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.

Advertisements

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: http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_sutton.html. 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.]

America and Islamophobia

First posted in Blogspot on SUNDAY, MARCH 18, 2012

Material has been added.

The Islamic countries have stood in the way of the Bankers for years. America has been assigned the dirty work of destroying them.

When the money powers behind our government sought to embark us on the path of imperialism, the Spanish were vilified by the propaganda machine to get the American people to fight. Terrible atrocities were attributed to Spanish soldiers. They were, of course, lies, but they, together with the “accidental” sinking of the Maine [was this a prelude to the recent “false flag” events?] were enough to precipitate the Spanish American War and send young Americans to fight, kill, and die for such a “just” cause. The real reason for the war, as in the Middle East wars of today, was a regime change desired in Washington, or, at least, by those controlling it.

When Wilson promised the British that he would bring America into the war against Germany, some of the same atrocity stories were trotted out. This time the soldiers wore German uniforms. When the British set up the Lusitania for a torpedo attack it was icing on the cake. The American people were not told that her escort had been withdrawn while she was sailing in waters the British knew were submarine infested. They certainly were not aware of conversations revealed in this excerpt from “The Intimate Papers of Colonel House” edited by Charles Seymour, Houghton Mifflin, 1926:

“On the morning of May 7, House and Grey drove out to Kew. ‘We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk,’ recorded House, ‘and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.’ An hour later, House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. ‘We fell to talking, strangely enough,’ the Colonel wrote that night, ‘of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner….He said, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board….’”

That evening House dined at the American Embassy. A despatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the soulthern coast of Ireland. Many lives had been lost.

The British had been planning the set up and they knew they could count on House not to blow the whistle.

Less than fifty years later, the Germans became the bad guys once again. This time the American people were even more determined that they would not be suckered into another war for the British Empire (the Empire of the Bank), so another horrible, inhuman enemy had to be created. It was the Japanese. The money powers wanted war and FDR was their willing stooge. He committed several acts of war against the Japanese, but they wouldn’t bite. Finally, under the pretext of good faith negotiation, he sent them an ultimatum that he knew would leave the Japanese no alternative but war. He set up Pearl for a “sneak” attack that would prove how “treacherous” the Japanese were and would drive the American people to fight. This resulted in the opportunity FDR wanted to get into the “European War” for Mutha England or maybe for his beloved Bolshevik Russia.

Now Islam appears to be the last obstacle in the plans of the money powers to control the entire world through their “New World Order.” The Islamic countries must go, or a government of the money powers, by the money powers, and for the money powers must be installed in each. To help these international gangsters to achieve their plans, Americans have been given a new enemy complete with unspeakable atrocities.

It’s sad, but I truly believe that not one American soldier, sailor, or airman has died fighting for America in over a hundred years. They thought they were fighting for America, but they were fighting to establish the hegemony of international finance and multinational corporations. There is little doubt of that now.

Today, that hegemony has total control of our military. An article in Off the Grid News on 031012 told it all.

On March 8, testifying at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey indicated that international permission was the legal basis for any military action taken by the United States. Congressional approval wasn’t required.

When specifically asked by Senator Sessions, Panetta indicated that Congress had no say in the matter of the use of U.S. military force. This was up to the “international community.” In sane times, Panetta and General Dempsey would be hanged for treason.

Not long ago, I saw a video of “American” troops returning from the Middle East. They were wearing blue berets and a U.N. patch on their uniforms. They were not American soldiers. They were U.N. soldiers. Any war crimes they may have committed should be laid at the feet of the U.N. officials and they should be put on trial.

Back to Islam. Take a look at the map in the “New World Order – Death of America” post in this blog. You can see that the 1941-42 plans for the Mideast have been largely thwarted by Islam.

https://lostliberty1.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/new-world-order-death-of-america/

When the “international community” [the bankers of the NWO] dictates, we will attack Iran or any other country that stands in their way.

Of course, the American people would not go along with a hate campaign just because the bankers and our bank owned government want them to. Just as incidents had to be contrived to generate hatred for Spain, Germany, Japan, and others, an incident had to be contrived to make the American people hate Muslims and the Muslim countries that wouldn’t play ball with the banksters. That contrived incident was 9/11.

More and more people are demanding a legitimate investigation into who and what was behind the destruction of the Twin Towers and what really brought them down. Those people include first responders who were at the scene, architects and engineers who say the buildings could not have been brought down by planes crashing into them or the ensuing fires, and airline pilots who think it absurd that an inexperienced pilot who couldn’t even fly a single engine plane could have put a huge commercial airliner through the manuevres involved in hitting the Pentagon. Some say the plane could not have withstood the stresses, it was, after all, a commercial liner and not a jet fighter built to be flown that way.

Naturally, there are those who believe all of this is “conspiracy theory,” or at least they claim to believe that. Not all are fools. No doubt many have a vested interest in getting the American public to go along with the government version of 9/11 and hate all Muslims and support invasion of their countries and the slaughter of their people. They want us to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory promoted by the government. As this U-Tube video shows, it is the most absurd conspiracy theory yet to come out of 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded

An interesting side note is this video of mysterious (convenient?) deaths of witnesses and people involved in the search for 9/11 truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=bvay28lZiHU

Not all consider this conspiracy theory. An individual using the screenname \IV/ posted this commentary on Sodahead 6/20/12. He suggests a religious movement.

->A new religious movement was born September 11th, 2001. This movement was conceived by the American government and comprises many members of the American and European elite, politicians, editors of mass and so-called alternative media, publishers and academics. The movement’s unifying faith is the legend of 9/11, namely that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew these airliners into the known landmarks in a suicide operation. The legend of 9/11 is composed of a number of distinct beliefs. Here are ten of the most tenacious beliefs that unite cult members:

1. They believe that 4 young pilots who love money, alcohol and sex, could be convinced to kill themselves for a religious purpose.

2. They believe that four teams of four to five rather smallish men could subdue 40 to 80 passengers without using firearms and without raising the suspicion of the pilots.

3. They believe it is possible to subdue a pilot and co-pilot in their flight cabin before either can transmit a hijacking code, a verbal Mayday message, or raise the suspicion of the crew.

4. They believe a person who could hardly control a one-engine Cessna can fly a Boeing passenger airliner on instruments alone for more than an hour in a foreign country and crash this airliner at 500 mph into the side of a building 20 feet above ground.

5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft.

6. They believe crashing aircraft can disintegrate, leaving no visible debris such as fuselage, wings, tail or engine.

7. They believe an airliner with 45 passengers can crash without leaving visible bodies and blood.

8. They believe debris from a crashing airplane can be found eight miles away.

9. They believe it is possible to induce a free-fall collapse of a skyscraper by hitting it with an airplane (even if the skycraper was designed to withstand such a strike) and then letting the resulting fire bring it down.

10. They believe that 19 Arab terrorists actually boarded the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11.

Religious movements are generally peaceful, but this is not the case with the 9/11 Cult. The cult’s members control weapons of mass destruction and the information flow to the public. When such powers are concentrated in the hands of cult members who base their decisions on irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs, rather than on facts, everyone is in danger.

Members of this cult, no matter their status, fame or power, must be designated as madmen. It is important to secure the removal of such madmen from positions of influence and power as soon as possible, in order to give international peace and security a chance.<- \IV/

I would add a great big religious “Amen” to that last paragraph.

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:

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

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