Sunday, December 12, 2010

Some Old Thoughts

In 1996 the Republican Party sent out a propaganda piece titled: Mandate for Leadership. I just found this while going through some files from an old computer. It was my response to the survey. I attached it to the form before returning it. My comments are just as valid today as they were 14 years ago.


The following are my answers to the questions on the Republican National Committee’s survey, “Mandate for Leadership”:

1. Which of the following do you think is most important for Congress to do in 1996? (Lower taxes - Cut federal spending - Both)

The most important thing for Congress to do in 1996 is return the federal government to the bounds set by the Constitution. Do that, and reduced federal spending and lower taxes will follow.

2. Do you support Republican efforts to balance the federal budget by the year 2002? (Yes-No-Undecided)

Neither party has any intention of balancing the budget. The moneyed aristocracy of the New World Order would not permit it. Under the landed aristocracy of the old order, the serf was bound to the land. The American serf is bound to the national debt. Still, restore the Constitution and a balanced budget will follow. [I didn't say this at the time, but it is becoming obvious to more people that this applies to the serfs of all nations.]

3. Should this Congress try to simplify America’s tax code? (Yes-No-Undecided)

This is a joke--right? The tax code is complex by design. The idea has always been to create hidden “loopholes” so that those who benefit most from extravagant government spending can escape the crushing burden of taxes levied on the rest of us. “Tax Reform” usually comes when too many of us have learned of the “loopholes” and are using them. The code is then restructured to create new “loopholes” for the super-rich. Congress will not “simplify” the tax code.

4. Would you support abolishing the current tax rates and imposing a simple, flat tax rate, so that everyone pays the same percentage of taxes on their income?

No one should be forced to pay someone else’s bill. Taxes should be apportioned according to benefit received. This means a “fee for service” concept of government wherever possible. A very low flat tax would probably be the fairest way to apportion the minimal cost of Constitutional government (see answer to question one) not covered by use fees. Of course, if taxation was based on a percentage of representation in Washington today, then the super- rich would pay one hundred percent of the taxes.

5. To create new jobs and protect current ones, should Congress focus primarily on policies to make the private sector economy grow, or should they try to create and fund new government jobs programs through higher taxes?
(Focus on private sector saving & investment policies-Create and fund new jobs programs-Other_____________________)

Government jobs are institutionalized unemployment. Once created they are unlikely to go away. They increase the burden on the productive (private) sector of the economy. This causes more unemployment and a “need” for more government “jobs”. The cycle continues until the economy collapses. Restore constitutional government. The Federal Reserve and the bulk of the Federal bureaucracy will be eliminated immediately. The giant corporations will gradually crumble under their own weight. Free enterprise will be restored. A free American people will restore the economy.

6. Do you believe our Social Security system is financially sound for future generations? (Yes-No-Undecided)

A pyramid scheme is a confidence game based on trickery and deceit. It can never be “financially sound” for its victims—present or future.

7. Of all the following issues, which do you think is the most important for Congress to achieve in 1996? (Lower taxes - Create new jobs - Repeal Social Security tax increase - Cut federal spending - Simplify tax code - Cut government regulation/red tape)

Restoring the Constitution is the most important thing Congress could do. All of the choices given in this question will naturally follow.

8. Do you want to see Bill Clinton defeated in 1996?

Bill Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. Cecil Rhodes, the wealthy British Imperialist who established the scholarships, dreamed of the day America would police the world for the empire. At Oxford, Rhodes Scholars are indoctrinated in Fabian Socialism as a domestic policy and British Imperialism (euphemistically called “globalism”) as a foreign policy. Clinton and other Rhodes Scholars should be registered as agents of a foreign government. They should not be allowed to serve as President. The Tories have controlled America too long. British domestic policy has been our domestic policy. British foreign policy has been our foreign policy. Rhodes’ dream has become America’s nightmare.

We need an American in the White House. Someone who will stop the squandering of young American lives all over the world and of our wealth at home and abroad. We need someone who believes in true internationalism as expressed by George Washington — friendship to all and entangling alliances with none — and who will work with Congress (not over or around) to bring an end to the interventionism that now posses as internationalism.

Unfortunately, globalist Dole is no more qualified for that role than Clinton.

9. Will you support the RNC and its effort to send out this Mandate for Leadership Survey to thousands of taxpayers in the next 60 days.

No American can support a Mandate for “Leadership”. The basic principle of American government is representation not “leadership”. The leadership principle (das Führerprinzip) was born in Nazi Germany and should have been buried with the Führer (the Leader). America was built on the premise that the people are better able to manage their own affairs than are a gaggle of bureaucrats and politicians. I’m wary of megalomaniacs who want to “lead” a whole nation. I’m wary of would be Führers. The people should be, too!

Return to TOC

Friday, October 29, 2010


It was never my intention to make money from this blog or to use it to solicit funds for any cause, but a crisis has arisen that makes it a humanitarian necessity.

On October 26, 2010 an article by Megan Murphy in the UK's Financial Times has revealed a heart-rending story of a devastating financial crisis that has hit a small segment of the world's population.

A Swiss bank, hit hard by the financial crisis, is trying to get the Swiss financial regulator, Finma, to drop a $1m cash bonus cap for its top bankers. The bank has received “complaints it has strained some executives’ personal finances.”

The bonuses are not limited to $1m, but remainders are to be paid in deferred cash and share awards. The bank wants the additional cash for “their top earners” says the Times.

According to one UBS banker, the limits are creating a hardship making it tough for the top earners to make their mortgage payments and keep their kids in [elite] schools. [Heaven forbid their kids have to go to public schools and rub shoulders with our kids.]

Murphy reports that other investment banks such as Credit Suisse, Barclays and Goldman Sachs, are having the same problems. To get around it some have increased base pay for these executives. The Times says, “A managing director at a global investment bank, for example, can now expect to earn a $500,000 salary before bonus, up from $200,000 to $250,000 before the crisis.”

It's very important that we be especially kind to that incredibly well dressed family that just moved in next to us in one of the many tent cities springing up all over the globe. They may have just had their villa on the Riviera foreclosed.

But just being kind may not be enough. I'm now soliciting funds to help bailout the bank executives. I'm asking everyone to send what they can up to regulatory limits*. Please send checks or money orders (no cash please) payable in Uzbekistanian Som. Make checks payable to “Save Our Bankers” and send to the West Bank of the Delaware. On behalf of S.O.B. and the S. O. B.'s we're helping, I thank you.

*International rules require a limit of 500 in whatever currency is used for private charitable donations to help out bankers. Please do not exceed the limit.

Return to TOC

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

Regulation, Reform, and My Uncle Remus

People often say that Big Business controls the government. I agree wholeheartedly, but when those making the statement are asked, “What can we do about it?” the answer usually comes back, “We have to give Congress more power to control Big Business.” Duhhh! If Big Business controls the government, and if we give more power to the government, then we're giving Big Business more power to destroy their competition through regulation and taxation. That's exactly what has been happening.

The old mantra was regulation, today it's “reform.” I caught onto “regulation” a long time ago and I think I have a pretty good handle on the meaning of “reform” if experience with tax “reform” is any indicator. Every ten or fifteen years, politicians, bureaucrats, and the media are “shocked” to learn of massive loopholes in the tax laws through which extreme wealth escapes taxes. Usually, this happens after the loopholes have become more generally known and many less wealthy people are beginning to use them. The laws are “reformed,” and the cycle begins again. It then takes another fifteen years for the new loopholes built in for the wealthy to become more generally known and then the “shock” and “reform” repeats.

One of the latest developments in the regulation and “reform” arena is reported by Brooke Masters, Quentin Peel and Francesco Guerrera of the UK Times Sept. 12 & 13. The subject was a meeting of the global regulators of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel where new global bank capital standards were being set.

The reporters indicated that most BIG [emphasis mine] US and European banks would not have much difficulty, but smaller banks could struggle to meet the new requirements. [Nothing to worry about. The big guys will be happy to absorb their business.]

The Times does report warnings that the new, stricter requirements might crimp economic recovery, but not all agreed (or at least admitted it).

Still, Masters, Peel and Guerrera tell us “One senior banking executive said the rules would prompt banks to hoard capital and cut lending capacity at a time when the US economy is struggling...”

“There is nothing we can do: more capital on our balance sheet means less capital available to the rest of the economy,” the executive is quoted.

Welcoming the agreement, the Times informs us, is Tim Geithner, US Treason secretary and CFR and Trilateral Commission member who the Times quotes as calling it the “next step on the way to strong global financial reforms.” There you have it. The money powers behind the CFR and Trilateral Commission want these “global financial reforms” and national sovereignty and the well-being of the peoples of the world be damned.

In light of this development, I thought it might be appropriate to relate this little story my Uncle Remus told me a long time ago, when “regulation” was the buzzword. Uncle said:

“One fahn day, ole small businessman Brer Fox finally caught da corporate monopolist Brer Rabbit and was decidin' what ta do wit him. Jus' den Brer Rabbit he say to Brer Fox, 'Yo can do anythin' yo want ta me, but please, please, please don't fling me in dat thar heavily go'ment regoolated en controlled economy. Hearin' dat, Brer Fox he chuckle' to hisself en flung dat rabbit right smack dab inta da middle o' dat regoolated economy.

Fo' a while Brer Fox he jus' listen' en laugh' at da loud weepin' en wailin' en gnashin' o' teeth comin' from dat regoolated economy. Den dere was nuttin'. Hah!, thunk Brer Fox. Ahv'e finally done away wit thet selfish, greedy rabbit. But, soon, Brer Fox he hear laughin' en singin' en da clinkin' o' gold coins from da regoolated economy. Den da rabbit he call' out, “Brer Fox, Ah tol' yo not to fling me in hayah. It was in da medieval economies o' Europe, heavily regoolated by da trade guilds en corporations, dat mah family grow' en prosper'. We loves da go'ment regoolated en controlled economy becuz we controls da go'ment.”

Today, Mom and Pop Fox's little store is gone, replaced by a unit of the Lickety Split chain. The tiny Fox Manufacturing Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rabbit Enterprises, Inc., and the Brer Fox Savings and Loan, having been lured into an economic trap by agents of Bunny Investments, has been swallowed up by the First Hare Commercial Bank of America. Brer Fox himself ended his days as unskilled labor, barely scratching out a living in a division of Rabbit Enterprises. Sadly, as John L. Lewis predicted,* his sons were killed in the New Dealers' War.

*In 1940, John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers Union, urged his followers to vote against Roosevelt or he would make cannon fodder of their sons. This at a time when the whole New Deal swore we would stay out of Europe's war. The “New Deal” turned out to be the same old dirty deal from the bottom of a stacked deck.

Return to TOC

Friday, September 10, 2010

Still Working The Plan

Still Working The Plan

In a recent UK Financial Times' article, Times writers Whipp and Anderlini reported that China is on its way to passing Japan as the world's second largest economy.

Understandably, Japan's per capita GDP remains well ahead of China's.

Regardless of the per capita standings, according to the Times reporters, Cornell professor Eswar Prasad, a former head of the China division of the IMF said China passed Japan in influence and dynamism long ago.

I don't think anyone should be surprised. We've been working for decades to make China the premier economic and military power in Asia. This is being done to facilitate creation of the United Republics of China encompassing most of Asia as depicted in the New World Moral Order map and plan from 1941-42. I noted that this was going to happen when I first posted segments of the map in various political discussion group galleries some 15 years ago.

Return to TOC

Monday, August 16, 2010

Platform of the Main Republican Party

The following is the Platform of the Maine Republican Party. While not quite perfect, it would make a good start toward restoring this country to what it should be – a Constitutional Republic with severely limited central power.

I've added a few short comments of my own within the document and a longer one at the end. I've enclosed these in [brackets].

Platform of the Maine Republican Party
Adopted by the Maine Republican State Convention on May 8, 2010

In the course of a nation’s history, it is natural that political philosophies will evolve which run contrary to the original principles evident at the time of that nation’s founding. A nation founded in tyranny will by its nature spawn sentiment in direct opposition to that tyranny. Conversely, a nation which is dedicated to protecting the rights of its people, and seeks to bind the excesses of power which naturally accrue to governments, is subject to the evolution of factions which strive to throw off those shackles of restraint and gather power and influence over the people. Freedom is not a pre-existing condition into which everyone is delivered. Freedom and personal liberty are conditions of existence which are hard fought for and once won, must be maintained. Each generation must be taught anew the importance of eternal vigilance against those who would disregard the limits imposed on government, and usurp powers not granted to them by the people.

Today this state and the nation are in crisis precisely because we as a people have failed to maintain that vigilance. We have failed to pass down from one generation to another the critical knowledge and lessons that history provides. We have let rot from within, the foundation upon which freedom and prosperity must be built for it to survive.

This election cycle is unique in the history of both this state and our nation. We are presented with a situation in which WE THE PEOPLE, must re-educate ourselves and our neighbors, and put the knowledge of liberty to work in the elections this November. Years of neglect have allowed factions detrimental to the core principles of this nation, to entrench themselves in both political parties, and undermine the education of Constitutional principles vital to the survival of the republic. [Those factions have had their tentacles wrapped around us since the ratification of the Constitution which was a blueprint for a central tyranny. Only the alertness of men like Richard Henry Lee, Methacton Smith, and Thomas Jefferson slowed them down with the “Bill of Rights.” Nevertheless, when Hamilton and Washington set up the first national bank, the stage was set for eventual creation of the centralized tyranny first sought.]

The Tea Party movement is reminiscent of the principled revolt that led to the birth of the Republican Party in 1854. In June of that year, Horace Greeley referred to the newly formed Republicans as “…united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty…". This year it is incumbent upon those Republicans who strive to protect and defend our Constitution, to reclaim that heritage.

It is within this context that We, the citizens of Maine united by free association as Republicans, dedicated to seeing the principles which brought forth the birth and ascendance of this State and these United States once again made dominant and pledge our unwavering allegiance, not to a political party, but to the Constitution of the State of Maine and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Republican Party is the vehicle through which we seek to better unify and promote those in pursuit of these goals.

The principles upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:
The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere.
State sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the States by the constitution. [To see how the attack on that State sovereignty is being carried out, see the “Regionalism – Death of the American System” in this blog.]
National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.
It is the responsibility and duty, of “We the People”, to educate both ourselves and others; to demand honest elections free of corruption, and to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and loyalty to the constitution.
In pursuit of these principles we endorse and shall promote the following initiatives.

I. To Form a More perfect Union
a. All legislation must adhere to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution to protect the individual from intrusive government.
b. Direct the State of Maine to join with other states in asserting our 10th amendment sovereignty rights which protect us from unconstitutional federal government intrusions.[Stop taking “federal funds.” The strings attached are being used to strangle State sovereignty. Stop the federal government from getting or creating those funds in the first place.]
c. Insist on strict adherence to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.
d. Pass a “Read the Bill” act, to insure clarity, and eliminate the corruption associated with side issues, earmarks, pork or riders.
e. Oppose “Localism and Diversity”, the Fairness Doctrine or whatever else such attempted restrictions are labeled. Any restriction on speech is by definition NOT free speech.
f. Reject the Employee free -choice Elimination- act, as an unconscionable affront to the right to a secret vote.
g. Restore integrity to the electoral process:
i. Prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN, no matter what it or its affiliate organizations rename themselves; New York Communities for Change, New England United for Justice etc.; Conduct thorough investigation of their activities and voter fraud and prosecute violations.
ii. Eliminate motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms; institute secure voter registration and identification systems.
iii. Reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity.
h. Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically:
i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.
ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty.
iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.
i. Restore the process of assimilation of immigrants to preserve the benefits of an advanced educated and prosperous society. Rescind Maine’s sanctuary State status. No amnesty, no benefits, no citizenship -ever- for anyone in the country illegally. Arrest and detain, for a specified period of time, anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.
j. Pass a Congressional reform act which includes the following provisions:
i. Term Limits: 12 years only, in any capacity.
1. Two Six year Senate terms
2. Six Two year House terms
3. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
ii. No Pension
iii. Congress participates in Social Security under the same rules as the general public.
iv. Congress can no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
v. Congress participates in the same health care plan as the general public. No preferential plans or treatment.
vi. Congress is subject to and must abide by all the laws they impose on the general public.

II. To Establish Justice:
a. Restore “Constitutional law” as the basis for the Judiciary.
b. Reassert the principle that “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “freedom from religion”.

III. To Insure Domestic tranquility:
a. Promote family values.
i. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical.
iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.

IV. To Provide for the Common Defense:
a. Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the US on 23 Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
b. Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government.

V. To Promote the General Welfare:
a. Return to the principles of Austrian Economics, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest.
b. Cut spending, balance the budget, and institute a plan for paying down debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconscionable and will not be tolerated!
c. Pass and implement Fed bill #1207 (Introduced by Ron Paul), to Audit the Federal Reserve, as the first step in Ending the Fed.
d. Return to transparent and honest reporting of economic statistics free of gimmicks and distortions.
e. Require the government and all its agencies adhere to the same GAAP accounting rules that businesses must follow.
f. Restore the provisions of welfare reform removed with the stimulus bill.
g. Defeat Cap and Trade, investigate collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth, and prosecute any illegal collusion.
h. Freeze current stimulus funds, prohibit any further stimulus bills, and apply all unspent funds towards the debt they created.
i. Promote energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power.
j. Institute Zero based budgeting on all programs.
k. Espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits.
l. Clarify that healthcare is not a right. It is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However, the government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but detrimental to the entire healthcare system. Only market based solutions will solve the problems. [But they must be free market based solutions. The controlled and manipulated markets we have now will continue to serve the wealthiest segment of our society – the segment that now controls it.]
i. In the state of Maine:
1. Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire), to increase competition, drive down the costs, and increase the options available.
a. Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
b. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines. LD 290
c. Enact tort reform as exemplified by Texas.
d. Eliminate Dirigo

VI. To Secure the Blessings of Liberty:
a. Restore a vigorous grounding in the history and precepts of liberty, freedom, and the constitution to the educational process. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
i. Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the constitution.
b. Repeal and prohibit any participation in efforts to create a one world government.


[Without prolonged study, I think this a good start, but I find several weaknesses in the platform. I don't like the phrase “To Form A More Perfect Union” taken from the Preamble. This has been used incorrectly by opponents of the right of the States to secede.
The phrase “fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win” sounds like a call to continue the policies of Daddy and Baby Bush and Uncle Tom Obama of indiscriminate murder of men, women, and children in the Middle East and of transferring the wealth of the American people to the bankers and munitions makers. We might end or greatly reduce the desire of others to terrorize us if we stop terrorizing others.
While I agree with the concept of restoring Constitutional government, I would like to see some more concrete stands such as: i End the Imperial Presidency by stripping the Admin Branch of the unconstitutional powers to legislate and to adjudicate given it during the FDR administration. ii Forget a “first step” toward eliminating the Fed. Abolish it now and put an end to the commercial banks' power to enrich themselves at our expense by issuing bookkeeping entry Etherbacks. Restore control and issuance of our money supply to Congress and the Treasury where it belongs. iii Repeal the 17th Amendment to restore to the States the power to check usurpation of power by the federal government.
Liberty has no time left on the clock. We must make it plain to those who promise to restore the Constitution, to get us out of foreign entanglements, and to end the tyranny of a banker run America that they must honor those promises. We can tolerate no further breach of trust. We must make it clear to these people that if we can't get representative government through electoral action, then we will get it through executive action. We, ourselves, must decided whether to live as slaves or die as a free people and hope that it's not too late for a third option – to live as a free people.]

Return to TOC

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Obamacare Simplified

Obamacare Simplified – an Addendum to “Healthcare Obamanation”

Prior to writing “Healthcare Obamanation,” I spent many hours trying to make sense of it before concluding it couldn't be done, that its meaning would have to be determined by the courts (after flesh was put on the bones). I may have erred. The Ohio Project was able to analyze it and create an easy to follow road map of the healthcare program created. A copy was printed in The Ohio Republic blog. Anyone who is confused by the legislation should take a close look at the map in order to get a clearer understanding.

[The link to the expandable version of the chart is no longer available.  The link immediately below should take you to the file in my Google Documents.  To best view the chart, click "file" in the menu at the upper left and then click "download original."  If it doesn't work, please leave me a note. Thanks!]

Download the PDF and use it to explain the plan to your friends and family and impress them with your knowledge

I tried posting the chart directly, but Google immediately adds the spy site url to the code.The links below no longer work properly for this, but are still good links to those sites.

The above link will take you to the ohiorepublic page with the map. Clicking on the map no longer takes you to the PDF file in the OhioProject.

Below is a link to the ohioproject main page.

Return to TOC

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

North American Union

Until now I haven't gotten deeply into the North American Union. Since it's an integral part of the One Worlders' plans, I think its time.

I'll start first with this excellent article from Canada. It's a great start, from a Canadian view point, on understanding what is happening to us. After reading it, you might want to read or re-read the post "New World Order – Death of America" in this blog. Maybe I should have said, "Death of North America" or, for that matter, "Death of World Liberty." Take notice that, unless the WWII plans have changed, Central America and the rest of North America is to be included in the planned "United States of America." The current plan for the NAU, following the lead of NAFTA, is only the first phase. CAFTA suggests Central America is not far behind.

The urls below lead to the website of the Canadian Action Party, but not to the article.

The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government. It is informed and detailed journalism of a calibre we do not see nearly often enough.

Of course, the Party is condemned to a narrow platform because it is operating within the existing liberal political milieu, so whether the radicalism can be summoned to really change things remains to be seen.

Part One: The North American Union


The North American continent is being transformed from three sovereign nations Canada, USA, Mexico) into one regional corporate power base, the North American Union. Unlike the creation of the European Union, there is no public political/ academic discourse on the merits, or pros and cons of a North American Union building up to a vote within each nation as to the wish of the people to join such a union. Instead the union is being created by stealth, is already well on its way to fruition, and is being imposed on us by our own elected representatives and government with no opposition.

The driving force is corporate. The Chief Executive Officers of the most powerful corporations operating in the three countries want this union and have been working for some time devising their strategies and goals. Their facilitators are first, unelected officials and bureaucrats who move easily between corporations and government; second, former elected officials like John Manley , former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada; third, the heads of the three nations, Martin, Bush, and Fox; and finally, the governments and the rest of the elected members who apparently just rubber stamp what is put in front of them by the unelected officials- few questions, if any asked.

The ultimate enforcement mechanism for the North American Union is a police state.
The tools for the police state are “anti-terrorist” laws which, in themselves, are a ruse to strip the citizens of civil liberties in order to prevent dissent against the police state.
The Orwellian justification is “security”, “safety”.

Canadian patriots have been focusing on the wrong threat- annexation to the U.S.A with no voting rights, only colony status like a Gibraltar. The real plan emerges. The fact is that we are now already metamorphosing into something else- A North American Union comprised of Canada, U.S.A.,and Mexico. The goal is an internally borderless North America rid of the constitutional structures and rules of the separate nations that created and protected the democratic fabric of the respective peoples.

This Union is planned, directed, organized and coordinated by unelected, unaccountable people of the military /industrial complex with a few academic apologists thrown in for good measure. It is being facilitated by all three elected governments. This is the same military/industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned against.

This group is creating a despotic regime for the pursuit of their interest (rapacious greed and power) which is diametrically opposed to the needs and interests of the citizens in all three countries. Their plan is to make all of North America their power base acting in their interest only. Forget the people

The two bodies (one corporate, one military) which have been functioning for some time to create this treasonous union are well advanced in that formation. They are: the Canada-U.S.A-Mexico task force and The Binational Military Planning Group.

1. The corporate side: the Canada-U.S.A-Mexico task force

The Canada-U.S.A-Mexico Task Force is comprised of the leading CEOs of the most powerful corporations from Canada, USA and Mexico, prominent former officials, businessmen, and academic apologists from all three countries. They are: (a.) From U.S.A. - Council on Foreign Relations;
(b). From Mexico- the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales;
(c.) From Canada: Canadian Council of Chief Executives- Founded in 1976, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives is Canada’s premier business association composed of the chief executives of 150 leading Canadian enterprises. The CCCE was the Canadian private sector
leader in the development and promotion of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement during the 1980s and of the subsequent trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement.

This task force is currently headed by Canada’s own former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister, John Manley (who allegedly seeks to replace Paul Martin as Prime Minister).

This task force was sanctioned by the three leaders, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox, in March of 2005 at a special meeting in Texas at Bush’s ranch at which the three leaders signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

In practice, the elected governments of the three countries are the willing dupes promulgating laws that impose a police state in order to enforce rules that enable the new regime. Some would call this treason.

(2) The military side: The Binational Military Planning Group-

Founded in late 2002, its mandate is to lay the groundwork for the integration of a Canada -US military command structure, and the militarization of civilian law enforcement, and judicial function in Canada and the USA. Their stated mandate is first to prepare contingency plans to respond to land and sea threats, and attacks, and other major emergencies; and second, to plan for coordinated response for military assistance to civil authorities in the event of threat or attack, and for civil emergency in Canada and the USA.

Neither of the Task Force nor the Military Planning group is accountable to the US Congress, nor to the Canadian House of Commons, nor to the Mexican government, and certainly Not to the citizenry.

1. Let’s focus first on the corporate side, the Canada- USA- Mexico task force.

See: Trilateral Task Force Recommendations

And: Trilateral Commission website

And: Council on Foreign Relations: Trinational call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010

These Canadian, U.S., and Mexican elites are the same players who gave us the FTA and the NAFTA. They continue their work creating a North American union that integrates our economies and transforms our total policy-making capacity away from the public interest and away from the public good.

This plan goes by various names:
· Deep Integration
· Harmonization
· NAFTA-plus
· the “Big Idea” (C.D. Howe Institute)
· the “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative”
· Americanization

The plan of this Canada-U.S.-Mexico task force is to establish a continent-wide customs union with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security that would virtually eliminate existing national borders. The task force released its recommendations for a common North America in May 17/18 2005.There was minor reference to it in mainstream media- no headline presentation. The recommendations include:

* * a common security perimeter by 2010.
* * a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers.
* * a unified border and expanded customs facilities.
** a single economic space: (It is this area that would destroy any opportunity to bring back the use of our Bank of Canada.)
* * a common external tariff.
* * seamless movement of goods within North America.
* * Full labor mobility between Canada and the U.S. (Note they apparently do not want the Mexican labourers??)
* * A North American energy strategy -as a regional alternative to Kyoto.
* * Review those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded.
* * A North American regulatory plan that would include “open skies and open roads” and a unified approach on food, health, and the environment.
* * Expand temporary worker programs and create a “North American preference” for immigration for citizens of North America.
* * A North American Investment Fund to build infrastructure to connect Mexico’s poorer regions in the south to the market to the north.
* * Restructure and reform Mexico’s public finances.
* * Fully develop Mexican energy resources (Mexico wisely kept their energy out of NAFTA)
* * A permanent tribunal for trade and investment disputes.( Here is where any vestige of democratic government disappears)
* * An annual North American summit meeting.
* * A Tri-national Competition Commission with a common approach to trade remedies.
* * Scholarships for a network of Centers for North American Studies. (To serve the corporations)

Below is the list of the Members of the Independent Task Force on North America- Many are members of the Trilateral Commission - a similar corporate interest group from the USA, Japan and Western Europe )

Minister Pedro Aspe (Mexican co-chair), Protego
Mr. Thomas S. Axworthy, Queen’s University
Ms. Heidi S. Cruz, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Mr. Nelson W. Cunningham, Kissinger McLarty Associates
Mr. Thomas P. d’Aquino (Canadian co-vice chair), Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Mr. Alfonso de Angoitia, Grupo Televisa, S.A.
Dr. Luis de La Calle Pardo, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C.
TC - Professor Wendy K. Dobson, University of Toronto
Dr. Robert A. Pastor (U.S. co-vice chair), American University
Mr. Andréés Rozental, (Mexican co-vice chair), Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales
Dr. Richard A. Falkenrath, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Rafael Fernandez de Castro, Instituto Tecnolóógico Autóónomo de Mééxico
Mr. Ramóón Alberto Garza, Montemedia
The Honorable Gordon D. Giffin, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
TC - Mr. Allan Gotlieb, Donner Canadian Foundation
Mr. Michael Hart, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs
TC - Mr. Carlos Heredia, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales
TC - The Honorable Carla A. Hills, Hills & Company
Dr. Gary C. Hufbauer, Institute for International Economics
TC - Dr. Luis Rubio, CIDAC
Dr. Jeffrey J. Schott, Institute for International Economics
Mr. Pierre Marc Johnson, Heenan Blaikie
The Honorable James R. Jones, Manatt Jones Global Strategies
Dr. Chappell H. Lawson (Task Force Director), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
TC - The Honourable John P. Manley (Canadian co-chair), McCarthy Tetrault
Mr. David McD. Mann, Cox Hanson O’Reilly Matheson
Ms. Doris M. Meissner, Migration Policy Institute
The Honorable Thomas M.T. Niles, Institute for International Economics
The Honorable William F. Weld (U.S. co-chair),Leeds Weld & Co.
Mr. Raul H. Yzaguirre

The few media references to the task force parrot the Orwellian double speak of the task force and politicians. The effect is to trick the people into believing this process is something good for us. But if you read carefully, you can identify that the regime change is all about the greed of an elite few. In order to manipulate us into accepting the regime change, they pretend it will protect us from “terrorists”. Terrorism has become the external threat, the bogey- man replacing Communism, just as Moslems have replaced Jews as scapegoats..

From Reuters:

“NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States, Canada and Mexico should establish a common security perimeter to guard against terrorism in North America, a tri-national independent task force said in a report released onTuesday.

The countries should police their borders together to help border trade, allow easier movement of citizens and to keep out potential security threats, the task force said at New York’s Council on Foreign Relations.

‘If our two borders, the one between Canada and the United States and the U.S. and Mexico, became a frontline for security the impact that would have on normal relations and economic relations would be profound,’ said co-chairman John Manley, a former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.”

From All American Patriots News:

“May 17, 2005--North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic
competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a tri-national, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

Pointing to increased competition from the European Union and rising economic powers such as India and China in the eleven years since NAFTA took effect, co-chair Pedro C. Aspe, former Finance Minister of Mexico, said, ‘We need a vision for North America to address the new challenges.’
The Task Force establishes a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading area that allows for the seamless movement of goods, increased labor mobility, and energy security.

John P. Manley, Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said, ‘We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be bold and adopt a vision of the future that is bigger than, and beyond, the immediate problems of the present,’ ‘They could be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo.’”

In other words, forget Canada; forget the United States of America; forget the United States of Mexico. Some might consider this rather treasonous!!

Let us be very clear here. What the task force addresses is an economic/legal system in their interest with a police state to enforce it.

This task force is extrapolating the globalization process into a North American unit. Under the mantle of the WTO (an agreement in its own right,) there is in process a transformation of the forces of power in the world from sovereign national control of resources over to the global corporate control. It is what they call “deregulation” and”privatization”. That is why they called all the agreements “Free Trade”. They meant free from regulations and controls that protect consumers and the public generally, including protections from theft of the commons.

Now the intent is for transfer from global corporate control to regional corporate control, e.g., European Union, North American Union; that is, corporate political control free from government accountability to electors. The North American task force seeks to create a unit even freer from the vestigial citizen involvement that exists in the E.U. (Britain and Australia are lackeys of the United States.)

The FTA, the NAFTA, are well known. The Canadian Action Party and other concerned Canadians have been detailing the harm of these agreements for years. CAP has steadfastly called for the abrogation of the FTA and NAFTA. We have always said,” Issue the 6 month notice to abrogate!” The most recent justification for abrogation is the U.S.’s refusal to pay back $5 billion they owe our lumber industry for illegal duties the U.S. charged.

Despite years of proof of uneven and unfair use by the USA of the rules of the FTA and NAFTA, including the unfair closing of the U.S side of the border to Canadian beef, the Liberals, Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois have refused to call for abrogation. It is only in the face of the clarity of this latest U.S. abuse of Canada that all of them are beginning to pretend they are not wimps or complicit dupes. Still, none of them is willing to say, “Abrogate, period!” How much longer are we willing to tolerate these politicians who not only meekly submit to being stomped on, but then turn to their attacker and apologize for being victimized?

Why do they do this? It is because all of their most influential leaders are members of this elite group who seek to remove democracy and entrench plutocracy. It is not a question of what is good for the citizens of Canada, U.S.A or Mexico. Note that the United States is turning that $5 billion which has been stolen from the Canadian lumber industry over to their own lumber barons, not their general body of citizens.

This North American Impetus is a natural political extension and outgrowth of all these global economic arrangements as the greedy financial elite look around for the best ways to effect their goals. It has everything to do with the destruction of democracy and the death of freedom. These corporate bodies have no allegiance to the nation they happen to operate in, or to its people.

Other harmful international agreements include the General Agreement on Trade and Services, (GATS), the Financial Services Investment Agreement, (FSIA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas, (FTAA), the Central American Free Trade Agreement, (CAFTA). All of these grow out of the World Trade Organization, (WTO), itself being an agreement that commands an ongoing deregulation and privatization process.

The eventual goal is to have all of North and South America as one regional power block stronger than anything in Europe or Asia. Fortunately for human beings, South America has not been the easy pushover that the corporations presumed, so they have to settle for a North American Union for now. (Why do you think Pat Robertson, a U.S. religious leader, on national U.S. media, and on Canada’s C.B.C., recently called for the Assassination of Hugo Chavez, the Leader of Venezuela?)

There exists a North America Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. See:

The role of the North America Bureau is twofold:

* to advance, in cooperation with other parts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canadian diplomatic missions in the United States and Mexico, and other Canadian Government departments and agencies, Canada’s wide-ranging interests in its relations with the United
States and Mexico; and

* to promote Canada’s broad foreign policy objectives within and through the Canada-US and the Canada-Mexico bilateral relationships.

In fulfilling this role, the Bureau is organized into four divisions:

* the United States Relations Division,
* the United States Transboundary Division, and
* the United States Business Development Division and
* The Mexico Division

2. Let’s now look at the second body, The Binational Military Planning
Group. (Source Michel Chossudovsky.

Chossudovsky says the people of NORAD and the Binational Planning Group are the same . They operate the same command. NORAD has essentially been scrapped. It has been integrated into US Northern Command, and Canada has become a de facto member of NORTHCOM under the auspices of the Bi-national Planning Group. (BPG).

So, when Prime Minister Paul Martin said “no” to Star Wars, he did not really say no. He lied to us.

The Binational Planning Group was set up in late 2002 after Prime Minster Chrétien refused to join NORTHCOM. The creation of Northcom had been announced unilaterally in April 2002 by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield who dictated that the US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction set out in the US DoD includes the continental US ,all of Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines, as well as the Canadian arctic.

Northcom was being quietly negotiated with Ottawa’s Department of Defence and the PMO. Under NORTHCOM the US military will cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces as well as station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. The locale for these
discussions is not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in
Colorado, the headquarters of the US Northern Command(Northcom) .

Chossudovsky reports that Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that “the
NORTHCOM with all of North America as its geographic command ‘is part of
the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan (UCP) since its
inceptions in 1947’”

When PM Chretien refused to sign on the dotted line, Rumsfield et al, the
military establishment, both US and Canadian, refused to take no for an answer. They immediately created a new name to accommodate the concept of NORTHCOM and called it the Binational Planning group . It is still operating out of the Peterson Air force base. It was supposed to last only for two years but its mandate has been renewed to spring of 2006. (Note- look for a Canadian election before the expiry date.)

The BPG has a staff of 50 US and Canadian military planners laying the groundwork fo the integration of Canada -US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-US Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon- responsible for detailed
joint military planning.

Respecting missile defence, Martin told the press on February 22,2005: “[The Americans] were told we will not participate.” “It is a firm ‘no.’”

Chossudovsky reminds us that simultaneously, Frank McKenna ambassador designate to the US, in a contradictory statement, told the media “ Canada’s participation in the controversial BMD is a “done deal”. It’s de facto. It was part of a negotiation process initiated two years ago.

“We’re part of it now and the question is what more do we need?” said McKenna. “There’s no doubt, in looking back, ... that the NORAD amendment has given, has created part, in fact a great deal, of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry.”

What Ambassador McKenna was hinting at, without revealing the substance of US-Canada negotiations (behind closed doors), is that NORAD is a defunct military body.

So the military side of this treason is waiting for government sanction in the spring of 2006 after our next election. Once again the arrogant confidence is at least irritating if not alarming.

Even though there is no official sanction yet, de facto sanctions exist as Canada is participating more and more in the US wars.. Now we have more troops in Afghanistan, and General Hilliard is warning Canadians to be prepared for the body bags returning to Canada. There is something really wrong with this picture.

In a comprehensive report prepared shortly before the Bush-Martin talks November 2004, the BPG made recommendations on: “ how the two countries’ militaries can work together more effectively to counter these [terrorist] threats. ... formalizing cooperation already taking place on an informal basis.” (Statement of BPG spokesman, US Department of Defence Information, November 3, 2004)

With regard to military negotiations, McKenna knows what is happening behind the scenes. He was on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group together with Bush Senior and Frank Carlucci (The bin Laden family were investors in Carlyle until 9/11).

Carlyle, is the leading private equity investor in the aerospace and defence industries in the US and Canada. It plays a key role in the formulation of US defence and foreign policy. It has a vested interest in Canada’s integration into NORTHCOM. Michel Chossusdovsky points out that “Canada’s participation in the
Bilateral Planning Group and hence the Northern Command implies Canada’s acceptance not only of Star Wars, but of the entire US war agenda, requiring significant hikes in Canada’s defence spending. The latter are intended to fuel the military-industrial complex. Canada’s defence contractors are supportive of this process.”

Chossudovsky points to Canada’s February 2005 budget, released on the day following P.M. PaulMartin’s categorical “No” to the Missile Defence Program. Chossudovsky notes that “an additional $12.8 billion dollars (Cdn) (over the next five years), has added to Canada’s spiralling defence budget. The stated objective is to ‘burnish the country’s credibility as a global peacekeeping partner’.”

Chossudovsky notes further that the budget is not meant to refurbish the country’s conventional military hardware, but rather will be channelled to Canadian weapons producers, many of which are affiliates of US defence conglomerates, upon Canada’s accession to NORTHCOM.. He lists some major players in Canada’s defence industry: General Dynamics (Canada), Bell Helicopter Textron (Canada), General Motors Defense, CAE Inc, Bombardier,
SNC-Lavalin Group, etc.

So we can see that those two bodies, the trilateral task force and the Bilateral Planning group, are well entrenched in process.

The fact is that most Canadians oppose this deep economic and military integration.

Now the greedy corporations are staking out a claim on more and more land in a region of North America in order to be bigger, and better and more profitable than a group of corporations from another regional block. The European Union was the first block. There is a rising Asian block. I am not the first to see the USA attacks on the middle east as a means of preventing the Asian blocks from becoming the most powerful . The third region is the Americas. South America has not been an easy go for the globalizers. So the focus is concentrating for now on North America.)

By examination of the arrangements and deals happening under our noses but by stealth, we can see that our worries expressed over the years are coming to fruition. The globalizers are well into the process of implementing a clear regime run by them, about them, for them, and enforced by governments. The masses of people do not count except as cannon fodder in the wars of conquest and as slaves for the production process .

There is every intention of regime change from democracy to tyranny. Our governments are already the willing whipping boys being the instruments of social control. They have no shame in removing our civil liberties and destroying our constitutional protections .This is happening all around the world with the USA, Britain, Australia and Canada being the most advanced in the regime change process. It is an outrage and a disgrace that Canada is now competing with Britain to become the lowliest lick spittle groveling agent to the USA led regime change process. There is nothing good in this regime change process for the citizen.

[On the whole this is an excellent summary. It does fall down in the last two sentences, but it is understandable. Even in the United States, very few are aware of some excellent arguments that we never really broke away from England. Certainly, the Bank of England has been a major player in the formulation of our foreign and domestic policy since Hamilton and Washington set up the first national bank.

Anyone familiar with the Round-Table groups should know that they have had substantial influence over us since Wilson, to the extent that the total Royalist/Tory effort resulted in our fighting two wars for Mutha England. Control over FDR resulted in the mass importation of Fabian Socialism to this country with its accompanying Hegelian statist philosophy now being perpetrated on a global scale -- the “regime change” mentioned in the article.]

Return to TOC

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Government of Money, by Money, and for Money

Although it doesn’t fit any scheme of idealism, the fact is that government is the power of money. It is to the misfortune of all the peoples of the world that money is now global and seeks power on a global level to promote its interests. It’s unfortunate that the Anglo-American Empire is busying itself with the spreading of this global dominance of money in the name of “democracy." Use of American military power to do this fulfills Cecil Rhodes dream of the U.S. taking over Britain's self-appointed role of world policeman.

Discussing the subject of Southern Secession and the Draconian and very unconstitutional means Lincoln used to suppress it and showing that suppression to be money motivated, M A Johnson, an aol group member, posted this from Lysander Spooner in a group a number of years ago:


Spooner also hits upon the true reason for Lincoln's war, namely, the need to keep money flowing into the federal treasury via enforcement of the protective tariff:

All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.

The love of money is the root of all evil. And it is omnipotent government which is best able to carry out the evil plans of those who love money.


I would add to this that money need not always resort to soldiers. Buying “intellectuals" to cloak their crimes in garb of "reason" or “progress" can sometimes reduce the need for soldiers by quelling the masses through the narcotic effect of well developed though meaningless and fallacious rhetoric.

Back to TOC

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Boycott Seattle

“City Council backs Arizona boycott,” News, May 18. So read a headline concerning the actions of the Seattle City Council. They were, of course, completely out of line.

According to an Associated Press release printed in the Seattle Times, the Seattle City Council voted 7-0 Monday to boycott Arizona. In so doing they've joined cities such as L.A., San Diego, and Austin in urging boycotts or protests against Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law.

The Times notes the hypocrisy in the Council's boycott. It was written, says the paper, “to protect the only substantial contract Seattle has with an Arizona company - a $106,000-a-month deal with American Traffic Solutions.”

Seattle, sitting “Way Up North” can have no idea of the problems illegal immigration causes a border state like Arizona. True, Washington is also a “border” state, but the “flood” of illegal immigrants seeking to escape Canada for a better life in the U.S. has not yet become such a serious problem to Washington as the Mexican illegals have become to Arizona. Arizona is bearing the brunt of the invasion, having to fight, not only the illegal immigrant traffic, but the drug trafficking that accompanies it. Naturally, the cry “racism” can be heard. Trying to stop people from entering the country illegally is now “racist.”

Also emulating the Boy Who Cried “Racist,” the Los Angeles' resolution claims that the Arizona law “encourages racial profiling.” May we presume this could be solved by instructing police to stop only Eskimos to see if they are illegal Mexican aliens?

Many Seattle residents have written letters to the editor opposing this action of the council. They say, and rightfully, that neither the city of Seattle nor the State of Washington has any right to interfere in the laws of another State. Some have even suggested that under the circumstances other States and cities might boycott Seattle and/or Washington State. I think that's a great idea!

I, for one, will never drink a cup of Starbucks coffee again. I'd like to add that I will never travel to Seattle, but—who would want to? Maybe rain wear or umbrella manufacturers might want to hold a convention there, but other than that the place is only fit for ducks.

I believe I saw this “joke” in Reader's Digest. A woman moves to Seattle. It rains every day for a week. She looks out of her apartment window and sees a little boy sitting on the building's steps in the rain. Frustrated to the point she can hardly bear it, she calls down, “Little boy! Does it ever stop raining here?” The little boy answers, “I don't know, lady. I'm only six.”

I will also try to avoid products of L.A., San Diego, and Austin.

The url for the Seattle Times is:
Please don't use it unless you absolutely have to!

While we're boycotting the creep cities, how about giving some support to the Arizona Cattlemen's Association whose members are manning the front line in the American people's war against illegal invasion. They're fighting a tough fight with illegals in front and traitors at the rear.

Thursday, May 20, 2010
Please go to the web site below and endorse the Restore Our Border (ROB) plan named for Rob Krentz who was murdered by an illegal alien on his own land. The Arizona Cattle Growers need lots of endorsements.

Thank you for your consideration.

Return to TOC

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

A Pairadocs

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

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

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

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

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

Return To TOC

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:

Return to TOC

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Truth Has Fallen & Taken Liberty with It

It's hard not to feel sorry for a great athlete who continues to play long after he should have retired. This article by Paul Craig Roberts shows that, if this is his final good-bye, he retires in his prime.

Because of its importance, Truth Has Fallen has appeared in numerous sites throughout the Web. For that reason I do not cite any, choosing only to mirror it here in the hopes it will reach and awaken still more people.


March 24, 2010


Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It


There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at:

Return to TOC

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 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.]


Patrick J. Murphy



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?

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.

[A copy of this post, less this comment, will be sent as an email answer to the Congressman.]

Return to TOC