Next to the huge international hoax about global warming allegedly caused by carbon dioxide, the biggest lie being told to Americans these days is that we are “addicted” to oil and that we must convert our economy and society away from its use.
The first time I recall hearing this was during George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Speech and, frankly, I was astounded to hear it from the son of a former President who made his fortune in oil. The latest to repeat the lie is President Barack Obama, but he is allied with environmental organizations that are anti-energy no matter what form it takes.
Americans and everyone else around the world are not “addicted” to oil or other energy sources such as coal and natural gas. They are used to maintain and enhance modern life.
Data from 2006 makes it abundantly clear that 85.5% of the electricity we use comes from carbon-based fuels. Nuclear and hydroelectric energy add over 20% of the rest. All that magical “clean” energy, solar and wind, provides 3% or less of the electricity the nation requires.
As Robert Bryce, an editor of Energy Tribune and author of several books on energy, says, “The simple unavoidable truth is that we humans cannot (and) will not quit using oil. If oil did not exist, we’d have to invent it. No other substance can compare to oil in terms of energy density, flexibility, cost, and convenience.
“About 95% of the world’s transportation fuel comes from oil,” notes Bryce. “Thus, without oil, there is no commerce.” No commerce, no world economy.
Americans are being force-fed lies about energy and the worst of them are about “clean energy research and development.” There are no viable or sensible substitutes for oil, coal, and natural gas.
Nancy Pelosi recently told the Catholic Community Conference that she has a duty to pursue public policies in keeping with the values of Jesus.
Pelosi repeatedly referenced “The Word.” She didn’t, however, tell anyone that the word is “crazy,” but this video makes that quite evident:
Kind of like watching Jack Kevorkian trying to gain the trust of attendees at an AARP convention, isn’t it?
“The word was made flesh” — unless that flesh wasn’t wanted for any reason whatsoever.
Here’s a bit of Pelosi’s abortion voting record from On the Issues:
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
I know, that headline got your brain moving in a really weird way first thing in the morning. The words in the sentence simply don’t fit together. I mean, what the hell does the Federal Communications Commission have to do with Drug Trafficking regulation or taxing? The answer: Absolutely nothing. But it would be a heck of a revenue generator for the organization. Can’t happen, right? I would normally say no. But in light of what I am about to share I am beginning to question that premise. I used to think that an organization couldn’t simply randomly decide to tax or regulate something that it has nothing to do with. Then I ran across an article tonight on Fox News with the headline, “World Health Organization Moving Ahead on Billions in Internet and Other Taxes.” You read it right. I am not making this up. The World Health Organization, in an effort to both raise revenue and further redistribute wealth from countries like the US to poor countries, has decided to move ahead with an internet tax. What?
When I read the headline, I thought that this certainly must be some sort of mis-print. I mean what does the World Health Organization have to do with taxes or with the internet? So here is how the article began:
The World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations’ public health arm, is moving full speed ahead with a controversial plan to impose global consumer taxes on such things as Internet activity and everyday financial transactions like paying bills online — while its spending soars and its own financial house is in disarray.
The aim of its taxing plans is to raise “tens of billions” of dollars for WHO that would be used to radically reorganize the research, development, production and distribution of medicines around the world, with greater emphasis on drugs for communicable diseases in poor countries.
The irony is that the WHO push to take a huge bite out of global consumers comes as the organization is having a management crisis of its own, juggling finances, failing to use its current resources efficiently, or keep its costs under control — and it doesn’t expect to show positive results in managing those challenges until a year from now, at the earliest.
So quick summary here. The World Health Organization cannot seem to run its ship budget neutral. They are spending money faster than they are bringing it in. They have become a gigantic bureaucracy, which means that there is being money lost, wasted, and “frauded” away at unacceptable levels. Because they cannot run the organization correctly, they need more money. Their proposal is to levy a tax on all people throughout the world on internet usage. They would use the new revenue to fund research and treatment in poor countries.
Fox News initially reported last January on the “suite of proposals” for “new and innovative sources of funding,” prepared by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats, when it was presented of a meeting of WHO’s 34-member Executive Board in Geneva.
We all know that heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are addictive drugs that do a great deal of harm to those addicted to them, but the U.S. government has been pushing global warming, now called climate change, to addict Americans to the belief that the Earth is threatened when it is not.
Climate change is what has been going on for the 4.5 billion of years of Earth’s existence. It has nothing to do with human behavior, energy use, or carbon dioxide, the bogyman of greenhouse gases.
So why is the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, preparing to release “three new reports examining how the nation can combat the effects of global warming”?
Why does one of the reports focus “on the science that supports human-induced climate change and the others review options for limiting the magnitude and adapting to the impacts of global warming” when there is NO global warming?
The Earth has been in a distinct and well-documented cooling cycle for over a decade at this point in time!
Moreover, the U.S. government has wasted some $50 billion on climate change research over the course of the last two or three decades. Do we really need three new reports—–particularly when they are going to repeat that same debunked “science” that has underwritten the greatest fraud of the modern era?
May 19 is the day when the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Ralph J. Cicerone, will deliver the opening statement and members of the several panels will commit an act of scientific charlatanism by repeating the lies that have been driving the global warming fraud for way too long.
The Congressional Research Service has issued their report regarding the treatment of noncitizens in H.R. 3200. There has been a lot of debate over this topic, with the president and democrats saying illegals are not covered, while those opposed to the bill saying they are. A number of loopholes in the bill, including no provisions for checking immigrations status, prove illegal immigrants can and will be covered by the bill, at the taxpayers’ expense. The Summary of the report is include below. If you would like to read the entire report, please click on CRS Report.
August 25, 2009
Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200
Congressional Research Service
Summary
This report outlines the treatment of noncitizens (aliens) under H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. In particular, the report analyzes specific provisions in H.R. 3200, and whether there are eligibility requirements for noncitizens in the provisions. Within the bill, noncitizens are treated differently in several provisions. In 2008, there were approximately 37.3 million foreign-born persons in the United States. The foreign-born population was comprised of approximately 15.1 million naturalized U.S. citizens and 22.2 million noncitizens.
H.R. 3200 includes an individual mandate to have health insurance, with tax penalties for noncompliance. Individuals who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for themselves and their children would be required to pay an additional tax. Some individuals, including nonresident aliens, would be exempt from the individual mandate. “Nonresident alien” is a term under tax but not immigration law. For federal tax purposes, alien individuals are classified as resident or nonresident aliens. In general, an individual is a nonresident alien unless he or she meets the qualifications under a residency test. Thus, legal permanent residents, and noncitizens and unauthorized aliens who qualify as resident aliens (i.e., meet the substantial presence test), would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.
In addition, under H.R. 3200, a “Health Insurance Exchange” would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option. The Exchange would provide eligible individuals and small businesses with access to insurers’ plans, including the public option, in a comparable way. Individuals would only be eligible to enroll in an Exchange plan if they were not enrolled in other acceptable coverage (for example, from an employer, Medicare and generally Medicaid). H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange – whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently. Nonetheless, only aliens who could be classified as resident aliens would be required under the bill to have health insurance.
Under the title of Public Health & Workforce Development are a number of grants, scholarships and other programs, providing training, services and a whole new array of studies relating to health care – a lot of money being spent to support the expansion of government, special interests, illegal immigrants and labor unions, but little to help solve the health care issues.
The first expansion is the establishment of the Public Health Investment Fund, which requires deposits from the revenues of the Treasury in the amount of $88,700,000,000 over 10 years. This money is authorized to be appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate for carrying out the activities under the designated public health provisions. These areas include Community Health Centers, National Health Service Corps Program, National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs, Primary Care Loan Funds, Primary Care Education Programs, Nursing Workforce Development, The National Center for Health Statistics and the Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality.
To make these programs even more appealing is the stipulation that “Amounts appropriated under this section, and outlays flowing from such appropriations, shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and budget solutions for fiscal years during which appropriations are made from the fund.” More spending without any concern for balancing the budget or controlling the country’s deficit. We don’t have it, but let’s spend it!
The first program – Community Health Centers – will obtain increased funding in the amount of $38,800,000,000.
The National Health Service Corps is being amended allowing the Secretary to issue waivers to individuals who enter into a contract for obligated service to pay for their education. It further raises the loan repayment amount from $35,000 to $50,000 and will be adjusted thereafter to reflect inflation. Additional appropriated funds for this program are $796,000,000 over the next 10 years. Additional funding is authorized in the amount of $3,171,000,000 over 10 years to cover the National Health Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs.
The Frontline Health Providers Loan Repayment Program will be established to address unmet health care needs in certain areas, populations, or facilities as designated by the Secretary. Individuals participating in this program must agree to serve for a period of 2 years in a health professional needs area specified in the program. This program has a clause that if there are an insufficient number of applicants for the program, then all excess funds from the program will be transferred to the National Health Service Corps to recruit more people to take advantage of this fund.
The Secretary shall establish a primary care training and capacity building program consisting of grants and contracts to plan, develop, operate or participate in accredited professional training in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics or geriatrics. Funds for this program are from the Public Health Investment Fund in the amount of $3,023,000,000 for 10 years and will include the following:
Capacity Building in Primary Care – grants to specialties of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics or geriatrics, with preference given to entities that train individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.
Training of Medical Residents in Community-Based Setting – a program established for the training of medical residents in community-based settings, with preferences given to entities that support teaching programs addressing the health care needs of vulnerable populations or are a Federally qualified health center or rural health clinic, as well as preference to those training individuals from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged background.
Training for General, Pediatric or Public Health Dentists and Dental Hygienists – grants and contracts to plan, develop, operate or participate in an accredited professional training program or oral health professionals, with preference given to individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.
Grants for Health Professionals Education – Advanced Education Nursing Grants is being amended, including increases in dollar amounts for the Nurse Faculty Loan Program. Funding for this program is $1, 450,000,000 over 10 years.
Listed below are key provisions from H.R. 3200 – the health care “reform” bill currently moving through the U.S. House of Representatives.
Forcing Employer-Based Plans to Change
Page 17 – Section 102(b)(1)(A) forces every employer-based plan to conform to new benefit mandates, uniform marketing standards, cost-sharing, actuarial value, medical-loss ratio and other new requirements of this bill. Even if you are happy with your coverage, you will be forced to change your plan.
Prohibition on the Sale of Coverage in the Individual Market
Page 18 – Section 102(c) prohibits the sale of private health insurance policies on the individual market, beginning in 2013, and forces individuals to purchase federal government-approved coverage through a new “National Exchange.” Plans sold in the Exchange will be forced to comply with new benefit mandates, uniform marketing standards, cost-sharing, actuarial value, medical-loss ratio and other new requirements of this bill – making private health coverage less affordable and more expensive for the average American.
Creation of a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to Dictate the Terms of Your Health Coverage
Page 30 – Section 123 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the content of health plans that all individuals must purchase. Along with the Secretary of HHS and a new “Health Choices Commissioner,” this new Committee will decide what type of health plans will be available to you and your family.
Unelected Bureaucrat Becomes Second Most Powerful Government Official in America
Page 41 – Section 141 creates a new “Health Choices Commissioner:” an unelected bureaucrat who can impose penalties, take away your current health coverage, and will become the second most powerful person in Washington behind President Obama.
Protection for Members of Congress
Page 74 – Sections 202(c) and (d) protects Members of Congress with existing federal employee coverage (as defined in Section 100(c)(6) on page 9) from joining the government-run health plan offered through the Exchange.
The U.S. health care system is the best in the world, spurring advancements in new medical treatments and technologies. Such innovation helps physicians treat and prevent diseases better than ever before, eradicates once fatal epidemics, and helps Americans lead longer, healthier lives.
Despite these advances, millions of Americans struggle to find affordable health insurance options. From 1999 to 2008, the average cost of a family health plan increased by 119 percent from $5,791 to $12,680. Meanwhile, workers’ wages increased 34 percent during the same nine-year period. Ensuring access to quality, affordable health care is a laudable goal. I support targeted solutions that lower health care costs and improve health care by building upon, not completely dismantling, our health care system.
Unfortunately, many of the proposals being considered in the U.S. Senate will make health insurance more expensive, jeopardize Arizonans’ current coverage, and expand the government’s control over health care. While you will not find the words “ration,” “withhold coverage,” or “delay access to care” in the pending plans, that is what will result from the web of federally-dictated insurance reforms, new legal obligations, and provider reimbursement schemes that are part of them. Such policies centralize the power of medical decisions with politicians and bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, and they will result in the delay or denial of care.
There are three main problems with the Majority party’s proposals: the implementation of a government-run insurance plan, the use of comparative effectiveness research, and spending.
Government-Run Insurance Plan:
First, the Majority’s proposals would create a new, government-run health insurance plan to compete against private insurance plans. The argument is that a government-run plan would give consumers a better range of choices and make the health care market more competitive –”keep the insurance companies honest,” as the President put it. However, well-respected, independent analysis provides evidence to the contrary. For one thing, a government-run plan would be subsidized by the taxpayers, giving the government plan a huge advantage over competitors. Yet, even government resources are not unlimited. To save money after tens of millions of people are added to the public plan, the government would cut reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, exacerbating the difficulty Arizonans’ already encounter in trying to schedule doctor appointments. To make up for low government reimbursements to providers, insurance companies would have to charge more for private insurance, making it less attractive than the government plan.
Over time, there will only be room for the government plan according to the respected Lewin Group, as 119 million Americans would lose their current coverage. Remember, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed as independent “government-sponsored enterprises” to complement the private mortgage market. Now, Fannie and Freddie account for a combined share of 73 percent of mortgage originations in the second half of 2008. The two “government-sponsored enterprises” are now effectively owned and run by the federal government, after having sustained losses of over $100 billion last year alone. A Washington-run health care plan will do to the health care market what Fannie and Freddie did to the housing market.
Next to the huge international hoax about global warming allegedly caused by carbon dioxide, the biggest lie being told to Americans these days is that we are “addicted” to oil and that we must convert our economy and society away from its use.
We all know that heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are addictive drugs that do a great deal of harm to those addicted to them, but the U.S. government has been pushing global warming, now called climate change, to addict Americans to the belief that the Earth is threatened when it is not.
