News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

'Historic' Health care reform is simply an expansion of Medicaid

  • It is rampant criminal corruption rather than creeping socialism.
"It seems that practically the only beneficiaries of big health care reform, for example, come from a simple expansion of Medicaid. The only beneficiaries of “climate change” reforms are Big Energy companies and politically connected “businessmen” like Al Gore who are in on the scam. Both initiatives have extreme down-sides for taxpayers and the economy as a whole. These realities have little to nothing to do with what promoters are saying with exaggerated claims about the “uninsured” and demonization of critics.

What is the Constitutional authority for Congress to give money to ACORN? There isn’t any. When Nancy Pelosi was asked for Constitutional authority for the federal government to take control of health insurance, she responded that “promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end.” It’s the kind of fundamental misinterpretation that one might expect from a grade-schooler. If it were true, it would mean that the federal government can spend money on anything it wants. There would be virtually no Constitutional limit to federal government power or abuse of that power.

They could for example, give $400 million to Al Gore just because they felt like it and he could give a percentage privately back to each Congressional supporter. It would make Al Gore happy as well as the politicians receiving the kick-backs. That would be ok under Pelosi’s “broad authority” to promote welfare....

The “slippery slope” theory of American government held that allowing the federal government to exceed its Constitutional authority here and there would establish precedents that would then allow greater and more rapid expansions of government power. This would eventually lead to a collapse of the Constitutional system along with disappearance of freedom and individual rights. The theory has obviously held, for the current Congress respects no limits to their power and is addicted to proposals that would accomplish the task.

It has often been said that the “slippery slope” leads to socialism. But is the appearance of a socialist revolution in Washington merely another marketing trick?

Constraints against federal power have relaxed, more rapidly since the 1960s. In the 1970s, conservative members of Congress complained that it looked like “liberals” wanted to turn any good idea into a federal program. By the 1980s, the ideas no longer needed to be good. They only needed to be marketed in a manner that would make them feel like they might be good. During the 1990s, disguised as “welfare reform,” the federal government took over marriage and family. It was likely the greatest social and political change in American history, at least since Roe v. Wade. For the first time in history, the welfare program had grown to encompass everyone, regardless of income and no matter whether you asked to be involved or not. The federal government immediately began to collect detailed personal and financial information on every American, as if authorized to investigate alleged welfare fraud in every case. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned it all by redefining marriage and family law from Civil Law to “social policy;” in effect abolishing individual rights and protections against government intrusion. (P.O.P.S. v Gardner, 1993)....

Government supported studies were often conducted by people with clear conflicts of interest – those who made money or stood to make money directly from the reforms. There was also a revolving door between government social system bureaucracies and the private partner companies where much more money could be made. A few state legislators were jailed after passing legislation for personal profit and a Michigan Attorney General lobbied for additional funding while running a controversial private child support enforcement organization. Legislation also included additional support for judicial operations, subject to performance measures, while ordinary support was being cut back....

Hillary Clinton hatched her health care reform effort, based on nothing. The parallels between the family law scheme and Gore’s global warming scam are quite striking. Government studies producing false and misleading results in support of government expansion and intrusion, broad support from people on government payrolls, a massive propaganda campaign with critics attacked and demonized, public-private partnerships that receive huge contributions from government and forced contributions from the private sector while providing no worthwhile services. Gore’s plan, as well as health care reform, are much larger and involve much more money. Gore’s scam is global, but so was the family law scheme. Led by the USA, similar family law reform in most of the western world followed. The difference is that Gore’s scheme will allow Gore to collect on all international operations, whereas public-private partnerships had previously been local.

Forty years ago, such schemes would have gone off without a hitch. The public would have been none the wiser. Politicians would have been careful to hide ulterior motives. In the past, the public accepted fundamental change pretty much without complaint, often because they were simply not told. The “conservative” verses “liberal” debate seemed like it amounted to something and we thought that the Constitution and the courts would save us eventually if something really important went wrong.

It seems that big public scamming has become more formulaic. The current generation of politicians has only known success of the method. So they “geared up” to bigger and bolder schemes and carry them out with less concern for getting caught. In fact, the new generation of followers do not seem to have the need to be as bright as the original creators.

That brings us back to ACORN. Why not pick an existing organization – one that already has a nefarious character – and just funnel money to them. It’s particularly easy if it has already created its own marketing myth –

it’s own feeling of a good idea, if the president already has an established relationship, and the attack on critics is already defined – racists! Domestic terrorists using the Constitution as an excuse!

But then, somebody might notice. And with so many government scams effecting so many people already – the truth might generally be believed. Support for current initiatives is relatively low and diminishing as more and more critics have become more concerned about corruption. Especially with repetition, the whole master-plan – the “formula” itself might be exposed. If stupidity isn’t the reason for such brazen moves as we are watching today, what is?

Maybe they just believe that they are already so powerful that there is nothing the public can do to stop them. Without Constitutional rights and protections against government intrusion and only a semblance of democracy, what can anyone do?" by Roger F. Gay, 11/26/09, Mens News Daily, "Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?" via

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Figure at center of Climate Gate urged to quit by Monbiot

"The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
  • George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.

More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted

  • it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years. ...

In one of the most damning messages, Professor Jones appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words 'in an odd way this is cheering news!'.

  • The leak has been a huge embarrassment to the climate unit at the University of East Anglia,
  • which is a global leader in its field.

Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing

  • how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.

Yesterday, Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.

  • 'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'

Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, demanded an independent inquiry.

  • 'From what I've seen of the emails, there's not been any new questions raised about the way papers have been put together, but there should be an re-examination of the emails,' he said.

The emails - which appeared last week on a Russian website - appear to have been stolen from a university computer server.

He added: 'We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.

  • 'Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

'I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that.' The university is to conduct an independent review of data security

  • and on its response to 60 freedom of information requests over a short period.

At least half the 36 UK officials and ministers travelling to the climate change talks in Copenhagen are going by air rather than by rail.

  • The Liberal Democrats said the arrangements showed up Labour's hypocrisy on green issues.

The Government said officials had meetings that limited their travel options next month. "

Friday, November 20, 2009

US soldiers are expensive and should be paid for by special tax--Obama supporter

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- "Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said

  • that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.

An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that

That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can”

  • instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said."...
from Bloomberg News, "High Income Tax May be Needed for Afghan War Cost Levin Says," by Viola Gienger, 11/20/09

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Mass murder in Obama's army passed off as political event. Life is cheap in Third World toilets like the US.

Code Pink justifies Ft. Hood mass Islamic murders:

Signed by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, the appeal was published at Code Pink’s website on Veterans Day and sent out the same day to the group’s e-mail list. The terrorist attack at Fort Hood is cited three times in the fundraising letter.

  • As appalling as cashing in on the mass murder of 14 innocents is, Code Pink tops that by invoking sympathy for the alleged terrorist as a reason to give money to Code Pink–even
  • putting his act of terrorism on the same moral plane as the recent protest resignation of a former officer who left his diplomatic post in Afghanistan over Obama’s war policy:

“This Veteran’s Day, you can support Under the Hood and the soldiers who walk through their doors with a cash or in-kind donation…

“Click here to see how else you can support Under the Hood (in-kind donations accepted too)....

Code Pink is even more direct in their justification for the terrorist attack allegedly by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in a statement posted to their website that they encourage opponents of America in Afghanistan to send to President Obama:

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood and the resignation of top Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh demonstrate how even our military officers are opposed to US strategy in Afghanistan.

Code Pink claims the money will be used to fund a campaign operated out of a coffee shop near Fort Hood called Under the Hood that preys on soldiers and their families. However, the donation link goes to Code Pink’s fundraising page ( and not to Under the Hood’s website ( Note, fundraising links in this story are deliberately not active.

  • Under the Hood was opened earlier this year in Killeen, about a mile from Fort Hood, as a joint effort of the terrorist support groups Code Pink and Iraq Veterans Against the War (both groups participated in the World Tribunal on Iraq which openly supported the terrorists in Iraq.) The cafe is run by the wife and step-mother of servicemen, Cynthia Thomas, whom Code Pink took under their wings.

The cafe is a reprise of pro-communist efforts during the Vietnam War to undermine morale on the homefront by exploiting the vulnerabilities of soldiers and their families with subversive cafes opened near military bases across the country.

  • Reportedly Fort Lewis and Fort Drum have also been targeted with subversive cafes in recent years.

The name of the coffee shop, Under the Hood, is a wordplay on the subversive nature of the effort in Killeen.

In the fundraising letter, Code Pink uses the words of Cynthis Thomas to describe the true aim of Under the Hood–to get soldiers to quit fighting for America:

“For the soldiers who visit regularly, Under the Hood has become a home and we have become family. They tell us about their hardships, they ask for help, they seek information about their rights, and sometimes they find the strength to say NO to war(empahsis added.)"...


  • via Lucianne

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Ruth Ann Harnisch makes grant to Poynter

  • Small disclosure: Ms. Harnisch was my college roommate a long time ago. Of the two of us, she was destined to make a difference in the world and has long since done so. I only wish she was on my side (the right) instead of the left. For example, I'd be happy if the Poynter Institute closed down. (Susan Mullen, aka framus)
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - 11/12/09: "The Poynter Institute announced today a $35,000 grant from The Harnisch Foundation as the Institute prepares to observe its 35th anniversary next year. The grant is to launch an online curriculum for entrepreneurial journalists.
  • Ruth Ann Harnisch, a former journalist and president of the foundation, said: "Since the Institute's founding, the business of journalism has changed in ways few could have imagined 35 years ago. Now, we're marking this anniversary with a gift that recognizes the need for training to meet the demands of the vastly altered field."...
The Harnisch Foundation previously supported the Institute with grants for scholarships and software to create "Studio H," the base for Webinars and other interactive synchronous training through Poynter's News University (
  • Howard Finberg, who leads NewsU, Poynter's online training program, said the Harnisch grant would help create

NewsU currently has more than 125,000 registered users, including 15 percent from outside the United States. "Our mission is to provide interactive, inexpensive courses that appeal to journalists, journalism students and anyone interested in media training," Finberg said.

  • Harnisch spent three decades in media work, including Emmy-nominated television reporting and anchoring at the WTVF-TV (CBS) in Nashville, Tenn., a daily talk-radio program on WLAC-AM, and 17 years as a columnist for the Nashville Banner."...


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.