o'kill switch - Can't believe I agree with MoveOn.org! Internet Censorship

Left wingnuts or not...for once, I'm in agreement!  o'kill switch's idea to turn off the Internet is downright dangerous!  Shades of Iran, China, Thailand, Burma, etc. -- rfh
related, Unintended Consequences: http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-unintended-consequences.html#unintended

From: Daniel Mintz, MoveOn.org Political Action Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 Subject: The end of the Internet?

Today the House version of the Internet Censorship Act is being marked up in the House Judiciary Committee. 

The pressure we've put on Congress to say NO to Internet censorship is working. The House is now considering lots of amendments to improve the legislation. Thanks to our efforts and the work of a broad coalition of organizations, the Senate now won't consider its version until next year.

Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, needs to vote NO on this legislation. He was an early supporter of the bill, and continues to back it. But the more calls he receives today from the progressive community, the more likely we will be to change his position.

Call Rep. Conyers today and tell him to reject Internet censorship: (202) 225-5126

Then, please report your call by clicking here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268834&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=1

Click here to sign your name: "The government must not be allowed to censor the Internet at the request of powerful lobbyists. Say NO to Internet censorship." Sign the Petition!

     As soon as this week, Congress will start debating whether to give the government the power to turn off parts of the Internet. If that sounds like a terrible recipe for abuse of power, that's because it is.

If enacted, a new law would make it so a simple allegation of copyright infringement—with no review process—could lead to the shutdown of sites from YouTube to Wikipedia to MoveOn.org.¹ Any website, foreign or U.S.-based, could be wiped out on suspicion and made unavailable to everyone in the world.

For example, if you (or Justin Bieber) wanted to post a video to YouTube of yourself singing a Beatles song, a record company could force the Department of Justice to shut down YouTube. Really.²

But as you may have guessed, Congress didn't come up with this tragically terrible idea on their own. Lobbyists representing Comcast, Pfizer, record and movie companies, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce³ have been pushing Democrats and Republicans to pass bills to allow this new kind of Internet censorship. And they're close to getting their way.

But a small number of Democrats are standing strong and saying "No" to these powerful special interest groups. They need our help.

Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon is one of our champions. He has promised to start a historic filibuster of the Internet Censorship Act where he'll read the names of every person that signs a petition against Internet censorship.⁴ It's the perfect opportunity for 5 million Internet-connected progressives to visibly add their voice to a Senate debate. The more of us that sign, the stronger this effort to block this terrible law will be.

Click here to add your name and say NO to Internet Censorship.

We know that the Internet's openness, freedom, and lack of censorship are what make it a bastion of infinite possibility, continued innovation, and job creation. Innovative companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, and Yahoo have spoken out against this law, saying: 

We should not jeopardize a foundational structure that has worked for content owners and Internet companies alike and provides certainty to innovators with new ideas for how people create, find, discuss, and share information lawfully online.⁵

Internet venture capitalists say that the legislation is "ripe for abuse,"⁶ and leading law professors reject it because it will "allow the government to block Internet access to websites."⁷

We condemn censorship overseas when it happens in China or Iran. But today, we need to stand up for freedom of speech on the Internet here at home.

Click here to add your name and say NO to Internet Censorship.

Thanks for all you do. – Daniel, Garlin, Elena, Stefanie, and the rest of the team
P.S. You can watch the markup live at KeepTheWebOpen.com/sopa.

Sources:

1. "House Version of Rogue Websites Bill Adds DMCA Bypass, Penalties for DNS Workarounds," Public Knowledge, October 26, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268060&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=7

2. "Why Is Justin Bieber So Hackin Mad?" SaveTheInternet.com, November 2, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268061&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=8

3. "Five things to know about SOPA," The Washington Post, November 16, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268062&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=9

4. "Wyden to read petition names during copyright filibuster," The Hill, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268065&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=10

5. "SOPA opposition from tech heavyweights Google, Facebook," CBS News, November 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268063&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=11

6. "The PROTECT IP Act Will Slow Startup Innovation," Union Square Ventures, June 23, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268064&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=12

7. "Law Professors' Letter on SOPA," Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268067&id=33886-9247257-HLM1HEx&t=13

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

---

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

---

Vote'm All Out! - City Closes Boy's Hot Dog Stand, Now He's Homeless!

Unintended Consequences?

"The law of unintended consequences pushes us ceaselessly through the years, permitting no pause for perspective. 

-- Richard Schickel

cite: "Richard Schickel." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2011. 9 April. 2011. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardsch112929.html

---

article source: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/city-shuts-down-boys-hot-dog-stand-now-hes-homeless/

City Shuts Down 13 Year Old Boy's Hot Dog Stand & Now He's Homeless

 by Tim Brown, FreedomOutpost, August 11, 2012

     Nathan Duszynski, a 13-year-old boy who saved up $1,300 to purchase a hot dog cart and then was shut down by the city of Holland, Michigan, has now found himself homeless, along with his parents.

Gary North wrote about Duszynski at the end of July,

     A 13-year-old mowed lawns to save up enough money to buy a hot dog cart.  He got licensed.  Then he tried to sell hot dogs.  The city shut him down.
     Why?
     Two reasons.  First, the good old boys who run local restaurants two decades ago got independent food vendors zoned out.  Second, the teachers union got businesses banned for anyone under 18.

      Sadly the boy was muscled out of a small business by larger businesses that were hand in hand with local government.  The family was hoping that Nathan's hot dog business would help them in a difficult time.
His mother, Lynette Johnson, has epilepsy and his stepfather, Doug Johnson, has multiple sclerosis.  Their illnesses have kept them from finding permanent, full-time work.  The family receives about $1,300 a month in disability payments, Medicaid and food assistance.  The family is having a hard time staying together as well.  Nathan and his mother have been living at the Holland Rescue Mission.  The father can't stay with his family at the shelter because he has to take prescription narcotics for the pain he endures and the shelter does not allow those kinds of drugs in it.
     Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports,

     Nathan wanted to help out his family by selling hot dogs from a cart he bought with money he saved.  He worked out an arrangement with the owner of a local sporting goods store to sell hot dogs in the parking lot.  The owner of the store thought it would be a great way to attract customers and even offered Nathan a sales commission if he got people to rent his motorized bicycles.
     The city of Holland, however, shut down the business 10 minutes after it opened, informing Nathan it was in the city's commercial district where food carts not connected to downtown brick-and-motor restaurants are prohibited.  The Mackinac Center's coverage of the issue has drawn national attention.
     Last week, Nathan and his family made an appeal to the Holland City Council.  Mayor Kurt Dykstra defended the city's ordinance, saying it was to protect downtown restaurant owners, who asked that the "success of the downtown district not be infringed upon by those who don't share in the costs of maintaining the attractiveness of that space."

     Is this not a shame to the city of Holland?  The mission has stepped up and provided something by way of charity, which is what the Church is supposed to do, not government.  The local government of Holland should reconsider their unethical and completely unfair law regarding Nathan's hot dog cart.  Young entrepreneurs should be rewarded for their endeavors, not punished.

---

o'bamastapo - Are you a domestic terrorist? (linked to an interactive quiz)

Terrorism Awareness and Prevention: "Quiz: Who are terrorists"? 
quiz source:  http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/quiz.asp
published by: The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Harrisburg, Pa.

Are your reluctant or afraid of speaking privately or publicly against the current government and it's policies? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? Are you against laws that give preferential treatment to "special classes" of people? Do you oppose restrictions on firearms? Does your Church or organization refrain from speaking against government policies our of fear from retribution? Do you oppose lax immigration laws? Do you oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs? Do you oppose continuation of free trade agreement? Are suspect of foreign regimes? Do you fear Communist regimes? Do you oppose a "one world" government? Do you bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world? Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India? Are you against big government? Do you possess "subversive" literature? Are you one who make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution? Are you a "property rights" advocate? Are you a "defender of the U.S. Constituion against federal government and the U.N?" Do you have a copy of the book "Unintended Consequences" or have you read it? Are you a member of a domestic militia group? Do you support Constitution based States Rights? Have you one who has or do you one who believe in "police the police?" Are you a computer hacker? Have you ever supported or promoted jury nullification or secession? Do you consider yourself as being "a loner"? Do you support Traditional American Values? Do you support the 2nd amendment and your right to keep and bear arms? Are you against more taxation? Do now or have you ever possessed the anti-income tax film "America: Freedom to Fascism." Do you Favor Abolishing the IRS? Are you against Abortion? Are you an anti-abortion activist or oppose abortion? Do you possess images of, display, or are you in possession of the Gagsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag? Are you a "conspiracy theorist?" Do you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate? Have you ever displayed Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material?" Do you support Congressman Ron Paul or Constitution Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin or their policies? Are you against any Obama policies? Are you a Christian? Do you wear or publicly display any religious symbols? Are you a member of any local lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights organizations, anti-government policies or anti-war protest groups? You maybe under suspicion somewhere as a domestic terrorist. Are you "An Enemy of the State?"

http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/08/change.html "Democracy: Involves the government ruling and making laws for the "greater good" of all people, they may abolish personal rights in doing so. Democracy is government by and for the people. They may or may not be republics--that is, government limited by constitution or charter. The tricky part of "democracy" is defining "the people" and then deciding what counts as "by the people" and what counts as "for the people." In a sense, that could be considered the content of democratic practice. Republic: Involves the government using and abiding by the constitution heavily. Personal rights are respected and cannot be taken away. This helps to avoid tyranny and mobocracy (the majority makes laws and governs by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.) Republics are the common and "standard" type of governments found today, not democracies, despite what many people (who may not know the definition of either) think. Just as democracies may or may not be republics, republics may or may not be democracies. The difference between Democracy and Republic: Democracy and Republic are two forms of government which are distinguished by their treatment of the Minority, and the Individual, by the Majority. In a Democracy, the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. This system of government does not provide a legal safeguard of the rights of the Individual and the Minority. It has been referred to as "Majority over Man." In a Republic, the Majority is Limited and constrained by a written Constitution which protects the rights of the Individual and the Minority. The purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the Majority and to protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the Individual. source: The United States of America is a Republic.

---

A 'tongue-in-cheek' quiz jesting "Are you a terrorist?" -- http://quizilla.teennick.com/tests/4833864
The opine below is reposted from:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/13/you-are-the-homegrown-terrorist-threat/
     If you’re an American reading this, then under expansive definitions being used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several states in their counterterrorism training, you just might be a domestic terrorist.
     The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix, Ariz., distributed a brochure (Images: 1 , 2 ) to local law enforcement agencies a few years ago which defines terrorism as individuals or groups within the U.S. who engage in criminal activity to promote political or social changes. This is correct, as far as it goes, but the brochure then gives a listing of “suspicious” activities, telling law enforcement officers: “If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
     Some of the things for which you should be reported as a suspected terrorist include the usual things, like weapons of mass destruction, and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis, but also includes people who “Make numerous references to US Constitution,” “Claim driving is a right, not a privilege” and “Attempt to ‘police the police.’”
     In addition, “People whose political motivation is usually Marxist/Leninist philosophy,” “‘defenders’ of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN,” computer hackers, and “Lone Individuals” should also be reported.
     Do you fall under any of those categories? I certainly do; more than one, in fact. So I’m probably under suspicion somewhere as a domestic terrorist.
     Last week, the state of Alabama Department of Homeland Security got scrutinized for an interactive terrorism awareness training section of its Web site, which said much the same things. The bureaucrats removed the entire training after it wound up on digg.com, a popular Web site where users can promote news to the site’s front page.
     In Alabama, it seems, promoting gun rights can also get you branded a domestic terrorist.
     Alabama’s site was based on a similar one from the state of Pennsylvania, which in addition to all of the above, says that promoting jury nullification, secession, or the belief that all governments must ultimately become corrupted by power also makes you a domestic terrorist worth watching.
     But it gets worse.
     But you see, I once read Unintended Consequences and was quite impressed with the book. Then one day I attended a FBI security briefing for technology security and was confronted with an image of the book — strongly implying those who own or read the book were terrorists.
     But now I find I’m considered a terrorist by many other government agencies! Seriously, I wonder when I shall be arrested and “Detained.” . . .
     The state of Virginia also says I’m a terrorist. (PDF) Why there? Because I’m a “property rights advocate.” Seriously, in Virginia, you’re a TERRORIST if you advocate for property rights. I think they’re going to need to build more jails to house us all. . . .
     Incredibly, none of this is in jest. These various government agencies honestly believe *I* am a “domestic terrorist.” That is so sad. Indeed, this once-great country has nowhere to go but down. — Ogre’s Politics & Views
     Ogre also put together a nice interactive quiz which you can use to determine if you are a domestic terrorist. I scored a 70, which apparently means there’s a cell with my name on it in Guantanamo Bay.
     It’s clear that in every meaningful way, the government considers ordinary Americans the enemy; their actions speak it unmistakably.

---

All Americans know that there are among us those who are or would be real terrorists, not to be confused with law abiding citizens who respect our American Heritage, it's Founding Values, and who respect the Constitution and the rights of individuals versus an over-reaching government.  -- rfh
references:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060110071648/www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/anti-gov_grps.htm
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/12/hon-james-david-manning-phd-explains.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamastapo-papers-please.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/08/change.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamastapo-report-friends-neighbors.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamastapo-rise-of-state-national-guard.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamastapo-and-you-thought-it-couldnt.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/12/oczars-who-are-they-whatre-their.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/10/ohumpty-dumpty-not-near-enough-or-soon.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/10/opine-is-america-fast-becoming-3rd_16.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/09/somethings-not-right-in-washington.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/07/rise-of-state-enemies-list-are-you-on.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/07/warning-veterans-2nd-amendment.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/07/2nd-amendment-eric-holders-secret.html
http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/07/2nd-amendment-hr-2159-hr-45-are-you.html

Constitution Society: Founding Documents	Online Books	History Links	Quotations: American Values
TimeLine of: the Magna Carta	Declaration of Arbroath	History of: The US Bill of Rights	Constitution + more Amendments

o'revenue netural - Morning Bell: $1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just Obamacare's First Side Effect

$1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just Obamacare's First Side Effect

In the closing days of the Congressional health care debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told the National Association of Counties: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Today marks the end of just the first week of life under Obamacare and Speaker Pelosi has been proven right: we are just now finding out what is in it. This past Friday, AT&T, the biggest U.S. telephone company, announced that it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings thanks to tax changes buried in the 2,300+ page bill. $1 billion. That is a full third of AT&T's $3 billion earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.

The tax charges stem from changes Obamacare makes to the tax treatment of prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies used to be able to deduct part of their costs for providing drug benefits to their retirees, but Obamacare cancels that deduction. Roland McDevitt, director of health care research at Towers Watson, tells the Wall Street Journal, they "have a stream of tax benefits they are losing way out in the future." Since companies had counted on these deductions for current and future retirees as an existing asset under the old law, accounting rules require firms to take the full loss for the change in the same quarter in which the tax law is changed. Hence Friday's announcement to inform shareholders that AT&T's bottom line was about to take a $1 billion hit.

AT&T's billion-dollar Obamacare headache is so large due to the size (281,000 employees) of the company. Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Chris Larsen tells Bloomberg: "Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees." And changes to current and future retirees' health care seem to be exactly what will AT&T will do as a side effect of Obamacare. AT&T wrote in their Friday filing: "As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company."

And AT&T is not alone. Towers Watson estimates that just this tax change alone will eliminate $14 billion in U.S. corporate profits. That's $14 billion less American employers have to spend creating new jobs when our unemployment rate is still 9.7%. And AT&T is not the only company informing employees that Obamacare is going to mean worse care for them. Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees last week that Obamacare "may have significant implications for both retirees and employers."

The Heritage Foundation will be keeping you apprised of all of the consequences of Obamacare as they are learned with our new Foundry feature "Side Effects." Already our health care experts have identified negative intended and unintended consequences from the legislation to children's health insurance and health insurance taxes.

The American people already do not like this law. But to repeal it, we must keep Americans educated about all of Obamacare's failures and offer our ?Second Opinion? on what conservative idea would fix it.

Print | Comments | Forward

Know anyone who shares your conservative values and principles and may want to receive the Heritage Foundation newsletters?  Please refer them to Heritage today!  Support our work by becoming a member with your gift of $25 or more.

---

Poll - Executive Orders/Enabling Acts (7Jul12)

If the election 'goes south' for o'der leader between now and November 6th, watch for a "Reichstag" moment.  "A decision of the Fuhrer in the express form of a law or decree may not be scrutinized by a judge.  In addition, the judge is bound by any other decision of the Fuhrer, provided that they are clearly intended to declare law." -- Adolf Hitler, (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator

source: 1936 Decree: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Adolf.Hitler.Quote.8B2E

related, Quotes: http://harrold.org/quotes/quotesalone.html

---

     In 1930's/40's Germany, the process was called "enabling acts."  The German word for an enabling act is Ermächtigungsgesetz.  The German word Ermächtigungsgesetz usually refers to the enabling act of March 23, 1933, which became a cornerstone of Adolf Hitler's seizure of power.  The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich").

     Check Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act or search for some of the entries on my blog about "Hitler's enabling acts."  It was one of the first things he jammed through after assuming the Chancellorship of Deutchland.  Sound familiar?

     Read'n listen to Hitler's 'enabling acts' speech delivered to the Reichstag in Berlin on 23Mar1933:  http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html or Read Hitler's "Enabling Act" Reichstag speech, 23Mar1933 or Click here to listen to Hitler's speech. 

related: http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2012/01/opandoras-box-enabling-act.html

related: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html

related: http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-unintended-consequences.html#unintended 

Watch an historically accurate video re Hitler's 'executive orders/enabling acts' take-over of government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPoqgdCha7M&t=5m32s

---

Just before the 1933 vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint."

--  quoted from: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm 

"Obama Vows Restraint in use of New Terror Powers"

-- by Matthew Cox, Military.com, January 05, 2012:
  http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-vows-restraint-in-use-of-new-terror-powers.html [re NDAA]

---

Two of the demographics below stand out.  Care to guess which? -- rfh

related: Polls - http://harrold.org/rfhextra/blogspot/obama_polls.html

From: USA Election Polls Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 Subject: Poll Summary, 7/7/12

Poll: Do you approve of Obama's use of executive privilege? (6/25)

Voters Disapprove of Obama's Use of Executive Privilege (6/25/12)

The Hill, by way of Pulse Opinion Research, conducted a poll on June 21, 2012.  The results are bad news for President Obama. [PDF, Article].
Question: Do You Approve or Disapprove of President's Assertion of Executive Privilege To Prevent Review of Documents on Fast and Furious?

Demographic	Approve	Disapprove
Likely Voters	29	56
Men	29	64
Women	30	48
18-39 Year Olds	24	60
40-64 Year Olds	33	53
65+	32	52
$40K-60K	20	64
$60K-75K	13	64
$75K-100K	24	67
$100K+	43	36
Whites	24	60
Blacks	77	15
Republicans	12	78
Democrats	52	28

Disapproval of Obama's use of executive privilege extends across all income groups, party affiliations, ages, and gender -- but not race.  77% of blacks approve while only 24% whites do.
source: http://www.nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0625-executive-privilege-poll.html?src=cc

---

o'deathcare - NYT: We Need Death Panels (youngest, oldest, unfit, useless eaters)

Equating abortion with genocide is well founded.  Many are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Sanger's "Negro Project," "the eugenic plan to limit — or exterminate — the black race and others "unfit to reproduce."

[..to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in camps] to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." [..by force if necessary.]   "..during 1933 in Sanger's The Birth Control Review (immediate predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Review) an article by Ernst Rudin (1874-1952) was published entitled, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need."  Rudin was Adolph Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. (Various references in Grand Illusions) History documents that Sanger supported the Nazi Party philosophies." [Planned Parenthood's Nazi roots] ; and -eugenical race-purification by prevention of births to parents from 'inferior' blood stocks ('birth control societies').  "Before the Auschwitz death camp became a household word, these British-American-European groups called openly for the elimination of the 'unfit' by means including force and violence." **

source: http://773.harrold.org

related: http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-unintended-consequences.html#unintended

---

New York Times Opinion Writer: We Need Death Panels

by Wesley J. Smith | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/19/12

article source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/19/new-york-times-opinion-writer-we-need-death-panels/

      The New York Times uses its op/ed page as a supplement to its editorial page – that is, most of the articles published reflect the views of the editors.  Letters to the Editor, too.

     The NYT has called for health care rationing several times in the past and published articles by others supporting it.  It did again on Saturday with an article by one of its opinion writers, a former Obama Treasury Department adviser, named Steve Rattner.

 From, "Beyond Obamacare:"

 WE need death panels. 

     That's what the technocratic class believes.  We need to do away with the expensive and nonproductive [unfit, useless eaters] rather than waste money caring for them. 

 Back to Rattner:

     Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

     Yes, all of us who warned that this was the agenda were such alarmists and conspiracy theorists, weren't we?  But we are right.

     Rattner compares the former Ryan Medicare plan and Obama's, and finds them both cost control wanting.  The answer–death panels!  And it will be the IPAB based on NICE-style quality of life – again, just like I have been warning!

     No one wants to lose an aging parent.  And with price out of the equation, it's natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy.  But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear.  Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

     Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels.  Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system [young, old] to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment's ability to extend life.  At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs.  We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Never doubt me!

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

---

o'illegal - Unmanned US/MX Border Crossing (FoxNews/AP)

It's too bad there's los inmigrantes ilegales, criminales, narcotraficantes, & terroristas attacking our borders already ...a sensible proposition, that used to work well with our neighbors to the North - now caught by the rule of "unintended consequences." -- rfh

---

From: kd Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 Subject: Unmanned Border Crossing w/Mexico

Hey if it works with wal-mart......KD: FEDS PLAN UNMANNED BORDER CROSSING WITH MEX..

article source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/us-proposes-unmanned-border-entry-with-mexico/

U.S. Proposes Unmanned Border Entry With Mexico,  Published December 11, 2011 ( Associated Press ) 

(AP Photo) Oct. 31, 2011: The Rio Grande river flows past Big Bend National Park, Texas.


BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, Texas –  The bloody drug war in Mexico shows no sign of relenting. Neither do calls for tighter border security amid rising fears of spillover violence.
     This hardly seems a time the U.S. would be willing to allow people to cross the border legally from Mexico without a customs officer in sight. But in this rugged, remote West Texas terrain where wading across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy, federal authorities are touting a proposal to open an unmanned port of entry as a security upgrade.
     By the spring, kiosks could open up in Big Bend National Park allowing people from the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another location, at least 100 miles away.
     The crossing, which would be the nation's first such port of entry with Mexico, has sparked opposition from some who see it as counterintuitive in these days of heightened border security. Supporters say the crossing would give the isolated Mexican town long-awaited access to U.S. commerce, improve conservation efforts and be an unlikely target for criminal operations.
     "People that want to be engaged in illegal activities along the border, ones that are engaged in those activities now, they're still going to do it," said William Wellman, Big Bend National Park's superintendent. "But you'd have to be a real idiot to pick the only place with security in 300 miles of the border to try to sneak across."
     The proposed crossing from Boquillas del Carmen leads to a vast expanse of rolling scrub, cut by sandy-floored canyons and violent volcanic rock outcroppings. The Chihuahuan desert wilderness is home to mountain lions, black bears and roadrunners, sparsely populated by an occasional camper and others visiting the 800,000-acre national park.
     Customs and Border Protection, which would run the port of entry, says the proposal is a safe way to allow access to the town's residents, who currently must travel 240 road miles to the nearest legal entry point. It also would allow park visitors to visit the town.
     If the crossing is approved, Border Patrol would have eight agents living in the park in addition to the park's 23 law enforcement rangers.
     "I think it's actually going to end up making security better," CBP spokesman William Brooks said.

     "Once you've crossed you're still not anywhere. You've got a long ways to go and we've got agents who are in the area. We have agents who patrol. We have checkpoints on the paved roads leading away from the park."
     A public comment period runs through Dec. 27 on the estimated $2.3 million project, which has support at the highest levels of government from both countries.

     But U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican member of the House Homeland Security committee, questioned the wisdom of using resources to make it easier to cross the border.

     "We need to use our resources to secure the border rather than making it easier to enter in locations where we already have problems with illegal crossings," McCaul said in an email. "There is more to the oversight of legal entry than checking documents. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) needs to be physically present at every point of entry in order to inspect for contraband, detect suspicious behavior and, if necessary, act on what they encounter."

     While CBP will run the port of entry, the National Park Service is the driver behind the project, which it hopes will help conservation efforts on both sides of the border. Even as the National Park Service has increased cooperation with its Mexican counterpart, joint conservation has been limited by the inability of personnel to cross the border without making a circuitous 16-hour drive, Wellman said.
     So the National Park Service is building the contact station just above the Rio Grande. It will house CBP kiosks where crossers will scan in their documents and talk to a customs officer in Presidio, the nearest port of entry, or another remote location. Park service employees will staff the station, offering information about the park and guiding people through the process.
     Similar ports of entry are already in operation on remote parts of the border with Canada.
     "We think we can do this without doing any damage to national security and possibly enhance security along the border by having better intelligence, better communication with people in Mexico," Wellman said.     The crossing would also restore a long-running relationship between the park, its visitors and the residents of Boquillas del Carmen, the town of adobe dwellings set a short distance from the river in Mexico.
     For years, U.S. tourists added an international dimension to their park visit by wading or ferrying in a rowboat across the shallow Rio Grande to the town. There they bought handicrafts and tacos, providing much-needed cash in the isolated community.
     But US officials discouraged such informal crossings in 2002 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted calls for tighter border security. Without access to tourists or supplies on the U.S. side, the town of just more than 100 people has seen a 42 percent drop in population from 2000 to 2010.
     Gary Martin, who manages the Rio Grande Village store at a nearby park campground, recalls many Mexican residents crossing the river to pick up groceries and other necessities.
     "We're their supply," Martin said. "They don't have any electricity over there. So they would come here and buy frozen chicken, cake mixes and things that they couldn't get over there."
     Martin tried to stock food items Boquillas del Carmen residents wanted, such as eggs and big sacks of beans.
     "After the border closed, well, I got rid of most of my food and went back to gifts because I wasn't making any money," Martin said. He estimated about 40 percent of the store's revenue came from Boquillas residents.
     Few have risked crossing to the store since. "If they get caught over here they get shipped off," he said. "They get deported all the way to Ojinaga and then they've got to find their way home. It's not really worth it."     Still, most days some Boquillas del Carmen residents wade across the river a short distance downstream of the old crossing and scramble up to a paved overlook perched high above the river.
     On boulders near the parking spots they lay out painted walking sticks, scorpions and roadrunners crafted from copper wire and colorful beads. Each craftsman's work occupies a different rock and operates on the honor system with the hope tourists will drop four or five dollars in their jar.
     "Sometimes we don't sell anything," said Boquillas del Carmen resident Guillermo Gonzalez Diaz. "Sometimes we sell one." And other times authorities confiscate everything.
     Gonzalez, a 34-year-old father of three, described his town as "very sad, very hard" and said there was no work. Without access to the Rio Grande Village store, residents depend on a bus that runs once a week to Melchor Muzquiz, a larger town about 150 miles away, for supplies. 
    A small military presence protects the town from the drug-related violence that has engulfed other Mexican border towns. Now with news of the port of entry, residents are already making plans for restaurants and shops, he said.
     "When it closed nobody crossed and everything went downhill.  People began to leave," he said. "Now people are going to return."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/us-proposes-unmanned-border-entry-with-mexico/

---

Gun Control=Racism (3 videos+Obama+opine)

The History of Racist Gun Control in the United States

Watch on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olua3WPwJqE video source: http://youtu.be/Olua3WPwJqE

'The Federal Firearms Act of 1968',  a perfect example of "Unintended Consequences". Remembering the Past: Nazi's, Racism, and Modern Gun Control related: http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:remembering-the-past-nazis-racism-and-modern-gun-control&catid=15:contributor-commentaries&Itemid=46 by William M. Lolli, August 1st, 2009 "Following racial unrest in major American cities across the country in the early to mid-'60s - culminating in "the long, hot summer" of 1967 - the next round of restrictions came from the federal government in the form of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This legislation was modeled on the German Weapons Law of 1938 enacted by the Nazi government.

Uploaded by American2Revolution on Jan 22, 2011

     Daily News @ http://RevolutionNews.US — No Guns for Negroes exposes the racist history of American gun control laws. Every person who supports gun control laws must be shown this film or gun ownership will cease to exist in America.
     Don't become a former gun owner because you chose not to show "No Guns for Negroes" to every one you know.
     We encourage the widest distribution of this 20 minute film -- Please send this page to a Friend and to everyone on your friends list. Even if you do not have a DVD copy, store a digital file copy on your USB flash stick so you can keep it handy to show to others on their computers and pass on. Be sure to see our latest digital handbill for "No Guns for Negroes", on our homepage and share it with the world.
     Michael Moore Bowling for Columbine Gun Control USA: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5470114777565439063#docid=82302545503...

"If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." — George Washington
Time For A New American Revolution?
Daily News & Video @ http://RevolutionNews.US
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RevolutionNewz
Facebook: http://facebook.com/RevolutionNewsDotUS
Subscribe to our main channel: http://youtube.com/RevolutionNewsDotUS

---

Negroes with Guns

Watch on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpOEgk9yY0g (52m35s)

video source: http://youtu.be/hpOEgk9yY0g

Uploaded by ReAfrikanization101 on Nov 27, 2011 Afrikans!!!
     Robert Williams was the voice of Afro-America calling for Self-defense, pre Malcolm X.  Rob and Mabel Williams were among the most militant and inspirational figures of the 60s.  This video will bring people a little further up to speed about two authentic Black revolutionaries." -- Amiri Baraka

---

No Guns for Negroes

(Part One of Two)

Watch on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU (10m)

(Part Two of Two)

Watch on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA (9m45s)

Uploaded by jpfo1776 on May 27, 2009

No Guns for Negroes exposes the racist history behind American gun control laws.

---

 below, source: http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

Barack Obama on Gun Control  Click here for 14 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR views: Gun Control. Midwestern "bitter clingers" frustrated over broken promises. (Aug 2009) Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008) Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008) FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008) April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008) Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008) Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008) 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007) Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007) Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007) Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006) Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004) Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

---

Gun control via the U.N.

By GEORGE RODKEY, August 18, 2012 - posted on CDAPress.com

opinion source: http://www.cdapress.com/columns/my_turn/article_f8e17a94-0964-5fe5-a39c-4c2b84bb54b5.html

     In the July 27 Press, a headline read, White House says "No Push for New Gun Laws.

     That statement is true and probably because he has said "We will pursue another route"!

     That route is this: at this very time he, (Obama) and Hillary are working feverishly at the U.N. for final wording on the UN Gun Control Treaty. He has already said that he will sign it. The gun haters and the administration would turn over the control of guns in America to the U.N. - the likes of Iran, Cuba, Chavez, Russia and China. They would rather that the U.N. Treaty regulations replace the Constitutional Second Amendment!!! Would you be happy with this?

     Oh, and in the same article it quotes Senator Harry Reid as saying "their schedule is too packed to even have a debate on gun control." The Republican House has sent 30 bills to the Senate for discussion, consideration and some action in the last year and one-half. Senator Reid will not even call one of them up to debate or discuss, yet they blame the Republicans for not getting anything done. Reid and the President do not want things to improve.

     Mr. Obama's scheme is to lay low, say nothing and do nothing about the U.N. Gun Control Treaty until after the election and his liberal senators are all safely home and whether or not he is re-elected try to push through the U.N. Treaty. His life long trait of devious opportunism will raise its ugly head again and he will continue his attempt to destroy the good things of America, put in place by the Constitution. Be alert to follow this scurrilous plan. If you doubt me, Google it!

     To save space for this column I will list the characteristics of two different men and I hope you will consider them carefully. They are almost diametrically opposed and are as follows: builder-wrecker, truthful-lying, honest-cunning, kind-brutal, selfish-kind, cruel-loving, hateful-open minded, opinionated-affable in disagreements, habit of destroying opponents-accepting historical morals of society, overturning good institutions of history-seeking good will, holding a grudge-kind and humble, arrogant-acerbic ... the list could go on.

     These are the characteristics of two totally different men. Some say that to evaluate these men is to judge. Our Scripture says that "by their fruits (words, actions, direction of life, deeds) you will know them." It does not say judge, but to inspect and observe how people live. Does the life produce strife, jealousy, anger, enmity, immorality, impurity, sensuality, disputes, factions, envy selfishness?

     Or does it show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, long-suffering?

     I have described two very different men in history. The more desirable is President George Washington, and the second is Josef Stalin. Washington was responsible for the birth of America. Stalin killed at least 100 million people.

     As we look to Nov. 6, it is true that although our candidates do not have the same names as these men, they are almost as different.

     Let us say you are a young family. Your family is acquainted with these two young 20 year old men who so greatly differ. You have watched the good and the bad for years. Your family has two beautiful, good naive young women aged eighteen and 20. Would you encourage your pure daughter to date the young man with Stalin's character traits? Would you be like Lot ... willing to sacrifice your daughter?

     Are you as concerned about the qualities already demonstrated for the world to see of the man you marry this great land, the U.S. of America, to?

     Please join the people of America who think and do the right thing.

George W. Rodkey, M.D., is a Post Falls resident.

---