A battle has been raging for some time now over millions of aliens who have entered this country illegally. Significantly, most are from south of the Mexican border. Regardless of where they come from, they are criminals who scoff at the laws of the United States. Probably most feel no loyalty to this country. They represent a clear threat to our national security, still, the enemies of America in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House call for amnesty and a path to citizenship for this outlaw class that has recently had the audacity to take to the streets to demand that amnesty.

From what I’ve seen, anti-Amnesty forces base their opposition to amnesty on jobs lost to Americans, driving the earnings of many Americans down by making available cheap labor for corporations, and the swelling of the welfare roles by these illegals. All opponents miss the most important factor of all, probably because they aren’t even aware of it.

Amnesty is Treason!!! A map and plan copyrighted and published in Philadelphia in 1942 showed the world as planned by the global elite. It was received by the Library of Congress in February of ’42 and entered its map collection in March. The detail and intricacies suggest that it was compiled or at least well underway before the Pearl Harbor attack.

The map and plan can be found here:
Double-click to enlarge.

What should be of particular interest to Americans, in fact, to all the peoples of the world, are the S.S.R.’s shown on the map. We were told Eastern Europe was ceded to the Soviets at Yalta by a “sick” Roosevelt. As shown here, it was already planned well in advance, not in Moscow, but in Philadelphia. Not all of the SSR’s were accomplished, but too many were and were held in bondage until needed to make the European Union a viable regional superstate.

Of even more significance to Americans is the “United States of America” as shown on the map. It encompasses all of North and Central America.  NAFTA and CAFTA were probably the first visible moves in that direction just as the Common Market was the first step toward the European Union. The next step was the meeting of the heads of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico (Bush, Martin, and Fox) to form a North American Union. Heavy exposure and opposition generated on the Internet forced them underground, but you can bet the plan is still in progress beneath the surface. You’ll find an excellent expose’ on the NAU from a Canadian political party copied and pasted here.

This is where treason enters the picture. The hoards of illegals from south of the border will create a fifth column that will ease the merger of the U.S. with Mexico and, eventually, Central America.

The issue is not the loss of jobs, nor cheap labor for corporations, nor the draining of welfare funds to support the illegals. The issue is the loss of our national sovereignty and what is left of the tattered remains of our Constitution. Those bringing this about would, in saner times, be considered traitors. They should be now.  AMNESTY IS TREASON!!!




Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

 First published in Blogspot MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011

 These are just a few thoughts and concepts I’ve developed or adopted over the years. I’ve used them often in various political discussion groups, usually having to rewrite them each time because I couldn’t find them in my files. I decided to put them up here in case someone might be interested. Hopefully, they’ll stimulate some thought on the subjects.

My original intent was to classify each item under one of the above categories. I found it difficult to apply those labels. What starts as a misconception by some, can be picked up and used by those wanting to misdirect the people. As the misconception or misdirection grows in acceptance and expands through repetition and expansion by large numbers of people, it can assume almost mythical proportions. Because of the trouble I was having in classifying them, I decided instead to let readers, if there are any, decide for themselves which is applicable.

Democracy or Republic?

When I first got involved in politics, maybe I should say, “counter-politics”, I got caught up in the discussion of Democracy vs. Republic. Those who favored limited government liked to say, “We’re a Republic not a Democracy.” Their argument was that in a Democracy 50%+1 of the population could “democratically” vote away the rights and property of those who lacked that extra 1. Supposedly, this couldn’t happen in a Republic. It made sense to me in my political infancy, so I dutifully parroted the mantra.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately for my peace of mind, I tend to analyze ideas even after initially accepting them. As I gave it more thought, something seemed to be missing in the Democracy vs. Republic argument. To see if a Republic, a Representative Democracy, could protect against minority rule, I developed a spreadsheet taking the voting age population at the time divided into its legislative districts.

I found that a minority much smaller than the 50%+1 needed to control a Democracy could control a Republic. I’ve long since lost that spreadsheet and I haven’t the time, desire, nor ambition to try to duplicate it, but I will use a hypothetical Republic. Its concept is sound and it is much easier to illustrate. It works the same even in a country the size of the U.S.

My Republic is small. There are 1.1 million and 11 eligible voters equally divided among 11 states with one legislative district in each, so state and legislative district are interchangeable terms and its legislative body consists of 11 representatives. My hypothetical voter count is chosen to allow for a 50%+1 majority in a district.

About 65% of the population of the republic has blue eyes and 35% brown. If in six of its districts the voters elect, on a vote count of 50,001 to 50,000, a representative who promises to confiscate the wealth of all with blue eyes and give it to those with brown then the “redistributionists” would have a 6 to 5 majority in their “Congress” and could make such a program law. It doesn’t matter if the other five representatives were elected by the approximately 7 to 1 majority remaining in their districts or states. The will of the 35% would have carried.

A Senate doesn’t even have to be considered because, for example, in the U.S., an even smaller minority can control if they have majorities in the smaller States. If you want to prove that to yourself, just sum the populations of the 26 smallest States who could elect a majority in the Senate. Divide 51% of that number by the total population of the U.S. to see what percentage could control the Senate.

My conclusion is that a republic, far from protecting anyone’s rights from a majority of 50%+1, actually creates the opportunity for a minority to rule over the majority.

Why is this? Many people are convinced that our status as a Republic gives us greater protection than a Democracy would. Why isn’t that true?

Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Oligarchy, and myriad other types of government are nothing but forms. What determines the rights and freedom of the individual is not the form but the substance of government. By substance I mean how much power the sovereign has over the people. It doesn’t matter if the sovereign is a king, a handful of people, a congress or parliament, or the people as a whole. Unless there is a bedrock law, a constitution that limits the power of the sovereign, the individual is not free to go his own way, but must run with the herd or be trampled. It was the substance, the limitations on the power of government set by our Constitution that made the individual citizen of the U.S. relatively free in that age long gone. Now that our Constitution has been swept aside, it matters little whether you call it a Democracy or a Republic. Our government is totalitarian. Today’s collective “freedom,” even if a majority supports it, is a lie. Without individual freedom guaranteed by a written constitution, there is no freedom!

Fraudulent Political Spectrum

The media frequently carries stories of “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in various countries, usually those on our hit list. We also hear of “Right-Wing” extremist groups here that would like to set up a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” in this country. More often than not, these are groups who oppose the totalitarianism imposed by Washington and, like the “Right-Wing Dictators,” have made it to the government’s hit list.

When we give it a little thought and analysis, the fraud becomes obvious. To speak of a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” is shear nonsense. The concept of the political spectrum presently being foisted on the public consists of Communism on the left, German National Socialism or Fascism on the right, and British/American Fabian Socialism in the center. All are slightly variant forms of socialism. All are rooted in the Hegelian philosophy that holds the individual worthless except when he functions as a cog in the gears of the machinery of the state. All of these socialisms are totalitarian. In effect, this spectrum gives us a choice of totalitarian government on the left, on the right, and in the center. Nowhere are we offered limited government based on libertarian principles as created by the “Bill of Rights” of our Constitution, nor the complete absence of government, which is anarchy.

When we speak of a “spectrum,” we usually refer to a complete sequence or range of something, from one extreme to the other. If we place communism on the left, then we must also place socialism, fascism, unlimited monarchy, and all other forms of totalitarianism on the left. The opposite of total government must logically be no government at all, or, anarchy. Therefore, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy. Obviously, to speak of a dictatorship of no government is ludicrous. There are as many “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in this world as there are unicorns.

However, if we desired, we could speak of a spectrum of totalitarianism. In this case, if we place communism (total ownership by government) on the left, socialism (ownership of key industries by government and control of everything else) in the middle, then we might place fascism (total control but no ownership by government) on the right. Thus, we could speak of a “Right-Wing Dictatorship,” but only in the limited sense of a totalitarian spectrum.

The American people today are being given a choice of totalitarianisms by our “leaders” and the news media. We are being deceived into believing that the only opposition to communism is fascism, and to avoid either “extreme”, we must accept “middle-of-the-road” Fabian Socialism. Nowhere are we given an option of any form of limited government. Nowhere are we given an option that restricts the power of the sovereign.  Nowhere are we given an option that reserves to the people the right to live their own lives and pursue their own interests free of constant interference from government.  Apparently,  freedom is not one of our options.

Our Constitution is Outmoded

This suggests another category – outright lies. The criminals who have usurped powers not granted by the Constitution frequently use this argument to justify those usurpations, even to argue for a Constitutional Convention to allow them to legalize their crimes after the fact.

They tell us that “times have changed” and we can no longer be bound by a Constitution written 200 years ago under different circumstances. The argument sounds plausible and many, if not most, will repeat it and think themselves wise. From this the lie has grown to almost mythological proportion, but is it true?

It is certainly true that “times have changed,” but the Constitution was not written to govern times. The Constitution was written to govern men, and men have not changed in 200 years, we have not changed in 2000 years. We still have among us those who would enslave their fellow man, who would use them to kill and maim and to be killed and maimed in wars fought solely for the aggrandizement of the wealth and power of those who rule us.

Yes, times have changed, but the need to put limitation on the greed and power lusts of men have not. We need to restore the Constitution to its proper place as the Supreme Law of the Land. If we do this, freedom will thrive and America will once again prosper and be a light of liberty for the world.

ALPHA & OMEGA and the Left vs. Right Myth

In the mid-sixties, a man I played ball with told me, “If you’re a conservative, you’ll love Bill Buckley.” He suggested I watch him on the Firing Line on Sunday. I did.

For forty-five minutes Buckley tore a “liberal” professor to shreds. Young people in the audience who’d obviously come to see the opposite results sank deeper and deeper into their seats as their golden idol was reduced to stone, then clay, and finally crumbled into dust.

Then, inexplicably, Buckley began to act like an obnoxious ass. By the time he was done, it was obvious to the young people that everything they’d heard about “conservatives” being elitists was true. The idol was back on his pedestal.

I thought, “Damn, Bill, you had ’em then lost them. Well, you’ll get them next week.

The next week was a repeat of the first. Again my thought was, “Geez, you did it again, but you’ll get them next time for sure.”

Not to be. This time I thought, “Damn you, Buckley, you rotten bastard! You’re no conservative. You’re there to destroy the conservative argument. Now whenever someone tries to persuade one of these kids with a conservative argument he’ll hear, “Oh, you sound just like Bill Buckley.”

That introduction to what I later learned was one side of applied Hegelian Dialectic was the beginning of my education in the mock left vs. right battle.

Advanced studies came with the John Birch Society. A draftsman I worked with gave me a copy of None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. He was very apologetic that I might find some of it “way out.” I didn’t. It was the first thing I’d read that made sense of what I saw going on. I told him that when I gave the book back, but he was so conditioned to being attacked for conspiracy theory, that he was still apologizing. I joined the society.

It didn’t take long for the next phase of my education to be completed. While the Birch Society provided excellent information, it seemed to do everything it could to keep its members from disseminating that information too widely. Birchers, when asked to join other groups, tended to emphasize work they had to do for the “Society.” I began to view the Birch Society as Orwell’s Resistance. It was ferreting out those susceptible to the truth and keeping them chasing their own tails.

In the meantime, I’d gotten active with the Constitutional Party of Pennsylvania and somehow found myself on the County Executive Committee. It was nominally conservative, but included one or more each of former Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. There was also one fellow I would have classed as a “liberal” who was not happy with the growth of government.

Two things happened while on that committee that furthered my education about the liberal vs. conservative dog and pony show. At one meeting, Bill Buckley’s new membership in the CFR was brought up. Everyone got a laugh out of his comment that he’d joined to “spy on the enemy.” Anyone who knows the CFR knows membership is by invitation only and they don’t invite spies. [Buckley later joined the even more elite Trilateral Commission. I didn’t know this at the time, but he’d been a member of Skull & Bones since his college days.]

The other thing that happened was the election of Ronald Reagan. His “budget cuts” received much media publicity to cement his “conservative” image. This, too, got a laugh at our meeting because a couple of members of our committee had kept their ties to friends in the Republican Party. They told us that those “budget cuts” were just cuts in proposed increases and, in the end, Reagan gave us the highest budget to that time.

Then came my post graduate studies. Back to at least the early 70’s, there were two organizations in Philadelphia that were major parts of the left/right scheme. One was called the Alpha Group and the other the Omega Group. One of our people, by virtue of his chairing of what might have been considered a “conservative” organization, was invited to a meeting of the Omega Group. As a result of his efforts, we learned that both groups existed in every major city in the U.S. Chairmen had assigned cities that they would travel to for the meetings.

The groups were identical in structure and operation. All of the paid activists and coordinators of “left-wing” groups reported their group’s activities monthly to the Alpha chairman. Their “right-wing” counterparts reported their activities to the Omega. I later questioned a friend, a Birch coordinator, about the Omega. He was very evasive and acted surprised that I even knew of it. I made a mental note to choose my friends more carefully in the future.

The point is this. The words Alpha and Omega have biblical connotations, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” the beginning and the end. We didn’t believe, and I still don’t, that the choice of names was accidental. It was the “top center” boasting to its initiates that it controlled both the “left-wing” and the “right-wing” and probably almost everything in between.

I don’t know if those organizations still exist, but I suspect they do. I do know that publicly the left-right scam is maintained through a new crop of media trolls who keep good people of the left and right busy flaming each other.  This prevents serious discussions that might lead to the realization by both “sides” that they’ve been had.

Before posting this, I was looking through some of my files for an article on how “conservative” and “liberal” congressmen flip-flop as needed to get legislation harmful to our nation and people passed, I stumbled across this excerpt from Antony Sutton’s “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones” from Prison Planet: When I came across this in my files, I was concerned that the date shown was after Sutton’s death. Then I realized it was the date it was published by PrisonPlanet. I thought it was appropriate to repost it here. Sutton certainly makes the farce of left vs. right clearer than I ever could.

Antony Sutton on “Left” versus “Right” and the Hegelian dialectic in American politics

Anthony Sutton July 9 2003

How can there exist a common objective when members [of The Order of Skull and Bones] are apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither “left” nor “right.” “Left” and “right” are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of “left” and “right” presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State…

So who or what is the State? Obviously it’s a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.

Furthermore, the Illuminati principle that the end justifies the means, a principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group [Millner / Rhodes Round Table] and The Order, is rooted in Hegel.

…Most of us believe the State exists to serve the individual, not vice versa.

The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn’t matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious – so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.

This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken by members – they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is essential.

The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this is the notion that conflict creates history.

From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. for example: When the Trilateral Commission discusses “managed conflict”, as it does extensively in its literature, the Commission implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends – not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.

The dialectic takes this Trilateral “managed conflict” process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again. Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis.

For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as “the march of God on earth.” Indeed, a state religion.

We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions — Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on — all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of “right” and “left.” They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was aided by the “reductionist” division in science, the opposite of historical “wholeness.” By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier to control the whole through the parts.

In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of approved knowledge.

This manipulation of “left” and “right” on the domestic front is duplicated in the international field where “left” and “right” political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis.

College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.

Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps. For example, after World War II the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. By the same token, Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.

Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Never in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.

Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler’s Germany or the soviet Union or Communist China. No western foundation will award grants to investigate such topics, few Western academics can “survive” by researching such theses and certainly no major publisher will easily accept manuscripts reflecting such arguments.

[My comment: It should be noted that, no matter which direction the antithesis is skewed, to the left or to the right, the main direction vector of the new theses will always point to the precipice from which we will fall into the One World Cesspool.]


First posted in Blogspot on Friday, March 19, 2010


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:

Just a couple of more points:

Where we'll get it.



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