Care
Here is a list of new boards, bureaucracies, and programs created in the 2,733 page Senate health care bill, which serves as the framework for President Obama’s health proposal:
1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, page 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (S. 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (S. 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (S. 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (S. 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (S. 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (S. 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (S. 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (S. 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (S. 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (S. 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (S. 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (S. 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (S. 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (S. 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (S. 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (S. 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (S. 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (S. 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (S. 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (S. 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (S. 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (S. 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (S. 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (S. 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (S. 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (S. 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (S. 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (S. 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (S. 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (S. 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (S. 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (S. 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (S. 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (S. 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (S. 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (S. 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (S. 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (S. 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (S. 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (S. 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (S. 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (S. 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (S. 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (S. 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (S. 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (S. 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (S. 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (S. 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (S. 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (S. 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (S. 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (S. 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (S. 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (S. 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (S. 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (S. 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (S. 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (S. 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (S. 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (S. 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (S. 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (S. 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (S. 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (S. 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (S. 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (S. 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (S. 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (S. 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (S. 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (S. 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (S. 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (S. 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program for mid-career training for health professionals (S. 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (S. 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (S. 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (S. 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (S. 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (S. 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (S. 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (S. 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (S. 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (S. 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (S. 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (S. 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (S. 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (S. 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (S. 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (S. 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish primary care residency programs (S. 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (S. 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (S. 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community-based mental health settings (S. 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (S. 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (S. 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (S. 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (S. 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (S. 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (S. 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (S. 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (S. 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (S. 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (S. 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (S. 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (S. 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (S. 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (S. 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (S. 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (S. 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (S. 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (S. 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (S. 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (S. 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (S. 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (S. 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (S. 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (S. 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (S. 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (S. 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (S. 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (S. 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (S. 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (S. 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (S. 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (S. 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (S. 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (S. 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (S. 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (S. 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (S. 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (S. 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (S. 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (S. 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (S. 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (S. 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (S. 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (S. 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (S. 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (S. 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (S. 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (S. 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (S. 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (S. 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (S. 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (S. 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (S. 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (S. 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (S. 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, S. 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, S. 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, S. 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, S. 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, S. 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, S. 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, S. 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, S. 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, S. 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, S. 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, S. 199B, p. 258)*
*S. 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be deemed as passed with certain amendments.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
4 purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized
5 to be appropriated $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 2010 and
6 such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years
7 2011 through 2014.’’.
8 SEC. 5209. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON COMMISSIONED
3health professions institutions for the cost of edu4cational services provided by such institutions to 5 Track students. The agreement entered into by6 such participating institutions under paragraph7 (1)(A)(i) shall contain an agreement to accept as8 payment in full the established remission rate9 under this subparagraph.
“Nobody likes paying taxes, particularly in times of economic stress,” Obama said. “But most Americans meet their responsibilities because they understand that it’s an obligation of citizenship, necessary to pay the costs of our common defense and our mutual well-being.”
- Lael Brainard, nominee for Treasury Undersecretary of International Affairs
- Capricia Marshall, Chief of protocol for the State Department
- Kathleen Sebelius, secretary, Health and Human Services
- Ron Kirk, Trade Representative: The former mayor of Dallas, Tex
- Caroline Atkinson, Treasury Undersecretary of International Affairs
- Tom Daschle, nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Nancy Killefer, nominee, Administration’s Chief Performance Officer
- Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor’s husband
- Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, the man who oversees the IRS
1) On people making more than $250,000.
- $338 billion – Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billion – eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion – capital gains tax hike
- Total: $636,000,000,000 /10 years
2) On Businesses:
- $17 billion – Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion – tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion – codify “economic substance doctrine”
$61 billion – repeal LIFO
$210 billion – international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion – information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion – excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion – repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million – repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million – repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion – repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion – increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million – eliminate advanced earned income tax credit
- Total: $353,000,000,000 /10 years
Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of the respective body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.
As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution.
Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that: (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the States in the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual State, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the 10th Amendment.
Recall of state legislators has been somewhat more successful than that of governors, although still uncommon. For example in California there were 107 attempts to trigger a recall election between 1911 and 1994 and only 4 of these succeeded in reaching the number of required signatures on the petition:
- A state senator was recalled in 1913
- A state senator was recalled in 1914, and another state senator survived a recall attempt
- A state senator survived a recall attempt in 1994 with 59% of the vote
- Two Assembly members were recalled in 1995
In 1983 two state senators were recalled in Michigan for the first time in its history.
Recall is used much more often at the local level of government. At least 36 states permit recall of local officials.
Only 7 US states require certain preconditions to be met before a recall petition can be initiated. These are: Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island and Washington. The signature requirements to initiate a recall election vary between states but are generally based on a formula using the percentage of the vote in the last election as a base. For specific details of these states’ requirements please see: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm
Since Michigan was most recently successful at this, let’s take a look at what happened there:
Recall 1983? The History of Michigan’s Great Taxpayer Revolt.
In January of 1983, Governor James Blanchard had a problem. Michigan was in recession, losing jobs, and the legislature was facing declining tax revenues. Blanchard needed to hike taxes in order to maintain government spending, since real spending cuts seemed out of the question. He proposed, and passed through the legislature, a 38% income tax hike.
Taxpayers revolted. Recall drives were launched against Governor Blanchard and 14 state senators who supported the tax hike. Citizens launching these recalls were not taken seriously at first because no governor or state lawmaker had ever been recalled in the history of Michigan. Why?
Recalls of state officials are difficult. First, there are a huge number of petition signatures that citizens must collect. To recall a governor, citizens must collect valid signatures equal to 25% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election. That meant about 750,000 signatures in 1983, and would mean nearly one million signatures to recall Governor Granholm today. For a state representative or senator, citizens need signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast for governor in that lawmaker’s district. And they have only six months to do this.
The second reason recalls are hard is that the entire professional political establishment lines up against them. In 1983, citizens launching the recalls faced hostile local boards of canvassers (appointed partisan election officials) who ruled that the recall petition language was “unclear.” Some of these local canvassers even refused to attend scheduled meetings so that a quorum could not be present to certify recall petitions.
Having the law on your side didn’t always mean having judges on your side. A circuit court judge halted one of the recall efforts, but was later overruled by the appeals court who found in favor of the citizens. Citizen recall organizers also faced legal intimidation in the form of lawsuits brought by the state Democratic Party.
These hurdles were too much to overcome in the Blanchard recall, which failed to collect sufficient signatures. But citizens succeeded collecting signatures and winning court battles in the recall efforts against two state senators, Phil Mastin (D-Pontiac) and David Serotkin (D-Mt. Clemens). Both faced special recall elections in November of 1983. They, and the political establishment, would not give up without a fight.
Both Serotkin and Mastin raised huge sums of money from Lansing interests to defeat the recall, outspending pro-recall citizens by better than 10-1 margins. Both had consultants, staffers and organized interests to campaign on their behalf for a “No” vote in the recall election.
Both were recalled by voters by better than 2-1 margins. …
So.. what can we do? We can do plenty. We can use Saul Alinsky tactics right back at them. You can learn what those are exactly by reading my letter to the President from a few months ago. It lists them in detail and how they are using them against us.
We can call, write or fax every day! Make an email out once a week with pertinent issues and email it every day to their offices. It will only take you a few minutes a week, but will help pile it up, for future reference if nothing else. They are REQUIRED to keep every email, letter, fax, etc.. It will also give you a sense of empowerment, knowing you are doing something.
We can all work hard over the next year to stalemate, if not change, the course of what happens in Washington.
We can work to change the law.
Please, get involved.
I will do my best to find out more on this bill and will cover it in my weekend post.
I do know our health is in mortal danger. I do know they will be stopping payment of preventative tests for seniors over 75. To what degree, I can only pledge to try to find out.
Please stop back over the weekend to learn more.
In attempt to research the H1N1 vaccine, due to the number of people showing concern on the issue, I uncovered things I did not want to see.
I will not draw conclusions for you, but rather present the materials in order for you to make your own decisions. I am not advising you to get or not to get the vaccine. It is my feeling, however, you are not being presented with all of the facts. To that end I submit the following:
A week ago I assembled a compilation of news articles I have found on the subject of the vaccine and published it here and updated here. There you will find a treasure trove of articles, including those discussing the fact Baxter, a pharmaceutical company, developed a vaccine for the Avian flu before incidence of the flu had occurred. In the process of distributing the vaccine it was learned Baxter had somehow contaminated a large percentage of the vaccine as detailed here in an article from infowars:
As reported by multiple sources last month, including the Times of India, vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus were distributed to 18 countries last December by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.
It was only by providence that the batch was first tested on ferrets in the Czech Republic, before being shipped out for injection into humans. The ferrets all died and the shocking discovery was made.
Czech newspapers immediately questioned whether the events were part of a conspiracy to deliberately provoke a pandemic, following up on accusations already made by health officials in other countries.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident.
Since the probability of mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible, this leaves no other explanation than that the contamination was a deliberate attempt to weaponize the H5N1 virus to its most potent extreme and distribute it via conventional flu vaccines to the population who would then infect others to a devastating degree as the disease went airborne.
The fact that Baxter mixed the deadly H5N1 virus with a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses is the smoking gun. The H5N1 virus on its own has killed hundreds of people, but it is less airborne and more restricted in the ease with which it can spread. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which as everyone knows are super-airborne and easily spread, the effect is a potent, super-airbone, super deadly biological weapon.
Indeed, some have already suggested that the current scare could represent the use of such a weapon.
Now it has been announced that Baxter is seeking a sample of the potentially lethal never before seen form of swine/avian/human flu virus in order to assist the World Health Organization in developing a new vaccine, reaping billions in the process.
Why should Baxter be trusted, when they have already been proven to be at the very least criminally negligent, and at worst a prime suspect in attempting to carry off one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind?
There are also concerns with other manufacturers of vaccines. Also discussed is the fact some, if not all, of the various vaccine preparations are believed to contain toxins, including mercury, strengthening additive adjuvants, and Triton X100. Brand names throughout the world noted are Celvapan, Pandemrix, Focetria, Peramvir, and others.
There are many concerns based on these facts and others. The FDA has not tested this vaccine. The government can in no way be held responsible for any harm done from the vaccines. There have been deaths reported due to the vaccines. The German government had soldiers take vaccinations different from what was purchased for the general public, namely versions of the vaccine that do not contain mercury or other toxic substances contained in the adjuvants.
George W. Bush, at the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza at the United Nations General Assembly on September 14, 2005, placed the US under UN and WHO law in the event of a pandemic “emergency”. In April, WHO declared Swine Flu a Level 5 Emergency. At Level 6 the WHO is permitted to call the shots worldwide. Our sovereignty, our Constitution – no matter. He also released these directives, deemed unconstitutional by many, altering the channels of government and giving extra constitutional powers to the President in an emergency:
Details are spelled out in NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 : , but here is a snippet from Wikipedia on the subject:
The presidential directive says that, when the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an “Enduring Constitutional Government” comprising “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President,” will take the place of the nation’s regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress. Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the National Lawyers Guild have said that this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in that the three branches of government are separate and equal, with no single branch coordinating the others. The directive, created by the president, claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency. It does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over.
The directive further says that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of “National Continuity Coordinator” would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (this position was held by Frances Townsend until her resignation on November 19, 2007 then by Kenneth L. Wainstein, and now John Brennan) The directive also specifies that a “Continuity Policy Coordination Committee”, to be chaired by a senior director of the Homeland Security Council staff, and selected by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be “the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination”.
The MODEL STATE EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT was passed in many states in 2002 and others after that point.
The National Vaccine Information Center, along with the ACLU and other organizations concerned about lack of informed consent protections and other threats to civil liberties, opposed the legislation. NVIC took the position that, while it is critical for the U.S. to have a sound, workable plan to respond to an act of bioterrorism, as well as enough safe and effective vaccines stockpiled for every American who wants to use them, there are legitimate concerns about a plan which forces citizens to use vaccines without voluntary, informed consent.
The MSEHPA, which was passed by many states in 2002, included provisions that would allow state health officials to use the state militia to:
- take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states;
- seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of personal property);
- arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in your death or injury).
As well I have noted the following web site:
Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative (TMTI) was pioneered by The Department of Defense (DoD) in 2006 to better prepare and protect the warfighter and the nation from emerging, genetically engineered, and unknown biothreat agents.
President Obama Declares A National Health Emergency Due to Swine Flu
From Fox News last week:
President Obama signed a proclamation declaring the H1N1 influenza a national emergency, giving doctors and medical facilities greater leeway in responding to the flu pandemic.
Obama signed the declaration late Friday, which the White House said allows medical treatment facilities to better handle a surge in flu patients by waiving federal requirements on a case-by-case basis.
“The foundation of our national approach to the H1N1 flu has been preparedness at all levels — personal, business, and government — and this proclamation helps that effort by advancing our overall response capability,” the White House said in a statement.
In the proclamation, Obama said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there’s a potential “to overburden health care resources.”
Because of vaccine production delays, the government has backed off initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses would be available by mid-October. As of Wednesday, only 11 million doses had been shipped to health departments, doctor’s offices and other providers, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…..
Worldwide, more than 5,000 people have reportedly died from swine flu since it emerged this year and developed into a global epidemic, the World Health Organization said Friday. Since most countries have stopped counting individual swine flu cases, the figure is considered an underestimate.
The flu has infected millions of Americans and killed nearly 100 children in the U.S. The chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that over a thousand people have died as a result, with 46 states reporting widespread H1N1 activity.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve seen more than 1,000 deaths and 20,000 hospitalizations,” Frieden said. “We expect it to occur in waves, but we can’t predict when those waves will happen.”
In a normal year, according to CDC, 36,000 Americans die from the flu. That is an average of 1 in every 8500 citizens. Our first case was sometime late this spring I believe. Since that point, the number of deaths has not reached anywhere near that number. The report stated over 20,000 people have been hospitalized with the flu and also states millions have been infected, killing one thousand.The article above says there have been 5000 deaths worldwide CDC reports between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths occur from flu in a typical year worldwide. I’m not a mathematical genius, but this does not even seem as bad as the normal run of the mill flu. Supposedly it will get worse, but until then why subject citizens to the risk involved? In the United States or anywhere else. Globally, citizens are up in arms about this. They feel, as I do, there is no reasonable cause for mandatory injections, governmental panic, etc..
Here is a map updating you to the number of cases worldwide. Be certain to use the check boxes on the left side of site to mark for H1N1.
I have never been a conspiracy theorist. Over the past several weeks, however, I have become aware and laid out for you the perilous United Nations Agenda 21. I have pointed out the names and statements made by the people involved. I have shown you quote after quote illustrating what they mean by Sustainable Development and the contempt they have for God and the human race. I have shown you reports, paid for by our own government, where thousands of noted scientists refute the bogus claims made by the U.N. about “global warming”. I have told you of the grab for control of our lives this “agenda” proposes. Now allow me to introduce you to another of their “terms”.
In a paper written by Dr. Madeleine Cosman, entitled Sustainable Medicine and Sustainable Development , Dr. Cosman states:
….Sustainable Medicine is central to the concept of Sustainable Development of the world’s landmasses, air, and water.
Sustainable Development esteems the planet’s intrinsically valuable environment. In that bio-diverse environment human beings are a dangerous, capricious burden. In the Agenda 21 worldview, people, especially rich intelligent people, consume too much and they make too many of themselves. Their effects must be curbed and their numbers reduced.
Sustainable Development is a private property land grab. It is justified in the name of global equity, overcoming economic disparities, and assuring global integrity of the environment. Sustainable Medicine is a body grab. It is justified in the name of achieving global medical equity, overcoming health disparities, and assuring an enduring global environment free of too many people.
Sustainable Medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable Medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations but to “humans” in their “settlements.”
Sustainable Medicine uses two classes of public actions to affect the largest numbers of people worldwide most efficiently. The first class of actions attacks high technology products. The method is to create a public health crisis that forces government or industry to eliminate a valuable medical or surgical technology that because of its expense and inequitable distribution makes it medically “unsustainable.” Sustainable Medicine therefore clamors to eliminate such important, life-saving and life-extending medical devices as flexible polyvinylchloride plastic tubings treated with phthalates. During the past 50 years, flexible medical tubing has revolutionized breathing machines, intravenous medicating and blood transfusing, kidney dialysis, parenteral feeding, and neonatal medicine and surgery.
Sustainable Medicine’s second class of public action attacks ideas of high technology scientific progress. The method is to revise people’s expectations for health, for medical care, and for long life “in harmony with the environment”. Sustainable Medicine devotees celebrate human death as natural, inevitable, and environmentally beneficial. Rather than a mere right to die, Sustainable Medicine inculcates a duty to die.
Sustainable Medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) states: Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Few Americans know the meaning of Sustainable Medicine, or worse, the implications of healthy life in harmony with nature. However, an Internet Google search for Sustainable Medicine yielded (in May, 2005) a total of 5,850,000 English language references. Germans, English, Canadians, and Scandinavians under socialized medicine appreciate Sustainable Medicine for they daily deal with its rationing, long waiting times for care, low technology, and emphasis on medical caring, not medical curing.
Who decides what shall be done or not done to your body whether healthy, diseased, injured, or fatally ill? Sustainable Medicine uses identical protocols for human body ownership as Sustainable Development proposes for private land ownership.
PEEVE is a valuable acronym for remembering the basic concepts than animate Sustainable Medicine and Sustainable Development. PEEVE incorporates the infamous three “E”s of Sustainable Development: equity, economy, and environment. Sustainable
Medicine is guided by:
P = Precautionary Principle. If any risk, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop absolutely. If no proof, stop anyway. The prudent “Better safe than sorry” is perverted to “Safe sorrow for all!”
The pernicious Precautionary Principle destroys risk-benefit analysis. It hinders experiment and innovation. It impedes progress and requires reversion to simpler, more “natural” products. In land use, it requires removing “invasive species” and beneficial genetically manipulated seeds that could harm some plant, insect, or person. In medicine, the Precautionary Principle deprives courageous masses of people of necessary, life-sustaining medication and equipment because of potential harm to a few. The Precautionary Principle propels it proponents beyond intellectual cowardice to anti-technology, anti-progress, Luddite primitivism.
In both land use and medicine, the Precautionary Principle almost always is paired with its craven corollary, the Irreversability Principle. In landscape, the Irreversability Principle requires that rather than mine a precious resource that once extracted is irreversibly used, better save it than spend it on today’s life-sustaining necessities even if people will pay and legally own the resource. In bodyscape, the Precautionary Principle plus Irreversibility Principle withhold beneficial, aggressive, high technology diagnostics and medical therapies that might harm someone or something now or later.
E = Environment over all. Its “intrinsic value” is necessary for future generations on the globe.
Of what value to whom is never explained. Mystical inherent goodness, importance, and protection-worthy vulnerability of the environment make the environment trump all other needs of people and societies. It is better to force people to starve by insect-destroyed crops and to die of malaria than to use the pesticide DDT that potentially might harm birds, fish, polar bears, or human infant reflexes.
E = Equity demands no “disparities” among all people globally, among all people inter-generationally, and among all species of life and non-life: human, animal, plant, and inanimate rock.
Equity between current and future generations requires prudent use, no squandering, and abstaining from use of available assets. Equity among rich and poor requires no greedy group abusing the “carrying capacity” of the world’s natural resources. Species-equity is more important than equity among peoples. In the contest between preserving habitat for spotted owls, long-fingered salamanders, salmon, and fairy shrimp versus habitat and livelihoods of ranchers, loggers, and mineral miners, the “natural needs” and “value” power of animals are superior to those of people. The Sustainable Medicine documents quote the U.N. Biodiversity Treaty’s inscrutable rule: “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual, and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living things are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way, and human activities should be molded along Nature’s rhythms.”
V = Visioning councils for stakeholders
Sustainable Medicine uses the same “visioning,” vision councils, vision language, vision consensus-building techniques, and vision incentives, bribes, prohibitions, protocols, and principles that facilitate the Sustainable Development land grabs of private property. Local Agenda 21 groups impose laws and regulations on localities that bypass votes of state legislatures and of the U.S. Congress. Depredations of the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Agency derive from international treaties, and work of non-governmental organizations such as ICLEI, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives.
The vision is the cluster of global community ideas. Agenda 21 outsiders impose these concepts upon local citizens and their leaders while encouraging locals to believe they themselves initiated the ideas of the vision. Regulations and restrictions inevitably follow the implanted vision in order to implement it. The implanted vision is viewed as prophecy and revelation of future global peace. Actually, the vision is a tenacious Marxist apparition from old, surly, nihilistic Fabian socialism.
The Wye River Group On Healthcare, for instance, held its National Summit at the University Club in Washington, DC, on September 23rd 2003, attended by the elite of academic medicine, pharmacology, and government including Dr. Mark McClelland, then head of the FDA, now Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. The meeting topic was “Communities Shaping a Vision for America’s 21st Century Health & Healthcare.” Experts answered such questions as: Why create a shared vision based on principles and values in America? How best connect community leaders with the vision and enable them to advance change? Is this the right time to spring the vision?
Wye River Group on Healthcare promotes the Sustainable Medicine vision for the future by working in 12 selected cities that have active Sustainable Development visioning groups: Albuquerque, NM, Chicago, IL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Hanover, NH, Jackson, MS, Muncie, IN, Portland, OR, Raleigh/Durham, NC, Salt Lake City, UT, San Diego, CA, San Antonio, TX, and Spokane, WA. Wye River Group’s separate Foundation for American Health Care Leadership addresses “lack of healthcare infrastructure…health disparities… unique demands of an aging population, unrealistic public expectations, and appropriate use of burgeoning technology” that require “visionary leadership focused on a shared vision” for American health and healthcare.
E = Economic equity. High technology is too expensive and inequitably distributed. Whatever everyone cannot have, no one shall have.
Under Sustainable Development, the use of waterpower or fossil fuel for generating electricity in the Third World will pollute the environment as well as distract the native population from its indigenous culture in harmony with the environment. Wind-power is cleaner and more sustainable, even if not dependable nor adequate for modern progress. Likewise, under Sustainable Medicine, medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs) for diagnostics, and organ-transplant techniques for life-extending treatments are unsustainable. People must revise their expectations for long life and good health, and reject ever more sophisticated medicine and surgery dedicated to curing rather than to caring. We must reach a level sustainable plateau in medicine, says medical ethicist Dr. Daniel Callahan. As the natural world has its predictable cycles of birth and death, so people, especially Americans, must accept natural limits to life and reject interventions that unnaturally extend life at its beginnings, such as neonatal medicine, and at life’s ends. We must not expect progress, we must not waste, and we must not spend on futile care.
SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE DOCUMENTS
The original documents that enunciate Sustainable Medicine are astonishing in their theory and in their calls for implementation. Few physicians, surgeons, or lawyers have access to the materials that I first reviewed in August 2003. I obtained them directly from their source in Switzerland, the office of Dr. Jasmin von Schirnding, World Health Organization, Geneva.
Documents in English and French are not issued to the general public (and may not be “reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO”). Some of these texts are available electronically from WHO: http://www.who.int/wssd/resources/en/.
What gives further credence to Dr. Cosman’s paper can be found by a simple “google” for “population control”. It is a well established fact the U.N. has mandated a decrease in world population, of up to 93% by some charges. It is well documented, that aided by funds from the United States, they have gone on a decades long mission to offer abortion and other types of birth control to women in third world countries. Our own government has funded the deaths of an untold number of infants here in the United States. I never really understood it was all related until recently. Had I investigated, I would have understood.
Once again, a simple consultation with Wikipedia will tell you of a Brittish clergyman, Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 (not a typo) published An Essay on the Principle of population. He assigns two categories to population control. Positive checks (disease, war, disaster, famine, poverty) and Preventive checks (factors believe to affect the birth rate such as moral restraint, abstinence and birth control). He proclaims positive checks would ultimately save humanity from itself and human misery was an absolute necessary consequence.
Paul R. Ehrlich, a US biologist and environmentalist published The Population Bomb in 1968. Many of the ideas in that book we’ve heard of recently in speaking of President Obama’s own staff. To quote:
A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies- often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.
… compulsory birth regulation…the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.
This spawned the ecology movement of the 1970s and the “Global Cooling” panic ensued. As did the race to scale down the human race in favor of “Gaia”. In a follow up book, released in 1990, he continued to sound the population alarm.
In 1974, the US National Security Council, under the direction of Henry Kissinger, did a study entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200, which stressed the fact that 13 countries would make up 47% of world population by 2050, which would adversely effect the welfare and progress of those countries. It goes on to say this would be a threat to our national security.
The National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition proclaimed in a study entitled, Food, Land, Population and the US Economy that the US could not achieve a sustainable economy beyond a population of 200 million and the effects of overpopulation would impact the country after 2020. Have they never driven across the US in a vehicle? We have over 300 million people and there are plenty of open spaces to grow food in. They emphatically state we must reduce US population by at least one third and world population by two thirds.
The National Audobon Society released a study recently called Population and Habitat: Making the Connection, also supporting population control measures.
The head of the UN Millennium Project, Jeffrey Sachs, is a proponent of population control as well. He was even opposed to mosquito nets for children in third world countries, as that would interfere with population reduction.
There is a global agenda to take control of the human race. Our Congress and our President are complicit in this assault. The Health Care Bill now being forced down our throats, in my opinion, also falls into play with all this. One only has to read Dr. Cosman’s paper above to see the connection.
Do I know any of this is true? No. My gut tells me it is all true. I don’t want to believe it. When bills are being created 1990 pages in length, in secret, and without permission of the American people; when our white house is full of communist sympathizers and nut jobs that look up to Mao Tse Tung and down upon God and the Constitution; when nothing can be discussed and they try to interfere with free speech and the right to assemble; when they refuse to answer questions and launch personal attacks instead?????? You must admit, they have given us no reason to trust, only reason to fear.
I will take no vaccine. I will not be silent. I will fight tooth and nail to see none of this anti-American, anti-human agenda is passed. You must make your own decision.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )
October 6, 2009
The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
S-221 United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Leader Reid:
As you know, Americans across our country have been actively engaged in the debate on health care reform. Whether or not our constituents agree with the direction of the debate, many are frustrated and lacking accurate information on the emerging proposals in Congress. Without a doubt, reforming health care in America is one of the most monumental and far-reaching undertakings considered by this body in decades. We believe the American public’s participation in this process is critical to our overall success of creating a bill that lowers health care costs and offers access to quality and affordable health care for all Americans.
Every step of the process needs to be transparent, and information regarding the bill needs to be readily available to our constituents before the Senate starts to vote on legislation that will affect the lives of every American. The legislative text and complete budget scores from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the health care legislation considered on the Senate floor should be made available on a website the public can access for at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to the legislation. Likewise, the legislative text and complete CBO scores of the health care legislation as amended should be made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the bill in the Senate. Further, the legislative text of all amendments filed and offered for debate on the Senate floor should be posted on a public website prior to beginning debate on the amendment on the Senate floor. Lastly, upon a final agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate, a formal conference report detailing the agreement and complete CBO scores of the agreement should be made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the conference report in the Senate.
By publically posting the legislation and its CBO scores 72 hours before it is brought to a vote in the Senate and by publishing the text of amendments before they are debated, our constituents will have the opportunity to evaluate these policies and communicate their concerns or their message of support to their Members of Congress. As their democratically-elected representatives in Washington, D.C., it is our duty to listen to their concerns and to provide them with the chance to respond to proposals that will impact their lives. At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people’s faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process.
We respectfully request that you agree to these principles before moving forward with floor debate of this legislation. We appreciate your serious consideration and look forward to working with you on health care reform legislation in the weeks ahead.
Senator Blanche L. Lincoln
Senator Evan Bayh
Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Senator Claire McCaskill
Senator Ben Nelson
Senator Mark L. Pryor
Senator Jim Webb
LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE WATCHING TODAY!
CALL, FAX, EMAIL, Whatever you have do to get the point across!
AND TELL THEM YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE RECIEVED FROM HEALTH CARE LOBBYISTS!
SEE YESTERDAY’s COLUMN: http://wp.me/pxG9Z-b8 to find out how beholding your Senator and Representative are by what they have pocketed!
It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee. It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law. So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Title III of the Health Care Bill.. by CNS News
Title III of the bill is entitled, “Improving the Health of the American People.” It includes four subtitles. They are: “Subtitle A: Modernizing Disease Prevention of Public Health Systems,” “Subtitle B: Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services,” “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities,” and “Subtitle D: Support for Prevention and Public Health Information.” The program authorizing home “interventions” to promote immunizations falls under “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities.” This subtitle directs the secretary of health and human services to “establish a demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.” The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting “interventions.” Method “E” calls for “home visits” which can include “provision of immunizations.”
“National Defense” Earmarks from National Taxpayers Union
The House Appropriations Committee released a table of Congressionally Directed Spending Items, which are more colloquially known as “earmarks.” It is available as a 59-page pdf, and includes lots of items only tangentially related to national defense. For example, there are several earmarks for state and locally-based counter-drug programs that seem to be focused at the community level. There are also many transportation and fuel cell research earmarks that would seem to be more appropriately funded, if at all, through the Department of Energy. Please visit the link to see the OUTLANDISH items included in this bill.
THANK YOU SENATOR TOM COBURN
He suggested to the Senate Committee yesterday they should have to give up their special health care plan and live under the one they choose to require everyone else live under by the passage of this bill. Apparently, it was not very well received. Go figure. Full article at Wall Street Journal at link.
House Dems Won’t Allow Republicans To Speak from HumanEvents
Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House? In fact, we had planned to speak on the lack of transparency of the House since Democrats took control. We had planned to criticize Speaker Pelosi for repeatedly denying Members, the media, and the public to right to read legislation before it was voted on. We were set to discuss House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s statement last week that if his Members were required to read the Democrats’ healthcare reform package before it was voted on, it would fail.
Dr. Nancy Snyderman Wants To Snatch Smokes From Soldiers by News Busters
There was NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman this morning, arguing that the Pentagon should prohibit soldiers in combat zones from smoking. Snyderman was a guest on Morning Joe for purposes of reporting on her interview of Pres. Obama yesterday on his health care plans. But along the way, she weighed in on the proposal that had been floated, then quickly snuffed, by the Defense Department to deny combat soldiers the right to light up. Mika Brzezinski was grateful for an ally in the fight against letting warriors make their own choices. Joe Scarborough mocked the two Big Mommy Government-types, touting a tongue-in-cheek “cigarette drive” to provide soldiers with free packs of their favorite smokes. – The White House says it has no plans to ban smoking in the military.
The Health Care Reform Bill in Its Own Words Posted by Jeff Dircksen
We’ve spent a little time looking at the language in the House Democrat’s 1,018-page health care reform bill, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” and a couple of things stand out. First, the legislation empowers a very busy bureaucracy. The term “Secretary” — as in the Secretaries of Health & Human Services, Labor, Defense, and Veterans Affairs – appears 1,124 times in the bill. The Secretaries — along with Commissioners (199 references), Committees (76 references), and Boards (17 references) are busy conducting studies, developing methodologies, and receiving recommendations among other things — some of the other things are listed in the table below, including requiring, limiting, penalizing, regulating, taxing, and enforcing their way to affordable health care for all. Second, the bill doesn’t include language that might help driven down costs without the busy bureaucracy. The terms “consumer-driven” and “patient-driven” as in consumer-driven and patient-driven choices and health care do not appear in the bill. And while the terms “benefit” and “benefits” appear 375 times, “choice” and “options” appear just 85 times combined. Even “marketplace” — a term that the President has used to describe the so-called public option — appears just 3 times as does the term “competition. 1,400 uses of words like “taxes/regulation,” only 88 of “choice/options. Words don’t always have a lot of meaning inside the Beltway, but if the language of the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” is a guide to its true intent then the bill is really about empowering bureaucracy and limiting freedom, competition, and the marketplace. See Chart on Bill: http://tinyurl.com/lp…
Glenn Beck on Goldman Sachs (Brilliant)
If you missed this on the show Wednesday night.. you have to check this out. All of a sudden, things begin to make sense.
PARADE MAGAZINE SAYS PATRIOTIC AMERICANS ARE MERELY POSERS FOR HIRE by AFP
This past Sunday, Parade Magazine (that insert in tens of millions of Sunday newspapers) derisively wrote that the efforts of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, our affiliate organization, to discuss the public policy implications of a government takeover of health care is “astroturf,” only a “so-called grassroots” operation. Parade’s writer went on to say “so-called grassroots campaigns are often effective because they’re thought to represent the will of the people. But what politicians — and many ordinary Americans — may not know is that some ‘grassroots movements’ are actually sophisticated marketing campaigns financed by business and special interest groups.” (Ed note: I do exist. Myself and well over 5000 people belonging to AFP have emailed Parade to tell them so) http://tinyurl.com/l3… (original article)