Jon Caldara (see sidebar) gets this healthcare debate going in the correct direction, as The Independence Institute always does. Enjoy!
Archive for the ‘Law’ Category
More on healthcare…
August 11, 2009More on obamacare
August 11, 2009“What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise [at the passions of the protesters] but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss — loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t. People are not automatons. They show up only if they care. What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of ‘carrying swastikas and symbols like that.’ (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a ‘no’ slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis. Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ that people are ‘storming these town hall meetings,’ that they were ‘well dressed’, that ‘this is all organized,’ ‘all planned,’ to ‘hurt our president.’ Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.” –columnist Peggy Noonan
“So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread ‘disinformation’ about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a ‘public option’ into a federalized universal health care initiative? Report them. … Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the President or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry? Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so. But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another? … The mistake this White House continues to make, seemingly on a daily basis, is that they reveal very much what they truly think of freedoms of the American political process.” –radio talk-show host Kevin McCullough
“For years, Democratic politicians said the health-care problem was about ’47 million uninsured Americans.’ Whatever the merits, many people were willing to do something for those with no health insurance. Suddenly, these voters discovered that ObamaCare is about them. When did that happen? Every policy wonk in America may have known this was always an everybody-into-the-pool proposal, and Mr. Obama has talked himself blue saying people could stay with the insurance they’ve got or the doctor they’ve got, ‘if you’re happy with that’ and don’t like the public option. A lot of people simply don’t believe this. How come? White House adviser David Axelrod said this week, ‘Our job is to help folks understand how this will help them.’ It could be they’ve already thought about that. For many people, the first six Obama months already have been an unsettling Dantesque tour through levels of government ‘help’ they never knew existed. Normally government activity flows by like unnoticed sludge, but Obama’s celebrity got everyone watching. What people have seen is: an $800 billion stimulus package designed by Congress, a $4 trillion budget, massive outlays by an alphabet soup of Treasury and Federal Reserve programs, Barney Frank the symbol of Democratic goals, and then the federal absorption of GM, an American icon. After all this, ObamaCare looks like a bridge too far. They are proposing the biggest federal social program in a generation, which no one can understand (or explain), and which requires permanent federal tax increases starting with the wealthiest but threatening to engulf the middle class. The harder the White House and Democrats push this idea, the worse it could get for them. Americans may have arrived at the limit of how much government they want or will pay for. If Barack Obama can’t sell more of it, no one can.” –columnist Daniel Henninger
“Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book ‘Applied Economics,’ I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care is not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it. Thirty thousand Canadians are passing up free medical care at home to go to some other country where they have to pay for it. People don’t do that without a reason. But Canadians are better off than people in some other countries with government-controlled medical care, because they have the United States right next door, in case their medical problems get too serious to rely on their own system. But where are Americans to turn if we become like Canada? Where are we to go when we need better medical treatment than Washington bureaucrats will let us have? Mexico? The Caribbean?” –Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell
‘White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost’
August 11, 2009The more things change, the more they stay the same…
“The New York Times had an amazing front page story [Thursday] which I would have thought would have jumped to the top of every cable news cycle except for the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The headline of the story was: ‘White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost’ by David Kirkpatrick. I want you to read the lead paragraph very slowly: ‘Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.’ Whoa! Check Please! How can the words ‘industry lobbyists’ and ‘White House’ be in the same sentence? We have been told — to the point of needing Compazine (an anti-nausea drug) — that this administration was, is, and will always be a lobbyist-free zone. Yet, here it is; in the newspaper of record. The White House had reached a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to put a ceiling on the amount of money the government could save by negotiating for lower drug prices. In the words of the NY Times, the White House ‘had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the [health care] overhaul’ but ‘had never spelled out the details of the agreement.’ Oh, here we are in graf seven: ‘The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.’ Embarrassing? Ya think…? It turns out that there is a quid pro quo for keeping the drug companies out of the rough and tumble world of free markets. Again, from Mr. Kirkpatrick’s piece: ‘Failing to publicly confirm [the drug lobby’s] descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama’s reforms. [emphasis mine] So… let me walk through this. In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good. So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits? I think I’m beginning to get how this works. It works like … Chicago!” –political analyst Rich Galen
Wet Dreams and Hopolophobes: No cure in sight!
August 10, 2009The hopolophobes in my home state are sad. At least it surely appears that way. They thought that they had a dead sure thing in their never ending quest to stifle liberty and freedom. Never mind that this will do nothing at all to deter the gangsters, rapist, and other assorted criminal ilk that roam among them.
It could though, make the Police unable to stay up to date on the weaponry that gives the good guys any edge at all. One major manufacturer has already refused to honor warranty’s to any California Agency because of the draconian laws the state has passed. Not to mention what is sometimes the back bone that is the first responder when there is that hated airing over the radio “Officer down.” The common citizen…
Having been a “Tactical Paramedic” the one thing I never wanted was to have to use my weapon. The only thing that could have been worse would be having to use it, and the damned thing refusing to go BANG!
I’ve been in no less than five shit or get off the pot situations in non-military situations, and I can assure anyone on earth or in heaven that I want my weapons safe and reliable as they possibly can be.
As I read the blogs and the MSM I see, as clear as day, that distraction is in place. Health care is a decoy friends… These big government people really want to shut down your Second Amendment UNALIENABLE RIGHTS so that they can do the same to your FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
Read about the California model for the destruction of Liberty
States Rights: 10th Amendment Primer
August 10, 2009Not since the rebellion in America was quashed in 1865 with the surrender of Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant has so much attention been paid to state sovereignty as is being paid today.
More than 35 states have passed or are considering state sovereignty amendments, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Just before leaving office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed a bill declaring that state’s sovereignty, joining Tennessee Gov. Phil Bresdesen in that regard.
States are finally becoming fed up with the increasingly dangerous non-Constitutional overreach of the Federal Government, and State Legislatures are working to stop it.
Unfortunately, many of today’s voting-age Americans have never even read the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, most civics classes in public schools today dwell on other things. So far too many people have no clue how far their government has overreached and taken away their liberty.
But here’s the truth: the Constitution gives the three branches of government certain enumerated powers. Those not enumerated are reserved to the states, and to the people.
The 10th Amendment describes it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Yet despite that, since the Southern states were prohibited from removing themselves from an alliance that no longer worked in their favor—an alliance they entered into voluntarily—the U.S. government has grown increasingly more powerful. It could do so because the last remaining restraints on its power—the option that states had to leave the union—had been eliminated.
Here’s what has transpired since: During reconstruction the Republican Party centralized government, subsidized railroads, raised taxes on Southern property and businesses—then confiscated the property when taxes couldn’t be paid—and established an education system that taught a revisionist history of the run-up to and causes of the war (and the government-run education system continues this today). Congress also continued the first income tax—an unconstitutional act—that had been implemented by Pres. Abraham Lincoln.
In 1917 Congress established the Federal Reserve, a non-Constitutional entity with the power to control the U.S. money supply. In the 1930s, in response to The Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt pushed through New Deal provisions that further empowered the Federal Government while enriching certain constituencies. And now, in response to the global financial crisis, first President George W. Bush then President Barack Obama pushed through extra-constitutional spending bills. Obama then compounded the problems by nationalizing the financial and automobile markets; an action, again, that benefitted certain constituencies.
And now the Federal Government is proposing an even further overreach by attempting to enact legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions and tax energy companies that exceed arbitrarily set limits of the element, and to restrict your access to adequate healthcare.
It seems from the mood of many in our country we may have reached a tipping point as a result of these latest actions. Radio talk shows are alive with voices proposing—demanding even—that America return to the Constitutional roots. Protests denouncing the growing government are increasing in frequency and support.
Unfortunately, many in America still don’t understand what all the hubbub is about. So, to help them understand, here are 10 talking points from the Tenth Amendment Center:
- The People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
- The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the Federal Government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the State Governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
- The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
- If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the “general welfare,” what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would’ve already been covered?
- James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
- The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the Federal Government. With this in mind, any Federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a(n) usurpation of state sovereignty—and unconstitutional.
- Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront. Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states—not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything—including local colonies from across an ocean.
- Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.
- A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
- We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.
If you want to first halt then reverse the tide of government overreach, pass these points around to your friends and send them to your state and U.S. representatives.
Global Warming Redux number: I forget!
August 10, 2009I received this email from a friend that works at NOAA. I hope the graphs and such come through.
Subject: FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
FUN
FACTS about
CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's
atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human
activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's
oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying
land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of
earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths
of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's
current atmosphere is CO2-
impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants
absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe
oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a
pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it.
All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When
plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon
dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there
but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the
great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global
warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for
limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on
global climate!
The case for a "greenhouse problem"
is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make
inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change.
Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile
people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being
honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming
theory)(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct
1989)
"In the United States...we have to first convince the
American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
former
President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think
there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to
have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global
warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the
solutions are...
former Vice President Al Gore(now, chairman and
co-founder of Generation Investment Management--a
London-based business that sells carbon credits)(in interview with
Grist Magazine
May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An
Inconvenient Truth)
"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined
language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be
one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current
debate over global warming."
Dr. Richard S.
Lindzen(leading climate and atmospheric science expert-
MIT) (3)
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because
they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been
critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )(in
an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28,
1999)
"Scientists who want to attract attention to
themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a)
way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things
bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric
Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)Commenting on
reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.(Halifax Chronicle-Herald,
August 22, 2001) (8)
"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will
be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental
policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.After a
short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)he now serves as President,
U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion
"gift"
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are
collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest
chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canadarecent quote from the Calgary Herald
Unraveling the Earth's Temperature Record
photo by: Vin MorganPalaeo
Environment (Ice Cores) Field Work
Because
accumulating layers of glacial ice display annual bands which can be
dated, similar to annual rings of a tree, the age of ice core samples can
be determined. Continuous ice cores from borings as much as two miles long
have been extracted from permanent glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and
Siberia. Bubbles of entrapped air in the ice cores can be analyzed to
determine not only carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, but also
atmospheric temperatures can be determined from analysis of entrapped
hydrogen and oxygen.
Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the
Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in
1900 it has been determined that from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years
ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3° C cooler than today.
Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about
125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000
years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege of ice for the
last 160,000 years.
Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.
Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in
EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas
Crowley, Remembrance
of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic
Record
As illustrated in this final graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth
has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000
year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This
represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively
short-lived periods of glacial retreat.
Temperature data inferred from measurements of the
ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea
floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks
changes in the global ice volume. Based on data from J.
Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G.
Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats,
G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht,
Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance
of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic
Record
The Polar Ice Cap Effect
As long as the continent of Antarctica
exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably will be repeatedly pulled back
into glacial ice ages. This occurs because ice caps, which cannot attain
great thickness over open ocean, can and do achieve great thickness over a
polar continent-- like Antarctica. Antarctica used to be located near the
equator, but over geologic time has moved by continental drift
to its present location at the south pole. Once established, continental polar
ice caps act like huge cold sinks, taking over the climate and growing bigger
during periods of reduced solar output. Part of the problem with shaking off
the effects of an ice age is once ice caps are established, they cause solar
radiation to be reflected back into space, which acts to perpetuate global
cooling. This increases the size of ice caps which results in reflection of
even more radiation, resulting in more cooling, and so on.
Continental polar ice caps seem to play a particularly important role in
ice ages when the arrangement of continental land masses restrict the free
global circulation of equatorial ocean currents. This is the case with the
continents today, as it was during the Carboniferous
Ice Age when the supercontinent Pangea stretched from pole to pole
300 million years ago.
Stopping Climate Change
Putting things in perspective,
geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of
an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not
the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not
totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar
bear.
Some say we are "nearing the end of
our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of
another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is
limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may
have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money,
however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming
cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the
"global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming"
threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing
toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature
trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while
avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar
cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities
are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena
for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of
dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm
Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely...
no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its
own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in
order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade
additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent
making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the
inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and
precipitation that accompany climatic change.
Supporting this view is British scientist Jane
Francis, who maintains:
" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within
our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global
effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical
because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be
more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to
adapt to the change."
THIS PAGE
BY:
Monte Hieb
This site last updated October 5, 2007
Previous
Table of Contents
...EMAIL COMMENTS TO: mhieb@geocraft.com
References
(1) A scientific Discussion of
Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics.
(2) The Effects of Proposals
for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J.
Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before
the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United
States House of Representatives
(3) Statement Concerning
Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and
Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
(4) Excerpts from,"Our
Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global
affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate
Change Campaign
(5) Testimony of John R.
Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of
Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama
in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
(6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global
Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and
Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October
6, 1998.
(7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing
link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E.
Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics,
vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
(8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice
Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian
Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological
Society, August 21-24, 2001.
Additional Reading
Understanding
Common Climate Claims: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in
the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of
Scientists on Global Emergencies.
Geological
Constraints on Global Climate Variability: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety
of natural climate drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format
presentation. 8.5 MB.
Thoughts of Global
Warming: "The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is
inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or
spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.
NOAA
Paleoclimatology: An educational trip through earths distant and recent
past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating to the
causes of climate change.
Cracking the Ice Age: From the
PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global
warming.
Little
Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): From the online magazine, "CO2
Science."
Solar Variability and Climate
Change: by Willie Soon, January 10, 2000
Earth's
Fidgeting Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that
science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as
important as climate change"
RLC: About obamacare
August 8, 2009From the Republican Liberty Caucus of Colorado:
I have not read the Health Care bill, but it appears that the doctor who wrote this letter below, DID! What he found is cause for extreme concern, and I would hope that you choose to tell your U.S. Senator or Representative that if they vote FOR this bill, you will not only vote AGAINST them, you will campaign FOR whoever is looking to take their place!
PLEASE! Educate everyone you know, and send this to them so that all of us can flood our elected officers offices with letters, emails and faxes that we as AMERICANS want to take care of our own medical needs, for the govenment botches everything they stick their nasty little fingers into! They are on break now from D.C., so going in to see them in thier home state office is even more powerful!
Yours in Liberty!
B
http://www.campaignforlibe rty.com
July 23, 2009
Senator Bayh,
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient/physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.
I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your banks accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example – Translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – your Health care WILL be rationed.
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business’s with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that!
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same!
Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, profession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.
Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investmen t. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.
Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.
Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy – Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?
Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.
Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!
Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.
Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
Furthermore, If you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Respectfully,
Stephen E Fraser MD
“All that is required for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
90% Myth: Where Are All Those Guns Coming From?
August 8, 2009Where Are All Those Guns Coming From?
by Larry Pratt
The government of Colombia has been fighting the Marxist-oriented drug traffickers known by their Spanish acronym FARC for decades. They have been trying to trace guns and other weapons coming from some twenty-seven different countries.
The guns turned up in various FARC encampments that have been busted by an increasingly successful counterattack by the Colombian military.
In an August 2 article in the Panamanian newspaper, Panamá América, it was reported that Columbia has made numerous inquiries to Interpol to find out where all the weapons are coming from.
In view of the Obama administration’s claims that privately owned guns in our country are migrating into Mexico and fueling violence down there, one might think that American gun owners are the cause of all foreign violence. However, the truth is quite the opposite, it turns out.
The article summarizes the Colombian queries to Interpol as follows: rifles from Russia, Bulgaria, Communist China and Korea; pistols and revolvers from Central Europe and Brazil; explosives from Ecuador; munitions (a term that includes machine guns and other weapons such as grenades, mortars, cannons, rockets, etc.) from Brazil, Russia and Venezuela and anti-tank rockets from Russia, Rumania, Communist China, Sweden and the U.S.
Did you just hear the dog that did not bark? In the above list, did you see any weapons that could be obtained at a U.S. gun store or show? The only mention of the U.S. in the list is as a supplier of anti-tank rockets. If anybody can tell me where us average citizens can buy rockets at a store or show, please let me know right away.
Where would anti-tank rockets enter the world market? How about theft from domestic or foreign military arsenals? By the way, the article reports that some of the weaponry mentioned above has been traced to Colombia’s own military industry.
The article also pointed out that the FARC are known to fly guns into Colombia on return flights that take drugs out.
You don’t suppose those same planes could sneak into Mexico, too, do you?
Southern Neighbor Goes Right
August 8, 2009While we head toward fascism and internal imperialism…
Southern Neighbor Goes Right
By Larry Pratt
July 22, 2009
For at least two years, Panamanian gun owners had to live with the threat that the socialist government of Martin Torrijos (son of the late dictator) was going to impose a George Soros-inspired backdoor gun ban.
The Soros gun ban comes advertised as a licensing scheme which means that gun ownership is illegal unless you get special permission from the government. Getting that permission is the problem. By simply delaying processing of applications and renewals, the clock runs out and before long, nobody has a legal gun.
This kind of law can be very effective at disarming the public. I first saw a law like this on the books and in use in South Africa.
Panamanian shooters actively opposed the measure. At one point I addressed a forum they organized to dramatize the problems with the bill and the threat to safety that it presented. Happily, the Chavez-backed candidate (to succeed Torrijos) in the elections last May got her clock cleaned, and the threat of the bill ended with the socialist government.
The winner, Ricardo Martinelli, is a wealthy businessman — as is his vice president Juan Carlos Varela. To set the anti-graft tone of their administration, Martinelli announced at his inauguration that they would be donating their salary to a charity that would be building a medical clinic in the interior of the country. “We might stick our foot in our mouth in my administration,” he said, “but we will not be sticking our hand in the till.”
The two official inaugural celebrations that feted some 10,000 people combined were paid completely from private funds, starting with those from Martinelli’s own pocket.
Martinelli also announced a truly transformational reform. As in a great deal of the world, many rural landholdings have no clear titles, hence loans are unavailable for the owners. I have seen this reform carried out in Guatemala and in El Salvador, and the result is a fiercely anti-socialist group of rural voters. Memo to Chavez: in Panama, many of those voters already own guns.
During the administration’s first day, the education minister announced that she would not allow an association of professors to be recognized as a union. The same day, Martinelli announced that a bankrupt banana-workers’ cooperative that had been getting subsidies from the socialist government would now be on their own. Sink or swim — in the private sector.
At an inaugural mass specially called for by Martinelli, the sermon was preached by the Bishop of Panama. It sounded like one of our colonial election sermons. The bishop urged the people to pray for their new leaders that there might be peace in the land. He then challenged the politicians who were present to never separate their Christian values from their politics lest the country lose its culture of respect for life and protection of the family.
With the legally deposed thug from Honduras (former President Mel Zelaya, a Chavez ally) sitting some twenty feet from him on the stage, Martinelli announced that his election represented a challenge to the far left wing in Latin America. He added that he intends to make Panama the best place in Latin America to do business.
That is change that I can believe in.
New rules for radicals
August 8, 2009Saul Alinsky must be rolling over in his grave! Adding insult to injury, what follows is from the far left lapdog known as The Denver Post.
If you’re a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag@whitehouse.gov.)
As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading “fishy disinformation” regarding Washington’s proposed takeover . . . oops, I mean “reform” . . . of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.
Now, don’t get overly paranoid, you freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration’s track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.
The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko “mob” of “thugs” who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.
We are talking about a moral imperative here. As one senator asserted this week, passing government-run health care is the “sacred duty” of Congress. (Boy, it’s a good thing we banished all that moral preening from Washington.)
When your mission is the same as that of the Lord himself, well, you can imagine the kind of scandalous characters populating the opposition camp. It is the type of individual that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi astutely points out has the tendency to carry “swastikas and symbols like that” to local town hall meetings on health care.
You might be curious to find out what symbols Pelosi believes are “like” swastikas. Maybe she’s referring to the Gadsden flag.
In any event, it’s true that people who believe in health-care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well dressed to contemplate serious issues independently — and thank you, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, for pointing this out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul.
Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and free-thinking groups like unions.
And, really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising are the rumors that protesters are actually organized. Can you imagine?
The question now becomes: How can we, thinking people, stop this horde of well-heeled, Nazi-loving, insurance-industry funded (and possibly organized) robots? What can we do to destroy our health care?
Well, as always, the president has crafted a glorious plan forward. In an e-mail to the nation, President Barack Obama begins by telling Americans, “This is the moment our movement was built for.”
“That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month,” the president goes on, his words stirring even in pixel form, “where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.”
Who knew? “Organizing” for America? Movements? Sounds familiar.
For those of you who will gleefully point out the hypocrisy of Democrats grousing about organized grassroots activism — whether well-funded or organic — you just don’t get it. It is imperative that we start thinking about the world in a counterintuitive way.
In today’s world, the “radicals” are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can’t even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works — though certainly not perfectly.
In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You’ve seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution.
So here is a plan. Instead of making the case for health care “reform,” let’s launch an offensive against citizens. Nazis. Fanatics. Mobs. Thugs. Whatever you call them.
And if you’re really patriotic, you can even report them.
E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 