The Shot Heard Around the World

Shots Heard Around the World
The results of the mid-term elections were not viewed by many Americans dedicated to reclaiming the heritage of “liberty and justice for all” intended by the Framers with the same enthusiasm as the Republicans. Tea Party activists called attention to the danger and lost freedoms accompanying the Framers’ clearly expressed fear of an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. We are still faced with a Senate, and possibly even a House, where those elected say what is necessary to gain election, and once in office continue “taxation without representation“. Without a Congress willing to free us from the shackles of the cancerous Federal bureaucracy, or the States themselves limiting this tumor engulfing us by calling to the authority of the 10th Amendment, this “one Nation under God” has taken a path that those In Constitution Hall in 1787 foresaw as leading to certain failure.

Shots Heard Around the World
The results of the mid-term elections were not viewed by many Americans dedicated to reclaiming the heritage of “liberty and justice for all” intended by the Framers with the same enthusiasm as the Republicans. Grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party activists in calling attention to the danger and lost freedoms accompanying the Framers’ clearly expressed fear of an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy, we are still faced with a Senate, and possibly even a House, where those elected say what is necessary to gain election, and once in office continue “taxation without representation“. Hopefully, those Americans whose voices were largely responsible for an electorate rejecting the betrayal of Congress will continue to call those elected to accountability to “we, the people”. From these shots heard around the world, there is hope for the oppressed everywhere that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has not yet perished.
Remaining in public offices of “honor and trust” and around the world are those “enemies, foreign and domestic”, who continue to trample on the Constitution. Friends of freedom and justice beyond our borders do not understand how the person directly responsible for the sub-prime economic meltdown, Barney Frank, or the socialist champion, now leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has been reelected. Having recognized the historically validated failures of socialism, unbridled capitalism, and the false religions and ideologies seeking the demise of representative, republican democracy, other nations are now moving toward where those who conceived and gave birth to these United States intended. English voters have elected politicians pledged to cutting the costs of their government bureaucracy in half. Without a Congress willing to free us from the shackles of the cancerous Federal bureaucracy, or the States themselves limiting this tumor of injustice, calling to the authority of the 10th Amendment, this “one Nation under God” has taken a path that those In Constitution Hall in 1787 understood as leading to certain failure.
With the likes of the Franks and Reids left to continue spewing the disastrous consequences of liberalism’s/socialism’s lies and deceptions, all seeking freedom coming from truth and justice see the retention and continuation of a system of values totally contrary to the foundation of government where, in the words of “the father of our Country”, “religion and morality are indispensable supports for our form of government”. Void of or severely deficient in righteousness, integrity, and morality, politicians, particularly in Congress, have terribly failed in their oaths of office to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution from “enemies, foreign and domestic”. Those “certain unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” are under attack as never before in our history. Patriots, men and women before us “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, . . . . pledg[ed their] Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor. . . ., with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence”. Shots fired, whether heard around the world or impacting state legislatures as occurred, must be followed with the same resolve, dedication, and sacrifice here and now as followed those shots fired over two centuries ago at Lexington and Concord. We are at war! The injustices of socialism; unbridled capitalism; judicial activism; Congressional irresponsibility, failure, and corruption; executive branch tyranny; and the evils of Islamic religious fundamentalism; addictions and their attending crimes; the unjust forces of arms wielded by governments seeking to overthrow the Framers’ intentions are our “enemies, foreign and domestic”.
Airport ‘security’?
Thomas Sowell – Syndicated Columnist
11/23/2010
No country has better airport security than Israel– and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don’t have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?

“Security” may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.

Can you remember a time when a Cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his “foot on the neck” of some business or when the President of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens’ anatomy? Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One Cabinet member warned that there would be “zero tolerance” for “misinformation” when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore raise premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech?

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways. What other administration has had an attorney general call the American people “cowards”? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a secretary of Homeland Security warn law enforcement officials across the country of security threats from people who oppose abortion, support federalism, or are returning military veterans?

If anything good comes out of the airport “security” outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people.

Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama’s long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger’s hand in their crotch. (See related video report: TSA humiliates cancer survivor)

As for the excuse of “security,” this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico — and then released on their own recognizance within the United States, that tells you all you need to know about this administration’s concern for security.

When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the United States are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security. The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them. Not a lot of people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families are exposed to revenge by the terrorists’ bloodthirsty comrades.

What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter — and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.

Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned “profiling” into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning.

Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Opinions expressed in ‘Perspectives’ columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
In the view of those conceiving and giving birth to these United States, few freedoms are more requisite to and defining of the American way of life, than the Right to Privacy and Property. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. – The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 15 December, 1791

The Pigford vs Glickman Case:
Ripoff of the American Taxpayers By Black Activists
John Wallace
1 August, 2010
Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the “USDA”), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African-American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed.

To date, almost $1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement’s consent decree.

CASE HISTORY:

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African-American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, “farm ownership” loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]

After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all “black” farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a “virtually automatic” $50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called “Track A”.[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the “Track B” process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.

THE RIPOFF OF THE TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS:

Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.

Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 “Track A” applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. $995 million had been disbursed or credited to the “Track A” applicants as of January 2009[update], including $760 million disbursed as $50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the “Track B” process.

How could there be 86,000 discrimination claims if there were only 26,785 African-American farmers in 1977?

Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 additional petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers’ attorneys for “the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement.” A provision in a 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits

In other words, the number of total claims filed by people of African descent claiming to be farmers not only exceeded the original estimate by almost 40 to 50 times, it is close to four times the USDA’s estimate of 26,785 total black owned farms in 1977! One reason for this is that the settlement applied to farmers and those who “attempted to farm” and did not receive assistance from the USDA. So “black” people who were thinking of going into the farming business, but never did, were also eligible for the $50,000 fraud award, because they might have been discriminated against. It sounds like “Black Reparations” to me.
Paying off the latest group of Pigford fraud application cases is said to be a high priority for the Obama administration.
CONNECTION TO SHIRLEY SHERROD – USDA
Remember the recent case involving a woman by the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named “Pigford” case. In a special article written for the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explained that Shirley Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under the Pigford case.

Her organization, New Communities, is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and her husband Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit.

What makes this even more interesting is that Charles Sherrod, Sherill’s husband, appears to be the same Charles Sherrod who was a leader in the radical group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s. The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.

In his article, Blumer had some interesting questions about this settlement and about Sherrod’s rapid departure from the USDA

•Was Ms. Sherrod’s USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization’s settlement?

•How much “debt forgiveness” is involved in USDA’s settlement with New Communities?

•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in “pain and suffering” payments — amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?

•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are some other questions to consider:

•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?

•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?

•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

Here is another area for concern: In her position at the not for profit, “Rural Development Leadership Network,” a network of activists and community builder, was Sherrod involved in any way in encouraging people to submit fraudulent claims under Pigford? Did she put Black people who owned rural land in touch with lawyers who would file the paperwork claiming attempts to farm had been prevented by the non cooperation of the local USDA?

As many of you may know, there are a multitude of small parcels of non productive rural land all across the south, land unsuitable for mechanized agriculture that was once owned by subsistence farmers, black and white alike. Many of these parcels continue to be owned by family members who moved elsewhere out of sentimental reasons. The property taxes and other carrying costs are cheap and often ancestors are buried there in family plots. A drive on any country road in the South may turn up several carefully maintained postage stamp sized family cemeteries. I wonder how many of the these owners claimed they had farmed, attempted to farm, or thought about farming such acreage to score a fast $50,000 Black Farmer Fraud Award from Uncle Sam?

I guess if you are or were a poor white, Asian, Native American, or Hispanic farmer, you’re just out of luck in collecting your $50,000 fraud award.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge.
2. “The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers”, Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
3. “The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers”, p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].

or
The Worst Situation for Any Economy To Be In

Treason – Adhering To Our Enemies and Giving Them Aid

Treason

“Adhering To Our Enemies – Giving Them Aid

“Adhering To Our Enemies – Giving Them Aid”
Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks’ continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America’s national security interests, and the Democrats’ fanatical determination to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.

We’ve heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.

I’ll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.

According to Bradley’s online chats, he was in “an awkward place” both “emotionally and psychologically.” So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn’t that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!”

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought “moral support” from his “self-described drag queen” boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled “Lady Gaga.” Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song “Telephone” while frantically downloading classified documents.

I’m not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute “telling” under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” dragnet?

What constitutes being “openly” gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?

Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I’ve seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he’s wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.

With any luck, Bradley’s court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a “Wizard of Oz”-themed gazebo. “Are you going to Bradley’s court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!”

Maybe there’s a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they’re right.

The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called “the “Magnificent Five”: Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB.

The only one who wasn’t gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.

The Magnificent Five’s American compatriot Michael Straight was — ironically — bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there’s David Brock.

So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as “the Homintern.” (I would have called it the “Gay G.B.”)

Bradley’s friends told the Times they suspected “his desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur” may have prompted his document dump.

Let’s check our “Gay Profile at a Glance” and … let’s see … desperate for acceptance … delusions of grandeur … yep, they’re both on the gay subset list!

Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans — and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.

Couldn’t they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an “awkward place” psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.

Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

Liberals don’t care. Their approach is to rip out society’s foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.

Why do we have immigration laws? What’s with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards — why not make heroin legal? Let’s take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let’s talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in “an awkward place.”

Any discussion of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.


Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.

Christian Coalition 2010 Voter Guides

Christian Coalition 2010

Voter Guides

2010 Christian Coalition Congressional Scorecards: See how each Senator & Congressman voted on key faith and family issues.

Christian Coalition 2010 Voter Guides

2010 Christian Coalition Congressional Scorecards: see how each Senator & Congressman voted on key faith and family issues.

  • Letter size downloadable scorecard
  • Legal size downloadable scorecard
  • 11″ x 17″, for booklet style printing and newsletters

Alabama:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 2
  • Senate and US House 5

Alaska:

  • Senate

Arizona:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 1
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 5
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 7
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 8

Arkansas:

  • Senate

California:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 3
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 11

Colorado:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 3
  • Senate and US House 4

Connecticut:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 4

Florida:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 8
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 24
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 25

Georgia:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 2
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 8

Idaho:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 1

Illinois:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 11
  • Senate and US House 14
  • Senate and US House 17

Indiana:

  • Senate and US House 2
  • Senate and US House 9

Iowa:

  • Senate, Governor, and US House 3
  • Senate and Governor

Kansas:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 3

Kentucky:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 6

Louisiana:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 3

Maine:

Michigan:

  • Governor
  • Governor and US House 7

Minnesota:

  • Governor
  • Governor and US House 8

Mississippi:

Missouri:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 4

Nebraska:

  • US House 2

Nevada:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 3

New Hampshire:

  • Senate, US House 1, and US House 2

New Jersey:

  • US House 3

New Mexico:

  • Governor
  • Governor and US House 1
  • Governor and US House 2

New York:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 1
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 13
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 19
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 20
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 22
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 23
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 24
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 25

North Carolina:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 8

North Dakota:

  • Senate and US House AL

Ohio:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 1
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 13
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 15
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 16
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 18

Oklahoma:

  • Senate

Oregon:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 5

Pennsylvania:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 3
  • Senate and US House 6
  • Senate and US House 8
  • Senate and US House 10
  • Senate and US House 11
  • Senate and US House 12
  • Senate and US House 15

South Carolina:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 5

South Dakota:

  • US House AL

Tennessee:

  • US House 4
  • US House 8

Texas:

  • Governor
  • Governor and US House 17
  • Governor and US House 23

Utah:

  • Senate

Virginia:

  • US House 2
  • US House 5
  • US House 9

Washington:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 2
  • Senate and US House 3
  • Senate and US House 8

West Virginia:

  • Senate
  • Senate and US House 1

Wisconsin:

  • Senate and Governor
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 7
  • Senate, Governor, and US House 8

Wyoming:

How Obama Thinks

How Obama Thinks
Dinesh D’Souza, 09.27.10

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government’s control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

On The Cover/Top Stories

How Obama Thinks
Dinesh D’Souza, 09.27.10

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government’s control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

The President’s actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling–but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro–not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.

More strange behavior: Obama’s June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil but have less than 2% of the world’s resources.” Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world’s resources?

The oddities go on and on. Obama’s Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed’s “stress test” was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.

The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren’t paying their “fair share.” This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair–to the rich.

Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama’s rationale, that “our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times, however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on “compassionate grounds” was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be “far preferable” to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi’s release were “half-hearted.” They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.

One more anomaly: A few months ago NASA Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America’s space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. “He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.” Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for NASA’s future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama’s redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President’s supporters: Most people think of NASA’s job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?

Theories abound to explain the President’s goals and actions. Critics in the business community–including some Obama voters who now have buyer’s remorse–tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist–not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.


These theories aren’t wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama’s domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse–much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama’s own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years–the first 17 years of his life–off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King’s dream? Or something else?

It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a “new order for the ages.” A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating “a distinct species of mankind.” This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.

Perhaps, then, Obama shares Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society. The President has benefited from that dream; he campaigned as a nonracial candidate, and many Americans voted for him because he represents the color-blind ideal. Even so, King’s dream is not Obama’s: The President never champions the idea of color-blindness or race-neutrality. This inaction is not merely tactical; the race issue simply isn’t what drives Obama.

What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa’s struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country’s future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country’s independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”


Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909–72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” Obama Sr. wasn’t a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. “Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?”

As he put it, “We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

While the senior Obama called for Africa to free itself from the neocolonial influence of Europe and specifically Britain, he knew when he came to America in 1959 that the global balance of power was shifting. Even then, he recognized what has become a new tenet of anticolonialist ideology: Today’s neocolonial leader is not Europe but America. As the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said–who was one of Obama’s teachers at Columbia University–wrote in Culture and Imperialism, “The United States has replaced the earlier great empires and is the dominant outside force.”

From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.

Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world’s energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize, and therefore reduce, America’s carbon consumption. Both as a U.S. Senator and in his speech, as President, to the United Nations, Obama has proposed that the West massively subsidize energy production in the developing world.


Rejecting the socialist formula, Obama has shown no intention to nationalize the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions, and this means bringing them under the government’s leash. That’s why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks–so that he can maintain his control. For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.

If Obama shares his father’s anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn’t really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan. He views some of the Muslims who are fighting against America abroad as resisters of U.S. imperialism. Certainly that is the way the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi portrayed himself at his trial. Obama’s perception of him as an anticolonial resister would explain why he gave tacit approval for this murderer of hundreds of Americans to be released from captivity.

Finally, NASA. No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama’s curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach. We can see how well our theory works by recalling the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. “One small step for man,” Neil Armstrong said. “One giant leap for mankind.”

But that’s not how the rest of the world saw it. I was 8 years old at the time and living in my native India. I remember my grandfather telling me about the great race between America and Russia to put a man on the moon. Clearly America had won, and this was one giant leap not for mankind but for the U.S. If Obama shares this view, it’s no wonder he wants to blunt NASA’s space program, to divert it from a symbol of American greatness into a more modest public relations program.

Clearly the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. And we can be doubly sure about his father’s influence because those who know Obama well testify to it. His “granny” Sarah Obama (not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather’s other wives) told Newsweek, “I look at him and I see all the same things–he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son.”

In his own writings Obama stresses the centrality of his father not only to his beliefs and values but to his very identity. He calls his memoir “the record of a personal, interior journey–a boy’s search for his father and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American.” And again, “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.” Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, “My father’s voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people’s struggle. Wake up, black man!”

The climax of Obama’s narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father’s grave. It is riveting: “When my tears were finally spent,” he writes, “I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America–the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I’d felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I’d witnessed in Chicago–all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father’s pain.”

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that “I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil.” In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father’s spirit. Obama takes on his father’s struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son’s objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father’s struggle becomes the son’s birthright.


Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

Dinesh D’Souza, the president of the King’s College in New York City, is the author of the forthcoming book The Roots of Obama’s Rage (Regnery Publishing).

Obamacare Exposed

Obamacare Exposed

By the hospital systems across the nation lobbying for the Obama healthcare “reform” travesty, they are declaring their true colors, and their real financial / economic interests that stand contrary to the public health – “cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence“. “The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.” Congress could mandate the collection of the information necessary before any system of cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence can be established. All without taxes and increasing the already out-of-control cancerous Federal bureaucracy consuming us.
 
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE TO Reclaim America at:
 
constitution_small
The Committee for the Constitution
A Trust for Americans Protecting and Defending the Constitution
 
Obamacare Exposed
 
By the hospital systems across the nation lobbying for the Obama healthcare “reform” travesty, they are declaring their true colors, and their real financial / economic interests that stand contrary to the public health – “cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence“. “The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.” Congress could mandate the collection of the information necessary before any system of cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence can be established. All without taxes and increasing the already out-of-control cancerous Federal bureaucracy consuming us.
 
 
The Politicization of Healthcare
Healthcare Information Services
St. Louis, MO
 
Abstract: The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.

Beginning in the later part of 2008, Healthcare Information Services, a Missouri not-for-profit corporation, undertook a study to define the requirements needed to move the financial systems and economics of the current, money driven, politicized provision of healthcare in America to a system providing cost-effective, evidence based, quality healthcare. Joined in early 2009 by the cooperation of the St. Louis University School of Public Health, the entire spectrum of healthcare providers and affiliated administrative agencies, governmental to insurance companies, was queried and incorporated in the study. This paper is a summary of the conclusions and findings of that extensive and comprehensive study.

There are two distinct and self-defining groups to be addressed in any discussion of the provision of healthcare in America. Succinctly, these two groups are constituted by two populations – the insured and the uninsured. The public health issues concerning the actual provision and access to healthcare for either group are not a subject of this paper. Partly because of existing legislation, but mainly, and earlier, due to the ethical responses of some healthcare providers, medical care has always, to a varying degree, been available to all Americans. This study is applicable to all segments of the population focusing on providing cost-effective, evidence based, quality healthcare. As such, there is global relevance, crossing all political and economic boundaries.

Because, in America, approximately 70% of the costs for healthcare are paid for with taxpayer funds, federal agencies were included as part of the study. American workers, through payroll taxes, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, pay, and paid, in advance for their medical care in retirement. Those responsible for the remaining 30% of the healthcare dollar, the businesses representing the actively working American, were the most helpful and supportive of this study. CMS was interested in its own bureaucratic agenda, and less than helpful in this study. The Executive Office of the President was totally uncooperative. Responses from other politicians’ staffs was variable, and generally not helpful.

Any healthcare delivery system seeking cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare demands, as its prime requisite, a queryable, statistical database capable of providing the information upon which such a system must be based. Secondly, that information must be totally, without exception, scientifically based, and completely free of political interference and corruption. Thirdly, such a queryable database must protect individual privacy, but, yet, allow the transmission of sufficient information as to enable free-enterprise, quality driven competition among all healthcare providers. And, fourthly, governments must mandate that all contributors to the costs, provision of, and administration of healthcare, input all information within their respective purviews to the database.

Technologically, the software and hardware necessary to establish a universal, healthcare information database are currently available. The problem, as it exists now in America, and globally, is there is no such database, and, worse, from this study, political and special interests are actively thwarting efforts to establish one. Much of the time and effort of this study was able to specifically identify those roadblocks and impediments. The remainder of this paper will address the challenges facing making a healthcare database enabling cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare possible.

The second requisite above, statistical and actuarial validity, can be provided by an apolitical, publically accountable, panel of volunteer experts in relevant disciplines, such as medicine, actuarial science, public health, etc. having oversight of the database.

Privacy and patients’ rights concerns can be managed by technologies readily and currently available to IT professionals, directed by legislative oversight.

Problems in bringing constructive change to healthcare in America are highlighted by the third and fourth requisites that would establish the critical, indispensable source of information to birth a cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare system. Here, the results of this study, obtained in, and relevant to Missouri, will be shared for specificity, but are obviously relevant and applicable in other jurisdictions.

Most significant is the erroneous perception, put forth by government itself, that government and its inefficient, demonstrably proven, failed bureaucracies, are an alternative to a free-enterprise, competitive system which has needed resources accessible to it, such as the database proposed would provide. Most certainly, legislatures could, and should, maintain oversight over the healthcare industry, much as they do, or suggest they do, over utilities and insurance companies.

Coupled with that politically motivated belief is the finding that the Missouri government, both legislative and executive branches, and the Federal government are unjustly influenced by the very special interests directly responsible for the out-of-control, money driven healthcare system shackling our nation. False information from lobbyists, money to political campaigns, political power alliances, etc. covertly and legally bribe public officials to tolerate the economic tragedy infecting the most scientifically advanced healthcare in the world.

Doctors are complicit in failing to protect the public health only by failing to organize themselves to meaningfully confront the takeover of the practice of medicine by corporations, hospitals, hospital systems, and governmental agencies. Taking over medicine, and the ones primarily responsible for the unjust costs of healthcare, are the various administrators, not providing any form of healthcare, and, in the private sector, parasitizing the efforts of true healthcare providers to pay their outlandish, unjustified salaries.

It is those administrators, who in this study, were most resistant to cooperating with the establishment of a mandatory, universal healthcare information database. Refusing cooperation was found to be just the tip of the conspiracy impacting the public health.

Apart from the direct lobbying and misinformation disseminated by these special interests uncovered in this study, other sites of unaddressed disease and infection were diagnosed. A former administrator of one of the large, excess cost generating hospital systems, alluded to above, is now head of Missouri’s Department of Social Services, appointed by the governor. Along with the Missouri Department of Health, the Department of Social Services is preemptively responsible for a Healthcare Information Exchange, among other government inspired initiatives, such as HHS’s Health Information Network, or MHI locally, hoping to short-circuit meaningful and valid efforts for an apolitical, healthcare information database, which would challenge their governmental bureaucracies. Missouri and other states have engaged a Washington, D.C., for-profit company, Minot, to further their efforts. At every level, those seeking unregulated, unjust profits multiply and escalate the costs of healthcare. Federal taxpayer monies have been allocated to Missouri to support the government agenda. Of all government entities, the VA, with its 5+ million patients is, and remains, the most cooperative and interested in bringing cost-effective, quality healthcare to those in its responsibility. In contrast, grants and funding to those seeking to develop a universal healthcare information database outside of government control have been denied. Any financial support for this needed public health initiative has come exclusively from businesses. Rendering impotent the unjust special interests and their unjust governmental influence is a necessary step in restoring accountability to the administration of the public health.

Another critical move in protecting the public health, in addition to legislatures mandating the healthcare database and requiring all providers to submit mandatory information to the database before any payments, would be the establishment of universal input portals to the database. Every provider – hospital, doctor, pharmacy, OT, PT, device provider, etc. would have an Internet, or other link to provide required input to the database. Payments, billings, etc. would be blocked until required information was submitted to the database. This software should be free to every provider, open source, and controlled by a publicly accountable, not-for-profit agency such as, or similar to, the one overseeing the database.

As it is now, doctors must pay one of many EMR vendors, again tapping medical providers held captive to the profit incentives, getting thousands of dollars per doctor, without any provision for uploading information to the database. Notice again that the shackles and costs attending EMRs are applied by government, further escalating the cost of healthcare in America. Pharmacists, therapists, medical laboratories, medical technicians, etc. are all trapped by the existing system and its purveyors. Need the rhetorical question, “Who ultimately pays these costs?”, be asked?

It is time for healthcare professionals to reclaim responsibility for the public health from the politicians, the bureaucrats, and uncontrolled industry profiteers. The conclusion of this extensive, comprehensive study is that a queryable, universal, healthcare information database, in public, non-governmental control, enabling cost accounting, outcomes and effectiveness studies, quality control, cost tracking, accountability, etc., and transparency in all these areas, is but the necessary, but yet absent, first step. The call is to those we elect to represent us in government to establish justice, and free us as we pursue our health.

Acknowledgments: St. Louis University School of Public Health
St. Louis Area Business Health Coalition – Louise Y. Probst, R.N., M.P.H.

Obamacare Exposed

The Politicization of Healthcare

By the hospital systems across the nation lobbying for the Obama healthcare “reform” travesty, they are declaring their true colors, and their real financial / economic interests that stand contrary to the public health – “cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence“. “The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.” Congress could mandate the collection of the information necessary before any system of cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence can be established. All without taxes and increasing the already out-of-control cancerous Federal bureaucracy consuming us.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE TO Reclaim America at:

The Committee for the Constitution
A Trust for Americans Protecting and Defending the Constitution
P.O. Box 10902
St. Louis, MO 63135-9998

The Politicization of Healthcare

By the hospital systems across the nation lobbying for the Obama healthcare “reform” travesty, they are declaring their true colors, and their real financial / economic interests that stand contrary to the public health – “cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence“. “The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.” Congress could mandate the collection of the information necessary before any system of cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence can be established. All without taxes and increasing the already out-of-control cancerous Federal bureaucracy consuming us.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE TO Reclaim America at:

The Committee for the Constitution
A Trust for Americans Protecting and Defending the Constitution
P.O. Box 10902
St. Louis, MO 63135-9998
The Politicization of Healthcare
Healthcare Information Services
St. Louis, MO
Abstract: The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.

Beginning in the later part of 2008, Healthcare Information Services, a Missouri not-for-profit corporation, undertook a study to define the requirements needed to move the financial systems and economics of the current, money driven, politicized provision of healthcare in America to a system providing cost-effective, evidence based, quality healthcare. Joined in early 2009 by the cooperation of the St. Louis University School of Public Health, the entire spectrum of healthcare providers and affiliated administrative agencies, governmental to insurance companies, was queried and incorporated in the study. This paper is a summary of the conclusions and findings of that extensive and comprehensive study.

There are two distinct and self-defining groups to be addressed in any discussion of the provision of healthcare in America. Succinctly, these two groups are constituted by two populations – the insured and the uninsured. The public health issues concerning the actual provision and access to healthcare for either group are not a subject of this paper. Partly because of existing legislation, but mainly, and earlier, due to the ethical responses of some healthcare providers, medical care has always, to a varying degree, been available to all Americans. This study is applicable to all segments of the population focusing on providing cost-effective, evidence based, quality healthcare. As such, there is global relevance, crossing all political and economic boundaries.

Because, in America, approximately 70% of the costs for healthcare are paid for with taxpayer funds, federal agencies were included as part of the study. American workers, through payroll taxes, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, pay, and paid, in advance for their medical care in retirement. Those responsible for the remaining 30% of the healthcare dollar, the businesses representing the actively working American, were the most helpful and supportive of this study. CMS was interested in its own bureaucratic agenda, and less than helpful in this study. The Executive Office of the President was totally uncooperative. Responses from other politicians’ staffs was variable, and generally not helpful.

Any healthcare delivery system seeking cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare demands, as its prime requisite, a queryable, statistical database capable of providing the information upon which such a system must be based. Secondly, that information must be totally, without exception, scientifically based, and completely free of political interference and corruption. Thirdly, such a queryable database must protect individual privacy, but, yet, allow the transmission of sufficient information as to enable free-enterprise, quality driven competition among all healthcare providers. And, fourthly, governments must mandate that all contributors to the costs, provision of, and administration of healthcare, input all information within their respective purviews to the database.

Technologically, the software and hardware necessary to establish a universal, healthcare information database are currently available. The problem, as it exists now in America, and globally, is there is no such database, and, worse, from this study, political and special interests are actively thwarting efforts to establish one. Much of the time and effort of this study was able to specifically identify those roadblocks and impediments. The remainder of this paper will address the challenges facing making a healthcare database enabling cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare possible.

The second requisite above, statistical and actuarial validity, can be provided by an apolitical, publically accountable, panel of volunteer experts in relevant disciplines, such as medicine, actuarial science, public health, etc. having oversight of the database.

Privacy and patients’ rights concerns can be managed by technologies readily and currently available to IT professionals, directed by legislative oversight.

Problems in bringing constructive change to healthcare in America are highlighted by the third and fourth requisites that would establish the critical, indispensable source of information to birth a cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare system. Here, the results of this study, obtained in, and relevant to Missouri, will be shared for specificity, but are obviously relevant and applicable in other jurisdictions.

Most significant is the erroneous perception, put forth by government itself, that government and its inefficient, demonstrably proven, failed bureaucracies, are an alternative to a free-enterprise, competitive system which has needed resources accessible to it, such as the database proposed would provide. Most certainly, legislatures could, and should, maintain oversight over the healthcare industry, much as they do, or suggest they do, over utilities and insurance companies.

Coupled with that politically motivated belief is the finding that the Missouri government, both legislative and executive branches, and the Federal government are unjustly influenced by the very special interests directly responsible for the out-of-control, money driven healthcare system shackling our nation. False information from lobbyists, money to political campaigns, political power alliances, etc. covertly and legally bribe public officials to tolerate the economic tragedy infecting the most scientifically advanced healthcare in the world.

Doctors are complicit in failing to protect the public health only by failing to organize themselves to meaningfully confront the takeover of the practice of medicine by corporations, hospitals, hospital systems, and governmental agencies. Taking over medicine, and the ones primarily responsible for the unjust costs of healthcare, are the various administrators, not providing any form of healthcare, and, in the private sector, parasitizing the efforts of true healthcare providers to pay their outlandish, unjustified salaries.

It is those administrators, who in this study, were most resistant to cooperating with the establishment of a mandatory, universal healthcare information database. Refusing cooperation was found to be just the tip of the conspiracy impacting the public health.

Apart from the direct lobbying and misinformation disseminated by these special interests uncovered in this study, other sites of unaddressed disease and infection were diagnosed. A former administrator of one of the large, excess cost generating hospital systems, alluded to above, is now head of Missouri’s Department of Social Services, appointed by the governor. Along with the Missouri Department of Health, the Department of Social Services is preemptively responsible for a Healthcare Information Exchange, among other government inspired initiatives, such as HHS’s Health Information Network, or MHI locally, hoping to short-circuit meaningful and valid efforts for an apolitical, healthcare information database, which would challenge their governmental bureaucracies. Missouri and other states have engaged a Washington, D.C., for-profit company, Minot, to further their efforts. At every level, those seeking unregulated, unjust profits multiply and escalate the costs of healthcare. Federal taxpayer monies have been allocated to Missouri to support the government agenda. Of all government entities, the VA, with its 5+ million patients is, and remains, the most cooperative and interested in bringing cost-effective, quality healthcare to those in its responsibility. In contrast, grants and funding to those seeking to develop a universal healthcare information database outside of government control have been denied. Any financial support for this needed public health initiative has come exclusively from businesses. Rendering impotent the unjust special interests and their unjust governmental influence is a necessary step in restoring accountability to the administration of the public health.

Another critical move in protecting the public health, in addition to legislatures mandating the healthcare database and requiring all providers to submit mandatory information to the database before any payments, would be the establishment of universal input portals to the database. Every provider – hospital, doctor, pharmacy, OT, PT, device provider, etc. would have an Internet, or other link to provide required input to the database. Payments, billings, etc. would be blocked until required information was submitted to the database. This software should be free to every provider, open source, and controlled by a publicly accountable, not-for-profit agency such as, or similar to, the one overseeing the database.

As it is now, doctors must pay one of many EMR vendors, again tapping medical providers held captive to the profit incentives, getting thousands of dollars per doctor, without any provision for uploading information to the database. Notice again that the shackles and costs attending EMRs are applied by government, further escalating the cost of healthcare in America. Pharmacists, therapists, medical laboratories, medical technicians, etc. are all trapped by the existing system and its purveyors. Need the rhetorical question, “Who ultimately pays these costs?”, be asked?

It is time for healthcare professionals to reclaim responsibility for the public health from the politicians, the bureaucrats, and uncontrolled industry profiteers. The conclusion of this extensive, comprehensive study is that a queryable, universal, healthcare information database, in public, non-governmental control, enabling cost accounting, outcomes and effectiveness studies, quality control, cost tracking, accountability, etc., and transparency in all these areas, is but the necessary, but yet absent, first step. The call is to those we elect to represent us in government to establish justice, and free us as we pursue our health.

Acknowledgments: St. Louis University School of Public Health
St. Louis Area Business Health Coalition – Louise Y. Probst, R.N., M.P.H.

The Politicization of Healthcare

The Politicization of Healthcare
 
By the hospital systems across the nation lobbying for the Obama healthcare “reform” travesty, they are declaring their true colors, and exposing their real financial / economic interests that stand contrary to the public health – “cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence“. “The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.”
 
 
The Politicization of Healthcare
 
Abstract: The politicization of healthcare under the guise of healthcare “reform” has retarded and obstructed public health initiatives that can bring about cost-effective, quality healthcare, guided by outcomes and evidence.

 

Beginning in the later part of 2008, Healthcare Information Services, a Missouri not-for-profit corporation, undertook a study to define the requirements needed to move the financial systems and economics of the current, money driven, politicized provision of healthcare in America to a system providing cost-effective, evidence based, quality healthcare. Joined in early 2009 by the cooperation of the St. Louis University School of Public Health, the entire spectrum of healthcare providers and affiliated administrative agencies, governmental to insurance companies, was queried and incorporated in the study. This paper is a summary of the conclusions and findings of that extensive and comprehensive study.

There are two distinct and self-defining groups to be addressed in any discussion of the provision of healthcare in America. Succinctly, these two groups are constituted by two populations – the insured and the uninsured. The public health issues concerning the actual provision and access to healthcare for either group are not a subject of this paper. Partly because of existing legislation, but mainly, and earlier, due to the ethical responses of some healthcare providers, medical care has always, to a varying degree, been available to all Americans. This study is applicable to all segments of the population focusing on providing cost-effective, evidence based, quality healthcare. As such, there is global relevance, crossing all political and economic boundaries.

Because, in America, approximately 70% of the costs for healthcare are paid for with taxpayer funds, federal agencies were included as part of the study. American workers, through payroll taxes, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, pay, and paid, in advance for their medical care in retirement. Those responsible for the remaining 30% of the healthcare dollar, the businesses representing the actively working American, were the most helpful and supportive of this study. CMS was interested in its own bureaucratic agenda, and less than helpful in this study. The Executive Office of the President was totally uncooperative. Responses from other politicians’ staffs was variable, and generally not helpful.

Any healthcare delivery system seeking cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare demands, as its prime requisite, a queryable, statistical database capable of providing the information upon which such a system must be based. Secondly, that information must be totally, without exception, scientifically based, and completely free of political interference and corruption. Thirdly, such a queryable database must protect individual privacy, but, yet, allow the transmission of sufficient information as to enable free-enterprise, quality driven competition among all healthcare providers. And, fourthly, governments must mandate that all contributors to the costs, provision of, and administration of healthcare, input all information within their respective purviews to the database.

Technologically, the software and hardware necessary to establish a universal, healthcare information database are currently available. The problem, as it exists now in America, and globally, is there is no such database, and, worse, from this study, political and special interests are actively thwarting efforts to establish one. Much of the time and effort of this study was able to specifically identify those roadblocks and impediments. The remainder of this paper will address the challenges facing making a healthcare database enabling cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare possible.

The second requisite above, statistical and actuarial validity, can be provided by an apolitical, publically accountable, panel of volunteer experts in relevant disciplines, such as medicine, actuarial science, public health, etc. having oversight of the database.

Privacy and patients’ rights concerns can be managed by technologies readily and currently available to IT professionals, directed by legislative oversight.

Problems in bringing constructive change to healthcare in America are highlighted by the third and fourth requisites that would establish the critical, indispensable source of information to birth a cost-effective, evidence/outcomes based, quality healthcare system. Here, the results of this study, obtained in, and relevant to Missouri, will be shared for specificity, but are obviously relevant and applicable in other jurisdictions.

Most significant is the erroneous perception, put forth by government itself, that government and its inefficient, demonstrably proven, failed bureaucracies, are an alternative to a free-enterprise, competitive system which has needed resources accessible to it, such as the database proposed would provide. Most certainly, legislatures could, and should, maintain oversight over the healthcare industry, much as they do, or suggest they do, over utilities and insurance companies.

Coupled with that politically motivated belief is the finding that the Missouri government, both legislative and executive branches, and the Federal government are unjustly influenced by the very special interests directly responsible for the out-of-control, money driven healthcare system shackling our nation. False information from lobbyists, money to political campaigns, political power alliances, etc. covertly and legally bribe public officials to tolerate the economic tragedy infecting the most scientifically advanced healthcare in the world.

Doctors are complicit in failing to protect the public health only by failing to organize themselves to meaningfully confront the takeover of the practice of medicine by corporations, hospitals, hospital systems, and governmental agencies. Taking over medicine, and the ones primarily responsible for the unjust costs of healthcare, are the various administrators, not providing any form of healthcare, and, in the private sector, parasitizing the efforts of true healthcare providers to pay their outlandish, unjustified salaries.

It is those administrators, who in this study, were most resistant to cooperating with the establishment of a mandatory, universal healthcare information database. Refusing cooperation was found to be just the tip of the conspiracy impacting the public health.

Apart from the direct lobbying and misinformation disseminated by these special interests uncovered in this study, other sites of unaddressed disease and infection were diagnosed. A former administrator of one of the large, excess cost generating hospital systems, alluded to above, is now head of Missouri’s Department of Social Services, appointed by the governor. Along with the Missouri Department of Health, the Department of Social Services is preemptively responsible for a Healthcare Information Exchange, among other government inspired initiatives, such as HHS’s Health Information Network, or MHI locally, hoping to short-circuit meaningful and valid efforts for an apolitical, healthcare information database, which would challenge their governmental bureaucracies. Missouri and other states have engaged a Washington, D.C., for-profit company, Minot, to further their efforts. At every level, those seeking unregulated, unjust profits multiply and escalate the costs of healthcare. Federal taxpayer monies have been allocated to Missouri to support the government agenda. Of all government entities, the VA, with its 5+ million patients is, and remains, the most cooperative and interested in bringing cost-effective, quality healthcare to those in its responsibility. In contrast, grants and funding to those seeking to develop a universal healthcare information database outside of government control have been denied. Any financial support for this needed public health initiative has come exclusively from businesses. Rendering impotent the unjust special interests and their unjust governmental influence is a necessary step in restoring accountability to the administration of the public health.

Another critical move in protecting the public health, in addition to legislatures mandating the healthcare database and requiring all providers to submit mandatory information to the database before any payments, would be the establishment of universal input portals to the database. Every provider – hospital, doctor, pharmacy, OT, PT, device provider, etc. would have an Internet, or other link to provide required input to the database. Payments, billings, etc. would be blocked until required information was submitted to the database. This software should be free to every provider, open source, and controlled by a publicly accountable, not-for-profit agency such as, or similar to, the one overseeing the database.

As it is now, doctors must pay one of many EMR vendors, again tapping medical providers held captive to the profit incentives, getting thousands of dollars per doctor, without any provision for uploading information to the database. Notice again that the shackles and costs attending EMRs are applied by government, further escalating the cost of healthcare in America. Pharmacists, therapists, medical laboratories, medical technicians, etc. are all trapped by the existing system and its purveyors. Need the rhetorical question, “Who ultimately pays these costs?”, be asked?

It is time for healthcare professionals to reclaim responsibility for the public health from the politicians, the bureaucrats, and uncontrolled industry profiteers. The conclusion of this extensive, comprehensive study is that a queryable, universal, healthcare information database, in public, non-governmental control, enabling cost accounting, outcomes and effectiveness studies, quality control, cost tracking, accountability, etc., and transparency in all these areas, is but the necessary, but yet absent, first step. The call is to those we elect to represent us in government to establish justice, and free us as we pursue our health.

Acknowledgments: St. Louis University School of Public Health
St. Louis Area Business Health Coalition – Louise Y. Probst, R.N., M.P.H.

 

Obama’s agenda: Overwhelm the system

He [Obama] is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos – thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Obama’s agenda: Overwhelm the system
Wayne Allyn Root
Jun. 06, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama’s presidency.
Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of ’83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
— Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
— Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”
— Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
— Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
— Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
— Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

The Congressional Reform Act of 2010

VOTERS CAN FIX THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE BY VOTING ONLY FOR THOSE ENDORSED BY THE COMMITTEE FOR THE CONSTITUTION

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

VOTERS CAN FIX THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE BY VOTING ONLY FOR THOSE ENDORSED BY
.Congressional Reform Act of 2010


1. Term Limits: 12 years only – possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor and a trust, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their term(s), then going home and back to work.


2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office, and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor and a trust, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their term(s), then going home and back to work.


3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.



4. Congressmen purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Congressional pay can only rise by the lower of CPI or the same COL increase they grant to Social Security beneficiaries.

Serving in Congress is an honor and a trust, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their term(s), then going home and back to work.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


5. Members of Congress can no longer vote themselves a pay raise, and their pay will be equal to the O-6 military pay grade at the time of their election / re-election.

Serving in Congress is an honor and a trust, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their term(s), then going home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor and a trust, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their term(s), then going home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make the present pay contract with congressmen, congressmen made all them for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor and a trust, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their term(s), then going home and back to work.