Rupert Murdoch inks deal with Saudi prince
Al-Walid once boasted of his influence on Fox News coverage of Muslims
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 Prince Al-Walid bin Talal |
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Fox News Channel, strengthened his strategic partnership with Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, acquiring a stake in the Saudi royal’s Rotana media conglomerate.
As WND reported, the Saudi prince, who owns a 5.7 percent share of Fox News, claimed in 2005 he persuaded Murdoch to immediately stop the top-rated cable network from identifying unrest in France as “Muslim riots.”
Daily Variety reported News Corp. will take a 10 percent stake in Rotana, with an option to acquire another 10 percent.
The paper said the News Corp.–Rotana pact marks the most significant investment yet by a Western media company in the Arab world.
Last summer, News Corp.’s Fox and Rotana launched two Fox-branded English-language channels in the Middle East. Rotana also has a deal to distribute Fox fare on DVD throughout the Middle East, Variety said.
The new pact will include the launch of new Fox-Rotana TV channels.
Variety said the deal will help Walid’s cash flow, which has been hit hard by the global economic recession, particularly his large stake in Citigroup bank.
In 2005, Walid recounted his influence on the Fox News Channel’s coverage of Muslims during a panel at the Arab and World Media Conference in Dubai. He noted that during violent street protests in France, Fox News ran a banner at the bottom of the screen that said “Muslim riots.”
“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch … [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” Al-Walid said.
“Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
WND asked Fox News, at the time, to respond. Spokeswoman Irena Briganti said she was not aware of any phone call from the prince but acknowledged the network changed the banner after receiving complaints.
“We had several calls from people around the world and discovered the issue was a little more complicated than how it was being characterized,” she said.
Al-Walid drew international attention in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when his $10 million gift was rejected by New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The prince visited the site of the World Trade Center in October 2001 and presented Giuliani with the donation to a relief fund, calling the terrorist attacks “a tremendous crime.”
But in a written statement issued by his publicist during the visit, the prince appeared to place blame for the attacks on the U.S.
“At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack,” he said. “I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”
An angered Giuliani returned the donation. A few days later, the prince blamed the mayor’s decision on “Jewish pressures.”
The prince reportedly gave half a million dollars to the controversial U.S. Muslim lobby group Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, in 2002 for a campaign to defend Islam in U.S. society.
The donation, given to Executive Director Nihad Awad during a visit to Saudi Arabia, helped buy a collection of Islamic books for 3,000 public libraries in the U.S. The contribution also financed a media campaign in the U.S. for CAIR.
A new WND Books publication, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” presents firsthand evidence CAIR is acting as a front for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate the American system and help pave the way for Saudi-style Islamic law to rule the U.S.
An estimated 80 percent of U.S. mosques are supported largely with funds and imams from Saudi Arabia, where the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam dominates the kingdom.
WND reported in 2005 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings in 2005 in response to a yearlong study by a Washington human-rights group asserting the government of Saudi Arabia was disseminating propaganda through American mosques that teaches hatred of Jews and Christians and instructs Muslims that they are on a mission behind enemy lines in a land of unbelievers.
Fifteen senators, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., responded to the report by the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House with a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding the Bush administration take stronger action against Riyadh.
Source: American Thinker
Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy
By Monte Kuligowski
Everyone has gotten the memo by this point: Do not question Barack Obama. Even conservatives have been warned by other conservatives about mentioning the secrecy issue: It’s pointless and can only harm conservatism.
Recently, Rusty Humphries broke the rule and asked Sarah Palin if she would make the “birth certificate an issue” if she runs for office. In her answer, she noted that people “still want answers” and “it’s a fair question.” Her enemies pounced quickly, casting her as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
The real issue, however, is not about birthers or theories or racism or whatever else you want to add. The real issue is about the secrecy of Barack Obama, and it involves more than the release of his complete birth records. Hospital records; high school, college and law school records; transcripts; writings; and passport info have been requested, and all are being withheld by Obama.
Mr. Obama is presented as the smartest man in the country, yet we have not seen his college course list or grades. Hmm, hmm, hmm.
A normative democratic society cannot allow a president to continue to speak disingenuously about transparency while withholding basic information.
We happen to have a president who touts openness, accountability, and transparency in a way that is unparalleled when compared to all previous presidents. Yet we know less about this man than about his predecessors. Consequently, there are twists of irony and feelings of distrust at almost every turn in the Obama presidency.
I therefore suggest a couple of reasons for the president to hit the reset button and release the requested information.
People have asked to see the records.
That doesn’t seem to be too much to ask from a man of outspoken transparency. And these are not just any people, but citizens of the U.S., over whom he presides, who have asked. They’re not asking for the moon and the stars — just simple documents.
The “natural born” requirement of the U.S. Constitution was inserted to prevent conflicting loyalties and ideologies in a president. Citizens have the right to feel assured in that constitutional protection.
Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history whose father was a foreign national in the U.S. on a student visa. His father was a non-practicing-Muslim-turned-atheist, and his mother later remarried another foreign national, this one from from Indonesia, who was also a Muslim.
Some believe Obama was adopted and became a citizen of his stepfather’s country. Obama’s mother moved him to Indonesia in 1967 to live with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. While other children Obama’s age in America were pledging allegiance to the U.S. and learning to respect America, Obama as a schoolboy (grades 1-5) registered as Barry Soetoro, was reading from the Koran, reciting Muslim prayers, and learning the civics of Indonesia (the Indonesian school records were released independently prior to Obama’s blockade).
Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to have been raised in nontraditional/non-Christian homes. Based on what he’s said, his mother was an agnostic. Obama’s grandparents, with whom he lived for a period, were extremely left-leaning in their religion and politics. As Obama admits in one of his two pre-accomplishment autobiographies, he associated with Marxists and radical leftists during his college days.
The president’s situation is remarkably unique, and his uniqueness has nothing to do with the color of his skin. People have an assortment of reasons for wanting to see Obama’s complete birth certificate and other records.
Yes, Mr. Obama has posted a bare-bones “certification of live birth” (which doesn’t name the hospital or physician), and Hawaii has confirmed that it exists. However, it is no secret that births were routinely registered in 1961 by affidavit under the laws Act 96) of the newly admitted state. On affidavits of non-hospital deliveries, certifications of live birth were generated in Hawaii.
Now, my argument is not that a foreign birth was registered as Hawaiian on a false affidavit. (Also, I don’t argue that dual citizenship or a foreign adoption disqualify Obama.) That misses the point. My argument is that because Obama says he is transparent, he should be transparent — especially when people have asked for the info.
No one should have had to file in court for Obama’s records, including his birth records showing his hospital and delivering physician. And taxpayers should not have to foot the Justice Department’s efforts in defending the withholding of basic information. Releasing the information would cost virtually nothing. The president should want to provide all the requested documents, especially when doubt exists. By withholding the requested information, Obama is slapping transparency in the face while trying to make it a feature of his presidency.
Mr. Obama might want to reconsider releasing simple documents to show that he respects the people. By refusing to do so, it sort of makes him look really arrogant, as if releasing the information would be beneath him. If he has nothing to hide, all that remains is inexplicable arrogance.
Do it for the historians.
Approximately one year ago, the Honolulu Advertiser ran a piece about Obama’s fans who were attempting to find his hospital of birth and retrace his steps, visiting as many of his boyhood homes as possible. The piece opens with these words:
Birthplaces and boyhood homes of U.S. presidents have been duly noted and honored for nearly as long as America has been a nation. In the case of such towering figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, those early locations have been deemed national treasures and historic sites …
At least Obama’s reported place of birth has been narrowed to one of two Honolulu hospitals (Kapiolani and Queens). At the end of the Advertiser piece, the author’s awkwardness is palpable as he tries to explain why no one knows for sure where Obama was born. The author thinks that it might be Kapiolani because it was the most recent hospital the campaign had identified. But:
While most Obama residences can be traced, the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. The desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama’s life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 — a law passed to protect medical records from public scrutiny — prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend.
I have to wonder whether the author is a staunch Obama supporter, is simply naïve, or is both. Surely he must know that historians are crashing head-on into Obama’s refusal to release any information. He must know that Obama’s signature on one form would override the privacy act. Release-of-information forms are signed every day; the act is only for those, like Obama, who wish to keep all information sealed.
The author concludes the piece by quoting a hospital official saying, “Our hands are tied.” Mr. Obama is the only one who can untie their hands. With permission, the hospitals could confirm or deny Obama’s birth in two seconds. Without permission, the hospitals can neither confirm nor deny.
At a press conference earlier this year, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Obama’s detailed birth certificate. His response? He laughed. And he laughed some more. The room filled with journalists laughed heartily with Gibbs. The question continues to “astound” him. After all, it’s posted right there online.
As long as it’s a laughing matter, why not humor us, Mr. President? Humor us with your complete birth records, naming the hospital and physician. Humor us at least by giving your hospital of birth permission to release a simple yea or nay. Humor us with your college grades and financial records. Humor us with your Columbia thesis. Humor us with your law school records and writings.
You see, the issue is whether the White House will take serious the doubts and requests of American citizens or laugh at them. Some doubt his birthplace and/or eligibility; others doubt his transparency, and hence, his character.
Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he still looks unreasonable by not releasing basic information. Maybe he is natural-born, but has a radical ideology to hide and has been counseled to seal everything in an effort to appear consistent.
Future historians far removed from the fantasy and fear of Obama will no doubt be astounded at the Obama phenomena. But they may never know of the secrets hiding in his birth, college, and/or other records. Do it for the historians, Mr. Obama: Tear down your wall of secrecy.
Source: WND
Experts: Lawsuit could end ‘cancerous pro-jihad group’
Defendants’ ‘filing shows unambiguously the legal fraud that CAIR has engaged in’
By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 Robert Spencer |
A lawsuit by the Council on American-Islamic Relations against a father and son who conducted an undercover counter-terrorism investigation of the controversial Muslim group could backfire badly, according to several counter-terrorism experts observing the case.
As WND reported, CAIR claims P. David Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz, stole sensitive material from the group’s Washington office under false pretenses. But lawyers for the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case this week that contends CAIR has no claim because it does not legally exist.
Just two weeks after CAIR was named by the Justice Department in May 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist finance case in U.S. history, the organization changed its name to the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, explains attorney Daniel Horowitz in a 34-page brief filed in federal court in the nation’s capital.
Steven Emerson, whose counter-terrorism expertise is relied on by many members of Congress, told WND that based on Horowitz’s work, “it certainly appears that CAIR changed its name due its being named as an unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing case in Texas.
“The Horowitz filing is brilliant in establishing that CAIR does not exist legally and therefore cannot sue,” said Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
“The filing shows unambiguously the legal fraud that CAIR has engaged in.”
 Steven Emerson |
CAIR alleges that Chris Gaubatz, who served six months as an unpaid volunteer for CAIR last year, obtained access to the Muslim group’s property under false pretenses, removed internal documents and made recordings of officials and employees “without any consent or authorization and in violation of his contractual, fiduciary and other legal obligations to CAIR.”
But Horowitz, while addressing each of CAIR’s specific claims, asserts in his brief that “CAIR is not a valid entity and even if it were, the exposure of its inner workings is part of the price it pays for being a controversial group in a hotly contested arena.”
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, scholar and best-selling author of nine books on Islam and jihad, said CAIR, “once such a canny organization, continues to shoot itself in the foot.”
“In attempting damage control on the revelations Chris Gaubatz has made about the unsavory inner workings of the organization, they’ve now caused to be made public the fact that they’re under FBI investigation, and now face a direct challenge to their very existence,” he told WND.
Spencer said it’s “long past time that this cancerous pro-jihad group be shut down, and David and Chris Gaubatz are to be applauded for making that a genuine possibility.”
 Daniel Pipes |
The FBI stepped into the case Nov. 23 with a warrant to examine the papers and recordings, apparently as part of its concern about CAIR and its terrorist links to Hamas.
The bureau cut off ties to CAIR in January in response to the Islamic group being named an unindicted terror co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank, told WND that if the precedent Horowitz presents in his motion is applicable – the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 decision affirming the New York Times’ right to publish the Pentagon Papers – “then CAIR’s attempt to stifle the release of this cache of materials will probably backfire by leading to greater interest in the inner workings of this ‘terrorist-supporting front organization.’”
Pipes said, however, he doesn’t believe the case is “crucial to CAIR’s future.”
“The decisive event for it will likely either be a criminal indictment or an expose by a leading newspaper or television channel,” he said.
Horowitz says if CAIR responds to his brief by filing an amendment to change its registered name back to Council on American Islamic-Relations, he will seek an evidentiary hearing “to establish whether there is a genuine corporate entity that is ‘CAIR’ or whether ‘CAIR’ is a moniker used to represent the activities of a ruling group that oversees (in some way) the operations of other CAIR-related groups.”
 |
The reply to CAIR also contends the Gaubatzes’ actions to expose the group are protected by the First Amendment.
A federal judge in Washington issued a restraining order Nov. 3 barring the Gaubtazes from further use or publication of the material – 12,000 pages of documents along with audio and video recordings – and demanding that they return it to the Muslim group’s lawyers.
The material is featured in the book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” published by WND Books.
The book, co-authored by David Gaubatz and “Infiltration” author Paul Sperry, asserts CAIR is acting as a front for a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate the U.S. and help pave the way for Saudi-style Islamic law to rule the nation.
IMPORTANT NOTE: WND needs your help in supporting the defense of “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris against CAIR’s ongoing legal attack. Already, the book’s revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can’t do it without your help. Please donate to WND’s Legal Defense Fund now. Thank you
Source: WND
Obama’s Christmas tree graced by Chairman Mao, transvestite
White House décor also includes president on Mount Rushmore
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The face of China’s Mao Zedong, blamed for the deaths of 50 to 80 million of his countrymen, graces an ornament on the White House Christmas tree for President Obama’s first holiday season in residence.
According to BigGovernment.com, the tree also features an ornament adding Obama to Mount Rushmore.
The images, such as the “transvestite” character “Hedda Lettuce,” are attributed to the work of Simon Doonan, creative director of Barney’s New York, whose previous projects have included Margaret Thatcher as a dominatrix and Dan Quayle as a ventriloquist’s dummy, according to the New York Times.
“Why let a holiday season come between the White House and making some political statements,” Big Government’s report asked. “These photos of ornaments on the White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room were taken just days ago. Of course, Mao has his place in the White House.”
 Chairman Mao at the White House (Photo by Big Government.com) |
The Times noted the White House’s choice of Doonan to decorate this year was confirmed by volunteers and florists who gathered to install annual displays.
The Times reported Doonan’s work in the White House “certainly … will be less controversial than Mr. Doonan’s displays for Barneys for more than two decades, which have alternatively fascinated and horrified holiday shoppers.”
The report said previous holiday themes have included Andy Warhol and Sigmund Freud.
“And, so soon after collecting the Nobel Peace Prize, why wouldn’t the White House have an ornament superimposing President Obama onto Mt. Rushmore,” said Big Government’s “Capitol Confidential” column.
 Obama as part of Mount Rushmore (Photo by Big Government.com) |
Why have Americans come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents’ generation? Get David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil” at the WND Superstore.
On the website’s forum page, one participant commented, “It’s a ‘Holiday Tree’ not a Christmas tree. These people don’t have any real morals so they might as well score some points with the moonbats.”
The report follows a commentary from legendary martial arts champion, actor and WorldNetDaily columnist Chuck Norris on Obama’s penchant for rejecting Christianity and its symbols.
Norris wrote in his recent WND column that Obama has “sarcastically belittled America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist.”
He cited statements by Obama, including, “Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” and “The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn’t survive its application.”
 ‘Transvestite’ Hedda Lettuce (Photo by Big Government.com) |
Obama also declared publicly in Turkey last April, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”
Norris wrote, “President Obama has enabled an anti-Christian agenda unlike any former president by revising America’s religious history, minimizing the role of religion today, passing secular-progressive legislation and turning a blind eye to issues like atheists’ lawsuit to remove the national motto (‘In God We Trust’) off of the walls of the new Capitol Visitors Center in Washington, D.C., or the ACLU’s disposal of Veteran memorial crosses in the Mojave Desert and at Mount Soledad.
“Every time President Obama has had an opportunity to stand for Christianity in any way, he has not only denied it but disdained it,” he said.
Source: Red State
Making the Death Panels Permanent
Posted by Erick Erickson
There are always, when some of us on the right blow up an issue like Harry Reid’s rules changes, some people who say we’re overreacting.
I have to say I think they miss the point.
First, I do agree with Gabriel Malor that “a quick glance at the Library of Congress website and Google shows that language similar to that used here to except these provisions from the Standing Rules has been used dozens of times in the past thirty years in both the Senate and the House, including in the 109th Congress when Republicans controlled both chambers.”
Second, I do agree the GOP has done thing, including with Medicare Part D.
But, in most all of the cases, though not all including Medicare Part D, the Senate first went through a procedural vote requiring a two-thirds vote in recognition that there would be a change of Senate Rules.
In several of the cases, including Medicare Part D, when that two-thirds vote did not first happen, the 51 person vote went forward without an objection being raised by the Democrats on that point.
Here is where I think the people saying we’re overreacting are totally missing the point.
In the case at hand, an objection was raised and very clearly the rules were being changed. The Senate President, however, ruled that the rules were not being changed, just procedure, despite the clear wording of the change being a rules change.
This is, in fact, done in contravention to Senate procedure.
But here is what everyone saying this is no big deal is missing: to my knowledge and the knowledge of those who I have consulted with on this issue, there has never been any legislation passed by the Congress with a prohibition on future Senates considering changes to previously enacted laws or regulations.
We can argue over whether or not this would be upheld, but given the refusal of the Senate GOP Leadership to fight now, we can wonder if they would fight on this in the future.
Likewise, what exactly is Harry Reid trying to prevent future Senates from repealing? Bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Death Panels. So, for example, though the Death Panels are prohibited by statute from passing “rationing” regulations, under the definitions, the panels can pass regulations setting priorities for treatment. So, they can say a 40 year old must get treatment for the same condition suffered by a 70 year old before the 70 year old can get treatment, thereby letting the 70 year old whither and die waiting for their turn.
And Harry Reid intends for the Senate, in perpetuity, to be prohibited from every changing that regulation without a super-majority of the Senate agreeing to ignore that prohibition.
Lastly, why in God’s name would the Senate Majority Leader want to make the Death Panel regulations the only thing in the Obamacare legislation that is not subject to amendment, repeal, or change by the United States Senate?!
We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare
Source: Red State
We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare
The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels
If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”
It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.
On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:
DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”
The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.
Senator DeMint responded:
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.
To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.
UPDATED: A number of people on our side are saying I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue. I hope they and you, after reading this, will read this response to that criticism.
For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.
————————————————————————————-7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senator from south carolina.
DEMINT
mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
without objection.
DEMINT
parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it does.
DEMINT
further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that would require a two-thirds vote.
DEMINT
i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions
and rules changes?
i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because
there were rules changes included in them?
7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
DEMINT
okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced
under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding
rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the
bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to
this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate
rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
DEMINT
okay. mr. president –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it is quite common to do that.
DEMINT
i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that
it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.
7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
7:41 PM
DEMINT
is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
yes.
DEMINT
and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that is correct.
DEMINT
then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
Hizb ut-Tahrir America Says “Dhimmi” Schools Permitted for Jews, But Nothing Like Today’s Schools
Hizb ut-Tahrir America Says “Dhimmi” Schools Permitted for Jews, But Nothing Like Today’s Schools
Islamic supremacist group Hizb ut-Tahrir America allows that “Dhimmi” Jews are permitted to have schools, but “it has nothing to do with schools as we know them today.” The term “Dhimmi” is a term of a non-Muslim group living in willing servitude under Islamic supremacist masters, known as “Dhimmitude.”
Hizb ut-Tahrir America’s report on “Dhimmi’s and Schools”
“Q4. It is recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari, in The Book of Al-Jizyah, in the chapter of expelling the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula, narrated by Abu Hurairah (ra) who said: ‘While we were in the Masjid, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came out and said: ‘Set forth to the Jews,’ so we set out until we reached Bayt Al-Madraas (a building where the Jews taught the Torah), then he صلى الله عليه وسلم said to them, ‘Become Muslim, and you are safe, and know that this land belongs to Allah and His Messenger. I wish to expel you from this land, so whoever (wants to sell some of their precious belongings), then he should do so, otherwise know that this land belongs to Allah and His Messenger’. ”
“This Hadith has confused us. We see from the Hadith that the Jews had their own schools, so some of us understood that this is only related to the Jews that were isolated, such as Bani Quraydha or Khaybar, where it is not a problem that they have their own schools. But some of us derived that it is more accurate that these were Dhimmi’s (Ahl Al-dhimma) from those left over after the events of Bani Quraydha and Khaybar, which means that it is permitted to allow private schools for Dhimmi’s and this is the problem! Please clarify this matter.”
Answer:
“The subject of Al-Madraas”
“You strayed into the topic of whether this is related to Dhimmi’s or the Jews, which led you to become confused about the Hukum of whether or not they were Dhimmi’s, linking this to the permissibility of allowing private schools for Dhimmi’s.”
“The matter is simpler than that. The matter is not related to schools, but rather is related to permitting Dhimmi’s to teach their religions. The word “Al-Madraas” is an attachment to their place of worship, where they teach their Torah and scriptures, and it is permitted for the Dhimmi’s to teach their religions amongst themselves. This is different from schools as we know them today.”
“To clarify the matter, it was stated in Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet that the word “Madraas” has two meanings: The first meaning is a place where Jews read their Torah. The second meaning is a place where they gather for their celebrations to eat and drink.”
“It was also stated in Lisaan Al-Arab that the word has two meanings: The first meaning is a place where they gather for their celebrations to pray in. The second meaning is a day where they eat and drink.”
“So you can see that a Madraas is no more than an attachment to their places of worship, where they teach their religion amongst themselves, or it is a day on which they eat and drink (such as celebration for them) or something similar. In either case, it has nothing to do with schools as we know them today.”
R.E.A.L. Postings referencing Hizb ut-Tahrir
Source: WND
Israel, Arab countries plan for war with Iran
Secret talks held to discuss how to respond to retaliatory attacks
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 Tehran |
TEL AVIV – Intelligence officials from Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the U.S. held a meeting last week to discuss specific responses to Iranian retaliatory attacks during a potential war with Tehran, WND has learned.
A senior Egyptian intelligence official told WND the main talks, which took place in Amman, revolved around the possibility of Iranian-directed Palestinian and Islamic attacks against Israel, Egypt and Jordan during a possible future war with Iran.
The official said scenarios discussed revolved only around Iranian retaliatory attacks and did not take into account how any future war with Iran would be initiated or the timing of such a war.
The official said the concern was that Iran would use proxies such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip to attack both Egypt and Israel, while Hezbollah in Lebanon would launch missiles at Israeli population centers, including Tel Aviv.
Also, there is fear militants inside Jordan allied with the Muslim Brotherhood could attack Jordanian interests.
Hamas in Gaza is said to have rockets capable of reaching just outside Tel Aviv, while Hezbollah possesses Iranian-supplied missiles and rockets that can reach most Israeli population centers.
Egypt granted Israel permission several months ago to conduct naval exercises off Egyptian coastal waters. The military drills clearly were aimed at Iran.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are influenced by Sunni Islam. The Arab countries are threatened by the growing influence of Iran, dominated by Shiite Islam.
In September, Saudi Arabia denied it offered the Israel Air Force permission to fly over its territory to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
The Arab country was responding to a report in London’s Sunday Express claiming the Saudis had agreed to turn a blind eye and not interfere should Israel and the U.S. attack Iranian nuclear facilities through Saudi air space. The Saudi government called the Express report baseless.
Just before the Express report, WND quoted an Egyptian intelligence official stating Saudi Arabia is cooperating with Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue.
The official said Saudi Arabia is passing intelligence information to Israel related to Iran. He affirmed a report from the Arab media, strongly denied by the Israeli government, that Saudi Arabia has granted Israel overflight permission during any attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The official previously told WND that Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, has been involved in an intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying effort urging the U.S. and other Western countries to do everything necessary to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Such weapons would threaten Saudi Arabia’s position of influence in the Middle East.
The Egyptian official said his country believes it is not likely Obama will grant Israel permission to attack Iran.
He previously spoke about the efforts of other Arab countries to oppose an Iranian nuclear umbrella but did not comment on Egypt’s own position on the matter.
Source: WND
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
‘In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency’
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.
 Larry Klayman |
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.
Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit charges that in Obama’s “haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally,” he has “violated his commitment to transparency.”
“It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation,” Klayman said.
Klayman contends the president’s conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which “requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends.”
As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the “West Wing” character Harry Klaypool.
Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation’s capital, telling CNN’s Lou Dobbs, “I’ve never seen it like this.”
Klayman’s new case targets “the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government.”
“Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written,” he said.
Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.
His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.
“Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president’s Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights,” Klayman said..
“Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free,” he said.
Klayman’s letter said, “It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind ‘closed doors,’ lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.
Klayman said the conduct “falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,” because “these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law.”
Noting that Obama’s plans would involve “one seventh of the nation’s GDP,” Klayman said he was demanding “on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.
“Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law,” he said.
The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.
At the Washington Whispers column at U.S. News & World Report, Klayman’s earlier work was cited.
“Larry Klayman made a name for himself investigating backroom deals in the Clinton and Bush administrations, like Bubba’s Chinagate fundraising scandal and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. Now it’s president Obama’s turn to face Klayman and his latest public-interest group, Freedom Watch,” the column said.
 |
Klayman said his stories of government corruption were not embraced by mainstream publishers. HarperCollins originally had agreed to publish his book – a nonpartisan view of why the current political climate is so unscrupulous – but shelved it because it was considered “too hot to handle,” he said.
“I have never engaged in the services of a prostitute, but I have encountered a lot of whores in my career – people and interests that will sell out their nation, if not their family, for money, power and fame,” writes Klayman. “Unfortunately, such people exist at the highest level of all three branches of government, as well as in the media.”
Piero Rivolta, publisher of New Chapter, an internationally-known businessman and author, said he took on the book because he believes freedom is not only a right but a duty.
“In these trying times, we need to encourage candid and creative thought for the good of the nation,” he said. “I believe that ‘WHORES’ is the kind of cutting-edge book that will wake people up, provoke important thought and dialogue.”
Eric Kampmann, president of Midpoint Trade Books, the national distributor for “WHORES,” said Klayman’s expose of corruption comes at just the right time, with confidence in Washington plummeting.
Source: Michelle Malkin
Cash for Cloture: Demcare bribe list, Pt. II
A month ago, I compiled Part I of the Demcare bribe list as Harry Reid rushed before Thanksgiving to secure his first cloture vote on the government health care takeover. (Quick re-cap: $300 million Louisiana Purchase for Landrieu; $300 million California doctor payments; AARP goodies; abortion and union lobby concessions.)
Here’s Part II of the Cash for Cloture bribe list all in one handy place (hat tip again to my friend ChristinaKB for the apt phrase she first coined on November 21 for the Demcare wheeling and dealing).
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell alluded to all this backroom dealing on the floor early this morning before the cloture vote, but lamely refused to name names on the Senate floor.
Screw Senate collegiality. Let the sun shine in.
1. Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback.” The CBO says the Nebraska Democrat sellout’s special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million. The Hill reports that while Nelson credited Nebraska’s governor for giving him the idea to lobby for the government preference, Nebraska’s governor assailed the payoff:
“Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal,” Heineman said in a statement Sunday. In response, Nelson fired off a letter Sunday to Heineman saying he’s prepared to ask that the provision covering Nebraska’s Medicaid share “be removed from the amendment in conference, if it is your desire.”
2. New England’s Special Syrup. Vermont and Massachusetts will get similar (though less generous) special treatment by the feds in covering Medicaid expansion costs. Combined with Nebraska’s tab, the exclusive clique’s payoffs will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years. At least.
3. Corruptocrat Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd’s Christmas wish: Hospital helper. He’s plunging in the polls and in need of a little bacon to bring home.
A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night. The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut. The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. …The one sought by Dodd provides $100 million for “a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services.” It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States “that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” The money can cover a maximum of 40 percent of the facility’s construction costs.
4. “Some insurers are more equal than others” tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben “Blank Check” Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.
5. The Frontier freebie. Several lucky states will see an increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, the NYT reports, — “where at least 50 percent of the counties are ‘frontier counties,’ defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile. And which are the lucky states? The bill gives no clue. But the Congressional Budget Office has determined that Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming meet the criteria.”
6. More Democrat hospital bennies. Also via NYT: “Another provision of the bill would increase Medicare payments to certain “low-volume hospitals” treating limited numbers of Medicare patients. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate health committee, said this ‘important fix’ would help midsize Iowa hospitals in Grinnell, Keokuk and Spirit Lake. Another item in Mr. Reid’s package specifies the data that Medicare officials should use in adjusting payments to hospitals to reflect local wage levels. The officials can use certain new data only if it produces a higher index and therefore higher Medicare payments for these hospitals. Senate Democrats said this provision would benefit hospitals in Connecticut and Michigan.”
7. Bernie Sanders’ socialized medicine sop. He wanted a public option. Instead, he got socialized medicine satellite clinics funded to the tune of at least $10 billion. In his remarks early this morning before the cloture vote, he gloated about the funding as a crucial step toward universal care. Via the Burlington Free Press:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scored a big victory, too, with the inclusion in the amendment package of $10 billion to expand community health centers across the country — including at least two more in Vermont.
“We are talking about a revolution in primary care here,” Sanders said. Funding community health centers in an additional 10,000 communities would extend primary care to 25 million more Americans. The $10 billion, added at Sanders’ request, would also ensure there would be medical professionals to provide primary care by expanding the National Health Service Corps by an additional 20,000 slots. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans. The House version of the health care reform bill contains $14 billion for these initiatives. Sanders said he was hopeful the final amount, which will be hammered out in negotiations between the House and Senate, would be closer to $14 billion.
Vermont has 8 community health centers and 40 satellite offices. “New funding would make it likely centers could be opened in Addison and Bennington counties,” Sanders’ home state paper reports.
8. Fla.-Pa.-NY Protectionism. Via Politico: “Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.”
And you know there are many more untold payoffs — paid by stealing your money — yet to be stuffed into this bureaucratic monstrosity.
To quote our Chicago Way President: “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”
Source: NRLC
The Reid Bill contains important elements that would greatly impact the ability of patients to receive unrationed medical care. These elements, combined with inadequate funding – a scheme of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” wherein half of the funding comes from cuts in Medicare spending, would result in rationing life-saving treatment for senior citizens.
Limiting Senior Citizens’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives
Limiting Exchange Users’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives
“Shared Decisionmaking” – Advance Care Planning By Another Name?
The Medicare Commission
Assisted Suicide Funding?
The Secretary and Quality Discretion
Notes
Limiting Senior Citizens’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives
The Reid bill duplicates the House bill provision that would effectively allow federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment.
Medicare—the government program that provides health insurance to older people in the United States—faces grave fiscal problems as the baby boom generation ages. Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, which means that those now working are paying for the health care of those now retired. As the baby boom generation moves from middle into old age, the proportion of the retired population will increase, while the proportion of the working population will decrease. The consequence is that the amount of money available for each Medicare beneficiary, when adjusted for health care inflation, will shrink.
Three alternatives exist.
In theory, taxes could be increased dramatically to make up the shortfall – an unlikely and politically difficult proposition. The second alternative—to put it bluntly but accurately—is rationing. Less money available per senior citizen would mean less treatment, including less of the treatments necessary to prevent death. For want of treatment, many people whose lives could have been saved by medical treatment would perish against their will. The third alternative is that, as the government contribution decreases, the shortfall could be made up by payments from older people themselves, so that their Medicare health insurance premium could voluntarily be financed partly by the government and partly from their own income and savings.
What most people do not realize is that, as a result of legislative changes in 1997 and 2003 undertaken at the instance of the National Right to Life Committee, this third alternative is now law. Under the title of “private fee-for-service plans,” there is an option in Medicare under which senior citizens can choose health insurance whose value is not limited by what the government may pay toward it. These plans can set premiums and reimbursement rates for providers without upward limits imposed by government regulation.
This means that such plans will not be forced to ration treatment, as long as senior citizens are free to choose to pay more for them. For more on the background of this program see here.
Medicare covers everyone of retirement age, regardless of income or assets. Yet, because of budget constraints, the Medicare reimbursement rates for health care providers tend to be below the cost of giving the care—a deficit that can only accelerate as cost pressures on Medicare increase with the retirement of the baby boomers. To cope with this, providers engage in “cost shifting” by using funds they receive in payment for treating privately insured working people to help make up for what the providers lose when treating retirees under Medicare. Thus, comparatively low-income workers often effectively subsidize higher-income retirees.
However, when middle-income retirees are free voluntarily to add their own money on top of the government contribution, through a private fee-for-service plan, they stop being the beneficiaries of cost-shifting and become contributors to it.
This program faces potential elimination under the Reid substitute. Section 3209 indirectly amends the section in existing law allowing private fee-for-service plans to set their premiums without approval by CMS by adding, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.” [1] This allows CMS to refuse to allow private-fee-for-service plans that charge what CMS regards as premiums that are too high – or, literally, allows CMS to refuse to allow private-fee-for-service plans (or any other MA plans) altogether, for any reason or no reason.
With this dangerous provision in the Reid bill could lead to elimination of the only way that seniors have to escape rationing – taking away their right to spend their own money to save their own lives.
Limiting Exchange Users’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives
In the Reid Substitute, a new provision –Section 1003 — will effectively allow state bureaucrats to limit the right of Americans who are NOT on Medicare to use their own money to save their own lives.[2] With minor modifications, Section 1003 adopts the House bill provision allowing an exchange to exclude “particular health insurance issuers … based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.”[3]
Originally, state-based “exchanges” were designed to allow comparison shopping among all insurance plans that provided the basic benefits. Under Section 1003, however, exchanges would be authorized, in effect, to limit the value of the insurance policies that Americans using the exchanges may purchase.
Not only will the exchanges be allowed to exclude policies when government authorities do not agree with the premiums, but they will be able to look at any increases plans charge, outside the exchange – and remove those insurers from the exchange. This would create a “chilling effect,” deterring insurers who hope to be able to compete within the exchange from offering adequately funded plans even outside of it, limiting consumers’ access to adequate and unrationed health care.
When the government limits by law what can be charged for health insurance, it limits what people are allowed to pay for medical treatment. While everyone would prefer to pay less – or nothing – for health care (as for anything else), government price controls in fact prevent access to lifesaving medical treatment that costs more to supply than the price set by the government.
Under a scheme of premium price controls, health insurance companies will ration lifesaving medical treatment as they are squeezed more and more tightly each year by the declining “real” (that is, adjusted for health care inflation ) value of the premiums they take in. These day-to-day rationing decisions will have the most direct and visible impact on the lives – and deaths – of people with a poor “quality of life.”
“Shared Decisionmaking” – Advance Care Planning By Another Name?
The Reid bill does not include provisions paralleling those in the House bill designed to create incentives for “advance care planning.”[4] Instead, Section 3506 provides funding to develop “patient decision aids” that are supposed to help “patients, caregivers or authorized representatives . . . to decide with their health care provider what treatments are best for them based on their treatment options, scientific evidence, circumstances, beliefs, and preferences.”
Under the Reid bill, the Department of Health and Human Services would contract with an “entity” that is to “develop and identify consensus-based standards to evaluate patient decision aids for preference sensitive care . . . and develop a certification process” for these “patient decision aids.” [6] Additional grants and contracts would be awarded to develop such “patient decision aids” which are to include “relative cost of treatment or, where appropriate, palliative care options” and to “educate providers on the use of such materials, including through academic curricula.”[7] Money would be awarded to establish “Shared Decisionmaking Resource Centers . . . to provide technical assistance to providers and to develop and disseminate best practices . . .”[8]
While there is language stating the materials are to be “balanced” to help patients and their representatives “understand and communicate their beliefs and preferences related to their treatment options,”[9] the concern, is the same as that with the promotion of advance care planning: Given the strong views many in the medical community have about poor quality of life and the considerable emphasis on saving costs, these measures will in fact subtly or otherwise “nudge” in the direction of rejecting costly life-saving treatment
The Reid bill provides for an “Independent Medicare Advisory Board,” given the task of ensuring senior’s Medicare meets budget goals (that will tighten each year).
For fiscal years 2015 through 2019, the bill sets a target rate of growth for Medicare midway between medical inflation and average inflation; for subsequent years the target is the growth in Gross Domestic Product per capita plus 1%.[10]
To the extent the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) project that Medicare growth rates would exceed these targets, the Board would have to act to reduce the gap by specified percentages varying by year. This gap-reducing would likely come at the expense of reduction of Medicare Advantage benefits, and reductions in payments to doctors and so forth.
The Congressional Budget Office notes, “The provision would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits, so its recommendations probably would focus on [r]eductions in subsidies for non-Medicare benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans; and [c]hanges to payment rates or methodologies for services furnished in the fee-for-service sector by providers other than hospitals [but hospitals would be included beginning in 2020], physicians, hospices [but hospices would be included beginning in 2020], and suppliers of durable medical equipment that is offered through competitive bidding.[11]
The recommendations of the Board would automatically go into effect unless Congress, through an expedited procedure, adopted another means resulting in the same reductions; to waive this would require a 3/5 vote. It would also require a 3/5 vote to repeal or amend the provisions of the Reid bill establishing the Board and its duties and authority; in 2017 there would be an expedited procedure essentially guaranteeing a vote on a proposal to repeal the Board, but this vote would require 3/5 of each House to pass.
On assisted suicide, the language agreed to unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee that specifically said that federal dollars “shall not pay for or reimburse” any health entity for assisted suicide does NOT appear in the Reid bill. The Reid bill only retains the provision preventing discrimination against those who refuse to participate in assisting suicide.[12]
Why was the prohibition on funding assisted suicide stripped? The argument may be it is “unnecessary” because the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (ASFRA) bars such funding by any “funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of paying (directly or indirectly) for the provision of health care services ,”[42 U.S.C. Sec. 14402(a)] and it states, “The provisions of this Act supersede other Federal laws (including laws enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act [enacted April 30, 1997]) except to the extent such laws specifically supersede the provisions of this Act.” [13]
However, the provision was adopted unanimously in the Finance committee, emphatically affirming federal policy of no funding for assisted suicide, and removes any danger that some administrator or court might say the broad benefit mandates in the health care bill repealed the ASFRA limits by implication. What possible purpose was served by stripping it out?
The Secretary and Quality Discretion
There is language in the Reid bill that protects against discriminatory use of comparative effectiveness research on the basis of age, disability or terminal illness.[14] However, this important language has not been made applicable to the multiple provisions under which the Secretary can impose “quality” measures. [15]
Section 1559 [16] states that on the basis of race, age, sex or disability, [17] “an individual shall not . . . be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under,” health programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Perhaps ominously, however, this anti-discrimination language is preceded by “Except as otherwise provided for in this title (or an amendment made by this title) . . . .” That is why it is critical to apply the anti-discrimination language from the Comparative Effectiveness provisions to the indicated provisions in note 15.
[1] At page 920
[2] Section 1003 creates a new Section 2794 of the Public Health Service Act (pp. 37-40).
[3] Ironically, Section 1311(e)(B)(ii) (p.143) retains the provision, added in the HELP committee, barring an exchange from excluding health plans “through the imposition of premium price controls.” Presumably the two provisions would be construed together to prevent the imposition of specific, explicit premium price control while allowing exclusion of insurers whose premiums the exchange deems to have a “pattern or practice” of being too high.
In addition, Section 1001, creating Section 2718(b) of the Public Health Service Act (pp. 31-32), mandates that group plans spend no more than 20%, and individual plans no more than 25% of their premium revenue on non-claims costs, limiting what can be used for administration, marketing, and profit. (The individual plan percentage may be increased in a state if the HHS Secretary determines that it would “destabilize” the individual market there.)
[4] Note: The Reid bill provides for encouraging minors in foster care to prepare advance directives- in the same manner as the house bill.
[5] Sec. 3506, pp. 1105 -13
[6] At p. 1108
[7] At p. 1110
[8] At p. 1110
[9] At p. 1109
[10] Section 3403, beginning on page 1000.
[11] Letter from Douglas Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (November 18, 2009), p. 11.
[12]Section 1553, p. 364.
[13] 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14408.
[14] Section 6301( c) of the bill [adding Section 1182 ( c), (d) and (e)] to the Social Security Act), pp. 1685-87.
[15] Places in the Reid bill where anti-discrimination language would be necessary
(a) Those described in Section 1890(b)(7) (B)(i) of the Social Security Act; [p. 710]
(b) Any quality measure developed, and, in its improved, updated, or expanded form, any quality measure improved, updated, or expanded under subsection ( c) ; [pp. 703-707]
(c) Strategy under Section 1311(g)(1); [p. 146]
(d) Guidelines under Section 1311(g)(2); [p. 147]
(e) Regulations under Section 1311(h)(1)(B); [p. 148]
(f) The Secretarys application of recommendations under Section 1323(d)(3); [p. 193]
(g) Requirements developed under Section 2717(a) of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act; [pp. 26-27]
(h) Measures under Section 3006(a)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(A); [pp. 676, 679]
(i) Appropriateness criteria under Section 1115A(b)(2)(B)(vi) of the Social Security Act; [p. 727]
(j) Guidelines under Section 1115A(b)(2)(B)(xii) of the Social Security Act; [p. 729]
(k) Best practices and proven care methods under Section 1115A(b)(2)(B)(xv) of the Social Security Act; and
(l) The measurement of patient-level outcomes and patient-centeredness criteria under Section 1115A(b)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act. [p. 734]
[16] At. p. 368
[17] Referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (age), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of1973 (disability) [“handicap”].
Source: STRATFOR
By George Friedman
A small number of Iranian troops entered Iraq, where they took control of an oil well and raised the Iranian flag Dec. 18. The Iranian-Iraqi border in this region is poorly defined and is contested, with the Iranians claiming this well is in Iranian territory not returned after the Iran-Iraq War. Such incidents have occurred in the past. Given that there were no casualties this time, it therefore would be easy to dismiss this incident, even though at about the same time an Iranian official claimed that Iraq owes Iran about $1 trillion in reparations for starting the Iran-Iraq War.
But what would be fairly trivial at another time and place is not trivial now.
Sending a Message With an Incursion
Multiple sources have reported that Tehran ordered the incident. The Iranian government is aware that Washington has said the end of 2009 was to be the deadline for taking action against Iran over its nuclear program — and that according to a White House source, the United States could extend that deadline to Jan. 15, 2010.
That postponement makes an important point. The United States has treated the Iran crisis as something that will be handled on an American timeline. The way that the Obama administration handled the Afghanistan strategy review suggests it assumes that Washington controls the tempo of events sufficiently that it can make decisions carefully, deliberately and with due reflection. If true, that would mean that adversaries like Iran are purely on the defensive, and either have no counter to American moves or cannot counter the United States until after Washington makes its next move.
For Iran, just to accept that premise puts it at an obvious disadvantage. First, Tehran would have to demonstrate that the tempo of events is not simply in American or Israeli hands. Second, Tehran would have to remind the United States and Israel that Iran has options that it might use regardless of whether the United States chooses sanctions or war. Most important, Iran must show that whatever these options are, they can occur before the United States acts — that Iran has axes of its own, and may not wait for the U.S. axe to fall.
The incursion was shaped to make this point without forcing the United States into precipitous action. The location was politically ambiguous. The force was small. Casualties were avoided. At the same time, it was an action that snapped a lot of people to attention. Oil prices climbed. Baghdad and Washington scrambled to try to figure what was going on, and for a while Washington was clearly at a loss, driving home the fact that the United States doesn’t always respond quickly and efficiently to surprises initiated by the other side.
The event eventually died down, and the Iranians went out of their way to minimize its importance. But two points nevertheless were made. The first was that Iran might not wait for Washington to consider all possible scenarios. The second was that the Iranians know how to raise oil prices. And with that lesson, they reminded the Americans that the Iranians have a degree of control over the economic recovery in the United States.
There has never been any doubt that Iran has options in the event that the United States chooses to strike. Significantly, the Iranians now have driven home that they might initiate a conflict if they assume conflict is inevitable.
U.S. and Iranian Options
Iran’s problem becomes clear when we consider Tehran’s options. These options fall into three groups:
- Interdicting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf through the use of mines and anti-ship missiles. This would result in a dramatic increase in world oil prices on the Iranian attempt alone and could keep them high if Tehran’s efforts succeeded. The impact on the global economy would be substantial.
- Causing massive destabilization in Iraq. The Iranians retain allies and agents in Iraq, which has been experiencing increased violence and destabilization over the past months. As the violence increases and the Americans leave, a close relationship with Iran might be increasingly attractive to Iraqi troops. Given the deployment of American troops, direct attacks in Iraq by Iranian forces are not out of the question. Even if ultimately repulsed, such Iranian incursions could further destabilize Iraq. This would force the Obama administration to reconsider the U.S. withdrawal timetable, potentially affecting Afghanistan.
- Use Hezbollah to initiate a conflict with Israel, and as a global tool for terrorist attacks on American and allied targets. Hezbollah is far more sophisticated and effective than al Qaeda was at its height, and would be a formidable threat should Iran choose — and Hezbollah agree — to play this role.
When we look at the three Iranian options, it is clear that the United States would not be able to confine any action against Iran to airstrikes. The United States is extremely good at air campaigns, while it is weak at counterinsurgency. It has massive resources in the region to throw into an air campaign and it can bring more in using carrier strike groups.
But even before hitting Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Americans would have to consider the potential Iranian responses. Washington would have to take three steps. First, Iranian anti-ship missiles and surface vessels — and these vessels could be very small but still able to carry out mine warfare — on the Iranian littoral would have to be destroyed. Second, large formations of Iranian troops along the Iraqi border would have to be attacked, and Iranian assets in Iraq at the very least disrupted. Finally, covert actions against Hezbollah assets — particularly assets outside Lebanon — would have to be neutralized to the extent possible.
This would require massive, coordinated attacks, primarily using airpower and covert forces in a very tight sequence prior to any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Without this, Iran would be in a position to launch the attacks outlined above in response to strikes on its nuclear facilities. Given the nature of the Iranian responses, particularly the mining of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, the operations could be carried out quickly and with potentially devastating results to the global economy.
From the Iranian standpoint, Tehran faces a “use-it-or-lose-it” scenario. It cannot wait until the United States initiates hostilities. The worst-case scenario for Iran is waiting for Washington to initiate the conflict.
At the same time, the very complexity of an Iranian attack makes the United States want to think long and hard before attacking Iran. The opportunities for failure are substantial, no matter how well the attack is planned. And the United States can’t allow Israel to start a conflict with Iran alone because Israel lacks the resources to deal with a subsequent Iranian naval interdiction and disruptions in Iraq.
It follows that the United States is interested in a nonmilitary solution to the problem. The ideal solution would be sanctions on gasoline. The United States wants to take as much time as needed to get China and Russia committed to such sanctions.
Iranian Pre-emption
The Iranians signaled last week that they might not choose to be passive if effective sanctions were put in place. Sanctions on gasoline would in fact cripple Iran, so like Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, the option of capitulating to sanctions might be viewed as more risky than a pre-emptive strike. And if sanctions didn’t work, the Iranians would have to assume a military attack is coming next. Since the Iranians wouldn’t know when it would happen, and their retaliatory options might disappear in the first phase of the military operation, they would need to act before such an attack.
The problem is that the Iranians won’t know precisely when that attack will take place. The United States and Israel have long discussed a redline in Iranian nuclear development, which if approached would force an attack on Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Logically, Iran would seem to have a redline as well, equally poorly designed. At the point when it becomes clear that sanctions are threatening regime survival or that military action is inevitable, Iran must act first, using its military assets before it loses them.
Iran cannot live with either effective sanctions or the type of campaign that the United States would have to launch to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. The United States can’t live with the consequences of Iranian counteractions to an attack. Even if sanctions were possible, they would leave Iran with the option to do precisely those things Washington cannot tolerate. Therefore, whether the diplomatic or military route is followed, each side has two options. First, the Americans can accept Iran as a nuclear power, or Iran can accept that it must give up its nuclear ambitions. Second, assuming that neither side accepts the first option, each side must take military action before the other side does. The Americans must neutralize counters before the Iranians deploy them. The Iranians must deploy their counters before they are destroyed.
The United States and Iran are both playing for time. Neither side wants to change its position on the nuclear question, although each hopes the other will give in. Moreover, neither side is really confident in its military options. The Americans are not certain that they can both destroy the nuclear facilities and Iranian counters — and if the counters are effective, their consequences could be devastating. The Iranians are not certain that their counters will work effectively, and once failure is established, the Iranians will be wide open for devastating attack. Each side assumes the other understands the risks and will accept the other’s terms for a settlement.
And so each waits, hoping the other side will back down. The events of the past week were designed to show the Americans that Iran is not prepared to back down. More important, they were designed to show that the Iranians also have a redline, that it is as fuzzy as the American redline and that the Americans should be very careful in how far they press, as they might suddenly wake up one morning with their hands full.
The Iranian move is deliberately designed to rattle U.S. President Barack Obama. He has shown a decision-making style that assumes that he is not under time pressure to make decisions. It is not clear to anyone what his decision-making style in a crisis will look like. Though not a prime consideration from the Iranian point of view, putting Obama in a position where he is psychologically unprepared for decisions in the timeframe they need to be made in is certainly an added benefit. Iran, of course, doesn’t know how effectively he might respond, but his approach to Afghanistan gives them another incentive to act sooner than later.
There are some parallels here to the nuclear warfare theory, in which each side faces mutual assured destruction. The problem here is that each side does not face destruction, but pain. And here, pre-emptive strikes are not guaranteed to produce anything. It is the vast unknowns that make this affair so dangerous, and at any moment, one side or the other might decide they can wait no longer.
Hat Tip: Mari Ana
the Glenn Beck program
I was fortunate enough to see and listen to Skip Ewing play, and was invited to go on stage to meet Skip at the first concert I ever watched with Skip Ewing playing and singing. Skip Ewing is a very talented musician and songwriter, who has written many hit songs in his lifetime for others as well as his own. This is a very, very good cause and is going to help a beautiful young lady named Juliana Wetmore. Please give a listen to the great song written by Skip that was influenced by him coming to know Juliana. A very inspiring story from a very inspiring musician. God bless Skip and all the talented musicians who came together for such a great cause. Merry Christmas. Walt
Hat tip Mari Ana
Incredible! New George S Patton speech: Iraq & modern world
Source: American Vision
by Joel McDurmon, Dec 18, 2009
Excerpts from Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice
One of the “Fallacies of Cause” I address in my book Biblical Logic is one that confuses simultaneity for causation. In other words, just because two things occur at or near the same time, someone may fallaciously assume that one caused the other. We call this Cum Hoc Propter Hoc, which is Latin for “With this, because of this.” The same exposure of folly as the After This Fallacy applies here to the With This Fallacy: a myriad of possible causes exist—many we may not even see or know of—for every given occurrence. This creates a high probability for false causes, even for events that seem to concur in time. Correlation in time cannot guarantee a causal link.
Al Gore’s False Cause
One of the concerning examples I use comes from Al Gore’s crusade against global warming. In his video An Inconvenient Truth, he uses correlational data to back his points: “If you look at a thousand years worth of temperature, and compare it to a thousand years of CO2, you can see how well they fit together.” He admits that the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature is very complicated, but states that the most important relationship is this: “when there is more Carbon Dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.” Gore, famously now, presents pictures of melted glaciers and icecaps, along with warnings of increases in hurricanes and storms, flooded port cities due to rising ocean levels, and other climate catastrophes should we not immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions and our use of hydrocarbons (a scare-tactic, or Appeal to Fear). More importantly, he correlates modern human activity with the increase in carbon dioxide levels, implying that since humans cause global warming we must take drastic measures to reduce it.
Of course, all of this abuses the “With This” correlational fallacy many times over. To begin with, CO2 is not the primary cause of the “greenhouse effect” that results in higher temperatures. At least two other factors greatly outweigh it: solar activity and another more important greenhouse gas, water vapor. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine argues in a detailed paper, “Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity … by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood.”[1] Changes in solar radiation correlate more closely and for a longer period of history with temperature changes than do Gore’s graphs of CO2. As well, “While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect.”[2]
On top of this, while global temperatures have indeed risen in recent decades, proponents of Gore’s scare-tactics rarely mention that temperatures for centuries prior cooled considerably. The current rise merely corrects the previous “Little Ice Age.” The warming trend has occurred for much longer than Gore emphasizes, and has created effects that belie more of his claims:
[M]easurements show that the trend of 7 inches per century increase in sea level and the shortening trend in average glacier length both began a century before 1940, yet 84% of total annual human hydrocarbon use occurred only after 1940. Moreover, neither of these trends has accelerated during the period between 1940 and 2007, while hydrocarbon use increased 6 fold.[3]
This scientific paper, which stands behind a petition signed by over 31,000 American scientists, concludes,
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperature, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, or other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.[5]
So it seems that—despite Al Gore’s claims about having a “scientific consensus” (a fallacious Appeal to Authority)—other obvious, more relevant, and powerful causes exist to explain global temperature changes other than those claimed by Al Gore (as well as the United Nations and those who follow it). Al’s An Inconvenient Truth contains little more than one big craftily presented With This Because of This Fallacy (packaged with a few other fallacies).
So why would Gore and others present the story this way? Note how he and other liberals intend to “solve” the problem: they propose a tax on carbon emissions as well as a global system of “cap-and-trade” on hydrocarbon usage. In plain language, these measures amount to a redistribution of wealth where more prosperous people and nations that use more fuel end up paying tons of money to third-world nations that do not. “Global Warming” simply acts as a mask and a fear factor for advancing the leftist political agenda, and increasing global government control of free and prosperous nations like the United States. Global warming is not an “inconvenient truth,” it is a convenient lie.[5]
Al Gore’s Slippery Slope
The Fallacy of Slippery Slope involves the claim that if a particular action is taken it will inevitably lead to another particular and undesirable event, or series of events. The idea imagines, for example, that a person who takes a first step onto a steep slope will slide all the way to the bottom. Therefore, it argues, it is better to avoid that first step altogether. But this assumes a number of things (keeping with the metaphor): 1) that the slope actually exists; 2) that the slope is steep enough to cause someone to slip; 3) that the person stepping has not prepared some means of adequate footing, for example, special boots or ropes; and 4) that the slope actually leads exactly where the arguer claims it does. All of these assumptions, and probably more, indicate that Slippery Slope thinking is fallacious without lots of supporting qualifications.
Al Gore creates a gross Slippery Slope argument with his claims about increasing greenhouse gases in the future. The now-debunked graph that his film An Inconvenient Truth popularized earned the nickname “the hockey stick” because it shows only mild fluctuations in the amount of CO2 until the last few decades, and then drastically shoots upward—thus forming the shape of a hockey stick. Even if his graph represented the data accurately (it does not), this would still not warrant the conclusion that Gore draws from it. In order to make his rhetorical point he mounts a man-lift and elevates it several feet high. He then points to the top of a big screen where the spike on his graph goes “off the charts.” Such is the radical future we face if we do not cut CO2 emission!
Of course this unwarranted extrapolation commits classically fallacious Slippery Slope thinking. Anyone could make any kind of radical prediction like this by simply extending the last upswing or down-tick of data indefinitely. The real question remains, “Is such an extrapolation warranted?” (Remember the books DOW 30,000, DOW 36,000, and DOW 40,000, all predicting wild extrapolations for the stock market?) And still then, even if the data warrants such a speculation, it cannot prove such a speculative event will come to pass, simply because many factors could yet affect the future.
Peter corrected a reverse application of “Slippery Slope to doomsday” thinking in his day. Instead, God’s judgment did loom very near on the Jewish people as Jesus had predicted. Critics of the promised return of Christ argued that since Christ had not yet returned for sometime (probably nearing 40 years) therefore the promise was a hoax and Christ would never return. Peter relates their fallacy:
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:3–4).
Peter corrects their fallacy by reminding them who actually controls the slope of history:
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:8–9).
Like so many fallacies that people commit, the remedy lies in the fact that God reigns supreme, and His Word shall come to pass. Any human reasoning that deviates from this standard risks all manner of fallacy. Al Gore may have learned that had he not quit divinity school. Instead, he is abusing human reason hoping to further break God’s law: to steal from some nations and give to others. At least it’s easy to see through.
Endnotes:
[1] Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12:3 (Fall 2007):79. Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf (accessed February 11, 2009).
[2] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 79.
[3] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 82. Emphasis mine.
[4] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 89.
[5] See also Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007).
I like their reasoning from the post below I found on Bitch Ph.D, concerning the subject of Schumer calling a flight attendant a Bitch because he was asked to turn off his phone due to holding the plane up and the flight could not take off until he turned his cell off. This is what our society has become a self entitlement society, people like the Schumer and the majority in Washington DC have this attitude, both Republican and Democrats.
Talk about missing the point
Source: Bitch Ph.D.
posted by M. LeBlanc
Matthew Ygesias directs me to this post by Michael Wolff in which he defends Sen. Chuck Schumer’s calling a flight attendant a “bitch” for no apparent reason except she asked him to turn off his cell phone. Wolff is shockingly clueless. As Yglesias points out, it’s not just that it’s an insult, but it’s a “a pure contentless gender-slur. It’s like you’re saying “I disagree with what you’re doing and also you’re a woman which is a bad thing to be!!!!!!!!”".
Yglesias focuses on Wolff’s cluelessness about the word “bitch” and what it indicates, but the rest of his article is a train wreck, too. In trying to make the case that upper-middle-class people complaining about service employees are not displaying entitlement, he displays a shocking level of entitlement, and laughingly claims that he’s speaking for all people. He says:
Everybody knows modern life is a pitched battle between the server and the served
What? We do? Wolff is demonstrating a lot more about his own neurosis than he is making any kind of sensible commentary about the world we live in. I actually have no generalized problem with people serving me. Sometimes service employees are unfriendly, sometimes they are incompetent, very occasionally they are both. But it’s only a raging asshole that thinks that bad service has anything to do with them, or takes it as personally as Wolff seems to. He also says:
Rather, more to the point, [Schumer]’s expressing the frustration which everybody on an airplane pretty much always feels—so, logically, he should be cheered.
Again, Wolff is not speaking for me here. I feel frustration on an airplane, but mostly because the seats are too damn small. I have never, really, never had even a fleeting problem with the behavior of a flight attendant, and I’ve flown 3 or more round-trips per year since I was basically an infant.
Just a few days ago I was flying from LA back to Washington. I had a layover in Minneapolis, and I guess the airport screwed up fairly bad. We arrived on time, but our gate was occupied, and they took their sweet time reassigning us to another gate, and then we had to sit there for 15 mins while we waited for the ground crew to show up. All in all, we were about 30 minutes late, which was just enough for me to miss my flight. I was shocked at how agitated people were, and how rude to the flight attendants. I did an informal poll of the people around me, and none of them seemed to have a legitimate reason for being pissed off, beyond “I want to catch my flight.” But why? Important meeting you need to be at? Kid’s piano recital? Catching a once-a-day flight to Beijing? Nope. No one had a reason. The flight attendant was very apologetic when I told her that I was going to miss my flight. I was like “eh.” So, I waited another two hours.
Anyway, the last part of Wolff’s defense is the most ridiculous: “I believe talking back makes everybody feel better…” Ha! Actually, no, talking back makes other people uncomfortable, and makes us wish guys like you weren’t such entitled, whiny jerks.
There are three things that are disturbing about this Schumer episode. First, that despite having lived a public life of incredible privilege, that he hasn’t developed a sense of grace or humility, like I think a lot of other politicians have. Second, doesn’t he fly on an airplane, like, multiple times per week? Doesn’t he know that you have to turn off your cell phone when then plane leaves the gate? I mean, come on. Third, the fact that he used the word “Bitch.”
The ladies of this blog know something about the word “Bitch.” I was reading one of my high school journals last week, and was surprised to find that I referred to myself as a bitch all the time. It wasn’t a form of personal pride, or bragging. I was ragging on myself for being too confident, not nice enough, too demanding, too critical. Every time I would express an opinion about someone that wasn’t positive, I would write something like “God, I’m such a bitch.” My fifteen-year-old self had apparently already thoroughly internalized the notion that being anything less than perfectly sweet and accommodating was not acceptable.
And that’s what’s really going on here. Someone in comments at Yglesias’ place said “If it had been a man, he probably would have said “jerk” or “asshole” or “dick” or somesuch.”
No. That’s the point of the insult, and in fact is the point a lot of the time when men call women “bitch.” “Bitch” is a term that’s specifically used to take down women who assert authority that men determine is beyond their perceived station of woman-ness. That is, subservience. I’m certain that if the flight attendant had come over, leaned down towards Schumer, smiled, and said “I’m sorry to bother you, sir, but can you please put away your phone because the flight is taking off.” With that apologetic face, you know? But walk by and say “The whole plane is waiting for you to turn your phone off“? No, that makes you a bitch. And so if a man had done it, he wouldn’t have been a jerk or an asshole. No, he would have just been a man, exercising his authority. Maybe worthy of an eyeroll.
What’s funny is that the person Schumer said it to was fellow New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who I’m sure has had the pleasure of being called a bitch many times for exercising more than woman-appropriate authority. I’m guessing he forgot who he was talking to.
Source: Canada Free Press
Uncle Obama and his buddies have the credit and debit cards of every man woman and child in America
Uncle Obama’s Extortion Racket
By Nancy Morgan Thursday, December 17, 2009
Uncle Obama has gotten ahold of your credit card. And he’s amassing charges on it that – you – not he – are liable for. You can call the fraud line, you can call the police, you can call any politician or government agency, and they will all tell you the same thing. Shut up and pay up.
Since misery loves company, you might feel better knowing that you’re not the only one being extorted. Uncle Obama and his buddies have the credit and debit cards of every man woman and child in America. And they’re charging up a bundle. So far, each of us has a $38,000 tab that we are personally liable for. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, which by the way, isn’t melting.
Yesterday, Uncle Obama actually got the limit on your credit card increased. Yup. The House of Representatives voted to increase the overall debt limit, meaning the amount of money they can charge in your name has expanded. This, despite the fact that our national debt now exceeds the statutory debt limit that the Democrats approved last February as part of the cutely entitled Recovery Act. Which, by the way, didn’t work. But the intentions were good.
For the 7 million Americans without jobs, this is not good news. Not to worry. The media assures us folks that Uncle Obama is going to take care of everything.
Just look at all the things he’s doing for us. The House yesterday approved an additional $155 billion of our tax dollars for “shovel-ready” construction projects and money to avoid layoffs of teachers, police and other public employees. Of course the small print says that in order to get any of this money you better belong to a union or be employed by the federal government. If you’re Joe Blow or Suzy Homemaker you’re just plain out of luck.
Maybe you’ll sleep easier knowing that the one billion dollar charge on your credit card last Wednesday will go to preserving tropical forests overseas. Or that the $3 billion charge last month will help the Palestinians in their fight against Jewish ‘occupiers.’ Or that your hard earned money will soon be at work aborting babies in our nation’s capitol. After all, we must do our bit to save Mother Earth, and who are we to disagree with the experts who tell us that abortion is a kick ##### way to do this?
Whatever you do, don’t worry your head about the charges that are in the works for your almost worthless credit card. The increased energy charges on all of our bills in the coming months will probably only amount to a few thousand dollars for each of us. And they are totally necessary to keep the earth from melting. There is a consensus on this, so just can your objections.
If you start to get overwhelmed, you can cheer yourself up by watching the excellent use Uncle Obama has made of your money. Tune in to GM’s latest edgy video of The Volt dancers as they whirl and cavort in some artists’ idea of how to promote automobiles that are environmentally friendly. And if you would rather eat than support politically connected fat cats at GM and a select group of sensitive artists, then you’re probably one of those flat earthers, totally unworthy of any of Obama’s largesse.
Still worrying? Just stop right now. Uncle Obama has provided a great opportunity for any hungry American with mouths to feed. All you have to do is snitch on your tax-cheating neighbor. New legislation stipulates that you’ll be able to appropriate a larger percentage of any taxes the government recovers based on your tip. But before you turn in your former boss or neighbor, check to make sure they aren’t one of the federal employees that owe a cool $3 billion in unpaid taxes. I think they’re exempt.
For all the diehards out there that still worry about running up bills you can’t pay, take heart. Uncle Obama has assured us that if we hurry up and agree to let the government take over health care, then we won’t go bankrupt. Just make sure you don’t get sick for 3 years till it kicks in.
For all the ‘deniers’ out there, just quit worrying about all the unauthorized charges Uncle Sam is making on your credit card. Sit back and relax. Take advantage of the 24/7 media coverage of how the great Tiger Woods has fallen. Schadenfreude is an excellent panacea. And if you’re in luck, the commercials will be louder than the network programming. Since Congress has just ruled this a no-no, you can call yourself a lawyer and make like the government. You can extort your way to unearned wealth.
Nancy Morgan Bio
Nancy Morgan Most recent columns
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
She can be reached at NancyVideo@aol.com
Source: American Thinker
Obama the America denier
By Bruce Walker
Most people involved in public affairs fall into two grand schools: Some believe that America is a unique nation, a nation built upon extraordinary and good moral values, and a country which is a microcosm of what the world should be. These people need not be Americans. Churchill, for example, was an unabashed admirer of America.
Other people believe that America is simply a very arrogant country, a nation inhabited with bumpkins who believe too much in God, and because of its religious faith and confidence, the antithesis of what the world should be. This animus flourishes outside America, but it also has a strong camp following in America.
Barack Obama is decidedly in the second camp. He is an “America Denier.”
We have learned this early during the campaign in 2008. His wife, Michelle, revealed in February that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of America — because America was beginning to embrace the message of her radical husband. The next month, in March, we learned that his pastor damned America from the pulpit. Then in April Obama spoke about people in rural America clinging to their religion.
The roots of this antipathy toward America runs through the thinkers that influenced Obama like Saul Alinsky. As American Thinker’s own James Lewis explains so well, Alinsky had before him two responses to America. As the child of persecuted Russian Jews, he could view America as Emma Lazarus, another Jewish immigrant, did. Her dedication to the Statute of Liberty is still both clear and strong. Emma leaned toward socialism; she was proud of her Jewish heritage; and she was emphatically American. She understood that America was the beacon, the hope, and the promise of the world.
Alinsky viewed America as the center of mankind’s problems. It did not matter to Alinsky that he would have suffered torments in the Gulag under the Bolsheviks for his agitation but that he lived in liberty in America. It does not seem to matter to Obama or his wife that living in America has blessed them both far beyond their power to ever repay. They have actually benefited, rather than suffered, because they were black. What about these ancestors?
Twelve years ago, Keith Richburg, a black reporter for the Washington Post, wrote Out of America. The book describes his journey from an angry young black man, who reflexively accepted all the theories of exploitation, to a man who visited Africa and studied it closely. After seeing firsthand the horror of his native continent, and grasping that America had nothing to do with the nightmare before his eyes, Richburg writes: “Thank God that I am an American.” This is not a pardon for slavery or Jim Crow. It is rather a mature and moral appreciation that in an imperfect world, America comes much closer to perfection than many of its sullen critics will acknowledge.
Once nearly all Americans understood, whatever their politics, that America was the hope of the world. America, like Israel, is a “homeland of choice.” Even before slavery ended, the American government had gone to great lengths to provide a homeland for freed slaves (Liberia, for example, was founded just for that purpose.) Instead, people who wind up in America, however they came here, have always wanted to stay.
Using the First Amendment, we could wrangle about many different things, but not about the fact that the First Amendment was a creature of America. We could campaign fiercely for our parties, but doubt that the right of the people to choose their leaders grew out of the heritage of America. The idea of fundamentally changing America so that it resembled the rest of the world would have horrified any political leader even fifty years ago.
The elites of the Old World, largely, have wished that America would just vanish or else be absorbed into the oligarchy so familiar to Europe and Asia. Serfs of the world pined to come to America. Elites of the world hissed at the Land of the Free. They wanted differences between those in power and those in thrall. This emphatically included elitists who were socialists.
Those who feign concern about the poor, the socialists and collectivists, are actually the most elitist of the elites. Orwell saw that well in his masterpiece, 1984. A whole section of that book is devoted to “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” The political philosophy of Oceania, the totalitarian nightmare of the novel, is Ingsoc, truncated from English Socialism. These elitists cared only about the power of their group, and America has always offered wealth, acclaim, and influence to the naked individual who rises above the crowd by work and by individual merit.
Anyone who has taken the trouble to study the books of Soviet dissidents knows that the empire of the Tsars was much less stratified, much less hierarchical, and had a much narrower gap between the rich and the poor than the empire of Communism.
This is just what modern America deniers crave most. Creeping official elitism, politically correct science, regimented learning, banishment of the truly religious, ending all the vestiges of what has made America the true Mecca of the world’s unfree – these are the unspoken hopes of America deniers like Obama.
So he scolds “bankers” one day; he apologizes to the world for his country the next day; he tries to drown the economy in money which will soon be as worthless as a ruble in old Soviet-land the following day. His mission is clear. In the old Soviet Union, the place so many of his mentors secretly admired, the United States was almost always called within the oligarchic Communist Party by a highly descriptive term: The Main Enemy. That is how our president views his nation now. We, our liberties, our faith, our spirit of individual enterprise — the very soul of America — this is the foe of our America-denier, the President.
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.
RSS - Posts
