Evil Exists-And We Are Allowing It

This is appalling. And I want to know why this adminstration, which is supposed to be oh so compassionate to the rest of the world is allowing this story to pass by without comment.

"NKorea 'Tests Weapons on Children'
July 24, 2009
Knight Ridder/Tribune

SEOUL, South Korea -- When Im Chun-yong made his daring escape from North Korea, with a handful of his special forces men, there were many reasons why the North Korean government was intent on stopping them.

They were, after all, part of Kim Jong-il's elite commandos -- privy to a wealth of military secrets and insights into the workings of the reclusive regime.

But among the accounts they carried with them is one of the most shocking yet to emerge -- namely the use of humans, specifically mentally or physically handicapped children, to test North Korea's biological and chemical weapons.

"If you are born mentally or physically deficient, says Im, the government says your best contribution to society... is as a guinea pig for biological and chemical weapons testing."

Even after settling into the relative safety of South Korea, for 10 years Im held on to this secret, saying it was too horrific to recount.

But with Kim's health reportedly failing, and the country appearing increasingly unpredictable, Im felt it was time he spoke out.

Daughter given up

The former military captain says it was in the early 1990s, that he watched his then commander wrestle with giving up his 12-year-old daughter who was mentally ill.

The commander, he says, initially resisted, but after mounting pressure from his military superiors, he gave in.

Im watched as the girl was taken away. She was never seen again.

One of Im's own men later gave him an eyewitness account of human-testing.

Asked to guard a secret facility on an island off North Korea's west coast, Im says the soldier saw a number of people forced into a glass chamber.

"Poisonous gas was injected in," Im says. "He watched doctors time how long it took for them to die."

Other North Korean defectors have long alleged that the secretive nation has been using political prisoners as experimental test subjects.

Some have detailed how inmates were shipped from various concentration camps to so-called chemical "factories".

'Widespread practice'

But Im's is the first account of mentally-ill or physically challenged children being used.

Security analysts believe Kim oversees one of the most aggressive and robust biochemical weapons programmes in the world.

A member of the special forces' Brigade No.19, Im says he was trained on how to use biochemical weapons against the "enemy" -- including how to fire them from short-range "bazooka-style" weapons.

He says such training was normal practice for all elite units.

Today it is estimated the country has accumulated a stockpile of more than 5,000 tonnes of biochemical weaponry; from mustard gas, to nerve agents such as sarin, to anthrax and cholera.

The extent of the stockpile is a concern to Kim Sang-hun, a retired UN official who has spent years investigating the North's chemical and biological weapons programme.

He believes over the past 20 years, the programme has advanced at a startling pace, specifically because the country's rulers approve and support the use of human test subjects.

"Human experimentation is a widespread practice," Kim says.

"I hoped I was wrong, but it is the reality and it is taking place in North Korea and it is taking place at a number of locations."

There are some who question claims that the North conducts human trials. But Kim says he has interviewed hundred of defectors who, more times than not, volunteer personal vivid accounts.

"The programme is now a commonly known fact in the North Korean public," he says.

As a former member of the elite special forces, Im agrees.

While the government may be secretive about a lot of things, he says "when it comes to human experimentation, most know it happens".

Investigating what he says are serious UN violations regarding the rights of children and prisoners, Kim Sang-hun has amassed a vast amount of evidence.

Compiled in folders at his home in Seoul are reams of testimonies and documents.

Some bear what appear to be official government stamps approving the transfer of prisoners from camps to chemical "factories".

He says he believes these are, in reality, experimental weapons sites.

He has pinpointed at least three to five labs that he believes are situated in different parts of the country, including one just a few kilometres north of the capital, Pyongyang.

Security analysts suspect there are as many as 20 such plants across the country.

Biochemical threat

As the world's attention focuses on the North's nuclear programme, Im is worried the international community will miss what he believes is the more imminent threat posed by the country's biochemical arsenal.

Arms experts say at least 30 per cent of North Korea's missile and artillery systems are capable of delivering such weapons. With each successive test, they warn the North's accuracy improves, and so too its range.

The UN Security Council now says it believes three of the seven missiles tested by the North on July 4 were Scud-ER missiles, which are known to be more accurate and have a range of 1,000km.

Tokyo is roughly 1,160km from the base on North Korea's east coast from where the missiles were fired, while other parts of Japan are closer.

Im believes the government would not hesitate to use such arms, saying he has seen the "ruthlessness" of the country's leaders.

During his escape from North Korea in December 1999, Im says he and his men battled their way out, chased by dozens of members of other commando units.

"I myself killed three men," he says. "Then after swimming across the half frozen Tumen river into China, we sold our guns, and left that life behind."

Im now devotes his time to gathering intelligence about the North's military capabilities.

Even a decade after his escape, the threat he still poses to the North Korean government means that he now lives under the constant protection of South Korea's National Intelligence Service."

Healthcare, Obama and You

Many people have been lured into blind support for the healthcare bill under the misguided idea that it will offer "free" healthcare. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First of all, you get what you pay for. And this bill won't pay for just healthcare but for a variety of socialist oriented neighborhood programs that have little to do with health, care or anything remotely medical. In addition, the congressional leadership refuses to work with moderates or the opposition and seems intent in writing a secret bill which will not have public scrutiny until after it is a fait accompli. As with Cap and Trade, this is a cynical attempt to hide the true cost of these gilded programs from taxpayers. It also is hiding some very serious provisions which are sure to alarm seniors and their families. Read below.

"...Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes. (So much for saving money for the middle class.)

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.
(The implication here is they want seniors to die and get off the books...)

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get. (Rationing, the thing they said they would not do)

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).
(Now wait a minute right here. Is there anyone out there that wants their parents to recieve government issue 'counseling' as to end of life issues? This is especially troubling since some of the more radical leftists in the Democrat party support Assisted Suicide as a viable alterantive. Will they talk innocent seniors into giving up their lives for some intangible payback? Will they guilt them into a rash action? THIS IS DISTURBING and where is the AARP on this issue? Oh, I forgot, they're in the tank for this too....)The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration." This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance. ..."

Obamacare Explained

Let's imagine that you have a family. And in this family there are two children. One child saves his allowance, works part time, does his homework doesn't eat junkfood, doesn't use drugs and gets plenty of sleep. The other child stay out until all hours, uses any drug they can get their hands on, squanders their allowance and steals from Mom's purse when she's not looking. Let's say that the family wants to go to Disneyland. Mom and Dad say "We will pay the airfare, but you will have to buy any tee shirts or special tickets yourselves."

Under conventional health care, the good kid gets to go on extra rides, buy more stuff and have a better time as a reward for DOING THE RESPONSIBLE THING. The other kid suffers by having to spend the entire trip with Mom and Dad.

Under Obamacare Mom and Dad take all the money that the good kid has earned and saved, gives it to the other kid who blows it on junk and then when that runs out, they make the good kid give more of his already dwindling share of the money because "we are all in this together."

So the bottom line is Obamacare punishes responsibility and rewards sloth and irresponsibility.

The Final Solution Revived in France

I will warn you, the story linked in the title is appalling. And it is appalling not just for the torture and murder of an innocent man, but because of the political and judicial manipulations designed to keep this story off of the front pages. True, people are killed every day. But in this day and age, when a young Jewish man is lured by a woman and then tortured over many days only to be killed by an Islamist, the implications are much larger. One has to wonder, do the French, the Germans, the Brits, realize the vipers that they have welcomed to their homelands? Do they care about the safety of their citizens or are they more concerned with looking good in the World's stage? When British Jews feel so unsafe in the face of repeated slurs, graffiti and even the public implications of subjection to sharia law from neighborhood to neighborhood, isn't it pretty clear that we are not seeing a unification of Europe, but instead the systemic dissolution of Europe at the hands of those who passively invade her? Is this not akin to rape?

Playing God: Bioethics and National Health Care

We have all seen the stories- Michael J. Fox, an actor I really like and admire, stricken with a serious disease, Mary Tyler Moore and diabetes. We’ve seen the tragedy of spinal cord injuries such as those suffered by Christopher Reeves. We see the famous and not so famous that clutch in desperation for any straw that offers them hope. This has been the impetus behind stem cell research. The controversy comes when the stem cells from fetuses, unborn children, are used. Studies have shown that adult stem cells react in the same way, but the controversy continues. Why should you care about this topic? Because it is one of the many covered under the umbrella of bioethical concern.

Bioethics is a branch of medical philosophy that weighs the ability to act against the assumed quality of life. In short, this is doctors playing God. And as we move towards a more controlled or as some say, rationed, measure of care, we need to be very specific in what we are getting into.

Consider this story:
“...When fetal stem cells are publicly discussed, three diseases—often represented by their celebrity spokespersons—lead a list of potential therapeutic applications. They are Parkinson Disease (Michael J Fox), paralysis as a result of spinal cord injury (previously the late Christopher Reeve), and Diabetes Mellitus, type 1, (either Mary Tyler Moore or Ron Santo). The media packages the information as foregone conclusions: fetal stem cells are a veritable source of untapped, and then implied, “unlimited” therapeutic uses. A stunning recent series of setbacks in the context of fetal stem cells and Parkinson Disease (PD), however, has not received equivalent publicity. It appears that the promise of this controversial, and as of yet unproven, therapeutic modality for an estimated one million persons with PD, has been scientifically exposed and found wanting.

The journal Nature Medicine published three articles in May 2008 analyzing eight patients from three separate cohorts who received human fetal midbrain tissue transplants 9-16 years earlier for PD.1 The published results led to two insightful editorial commentaries. The studies have dispelled the myth that fetal stem cells are a straightforward panacea for PD. In addition, they propose a plausible theory that these cells, even with continued research, may never work in this regard....”
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/rutecki_2009-06-19.htm

To translate, the researchers are finding that in their application of the proposed stem cell therapies, the reaction is NOT as they anticipated and in further examination, may never reach the goals that so many are intent on throwing millions of dollars in support. But let’s assume that these disabilities and injuries don’t impact your life directly. Why should you care? You should care because groups that support such research and efforts are politically placed in such a fashion through either their celebrity sponsors or their PAC’s to demand millions of dollars from the proposed healthcare bill in terms of research. But if we are going to be honest about the quality of research, should we not also be willing to admit that it is possible that the proposed “cures” may not work?

This is not the first instance of such politicizing of medical research for funding purposes. Consider the amount of money given for AIDS research. AIDS is a devastating disease and due to research those who have this disease are living longer, fuller more productive lives. Yet, they represent a small number within the population of people who are dying for a cure. Heart disease and cancer are the top two-and AIDS by relation of Karposi’s Sarcoma would fit in that category. But generally speaking, cancer, except in tragic circumstances is usually the disease of old age.

So this brings up another problem. If we have a finite amount of service slots available for medical care under a nationalize system, and we have more people needing services than there are slots, who gets priority? If you follow the bioethical limitations, you serve the younger and healthier in society before you serve the sick and aged. To bioethicists, this makes sense. But there is the slippery slope. Once you begin to codify procedure and medications into narrow absolutes, you are in danger of ignoring the humanity of the patient. Consider the following excerpt from an NYT interview with President Obama:

“...THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting....”

In addition, the president has stated that if his wife or children were in medical peril, he would want the best care. “Quality of Life” assumptions aside, who would NOT want their family members to get the best of care. But what if that level of competency becomes unattainable due to the defacto rationing of services that a nationalized health care system would require. Please remember, the UK and Canada have both had to resort to allowing private insurance on top of what is assessed in taxes in order to allow everyone to get services on a somewhat timely basis. And even then, the wait for common ailments such as gall bladder disease and kidney stones lag far beyond what the majority of Americans would tolerate.

While the “best” care doesn’t always translate into the most costly care, it sets up a system where some people will get the “best care” and the rest of us will settle for what the government legally allows us to have. Congress has not shown itself willing to adhere to the less costly, and less special type of medical system that they expect the rest of America to embrace. In addition, there are plans to exact a penalty for those who choose private care from their employer in terms of an additional payroll tax. So responsibility will be punished, medical facilities compensated less and who wins here? The people who win are those who don’t pay into the system. But the unfortunate aspect of that is that many of the self-proclaimed “uninsured” qualify for medical care under already existing government programs. All they have to do is sign up. But the hurdles to that is the amount of paperwork. If this new program also involves paperwork, then what will we do when these same populations STILL don’t have coverage.

Then there is problem of penetration. Even the most optimistic of supporters of this nationalize healthcare system realizes that not all people will be covered. As a sort of microcosm of a possible program, we can look at what Massachusetts has done with their state health care system. Here’s an excerpt of what is going on in that program:

“...The Massachusetts law, which was championed by former GOP Governor Mitt Romney, imposed an individual mandate, requiring nearly all residents to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty. (The exceptions are those who qualify for the state's public program.) This was supposed to cover everybody and save money too. We've written before about how costs have exploded, but it also turns out that consumers have other ideas.

For 15 years Massachusetts has also imposed mandates known as guaranteed issue and community rating -- meaning that insurers must cover anyone who applies, regardless of health or pre-existing conditions, and also charge everyone the same premium (or close to it). Yet these mandates allow people to wait until they're sick, or just before they're about to incur major medical expenses, to buy insurance. This drives up costs for everyone else, which helps explain why small-group coverage in Massachusetts is so much more expensive than in most of the country. Mr. Romney argued -- as Democrats are arguing now -- that the individual mandate would make that problem disappear, since everyone is always supposed to be covered.

Well, the returns are rolling in, and a useful case study comes from the community-based health plan Harvard-Pilgrim. CEO Charlie Baker reports that his company has seen an "astonishing" uptick in people buying coverage for a few months at a time, running up high medical bills, and then dumping the policy after treatment is completed and paid for. Harvard-Pilgrim estimates that between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred about $2,400 per person in monthly medical expenses. That's about 600% higher than Harvard-Pilgrim would have otherwise expected....”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726287099225209.html

There are lots of numbers thrown around, but in helping my daughter find individual healthcare, she was able to find insurance for less than $100 a month with pre-existing conditions. As with any other budgetary concern, families can choose to spend their money any way they want. For example, it alwasy amazes me how some students don't have money for school supplies, but seem to have money for costly manicures and expensive clothes from the likes of Hollister and Abecrombie and Fitch. Everyone makes choices, but with political power pressing the requisite of health insurance, this changes the playing field.For example, in Texas we are supposed to have car insurance to drive. But 25% of us do not have that kind of financial responsibility. What happens is that the rest of the responsible driving population must pay higher premiums and be covered for uninsured drivers in order to make up the difference. I don't see anything changing just because this is medical insurance. In fact, given the political powers that drive hospitals, schools and police away from demanding an ID in return for services, I think this kind of program will be absolutely gutted by the fraudulent use of identities to recieve services. And before you deny this, consider the amount of fraud that was recently discovered in the social security system wherein dead people were receiving payments.

What this boil down to is do you want someone else, someone who doesn't know you, making life and death decisions? While this administration uses the crutch of technology to forge their program, remember that with more interconnectivity, there is also more of a chance for your private medical history to become public knowledge. HIPPA laws were developed to avoid the possibility of employers finding out employees secrets, but how many people do you know who seek drug dependency, psychiatric help or other possible services that could be viewed negatively, off the books and on their own dime? That would be impossible under this system. While the government likes to assume privacy will be kept, once it is in the system, your information is no longer your own.Currently there is no law that you must accept whatever your employer offers. Sometimes you can do better on your own and there is certainly more privacy under an independent plan. But not every family will make those choices. I know of very well to do families who don’t get health insurance at all. I guess they hope and pray they never have to go to the hospital. I also know people who believe they can simply skip out on medical bills. The sad thing is that all of these scenarios drive up the cost for everyone that does the responsible thing and gets insured. And what is worse, if we are forced into a program that presumes to make ethical decision for us through the withholding of care, then we really have to question who is playing God here.

Middle America Under Siege

As sad as this is, and my family is right at the center of this issue, the government is doing precious little to positively impact the situation. Simple handouts will help for the short term, but for the long haul, what America needs is more jobs. So where do jobs come from? Jobs are created from profit. Profit is a bad word to the self-proclaimed progressives. In their view, all profit is bad profit. And they would eliminate profit if they could. Companies that are growing in terms of customer bases and production require more people to fill positions. Corporations are not alive, nevertheless, progressive insist on further penalizing corporations through draconian measures that will succeed only in further shrinking the economy.

First of all the minimum wage. The minimum wage was meant to be an entry level wage for the very young. Few people continue to have this type of pay structure into their adult years unless they have made the mistake of dropping out of school, going to jail or relying on welfare and social programs to provide subsistance and prevent a continuous resume of work. Minimum wages were never meant to be an adult salary. They were meant for entry level employees with the unwritten promise that as they gained experience, they would move onto more lucrative work. My son is a manager at ChikFila. Due to rising minimum wages, they will be raising their prices to consumers across the board. And they will not be alone. See, when you raise the cost of employing people small businesses must recoop those costs through higher prices to the consumer. Now consider the Cap and Trade bill passed by the House. This will add to the cost of manufacturing, the cost of transportation and delivery and the cost to consumers. But do you know who won't be crying about these higher prices? Every local, state and federal entity that tacks on taxes will be overjoyed at the higher revenue they will achieve because of rates based on sales cost. And for most of us, these are not taxes that are deductible from our federal burden.

Let's consider the reluctance of the "progressive" party to require two important pieces of law-e-verify and Voter ID. First of all, in order to cash a check, to food stamps to do just about anything, you must have picture ID. Yet there are some apologists for illegal immigration that continue to believe this is persecution of a minority and use bogus arguements of how having to present ID when you vote penalizes the aged and the poor. All the poor that are citizens can easily get photo ID's from the states as can the elderly even if they do not drive. The arguements are presented in order to protect a potential (or in the case of our Left Coast states-current) voters . As for e-Verify, once again I defer to my son who works in fastfood. Their entire kitchen staff is Hispanic. And everyone no matter what their ethnicity must present drivers license, social security number and verification of their identity. Yet, even with that, there have been a few who have been escorted away or even fired for using someone else's identity. How is this not identity theft and why is it that the government doesn't pinpoint illegal immigration as the source for much of this type of crime? If we removed the ten or more million people who are here working illegally, that would make a significant dent in the unemployment numbers. And, lest you think this is just minimum wage jobs, I know of people who have worked as teachers who didn't have a verified ID.

Let's finally consider the burden on middle America to subsidize the failing state governments of the "green" states. If you will bother to look up the Green Party-a subsidy of the World Workers' Party and under the umbrella of the communist party, you will find that the current Democrat party is espousing Green Party platforms. They seek the systematic takeover of industry by government modeled on the failed systems of such programs in Spain, France and Germany. Right now, France and Germany have governments that are aghast that we are not learning from their mistakes. Please understand, even if the message is smoothly delivered, it is still a message of socialism. Unfortunately, the Rust Belt allowed unions to call the shots in the last election. People voted for a perceived ideal rather than the economic reality of the issues. And in the end, they will be the ones that pay because if these programs are implemented, these jobs will never come back. So how long before we all start moving into Canada? How long will they keep the borders open?

Our Fluid Media Society

Comedian Tom Green died yesterday. I know it because my son's friend got an email on his cell phone from the website of his fans. This is absolutely true. What is not true is that Tom Green died. Instead his website was hacked into by Chan4hackers. They killed him off. And since the electronic media is so much more real to some people than reality, people starting mourning. And what is worse is that tabloid media wasn't the one who picked up the story. CNN picked it up. And that's not the only case.

In a similar story, actor Jeff Goldblum fell off a boat, electronically, and died, also electronically. Luckily, this was not the case and Mr. Goldblum was witty enough to give his own eulogy on the Colbert Report. Actor Harrison Ford was also offed by electronic tabloids. It's very easy to create this type of false sensation, and you have to wonder about the people who do this. Is it for their own gratification? Is it to get back at other groups? And if tweeters and such can get this kind of action on the fluffy world of celebrities, what can similar tactics do with the more serious issues of our day?

Many people blindly spread rumors via email without due diligence. This is how monetary panics start. This is how people's lives are destroyed. And this also plays into the way elections are being manipulated. It is easy to move people on the basis of The Big Lie. That is the theory which contends that if you say something loud enough and long enough, people will believe it, even if it is wrong. This also allows for organizations that have their own special interests in mind, to deliberately upset the balance and misinform people for their own warped purposes. So while Twitter and such social networking outlets are fine for keeping up with friends, I wonder if the downside is that we know less than we knew before we accessed them.

Helen Thomas Schools Gibbs Old Style

The press and the media crucified President Bush for stumbling in his answers during the press conferences. He was conducting those press conferences just like corporate meetings, where the group asked questions while the executive answered them. He didn't script the answers. All that was scripted was his initial speech. It has been apparent to many of us, just recently the media, that every press conference, every "public forum" and every supposedly casual meeting is actually highly manipulated and scripted. During the last press conference, President Obama was very abrupt when questions not on the list were asked. Isn't that the purpose of a press conference or a public forum. In the clip linked on the headline, Chris Reid of CBS and Helen Thomas ask why all questions were to be emailed in advance. Reid actually poses the question of how this administration can label these meetings "public forums" when questions are selected and answers formulated in advance. At that point, wouldn't it be more efficient to put it in a written format? One of the most telling questions was when Reid asked Gibbs if President Obama would support additional taxes on the middle class....Gibbs didn't like that much. So while we are stewing in a fetid cesspool of self-serving agendas and left wing entitlement, ask yourselves if you weren't much happier with someone who stumbled through answers, but gave you the best of what he knew at press conferences.

It's like some of us have been saying for awhile now, Obama and his handlers are manipulating the press for their agendas. In order to even be moderately involved in a truly free press, reporters should be outraged.

The Electric Truth

If you choose to seek out different electricity providers, you will find they offer a statement listing their power sources. What is ironic is that some of the companies that like to view themselves as green have almost exactly the same sources in the same proportions as the bad old electric companies. This means that like it or not a bulk of our energy comes from three sources: oil, coal and nuclear. These sources are all held in disdain by the Obama Administration and cap and trade seeks to make it more costly to use these abundant and efficient fuels. In fact, Congress seeks to force the hands of power providers to create alternative energy even when the technology is more costly and less efficient. If you have ever been shopping for swimsuits with a teenaged daughter, you understand this mentality. The left wants something that doesn't exist. They want a clean power source that is efficient and cost effective but it simply isn't there. But they are willing to do without energy at all if it means having what they want. This is a very petulant attitude and seems to be matched on all sides by congressional actions and those of the president's staff. I mean, you could put the cast of The Hills in these roles and the results would be the same kind of snarky, sneaky double dealing we have seen in the past week. I don't know if it has to do with California or just leftists in general, but this is no way to run a country.

"...Electricity is a good thing. It powers your computer, drives economic growth, transmits images from Tehran streets, keeps preemies alive in hospitals, prevents meat from rotting and enchants and cools you in movie theaters.

Yes, electricity is a good thing. Where does it come from?

In the U.S., electricity is produced from these sources. If you are reading this on a handheld and can't read Wikipedia's wonderful pie chart, here is the breakdown:

48.9% -- Coal
20% -- Natural Gas
19.3% -- Nuclear
1.6% -- Petroleum

Got that? A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources: coal, gas and nuclear. Petroleum brings the contribution of so-called "evil" energy--that is, energy that is carbon- or uranium-based--to almost 90%.

The remaining sources of U.S. electricity, the renewables, are, by comparison, tiny players:

7.1% -- Hydroelectric
2.4% -- Other Renewables
0.7% -- Other

Hydroelectric accounts for 70% of renewable energy in America. But, of course, hydro is mostly tapped out. Almost every dam that could be built has been built. Ironically enough, political opposition to building more dams comes from the same crowd of tree huggers who oppose coal, gas and uranium..."

The Real Healthcare Agenda

The Obama Administration likes to trot out urban poor and elderly as an example of who would be best served by Obamacare. But as with cap and trade, the truth is in the details. The Obama Administration is using healthcare as a wedge issue to make illegal aliens more integrated into the American economy. So without paying into any of the programs which leech money from workers' paychecks, illegal aliens will get the same (rationed)healthcare that the rest of us ostensibly will recieve. Make no mistake, by competing with private health insurance companies and levying tax penalties against middle income Americans, many will opt for Obamacare as a catchall and then be forced to find additional private insurance-virtually paying twice for half the care. This Congress will do the same things with Obamacare that they did with Cap and trade, which is to force it through in the early hours of a Friday morning, largely unread, with all earmarks and special programs for special populations intact. Americans are going to have to rise up and realize that this program is not "free" nor is it one that will give care to all uninsured Americans. Instead it is a program to seal the deal with La Raza insuring a firm coalition of Hipanic voters both legal and illegal for the years to come. Hey, when you can get other people to pay for your healthcare, wouldn't you vote for the guy? Pay attention, it's going to get worse.

"America does not need health care reform, but Latino immigrants need health care reform."

And someone from Menendez' office [Ed.: Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ] promised that he would make sure that "the useless barriers of citizenship would not be in this bill" and that he would make sure that they would use keywords like "streamline"...

It was La Raza, the Childrens Defense Fund and Senator Menendez from New Jersey, a representative from his office...

...Yes [they said they would get free health care for illegal aliens], these are my notes, Mark. They actually got up and said "Latino children need health care more than whites". And then they would say things like "you must go out into your communities, use words like 'streamline', use phrases like 'all workers' and 'all families'," because they said -- and I quote -- "If the American people find out that this bill is about giving health care to non-citizens, they will rise up against it."

...One of the quotes they said was, "We want to make sure we take care of barriers like verification, but we can streamline programs to the more affluent" and, quote, "Useless treatments for the elderly can be gone because we don't need to spend money for people who are going to die anyway."

That's a direct quote from that meeting. They also said, "We are very concerned there will be an effort to include" the illegal immigrants in this argument, so "we must make sure that we focus this" to the American people that it's looking like we want "health care for everyone".

And they also said that 75% of the children who will be picked up in this will be non-citizens and that 44% of the uninsured are non-citizens and they can't possibly allow the American people to know this." [Ed: Oops!]

Menendez' office said that he's going to make sure that "a family of four that makes $66,000 a year or less will pay nothing at all for the new health care. And he was the one who said he was going to get rid of specifics like "citizenship status" and focus on, quote, "equity for all workers".

And he said he's going to make sure that the Latino immigrants are the focus of the health care reform..."

From Charles Krauthammer

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 democrats at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’, feel free.

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a ‘cool customer’ who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's ‘behind the mask’. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand and wants to ‘level the playing field’ with income redistribution and punishment of the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal Government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go thru the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid.

5. He’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types, none of which around him has ever run even a candy store. But they’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama’s not a socialist; rather a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the USA , more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the 1st President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies at the same time!

7. He’s now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not ‘come due’ until after he’s reelected in 2012. He’d like to blame all problems on Bush from the past and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We’re ‘pining’ for another Reagan, but there’ll never be another like him. He believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she’s to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states’ rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We’re spending trillions that we don’t have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid, and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-Sept. when Lehman brothers failed. Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of ‘change’ caused people to act emotionally. Any Dim would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dims continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it’ll be a dogfight. It’ll all be about the economy.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs?

When Pelosi sent the Cap and Trade bill to the vote, those were her last words. It's puzzling how she would believe that a bill that will bind up much of the profit margins in many large industries will somehow create jobs? Jobs are created on a need basis. And if you aren't making a profit, you don't need more workers. In addition, we are currently at a 9.4% unemployment rate. And there's about a 12% underemployment rate-people who are working for less than before. So we are staring at a possible 10% unemployment rate, with the majority of those out of work individuals being young males. Then, at the same time, the Obama Administration wants to shut down military operations in Iraq and bring home all those military personnel and ramp down the numbers in the military by mustering out the lower level members. This is just like any other RIF (reduction in force) and will add to the numbers of out of work young Americans. Unless he means to impose a WPA or CCC type programs-which I doubt many of the college educated people would gravitate to-this is a serious problem. And while they are simply throwing numbers out there, it seems that this administration and these committees are not looking to the future, they are simply trying to find ways to push their agendas and feather their own nests. I hope all the young people who voted for Obama in an American Idol type of election are beginning to see what they have done, and what it will do to them. Remember this is supposed to be a government OF the people, FOR the people, not TO the people. Is it possible that Team Obama has just thrown the young American worker under the bus?

Over Our Dead Air Conditioners

Consider this. The development of most of the southern United States would have been held back if air conditioning did not exist. Likewise, many folks in the north would not be able to survive a typical winter without energy to produce heat. Both of those options will be taxed now thanks to the actions yesterday on cap and trade. This bill, largely hidden from view until the vote, will tax coal, which is a huge natural ABUNDANT source of energy in many areas of the United States. It will also further tax oil, which in turn will result in higher transporation costs added to all goods and services. And this, supposedly, is Your Congress Working For You. Folks, it is time to get busy. This administration will go along unchecked with a Congress intent on pushing through countless expensive and collectivist bills without due diligence. And they will do it because they believe they have a mandate. 51% is NOT a mandate in fact it is just barely a majority. Below is a list of Blue Dog Democrats and their phone numbers. When ACORN acts, they simply open up a boiler room and give people lists just like this one. So the people who many call your Congressman and mine maybe don't live anywhere near their district. This is not illegal. It is necessary. The time for fair political behavior is over because the Leftists in the Democrat party do not intend to allow even the appearance of bipartisanship and by that right intend to ignore the will of 49% of the population. Legislation being passed favors high spending, socialist oriented states over midwestern states. See, anything from Pennsylvania west to Utah simply doesn't matter and Congress has made that point very clear. Below is the list. Use it, call them for every vote or call them just to send an opinion. It is time to take the gloves off because playing nice just gets us run over by political bullies like Pelosi, Franks and Reid.

Blue Dog Democrats:

Congressman Parker Griffith Alabama, 5th District Phone: (202) 225-4801 35801, 35802, 35810 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Arizona, 8th District Phone: (202) 225-2542 85747, 85748, 85730 Congressman Marion Berry Arkansas, 1st District Phone: (202) 225-4076 72576, 72587, 72626
Congressman Mike Ross Arkansas, 4th District Phone: (202) 225-3772 71838, 71854, 71901
Senator Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR) (202) 224-4843 Arkansas 72030, 72042, 71640
Pryor, Mark L. - (D - AR) (202) 224-2353 Arkansas 72501, 72774, 72730 C
Congressman Joe Baca California, 43rd District Phone: (202) 225-6161 91761, 91743, 91710
Congressman Dennis Cardoza California, 18th District Phone: (202) 225-6131 93606, 93620, 93622 Congressman Jim Costa California, 20th District Phone: (202) 225-3341 93624, 93652. 93540 Congresswoman Jane Harman California, 36th District Phone: (202) 225-8220 90505, 90304, 90045 Congressman Adam Schiff California, 29th District Phone: (202) 225-4176 91202, 91203, 91204 Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez California, 47th District Phone: (202) 225-2965 92703, 92704, 92806 Congressman Mike Thompson California, 1st District Phone: (202) 225-3311 95605, 95616, 95618, Congressman John Salazar Colorado, 3rd District Phone: (202) 225-4761 81415, 81426, 81505
Udall, Mark, Colorado 2nd District - (D - CO) (202) 224-5941 80442, 80455, 80481
Senator Joseph Lieberman Connecticut I. - (ID - CT) (202) 224-4041 06001, 06256, 06430 D
Senator Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE) (202) 224-2441 Delaware 19801, 19806, 19810 F
Congressman Allen Boyd** Florida, 2nd District Phone: (202) 225-5235 32360, 32410, 32443
Senator Nelson, Bill - (D - FL) (202) 224-5274 Florida 32244, 32218, 32180 G
Congressman John Barrow Georgia, 12th District Phone: (202) 225-2823 31401, 31312, 30807
Congressman Sanford Bishop Georgia, 2nd District Phone: (202) 225-3631 31770, 31765, 31701 Congressman David Scott Georgia, 13th District Phone: (202) 225-2939 30070, 30234, 30331
Congressman Jim Marshall Georgia, 8th District Phone: (202) 225-6531 31820, 31823, 31807 I Congresswoman Melissa Bean Illinois, 8th District Phone: (202) 225-3711 60071, 60072, 60081
Congressman Joe Donnelly Indiana, 2nd District Phone: (202) 225-3915 46601, 46366, 46635
Congressman Brad Ellsworth Indiana, 8th District Phone: (202) 225-4636 47424, 47591, 47616
Congressman Baron Hill Indiana, 9th District Phone: (202) 225-5315 47250, 47281, 47545
Senator Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)(202) 224-5623 Indiana 47390, 46060, 46201
Congressman Leonard Boswell Iowa, 3rd District Phone: (202) 225-3806 52208, 52307, 52562 K Congressman Ben Chandler Kentucky, 6th District Phone: (202) 225-4706 40444, 40475, 40502 Congressman Dennis Moore Kansas, 3rd District Phone: (202) 225-2865 66112, 66219, 66061 L
Congressman Charlie Melancon ** Louisiana, 3rd District Phone: (202) 225-4031 70355, 70037, 70086 Landrieu, Mary L. - (D - LA) (202) 224-5824 Louisiana
Congressman Mike Michaud Maine, 2nd District Phone: (202) 225-6306 04432, 04216, 04455
Congressman Collin Peterson Minnesota, 7th District Phone: (202) 225-2165 56260, 56209, 56309 Congressman Gene Taylor Mississippi, 4th District Phone: (202) 225-5772 39451, 39556, 39501
Senator McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO) (202) 224-6154 Missouri 63101, 63111, 63120 N
Senator Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) (202) 224-6551 ** Nebraska 68001, 68102, 68505
Senator Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH) (202) 224-2841 New Hampshire 03101, 03109, 03060
Congressman Mike Arcuri New York, 24th District Phone: (202) 225-3665 13313, 13062, 13803 Congressman Mike McIntyre North Carolina, 7th District Phone: Phone: (202) 225-2731 28433, 28456, 28467
Congressman Heath Shuler North Carolina, 11th District Phone: (202) 225-6401 28701, 28733, 28778 Senator Hagan, Kay R. - (D - NC) (202) 224-6342 North Carolina 28202, 28210, 28801
Congressman Earl Pomeroy North Dakota, At-Large Phone: (202) 225-2611 58102, 58501, 58601 OCongressman Dan Boren Oklahoma, 2nd District Phone: (202) 225-2701 74422, 74430, 74501
Congressman Zack Space Ohio, 18th District Phone: (202) 225-6265 43005, 43028, 43802
Congressman Charlie Wilson Ohio, 6th District Phone: (202) 225-5705
Congressman Chris Carney Pennsylvania, 10th District Phone: (202) 225-3731 17860, 17889, 17850 Congressman Patrick Murphy Pennsylvania, 8th District Phone: (202) 225-4276 18920, 18930, 18966 Congressman Tim Holden Pennsylvania, 17th District Phone: (202) 225-5546 19510, 19526, 19533 S Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin South Dakota, At-Large 57103, 57701, 57401
Congressman Jim Cooper Tennessee, 5th District Phone: (202) 225-4311 37080, 37076, 37201
Congressman Lincoln Davis Tennessee, 4th District Phone: (202) 225-6831 37305, 37330, 37348 Congressman Bart Gordon Tennessee, 6th District Phone: (202) 225-4231 38560, 38570, 38575 Congressman John Tanner Tennessee, 8th District Phone: (202) 225-4714 38201, 38229, 38240 UCongressman Jim Matheson Utah, 2nd District Phone: (202) 225-3011 84007, 84023, 84092 V
Senator Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA) (202) 224-2023 ** Virginia 24210, 23510, 23112 W
Senator Kohl, Herb - (D - WI) (202) 224-5653 Wisconsin 54701, 54914, 54601

Pelosi Calls for Cap And Trade TODAY!!

Nancy Pelosi Schedules Household Energy Tax Vote this Week!
June 23, 2009

Late last night, during yet another closed-door meeting in the House of Representatives, the liberal Majority maneuvered to bring the highly unpopular 946-page energy-rationing bill, better known as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill, to the House floor for a vote by the end of this week!
Sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454 imposes a system of "cap-and-tax" in order to combat so-called "global warming." This massive, across-the-board household energy tax is being disguised by congressional liberals and is being sold under the slogan "cap-and-trade," which simply means giving the government power to put a cap on the amount of carbon emissions (CO2) produced by the production of electricity, gasoline, and heating oil, and forcing businesses to actively lobby Congress for higher cap levels and to buy permits for the emissions they are allowed.
Rather than calling it "cap-and-trade," it should be called "cap-and-tax"-as it caps Americans' standard of living and taxes our use of products whose manufacture emits CO2.
If passed and signed into law, H.R. 2454 will further cripple our economy and drain your pockets in the following ways:
It will raise your household electricity rates by 90 percent, gasoline by 74 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 55 percent by 2035, after adjusting for inflation.
It imposes an annual burden of $144.8 billion per year on U.S. households, and it will reduce household earnings by a projected $37.8 billion.
It will further cut U.S. employment levels by 965,000 jobs by reducing economic output by $136 billion per year-this translates to a $1,145 increase in energy costs per American household.
It will force low-income households to disproportionately bear the across-the-board energy cost increase, as a larger percentage of the poor's income goes toward energy costs, as opposed to wealthier households.
It sets the stage to effectively kill the coal industry as it will be taxed so heavily, it will not be able to sustain itself.
If enacted, H.R. 2454 would be the biggest government takeover of the economy since the Second World War, which is the last time energy, food, and other basic commodities were rationed. Waxman-Markey amounts to a $2 trillion tax increase on middle-class Americans. Not only would this be the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, but it is yet another example of President Barack Obama violating his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. This cap-and-tax bill is simply an underhanded way of facilitating a colossal transfer of wealth from consumers to big businesses.
Household energy taxation with the ultimate goal of energy-rationing is dangerous, not only for your pocketbook, but also for the well-being of your family and your standard of living.

H.R. 2454 is a hidden tax and it must be defeated this week in the House!Take Action:

The Democrat Majority has announced that amendments to this bill can be made no later than 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 25th. We expect a floor vote to occur soon after that, so please begin calling your Representatives and tell them to vote NO on cap-and-tax!

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

An Economics Lesson

There are many people who see taxing the Bad Old Corporations as a good thing. What with their overpaid CEO's and their profits, surely they are cash cows ripe for slaughter, right? But hold on there...do you know how pricing occurs? Read and learn
1. A corporation is NOT ALIVE. This is important to remember because although the economic health of a corporation is measured in dollars, it cannot live or die as a human would.
2. This means that when additional penalties such as taxes, fees, government sanctions are placed on a corporation on upon a product it makes, the penalty doesn't stay within the corporation. Instead it is rolled into the final cost to the cosumer. And yes, that includes PROFIT.
3. Profits are what the corporation makes AFTER COSTS. Costs include things like raw materials to make products, energy used to make and transport products, manpower to make products, locations to make products and all the ancillary fees, insurances and liability costs. So after they make the product, package the product, ship the product-whatever is left over is profit. Now some people see profit as evil. But profit is the fuel that allows corporations to grow. Whether is building a new factory, riasing employees compensation or creating more jobs, profit is the factor that allows that to happen. When government takes profit away through taxation or over regulation, it slows down or stops the creation of more jobs, more wealth and a more stable economy.
4. Local and state governments run off of tax revenues. Taxes are collected on sales, on production and on land. If corporations do not make a profit, the tax revenues go down. If the corporations close, then the local entities lose a taxable property and the resulting revenue. In addition, if fewer products are sold, then the local governments make less. That shortfall is what we are seeing now in Dallas. Socialists would insist that the federal government keep all programs in place by making up the difference. But at some point that cannot be sustained. And slowing down corporations is what puts a wrench in the system.
5. When corporation go out of business, aside from job losses, there is also a loss of choice to the consumer. Part of the reason people oppose Walmart moving into an area is because other grocery stores move out. Lack of choice means lack of competition. Lack of competition means higher costs to consumers. If you are the only ice cream source in town, you can charge more than if there are two others in place. This is why it is not necessarily cheaper to live a bucolic life in the country. Without the competition, costs stay high.
6. Over regulation of any industry makes it unresponsive to the market. We have seen this over and over and frankly, the government control of GM is troubling because no government program comes without countless rules in place. If those rules all worked toward the simple principles of making good products at a fair price, there would be no problem. But when politicians get involved, they put pet project in place. This is what happened with American companies. The foreign companies didn't have the same culture of gratitude created by the UAW and the Congressional leadership. So they could make adjustments to allow a good car to be built for a good price. That's not to say that Americans can't build a good car-I have 16 year old Venture so I know that isn't true-it's just that interference by government costs more down the line and doesn't provide an efficient solution.
I hope that clears up some confusion and that when you listen to the bills being offered that you consider that bigger isn't always better and that people in Washington really don't care that much about people in Tupelo, Richardson or Tucumcari.

Economic Meltdown-So Let's Strike!

Everytime someone mentions how much better teaching in Texas would be if we just had unions, a story like the one below comes through and disproves it. It seems that in the worst economic meltdown since the Big One in 1929, Bell Helicopter was willing to give workers a bonus to offset higher healthcare expenses. The cost would be a loss of janitorial jobs. For some reason, being a janitor at a Bell facility is a union job. So although the union leaders supported the accord, the rank and file voted it down. (Must take a breath here before I explode) Do you know ANYONE that is getting a bonus this year? We may not even get our regular increases! As for the health care costs, I have to laugh. Ask any teacher in the state of Texas system about the cost per family for health insurance.

And...to top this off, just in the past hour the word came across that the agency that controls military repairs is removing the license from this facility and the FAA is thinking about following suit. So my hats off to you union guys! You stood your ground and not only scuttled a very fair contract, but possibly created a situation where the entire facility will be closed and EVERYONE WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS! What were you guys thinking?

Bell Helicopter union to strike
HURST, Texas, June 15 (UPI) -- Union workers at Bell Helicopter in Texas rejected a contract offer and voted to begin a strike at midnight Monday, the United Auto Workers said.
"The membership said they were not going to buy this. I hope Bell Helicopter listens," Tom Wells, chairman of Local 218 told the Fort Worth, Texas, Star-Telegram Monday.
Union members voted 1,177 to 680 to reject the contract that with cost-of-living adjustments included a total wage increase of 18.7 percent over the life of the contract.
The contact also included a $4,500 cash bonus an 11.7 percent increase in monthly pension benefits for new retirees.
The contract, however, would have eliminated 44 janitorial positions, by absorbing janitors into higher paid positions, although union members still balked at voting to erase jobs.
"No employees would be bumped or laid off from this event," said Bell spokesman Tom Dolney in an e-mail.
But union member Alexander Martinez disagreed. "What they're offering is wrong. They're trying to eliminate jobs," Martinez said.
The strike includes Bell manufacturing plants in the Forth Worth, Texas, area, but not the military helicopter plant in Amarillo, which is not covered by the UAW contract, the newspaper said.--UPI Wire

Obama Lectures AMA: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

So President Obama is talking (down to) the American Medical Association. He publicly stated that he is against caps on awards in class action suits. That probably suits John Edwards down to the ground. But at the same time he doesn't want doctors practicing "defensive medicine". I ask you, if you were faced with the very real possibility of having someone sue you with or without grounds, and having that case more than likely settled out of court, but at the same time raising your liablitiy insurance 200%, wouldn't you be just a teensy be defensive? I've been on the receiving end of such treatment and while I don't understand the procedures, I do understand that many doctors feel that they are targets for class action lawyers. Much of this could have been avoided with meaningful tort reform which would limit the trawling for cases done by many lawyers. Even less than his understanding of the mechanism in place in the medical community, President Obama reveals a certain cluelessness in his speech. Can you spot it in the following excerpt?

"...It simply doesn't make sense that patients in the 21st century are still filling out forms with pens on papers that have to be stored away somewhere. As Newt Gingrich has rightly pointed out, we do a better job tracking a FedEx package in this country than we do tracking a patient's health records. You shouldn't have to tell every new doctor you see about your medical history, or what prescriptions you're taking. You should not have to repeat costly tests. All of that information should be stored securely in a private medical record so that your information can be tracked from one doctor to another – even if you change jobs, even if you move, and even if you have to see a number of different specialists...."

Full speech HERE

Ummm...did anyone bother to inform His Highness that Federal Express is a PRIVATE COMPANY. That's why customers can track where their packages go. And now he's saying that a government system would do that as well? If that's the case, then why is the US Postal Service going broke? And why should we trust a government that doesn't track mail as well as FedEx to perform medicine as well as the many private physicians and hospitals that exist? And once again, what about that "no tax for under $250,000" promise? How do you reconcile that with the many who get health insurance through their work having to pay taxes in order to fund this juggernaut boondoggle?

The Sum of All Fears

I came across this on another blog today. I would paraphrase but frankly there is so much meat in this post that it's important to view it completely.

"

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

By Lou Pritchett

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 Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys 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


Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

If This Isn't Scary Enough....

Consider the Source. Read first and then the answer is at the end.

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.


True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them? "

Who published it?
PRAVDA-the news outlet for the former Soviet Union and current Russian Republic. It's linked in the headline.

He Who Controls the Food...

...controls the future. Looking at this in terms of where we are seeing armed violence, political instability and war-the common thread is food or lack of it. I've been rereading Orwell's "1984" and the comments that did not alarm me twenty years ago now disturb me greatly. Consider these broad quotes from that book-"Ignorance is Strength" and "War is Peace." In the first, we are confronted with the idea that it is better not to know than to know. Think of the people we seeing Jaywalking on Leno or the characters in the movie "Idiocracy." There are wide ranges of people in our culture who not only do not know the basic precepts of our culture, but they do not care that they do not know. They don't understand the acquisition and maintenance of freedom, but would rather seek out common, lowbrow comforts. Look at how the writing in sitcoms, movies, even animated shows has sunk to lower and lower parameters. We are celebrating stupidity and ignorance at every corner. The case could be made that the recent election results were more a referendum on rejecting reality and demanding that illusions replace them. Is this not similar to Orwell's constant changing of history, literature, songs and games to fit the current paradigm? And when you consider the muting of our freedom of speech by the voices of the poorly labeled "liberals" are we not fairly close to thoughtcrime being charged? As for the "War is Peace" quote-think on the industrial complex. The change in our economy has much to do with the dissolution of the military as consumers as anything else. There are military vehicles that are only built by GM. What happens to those vehicles, who will make them, when GM goes away? And on a larger scale, what happens in the vacuum of development if America allows defense research to stagnate and die while other nations continue to develop new technologies?

The increasing encroachment of government on our freedoms is frightening not because of its scope, but because of the complacency we are seeing in much of the population. I have likened this before to a lobster being slowly placed in a pot of water and not realizing how dangerous this was until he was cooked. If ever there was a slippery slope to socialism, this presidency is it. The only way to change that is to vote in rational, conservative statemen and women at the local, state and federal levels. We are already seeing come to fruition billions in debt that may never be served by our children and grandchildren. We are buying selfish time for this generation and foisting it off on our children. Perhaps all those DINK's can do that without any qualms, but for those of us who have kids, we don't want to see them live in poverty so that spoiled Boomers can spend their retirements playing golf. And keep in mind, I speak as someone on the tail end of the Boomer generation, and I will probably NEVER be able to retire.