zoltanne's Diary

Health Care Bill To Fund Construction, Land Buys Too

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:53:57 +0000

Who knew that the proposed Senate health care Bill would include provisions and funding to increase access to health care through school-based health centers. Yet nestled deep within the bowels of that Bill lies the plan to spend millions more on construction, even land purchases, enabling additional access to the proposed national health care system. I suppose our hospitals, medical centers, doctors’ offices, and clinics just don’t provide enough for all of us. Now, it appears that taxpayers will be funding the purchase of more government land and construction so that America can have school-based health centers in and near schools.

In Title IV Section 4101: School-based Health Centers, Subsection B "Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services", the proposed Senate bill establishes the criteria for grants to be funneled into Medicaid-populated regions of America. These grants are to purchase land, buildings, renovations, or other construction. Construction equipment might be purchased with these funds too. Medical services are funded under different grants.

Refer to page 1156-1160 of the proposed Senate Bill for Section 4101, (a)(3) PREFERENCE and (a)(4) LIMITATIONS for the governmentese. What I learned was that grants for the establishment of school-based health care centers will be directed towards regions in America where eligible children who qualify for Medicaid is most prevalent. The grants are to be used in (1) acquisition of land and/or (2)construction, improvement, remodeling, expansion, replacement of buildings or (3) equipment (4) similar expenses. These grants do not include health services, payments for staff. medical procedures, or medical equipment, only construction-related costs.

Appropriations for 2010 through 2013: $50 MILLION per year. Why does this appear like an earmark?

The school-based health centers would provide basic physical and mental health services, including substance abuse services and counseling. Nothing that is any different than the services provided for at a doctor’s office. These services would be exclusive, though, restricted to children and adolescents. These services would be conducted during school hours, or 24-coverage on-call services.

POINT: Why would health care funds be required to establish additional health care centers, limited to school-age children? The Senate Bill was written to address a national health care system and America has sufficient real property, health centers/clinics, and medical offices without adding to the taxpayer burden of additional purchases and construction projects. Through this Bill, all people will be covered for health care and the need for new health centers centering around schools would be duplicitous (which is something this Bill claims it will avoid).

POINT: Since these services are centered around schools, will these centers also be constructed for private and religious schools?

Who’s Who of Who Gets Regulated in Cap And Trade

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:13:13 +0000

Learning where Federal regulators will most likely be targeting their anti-pollution activities comes as no surprise. Manufacturing businesses and fossil-fuel power plants are the big losers in the “Cap and Trade” scenario. The other big losers will be the employees who will learn that their jobs have been terminated or transferred overseas. But this was the agenda.

Through the analysis presented in the Duke University study released today entitled Size Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Regulation, there are some industries that will be affected as a whole, such as the petroleum industry. Smaller industries like the flat glass industry will also be an industry that will be affected as a whole. Other industries like the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, as they pointed out, will not be widely affected. But about half of the power plants are going to feel the regulatory-pain.

Some of these manufacturing industries will, no doubt, take that slow boat to China and relocate outside of the U.S. And who could blame them? It will not only cost-prohibitive to manufacture in America, it will be red-tape hell. So much for that American enterpreneurial spirit….

The Duke study is only correlating the thresholds of polluters and their percentage of both pollution and representation in a particular industry. The Environmental Defense Fund organization funded the Duke University study on CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions for manufacturing companies that would be regulated under the American Clean Energy and Security Act (“Cap and Trade Bill”).

The agenda behind the “Cap and Trade” bill is another forced legislative move towards a socialistic and anti-capitalistic America. Knowing how our National Organizer And Chief Obama uses his organizational skills and associations to further the socialist agenda, it comes as no surprise to learn that The Environmental Defense Fund recently endorsed a document, Earth Charter, which blames capitalism for many of the world’s environmental , social, and economic problems.

Recalling that Obama’s Science czar, Dr. Holdren, wants to de-develop our Nation, this “Cap and Trade” will work nicely into Holdren’s and Obama’s socialization plans for America.

And this convenient connection doesn’t end with Holdren and Obama. This latest study on who’s polluting America the worst was made possible by The Environmental Defense Fund which itself is funded through donations by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the John D. Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Heinz Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation.

Oh yes….The Joyce Foundation…..Obama was on the Board of Directors at the Joyce Foundation.

Oh and isn’t it ironic that both Environmental Defense Fund and Pew are also members of the USCAP (US Climate Action Partnership)?

Would it appear that the outcome of this Duke study was determined before the data was analyzed?

Obama’s Health Careless Plan: Only Good Enough For Us

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:32:20 +0000

National health care is anything BUT health care. The Health Care Bill is a covert attempt by the Federal Government to eliminate free-choice of health insurance for Americans, but Obama won’t admit this (except through video-bits that he’s been busted on). Face it, Obama is a liar to the American people, and Obama does not care about Americans.That’s why he’s trying to push fast and hard on passage of this National health care plan.

National health care is about Fed power and socialist control, not health care. Reading the HR3200 Bill and any of the various ideas about how to propose national health care is enough to sicken the healthiest of us. Talk about having the blueprint for high blood pressure….

If Obama wants to nationalize health care to help Americans and save money, why isn’t the Federal Government going to enroll? Why aren’t the Executive and Legislative Branches going to receive this health care? And why won’t the Union members be in this plan? This sounds fishy to me…..like that plan is good enough for us but certainly not them.

“National health care” will erode America’s excellent quality of medical care, leaving sick and injured Americans by the wayside while government procedures will be used to “manage” our health. Or ignore our health, depending upon the “worth” and “soundness” of the individual needing the health care. And tell me again why I will have to forfeit my very good insurance and my excellent doctors so that everyone-gets-insurance? Tell me again why I get penalized so that those who choose to not have insurance get some?

I can already predict the red-tape mass of entanglement. While 200 Federal employees try to find the procedural guideline for someone’s laminectomy, that patient will have been forced to quit his job and file disability. If you think the U.S. Tax Code is a tangled mass of conditional statements, what do you think the Federal Guidelines for Managed Health Care will be like? Do you care to find out?

The Federal Government has yet to adequately manage Medicare — how could we ever believe the Federal Government could handle the enormity of a national health care plan involving 300,000,000 Americans? And the underestimated price tag of more than $1 trillion just in the first 10 years is incomprehensible. How can this be justified?

Erroneous “facts” keep getting tossed out in the government-run media saying there are 47 million Americans uninsured. How many of those are actually AMERICANS? And how many of those people are uninsured BY CHOICE? Just today, the new Virginia uninsured numbers were made public and those statistics show that there is a large insured population in Virginia’s college towns (Harrisonburg, Blacksburg, etc).

Ask yourself these questions: Are you ready to accept Federal regulatory constraints with respect to your health? Are you going to allow the Federal Government to take over the health insurance industry under the guise of “health care” in the Health Care Bill? Are you going to allow the Feds to be an interference between you and your doctor?

In the HR3200 Bill on page 16, the section entitled “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage” is a tell-all. Under “Limitation On New Enrollment”, there is a grandfather clause on privately held insurance. The section of the Bill states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1″ (Y1 is the year the legislation becomes law).

So, for those individuals who currently have private individual coverage, you are okay for now. You can keep your private insurance unless the company goes belly up. Or unless you lose your job. If you lose that insurance, you won’t be able to change it — you will forcibly enter the National Health Insurance Plan. And those individuals who leave a company to work for themselves will no longer be able to buy individual health insurance from private carriers.

So whether you lose or cancel your current private insurance, you will never be permitted to seek private health insurance again. You are forced into the National Health Insurance Plan. That is part of the “limitation of new enrollment” so that eventually ALL insured people will either be forced into the Government insurance plan or migrate there after retirement.

That sure does sound fishy….

Consequently, the guaranteed attrition rate of individuals going OUT of a private insurance plan will force these insurance companies out of business. Once there are few health insurance companies remaining, what choices will you have? That’s right….you get to choose between The National Health Insurance Plan and The National Health Insurance Plan. Talk about fishy…..

Is this fair market competition? The bill on “National health care” was defined to “provide affordable quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending”. If the intention of the Federal Government’s “health care plan” is about cost, why not simply regulate the pricing schedule on insurance rates then? Why not force caps on medical procedures? The Federal Government is forcing salary caps on private business leaders now. The Federal Government is forcing corporations to limit bonus payouts and other perks.

If the Federal Government subsidizes a National Health Care Plan, the health insurance companies will go out of business. This plan will eliminate all competition, leaving the Federal Government in charge and in control of all medical health care in America. What will be next, manditory vaccinations? Publicized medical records of the rich and famous? I sure hope Joe the Plumber didn’t have any hinky medical procedures…..

The reality of Obama’s health careless plan is obsurd. And unconstitutional. Any attempt to nationalize America’s health care is wreckless, immoral, and unethical.

This proposed “health care” is not going to be fair to me. Or to you.

The Federal Government has no business getting involved in my personal medical history or my lifestyle. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I am outraged that the Federal Government is planning to interfere with my medical professionals.I am angered that the Federal Government wants to dictate medical procedures and guidelines to practicing physicians and nurses.

No, I am not willing to bet my life on it, either. I am 100% opposed to Obama’s health careless plan and will spend countless hours fighting this battle.

Read my other posts then report this post to The Community Organizer at the WH — email flag@whitehouse.gov

Obama: The Repeat-Player

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:42:03 +0000

Obama has his eye on health care reform, stressing the need for national health care. Since this is Obama’s agenda-of-the-week, Obama and his Machine are pouring energy and money into this effort. On Wednesday, Obama will be pushing health care reform on ABC, and though he is urging nationalized health care, he denies this is what the new policy proposal is about.

So what exactly IS that policy? As of now, Obama he has no concrete plan or legislation, but Obama is a community organizer and a strategist who doesn’t need a concrete plan to present to Americans. Obama is calculating and he wants to sell Americans on a nationalized health care system that will be peddled as basic health care reform for those who have no insurance. So Obama is on his latest mission with his radical agenda, pushing nationalized health care and he plans to push forward as fast as he can, timing his efforts precisely. For Obama, this is his strategy for his radical agenda-based ideologies.

Obama is already hyping national health care. He has already been on the campaign trail appealing to Americans, pushing more of that hope and change he based his campaign on last year. Obama has pulled out the stops and plans to push national health care in a very timely fashion so that he can thrust this issue to the forefront of every American, making claims that cannot be met, making promises and statements that will never hold while using reasons that aren’t exactly true. How do we know? He’s done it before.

Obama’s plans to push his national health care in his predictable campaign style. His style and mannerisms are straight out of the Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The Alinsky Rule he’ll use is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

This week, Obama’s focus is on national health care and he will force America to focus on national health care, as well. He is using ABC, on Wednesday June 24, 2009 to help propel his ideology in a campaign for national health care. No debate. No opposing commentary or input. No GOP commercials. Obama will monopolize and control through this venue. Indeed, Obama believes he will be in full control by utilizing a national television station into his overt propaganda delivery-system. No doubt during air time, Obama and his teleprompter will convince Americans how critical this problem is. (cough) No doubt, Obama and his teleprompter will stress urgency, saying that Americans must act quickly, decisively, once again, to save our Nation from total devastation and despair. (cough, gag) No doubt, Obama will chant his hope and change rhetoric. (cough, gag, sputter)

But Americans have heard this before. In fact, we have heard this often. It’s old. But Obama will resort to his campaign style once again to sell America on the needed national health care policy he has not even written. The reality, though, is this national health care is yet another policy with rapid, unprecedented changes that warrant cautiousness, not the immediate action item Obama is selling.

Tracking Back

Obama is a repeat-player. He’s done this before. He’s even done this before he became the President. There is no surprise to learn that Obama’s radical agenda-based ideology has not changed, either. His persuasive methodologies use strategies built with powerful connections, money, and organizational associations to push an agenda. Obama is calculating and he is setting up the game board for his next agenda-based policy.

From his early days to his years as a community organizer, Obama learned to strategize carefully: carefully plotting, calling in favors, directing funds towards associates or organizations that would help his radical agenda-based ideology. Obama sets it up like a seasoned chess player.

Earlier in his career, Obama was involved in a number of left-wing and radical non-profit organizations. In time, Obama rose to power inside several of these organizations and he became powerfully connected both with people and with money. Obama learned early to use those connections to serve himself and his agenda.

Obama was on the Board of The Woods Fund of Chicago (1993-2001) and the Director of The Joyce Foundation. While Obama served as the Director of The Joyce Foundation (1994-2002), he was also a member of the Illinois State Senate (1997-2004).

As Board Member at The Woods Fund

Obama was busy while he sat on the Board at The Woods Fund. A number of grants were made to the politically-charged organizations like the Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama attended since the 1980s. Other grants given during Obama’s service on the Board went to ACORN and to Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners, run by Allison S. Davis, a developer represented by Obama’s law firm. Davis, incidentally, was also Obama’s previous boss and campaign contributor.

During the time that Obama remained on the Board at Woods Fund, a number of grants were given to organizations that later contributed to Obama’s campaign. In fact, the pattern of funneling money to his political allies and their allies is evident throughout Obama’s association with the Woods Fund. Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPPPI), the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Centers for New Horizons, the Chicago Jobs Council, the Chicago Education Fund, the Chicago Institute on Urban Poverty, the Chicago Urban League, and The Gamaliel Foundation. Following the money trail, board members and officials from these organizations would donate money to Obama’s campaigns.

During Obama’s time on the Woods Funds, ACORN received grants of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002) from the Woods Fund.

As Director of The Joyce Foundation

As the Director of the Joyce Foundation, Obama used his position to steer funding into specific areas that aligned with his own agenda. Obama understood how his carefully planned strategy could provide a strong foundation for any agenda he wished to push forward.

One agenda Obama focused on involved the elimination of the Second Amendment – an individual’s rights to bear arms. Obama did not support individual rights to bear arms and while he served as the Director of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002. As well, The Joyce Foundation took a position of anti-gun opposition, too.

Under Obama’s Directorship, The Joyce Foundation became vocal in their belief against an individual’s rights to bear arms. As opposition grew, the Foundation was determined to increase their attack on the Second Amendment.

During this time, Ohio State University formed a Second Amendment Research Center paid for by The Joyce Foundation. Obama realized that his Foundation had the opportunity to award Foundation money into this Research Center to serve his agenda. While Obama was the Director at The Joyce Foundation, the Board decided to provide OSU with a $400,000 grant to fund the Research Center.

The Joyce Foundation was aware of future Second Amendment court cases, knowing that both precedence and law reviews serve the courts in making decisions. The Joyce Foundation began granting millions of dollars to universities for anti-gun writings and law reviews that would lay a firm legal foundation for their agenda.

Obama’s ability to funnel grant money for anti-gun the Second Amendment Research Center just happened to coincide with an upcoming Supreme Court case. The Joyce Foundation grant was awarded in December 2002, in time to potentially influence a Supreme Court Appeals case, District of Columbia v. Heller, challenging the Second Amendment and an individual’s rights to bear arms.

Obama, serving as Director of the Joyce Foundation, used his position and Foundation money to influence the Supreme Court case, hoping a judicial change to the Second Amendment could serve the anti-gun movement.

Obama almost succeeded in his agenda to destroy Americans’ individual right to bear arms. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenting Justices were persuaded in part by Joyce Foundation’s funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Past history is an excellent teacher. Upon examination of Obama’s past history, we see how Obama operates and plays the game. We now understand how Obama has become skilled as an organizer and plotter to achieve the outcome he desires, no matter how radical or unethical his agenda may be.

Once a player understands their opponent’s strategy, they have a stronger tactic. “Know thy enemy and know thy strength.”

Like Obama’s calculating role in attempting to destroy our Second Amendment Rights, Obama is attempting to now destroy America’s private health care system as we know it. Obama is attempting to nationalize our health care and he will stop at nothing to achieve his radical agenda. Obama, his associates, and numerous organizations and large corporations are funneling money into a nationalized health care plan that is not even defined at this point.

Is America really going to allow Obama to win at his game? Are we really going to watch him declare, “Checkmate” ?

Is It About Windmills Or Windfalls?

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:00:55 +0000

Promoted from the diaries by Skanderbeg. Do be sure to read down to the tabulation of the incipient green oligopoly that’s trying to coalesce around all this “AGW” nonsense….

After the “global warming” terminology morphed into “climate change”, the EPA dedicated a large section of their website to the issue. With EPA now able to provide the comprehensive information, the challenge to curtail “climate change” is now up to the Obama Administration.

The Obama-machine has determined they must aggressively push for renewable energy alternatives using a punitive strategy known as Cap And Trade as part of their solution/agenda. Cap and Trade will fiscally punish users of carbon-based energy while rewarding owners/investors of carbon-based energy, believing that this financial strategy will force environmental changes to help heal the planet. No doubt, this was the change Obama was talking about in his campaign.

The “climate change” environmental agenda was in-play years ago, but this agenda was not nearly as aggressive as it is now. Along with the other act-fast agenda items pushed through the White House, the Cap and Trade legislation is under current review. Just last Friday, Rep. Steve Scalise R-Louisiana questioned Al Gore on Cap And Trade during a discussion on the Energy and Climate Change Policy.

Rep. Scalise is charging that Enron’s CEO, Ken Lay, devised a Cap and Trade Scheme in the 1990s. Rep. Scalise further stated that Al Gore, as the Vice President under Clinton, was involved in discussions with Ken Lay while he was in the White House. Al Gore strongly reacted to this accusation and he denied this. Poor Al….It’s such an inconvenience, that Enron….And there in the midst of the Enron-Al Gore connection lies General Electric. I mean GE (Enron) Wind.

Al Gore just keeps bobbing up to the surface like a dead fish on the Potomac. Yeah, that Al Gore. The same Al Gore who declared that he invented the Internet. The same Al Gore who wrote this NYT Op/Ed “The Selling of an Energy Policy”.

In that Op/Ed, Al Gore chastized the Bush administration saying:

Instead of leading, it has attempted to mislead. Instead of sharing a vision with the people, the administration has given access to special interests.

Interesting that Al Gore should mention an administration misleading people. VERY interesting that Al Gore would declare that an administration would give access to special interests.

Under the Obama administration, there are so many connected special interest groups and businesses that I need a spreadsheet to keep track of the connections with one another. One thing that’s easy to track is the connection to Obama.

So now, in the Obama administration, Al Gore is pounding hard. Like he’s got some type of special interest or something. Al Gore, Founder and Chairman of Alliance for Climate Protection, and Partner at Kleiner, Perkins Caufield & Byers really does keep surfacing like that dead fish on the Potomac. And he’s just one in the Obama Environment Connection who is consulting/advising on our Nation’s energy policy.

Between Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, the Pew Center’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, and the U.S. Climate Action Partnership which testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, you might wonder why the same names keep surfacing, setting energy policy.

Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO, GE
John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.
William H. Donaldson, Chairman, SEC
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF
Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas
David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University
Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.
Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group
Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion
Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation
Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley
Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University

Pew Center’s Business Environmental Leadership Council:
ABB
Air Products
Alcoa Inc.
American Electric Power
Bank of America
BASF
Baxter International Inc.
The Boeing Company
BP
California Portland Cement
CH2M HILL
Citi
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deutsche Telekom
The Dow Chemical Company
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
IBM
Intel
Interface Inc.
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Lockheed Martin
Marsh, Inc
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool Corporation
Wisconsin Energy Corporation

U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Members include:

Alcoa, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar,

Chrysler, ConocoPhillips,John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy,

DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group,

GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Natural Resources Defense Council,

The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, PepsiCo

Pew Center On Global Climate Change, PG&E, PNM Resources

Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute, Xerox

Noting the numerous connections, special interests, business conflicts of interests, and SEC violations, it is important to note what Al Gore said: “the administration has given access to special interests.”

Is it really about windmills and not about windfalls?

You Might Be A Right-Wing Extremist If You…..

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:52:56 +0000

…..really do “Question Authority”.

…..even mention the phrase “We The People”.

…..homeschool.

…..can recite The Constitution.

…..think illegal aliens really are illegal.

…..served in the Military.

…..think legalizing illegal drugs is a cop-out. Literally.

…..realize the Fairness Doctrine is not about fairness.

…..attended a Tea Party.

…..own a Conceal Carry permit.

…..believe Gitmo is the right place for terrorists.

…..cringe when you even think about same-sex marriage.

…..are prepared to arm and protect yourself and your home.

…..know that the right to bear arms isn’t about dressing in sleeveless tops.

…..go to church to worship God, not listen to political hate-speeches.

…..cheer for Sheriff Arpaio and his Maricopa County policies.

…..know guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

…..see that freedom is not free.

…..believe abortion kills babies.

…..think Michael Moore needs to find some facts before filming.

…..abhor the welfare-State.

…..have a bumper sticker saying, “01-20-13: End of an Error”

…..believe the ACLU lawyers should be disbarred.

…..undeniably know that an aborted fetus is not to be disected for body parts.

…..call a spade a spade, and refuse to be “politically correct” according to the Left-spin.

…..know that a Minister or a Reverend is a God-fearing person, not a

God-damning one.

…..live debt-free.

…..don’t trust The Government.

…..hunt game and actually enjoy it.

…..do not re-interpret The Constitution.

…..believe in self-sufficiency, not Government dependency.

…..know how to reload.

…..have a firing range on your property.

…..boycotted movies with Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, et al.

…..wrote this.

I Am No “Extremist”

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:06:55 +0000

My letter to Secretary Napolitano, dated April 16, 2009:

I am writing because of the release of the Department of Homeland Security report entitled “Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” prepared by the DHS Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

The DHS report states that millions of Right-wing American citizens are potential threats to our national security. The report cites very specific factors that are suspect for DHS, including American Veterans returning from conflicts, private gun ownership, personal activities, and even Americans who have moral, just values.

I believe this report is filled with gross-miscalculations and offers little more than an editorialized version of radical, agenda-based government that is out of control. Clearly, U.S. tax dollars were used to finance this report. What was the cost to taxpayers to create this report?

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I wish to examine the mathematical calculations used for this report. I hereby request the statistical studies and any polling strategies that were utilized for this DHS report. I also request the mathematical model used to obtain any factual statistics which contributed to this DHS report. Should it be necessary, I will request via FOIA.

I am a member of the NRA. I am a member of the DAR. My ancestors were officers in many American wars with some officers being recognized for their service and valor. These are honorable associations I am proud to have in my lineage. This loyalty does not suggest “extremist” allegiances.

I worked for DHS, in a security facility, with a background check. How could the DHS report claim that I am one of the MILLIONS of Americans who fit the “extremist” profile ? I am very disturbed by the theoretical findings of this DHS report.

You see, I am no “extremist”.

I am, however, an American citizen who has strong principles and values that are based on my belief system. Like MILLIONS of American citizens, I am growing more and more concerned about America. Most of us view our Federal government as an ocean of Federal agencies which operates inefficiently and ineffectively. This recent DHS report is another example of an ineffective, irrational product that our Federal government created. So, again, what was the cost to taxpayers for this report?

In the past 2 months, I have tolerated the growing number of insults from a number of outspoken government officials in Federal agencies. American tax dollars do not pay U. S. government officials to bully, verbally assault, or engage in biased name-calling strategies. American tax dollars do not pay U. S. government officials to strategize an operative that will wrongly categorize millions of Americans as “extremists”. American tax dollars do not pay U. S. government agencies to incite American citizens by growing their rage.

What the American tax dollars DO pay for is protection of our Constitutional rights under the U. S. law. Unless the current Obama administration decides to undermine those rights, I will continue to uphold all of my Constitutional rights, my liberties, and my freedoms.

I will oppose any government agency who tries to challenge my Constitutional rights. And it is NOT because I fit your profile.

You see, I am no “extremist”.

Doesn’t Obama Want To Count Them Now?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:10:52 +0000

Since Obama has become President, media coverage on the U.S. troop casualty list has apparently vanished. One might believe that the Iraqi war vanished. One might also be led to believe that there isn’t another war in Afghanistan either. Very little media coverage is heard and there is NO coverage on the U.S. troop casualties. Certainly, Obama does not want direct association with the Afghanistan operation, and it is apparent that Obama wants no direct association with any U.S. troop casualty list, either. No doubt, as Commander in Chief, Obama has given his marching orders.

If the information is buried and it isn’t reported, it doesn’t exist. That’s the hype of transparency Obama was talking about while campaigning, isn’t it? Obama believes If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Sure, Barry.

The U.S. troop casualty list hasn’t vanish though. Nor will the DoD list of American soldiers who paid the ultimate price to fight against terrorism.

Doesn’t Obama want to count the casualties now? Doesn’t Obama want the general public to know the reality?

Simply put, no.

Because now, Obama has blood on HIS hands.

War kills, and despite his weak campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, he hasn’t. And already, during his short-stint as President, he not only hasn’t ended the Iraq war, he has engaged in a second war. Did the Commander in Chief do an about-face, forward march?

Despite Obama’s attempts to not disclose U.S. casualties in the fight against terrorism now, the U.S. casualties continues. In fact, here are the figures for the first 3 months of 2009:

IRAQ Total casualties Jan to April 2009 51

US Casualties 50
Other countries 1

AFGHANISTAN Total casualties Jan to April 2009: 84

US casualties 47
Other countries: 37

Despite Obama’s attempts to minimize our wartime casualties, let’s remember our fallen U.S. soldiers. Let’s continue to recognize the service and the price they have each paid to our Nation in the fight against terrorism.

Total Fatalities
IRAQ Operation Iraqi Freedom: 4,247
AFGHANISTAN Operation Enduring Freedom: 667

The Dept. of Defense statistics continue to report the casualties. And this organization provides the casualty list, too.

May each soldier rest peacefully.

Same-Sex Marriage: The For-Profit Venture

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:40:19 +0000

Recently several states have extended marriage rights and civil unions to include same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is now legal in: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont (and California, for an interim period in 2008).

Many Americans have been stunned that so many States are essentially falling in line to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage offends the majority of Conservatives as well as the majority of those with Christian beliefs. However, few Americans realize what the true motivation is for each of these “permissive” and “progressive” States. It’s not a progressive ideology — it is dollars-and-cents.

What the mainstream media does not report to readers are the feasibility studies that show how same-sex marriage turns a profit! Same-sex feasibility studies are beginning to surface and the results show that State economies will increase through business revenues, tax revenues, fees, and job creation.

Now, more and more states are seriously reviewing the economic feasibility of extending marriage to include same-sex partners. Evidently, studies are concluding that same-sex marriages bring cash-strapped States a for-profit venture that involves very little capital investment in the process. During the financial hardships of our deep Recession, what State doesn’t look at the same-sex marriage as anything more than a for-profit venture?

But who is doing the fact-checking with those feasibility studies? And who is analyzing the methodologies and the research? Take the Williams Institute, out of UCLA School of Law, for example. The Williams Institute has published a number of recent reports that conclude the following:

DC: The economy would be boosted by $52.2 million over 3 years, with $5.4 million in local taxes and fees, plus 700 new jobs.
Vermont: The economy would be boosted by $31 million over 3 years, with 3.3 million in local tax revenues. Plus 700 new jobs.
Maine: The economy would be boosted by $60 million over 3 years, with $3.6 million in tax revenues. Plus 1,000 new jobs.
California: The economy was projected to have been boosted by $683 million over 3 years, beginning in 2008. An additional $63.8 million in tax revenues would have been collected. Plus 2,178 new jobs were projected.

There are more State feasibility studies but I grew bored with the same-ole template-based methodology extracting almost the same numbers.

(Source: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/home.html)

Based upon the methodologies of the authors at the Williams Institute, their studies concluded that all states examined would have a positive financial impact, and each State would gain economic profitability. No surprise when examining the authors’ list of References which is little more than self-referenced studies they wrote using the same extrapolated figures. Can you spell B-I-A-S? Their publications are little more than the classic case of agenda-based “study” results.

The 2004 article from Forbes, The Gay-Marriage Windfall, concluded that legalizing same-sex marriage would produce a $16.8 billion windfall for the wedding industry. Of course, examining their methodology (read: statistical assumptions) produced a few laughs from me.

Regardless of the questionable methodologies for the cost-based analyses, there is a basis of truth to these studies. Marriages, in general, produce revenues — through the wedding ceremonies, the reception, the gifts, the entertainment, the honeymoon, etc. There is little doubt that weddings are a for-profit venture for any company involved. Is there any doubt that same-sex marriages would not yield for-profit results as well?

While many Conservatives and Christians view same-sex marriage with disdain, maybe disgust, and they lament over what our Nation is becoming, we have no further to look than the cost-benefit profit-sheet of every State Government in America. We have, collectively, been sold out.