Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Kruschev said "

I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.(SEIU Union?)
Nikita Khrushchev

Once a socialist/communist dictator gets into power, like terminal cancer he and his administration smother and take control of every aspect of the economy, educational system, health care system and military
Obamacare is just the beginning of a total take over of America
By Dr. Laurie Roth Tuesday, March 30, 2010
America must not and will not become like the seduced German people in 1933. We will not stand by and watch Obama turn our country into Frankenstein’s laboratory, shredding our constitution, bill of rights and freedom as Hitler did with his country.

Tyrants and Dictators are predictably similar in how they take over. They ride in as the savior of change and hope. They offer health care, jobs for all, a refreshed national identity and protection from danger and harm….that is danger and harm they usually create to blame on enemies… know those groups who didn’t vote for them. The rope circles around the seduced neck of the people only after the dictator bribes his way in or gets voted in.

One thing is for sure looking at recent history. Once a socialist/communist dictator gets into power, like terminal cancer, he and his administration smother and take control of every aspect of the economy, educational system, health care system and military. They shred and control media, entertainment and religion.

In 1919, Lenin wrote after his takeover of Russia that the way to control a country is to first take over the industry, the land, and the banks. Lenin tricked and inspired millions and so did Hitler. These dictators didn’t come in appearing like monsters. They were the messiahs of change and hope. Their exhaustive plans involved developing a huge and seduced ‘fan’ base at first while aggressively and quickly finding and destroying anyone against them.

Kitty Werthmann was living in Austria when Hitler took over Germany next door. She recalls how deeply depressed Austria was in 1938. Nearly one-third of their workforce was unemployed. They had 25% inflation and 25% interest rates on bank loans.

People were begging for food and bankruptcies were happening daily. Austria was in a mess, so they were thrilled when Hitler promised big things and was elected into power. There was no talk of persecuting or attacking the Jews. The Austrians were promised jobs, healthcare, protection and recovery.

Kitty said that after the election was over there was instantly law and order. German officials were appointed everywhere and there was dancing in the streets. Though Austria was largely a Catholic country, suddenly in schools everywhere, all Catholic symbols and crosses were taken down and pictures of Hitler were put up everywhere.

Hitler targeted and controlled education and stopped religious instruction for kids in schools. The new church for the children of Austria and Germany was still every Sunday, but it now was forced attendance at the National Youth Day. The first two hours was political indoctrination every Sunday, then the rest of the day they played all kinds of sports. Naturally, the equipment was free. Children went home thrilled each Sunday and were getting brainwashed. Parents had no choice but to send their children each Sunday or else be fined or taken to jail.

Hitler immediately introduced socialist health care. People were going to the hospital for everything now, lines were huge and doctors were paid a salary by the Government. The Austrians soon paid 80% of their income in taxes. Government gave loans for the newly married, and took care of everything from day care needs to paying all College tuition.

As the noose tightened around education, religion, healthcare and enforcement, the ‘mercy killings’ started in. Kitty, then a student teacher in a small village in the Alps, described 15 mentally retarded adults who were known in the community and did good manual work. One day they were rounded up and taken to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade and various skills. Their families where forced to sign papers saying that they wouldn’t visit them for 6 months. They were told that any visits could cause homesickness and disrupt the program.
The letters started arriving back to the parents after several months saying these people had died natural deaths. Of course, they all knew 15 completely healthy adults could not, six months later, have all died natural deaths. They knew they were killed. Euthanasia started to become more common as Hitler’s real world view of perfection started to come out.
Hitler’s final control step of the Germans and Austrians was Gun laws and control. He started with gun registration. Once that was done, he said that guns were causing too much crime and that it was best for all to turn in their guns. They knew that authorities already knew who owned what so they complied.
When you look at Hitler, Saul Alinsky, Stalin, Lenin, Chavez, Castro and others, you see huge similarities with the strategy and world view of Obama. It is the same, promise of health care, jobs and opportunities. There is always a contrived crises or two the big Government has to magically solve, while blaming the enemies they want to create.
Obama is on the same control and dictatorship path as Hitler. First we saw the massive seduction over 15 months; now the controls and intimidation grow with his administration.
This Health care bill might as well have been Hitler’s Enabling Act of March 23rd, 1933. It also shreds our constitution and forces socialized health care on the people, rationing care for the unwanted and expensive seniors as they age, and forcing us all to pay for the Government slaughter of babies; abortion. This bill, run by the IRS, might as well be the Nazi party, as it encourages euthanasia, abortion and rationed care as Hitler did early on in Austria and Germany.
Rep. Burgess stated the obvious about this nightmare bill when asked about the use of the ‘Commerce clause’ excusing forced mandates by the Government. In a interview Rep. Burgess, a doctor, stated,“No, I personally do not, and I think that is exactly right. Never before in the history of this country have we had the ability to coerce American citizens to purchase something and then invoke the Commerce clause after we coerce that purchase.” He went on…..”It just flies in the face of what a free society should be, so I’m perfectly comfortable with the attorneys general bringing suit against this bill,”
Yes, law suits are flying by Attorney Generals and other groups. We must stand no matter how awkward, inconvenient or expensive it is. Our freedom and country is at stake.
Obama isn’t stopping with forced Health care and the controls attached to that. He is going to manipulate votes by pushing amnesty for illegal aliens; controlling American businesses through cap and trade, then he will find a manipulative, back door way to come for our guns….most likely with a UN Treaty he is already working toward.
Obama continues to mock anyone who disagrees with him, and is now, according to the Wall Street Journal, stepping up Confrontation . Obama must be voted out. I don’t see any tin helmet on my head, and yes…..Obama comes from the same essence and evil as Hitler.

Satan has many tools one of the most used is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA

"An Adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelties." -- Pope Benedict XVI
Friday, March 26, 2010
Pope To Be Crucified This Easter

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Above we have a depiction of what the liberal mainstream news media would metaphorically like to do to Pope Benedict XVI this Easter. Lord knows they certainly are trying with everything they've got. However, it's not as if something like this has never happened before.

For the record, the pope is innocent of any wrong doing. Every attempted smear story they throw at him falls short. All you have to do is read the details. For example; in Munich we're talking about one case, wherein somebody beneath Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI) transferred an accused priest without Ratzinger's knowledge or consent. Then in the case of Milwaukee, again we are talking about one accused priest, who could not be prosecuted by civil authorities and the charges were dropped. Then while the Archbishop was the one and only man who could have done anything, he decided to punt the case to the Vatican instead, where it was delayed for months. Finally, when a response was given, it was given not by Cardinal Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI), but by somebody completely different, recommending the trial be canceled since the accused priest was dying, the Archbishop of Milwaukee had not defrocked him, and criminal charges had already been dropped by civil authorities. The accused priest died four months later. Once again, the responsibility lay at the Archbishop of Milwaukee's feet, because he alone was the only one who had evidence to defrock the accused priest, and yet he tried to pass the buck to Cardinal Ratzinger's office at the Vatican instead.

That's it! That's all the liberal mainstream media has! That is their whole case! Yet with that, they are trying to implicate the pope in some sort of trial by newspaper in which they alone play the judge, jury and executioner.

Since the mainstream news media refuses to do their jobs, let us in the blogosphere once again do it for them. Here are the facts..

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.

The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors from 1950 to 2002 is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.

In spite of what people say about clerical celibacy being a "cause" of these problems, actual statistics indicate that the majority of sex-abuse of minors is perpetrated by married men; step-fathers, uncles, cousins and live-in boyfriends. Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That's just a matter of statistical FACT. (learn more here)

In the overwhelming vast majority of cases where sexual abuse was reported in the Catholic Church, the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 12 and 18. Victims younger than 12 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of pedophilia. It is however a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of underage young men. Therefore the term "pedophile priests" is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be "predatory homosexual priests."

Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. In order for a homosexual to become a priest he must lie about his homosexuality just to get into seminary and remain "in the closet" indefinitely. If he is ever discovered to be gay, he would be fired and laicized (defrocked).

Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them. (learn more here)

Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church. (learn more here)

The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.

No other person in the Vatican has done more to defrock abusive priests and curb sexual abuse in general than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). He was a hawk on clerical discipline and hunting down predators. When he became pope he instituted a zero tolerance policy not only against abusive clerics but against homosexual priests in general. So it's ironic that this pope would find himself under media scrutiny for this reason.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was appointed Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, three years after John Paul II's election to the papacy in 1978. As you can see by the graph above, sexual allegations against priests had reached it's highest point the year Ratzinger was appointed. It had never been any higher, with nearly 9 out of every 1,000 priests being accused (almost 1%). Ratzinger went into action and quickly earned the nickname "God's Rottweiler" for his tough approach against all forms of ecclesiastical misconduct - most especially sexual abuse by clerics. Within twenty years, Ratzinger was able to reduce sex abuse allegations to a pre-1950's level with less than 1 out of every 1,000 priests being accused (less than 0.1%). This is especially remarkable when we consider that during the same time period sexual abuse of minors was on the rise in European and North American society in general. Ratzinger was able to implement this massive reform with a zero tolerance policy for homosexuality in the priesthood and by defrocking priests himself when he was canonically capable of doing so. However, Ratzinger did have limitations imposed on him while he was Prefect for the Congregation, and he was not allowed to implement all of the reforms he desired. After becoming pope in 2005, Ratzinger was able to write many of his reforms into Church law and remove many of the obstacles he encountered during his tenure as Prefect to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Now careful examination of the graph above reveals that sexual allegations against priests started to rise dramatically in the middle 1950's through 1981 (the year of Ratzinger's appointment). Who were the popes during those time periods? That would be Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul I (who reigned for less than a month). Pope John Paul II reigned only during the last three years of this time period before the numbers began to drop. So logically, which pontiffs should receive the most scrutiny? That would be Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI. The most dramatic rise came under the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI. Why does the media not go after them? What was happening during their pontificates that might explain their lack of action and failure to deal with the problem?

In going after the pope like this the mainstream media swallows the camel to strain a gnat as it ignores 99% of sex-abuse and coverup in the public schools to go after less than 1% in the Catholic Church, which happens to be less than what exists in other religious institutions. Since the mainstream media will not report the fact that the problem in the Catholic Church is only a tiny fraction of the problem that exists in public schools, we are once again left to ask the nagging question: WHY is the mainstream news media seeking to coverup and PROTECT child sex abusers by hiding the statistics of where they do the most damage?

Monday, March 29, 2010

Only on the Internet do you get the truth and real facts!

I have verified this and it is 100% true !

Snopes says this is true as do others on the Internet.


Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends - an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett also said:

"This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going."

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.. It's happening right now.

Global warming? More like Global Corruption

Rationalizing poor decisions, Having an illusion of invulnerability, Maintaining an illusion of unanimity
IPCC/CRU Self-Deception Through Groupthink
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, March 29, 2010

Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming.

People identified in the leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were primarily responsible through the Physical Science Basis Report of Working Group I of the IPCC and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Politics is clearly the motive for some scientists like James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and others, but this is not so clear for most at the CRU. Which begs the question how and why supposedly intelligent people became involved and continued to participate in such corruption?

The Group
Irving Janis developed the concept of Groupthink, which requires unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. “Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision-making.”

The CRU/IPCC pattern is a classic example.

Here’s a list of some symptoms of groupthink with examples from CRU/IPCC emails and actions.

Having an illusion of invulnerability. Content of the emails is a litany of arrogant invulnerability. In a backhanded way Overpeck provides support for this position because he advised them on Sep 9, 2009 to “Please write all emails as though they will be made public.” They didn’t listen because they believed they were invulnerable.

Rationalizing poor decisions. Jones rationalized the decision to withhold Freedom of Information (FOI) to the University of East Anglia staff on December 3, 2008 as follows, “Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.”

Believing in the group’s morality. The entire body of emails supports this claim. Rob Wilson wrote on February 21, 2006 “I need to diplomatically word all this. I never wanted to criticise Mike’s work in any way. It was for that reason that I made little mention to it initially.” On May 6, 1999 Mann wrote to Phil Jones, “Trust that I’m certainly on board w/you that we’re all working towards a common goal” and later “I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.” So do I!

Conversely, Keith Briffa, who I believe was the whistleblower, battled with Mann and became increasingly alienated from the group.

On June 17, 2002 he wrote, “I have just read this letter and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series.”

Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision. This takes the form of unethical comments of practice going without challenge because they were all doing it. On September 19, 1996 Funkhouser wrote, “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.”

Exercising direct pressure on others. On April 24, 2003 Wigley wrote, “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” They also got James Saiers, editor of Geophysical Research Letters, fired.

Not expressing your true feelings. On the October 14, 2009 Trenberth expresses something to Tom Wigley that none of them ever dared say in public. How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

Maintaining an illusion of unanimity. Briffa struggles to maintain the illusion when he writes to Mann on April 29 2007, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties.”

Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.” This was Mann’s comment to the group about establishment of Realclimate to act as “mindguards”.

Some of the negative outcomes of groupthink also fit the actions of the CRU/IPCC group.

Examining few alternatives. They narrowed the options by the definition of climate change to only those caused by human activities. Of the three greenhouse gases, almost all the focus is on CO2.

Not being critical of each other’s ideas. Not only were they not critical, but they peer reviewed each other’s work and controlled who they recommended to editors for reviewers. Mann to Jones June 4, 2003 “I’d like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the “official keeper” of the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn’t in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave.” On August 5, 2009 Jones wrote to Grant Foster in response to his request for reviewers for an article, “I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling. To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe. So Neville Nicholls and David Parker. All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”

Not examining early alternatives. There was a graph of temperatures drawn by Lamb showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and used in the first IPCC Report. It was correct but contradicted their claim of modern warming. As Mann said to Jones on June 4, 2003, “it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.” They chose to rewrite history.

Not seeking expert opinion. Professor Wegman spoke directly to this problem in his report for the US Senate on the infamous hockey stick graph. “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.”

Being highly selective in gathering information. Apart from only looking at human causes, the CRU emails have many examples of data selected to prove their point. Tim Osborn to the group on October 5, 1999 speaks of the issue McIntyre identified of truncated records.

They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. On March 19, 2009 Santer wrote to Jones about the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) asking for data used for a publication. “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.” On September 27, 2009 Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones about a problem with Sea Surface Temperatures (SST), “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

Not having contingency plans. They never expected they would be exposed.

But they were exposed. Now most can’t believe scientists could ignore or deliberately manipulate data, distort procedures and not have more of them speak out. As Janis explains groupthink, “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.” Politicians seem to have the greatest difficulty possibly because they suffer groupthink

Driving the United States of America into the Ground

Monday, March 29, 2010
We've All Heard Of It
Now here's the specifics

Sure, there have been many an article in regards to ObaCommieCare creating well over a hundred new government agencies. For those on the Left who claim it's all just screaming, yelling and fear-mongering, here's the link from;

159 Ways the Senate Bill Is a Government Takeover of Health Care

Courtesy of the Senate Republican Policy Committee:

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, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233) 14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752) 36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055) 45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community-based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337) 144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

*Section 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be deemed as passed with certain amendments.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

History facts you won't learn in school

Your” Social Security, is not that Secure anymore!

Just in case some of you young folks didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000 ($109,000 as of 2009)

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible
(Big One…)

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

(Another Big One….)
Under Lydon B Johnson (Democrat) the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent as congress needed, and left an IOU in place of money!

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income..

(A REALLY Big One…!!)
Under Clinton & Gore (both Democrats)
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now or will someday start receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money (That had already been taxed) we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?


A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is UNINFORMED VOTERS BELIEVE IT!


And least we forget…

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

So when Obama and the Democratic congress make you a promise , do you believe they intend to keep that promise?

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Wake up and focus, America!

Threats, harassment, false promises, intimidation, invented crises
Hitler’s and Obama’s health enabling acts
By Dr. Laurie Roth Saturday, March 27, 2010
President Hitler signed a shockingly similar bill with similar tactics used to get it signed….threats, harassment, false promises, intimidation, invented crises. Gee….did Obama take lessons from Hitler? He certainly proudly taught ACORN workers from Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, so why not go back to the original power crazed, crowd manipulator and evil visionary? On that fateful day, March 23rd Hitler signed into law the National Law for Removing the Distress of the People bill. It was also called Hitler’s Enabling Act.

I talked with Steve Eichler of this week on air about these two dates and the horrifying similarities of the two events in history. Steve and I probed whether we were indeed reliving history. We both studied the events of 1933 and 2010 and said a big fat yes!

It is horrifying how similar both acts are.

First of all, understand Hitler was a brilliant, charismatic speaker who said things in style, lied through his teeth and manipulated whatever he had to, to get a vote and power. His big dagger in the heart of the German people and constitution was to somehow get the vote by Parliament to pass his Enabling Act, which, due to contrived crises and manipulated need would give him total power, full power without the need of any more votes or Parliament.

Obama also seduced 60% of the nation, congress and most the media into not asking real questions and just believing his countless lies.

What did Hitler do? He first manufactured the need and crises.

Hitler promised Health care for everyone, jobs for 100% of the German people and protection from what he called the beginning of a widespread uprising. This was the mythological uprising he and his Nazi party created by burning down the German government building, causing huge panic and rage in the people. Hitler at the time blamed the horrific burning on the communists, thus he needed a vote for his Enabling Act to stop this out of control terror in Germany.

Napalitono, Homeland Security and Obama have called conservative Americans domestic terrorists, even returning Vets. We saw the other leaked report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) that listed Rev. Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul and their followers of even being potential domestic terrorists.

In 1933 it was Jews and Communists. In 2010, not only does this growing enemy list seem anti Semitic and anti Israel, but Obama has new enemies to add. These include Christians, gun owners, pro lifers, Vets, Tea Party people, Republicans. Talk radio hosts and conservatives in general.

Doug Hagmann of North East Intelligence Network confirmed these growing controls by our Government even more with a recent conversation he had with an intelligence source, who talked of Homeland Security actively investigating incidents and threats of violence made to at least ten Democrats. Of course you would want and expect them to investigate if there were real threats, but Doug said more lists were being made with their focus and suspicions on tea-party organizations and pro-life groups.

How did the Nazis get the votes for Hitler for the Enabling Act?

The Nazis chanted loudly around the opera house Parliament was voting in, “Full powers – or else! We want the bill or fire and murder!!” They also lined the halls and aisles, glaring and intimidating Parliament members to vote Hitler’s way….or else.

False promises
Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass his draconian bill and shred his country’s constitution. He got those by promising a limited use of his power…only using it for critical reasons, he promised no more unemployment, peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union and to sucker the Center Party to give him the votes he needed, he promised to give back some basic rights that had already been taken away from them.

Hitler spoke; Hitler lied; Hitler intimidated; Hitler promised jobs, health care and safety; and Hitler won the vote 441 to 84.

March 23, 1933, everything changed for Germany. After that vote, their constitution was shredded. The most evil dictator of our time would rise to power, shockingly, by the vote of the people in Parliament. Massive controls, mass murders targeting, Jews, Communists, non supporters of Hitler and World war followed.

The Germans believed the speeches….promises of health care, economic revival and jobs for all. No one thought in German Parliament that voting for Hitler’s Enabling Act would lead to the murder of millions of innocent people, destroy their freedom and bring WW2, but it did.

Look at the similarities:

Obama shockingly also signed the constitution shredding, freedom stealing Health care bill into law March 23, 2010 - 77 years later to the day. He also gave speech after speech on America’s ‘crisis’ of health care and need for massive Government intervention and correction.

This Health care bill, like Hitler’s Enabling Act, forces many things on the American people. For the first time in U.S. history it forces all Americans to have health insurance or face huge fines or even jail time. This is forced health insurance that the Government says is acceptable. Forcing the public to buy a product or service has never been done by our Government. Obama and Pelosi are currently distorting and hiding behind the ‘commerce’ clause. I have interviewed two constitutional attorneys on my national radio show. They confirmed that the commerce argument trying to validate this mandate was 100% false and taken completely out of context.

Obama couldn’t find a more intimidating, powerful and menacing control of Health care than the dreaded and huge IRS. It is almost as if he put the military in control of tracking us with the potential intimidation and enforcement plans attached. It will be frightening enough with the IRS breathing down our throats. Has plan of control kind of makes you think of the Nazi party.

Obama and the Democrats used the same intimation, bribes, and harassment and pay offs as Hitler did getting the votes to line up. We saw the Louisiana Purchase, Corn Husker pay offs and pay offs to Stupack Airports. All this and more suckered the pro life Democrats to sell out on the abortion issue. They shamefully caved in when our manipulative and lying President, Obama offered the executive order to stop tax payer money from paying for abortions. In talking with several constitutional attorneys on this, they all said that issuing an executive order was pure theater since NO EXECUTIVE ORDER CAN TRUMP A LAW JUST PASSED BY THE CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT.

We will never know the amount of pay offs, bribes and intimidation that really happened to set up the vote for Obama. We saw an example of how Obama’s goon, Rahm Emanuel, works, when he poked Rep. Eric Massa in the chest when they were showering. He intimidated and harassed him, even physically poking him while naked to vote for Obama’s bill. This was the Nazi-like response from Emanuel to one of their own who had dared to vote no the first time. Never mind that Massa was resigning largely due to his fighting cancer.

Remember, Hitler and the Nazi party started with promises of health care, environmentalism/green issues, promise of creating jobs and protecting the country from threats like the communists and Jews.

Obama has also started his first 15 months with false promises regarding jobs and the economy and health care. Soon he will push amnesty to secure illegal votes from illegal aliens then cap and trade to shred, regulate and control American business.

He is pushing on several fronts for Health ID cards, forced worker cards, as was spoken about this month in the Wall Street Journal and smart grid technology to track all the energy and electricity used in our homes. Think of it. As Hitler quickly did, Obama is boldly attempting to collect, control on line, all our medical and mental health records, tracked through the IRS. He is also planning to know who we all are, where we work, hiding behind the immigration issue. We would have to have and show our worker card to have a job. He even wants to control energy and the utility use in our own homes with the smart grid use and push.

The Nazi party was proudly ‘Green’ and environmentally obsessed. That was just one of their many attacks on the Jews….they were too capitalistic, they were mean to animals and the environment….lie lie lie.

Obama is also obsessed with passing the draconian and controlling Cap and Trade bill that is based on fraudulent, global warming science. This would micromanage, regulate and control American business right into the ground or simply turn them into obedient serfs that forcibly serve Obama and the Government, or go bankrupt.

Violence followed the manipulated votes in Hitler’s direction after his health care, environmental, economic/job and national protection push in Germany.

What will the American people do now with another unconstitutional bill designed to control us and shred our constitutional rights as Hitler did 77 years ago on the same day?

So far the Attorney General suits are flying regarding the violation of 10th amendment rights and forced mandates. Other law suits are lining up due to the multi-layer, constitutional breaches. The Tea Party groups are growing through the roof. Faxes, emails and phone calls are flying to congress like never before and mental health centers and retirement services are hiring new staff just to absorb the amount of congress people who will be out of work after the Mid terms.

We must march, scream, yell, write, call, vote, organize and pray. Together we will get this nightmare regime out of congress and our White house back. Violence is not what is needed but clear thinking and action is needed NOW. We cannot allow what happened in 1933 to happen in 2010.

From Utopia to Destruction, legacy of Obuma

(Article by A.S. How the Healthcare will destroy what is left of our economy,the only people to survive will be the Government. This is worse than any movie you have watched. The only answer and protection from this disaster will be to vote out every single Democrat in office, and those Republicans that side with them!)

"One of the most interesting terms to come out of the past two years is the ‘double dip recession’. This is Newspeak for depression as far as I am concerned, but it fits with the new nomenclature we have used in an attempt to paint a crisis as not really being one. After all, what fun is it to admit that we’re in a morass that we have no hope of getting out of, or even a cogent, sensible plan for exiting? It is much easier to conjure up new terms in an attempt to move the boundaries into more palatable territory. This week, in the wake of the biggest nation-killing bill to pass out of the halls of Congress to date, I’m going to tell you exactly why we are now guaranteed a second dip (to use the nomenclature du jour), and how this is going to hit small businesses, which are the backbone of the real economy.

In order to accomplish this, I am going to cite exact passages from this bill and give you page references so you can download a copy of the bill and follow along if you so desire. I am also doing this since many people simply cannot believe that our reps would put such provisions into legislation and will no doubt call me a liar and a shill. Before anyone gets any ideas about turning this into the sadly typical political muckraking that passes for debate these days, I want to refer you back to the articles I wrote in 2008 issuing scathing criticism of the banker bailout, the AIG (AIG) bailout, Fannie (FNM)/Freddie (FRE), and the housing relief bills, which were pushed by the ‘other’ folks in Congress. I couldn’t give a rip about politics. I am interested in the impact these bills will have on our economy and American families.

Piling on Debt

One of the planks that was used to promote this legislation was the fact that it will be a deficit-reducing measure. Let’s consider a few things here. The IRS will need to hire upwards of 16,000 agents and require an additional $10 Billion over the next decade (reported in the MSM) to ‘police’ the provisions of this new law. So the public sector will get even bigger. The late Milton Friedman did some fascinating research and modeling that pointed to the fact that every public sector job created destroys roughly 2 private sector jobs. That is 32,000 more private sector jobs down the tubes just on the IRS’ account using Friedman’s research, which has proven to be pretty accurate.

The bill itself is advertised to cost $940 Billion. Looking back a few years, we have Medicare Part D, which was advertised to cost around $500 billion. To date Medicare Part D has already added nearly $7 TRILLION in contingent unfunded liabilities to our national balance sheet. While it would be irresponsible to do a naked extrapolation here, the point is simple; this bill will, in all likelihood, end up costing an awful lot more than what has been advertised.

Martin Feldstein who, incidentally, concurs with the above assessment estimates debt service on the debt created by this new law to run around $300 billion over the next decade. In the new financial landscape where we talk in terms of trillions, a mere $300 billion doesn’t seem like a lot. However, when you consider that $300 Billion represents the total of yearly earnings of over 6.5 million average US families, it is obvious we’re not talking about chump change here. For a nation that already has liabilities that outstrip assets by anywhere between $15 and $20 Trillion dollars, it seems foolish to even consider more debt, but we don’t even blink twice anymore. Our government is probably already aware of the fact that the debt cannot be paid, so why not pile it on as long as others are willing to let the game continue? It’ll be ok until it isn’t, then we’ll have to think of something else. How’s that for an exit strategy?

The Provisions

Page 22 Section 113 – The Health Choices Commissioner along with the Dept. of Health/Human Services will conduct an audit of the books of any businesses that self-insure. This constitutes an additional regulatory burden on the small business that chooses the self-insurance route.

Page 50 Section 152 – This will allow illegal aliens to get health insurance; presumably at no cost since nowhere does it mention charging them or making them pay any sort of taxes, fees, or levies. The section reads that health care will be provided ‘without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of quality health care or related services.’ Although, ironically, Section 246 contains language that purports to exclude ‘undocumented aliens’ from Federal payments towards affordability tax credits. This is something of a joke since these people don’t file returns anyway and would not be able to take advantage of such a credit.

Page 149 Section 313 – Any employer who has a payroll greater than $401,000 and doesn’t offer a ‘public’ option for employees will pay an 8% tax on its payroll – payable to the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund.

Page 150 Section 313 – The following schedule applies to smaller employers who don’t offer a ‘public option for employees. The percentage represents the additional ‘tax’ they will need to pay to the Trust Fund:

Does not exceed $250,000 – 0 percent

Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent

Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent

Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

Also of interest is the fact that Section 313 states that an employer hasn’t satisfied the contribution requirement if they simply cut the employee’s salary by the amount of the contribution. This is best illustrated with an example: Let’s suppose Employer A has an Employee X who makes $10.00/hour and Employer A doesn’t offer a ‘public option’ for his employees. By law, the employer is now required to pay an 8% tax on payroll (let’s assume Employer A is in the highest bracket). If the Employer simply reduces Employee X’s wage by 8% to $9.20/hour, the Employer is in violation of the statute and is deemed to not have made a contribution. While on the surface this appears good since it forces the employer to effectively increase total employee compensation, this will be a job-killer. Employer A might very easily choose to reduce the workforce by 8% to keep costs the same.

It is pretty easy to see that just these four provisions add some serious burdens on what are considered to be small businesses. These are the businesses that employ somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of all workers and create roughly 60% of new jobs. The most logical response of these businesses will be to cut staff or reduce non health-related benefits such as retirement contributions. Still mired in a severe recession, small businesses have not been able to grow top line revenues (nor have large ones to any meaningful extent for that matter) and are therefore going to be focused on controlling costs. This is precisely how the firms that have survived have done so over the past 2 years. This law will put many of them under. I wonder if BLS will take this new reality into account when it pulls CESBD (birth/death model) adjustments out of the black hat each month?

This says nothing of the encroachment on civil liberties such as the IRS having direct access to your bank accounts (Page 59 Section 1173A) and the creation of a National Heath Card ID and giving government instant access to your financial information (Page 58 Section 1173A).

All this and we still haven’t considered the overall impact this will have on the macroeconomy. We know that half a trillion dollars will be transferred from consumers to government vis a vis the ‘Shared Responsibility’ doctrine espoused in the law and it will likely be much more than that. That is an additional half trillion dollars that will not be spent efficiently by consumers, but will be squandered by government. Ok, I’ll admit it - I am deeply skeptical of any government ‘Trust’ Fund. For those who want to bicker on this point, I refer you to the status of the Social Security ‘Trust’ Fund as my basis for skepticism.

We also know that $500 Billion worth of Medicare cuts will be made, which essentially means that another half trillion will disappear from the pockets of households in pursuit of paying higher Medicare premiums. The beauty of the shift is that it is essentially GDP neutral since government spending counts in GDP at the same weight as consumer spending. In this new world of socialized everything we clearly need a new way of measuring economic output or at least differentiating legitimate output from the activities of our borrow and spend politicians.

With all the debt being accumulated, the money being pulled from the real economy in favor of the centrally planned utopia sought by so many on Capitol Hill, and the pressures brought to bear on businesses by this ‘reform’, it is hard to contemplate a set of circumstances under which we avoid another steep contraction in the real economy. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to go from recovery to contraction. My guess is about as long as it takes for a Baskin Robbins double dip to melt."

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Who will this healthcare bill Hurt?

Why health reform will cost more than Democrats claim
Delayed benefits, immediate taxes
 The bill raises $60 billion in taxes before any of the major benefits go into effect.i
 96 percent of the benefits don’t start until 2014.ii
The CLASS Act is “a Ponzi scheme of the first order”
 The CLASS Act appears to make the bill cost less than it does because, as CBO said, “the program
would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums over the 10-year budget
window,”iii raising $70 billion in premiums that will fund benefits outside the window.
 Senator Conrad has called this “a Ponzi scheme of the first order.”iv
No doc fix
 A 10-year doc fix will cost $371 billion according to the Administration, dwarfing the savings
claimed by Democrats from this bill.v
Raids Social Security
 Relies on $29 billion in new Social Security revenue to achieve the appearance of deficit cuts – these
revenues are meant to pay Social Security benefits, not fund a new
Savings are tiny compared to current deficits
 Democrats claim this bill will save $143 billion over 10-years, an amount dwarfed by the $655
billion deficit so far this fiscal year or their $862 billion fiscal stimulus bill.vii
Double counts Medicare savings and revenues
 Democrats claim the $529 billion in Medicare cuts and $210 billion in new Medicare taxes in the bill
will improve the solvency of the Medicare HI trust fund, but they use those same cuts and taxes to
pay for the enormous new entitlement in this bill.
 This is double counting – either Medicare savings improve solvency or they pay for this bill, they
can’t possibly do both.
 CBO has written that HI trust fund savings under this bill “would not enhance the ability of the
government to pay for future Medicare benefits.”viii
Relies on “unrealistic” budget cuts
 The CBO score assumes that the $529 billion in Medicare cuts will be implemented, even though the
HHS Actuary said that the level of cuts was “unrealistic” and could “jeopardize access to care” for
 The score also assumes that Congress won’t intervene to block the cuts proposed by the Independent
Medicare Advisory Board. But a similar provision to implement Medicare cuts under fast track
procedures when general revenues were projected to cover more than 45 percent of overall Medicare
costs has never once been used.
Estimates past 2019 cannot be relied on
 CBO only provides detailed estimates within the budget window, which ends in 2019. Outside the
budget window CBO says any calculation made “reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty”
regarding those years.x
 The spending and taxes in this bill are back-loaded to take effect in 2020 and beyond, meaning this
bill’s effect on the size and scope of government is not clear from the CBO score.
Waits until 2020 to fully close the donut hole so it doesn’t score
 The bill closes the Medicare Part D donut hole in 2020, a year not included in the score.
i JCT Estimated Revenue Effects of the Reconciliation Act of 2010, JCX‐16‐10, March 20, 2010
ii CBO letter to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the
Reconciliation Act of 2010, March 20, 2010
iii CBO Director’s Blog post on Long‐term Care Insurance, Novemeber 19th, 2010, at
iv “Proposed long‐term insurance program raises questions,” by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post, October 27,
2009, at:‐dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102701417.html
v Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Table S‐7, at:
vi See FN 2, Table 1
vii CBO Monthly Budget Review, March 4, 2010, at:
viii CBO letter to the Honorable Jeff Sessions, January 22, 2010, at:‐
ix Letter from Richard S. Foster, CMS Chief Actuary on the Estimated Financial Effects of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2009,” December 10, 2009, at:‐12‐10.pdf
x See FN2.

Today its Greece , Tomorrow Italy, Portugal,Spain. England?

To be followed by US?
Greece: Why Europe's Support Plan Won't Fix the Problem 10 comments
by: Daryl

After many press reports over the last two months about a possible bailout for Greece, eurozone leaders seem to have finally come up with a plan to handle the crisis. The plan however will only be used as a last resort, is limited to loans at market interest rates, and requires unanimous agreement from all member countries before aid can be granted. Eurozone countries would provide about two-thirds of the loan money and the IMF the remaining third. Given the restrictions, the support package is likely to have limited impact.

While no loan amount has been specified, unofficial sources indicated that 22 billion euros was the proposed amount. Greece has to borrow 20 billion euros in April and May alone. Greece has not had problems borrowing money so far, but has had to pay high interest rates to do so. The high rates are causing problems because more money has to go to debt service and this means less money for other government spending elsewhere. The country has already been plagued with riots because of its enactment of budget cuts and higher taxes. The euro zone support package though doesn't lower borrowing costs for Greece. It only assures that Greece will be able to continue to borrow in case no one else will lend to it. Essentially the eurozone, along with help from the IMF, has established a policy of acting as a lender of last resort for its sovereign entities.

Admittedly, the eurozone has to trod a very narrow path in the extent of its aid to member countries. If Greece were the only member in trouble the situation wouldn't be so delicate. The Credit Crisis has devastated Europe, just as it has the rest of the world. The more economically marginal countries have suffered the most. Greece is merely the canary in the coal mine. Ireland just released fourth quarter GDP figures indicating that its economy shrank at a 5.1% annualized rate. GDP contraction there in 2009 was the largest on record and that includes all the years of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Italy's GDP dropped 5.1% in 2009. Official figures indicate that Spain's economy was 3.6% smaller for the year. Portugal, which just had its debt rating downgraded by Fitch, claims that its GDP was down a mere 2.7% in 2009.

While all of these numbers are bad, they could actually be even worse. The media reported that Greece shocked markets and other EU nations when it admitted it falsified its statistics to make its budget deficit look much lower than it was, even though the numbers was obviously impossible. The original Greek government figures projected a budget deficit to GDP ratio of 3.75% for 2009 and below 3% (the eurozone target for members of the currency union) for 2010. Greece also claimed that its GDP would increase by 1.1% in the midst of the severe global downturn that was taking place last year (as of now it looks like GDP dropped 2.0%). While these fantasy figures were treated as reality at EU headquarters, the OECD didn't buy them. Long before the Greek government admitted to the truth, it estimated that the budget deficit to GDP ratio would be 6% in 2009. So far, it looks like it will actually be 12.7% - around 250% higher than initially claimed by the Greek government. If such outrageous fabrications could be accepted, would 50% or even 100% errors be discovered? Greece is not the first country to lie about its economic statistics. Only the very naive would assume that there aren't many other countries doing the exact same thing. Moreover, Greece only got caught because it turned itself in.

Denial on the part of eurozone governing bodies is what has lead to the current crisis with Greece. In order to avoid future problems, the eurozone needs to assure the integrity of the numbers produced by its member countries, so no other major surprises will take place. There also needs to be a more formal mechanism to establish economic equilibrium among member nations as well. The potential trouble spots in the eurozone are characterized as relying excessively on consumer spending, having weak public finances, and relying on foreign capital to supplement low savings rates. Interestingly, this is also an excellent description of the United States.

Friday, March 26, 2010

You have no idea of what you are in for!

Making a Bad Bill Worse:
Highlights of Reconciliation Legislation
The reconciliation bill recently released by Democrats I would not mitigate the effects of the Senate-passed health care bill, but in fact make them worse:
More Tax Increases: The reconciliation bill raises taxes by an additional $50 billion when compared to the Senate bill, for an overall tax increase of $569.2 billion. The bill specifically expands the Medicare payroll tax—for the first time in history—to all investment income for individuals with incomes over $200,000 and families with incomes over $250,000. Because the underlying Senate bill does NOT index this new tax for inflation, more and more middle-class American families will be hit by this tax over time, just like the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Higher Premiums: The reconciliation bill nearly doubles the tax on health insurers beginning in 2014, and also raises taxes and fees on drug makers and medical devices. The Congressional Budget Office has specifically stated that these taxes will be passed on to all Americans in the form of higher health costs and rising insurance premiums.ii
Budget Gimmicks Galore: The reconciliation bill includes a physician payment “cliff” in Medicaid, whereby payments for primary care physicians are increased for 2013 and 2014 only—a provision designed to mask the long-term cost of such a change. The bill also hides the cost of filling in the “doughnut hole” by not fully phasing in the provision until 2020. Health insurance subsidy levels would be increased in the short-term—but would grow more slowly in the years after 2019. And the threshold at which health insurance plans would be hit by the “Cadillac tax” would grow more slowly after 2020—resulting in a major and growing tax increase on the middle class if actually implemented.
Phony Deficit Reduction: The reconciliation bill and the Senate-passed measure combined do not reduce the deficit after excluding the more than $120 billion in revenue generated by the Social Security program and the CLASS Act long-term care entitlement. Since this revenue will eventually be used to pay out benefits to these two programs, the bill does NOT reduce the deficit in the near-term—or the long term.
More Lost Jobs: The reconciliation bill nearly triples the penalty—from $750 to $2,000—on businesses that cannot afford to provide their workers with health coverage, and applies these taxes to part-time as well as full-time workers. As if these higher taxes were not enough of a disincentive to prevent firms from hiring workers, the reconciliation bill also includes an unprecedented extension of the Medicare tax to all non-wage income. These tax increases will raise the top marginal rate on small business owners by 20%, and the top tax rate on investment income by 60%–discouraging the activity needed to grow the economy and create new jobs.
More Medicare Cuts: The reconciliation bill raises another $66.1 billion from Medicare Advantage, cutting a total of $202.3 billion from the program in order to fund new entitlements for other Americans. The total Medicare cuts in the bill now add up to $523 billion.
Sweetheart Deals: The reconciliation bill retains unpopular provisions in the Senate-passed measure—the “Louisiana Purchase,” Medicare coverage for individuals in Libby, Montana, and $100 million for a Connecticut hospital—while adding yet more backroom deals: Increased disproportionate share hospital payments for Tennessee, and other hospital payments to targeted areas. Many may wonder why citizens in other states should see their taxpayer dollars fund special deals in places like Tennessee and Louisiana.
Empty Promises: The reconciliation bill forces an additional 1 million individuals into Medicaid on top of the 15 million already forced into Medicaid in the Senate bill. That means that 16 million of the 32 million newly insured individuals would obtain that coverage through Medicaid—a program which President Obama admitted at the recent health care summit suffers from serious access problems already.iii The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2 million fewer individuals will have a choice of plans on the Exchange, and 23 million individuals would remain uninsured.
Federal Funding of Abortion: The reconciliation bill fails to prohibit federal funds from flowing to plans that cover elective abortion, and also increases funding for community health centers by $2.5 billion—and neither the reconciliation bill nor the Senate-passed measure include ANY prohibition on community health centers using these federal funds to offer elective abortion.

US Senator

Not for the People, but for the Democratic Power

The People Speak
No, Mr. President, polls show the health-care vote was not “of the people.”

Shortly after the House approved the massive, historic health-care legislation and sent it to President Obama for his signature, the president declared the vote “proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.”

That line alone merits 20,000 years in Purgatory. I trust even my non-Catholic friends will stand by me on that. Beyond this, though, there is a very important critic of Obama’s assertion out there — those same “people.”

According to, which tracks surveys, here are the approval rates from the last non-partisan polls conducted before the vote on the health-care legislation.

CNN: 39 percent.

CBS News: 42 percent.

Rasmussen: 41 percent.

Fox News: 35 percent.

Economist/YouGov: 48 percent.

Kaiser/PSRA: 46 percent.

NBC/WSJ: 36 percent.

Pew Research Center: 38 percent.

Not a single majority. In fact, Obama’s “the people” is closer to a third of the electorate. Yet these figures understate public opposition because they don’t reflect intensity. Some polls did measure it, though, including the one that seems to indicate the most support. The Economist/YouGov poll found that 48 percent approved the legislation, but of these only 16 percent “strongly supported” it, while 35 percent were “strongly opposed.”

This pattern is constant through other polls that asked such questions. Rasmussen found that 26 percent strongly favored the legislation, and 45 percent strongly opposed it. CBS found 13 percent strongly in favor, 33 percent strongly opposed.

(The day after the vote a Gallup Poll reported that 49 percent of those surveyed called the passage “a good thing,” but this is what pollsters call a “bounce,” and it’s temporary. After all, the legislation didn’t change overnight. And even the specific responses are revealing. Only 15 percent of Americans said they were “enthusiastic,” while 19 percent were downright “angry.”)

And there’s yet more behind those simple numbers. For example, a poll conducted on behalf of Independent Women’s Voice found the usual third of respondents in favor of the legislation. But only 10 percent wanted it passed “as is,” while 13 percent wanted it passed with “major changes later on” and another 13 percent with “minor changes later on.”

And while 35 percent of those in the Fox survey wanted the legislation passed, only 27 percent said “yes” when asked whether “the quality of health care for you and your family would be better” if it did so. In the Economist/YouGov poll, only 16 percent of respondents thought they’d receive better care; 36 percent thought they’d receive worse care.

Ah, but Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg — in a New York Times op-ed Tuesday that’s textbook spinning — said the trend was toward support of the legislation. “A poll that I conducted with the Democratic strategist James Carville for Democracy Corps over the past week showed a 5-point increase in the number of self-identified ‘intense’ reform supporters, to 24 percent,” he claimed. All of 24 percent!

And then when he released the actual results later that day, the report admitted the increase wasn’t even statistically significant. Whoops!

Other polls didn’t find noticeable changes. Rasmussen reported its figures have barely budged in recent months, while Pew said current views are “almost identical to” those of the previous two months. The Women’s Voice poll found that new information about the legislation that respondents had received in the previous ten days had made 55 percent “less supportive” — indeed, it had made 42 percent “much less” so. The more people saw, the less they liked.

Some may take a benevolent view, believing that Obama and Congress felt that, regardless of public opinion, they had to do what they believed was right. On this reading, their concern was not “of the people” or “by the people,” but it was “for the people.” The less benevolent view is that Obama and the Democrats were starved for a legislative victory. “For the Democrats, a Win Is a Win” was the title of Greenberg’s op-ed.

This also appears to be the public’s view. CBS reported that 57 percent of respondents said the Democrats were trying to pass the bill for “mostly political reasons.”

Still, we do know that liberals sincerely believe that any increase in government power is inherently good — and, boy, is this one heck of an increase.

The problem with the benevolent view is that even members of Congress have been admitting the legislation is deeply flawed. They could have used the first go-round as a learning experience and tried again. That’s what the highly detailed Women’s Voice poll showed Americans wanted. Seventy percent “strongly agreed” they “would prefer that Congress do healthcare reform right than do it fast,” with an additional 9 percent somewhat agreeing. Exactly two-thirds “strongly agreed” that it would be better that “Congress do no healthcare reform at all than do it wrong.”

Surveys have repeatedly shown Americans believe we need health-care reform of some kind — just not this kind. A February 10 ABC News/Washington Post poll of registered voters poll found almost two-thirds of Americans think “Washington should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan.”

Here is the crucial factor, though.

The Democrats appear to be in trouble come November. A March 10 Gallup survey of registered voters found that “Republicans would be at parity or holding a slight advantage if actual voting were to take place now,” and that “Republicans hold a significant enthusiasm advantage over Democrats at this juncture.”

“Disapproval of Congress,” notes the ABC/Post poll, “at 71 percent, matches its highest since 1994, when the GOP swept to control in a midterm rout of the Democrats.” They said, “That’s a rare level of GOP support in nearly three decades of polls.” And obviously a powerful anti-incumbent backlash inherently favors the party out of power. The importance of this to health-care legislation is that the bill passed by just seven votes — all of 50.8 percent of those voting. It got zero votes from Republicans, and there were 17 Democratic defectors.

Had the legislation been rewritten, it would absolutely have had to be bipartisan, which in and of itself is what Americans want. They are sick and tired of the partisan infighting. That means the bill would of necessity have represented a broader viewpoint more in tune with the American electorate. But that — a health-care bill truly “of the people” — could not be tolerated by Obama and the Democratic leadership.

— Michael Fumento

Exploitation, Alienation, Historical materialism (No GOD)

Exploitation, Alienation, Historical materialism
Marxism: A Study In Slacker Mentality
By Bill Turner Thursday, March 25, 2010
Generalissimo Obama is the prototypical slacker. He hung out, smoked dope and did little or nothing in college, or so we are led to believe, as he won’t release his transcripts and no one remembers him. He managed to do little or nothing as a united States Senator, voting present more than yea or nay on legislation.

As president, B. Hussein Obama has managed to get a dog, go on a “date” with his wife and destroy the fabric of America (that not taking much, as Congress did the work and he just had to sign some papers) in between basketball games and trashing Israel. Generalissimo Obama is in slacker heaven with his Marxist regime.

Marxism is based upon slacker ideals, which have been embraced by and taught in the public school system for two generations:

Exploitation: The idea that the worker is exploited if he/she uses more labor than necessary to produce goods society uses. This is the union concept of doing the minimum, not achieving anything but becoming a drone.

Alienation: The concept that the worker becomes detached from his/her “humanity” by generating profits for the owner of the business, the one taking all of the risk and responsibility. Right.

Historical Materialism: References the collective ways humans make money. I do not make a collective income. I earn for myself.

As you can see by the items above, there are a few serious flaws in the slacker ideal of Marxism/Socialism/Communism, not the least of which is the fact that diminished production equates with diminished income, which fuels alienation. Marxism is a catch-22 of self fulfilling prophecy. Today’s Marxists do not let the facts get in their way. Never mind that Marxism/Socialism/Communism has failed in every society, including the ones that massively reduced their population through genocide and reduced social services (food, health care, etc.), the Marxists in the White House and Congress insist on pushing forward.

On that note, I will push forward with the examination of the evil known as Marxism/Socialism/Communism, through the distinct stages identified by Karl Marx:

Primitive Communism: Cooperative tribal societies. Tribal societies have a long history of being less than cooperative, but let’s not let facts cloud a good theory, Karl.

Slave Society: According to Marx, a development of tribal progression. Right. Go from a cooperative, to enslavement with no transition.

Feudalism: Good ole Karl, we go from a slave state to an aristocracy with business owners becoming evil capitalists, because, hey, slavery was much more fun.

Capitalism: The evil capitalists call the shots and employ the proletariats. Marx says this is like slavery, except slaves didn’t get paid and were property of the slave owner…just like slavery, but different.

Socialism: Workers gain class consciousness. Revolution replaces capitalist leaders with a dictatorship of the working class where socialization of production can be achieved. Historically this is where everything goes haywire. No one in power wants to give it up to the workers. The elites always find a way to retain power over the little people, because, being elite, they know best, just ask them. Do you really think Obama will let Andy Stern or the SEIU thugs to have the power? Please.

Communism: The classless and stateless society. This is also referred to as the “clueless society” as it has never been achieved. Once in power, no one wants to surrender said power. If they did, there would be a power vacuum that would lead to anarchy, until someone climbed to the top. This is the fictional unicorn of Marxism/Socialism/Communism. It doesn’t exist, it hasn’t existed and because people love money and power, it will never exist.

Marx is dead. Marxism on the other hand keeps coming back, like cancer, under a government controlled health care plan. It is the carrot on the stick the elite uses to beat the people on the head with. It is called many different things including progressivism. If America chooses this path, the people are choosing to abandon the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and freedom. There is a difference between a Marxist and an Anti-Marxist; Both have read the Communist Manifesto but only the Anti-Marxist understood it.

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.

Why all Democrats must be thrown out of office in November

November will be the last chance to save our country from the takeover of the
Liberal Socialistic Self Serving Democrats.

All GOP amendments to Bill defeated
Aftermath, or AfterFIX of Obama Government Takeover, PART ONE:
By Jerry McConnell Thursday, March 25, 2010
Our illustrious United States Senate spent a busy day on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, just three days after the Sunday Night Massacre of the nation’s taxpayers who, in a majority, wanted no part of the Obama health care legislation that was snookered and fudged and then rammed down their throats by a tiny margin, thanks to conscienceless maneuvering by turncoats who held their hands over their hearts and proclaimed faithfulness to the pro-lifers as they held their fingers crossed hoping not to be struck down by a higher authority for being blatant liars.

As stated: “The latest development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.”

In typical double-talk fashion, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV stated as reported by, “There’s no attempt to improve the bill. There’s an attempt to destroy this bill,” as if there were some other reason to hold the session. It was a done deal that the Democrats would make absolutely no moves to improve a mistake-filled, travesty of justice and fairness to America’s tax payers and to senior citizens in particular who drew the short straw and the barbed shaft.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY offered that the Republicans “could improve the bill significantly,” and the 29 Amendments they offered that were battered into oblivion was his proof. But most of the Amendments offered too much common sense for Democrat thinking and ideals as with this one offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions. It would also very likely help some defenseless women and children. But Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it “a crass political stunt.” Imagine that; a “crass political stunt”; but that’s how Democrats think. They never consider the fate of an unsuspecting child or woman.

Republicans also tried to roll back cuts in Medicare to protect seniors’ health and lives, but the Democrats had plans for that one half TRILLION dollars to pay down some other scheme of theirs, so the seniors were out of luck. Oh, they mentioned that there would be cost breaks for the senior’s drug purchases to offset the other reductions; a half trillion dollars worth of drug cost breaks?

If you’re an Internet fan you probably have seen the many petitions and requests for the government big-wigs to change the law so they would be forced to carry the same insurance that they were forcing on the public. And you probably heard or noticed that, as usual, they ignored those demands as if they were too good to be in the same plan as THE PEOPLE – UGH!

So the Republicans made that one of their 29 amendments. Here are the details of that vote:
Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 3564 to H.R. 4872 (Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010)

Statement of Purpose:
To make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Vote Counts:
Not Voting—1

3 Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of this Amendment, but the 56 votes of the rest of the Dems doomed it. So, as much as the public wanted the President and his Cabinet and Staff and all members of Congress to enjoy all of the wonderful and beautiful benefits of this heavenly healthcare plan that is being crammed down the throats of the rest of the peons who pay the bills for these exalted creeps, IT AIN’T GONNA’ HAPPEN. The BIG “O”, wants to be a cut above the common folk.

Out of the 23 so-called conservative Republicans voting to stop the pork along with 3 Democrats were, of course some of McCain’s amnesty comrades, including Graham and Hatch; trying to be fiscally conservative for public consumption on earmarks, while just itching to reward more of those law-breaking illegal aliens with “instant citizenship.”

Now get a load of this one:

Question: On the Amendment (McCain Amdt. No. 3475 )
Vote Number:—60
Vote Date:—March 18, 2010, 04:45 PM
Required For Majority:—1/2
Vote Result:—Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number:—S.Amdt. 3475 to S.Amdt. 3452 to H.R. 1586 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose:—To prohibit earmarks in years in which there is a deficit.

Vote Counts:
Not Voting—4

McCain very wisely proposed an Amendment to prohibit earmarks (pork) in legislation during years when there is a deficit. Once again, the liberal Dems jumped all over this money-saving measure when 54 out of 57 voted against being frugal with our tax dollars; (three did not vote and 2 Independents voted with the Dems) while the Republicans who are always putting the Dems down for being big spenders, had 16 of their members voting to keep the pork rolling (1 did not vote.)

Is it any wonder why the public calls them RINO’s; even the newest Senator, Scott Brown of MA, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, (??) voted to keep the pork, regardless. I sometimes wonder if ANY politician has ANY conscience. They can look you right in the eye and say something then turn around and vote just the opposite. How do they face that reflection in the mirror in the morning?

Quite naturally, the Amendment, along with all the others was beaten down by the Democrats with a large measure of assistance from the “want-to-be-known” as fiscal conservatives, Republicans. Sometimes it’s enough to make you want to just barf and never vote again. But then, I think that is what they would love to see; so they can keep right on rampaging our tax dollars to their whims.

Most of them are profound hypocrites. Even John McCain, who I’m sure piously got astride his white horse, donned his white ten gallon hat and holding his lance aloft, went charging into the press arena claiming fiscal responsibility as his mantra. Then when finished, he started rounding up all the criminal illegal aliens he could find to tell them that he was going to make them all “instant citizens” ahead of the more productive, industrious and patient Europeans who have been on the waiting list for LEGAL immigration into our country, sponsored by good Americans who will see that they become self-sufficient instead of wards of the state and current citizenry.

How much is that going to cost us, John?