JURY NULLIFICATION

First posted on Blogspot on Sunday, November 6, 2011

Although this has no graphics, I’m mirroring it here because of the importance I attach to it.  I hope others will see the same importance I see and help spread the word.

The little known power of the jury.

In London in 1670, Quakers Penn and Meade were tried on charges of unlawful assembly. The evidence was against the Quakers, so the jury was instructed to find them guilty. Apparently the jury believed the Quakers had the right to assemble and acquitted them. For ignoring the instructions of the judge, the jury members were fined. A juror, Bushell, refused to pay and was imprisoned. He sued his writ of habeas corpus from the court of common pleas. Chief-justice Vaughn found that a jury could not be fined for acquitting a defendant against both the weight of evidence and instructions of the judge. In effect, this decision acknowledged the right of the jury members to vote their conscience and acquit those accused of violating an unjust law. It was clear that the jury could judge not only the facts, but the law itself.

    This is how the jury trial entered America through the British Common Law. It was, at the founding of this nation, a recognized power of the jury to nullify unjust laws by refusing to convict. This was affirmed by several Supreme Court justices.

    “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States supreme Court, 1789

    “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the Unanimous Declaration

    “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

    “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”

Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

    The opinion of these Justices makes it clear that the intent of the Jury Trial went beyond mere unbiased determination of the facts. The Jury was one of the checks and balances against tyrannical laws, whether emanating from the Federal or the State and local governments. We, the people, were empowered to nullify unjust laws by making them unenforceable.

    The rulings of Holmes and Stone, as recently as the last century, might suggest that the concept of Jury Nullification is still strong. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since the victory of the forces favoring a strong central government in the Civil War, the federal government has been chipping away at that right and duty of the jury. At one point, the courts, while admitting we had the right as jurors to effectively nullify unjust laws, said a judge does not have to inform the jury of that right. That happened in the late 1800’s. Since then it has gotten worse. Today, if a judge thinks a juror is finding for a not guilty verdict on the basis of injustice or unconstitutionality of the law, he/she will likely remove the juror. So a word to the wise. If your “not guilty” vote is based on your right to nullify a law, don’t let it be known that that is the case. Try to find a subtle way to clue your fellow jurors. No matter what, be an American. Stick to your guns regardless of what the other jurors might think.

    A growing number of people are beginning to realize that the majority of laws now enacted by the federal government are unconstitutional, that they act in areas reserved to the States and/or infringe on the rights of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States has given its blessings to these crimes against the Constitution and the people. Jury Nullification can override this sanctioning of crime by the SCOTUS and make the people the Ultimate Supreme Court. That is how it should be. For my part, I would never find anyone guilty in a federal court. The federal government has violated virtually every significant clause of the Constitution. That alone makes it the biggest crime syndicate in the United States – possibly in the world. In addition to aiding its banker masters in the theft of the wealth of the American people, it has become a global Murder, Inc. through the waging of unconstitutional wars and political assassinations. I will be damned to Hell before I will help big crooks put little crooks, if, in fact, they are crooks, in jail.

    For an example of how the Department of (in)Justice, the federal agency in charge of administering justice in this country, has not only proven itself an enemy of America, constitutional government, and the American people, but has also shown itself to be an uncommon criminal, see:

http://americasenemies.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/uncommon-criminals/

    A flicker of the Light of Truth at the end of the tunnel from the Fully Informed Jury Association:

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

Sources:

The Constitutional History of England, Hallam, 3 volumes, 1865

http://www.fija.org/

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

For additional information and sources, search “Jury Nullification”

MERRY CHRISTMAS

No!  It isn’t Christmas, but this is another blog post with a picture so I want to get it out of Blogspot so people who click won’t alert a spy site.

First posted on blogspot on Friday 23 December, 2011.

Yesterday I finished my Christmas shopping. It was almost impossible to find much with made in America labels. For that matter, it was almost impossible to find anything made in any of the countries euphemistically called the “free world.” Almost everything had a made in China label. The closest I could come to finding something not made with slave labor was a couple of items that said “Assembled in the USA from parts made in China.”

Years ago, when Chinese goods started flooding our markets, I conducted a one man boycott, but too few joined me. Once, when I’d accidently bought something made in China, I was extremely upset. [See: http://americasenemies.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/i-had-a-dream/ ]

I realize now that there is no longer much choice. It’s no longer a case of sacrificing principles to save a buck. The federal policy that nobody and nothing should work in America is pretty much in place.

Still, there is one thing I just can’t understand. How can people who call themselves “Christians” buy Nativity Scenes and other religious symbols made in a country whose regime has traditionally suppressed all religions.  They don’t belong in our Christmas celebrations.

We should all think of the sacrifice of Jesus to bring us this Holy Day. We should think of the sacrifices of the Chinese people laboring in sweat shops for very low wages to bring us our Christmas presents and decorations. We should think of the unemployed Americans scrimping to save enough money for a package of Turkey Dogs for Christmas dinner. Then we should just forget it all and have a

Merry Christmas

http://rense.com/1.mpicons/deesA1.htm
(click to enlarge)

Still Migrating

I said when I started this blog I was migrating from Blogspot.  Clicks on pictures and graphics there was secretly redirecting the clicks to several sites: 1, 2, 3, or 4.bp.blogspot.com.  When you type 1,2, or 4 in your address bar a message comes up:

404. That’s an error.

The requested URL / was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

using 3.bp I got what appeared to be a blog with followers but nothing else – just the name james at the top.

For that reason I’ve started the slow migration process.  I just learned now how to set up a blog or site roll and I’ve started to transfer those from blogspot.  I’m going to add one from here too.

Forgive me if I miss approving comments.  I always had accept comments on Blogspot, but apparently you can’t do that here and I really don’t know what I’m doing yet.

Unique Terrorists

First published in Blogspot on Tuesday, March 29, 2011

This blurb is from the Table of Contents in Blogspot.
[Our enemy, the Department of (in)Justice, continues to catagorize Americans who don’t Goosestep to the government’s marching music as terrorists and extremists. In this case it’s Bernard von NotHaus, developer of the “Liberty Dollar” and any who speak the truth about our fraudulent monetary system.]

Unique Terrorists

The publication, “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a publication of the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Version 1.0 dated September 2005-2009” was sent to law enforcement agencies in State and local governments. It has earned the Department of (in)Justice dishonorable mention in my americasenemies blog.

In it, the DOJ names as “terrorists” and “criminal extremists” those groups that are loyal to America and defend our national sovereignty calling them “patriot” groups (always in quotation marks). Those who believe in limited constitutional government (Constitutionalists) are also named, as are those who believe in majority rule and oppose government use of minorities to oppress and control that majority.

These posts in America’s Enemies precede this Lostliberty1 post.

http://americasenemies.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/southern-poverty-law-center/ http://americasenemies.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/department-of-justice/ http://americasenemies.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/department-of-justice-part-2/

I didn’t think the gangsterment could top that, but top it they did. They’ve come up with a whole new class of criminal extremists called “unique terrorists.”

Jon Roland brought this to light in his blog:

http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2011/03/following-is-message-from-bernard-von.html

The heart of his post is a letter from Bernard von NotHaus, convicted of “counterfeiting.” What he did was mint pure silver coins that were not replicas of any US coins, but only resembled some. A major difference is that his coins contained more silver than any U.S. mint dollar.

In his letter, Mr. von NotHaus makes this incredible revelation concerning a DOJ press release: “The alarming statement in the Department of Justice press release by U.S. Attorney Anna Tompkins should concern every American. Tompkins said: ‘Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.’ ”

I have to wonder what might be included under “attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country?” Would spreading the truth that exposes it as a massive fraud designed to transfer all of the wealth of the American people to international bankers be considered such an attempt? I believe suppression of this truth is exactly what this DOJ action intends.

I’m also puzzled as to what “legitimate currency” Ms. Tompkins is talking about. Surely she can’t mean the totally unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes nor the incredible sum of Etherbacks existing only on the books of the banking sydicate. Mr. von NotHaus’s Liberty Dollars are a much better fit to that mandated by the Constitution.

The audacity of these Justapo agents openly admitting their intent to infiltrate, disrupt, and dismantle citizen organizations trying to restore legitimate constitutional government to this country is mind boggling. Of course, in typical Orwellian Double-Think, Ms. Tompkins says these groups are challenging “the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” The question of constitutionality is studiously ignore by the DOJ, and with good reason. The federal government totally ignores the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, thereby making it an illegitimate form of government that certainly should be challenged.

Von NotHaus guilty on all counts

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/von-nothaus-guilty-on-all-counts/

In an article in Coin World announcing that von NotHaus had been found guilty of all four counts against him, Mary Jane Skala said NotHaus will appeal, but an appeal cannot be filed until after the sentencing, and U.S. District Judge Richard L. Voorhees said that a date for that would not be set for several months.

Skala reports, “von NotHaus, of Honolulu, was found guilty on all four counts — “of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins; of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy against the United States,” according to the Department of Justice.

Two things are worth highlighting. First, what is essentially one act by NotHaus is broken down in a way to make it four counts. Clearly this is done to stack the deck against the accused. It gives the government four chances to have the accused found guilty, a clever avoidance of our constitutional protection against double-jeopardy. The other is the charge of conspiracy against the United States. I think the latter is absolutely incredible. Hasn’t anyone told the Department of (in)Justice that there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the conspiracy of the gangsters in Washington against the American Constitution, the American people, and our national sovereignty. But then, those crimes are not nearly as serious as issuing bullion coins far more valuable than worthless Fed Notes and bank Etherbacks.

Further evidence that our government is a criminal organization more guilty than von NotHaus is shown by the fact that the man was forced to use government provided attorneys because, even though he had not yet been convicted of any crime, his assets were stolen by the government – maybe for a future bank bailout?

Did Bernard von NotHaus Counterfeit Coins?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/82406.html

In the Lew Rockwell blog, Michael S. Rozeff presents an excellent analysis of the words used by Tompkins, calling them fantastical and hyperbole. He points out, “There is no threat of economic instability when private citizens agree on a non-governmental means of payment. It’s just the opposite! Such an activity adds value for the users and, by moving away from U.S. currency, increases stability, if anything.” Furthermore, he reminds us that nothing in the Constitution prohibits private citizens from using whatever they chose as a medium of exchange. However, it does authorize Congress to “coin,” [not print], money.

I would add to Mr. Rozeff’s remarks that nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to delegate its power to “coin money” and to “regulate the value thereof” to any other branch of government or organization, certainly not to a private banking consortium. The Federal Reserve Note is the real counterfeit that has destabilized our economy and the economies of much of the world.

A ‘Unique’ Form of ‘Terrorism’ by Sun editor Seth Lipsky

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/a-unique-form-of-terrorism/87269/

Speaking of the Federal Reserve Note, Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun makes an interesting observation. He notes that two men issued “money,” one coins of gold and silver and the other notes of paper. The gold and silver coins are worth more today than when issued. The paper has dropped from a value of a 265th of an ounce of gold at the start of the Bush administration to less than a 1400th of an ounce today. One faces a possibility of years in prison for what he did, and the other holds a prestigious office of extreme power. The man who issued the coins that have gained in value is Bernard von NotHaus. The DOJ says his coins will destabilize our economy. The man whose organization issued the worthless paper and is apparently responsible for our current economic “stability” is Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. You may recall that it was one of his predecessors, Paul Volcker, who said, “The standard of living of the average American must come down.” They made damned sure of that.

Department of (in)Justice sees no threat to stability here.

http://rense.com/1.mpicons/deesA1.htm

   Press Release by the FBI of Charlotte…       http://charlotte.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/ce031811.htm

The FBI’s press release contained all of the lies and constitutional perversions used against von NotHaus, but also announced of what they plan to do with the loot from their raid. In addition to the penalties prescribed by law for the “crimes” of which he was convicted, the DOJ gangsters, seeking to give the illusion of legality to their theft of about $7 million of von NotHaus’s property, have initiated a “forfeiture trial.” United States District Court Judge Richard Voorhees, the same federal agent who presided over the criminal trial, will preside over Sham II.

The New Face Of Terror by Chris Duane

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/03.11/liberty.html

Chris Duane writing for the Silver Bear Cafe has some good information and some funny tongue-in-cheek observations. I’m not going to get too deeply into it here, but I think it well worth a look. He points an accusing finger at an organization in Florida that has a forty-seven square mile compound which is very hard to get into, especially in the summer. This organization blatantly and brazenly prints its own money which it calls dollars. This is significant because the inclusion of “dollar” on the Liberty-Dollar coins was part of the “evidence” against von NotHaus. Yet another similarity to U.S. notes is the sequential numbering of the bills. The Florida counterfeiters began printing (not coining) their “official currency” in 1987 in $1 and $5 denominations. In 1989 they added a $10 bill. Duane has offered to assist the DOJ should they decide to take action.

Product of Florida Counterfeiters aka Unique Terrorists

http://www.explorethemagic.com/disney-dollars.asp

I don’t know the full motivation behind this action by the international crime syndicate behind our government, but I strongly suspect that part of it is to prepare a scapegoat.

Almost a century of treasonous meddling with our monetary system has us on the brink of total destruction. It’s anybody’s guess what form it will take, whether massive inflation or a disastrous deflationary collapse. I believe that will be determined by what the majority of people hedge against. If they hedge against inflation, the manipulators will deflate. If they hedge against deflation, the manipulators will inflate. Whichever will best fill their coffers. When this happens, they will be positioned to blame it on “unique terrorists.”

I’ll be working on a post listing Tompkins and some of her co-conspirators in the DOJ plot to crush our freedom of speech and of association for my americasenemies blog.

HEALTHCARE OBAMANATION

First posted in Blogspot on Friday, March 19, 2010

HEALTHCARE OBAMANATION

I started to write this several months ago, but I have been having difficulties with motivation for about five months. When I do sit down to write, I have difficulty. The reason I’m saying this is because a number of changes have been bounced back and forth since I analyzed the bill myself, but I’m confident the changes made little material difference.

My experience with counter-political groups in the past, particularly with their legislative committees, leaves me little concerned that any significant change has taken place. In cases of “controversial” legislation like this, laws the people don’t want but the money powers do, a great show is usually made about changes being made to the bill and different versions being sent back and forth between committees and between the Senate and the House. These changes are usually cosmetic, but they give Senators and Representatives (Gauleiters?) an opportunity to go back to constituents with claims that they fought hard to stop the bill in its original form. In the end, they “compromised” and voted for this “improved” plan as the only means to stop the original. This show also makes it extremely difficult for those of us who have lives to lead to keep up with those minor changes. It gives those pushing the bill a chance to attack opposition on insignificant “errors” in their analysis created by those minor changes. Knowing fully that I will be vulnerable, I’m still publishing this based on my original analysis of an earlier house Bill with some updates from other sources.

A lot has been written by both sides of the argument about “Obama’s” healthcare plan. Each side tries to analyze it from its own perspective and explain what is in it and what it will do. All is futility.

The plan, as represented by the Bill passed by the House of Representatives*, can’t be analyzed in terms of content or effect. It is a grotesque skeleton that will be fleshed out later by the new monstreaucracy it creates and by the courts that will hear what is likely to be a storm of lawsuits to try to limit or to expand its meaning and scope.

Much of the job of fleshing out; that is, actually creating the “health care” system falls on two people and the massive bureaucracy that will by necessary to do the actual work. When I first examined this atrocity, I thought it set up what was, in effect, a Health Care Dictator. A “Health Choices Commissioner” is created and is mentioned over 200 times, usually establishing his/her considerable powers, discretions, and dutes. However, as I delved further into the bill, I found that the Commissioner, while having incredible power in his own right, may be subservient to a higher level dictator – the “Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Again, the “Health Care Commissioner and his duties are mentioned over 200 times in the bill. Among those duties are:

• defining what a “dependent” is, – the bill doesn’t even define something as basic as a dependent
• establishing rules for Exchange-participating health benefits plans
• establishing a “grace period” whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan [so much for not effecting your current plan]
• specifying age categories wherein limited age variation [premium] is permitted
• specifying, in consultation with State insurance regulators, variations permitted by premium rating area [note that it requires such consultation but doesn’t require the Commissioner to listen to the State regulators – it will probably be left to the courts to settle any jurisdictional arguments]
• specifying conditions for family enrollment variations (such as variations within catagories and compositions of families) as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner [no specification in the bill as to which takes priority creating an area for ongoing legal battles]
• defining a “medical loss ratio” that must be met by a qualified health benefits plan

This is just a very small sampling. The defining, establishing, and specifying, not to mention requiring reports and, in turn, writing reports, goes on for most of the 200 plus times the Commissioner is mentioned.

As regards reports required of the “qualified health benefits plans,” I found this section fascinating.

The Health-care Commissioner is charged with establishing standards with which a “qualified health benefits plan” must comply “for the accurate and timely disclosure of plan documents, plan terms and conditions, claims payment policies and practices, periodic financial disclosure, data on enrollment, data on disenrollment, data on the number of claims denials, data on rating practices, information on cost-sharing and payments with respect to any out-of-network coverage, and other information as determined appropriate by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall require that such disclosure be provided in plain language.” According to the bill, “plain language” means “language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.”

I find this section fascinating for several reasons:

Firstly, the number and nature of things the plan providers, and presumably, the health care providers must keep statistics on and report to the Commissioner. How can anyone even guess what the cost of this record keeping and reporting is going to be? Estimates of the cost of this bill have ranged from $800 million to $2 or 3.5 trillion. Is that just for the medical coverage or does it includes this massive record keeping and reporting? Is it only for the record keeping and reporting? I doubt that even the people who made the estimates could tell us.

Secondly, and this I find both fascinating and enlightening, is that “plain language” is defined as language that an intended audience which would include those whose English no so pretty much good. Would that include illegal aliens? Is ability to speak English not a requirement for naturalization? It must not be for the users of the system. What use would most patients have for such statistics? Is it intended for the health care providers? Maybe they’ve already anticipated driving all American doctors from the field and having to replace them with foreign doctors. On the other hand, maybe this is just a smokescreen to hide the inability of the bureaucrats and elected officials who are promising to “reform” health care and the insurance industry to speak the language of either.

Finally, and this should be good, the Commissioner is charged with developing and issuing guidance on best practices of plain language writing. Isn’t that a kicker? These people, famous for unintelligible bureauese, will be providing “guidance” for plain English writing. Of course they might be planing to subcontract the writing to technical writers in China or India. You know—the ones who wrote the manuals for your computer, home appliances, and the items you bought that said “some assembly required.” Maybe they’re planning to make Henry Kissinger Secretary of Plain English.

The “Secretary” is mentioned close to 1100 times. Again, when mentioned, the bill does not give detailed instructions to the “Secretary,” rather, as in the case of the “Commissioner,” it specifies the powers and duties of the “Secretary” which again entail considerable discretionary latitude.

A couple of examples:

• the Secretary is given the power to define and develop methodology for “Interim Rules for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio which will subsequently be built on by the Commissioner
• receives recommendations from the Health Benefits Advisory Committee on benefit standards [Behold! A bureaucracy within a bureaucracy!]

There are then several paragraphs regarding the Secretary accepting or rejecting the recommendations which he apparently must do as a package. If he/she doesn’t accept, the package is sent back to the committee for revision. Most of those paragraphs is written in “plain English” I suppose, so I have no idea what they are saying. But finally, we get to this:

• the Secretary shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards. [anyone want to guess what the “rulemaking process” is?]

There have been many articles written on this subject. I’m afraid if I try to summarize the ones I have it will be months more before I publish this. I’ll just include this summary of a Fred Lucas article in cnsnews. Lucas debunks many of Obama’s claims.

According to Obama, abortions would not be funded, but according to Lucas, the House bill mandates that government-run insurance exchanges provide at least one plan that covers abortion. Even if this interpretation is not correct, a number of amendments that would have specifically excluded abortion from government (taxpayer) subsidies have been rejected.

When asked if her amendment added to a Senate version of the bill would fund abortion , Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) replied, “It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” Apparently, all it would take is for a “doctor” to say carrying a child to full term would have adverse affects on the mother’s mental and/or physical health and, regardless of how strong your religious beliefs may be against the unnecessary taking of a human life, you will be forced to be an accessory through your tax dollars.

Then there is the Obama claim that the “healthcare” plan will be “deficit neutral.” The Office of Management and Budget has estimated the bill and the bureaucratic monstrosity it creates will add over a trillion dollars to the budget over the next ten years. Since that estimate, OMB has reduced its projection to some 800-900 billion. Supposedly, this is due to some changes in a possible compromise bill.

But, not content to let one lie stand alone, it now claims a deficit reduction will occur. I think I recall a number in the 1 to 2 hundred million. If that’s the case, then Congress should try to expand the bill to create a ten year cost in thousands of trillions of dollars. In ten years our national debt could be wiped out.

Back to reality. It is highly unlikely Obama plans to cut spending in other areas, so the only way to avoid added deficits to fund this outrageous program is to increase taxes. Obama said from the beginning of his campaign that he wanted change. I have said that his predecessors, Republican and Democrat alike, have stolen all of our dollars. Now Obama wants our to steal our change to fund his scheme.

Lucas points out that Obama claims of the number of uninsured Americans are overstated and gives evidence to support his contention. Interestingly, in a town meeting in Portsmouth NH in August, Obama said “nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today,” but also said “46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.” Given that Obama, questions of birth certificates aside, said in Berlin that he is “a citizen of the world,” the two statements may not be synonomous.

Obama also claims that charges that illegal aliens will receive benefits are false and, in fact, the bill does exclude illegals, but attempts to introduce amendments to require verification of legal status have been rejected.

Obama also gave this half-truth to assure people that they would not have to change plans if they liked what they have: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” Obama said. “If you like your private insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” While it is true that the bill does not coerce change, Lucas says that it does provide incentives to employers to change their plans covering their employees. You can read the entire article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53695

Just a couple of more points:

 

 

I regret I can’t give credits for this. I received it in an email that did not give the source. 

 

 

 

 

From the Bucks County Courier Times Friday March 12, 2010

The Lies Won’t Stop

First published in Blogspot on Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Lies Won’t Stop

I received this mistitled email from Congressman Patrick Murphy. My responses are in brackets.

March 23, 2010

Mr. Rick Lutz

Levittown, PA 19057

Dear Mr. Lutz,

Yesterday, we passed one of the most important bills in a generation.

[One of the most destructive.]

Despite the confusion and outright lies that have surrounded this bill, make no mistake: health insurance reform will provide crucial protections to ensure that Americans get the healthcare that they and their children need.

[This is, of course, one of the biggest lies. Promoters have been making myriad wild claims about the benefits of this “plan,” but, no one can say honestly if this will provide any benefits at all. As I pointed out in my post “Healthcare Obamanation,”, it’s just the skeleton that will be fleshed out by bureaucrats and healthcare dictators. The very “envelope” this email came in was a lie. It was titled “Reply From Congressman Patrick Murphy.” To my shame, I never sent an email to the Congressman (Gauleiter?), although I don’t know what good it would do since he has already said he doesn’t care what his constituents want. I did write a letter to the editor of the local rag.]

Forty million American families and four million small businesses will benefit from the largest middle-class healthcare tax credit in history. Barbara in Feasterville worked hard for forty years before losing her job at the age of 58. Overnight, Barbara was facing $1,300 in monthly premiums – more than her pension and more than she can afford. Her healthcare plan? Hope that she doesn’t fall seriously ill before she qualifies for Medicare. This tax credit protects Barb, and millions like her, by ensuring access to high-quality and affordable insurance.

[More benefit lies coupled with the vilest form of demagoguery–sob stories designed to deflect rational thought with emotion. I have several from the other side in my collection. These tell of the hardships of those living under similar government run healthcare programs who are forced to leave their homelands to seek care in the U.S.A. I was above using them in my blog.]

Small businesses are not required to purchase insurance but will get tax credits if they do. Insurance reform provides $40 billion in small businesses tax credits to help companies cover up to half the cost of providing insurance for their workers.

[More than likely small businesses will find themselves driven under as has so often been the case with government “reform.” Their businesses will be absorbed by the giant chains and corporations.]

Seniors will see stronger and improved Medicare benefits. And you don’t have to take my word for it: AARP has endorsed the bill stating that it “cracks down on insurance company abuses and protects and strengthens guaranteed benefits in Medicare, the program millions of our members depend on and in which millions more will soon enroll.”

[I was a member of AARP for maybe a year. I joined to get discounts that might be voluntarily offered by businesses I deal with. I soon started receiving mail from AARP touting some lobbying efforts they were making to get more from the taxpayers for “seniors.” I quickly concluded they were nothing but a bunch of socialist gimme gangsters out for what they could steal. I dropped my membership. An endorsement from them is hardly a confidence builder. BTW, you can find the AARP in the list of corporate members of the CFR, Americas Ruling Party, in my americasenemies blog.]

Tony in Levittown needs an expensive medication to treat his thyroid condition and is pushed into the Medicare Part D donut hole earlier and earlier each year. Tony, along with 11,200 other seniors in Bucks County, will benefit from lower prescription drug costs, as the Part D “donut hole” is closed. And seniors’ Medicare program is put on a stable financial footing, ensuring this vital program will be there to serve seniors today and those of future generations.

[Many of us who are “seniors” now may not be alive to see the eventual “fruits” of this bill, or rather of the plan that will be written by the Healthcare Commissioner and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, if it hasn’t already been written, as I suspect, by the largest insurance companies in the nation and maybe the world. I do believe that those of future generations will be able to confront Murphy with “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!]

Insurance companies no longer have free reign over our health insurance system, as we prohibited the egregious practices they’ve gotten away with for far too long. Insurers can no longer turn people away, or charge more, because someone has arthritis, diabetes, is a cancer survivor, is pregnant – or has any other “pre-existing condition.” And they can no longer pull the rug out from families by taking away their coverage just when someone gets sick and needs coverage the most. These important changes will benefit everyone and those on the frontlines of our healthcare system agree: the doctors, nurses, and hospital associations have all endorsed the bill.

[Egregious is a good word to apply to both the demagoguery and ignorance of the insurance business displayed by this paragraph. Insurance companies not covering pre-existing conditions has been a big part of “Uncle Tom” Obama’s inflammatory rhetoric. If the politicians understood how insurance works they would know that insurance companies can’t cover pre-existing conditions. The whole idea behind any insurance program is shared risk. We buy insurance to cover things that might happen to us that could be financially ruinous and hope we never have to use it. Some people decide to take the risk and spend their money on other things. If insurance companies are forced to take people who wait until they have a problem to get insurance, then there is no incentive for anyone to buy insurance. All anyone would have to do is wait until they’re sick. This would ruin the insurance industry. It simply couldn’t operate that way. I would ask the Congressman and Obama this, if I die tomorrow, and my wife applies for a $250,000 life policy on me the day after tomorrow, can the insurance industry refuse to write the policy on the grounds of a pre-existing condition? But maybe that’s the reason for the police-state mandate that all must have health coverage. Incidentally, I’ve yet to find a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or any other healthcare worker who thinks this is a good plan. More than likely the “leadership” of their associations has been bought.]

And children will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26 years old, helping out recent high-school or college graduates like Valerie from Dublin who is unable to find a job that offers benefits.

[Poor Valerie! If only she could have grown up in a free society where the economy had not been destroyed by big government she might have had other options than flipping burgers or, if she has her masters, managing a flipping location for a burger chain.]

When my two kids grow up, they will know that their dad stood up to the special interests to fight for Barb, Tony, and every middle-class American family whose wallets are being stretched thin by crushing healthcare costs. They will be able to look upon yesterday as the day Congress stopped kicking the can down the road and finally tackled one of the greatest challenges of our day.

[Why you hypocritical windbag. Our wallets have already been emptied by you big spenders in Washington who toady to those special interests while ranting about fighting them. You who have already looted our wallets, pockets, closets, and anywhere else we might have hidden a dime to transfer it to those special interests through bailouts and cap and trade. I would imagine your benefits package for serving Daddy Big Bucks will include health benefits for your whole family – maybe for life. When you’ve crushed healthcare for the rest of us, you’ll probably still be able to get care in special hospitals not open to us peons.]

If you’d like to learn more about what this bill means for you and your family, I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.patrickmurphy.house.gov. There you can read the legislation, find detailed summaries of the bill, and find out more about what’s in it for you. Also, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help in any way. You can reach my office in Washington at (202) 225-4276, or either of my district offices in Doylestown at (215) 348-1194 or Bristol at (215) 826-1963.

[Thanks, but I’ll opt out of the extra helping of meadow muffins at your website for now. However, if you are sincere about helping me in anyway, how about this:

• return some of the money the Federal government has stolen from us over the years
• cut the government in half (as a starter) to permit business, especially wealth producing businesses like manufacturing, farming, construction and the like to flourish once again
• restore Republican principles, not the principles of the Republican party which I know is as unprincipled as the Democratic, but the principles of representative government
• end special privileges for collectives such as corporations and unions and treat all citizens equally
• kill the leader principle that you and the Democratic party seem to have embraced so that it might finally be buried as it should have been in 1945 along with The Leader*
• restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land]

*[To be fair, despite all of the fanfare about opposition when they knew, as we did, that it would pass, the Republinazi party was no better under Adolph Bush than is the Demonazi party under Adolph Obama.]

Sincerely,

Patrick J. Murphy

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

PJM/lm

Was the Congressman ”replying” to this letter to the editor or was his email just labeled that way to keep it out of the spam folder where it belonged?

Editor
Bucks County Courier Times

Dear Editor:

John W. Whitehead’s commentary on Tuesday points to similarity between the willingness of the German people to follow “The Leader” and the willingness of the American people to accept, almost without question, the dictates of an overblown and uncontrolled government in Washington and to follow our “leaders” like sheep.

A guest opinion in the same issue praises Patrick Murphy for leadership and for “fighting for us.” If “us” is the money powers, then his votes for bail-outs, cap and trade, and the healthcare obamanation supports the latter assessment. I can attest to the accuracy of the former. He has said it was his “duty” as a “leader” to vote as he chooses despite the wishes of his constituency. He has rebuked the republican principles on which our country was founded and embraced the leadership principle that destroyed Germany. Murphy should be reminded he is elected to represent us and not to lead us.

Sooner or later we must decide if we want Congressmen to represent us or Gauleiters to lead us. The decision may soon be out of our hands…if it isn’t already.

Rick Lutz
Levittown, PA 19057

I plan to list all who voted for healthcare ruination in my americasenemies blog. Murphy has earned special mention in that post. 

Ugly Face of ObamaCare Revealed

First posted in Blogspot on Saturday, May 8, 2010

Ugly Face of ObamaCare Revealed

This is part of a memorandum published by the Office of the Actuary of the Department of Health & Human Services. The copy I took from the Internet was in PDF form that did not allow copying, so what I took verbatim I had to retype. I don’t have time to retype the whole document to try to pull out all important details, so I stuck with their own summary. I’ve also incorporated parts of a report on the subject in AllVoices by Hardy Wright from an email he’d received. Memorandum content is in italics, my comments are in regular type, those from Hardy’s report in brackets [] as are page numbers.

This memorandum summarizes the Office of the Actuary’s estimates of the financial and coverage effects through fiscal year 2019 of selected provisions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148) as enacted on March 23, 2010 and amended by the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” (P.L. 111-152) as enacted on March 30, 2010.

Included are the estimated net Federal expenditures in support of expanded health insurance coverage, the associated numbers of people by insured status, the changes in Medicare and Medicaid expenditures and revenues, and the overall impact on total national health expenditures. Except where noted, we have not estimated the impact of the various tax and fee provisions of the impact on income and payroll taxes due to economic effects of the legislation. Similarly, the impact on Federal administrative expenses is excluded. A summary of the data, assumptions, and methodology underlying our national health reform estimates will be available in a forthcoming memorandum by the OACT Health Reform Modeling Team.

Possibly the most significant factor here is that federal administration expenses are not included. If the government intends to read, analyze, and act on the tons of reporting that will be required, we’re probably looking at many more hundreds of billions. But that’s just the direct cost of bureaucracy to the taxpayers. Add to that cost what will likely be an equivalent monstrous cost to the medical and insurance providers to fill out and file all of the mandated plans and reports – costs that will, must, be passed on to the health care consumer.

In addition, the actuary admits that the costs do not reflect the full 10-year cost for the new legislation. The strange reasons given are: …these transition effects and the fact that most of the coverage provisions would be in effect for only 6 of the 10 years of the budget period, the cost estimates shown in this memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost for the new legislation. What I can’t understand is why they can’t make an estimate for the “transition” period and why would there be costs (hidden?) for the four years that the coverage provisions would not be in effect.

Earlier estimates of the cost of this bill ranged from over $800 billion to about $2.2 trillion. The new figures, as reported by Wright are lower:

[Health Care Costs Increase: National health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019. [Page 4]]

The bulk of the reduction from the original estimates is realized by slashing medicare which could reduce senior access to healthcare. As Hardy reports:

[Over One-Half Trillion in Medicare Cuts: The Medicare actuaries found that the new health law cuts $575 billion [Page 4] from Medicare]

Seniors’ Access to Care Jeopardized: As a result of the cuts to Medicare, the actuaries found that, absent legislative intervention, [providers]m ight end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). [Page 10]]

One of the reasons health care providers might end their participation in the program is: (iii) lower payments and payment updates for Medicare services. [Page 4]

A still more astonishing admission by the actuarials is shown below. It’s astonishing because it’s exactly what many opponents of the legislation had been arguing and for which they were called liars, extremists, kooks, partisan politicians, and even racists for opposing this plan Obama was selling for the insurance companies.

The actual future impacts of the PPACA on health expenditures, insured status, individual decisions, and employer behavior are very uncertain. The legislation would result in numerous changes in the way that health care insurance is provided and paid for in the U.S., and the scope and magnitude of these changes are such that few precedents exist for use in estimation. Consequently, the estimates presented here are subject to a substantially greater degree of uncertainty than is usually the case with more routine health care legislation.

In estimating the financial impacts of the PPACA, we assumed that the increased demand for health care services could be met without market disruptions. In practice, supply constraints might initially interfere with providing the services desired by the additional 34 million insured persons. Price reactions — that is, providers successfully negotiating higher fees in response to the greater demand – could result in higher total expenditures or in some of this demand being unsatisfied. Alternatively, providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicare or Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for Medicaid enrollees. Either outcome (or a combination of both) should be considered plausible and even probable initially.

The latter possibility is especially likely in the case of the substantially higher volume of Medicaid services, for which provider payment rates are well below average. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would be difficult to meet, particularly over the first few years. (More amazing truth – higher costs and less service.)

As I pointed out in the Healthcare Obamanation post in this blog, nobody can say what this beast will look like when it’s grotesque skeleton is fleshed out. In some cases, the actuaries don’t even try:

We have not attempted to model that impact or other plausible supply and price effects, such as supplier entry and exit or cost-shifting towards private payers. A specific estimate of these potential outcomes is impracticable at this time, given the uncertainty associated with both the magnitude of these effects and the interrelationships among these market dynamics. We may incorporate such factors in future estimates, should we determine that they can be estimated with a reasonable degree of confidence….

The last sentence of the above paragraph is evaluated by Hardy as follows:

 

[Long Wait Lines Resulting From A Shortage of Doctors and Hospitals: …For now, we believe that consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services. In other words, Americans should be prepared for doctor and hospital shortages under the new law. [Page 20]]

Further support of Hardy’s conclusions can be found in this paragraph: As stated in the section on Medicare estimates, reductions in payment updates to health care providers, based on economy-wide productivity gains, are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent annual basis. If these reductions were to prove unworkable within the 10-year period 2010-2019 (as appears probable for significant numbers of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies), then the actual Medicare savings from these provisions would be less than shown in this memorandum. Similarly, the further reductions in Medicare growth rates mandated for 2015 through 2019 through the Independent Payment Advisory Board may be difficult to achieve in practice.

That Seniors, all Americans for that matter, will see a considerably reduced availability of health care is no surprise to me. The more I see the government regulating and controlling all aspects of our lives “for” us, the more I’m reminded of an experience I had while hitch-hiking through Yugoslavia in 1967.

It took me three rides to get the relatively short distance from Sarajevo to the coast. The last was with a Czechoslovakian couple. You may remember that Czechoslovakia was one of the “peoples’ paradises.” Everything was well regulated and controlled. Wages and prices were fixed so that everyone could afford everything. The only catch — there was nothing! These folks had waited 11 years on a list to buy their new car.

Now it’s the American people’s turn. Our Socialist/Fascist government is going to regulate all aspects of our healthcare so that all Americans can afford all of the healthcare we need. The minor inconvenience of waiting 11 years for that heart operation is such a small price to pay.

The whole campaign by Obama’s Washington Mob was a pack of lies as I hope this is showing.

As I pointed out in “Healthcare Obamanation,” most of the people who voted for it had no understanding of how insurance works. Constant attacks on the insurance industry for not accepting “pre-existing” conditions were nothing but the lowest form of Obamagoguery. Now Hardy reveals the truth:

 

[False Promise to Those With Pre-Existing Conditions: By 2011 and 2012 the initial $5 billion in Federal funding for [high risk pools] would be exhausted, resulting in substantial premium increases to sustain the program. [Page 16]]

They also continue to make the claim that the bill will lead to a balanced budget in ten years. The bulk of the balancing act appears to be substantial new taxes and fees which, no matter who they appear to be levied on, we will eventually pay. I’d bet the farm we’ll get the taxes, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for a balanced budget.

…..Federal revenues will be increased through an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans; higher Hospital Insurance payroll taxes for high-income taxpayers; a new tax on investment revenues and other unearned income, and other provisions.

Some of those paying will be the people with health benefits at work. Hardy notes: [Millions Will See Their Health Benefits Taxed for the First Time: It should be noted, however, that an estimated 12 percent of insured workers in 2019 would be in employer plans with benefit values in excess of the thresholds [before changes to reduce benefits] and that this percentage would increase rapidly thereafter. [Page 13]]

The next sentence in this passage really hit me. The effect of the excise tax on reducing health care cost growth would depend on its ongoing application to an expanding share of employer plans and on an increasing scope of benefit reductions for affected plans. If I’m interpreting this correctly, one of the purposes of the tax is to reduce money available for healthcare.

The lies and deception never stop. Hardie’s article points out:

[New “Medicare Tax” Doesn’t Go To Medicare: The Reconciliation Act amendments introduced a new 3.8-percent “unearned income Medicare contribution” on income from interest, dividends, annuities, and other non-earnings sources for individual taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and couples filing joint returns with incomes above $250,000. Despite the title of this tax, this provision is unrelated to Medicare; in particular, the revenues generated by the tax on unearned income are not allocated to the Medicare trust funds. [Page 9]]

You can view Hardy Wright’s article to pick up anything I missed at:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5693063-health-care-more-costly-than-anticpated

A PAIRADOCS

First posted in Blogspot on Tuesday, May 11, 2010

A Pairadocs

I sent Hardy Wright’s post to an internet friend. She and her husband are doctors. I received this reply:

Rick, I don’t think this was at all unanticipated by people very familiar with the inner workings of the health care industry, especially those who understand the money flows.

Probably the single most problematic monkey wrench for health care centralizers is that they are counting on a large pool of healthy Americans currently uninsured to switch gears and start paying their tribute to the insurance mafia. The problem is that most of these people are just getting by as it is and can’t rationalize paying out $3000 or more a year in premiums (and, typically, the policy includes a very large deductible and sizable co-pays, so, in effect, they can’t afford to use it and it becomes, by default, simply catastrophic insurance).

Something related to elderly care cutbacks that concerns me, as I have already observed this trend several times in the last 10 years with family members and friends of our family suffering from terminal or degenerative diseases, is the covert agenda to hasten death in those who should still have a few years or more left to live if given proper care. There is a big push to institutionalize these people in nursing homes or hospice where, without a doubt, their health will rapidly decline from absent or inadequate protocols for the administration of essentials such as needed fluids. From there, they can expect that any sign of discomfort or dementia will be treated with “terminal sedation”. Terminal sedation involves sedating patients into a state of unconsciousness so they no longer want to take in food or water and thus die months or years sooner they would otherwise would have. The way this is being handled is highly paternalistic and violates all standards of patient autonomy since patient consent is not a prerequisite. Terminal sedation is easily foisted on patients and family members because most are very intimidated by physicians and usually don’t know the first thing about basic medicine having been made woefully medically illiterate by our societal system of dumbing down.

I certainly don’t advocate wasteful and expensive health care for the elderly or anyone else, for that matter. What I am talking about is the loss of compassion that reflects rampant greed and self-absorption. It is completely debasing our essential humanity and distorting our view of the importance of family and community.

OBAMACARE SIMPLIFIED

Obamacare Simplified
First published in Blogspot on  Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Obamacare Simplified – an Addendum to “Healthcare Obamanation”

Prior to writing “Healthcare Obamanation,” I spent many hours trying to make sense of it before concluding it couldn’t be done, that its meaning would have to be determined by the courts (after flesh was put on the bones). I may have erred. The Ohio Project was able to analyze it and create an easy to follow road map of the healthcare program created. A copy was printed in The Ohio Republic blog. Unfortunately, the link to the expandable version of the chart is no longer available, so I’m going to try to put it here

Obamacare Made Simple

.Anyone who is confused by the legislation should take a close look at the map in order to get a clearer understanding.

(I’m going to come back to this to try to get a copy that will magnify more clearly.)

(Still trying without much success.)

NEW VOICE

First posted on Blogspot 12/10/08

NEW VOICE

On December 8, 2008, the voices of those warning of the creation of a dictatorial world government were joined by the voice of the widely read and highly respected Financial Times, British counterpart of the Wall Street Journal.

But the Times does not warn. It greets the prospect with joyful anticipation. Little wonder! Martin H. Wolf – Associate Editor and Economics Commentator for the Times is a Trilateral Commission member and an attendee from Great Britain at the 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles, Paris, France.

In his times article, “And now for a world government,” Gideon Rachman says he never before believed there was a “plot to take over the US,” but he now believes world government is possible.

This according to Rachman, “would involve much more than co-operation between nations.” He says that the European Union, “a continental government for 27 countries” with a supreme court, a common currency, reams of law, a large bureaucracy, and military power, could be a model.

The author cites three reasons why he thinks the EU model could be used for a world government.

The first reason is the “international” nature of problems facing national governments. These include: global warming, global financial crisis, and the “war on terror.”

The second, says Gideon, is the transportation and communications advancements that “have shrunk the world.” Apparently it is no longer over 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator. Regardless, I don’t see how that pertains specifically to the European Union “model.” Never-the-less, that’s what he says.

The third Rachman says, most important to those who expect “change” for the better with Obama, is “a change in the political atmosphere” that could speed the coming of “global governance.”

Rachman rehashes global warming and the financial crisis, but then adds that president elect Obama “does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties.” I’ll admit I’m a little confused about the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements. If it has such disdain, why has Bush been involved in negotiations for a North American Union? Anyway, Mr. Rachman quotes Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” Like the European Union, it doesn’t seem to matter if the government must surrender part or all of national sovereignty over, under, or around the people if they can’t do it through them.

Further proof of the importance of the UN to Obama, according to the author, is his appointment of Susan Rice [Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations member] as ambassador to the UN at cabinet level.

In addition, Obama and his team are apparently being influenced by a Managing Global Insecurity project report. Project advisors include John Podesta the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and member of the Trilateral Commission.

Rachman says, “The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.” I’ll have to take his word for it because every attempt I made to download a PDF copy hung my computer.

Rachman continues, “These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland.” Let’s be thankful they still have those rifles and hope they have a good place to hide them when the FedStapo comes to collect them. I suppose if the peoples of Europe don’t have rifles, they will reach for their balls and chains, pick them up, and move in the direction their EU Masters tell them.

I like the way Rachman refers to the “soothing language” used by the MGI report, such as “responsible sovereignty.” Responsible sovereignty to MGI means a nation’s leaders must consider the welfare of the people of other nations as well as their own. I interpret that as put others first if need be. If I’m right in my assessment, then “responsible sovereignty” is certainly more “soothing language” than treason.

A telling part of the article is a quote of Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, he believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”. I’ve said this for a long time. International finance and the multi-national megacorporations want power to lie at the level of their economic interests so all can be manipulated to protect and further those interests. The interests of the peoples of the world be damned.

Despite apparent “progress” toward world government, Rachman laments that achievement of “global governance” “will be a painful, slow process.” He cites as a bad reason for this the national and political leaders’ “lack of will and determination.” They are, he opines, “more focused on their next election.”

Incomprehensibly to me, he says this “hints at a more welcome reason” for slow “progress” toward “global governance.” This sounds as if he wants slow “progress.” Regardless, while he calls the EU the “heartland of law-based international government” he admits the idea is unpopular. When the EU has attempted to implement its plans through referendum, he says the voters have handed it a “series of humiliating defeats.”

But progress has been fastest, according to Rachman, when “far-reaching deals” have been “pushed through” without reference to the citizens (subjects?). He notes a tendency of “international governance” to be effective only when anti-democratic. Could it be that conditioning the people to obey the dictates of the EU power elite in this way is why it is welcome in Rachman’s eyes? It seems clear to me that the author’s idea of “law-based” government is dictatorship. Heaven forbid that “leaders” be more concerned about the will of the people than about the will of international finance.

Rachman concludes that “the world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.”

I don’t know if Rachman is aware that it’s too late to hide the plan from the people. It was already published along with a map showing the plans that were current when compiled and published in 1941-42.

Cracking the problem of the people “stubbornly” identifying themselves with their country, their heritage, and their customs and beliefs; cracking the problem of the peoples’ unwillingness to surrender what liberty and individuality they have left to be worker bugs in the great world corporate anthill, may not be as difficult as Rachman thinks. After all, the New World Order will have its 50,000 man “peacekeeping” force.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html