DEMOCRATS HID DAMNING HEALTH CARE REPORT FROM PUBLIC UNTIL A MONTH AFTER VOTE

by Jim Hoft www.biggovernment.com

More hope and change–
A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.

The results from the report were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries shows that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.

Of course, these were ALL things that President Obama and Democratic leaders assured us would not happen.
Via Special Report:

The American Spectator reported, via FOX Nation:

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”
The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”
In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote.

When Nancy Pelosi told America, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” she forgot to mention that democrats already knew what was in it. They just didn’t want the rest of the country to find out.
If we had a responsible media this would make headlines for about the next year and a half.

Obama to Grads: A Little iPod Is a Dangerous Thing

by Gregg Opelka
http://www.biggovernment.com/

President Obama delivered the commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia on Sunday and, for those accustomed to his usual dose of narcissism, hypersensitivity, and self-serving historical revisionism, the Kvetcher-in-Chief didn’t disappoint. Here’s the text of the speech, courtesy of WaPo.

You have to give the President credit. Even when delivering a speech designed to inspire the leaders of tomorrow, Obama can still sniff out a way to complain about his perceived ill treatment at the hands of the media. Whether it’s Onstar or Garmin, this man’s persecution GPS has pinpoint accuracy. Judge for yourself:

With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all…to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. ..Even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience with that myself.

Notice the provenance of those “clamoring voices” which Obama insidiously cites: blogs (read new media journalists), talk radio (read Limbaugh, Levin, Medved, et al.), cable (read Fox News). Not the network MSM which coddles Obama, not hoop-shooting Harry Smith or soft-balling Brian Williams, whom Obama himself— at last year’s White House Correspondents dinner –joked about being in bed with.
It’s difficult to remember a whinier American president. If this man’s skin were any thinner, it would be diaphanous. You’d think one of his handlers would have told him: in the eyes of followers, victimhood lessens a leader. Did Patton complain of the desert heat? You bet. To the troops? Never.

The irony, of course, is that the least-challenged president in modern memory spends more time than any other telling us how nobody knows the troubles he’s seen. Reagan welcomed criticism. He’d never pass up a chance to make his critics laugh with a witty riposte. Obama can’t resist letting them know they nearly made him cry.
To be fair, Obama’s speech did include the obligatory “Climb Every Mountain” platitudes extolling the virtues of higher education. But it also featured curious windows into the Obama psyche, such as this gem:

You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this…is putting new pressures on our democracy.

To riff on Pope, “A little iPod is a dangerous thing.” Obama’s Queeg-like obsession with media scrutiny borders on the pathological. “Beware the hazardous iPod, the scurvy iPad!” he seems to warn, spreaders of “arguments which don’t rank high on the truth meter.”
It’s hard to imagine what Steve Jobs’ reaction to Obama’s techno-alarmism would be. But it’s even harder to imagine what the poor Hampton U grad of 2010 must have thought hearing it live: So on the one hand, Mr. President, you’re saying it’s good we got a great education (“All those checks you wrote to Hampton will pay off”), but on the other hand, we should be afraid of all these new-fangled gadgets that distract us with—OMG—information?
Anyone else finding it hard to wrap his iMind around that one?
Like Haley Osment’s “dead people” in The Sixth Sense, Obama sees media tormentors everywhere. Now it’s all those new gizmos—with their low ranking on the “truth meter.” So which is it? Is knowledge a “tool of empowerment?” Or is it dangerous? College is so confusing these days.
Two more of Obama’s valedictory remarks scored miserably on the “truth meter” but were off-the-charts on the “irony meter.” Here’s a beaut:

And it will be up to you to open minds that remain closed. That, after all, is the elemental test of any democracy: whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, work with each other, and find a way forward together.

Yeah. Like the way Obama “learned from” Paul Ryan, “worked with” Marsha Blackburn, and “found a way forward” with Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans at that phony-baloney Health Summit. How open-minded of him.
Finally, in this astonishing—astonishing—sentence about an accomplished black woman named Dorothy Height who recently died at age 98, Obama, unjustifiably and guilefully, attempts to equate the passage of Obamacare with the struggle to end previous terrible civil rights injustices:

“Having been on the firing line for every fight from lynching to desegregation to the battle for health care reform, she lived a singular life.”

Considering that the majority of the country still opposes Obamacare and thoroughly repudiated the arrogant, unilateral manner in which it was forced upon it, this attempt by Obama to pretty up his image by garbing the health care debate in the clothing of a racial issue is particularly reprehensible. To liken health care reform to ending segregation and lynchings is an ignoble attempt to rewrite history and elevate his unpopular bill to a status it hasn’t, and likely never will, come close to earning.
But then what else would you expect from a man with a Sixth Sense about being persecuted?

Lefty Group Outed As Author of Letter from Congressman

You’ve no doubt heard liberal Members of Congress and other interest groups calling the Tea Party movement “Astroturf,” a play on the term grassroots. Like our good friend Nancy, for example…

Or the liberal pro-net neutrality group Free Press, which has an entire section on its site devoted to “outing” so-called Astroturf operations. This page includes a handy-dandy widget with a graphic of large corporations pulling the strings of Congress. Pretty clever, really.

They claim that the whole movement is the invention of a bunch of Beltway insiders backed by piles of corporate cash. For them, it simply does not compute that ordinary Americans could be fed up with trillions of dollars in debt, tax hikes, and runaway regulation. It MUST be the orchestrations of rich puppet-masters in DC, right? Instead of spending hours debunking those claims, I’ll point to a post I made on the National Taxpayers Union’s old blog after the massive 9/12 March on Washington. Several hundred thousand people from all across the country, none of whom were paid, will do a better job of dismissing these silly claims than I could here. Instead, let’s focus on liberal activists employing exactly the kind of shady strategies that they accuse us of using.

So, that group I mentioned, Free Press? The ones that have a page on their site to expose “Astroturfing?” Last week, they were outed as being the true authors behind a letter supposedly written by Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA). The letter is being passed around to various Congressional offices to solicit support for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s radical effort to thumb his nose at the limits of his regulatory authority, which I blogged about here recently. But the properties of the electronic file itself show that the real author of the letter was not Mr. Inslee or a member of his staff, but none other than Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott!


Now, it should be noted that this practice isn’t exactly rare in Congress. Members routinely have lobbyists write talking points, letters, and even legislation. Some of it is relatively harmless, in that those lobbyists have special knowledge about the issue and lend their expertise to Congressional offices. Some of it, however, is not so harmless. Occasionally, there are news reports about special interest groups carving out exceptions for themselves through this kind of process.

To paraphrase President Obama, let me be clear: I’m not accusing Free Press of shady back-door dealing. They’re an interest group pursuing net neutrality, a policy that I happen to think is a terrible idea. For his part, Jay Inslee is just a fellow traveler who happened to get caught red-handed outsourcing the writing of a letter to his colleagues. I’m simply pointing out that Free Press is engaged in exactly the kind of coordination and manipulation that they and others (wrongly) accuse conservative groups like the National Taxpayers Union and FreedomWorks of all the time.

It makes you wonder, what else has Free Press written? So, Free Press, what say you? What other seemingly spontaneous pro-net neutrality efforts have you coordinated? How many other letters or bills have you written behind closed doors without getting caught?

Obama Swipes at Media, Says 'Information' Onslaught Pressuring 'Democracy'

Updated May 11, 2010
FOXNews.com

In his latest swipe at the modern media environment, President Obama used a commencement speech over the weekend to bemoan the onslaught of information in the digital age and suggest that the gusher of news out there is too much of a good thing.

President Obama addresses graduates of Hampton University in Hampton, Va., May 9. (AP Photo)

While knowledge is power, the information age could be too much of a good thing. That's the message some heard in President Obama's weekend commencement speech in which he bemoaned

Speaking at Hampton University in Virginia, the president raised alarms when he said "information becomes a distraction, a diversion" that is putting "pressure on our country and on our democracy."

The president suggested less is more when it comes to absorbing news content and urged graduates to take a skeptical eye toward news from blogs, cable television and radio as well as modern gadgets like iPods and PlayStations.

The class of 2010 is "coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," the president said, earning an honorary doctorate of laws degree during the ceremony.

"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy," he said.

But coming from a commander-in-chief known for his fondness for technology and skill at employing it to his political advantage, Obama's comments were seen as more than just a president's lament that the Kindle could someday replace the hardcover.

"Nobody (has) used the media more masterfully" than Obama, said Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Now he turns against certain elements of it because he doesn't need them anymore, he thinks."

Obama has endured some nasty rumors at the hands of the Internet. Blogs and comment pages continue to allege that the president has not been honest about his place of birth -- Hawaii -- or about his religion -- Christianity.

The White House has assiduously rebutted and marginalized those whisper campaigns.

"With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, and on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all -- to know what to believe, to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not. Let's face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I've had some experience in that regard," he said.

Targeting cable, radio and blogs has become somewhat of a political sport of the Obama administration.

The president in February, as the health care debate was in a crescendo, urged Democratic senators to "turn off" their televisions. He singled out CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and blogs, urging lawmakers to get out of the "echo chamber." That was after the administration spent several weeks in the fall criticizing Fox News.

Last September, the president also used a string of major network and cable interviews to scold the media for playing up "outrageous" political comments.

Another odd moment came in March, when an e-mail sent to Senate staffers warned them not to visit The Drudge Report out of concern for a virus. At the time, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., alleged that "somebody" was intentionally trying to "discourage" people from visiting the Web site, which is highly influential in shaping daily news coverage.

Bozell said to prove his "sincerity" about media and technology gripes, Obama should delete his massive e-mail list and take his staff off TV.

"It's just posturing on his part," Bozell said. "He is trying to put himself in opposition to those forces to improve his status with the public."

Puerto Rican Statehood Today!




by James M. Simpson
Apparently there is to be a vote later today on a bill regarding Puerto Rican statehood. They are calling it “non-binding” but it is not non-binding! It is a trap. The bill makes eventual Puerto Rican statehood a virtual certainty. This is despite the fact that statehood has been voted down repeatedly. The Puerto Rican people don’t want it!

But since when has that stopped the Left from ramming what they want down people’s throats? And why do they want this? The same reason they want everything, to further entrench their power. Statehood would mean two new senators, six or seven new representatives, a whole slew of new voters and tons of opportunities to spend more of your money. As Examiner.com’s Robert Moon points out:

Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states.
Meanwhile, with Puerto Ricans having an average income of less than half that of our poorest state, they will instantly become eligible for dozens of our welfare programs. Truckloads of taxpayer dollars will also have to be perpetually dumped into the territory, by federal law, to bring it up to American infrastructure and environmental standards.

Oh, and never mind us. We don’t get a say in this either. Puerto Rico, which doesn’t want statehood, is being forced to vote, while we American citizens, who have a vested interest in the outcome, will not be given the opportunity to vote! Simply incredible!

HR 2499, titled “A Bill, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico” follows a very devious, underhanded multi-step path to essentially force Puerto Rican voters to eventually adopt statehood. Here’s how.
The bill first authorizes Puerto Rico to hold a vote where they are given the following two choices only:

1. Puerto Rico should maintain its current political status.
2. Puerto Rico should have a different political status (Different political status. These vague words are exactly as in the bill.)

So citizens get to choose 1 or 2. Period, no ifs, ands or buts. Then the bill stipulates what comes next:
If the people pick option 1 – which they have chosen multiple times already – then the Puerto Rican government is directed to conduct more plebiscites every eight years for the foreseeable future. So in other words, Mr. Puerto Rican citizen, we are going to keep cramming this down your throat until a majority of you choose option 2.
Once the people choose option 2, then there will be a second vote with the following three options:

1. Full independence.
2. Sovereignty “in association with the United States…” not subject to the Constitution’s Territorial Clause.
3. Statehood.

For the record, the first two options will not get much support. So the entire structure of the bill is designed to funnel Puerto Rican voters into a predetermined outcome: Statehood. This despite the fact that Puerto Ricans have voted against statehood over and over again!
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a senior Democrat Congressman no less, just posted his views on this bill at Huffington Post. Here is what he has to say about it:

I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.
It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.

But he is just getting going. Listen to this:

When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate.
Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.
Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop…I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.
In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.

We all know now from the outrageous experience of Obamacare that leftists could care less what the will of the people is. For those of you who traditionally vote Democrat this should serve as a warning: that includes you! Even if it’s those poor, downtrodden Puerto Ricans the Left claims to want to help so much. Ram Obamacare down Americas’ throat; ram statehood down Puerto Rico’s throat.
Do I detect a pattern here?
This information needs to go viral. Congress needs to be shut down with phone calls and faxes starting first thing in the morning. That is today, April 29, 2010.
All this is going on while everyone is distracted by the monstrous financial bailout bill coming out of the Senate. The timing was deliberate! And we now hear that despite losing support from lone RINO Republican Lindsey Graham, the Democrats are going to go ahead with illegal immigrant amnesty.
So now we see a pretty comprehensive electoral strategy mapped out:

1. Naturalize 12 million illegal aliens to vote Democrat
2. Universal voter registration
3. Do away with Electoral College using state-by-state approach
4. Force Puerto Rican statehood
5. Soros-funded Secretary of State project to help steal close elections
6. Stimulus monies as political slush fund

If you’re not sufficiently angry and alarmed now, there is no hope for you. These people are demonstrating right to our faces their willingness to trample our rights and defy our will. If they are willing to do this now, what will they do if they get the permanent majorities they want?

Source: http://www.biggovernment.com/

Puerto Rican Statehood Ahead?

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

I want to talk to you about the fundamental transformation of America. It could happen today.







But first, you have to understand progressives. What is it that progressives believe?

• Big government, power and control: It's not about Democrats or Republicans, people. It's power and control. You can't choose for yourself. You're too dumb, so progressives will choose and regulate everything for you

• Democratic elections: This is important to progressives. You'll hear it "democratically elected" to refer to leaders like Hitler, Chavez and Castro — all democratically elected

• Social justice: Collective redemption through the government: Call it socialism, Marxism, whatever — it's all about the redistribution of wealth

Now, I want to talk to you about Puerto Rico. Understand: This is not about Hispanics. It's not about freedom. It's about power and control.

Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth, but is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty. It's been a U.S. territory since after the Spanish-American War of 1898. They're not an independent country. It's similar to Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa. Some people like it, others don't; they get to enjoy many of the benefits of America — like protection — and they don't have to pay any taxes. That's a pretty sweet deal.

So it's no wonder "the people" have consistently voted against becoming America's 51st state; three times since 1967 — the latest in 1998. It's always been the same question: Do you want to be a state?

Now, let's take you to Washington, where there's important vote happening: HR 2499 — it's called "The Puerto Rico Democracy Act." Gosh darn it, who could be against that? The bill is a non-binding resolution, supposedly to support Puerto Rico's "self-determination" on if they want to be a state or not.

That's so cute. Wait, I thought they already had a right to vote? They do. So I'm left with the question: Why do they need a non-binding resolution to support their self-determination? Is there something going on that I'm not aware of that is so important that we need to take attention away from the economy or immigration?

We've asked some of the Republicans in Congress who are supporting this bill and here are some of the answers:

"This is a vote about freedom."

"This vote does not grant Puerto Rico statehood, it simply gives Puerto Ricans the right to determine if statehood is something they want for themselves."

See, I thought they already had that. Three times they voted on that. It's almost like something else is going on. But remember, they keep telling me it's "non-binding."

If I just trusted progressives. With progressives, democratic elections always comes with a trick. For instance, Hitler was democratically elected. But as the chancellor, not the furor. Whether it be through parliamentary tricks or corruption, it's important to progressives to have the appearance of "the republic." Remember: They went through the democratic process for health care.

So what's the trick?

HR 2499 — if it passes — would force a yes or no vote in Puerto Rico on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the "current status" of the island. Wait, that's not a vote on statehood. That's a vote on do you want to "maintain the status quo."

Let me ask you this: Do you want to maintain the status quo of America? ACORN's Bertha Lewis would agree with me and say no, I don't want our current direction. But we would disagree on the reasons why.

See the trick?

In the past, statehood fails because some people like the status quo, some want to be a state and some want to be independent. There are too many choices, too many options. They need to unite people. Do you want to maintain the status quo unites them, not on the answer but on the question.

See, the folks that like the status quo are more likely to vote for statehood than independence.

In 1998, there were five options on the ballot: Limited self-government; free association; statehood; sovereignty and none of the above. Which one won? None of the above.

But now, the vote is going to happen in two stages. The first stage: Do you want to maintain the status quo? Then a chair is removed. The second vote leaves you with three choices: statehood; full independence or modified commonwealth.

Remember, full independence and modified commonwealth historically get less than 3 percent of the vote. So those options will be the only thing standing in the way of Puerto Rico becoming a state.

But Glenn, it's non-binding. Big deal!

True, but here's where if you don't know history, you are destined to repeat it. Let me introduce something to you called the Tennessee Plan. (This is probably going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I have one thing the conspiracy theories never have.)

OK — so the Tennessee Plan, you've probably never heard of it unless you are from Tennessee or Alaska. Apparently, some of those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution haven't heard of it either. When Tennessee first came to the Union, it had a different name; it was first called "Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio." It was a U.S. territory, just like Puerto Rico is now.

But instead of waiting for Congress to decide if they wanted to make the territory a state, they took a different, bold route: They forced the issue themselves:

• They elected delegates for Congress
• They voted on statehood
• They drafted a state constitution
• And applied for statehood
• Then, when Congress dragged their feet, they went to the Capitol and demanded to be seated

Congress was unsure of how to proceed; this was the first territory going for statehood. They relented and Tennessee became America's 16th state. Alaska did many of the same things.

Again, the Tennessee plan in a nutshell:

• Unsuccessfully petitioning Congress for admission
• Drafting a state constitution without prior congressional intervention
• Holding state elections for state officers, U.S. senators and representatives
• In some cases, sending the entire congressional delegation to Washington to demand statehood and claim their seats
• Finally, Congress has little choice but to admit a new state through the passage of a simple act of admission

Congressmen, voting for HR 2499 are like sheep being led to slaughter. They'll say the people of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for themselves. They'll vote yes. The progressives will then present a false choice to the people. Instead of saying "do you want to be a state?"it's "Do you want the status quo?" If voters vote no, the next vote removes the status quo from the ballot, leaving statehood against two far less popular options. They'll vote yes for statehood. Then they'll elect their congressman and senators, they'll demand to be seated and a 51st star will be attached to the flag.

How could this happen? Look at the immigration debate. What are Arizona and Texas being called? Racists. Anyone opposing Puerto Rico as state 51 would be called a hatemonger. Why do you hate Puerto Ricans so much? Why do you hate freedom?

This is not about Hispanics or freedom or sovereignty. It's about power and control. If progressives convince Hispanics that everyone besides progressives are racist, you'll have their vote for 60 years. But it's more than that.

Why are Democrats and Republicans for this? Because it's not about Republicans and Democrats. The progressives in our country know that this is the moment they've been waiting for; every Marxist daydream they've ever had, now is their time to get it done. They are not going to let it pass.

That's what's happening: The fundamental transformation of America. And this is only the beginning.

I told that this sounds like a conspiracy theory. But who is orchestrating this effort in Puerto Rico? Lo and behold, the New Progressive Party; from their own party platform:

"The New Progressive Party adopts the Tennessee Plan as an additional strategy for the decolonization and the claim for the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America."

And: "This shall be done through legislation which will establish a process for the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the State of Puerto Rico, and the election of two senators and six federal congresspersons to appear before Congress in Washington D.C. to claim their seats and the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America."

They're going to paint this as a vote for freedom, but Puerto Rico has already voted and they've already spoken. When they send the delegates to Washington, if you stand against this you'll be labeled a racist.

Column Archive

• Puerto Rican Statehood Ahead?
• Your History Is Being Rewritten
• Why Goldman Is Willing to Take the Heat
• Free Speech Endangered in America?
• The Fight to Mainstream Socialism

Full-page The One Thing Archive

ClimateGate’s Next Phase: False Claims Act Lawsuit

by Bradley A. Benbrook


The United States government has shelled out huge sums of money to universities, think tanks, and businesses to study global warming climate change. The government is poised to dole out even more money for climate-change “solutions” like the cap-and-trade scheme. With the revelations about the lengths to which the leading group of global warming doomsayers went to “hide the decline” in temperatures in their seminal studies – studies that themselves spawned an avalanche of government spending – the world is seeing that the entire enterprise may be based on a fraud.

In a normal scandal where the government appears to have been ripped off, someone in the legislative or executive branch can usually be counted on to investigate the alleged fraud, if for no other reason than advancing their own political career. In the case of this scandal, however, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have calculated that their political interests are best served by ignoring ClimateGate. This is sure to continue as new scandals emerge.

That leaves only the judicial branch as a place where climate change fraud can be unmasked in a government forum.

Individuals with inside knowledge about scientists, businesses, or any organization who knowingly used false statements to get (or keep) government money to perpetuate the “climate change” machine should consider a lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act.


The False Claims Act permits whistleblowers to sue in the name of the government as a “qui tam” plaintiff. Qui tam whistleblowers have used the FCA for decades to police (some would say hound) government contractors accused of obtaining government money by means of false statements. What’s the non-altruistic incentive for exposing fraud on the government? Successful whistleblowers can keep a share of the money that a federal judge or jury says should be paid back to the government, sometimes up to 30% of the recovery. Indeed, whistleblowers have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in these suits over the last 20 years.

There is no reason this legal tool can’t be used against unscrupulous professors, scientists, and “green jobs” hucksters who knowingly submit false statements to get government grants that fund their research, fuel their green-tech start-ups, and underwrite their proselytizing about supposed man-made climate change.
Importantly, false statements necessary to justify a False Claims Act suit don’t have to involve the same type of data-manipulation exposed in the current ClimateGate scandal. A climate-fraud FCA case could be made out of any type of false statement made in order to get or keep government money. Government grants and contracts typically involve a significant amount of ongoing certification of compliance with bureaucratic restrictions – think of a government contractor’s progress reports or a hospital’s never-ending stream of paperwork assuring that all is in order – and false statements in this paperwork may open the door to a lawsuit.

What about retaliation against those who blow the whistle on their organization or their boss? The law provides extremely strong protections for those who bring a lawsuit. In fact, the FCA contains separate provisions permitting whistleblowers to recover for such retaliation.

Finally, a few important caveats for anyone considering a qui tam suit:

First, secrecy is important, at least at the beginning. You may lose the opportunity to litigate on behalf of the government if you or someone else publicizes your inside information. The FCA imposes strict guidelines on whistleblowers’ ability to maintain suits based on information that has been publicly disclosed.

Second, states and state universities (like Prof. Michael Mann’s employer Penn State) cannot be sued under the FCA for reasons having to do with federalism, but individuals working at state universities can be named as defendants if they caused false claims to be submitted.

Third, before filing suit, whistleblowers must share the information supporting their suit with the Justice Department. Although the government has the option of taking over the litigation to recover the money, it is unlikely, to say the least, that the current Justice Department would assist a whistleblower whose FCA case threatened to undermine the administration’s climate-change policies. If (or when) the government declines to intervene, the whistleblower plaintiff and their lawyers can vigorously prosecute the lawsuit, with all the powerful tools of pre-trial discovery.

A climate fraud False Claims Act suit would be no small undertaking. The rewards, however, could be quite substantial, and not just in monetary terms. Who would like to see a videotaped deposition of a climate-change fraudster defending his or her actions under oath? I sure would.
-Source biggovernment.com

C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.


C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.

"The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote.

Congressional leaders, however, reportedly are expected to bypass the traditional conference committee process, in which lawmakers from both parties and chambers meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Instead, The Associated Press reports that top Democrats at the House, Senate and White House will figure out the final product in three-way talks before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote.

This format would seem ideal for closed-door meetings, which congressional Democrats have used many times to figure out sensitive provisions in the health care bill -- though President Obama pledged during the campaign to open up health care talks to C-SPAN's cameras.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Asked about the request to Congress, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn't seen the letter.
"I know the president is going to begin discussions today on health care to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills," he said.

Lamb urged Congress in his letter to fling open the doors in the final stretch of the negotiations.

"President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

Lamb said his network would use "the latest technology" to be "as unobtrusive as possible" during the talks.
-source FOXNews.com-

Liberal Group Puts Bounty on Head of Chamber of Commerce CEO

Well these Marxist Radicals could not have proved it more plainly that they will go to any length to silence and destroy anyone who is not with them on their agenda to socialize this country and continue in their progressive views of Healthcare and Global Warming.

Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue is a wanted man -- at least according to the liberal activist group that's put a de facto bounty on his head. 
By Judson Berger- FOXNews.com

A network of liberal groups known as Velvet Revolution started an ad campaign offering $200,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the man whose trade organization has become a thorn in the side of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

The group is not leveling any specific charges of criminal behavior. Rather, it is casting a wide net, fishing for any whistleblowers from Donohue's past who might come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. The campaign against the Chamber was launched in response to the group's opposition to climate change legislation and health care reform, and its plan to spend $100 million lobbying against these and other initiatives.

"On every issue, the Chamber is kind of the lead corporate advocate for the status quo," said Kevin Zeese, a lawyer who sits on the board for Velvet Revolution, calling Donohue a "knee-jerk reactionary" and the Chamber a "right-wing extremist group."

The Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, decried the ad campaign and threatened possible legal action.

"The media should be following the money trail behind this scurrilous group instead of giving credence to its outrageous tactics -- and we are considering legal options with the ad," spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel said.

The Chamber has already taken a lot of heat from the White House. Top aides tried to neutralize the group earlier in the year by doing an end-run around the organization and dealing directly with members, as some big companies, like Apple, peeled off from the Chamber due to disagreements over issues like climate change.

The organization was also not invited to Obama's jobs forum in Washington last week.

But Zeese said the White House has nothing to do with the bounty on Donohue.

"It's individual donors. We have no connection to the White House or unions or anything like that," he said.

Velvet Revolution launched the StoptheChamber campaign in October and started offering a bounty for information on Donohue a month later. A $100,000 reward was increased to $200,000 early this month, thanks to what Zeese called a "handful of larger donors" whom he would not identify.

A full-page print ad that looks like a "wanted" poster out of the wild West began to run in the Washington City Paper this week. It features a head shot of Donohue and offers a tip line for "insiders and whistleblowers possessing information not already in the public domain."

The tip line is live. When FoxNews.com called, the operator asked for "criminal" information about Donohue.

Zeese said that a handful of tips have come in which the group is "pursuing."

He said the hope is to forward any damaging information onto the Justice Department or Congress for further investigation.

We Must Take A Stand Against The Liberal Media Garbage

CBS' 'Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman' Ad Riles Critics
"Frosty" scenes to contain suggestions that the snowman and his friends visit a "strip club."

The mash-up also discusses Frosty's "porn collection" and contains repeated mentions of prior sexual conquests.

A video advertisement on CBS's Web site that "mashes" material from the iconic "Frosty the Snowman" Christmastime cartoon with two of the network's comedy series is offensive and should be pulled, media analysts told FoxNews.com.

The video ad, "Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman," takes authentic dialogue from CBS' "How I Met Your Mother" and "Two and a Half Men" and dubs it on top of the cartoon classic, changing well-known "Frosty" scenes to contain suggestions that the snowman and his friends visit a "strip club."

The mash-up also discusses Frosty's "porn collection" and contains repeated mentions of prior sexual conquests.

The ad is intended to promote the network's upcoming broadcasts of "Frosty the Snowman" and "Frosty Returns."

OPINION: CBS' dirty "Frosty" is a disgrace.

Colleen Raezler, a research assistant for the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center, said the spot is "highly inappropriate," and improperly uses a Christmas special to promote an adult-oriented comedy.

"The ad introduces children to the idea of strippers and pornography," Raezler told FoxNews.com. "The people in charge obviously thought this was funny, but the question they should ask themselves is if this is appropriate, not if it's funny."

Raezler said the advertisement is another example of popular culture "pushing the envelope" on everything.

"It's sexing up Frosty," she said. "It really drives home the idea that nothing is sacred anymore."

CBS did not reply to messages seeking comment.

But television blogs characterized the video as "hilarious."

"You'll never look at 'Frosty the Snowman' the same way again," read a post on tvshark.com.

A post on NYMag.com said the magazine doesn't take "any issue" with CBS' decision to create the mash-up video.

"Sure, it's a little bit on the dirty side and definitely not for the kiddies, but in our eyes, ['How I Met Your Mother' star Neil Patrick Harris] and Rankin/Bass [Productions] are two great tastes that definitely taste great together," the post read.

Not so, says Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media, adding that officials at the Federal Trade Commission should be concerned about the promotion.

"CBS is doing much the same thing that alcohol and tobacco companies have done in the past -- namely, using imagery in advertising that would naturally attract children in order to market an adult product," Peters said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Legal matters aside, it should go without saying that CBS TV ought to be ashamed of itself -- using an animated Christmas season setting, complete with young children, to chat about strippers, whores, pornography, sadomasochism, sexual promiscuity, and more."

Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, a watchdog group based in Los Angeles, said the advertisement was reprehensible.

"It's either ignorance or arrogance, but I can't imagine the folks at the once-Tiffany network should think this is OK," he told FoxNews.com. "Someone had to write it and someone had to approve it. It speaks to the decisions that are being made at CBS these days."

Winter also called for the advertisement to be pulled, characterizing it as the outcome of the network attempting to do "everything they can to be offensive rather than creative."

Was It A Mystake Or Were They Just Caught Testing The Waters

Missouri Schools Complain About Obama Logo School Supplies
Monday, December 07, 2009



COLUMBIA, Mo. —  Several Missouri schools are complaining about notebooks and pencils with designs similar to the logos from President Barack Obama's campaign.

The Columbia Daily Tribune reports that complaints from unhappy officials at three Missouri schools have prompted the supply company responsible for the materials to travel across the state recalling notebooks and pencils.

The design at issue includes a picture of pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters. Above the coins is the phrase: "CHANGE" and underneath it reads: "WE CAN BELIEVE IN." Below the words is a circle used by Obama's campaign, in which the top half is blue and the bottom is red with three white lines cutting through it.

Click here to see the school supplies.

At least one notebook and pencil with the design have been purchased from a school supply machine at a Columbia elementary school. Two families have complained about the design, and Principal Mary Sue Gibson said she planned to complain to the supply company.

"I just don't want to get into that political arena at all," Gibson said.
Greg Jones, a sales representative with Pencil Wholesale, said the design was an accident.

Jones, who delivers supplies to about 800 schools, said he remembers seeing the design but didn't think anything about it. He said the supplies were designed by a different company and that "the art department was trying to be cutesy."

"I wish I could do it over. But, for now, I can just make it right," Jones said.

It's his job to go to schools that might have received supplies with the controversial design and remove them.

Finding what schools the supplies went to has been difficult. From a case of 72 notebooks, three have been found that have a design similar to the Obama logo.

"It's turned out to be really ugly. We're trying to get them out of the schools as fast as we can," said Jones, who identified himself as a registered Republican who voted for John McCain in 2008.

111 New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Democrats’ Health Care Bill

CNSNews.com

111 New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Democrats’ Health Care Bill
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
By House Republican Conference

(CNSNews.com) - The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in the House health care bill.

The Republican conference describes H.R. 3962 as “Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care.”

The list of 111 new bureaucracies is reprinted here:


1.     Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2.     Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3.     Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4.     Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5.     Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6.     Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7.     Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8.     Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9.     Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10.  Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11.  Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12.  State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13.  Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14.  “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)
15.  Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16.  Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17.  Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18.  Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)
19.  Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20.  Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21.  Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22.  Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23.  Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24.  Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25.  Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26.  Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27.  Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28.  Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29.  Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30.  Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31.  National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32.  Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33.  Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34.  Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35.  Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36.  Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37.  Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38.  Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39.  Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40.  “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41.  Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42.  Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43.  Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44.  Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45.  Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46.  Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47.  Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48.  Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49.  Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50.  Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51.  Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52.  Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53.  Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54.  Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55.  Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56.  Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57.  Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58.  Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59.  Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60.  Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61.  Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62.  Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63.  Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64.  “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65.  Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66.  Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67.  University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68.  Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69.  Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70.  Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71.  Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72.  Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73.  Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74.  Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75.  Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76.  Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77.  Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78.  Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79.  Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80.  Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81.  Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82.  National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83.  CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84.  CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85.  CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86.  Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87.  National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88.  Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89.  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90.  Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91.  Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92.  Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93.  Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94.  Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95.  Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96.  Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97.  Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98.  Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99.  Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100.        Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101.        Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102.        Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103.        Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104.        Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105.        Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106.        Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107.        Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108.        Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109.        Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110.        Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111.        Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Tale of Two Hoaxes: Man-made Global Warming and Obamacare

Statement From Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Now, we've known this was going to happen. We've known it was going to happen. It has happened, or it's on the verge of happening today. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has concluded greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary. The AP is simply joyous as they report this. "EPA administrator," and well-known leftist hack, "Lisa Jackson, scheduled a news conference for later today to announce the [so-called] endangerment finding. ... The finding is timed to boost the administration’s arguments at an international climate conference [on the man-made global warming hoax] that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation."

There is an underground government. All of these bureaucracies, all of these bureaucrats, in fact, in the Senate health care bill there are 111 new bureaucracies created, 111 new federal bureaucracies created. We now have an underground government. We are going to get the effect of cap and trade, cap and tax, without any legislation on it. "The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue." Now, this all happened because of the Supreme Court. Now, what is being called here a dangerous pollutant that is endangering people's health is what you and I exhale: carbon dioxide. And as this joyous AP story notes, this has been in the works since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide is a pollutant which should be controlled.

Now, this is not funny. On the surface of it it's funny, it's ridiculous. But it's not funny. It's insidious. I want to walk you through some progressions here. The Supreme Court first off has assigned to itself the role of expertise in matters of science. And of course they're all-knowing and they're all-powerful. The finding, the EPA finding today, timed to boost the administration's arguments that the Copenhagen climate conference, the United States is aggressively taking action to combat global warming. Good thing this is not political. Good thing it's not a political ruling, eh? Now, by the way, let's go back, first sentence: "The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people’s health and must be regulated." This is all about CO2. So does this mean that workers, employees, can sue their employers if they are made to work around people who are emitting such a dangerous substance as carbon dioxide? And if not, why not? The EPA, a federal agency, has just said this is poison; has just said that it is destroying the climate; has just said that CO2 endangers human health.

So you let some clever trial lawyer get hold of this and get some poor employee somewhere who comes down with some disease, sues the employer for making him work next to somebody exhaling this stuff. You think I'm making this up. I hope it doesn't happen but I'm trying to illustrate the absolute absurdity of this. This is just part and parcel of the divide we face, the Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality and what is really intended for this country and the world at the hands of both domestic and international leftists and Marxists. And, you know, there's no difference in this global warming hoax, and the health care reform hoax. They are born of the same ideology, they're born of the same tactics, and they are born with the same objectives. Radical leftists claim that man-made global warming destroys lives. Radical leftists also claim that private sector medical care destroys lives. The president himself has indicted the medical community for this. The hoax, I want to walk you through these progressions. The hoax known as man-made global warming is based on manipulated, falsified, altered temperature data, basic weather information.

One tree in the Siberian peninsula, one tree is responsible for this hoax. And a guy with this hockey stick graph, which has also now been proven to be a sham. The hoax known as Obamacare, deficit neutral, will improve health care, is based on manipulated financial data, basic accounting information. Key people who gathered, manipulated and destroyed inexact temperature information, information that is the foundation of the global warming theory, were considered trustworthy, they are scientists. I'm speaking of the climatologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. These people are knowing participants in a fraud, however. They had the respect of the world, they were scientists, and they were saving the planet, and no one doubted them except ideological skeptics and a few scientists who had the guts to. Key people who gathered and manipulated inexact financial information, information that is the foundation of the deficit neutral theory in health care, were considered trustworthy, with wonderfully good intentions. I'm speaking of the accountants at the CBO. These people are knowing participants in a fraud.

The underlying data proving man-made global warming has been hidden from public scrutiny. The underlying laws providing and proving Obamacare is deficit neutral had been hidden from public scrutiny. The State-Controlled Media has knowingly and willingly advanced the man-made global warming fraud. The State-Controlled Media has knowingly and willingly advanced the Obamacare fraud. A significant person at the ClimateGate fraud is Dr. Phil Jones. He has been forced to step down as director of the Climate Research Unit due to his corrupt behavior. A significant person in the US Senate in the Obamacare fraud is Max Baucus. He should have to step down due to his corrupt behavior. ClimateGate was advanced by propaganda and by public perception that men and women of science dressed up in lab coats were honest brokers of facts, when in fact all they were were greedy, grubby leftists on the take. Most of science is funded by grant. Science, government, academia, and media, have all been corrupted. They are the Four Corners of Deceit.

ClimateGate advanced by propaganda and the public perception, the men and women of science dressed up in lab coats were honest. Obamacare advanced by propaganda where the White House called a phony meeting of doctors, who support socialized medicine, and passed out white lab coats to them for them for a photo-op. ClimateGate and Obamacare are the most significant power grabs, tax increases, and losses of freedom and liberty in American history. ClimateGate and Obamacare require central planners running a command-and-control economy. ClimateGate and Obamacare require much higher taxes that will cripple the private sector and the domestic United States economy. ClimateGate and Obamacare severely limit personal freedom and disposable income. ClimateGate and Obamacare are both job killers. ClimateGate and Obamacare are economy killers. ClimateGate and Obamacare are budget killers. ClimateGate and Obamacare require, demand everyone's participation.

Violating the laws of these two pieces of legislation will result in fines and/or incarceration. ClimateGate and Obamacare put the public sector and public servants in total control of the private sector and over every individual American. Truth, facts, and public opinion mean nothing to the radical leftists ramming through ClimateGate and Obamacare. They are one and the same issue. They have the same technique, the same propaganda, the same end objective. They are part-and-parcel of an un-American and unconstitutional takeover of American lives by radical leftists in the United States government and governments all over the world, and they are all based on lies. They are all based on frauds. They are all based on man-made hoaxes advanced by liars, dressed up as people we should trust.
END TRANSCRIPT

What Is In The Healthcare Bill

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill
Really Says. Here are some important passages in
the 2,000 page legislation.

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here
are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you
to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your
insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to
switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your
own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll
in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract
changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit. [In other words, you will no longer be able to buy catastrophic health insurance---a right that is a decided economic advantage for the healthy and those who are willing to live with a high deductible plan.]

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill
becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will
decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be
legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling
you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the
interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the
plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before
taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a
$5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket
expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his
pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes
will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300
out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax
income. Individuals and families earning less than these
amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their
insurer. [So much for Obamaster's pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class.]

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that,
although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be
of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer
choice-basic, enhanced and premium levels-but the benefits are
the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will
have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is
paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.


• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your
taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified
plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars.


• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a
"qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the
cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8%
payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to
$750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding
by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes
how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the
government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment
system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and
doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's
called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care
provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic
tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients
may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a
physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin
with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is
authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national
basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office
report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the
unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a
priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces
physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for
hospice patients. [Well, who cares? They're dying anyway.]

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520)
initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what
it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will
reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of
care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as
New York and Florida .

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used
by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will
result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and
dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results
of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the
government will be delivered to doctors electronically to
guide their use of "medical items and
services." [In other words, your physician will be monitored to make sure that he or she is not giving "too much" medical care to patients. If a physician orders "too many tests," then quite possibly that person needs to be reigned in---because costs will have to be "contained" according to how much money is available from "the system."]

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it
will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city
social work and diversity programs with vague standards of
accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for
grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications
except having "documented community activity and experience
with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and
provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug
abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community
health worker program receiving funds under the grant will
provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for
the individual served by the program." [This is a "make work" project for "community organizing" groups such as ACORN.]

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health
services and health related social services under Federal,
State and local programs by assisting individuals in
establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and
other benefits" including transportation and translation
services. [i.e., illegals aliens who will be eventually legalized by the Obama administration]

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement
for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This
program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare
beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all
times and with no co-pays for language services. [i.e., illegals aliens who will be eventually legalized by the Obama administration]

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and
ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and
creating secondary-school health science programs. For
example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to
programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse
graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the
patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to
schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds
including racial and ethnic minorities." [This is nothing but Affirmative Action education policy on steroids, i.e., reverse racism.]

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of
newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
 Additional Healthcare Information

300 Million Dollar Healthcare Bribe

What's going on in Congress isn’t about health care at all. It's about raising taxes, increasing government spending and creating more government make-work jobs



When the Senate voted 60-39 to proceed to debate Harry Reid’s 2000 page collection of taxes and mandates and new regulations on America’s health care the nation learned several lessons.

1. First, there are no “moderate” Democrat senators. No “independent thinkers.” No Senators who put the interests of Nebraska, Arkansas, Indiana or Nevada ahead of the raw political demands of the liberal Democrat leadership in Washington D.C. North Dakota citizens do not have any Senators representing them. There are two guys with mailing addresses in North Dakota, but they vote the interests of Washington, D.C.

2. Second, everything Barack Obama’s handlers put up on his teleprompter during the 2008 campaign turns out to be a lie. Everything. The goal of this legislation is not to make health care more affordable for all Americans. The Reid legislation does nothing to reduce costs—unless you count the hidden plans for future rationing of such things as mammograms.

In the first ten years that this “plan” is implemented it will cost us $2.5 trillion dollars. If you read a lower number in the establishment press it is because much of the “plan” doesn’t kick in until 2014 which masks how expensive it is if one is foolish enough to count 2009-2019 as the ten-year cost. There are at least $500 billion in higher taxes….if this is supposed to save money, what are the higher taxes for?

3. Third, this isn’t about health care at all. It's about raising taxes and increasing government spending and government make-work jobs.

The first Obama/Reid/ Pelosi legislation was to extend the Bush bank bailout with an additional $350 billion. The second Obama/Reid/Pelosi bill was to spend $787 billion on a collection of pork barrel earmarks. The third Obama/Reid/Pelosi bill was to increases taxes and spending about a trillion to increase the costs of energy and gasoline—to force you to drive less and heat and light your home less. This “health bill” is just another tax and spend and regulate bill. The title is different from the fist three bills. And it is even more expensive than the first three. But it is just more of the same.

The Reid bill uses the word “tax” 183 times. It uses the word “shall” 3,607 times, and “must” 45 times. It taxes the health insurance Americans already have. It taxes medical “devices”. It taxes your purchase of aspirin from your Health Savings Account or Flexible Savings Account.

4. The fourth thing we learned on Saturday was how completely corrupt Congress has become. Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat from Louisiana, bragged that she knows the legislation will hurt consumers, but she sold her vote for $300 million. Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln admit they know this bill will hurt their citizens, but they voted for the legislation for…well you guess what it takes to make a senator vote to tax the health insurance of their citizens.

Reid has instructed those Senators who are voting against the interests of their citizens (and have voters informed enough to be unhappy about this vote) to pretend that this is just a procedural vote. There will be another final vote after the legislation has been amended. But Reid wants the final bill passed before Christmas. Reid/ Pelosi and Obama have claimed they had a plan for the past year. Why have they hidden their plans from voters until now and pretend that they are beginning a real debate over the holiday season? They count on Americans being busy and distracted. They plan to buy or bully 60 votes again soon.

With $2.5 trillion in new spending and fortunes to be made or lost in the web of regulations and executive powers in the 2,074 pages of small print there will be very grateful special interests willing to reward those 60 votes for a government takeover of our health care. Still, an open wallet did not save New Jersey tax and spend Democrat Governor Corzine from defeat November 3.

We are where we started. This is not about doctors or hospitals or health. It is about politics; about taxes and spending and moving power to the special interests in Washington D.C. Big government won round one. Now, maybe, we will hear from America.

Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of "Leave Us Alone -- Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives."

By Grover Norquist

- FOXNews.com

Glenn Beck Reveals the Plan

Friends,

What an amazing few days on the road this has been. Your spirits have been high, your faith strong and your spine unbendable. I ended my multiday book tour at The Villages with what had been billed as a rally but could be better described as a candid citizen-to-citizen chat.

Today, I have stopped looking for a leader to show us the way out because I have come to realize that the only one who can truly save our country...is us. To change America's course we need to change ourselves, our expectations and our willingness to accept the unacceptable. When we refuse to allow our children to receive a trophy for participation, we are on the road to restoring the meaning of merit in our Republic. When we insist that no one is too big to fail, we will be able to learn from our mistakes, and when we demand that we are self-reliant, we will ensure that others can rely on us, not the government.

There is much to do, much to learn and time is of the essence. While I will be explaining the entire Plan over the coming weeks and months, I did want to give you a preview of some of the highlights:

- Education is key, and not just for our children. To that end, we will be conducting a series of conventions. These will be full-day experiences where you will be immersed in learning about topics ranging from self-reliance, community organizing, the economy and how to be a political force in your own neighborhood and country. The first one will be in Orlando at UCF Arena on March 27th. You will also be able to vote to have a convention in your region by clicking here.

- I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100 year plan. I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting, using only the battlefield of ideas.

- All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

- On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country.

November 21, 2009 - 15:28 ET