Posts Tagged ‘Border Security’

Meet Ezekiel Emanuel.. The Future of our Health Care!

August 16, 2009
obamacare3
 
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 1996
 
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy meet  is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage?  I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions.  The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels.  The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care.  The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation.  Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen.  These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as “adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected.  A larger proportion of the GNP going to health care permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services.  Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct.  The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially.  Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.  Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system.  Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services.  Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all or almost all available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective).  So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.  On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.  What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics?  There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics.  Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services.  Every time we try to define basic services our intuitions “run out.”  As Gutmann once wrote: I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision making. 
 
Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services.  It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed. The second explanation holds that the problem with defining basic health services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the frame work of liberal political philosophy.  Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic.  It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good.  To justify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good.  But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services.  This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue … Unless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution.  Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good.  Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy.  Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism.  This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources.  This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: issues related to constitutional rights and liberties;  issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of the common good, such as environmental policies and defense policies.  While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good.  As Rawls has put it: Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.” More expansively, Brian Barry has written: Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items.  One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice … The other set… contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one.  This is unavoidable.  Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources–can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good.  We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.  Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy.  Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsibile and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies.  This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources.  Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.  Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.  An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.  A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.  Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.
 
 
 
OH MY GOD, WELCOME TO OBAMACARE!  IT’S TIME TO ORDER THE BACK UP GENERATOR FOR GRANDMA! 
Advertisements

THE FACE OF SOCIALISM

August 4, 2009

thejoker

 

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson had a few things to say about this picture:  

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery, it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

Earl Ofari Hutchinson wasn’t upset at all when the moonbats posted the same picture of President George W Bush!!  What comes around; goes around! 

We The People 1 – Socialist Moonbats 0!

Lou Dobbs Did His Job!!!

July 27, 2009

 

Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote a letter to CNN (Communist News Network) requesting they exercise editorial judgement and fire Lou Dobbs.  Lou Dobbs was doing his job and reporting the news;  regardless if it was not favorable towards “the anointed one”!! 

The Communist News Network is known for their “editorial judgement”.  After the election, they banned all Conservative iReporters that did not favor Barack “the anointed one” Obama!!  They did this without warning or cause.  This is the same irresponsible biased media network  that got him elected!!

I guess nobody can question the anointed one but Richard Cohen himself??

Richard Cohen: I Don’t Think Obama Has Questionable Views Of Farrakhan, But…

January 15, 2008 — 2:36 PM EST 

 Everybody’s already taken their whacks at today’s reprehensible Richard Cohen column in The Washington Post recycling the latest smear of Obama. But I wanted to highlight one particular aspect of it.

Cohen notes that the minister of Obama’s church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, launched Trumpet Newsmagazine, which hailed Louis Farrakhan as a great man. This is supposed to raise questions about Obama, Cohen seems to suggest. Now take a look at Cohen’s last gaff…

I don’t for a moment think that Obama shares Wright’s views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama’s penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting “present” when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, “present” will not do.

I guess only Richard Cohen can question Barack “The Anointed One”  Obama! 

Lou Dobbs did his job and did it well!

OBAMACARE STOPS TODAY!

July 26, 2009

 

 

President Obama and Congressional Democrats make their government-run health care scheme sound like it is the solution to America’s health care problems. Far from it. President Obama and Congressional Democrats are trying to hide the side effects of their massive health care experiment which includes higher health care costs, enormous tax increases on families and small businesses and would cause millions of Americans to lose their private health care coverage. The Democrats’ experiment with America’s health care system is a risk America cannot afford.

Candidate Obama promised change. President Obama is actually conducting a grand experiment—with our economy, with our country and now with our health care. If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are successful, they will turn our nation into something that we will hardly recognize.

President Obama’s experimentations began with our economy.

He experimented with a budget-busting stimulus plan intended to reduce unemployment. That experiment cost us $780 billion, and unemployment continues to rise. He experimented with banks and auto companies. As a result, taxpayers are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars, and the president still doesn’t have a plan to end this experiment and get these companies off the government dole.

When President Obama addressed a credit crisis, a struggling economy, a housing bust, bankrupt auto companies, Wall Street failures…whatever the problem was, Americans saw him spending, and spending, and spending more. Today, the president’s experiments have left America in more debt than at any other time in our nation’s history. And he keeps rushing his experiments through Congress so fast, so soon, that we haven’t had a moment to think if they would really work – or instead have a devastating impact on all of us for years to come.

Now the president is proposing even more debt, more risk and more experimentation. Next on his list is a risky trillion dollar experiment with our health care. President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to control health care with a government-run system that will determine your care, your treatments, your medicines, even what doctor you can see. If they get it wrong, the consequences would last for generations. But Congress is rushing to pass this risky experiment in just two months.

The Barack Obama experiment with America is a risk our country cannot afford. It is simply too much, too fast, too soon.

Slow down, Mr. President. We can’t afford to get health care wrong.

http://barackobamaexperiment.com/

The Future Of The Grand Old Party… President John Boehner!

June 27, 2009

USFlag

John Boehner is the future of the Grand Old Party!  Welcome to the transparancy you were promised!

Political career

In 1981 Boehner served on the board of trustees of Union Township, Butler County, Ohio. In 1984, he served as president of that board. Boehner then served as an Ohio state representative from 1985 to 1990.

Gang of Seven

In 1990, Boehner was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 102nd Congress. During his freshman year, Boehner and fellow members of the Gang of Seven took on the House establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, and successfully closed the House Bank (House banking scandal), uncovered “dine-and-dash” practices at the House Restaurant, and exposed drug sales and illegal cash-for-stamps deals at the House Post Office.

Contract With America

Boehner, along with Newt Gingrich and several other Republican lawmakers, was one of the architects of the Contract with America in 1994 that helped catapult Republicans into the majority in Congress for the first time in four decades.

Legislative accomplishments

From 1995 to 1999, Boehner served as House Republican Conference Chairman. There he championed the Freedom to Farm Act and a series of balanced budgets that led to the first federal surplus in a generation.

Following the election of President George W. Bush, Boehner was chosen by his colleagues to serve as chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee from 2001 until 2006. There he authored several landmark reforms including the Pension Protection Act and a successful school choice program for low-income children in Washington, DC.

According to the 2008 Congress.org Power Ranking, Minority Leader Boehner is the 6th most powerful congressman (preceded by Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, Dean of the House John Dingell, and Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, all Democrats) and the most powerful Republican[6]. As Minority Leader, Boehner serves as an ex officio member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

I believe John Boehner is the future of the Grand Old Party!  I would hope that we could all push Mr. Boehner in the RIGHT direction. 

 

 

THE LETTER

June 17, 2009

Proud American

 

What can you do to speak up against the now accelerating growth of big government? It can be as simple as writing a letter, like Janet from Arizona did. She wrote the letter Glenn Beck ended up reading on the air that expressed her frustration with what the dopes in Washington are doing.

She writes an open letter to our nation’s leadership: I’m a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I’m not a racist. This isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don’t you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let’s just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I’m busy. I’m busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we’re morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26742/

 

100 REASONS WHY A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

June 17, 2009

obama

Back in March, President Obama traveled around the country warning Americans that America might not survive unless his $787 billion Stimulus bill was passed.  So are we better off since Obama & Co passed their “New Deal”?   The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 345,000 jobs had been lost in the month of May, and that unemployment increased to 9.4 percent.  

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) released a report highlighting “100 examples of questionable stimulus projects.”

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=59af3ebd-7bf9-4933-8279-8091b533464f

The White House criticized the conservative senator’s report and flatly denied all but a few claims of waste.  I guess Obama should’ve have read his bill before signing it!  I don’t think Americans can handle 3-1/2 more years of all this hope and change.

• $2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
• $39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout
• $5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
• $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
• $275 million for flood prevention
• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
• $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
• $307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
• $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
• $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
• $300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
• $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
• $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
• $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)
• $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
• $10 million for urban canals
• $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
• $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
• $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
• $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
• $255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
• $500 million for State and local fire stations
• $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
• $500 million for wildland fire management
• $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
• $650 million for abandoned mine sites
• $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
• $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
• $412 million for CDC headquarters
• $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
• $160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service
• $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
• $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction

Hate for Jews or Government?

June 10, 2009
 
   

 

James_von_Brunn

 One must conjecture why Congress does not repeal the Federal Reserve Act. It has that right — indeed the DUTY. Why does the Judiciary not rule on the Act’s clear-cut unconstitutionality? The answer is obvious. Under a democratic form of government, rather than the Republic our Fore Fathers designed, second-rate Congressmen are elected by mob and media. Federal judges, appointed for life, are selfserving, venal, subject to special interest groups and bribery.  They adore living in Hollywood-on- the-Potomac, their fatcat salaries, the perks, the pomp and splendor, the easy pickings.   

They fear the power of the ILLUMINATI purse. They fear the FED, the ADL, the IRS and what happens to patriots.  They fear MARXISM/LIBERALISM/JEWRY. They fear the MEDIA. They love their jobs and don’t want to lose them. Where else can ycophants and cowards make so much loot and enjoy so much prestige?

Above all else Congressmen love to spend your money (“tax, tax, tax; spend, spend, spend; elect, elect, elect!” Harry Hopkins’ advice to FDR’s New Dealers). The FED, of course, grows irritable when Congress doesn’t borrow and spend. Ergo, Congress’ ploy is to profit by the scam while keeping constituents ignorant in La-La Land.

Author James Von Brunn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Osama bin Laden Warns The U.S. To Be Prepared

June 6, 2009

090407bioattack

 

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden warned Americans “to be prepared to receive the consequences of the Obama and Bush administrations.” In a new recorded audiotape aired by Arabic Al Jazeera TV Wednesday, June 3 – as Saudi king Abdullah greeted US president Barack Obama on his arrival in Riyadh – bin Laden said Obama had planted the seeds for “revenge and hatred” toward the United States in the Muslim world.

U.S. counterterrorism officials have authenticated a video by an al Qaeda recruiter threatening to smuggle a biological weapon into the United States via tunnels under the Mexico border, the latest sign of the terrorist group’s determination to stage another mass-casualty attack on the U.S. homeland.

Quote from the video – “Four pounds of anthrax — in a suitcase this big -= carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there,” the recruiter said.

It’s clear that Obama and this administration is too busy naming Czars to  defend this country from this new threat. 

Biological Attack

Biological weapons and the use of bioterror is one of the greatest terrorist threats we face. A biological attack is the deliberate release of germs or other biological substances that can make you sick. Many agents must be inhaled, enter through a cut in the skin or be eaten to make you sick. Some biological agents, such as anthrax, do not cause contagious diseases.Others, like the smallpox virus, can result in diseases you can catch from other people.

If There Is A Biological Threat Unlike an explosion, a biological attack may or may not be immediately obvious. While it is possible that you will see signs of a biological attack, as was sometimes the case with the anthrax mailings, it is perhaps more likely that local health care workers will report a pattern of unusual illness or there will be a wave of sick people seeking emergency medical attention.

You will probably learn of the danger through an emergency radio or TV broadcast, or some other signal used in your community. You might get a telephone call or emergency response workers may come to your door. In the event of a biological attack, public health officials may not immediately be able to provide information on what you should do. It will take time to determine exactly what the illness is, how it should be treated, and who is in danger. However, you should watch TV, listen to the radio, or check the Internet for official news including the following:

  • Are you in the group or area authorities consider in danger?
  • What are the signs and symptoms of the disease?
  • Are medications or vaccines being distributed?
  • Where?
  • Who should get them?
  • Where should you seek emergency medical care if you become sick?

Protect Yourself

If you become aware of an unusual and suspicious release of an unknown substance nearby, it doesn’t hurt to protect yourself. Quickly get away. Cover your mouth and nose with layers of fabric that can filter the air but still allow breathing.

Examples include two to three layers of cotton such as a t-shirt, handkerchief or towel. Otherwise, several layers of tissue or paper towels may help. Wash with soap and water and contact authorities.

Symptoms and Hygiene

At the time of a declared biological emergency, if a family member becomes sick, it is important to be suspicious. Do not automatically assume, however, that you should go to a hospital emergency room or that any illness is the result of the biological attack. Symptoms of many common illnesses may overlap. Use common sense, practice good hygiene and cleanliness to avoid spreading germs, and seek medical advice.

Responding To An Attack

Aside from their common lethality, there is no one size fits all when it comes to describing the types and effects of possible chemical or biological agents. Chemical agents are generally liquids, often aerosolized, and most have immediate effects or are delayed for a few hours. Many chemical agents have a unique odor and color. Biological agents differ in that the effects are delayed, often for days.

The effects of toxins, such as botulism toxin, occur typically in less than a day. Living biological agents, such as anthrax or plague, generally take 2-5 days for symptoms to appear. Biological agents have no odor or color and can be in either liquid or powder form. There are many different potential chemical and biological agents that a terrorist could use as a weapon, but we can make the following broad generalizations:

  • Although food or water contamination or absorption through the skin are possible attack routes, most experts agree that inhalation of chemical or biological agents is the most likely and effective means.
  • Protection of breathing airways is therefore the single most important factor in a situation where chemical or biological agents may be present.Many likely agents are heavier than air and would tend to stay close to the ground. This dictates an upward safe-haven strategy.

Basic decontamination procedures are generally the same no matter what the agent.

Thorough scrubbing with large amounts of warm soapy water or a mixture of 10 parts water to 1 part bleach (10:1) will greatly reduce the possibility of absorbing an agent through the skin.

If water is not available, talcum powder or flour are also excellent means of decontamination of liquid agents. Sprinkle the flour or powder liberally over the affected skin area, wait 30 seconds, and brush off with a rag or gauze pad. (Note: the powder absorbs the agent so it must be brushed off thoroughly. If available, rubber gloves should be sued when carrying out this procedure.)

Generally, chemical agents tend to present an immediately noticeable effect, whereas many biological agents will take days before symptoms appear. In either case, medical attention should be sought immediately, even if exposure is thought to be limited.

Most chemical and biological agents that present an inhalation hazard will break down fairly rapidly when exposed to the sun, diluted with water, or dissipated in high winds.

No matter what the agent is or its concentration, evacuation from the area of attack is always advisable unless you are properly equipped with an appropriate breathing device and protective clothing or have access to collective protection.

Warning Signs of an Attack or Incident

A chemical or biological attack or incident won’t always be immediately apparent given the fact that many agents are odorless and colorless and some cause no immediately noticeable effects or symptoms. Be alert to the possible presence of agents. Indicators of such an attack include:

  • Droplets of oily film on surfaces
  • Unusual dead or dying animals in the area
  • Unusual liquid sprays or vapors
  • Unexplained odors (smell of bitter almonds, peach kernels, newly mown hay or green grass)
  • Unusual or unauthorized spraying in the area
  • Victims displaying symptoms of nausea, difficulty breathing, convulsions, disorientation, or patterns of illness inconsistent with natural disease.
  • Low-lying clouds or fog unrelated to weather; clouds of dust; or suspended, possibly colored, particles.
  • People dressed unusually (long-sleeved shirts or overcoats in the summertime) or wearing breathing protection particularly in areas where large numbers of people tend to congregate, such as subways or stadiums

What to Do In Case of Attack

Protection of breathing airways is the single most important thing a person can do in the event of a chemical or biological incident or attack.

In most cases, absent a handy gas mask, the only sure way to protect an airway is to put distance between you and the source of the agent. While evacuating the area, cover your mouth and nose with a handkerchief, coat sleeve or any piece of cloth to provide some moderate means of protection. Other basic steps one can take to avoid or mitigate exposure to chemical or biological agents include:

  • Stay alert for attack warning signs. Early detection enhances survival.
  • Move upwind from the source of the attack.
  • If evacuation from the immediate area is impossible, move indoors (if outside) and upward to an interior room on a higher floor. Remember many agents are heavier than air and will tend to stay close to the ground.
  • Once indoors, close all windows and exterior doors and shut down air conditioning or heating systems to prevent circulation of air.
  • Cover your mouth and nose. If gas masks are not available, use a surgical mask or a handkerchief. An improvised mask can be made by soaking a clean cloth in a solution of 1 tablespoon of baking soda in a cup of water. While this is not highly effective, it may provide some protection.
  • Cover bare arms and legs and make sure any cuts or abrasions are covered or bandaged.
  • If splashed with an agent, immediately wash it off using copious amounts of warm soapy water or a diluted 10:1 bleach solution.
  • Letters from unknown sources should first be screened by security personnel. If opened, letters allegedly containing anthrax or another toxin should be handled carefully. Note if there was a puff of dust or particles from the envelope when it was opened and be sure to report that when assistance arrives. Carefully place such a letter and its envelope in a sealed plastic pouch. Thoroughly wash face and hands with warm soapy water before calling for assistance.
  • If circumstances dictate, plan and prepare a chemical/biological safe-haven in your residence using guidelines listed in this guide.
  • At the office, familiarize yourself in advance with established emergency procedures and equipment at your post. See your regional or post security officer for details.
  • If in a car, shut off outside air intake vents and roll up windows if no gas has entered the vehicle. Late model cars may provide some protection from toxic agents.
    In any case of suspected exposure to chemical or biological agents, no matter what the origin, medical assistance should be sought as soon as possible, even if no symptoms are immediately evident.
  • Preparing a Safe-Haven In some remote but possible scenarios, an entire city or neighborhood could become endangered by lethal gas. If conditions at your post make this a possibility, you may want to plan and prepare a sealed chemical/biological safe-haven at your residence as follows:

Choosing a Safe-Haven Room

  • Select an inner room on an upstairs floor with the least number of windows and doors.
  • Choose a large room with access to a bathroom and preferably with a telephone.
  • Avoid choosing rooms with window or wall air conditioners; they are more difficult to seal.
  • Shut down all window and central air and heating units.
  • Seal The Room.

Pakistan Nuclear Sites Already In Radical Hands

May 20, 2009

pakistan_terror_main

 

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said his country isn’t adding to its nuclear arsenal and doesn’t have to disclose the location of its weapons to the U.S.

President Barack Obama said last month that, while Pakistan’s civilian government is “very fragile,” he is confident that the country’s nuclear arsenal is secure. He also said that Pakistan’s military is taking the threat of internal enemies seriously and recognizes the hazard of nuclear weapons “falling into the wrong hands.”

“We have confidence in their security procedures and elements and believe that the security of those sites is adequate,” General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said on Fox News.

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has told President Obama that nuclear sites in Pakistan’s restive frontier province are “already partly” in the hands of Islamic extremists, an Israeli journal has said, amid considerable anxiety among US pundits here over Washington’s confidence in the security of the troubled nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Claims about the high-level exchange between New Delhi and Washington were made in the Debka, a journal said to have close ties with Israeli intelligence, under the headline “Singh warns Obama: Pakistan is lost.” The brief story said the Indian prime minister had named Pakistani nuclear sites in the areas which were Taliban-Qaida strongholds and said the sites are already partly in the hands of “Muslim extremists.” A sub-head to the story said “India gets ready for a Taliban-ruled nuclear neighbor.”

There are recent reports and satellite images showing Pakistan building two large new plutonium production reactors in Khushab, which experts say could lead to improvements in the quantity and quality of the country’s nuclear arsenal. The reactors had nothing to do with power-production’ they are weapons-specific, and are being built with resources who diversion is enabled by the billions of dollars the US is giving to Pakistan as aid.

Could the billions of dollars the US is giving Pakistan as aid, fall into the hands of Muslim extremists?  I guess that would depend on who you believe.