Pelosi sounds STUPID ! It's nauseating listening to her try to talk about the working of Congress ... Just listen to this video, I wouldn't be suprised if you get nauseated.
Categories: Pelosi
« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »
Pelosi sounds STUPID ! It's nauseating listening to her try to talk about the working of Congress ... Just listen to this video, I wouldn't be suprised if you get nauseated.
Posted at 12:29 PM in Costly Bills | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Read the fine print before you start getting excited or warm and fuzzy (definitely read the last paragraph in this article) and just start thinking how much all this is going to cost? Doesn't anybody in Congress care about the cost to the American Citizens? American Citizens.
roger real honest news .com
House Health-Care Bill Would Establish 'Medical Homes' for the Elderly and Disabled
Thursday, July 30, 2009
By Marie Magleby
A copy of H.R. 3200, America Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 sits on the desk of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., after the markup on the health care bill was postponed on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 29, 2009. (AP photo/Susan Walsh)(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.
But physicians’ groups say the legislation could lead to restrictions on which treatments may be used for certain conditions, despite the fact that some patients might require a unique or unconventional approach. It also may lead to dumping Medicare/Medicaid patients in facilities that are not required to have physicians on staff.
The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) expressed its concerns in a report that explains why statistical evidence does not always reflect reality of effective medicine.
“‘One size fits all’ rarely does,” the report said. “From clothes to shoes to hats, few people find that items carrying that label work with their individual bodies. So why do we entrust the health of our bodies -- one of the most important assets we have -- to a one-size-fits-all mentality?”
According to CMPI and individual physicians, however, this one-size-fits-all mentality is just what congressional health-care reform suggests.
“Unfortunately, policies being advanced under the guise of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) could do just that,” the CMPI report said. “The idea behind EBM, empowering physicians with sound evidence to incorporate into their treatment decisions for individual patients, is a good one.
“Unfortunately, EBM now is being distorted by government bureaucrats and HMOs in ways that impose top-down, one-size-fits-all restrictions on patients and their healthcare providers.”
Rather than enforcing a formulaic approach to medicine based on statistical and clinical research, CMPI says health-care reform should preserve physicians’ autonomy to use the research in conjunction with their experience and knowledge of the patient.
”It is so critically important for the physician to maintain his or her ability to combine study findings with their expertise and knowledge of the individual in order to make the optimal treatment decisions. Evidence-based medicine in its present, distorted form emphasizes just one aspect of the clinical pie over all the others,” the report found.
Kathryn Serkes of the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons echoed the observation.
“There is no typical patient,” Serkes told CNSNews.com. “Every patient is different from a medical perspective. If we have evidence-based medicine that basically says ‘well, we start at treatment one, which leads you to treatment two, to treatment three to treatment four. In practice, that doesn’t work for the patient. That’s the ‘art’ part of the art and science of medicine. That’s what we still need doctors to do, is to figure out what’s right for the patient.”
In the long run, according to CMPI, evidence-based medicine may not even cut costs as Congress suggests it would.
“Evidence-based medicine may provide transitory savings in the short term, but the same patient who takes the cheapest available statin today may very well be the patient costing you -- the taxpayer, the policymaker, the thought-leader, the sister, the spouse -- big bucks when that patient ends up in the hospital because of improperly treated cardiovascular disease,” .
“The repercussions of choosing short-term thinking over long-term results and cost-based medicine over patient-based are pernicious to both the public purse and the public health,” the CMPI report said.
Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.
The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.
The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.
At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.
The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.
If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."
According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.
“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.
Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectiveness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”
“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.
A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.
“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.
“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated.
There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”
The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.
Thank you ... Marie Magleby
Posted at 08:49 AM in "Shame on You" | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
There is a way to fax a pre written response or you can customize in your words. The links to the fax service are in this message ... you can choose to pay Liberty Counsel to fax for you, or THE LIBERTY COUNSEL GIVES YOU THE FAX NUMBERS AND PHONE NUMBERS TO DO IT YOURSELF. This is a very convenient way to start involving yourself in the process that you are passionate about.
We need to do something or Conservatives will be steam-rolled over. FLAT
roger real honest news
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
To whom it may concern, hopefully the concerned:
Despite theatrical backpedaling by the President on when his government-run healthcare will pass Congress, Obama and his allies are rushing ahead TODAY and TOMORROW at full speed to push the bill through two key committees.
ABC News reports that if ObamaCare passes through the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it will be in "good shape"
for passage in September. Meanwhile, Senate negotiators continue to feverishly work behind closed doors on their version.
And it's STILL true that every version of ObamaCare
currently being discussed includes the devastating
Abortion Mandate that will require you and me to fund
abortion with our tax dollars!
PLUS, this bill is more than an Abortion Mandate. It also requires euthanasia counseling - the frequency of which increases with age and illness.
It mandates counsel to "increase the frequency interval"
between pregnancies (in other words, bureaucrats will tell you when you should have a child). And, it even requires taxpayers to pay for "sex change" surgeries!
Not to mention the clear fact that ObamaCare is an economic suicide pill for our faltering economy!
And don't believe for a minute that Democrat operatives are actually going on vacation in August. Barack Obama is back in full campaign mode... Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel is twisting arms like crazy... and Nancy Pelosi is making more deals than she can possibly keep track of!
In fact, the President's ploy of conceding a "missed deadline"
and reluctantly accepting a vote "in the fall" was only designed to stop public pressure against the bill. The key work on ObamaCare is still rushing forward even as I write...
...and the group of pro-life Democrats we have identified
still hold the crucial key for this entire issue.
+ + Fax Your Rep and Key Pro-Life Democrats
As I mentioned a few days ago, Liberty Counsel has identified the key pro-life Democrats who have taken a strong stand against any Abortion Mandate in the ObamaCare scheme.
We must continue to flood these pro-life members of Congress with faxes opposing the oppressive ObamaCare and its Abortion Mandate today, tomorrow and even into next week to keep the pressure on!
Go here to schedule your faxes for delivery to the key
pro-life Democrats who will likely decide the fate
of ObamaCare and its despicable Abortion Mandate:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=20582&CID=297&RID=21306947
If you've already scheduled faxes this week, please forward this message to your friends so they can take a stand as well.
(Please note that we have provided all the information you need to send your own faxes at the above link. Most importantly, please take action now!)
+ + Devastating Details of ObamaCare
My staff in Washington, D.C., has been analyzing the House bill (over 1,000 pages in all, with even Members of Congress complaining that it is far too long and too complex to grasp!)
What we are finding is absolutely shocking...
..Healthcare rationing
..Mandated audits of the books of private companies
..A National Health ID card, complete with government access
to your personal information and even your bank accounts.
..Government decisions about what healthcare benefits you can
receive, even from your private employer.
..Employers required to auto-enroll all employees in ObamaCare
with no options.
And of course, the implicit and completely unacceptable Abortion Mandate. I will be providing you with a more detailed analysis of ObamaCare soon. But for now, please...
Send your faxes here:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=20583&CID=297&RID=21306947
And continue to let your voice be heard. Call your Representative and Senators today and tomorrow:
Rep. Issa 202-225-3906
Sen. Feinstein 202-224-3841
Sen. Boxer 202-224-3553
I know it's a lot to ask, but even if you've already sent faxes, I need you to send more while the President and his operatives are covertly making progress on pushing socialized medicine on America.
And the Abortion Mandate imbedded in ObamaCare is still intact!
We MUST let them know that we aren't going away on this issue!
Thank you and God bless you.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
Posted at 07:54 AM in "Shame on You", Conservative Movement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This is an article from the American Thinker .com. I reprint this article because the topic comes up in almost all conversations. President Obama need to straighten this controversy out now. So the questions can be laid to rest and the economy can move on. He Is President ?... or Isn't he ?.
July 30, 2009
Obama's birth certificate and the real issues
Thomas Lifson
I doff my cap and bow low to Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online, who has produced essential reading for anyone wondering what to think about the birther controversy rocking the right, and now breaking into the mainstream media, which sees an opportunity to mock and discredit the right.
He and I agree: the entire Kenyan birth theory is a distraction, and a useful tool in the hands of Alinskyites on the ridicule and destroy mission. But before moving on to other significant issues, McCarthy acknowledges that NRO's editorial yesterday accidentally mischaracterized the nature of the documentation that is available from Hawaii. He writes:
The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what's in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors' description, those who want to see the full state record - the certificate or the so-called "vault copy" - are not on a wild-goose chase for a "secondary document cloaked in darkness." That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they've actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what's been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.
McCarthy then lays out the real issue: Obama's extraordinary secrecy, amounting to a scrubbing of his paper trail, combined with his demonstrated record of lying about his past. Obama is a phony, though and through. A former assistant US Attorney, McCarthy economically but methodically assembles the evidence, including sources, that Obama has presented a false story of his life. He lists a startling number of lies about his life story, with documentation.
The major media have done their best to obscure the existence of oddities in Obama's life story that never made it to the two autobiographical works purportedly authored by him. It has been left to the blogosphere to point out his many lies about his past. Yet the general public remains blissfully unaware of these lies, though it does know everything about Sarah Palin's family thanks to inquiring minds of the media.
Even worse, the mainstream media twice dug up intimate details of the lives of two men who stood in his way in acquiring his seat in the United States Senate. Richard Baehr explained this on AT in 2006:
In 2004, then-State Senator Obama trailed badly in third place just weeks before the Democratic primary for the open Illinois US Senate seat being vacated by Peter Fitzgerald. The leader was investment banker Blair Hull, who had spent about $40 million on an ad campaign that got him name recognition and a big lead in the polls.
Then the Chicago Tribune peeked into his bedroom, and revealed that he was an alleged wife beater. Hull's campaign collapsed and most of his support swung to Obama, who was a poorly funded candidate going nowhere until the Tribune story destroyed Hull's candidacy.
Next, the Tribune released supposedly sealed divorce documents concerning Republican nominee Jack Ryan, revealing he was a bit too kinky in his sexual tastes for his former wife. Ryan pulled out of the race, and the Illinois Republican Party, true to its decade long death wish, nominated Alan Keyes to oppose Obama. Suddenly, the unknown State Senator was now US Senator Obama with a smashing 71% share of the vote.
Obama is, in other words, a manufactured candidate. His way was paved by the media, he has lied about who he is, and he continues to lie in ways big and small. This realization is slowly dawning on people beyond the readership of the conservative internet-based media.. Growing numbers of Americans are coming to realize that they have bought into a false picture of Barack Obama. They thought he was post-racial, a healer who loves white people and can bring closure to the trauma of the legacy of slavery. His gut-level response to the Gates arrest revealed a man still angry about race, who has little regard for the men and women on the thin blue line. Also, somebody who doesn't know how to admit he was wrong.
Once a mind is open to the concept that it has been deceived, it becomes far more curious about deceptions. This is the momentum which could well be the undoing of Obama.
Citizenship - Indonesia, not Kenya
Forget Nairobi, focus on Jakarta. McCarthy writes:
Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met - just as she had met Barack Sr. - when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as "Barry Soetoro." Obama's lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.
Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto's police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said "the parties" (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child - he'd have been only Ann Dunham's child.
There are many other points made in this long, thorough, and clear article. There are many things the American people legitimately deserve to know about the past of the President who leads them. And reasons to look into the legally murky question of whether he is a natural born citizen.
As McCarthy asks in a section heading: "When did information suddenly become a bad thing?" The born overseas scenario is a distraction, but the refusal to release the far more informative vault copy is a symbol of the cover-up of his true life story.If the media had not abandoned its watchdog role for Obama, while aggressively pushing it on two strategically situated opponents, he would never have become president.
Hat tip: Clarice Feldman
Posted at 02:48 PM in Blogs for Information, Letter to Obama | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Last night I watched the Glenn Beck show at the request of a friend. This was the catalyst for much thought on where we are; where we need to go; and how to get there.
First, I’ll provide a glimpse of perspective for the reader. I am a routine viewer of the Fox News channel and part time viewer of CNN and MSNBC so I get all sides of the story. My first career was invested as a military pilot. During that time I was fortunate to have traveled the world and worked at a very high level of our government in a support role. In my second career I turned entrepreneur and single parent.
As a point of clarification I do not use the terms republican and conservative interchangeably. The term Republican refers to the party and the term conservative refers to a political value base.
Monday evening I found Glenn Beck’s positions interesting. His show is a commentary and not news. However, I do believe that he identified some key issues. Unfortunately, his demeanor invalidates his message to some and his reputation prohibits others for ever tuning in. I am suspicious of his assessment that Americans have (are close to) hitting the wall on political correctness. However, this is a key issue which liberals capitalize on. Personally, I think the majority of our population is uninformed as to what is really taking place in
1. Stop Obama’s heath care – Health care as proposed is the one issue that breaks
2. Stop illegal immigration – Illegal immigration in the simplest form is breaking into
3. Find a real leader in the
4. Get involved – Remind the politicians that they answer to the people. Send e-mails and fax letters. Most of them are career politicians; that is a separate issue for another day, and will follow what will get them re-elected. This means that in addition to communicating to them you must cast a well informed vote at every opportunity. Talk to others, especially those who do not share your political beliefs. Remember, we never grow and learn when we live in our comfort zone. Get out of your comfort zone!
As in integral part of the political marketing campaign I advocate a basic philosophical difference in the conservative approach to doing business. In recent history the Republican Party has been chasing the Democratic Party. In essence the Republicans react to the Democrats. That is why we are losing ground on our values to the uninformed voter. Take a look at the 2008 presidential election and a few current issues:
· Obama’s campaign message was change & after some time that became McCain’s message.
· McCain attempted to turn the table on Obama when he suspended his campaign to go back to Washington & Obama out thought him and said he could multi task. McCain looked like an amateur.
· On the issues of marriage, homosexuality, abortion, gun rights, etc the Republicans are always on the defensive and await the special interest groups (Christians, the NRA and others) to come on line to defend the issues for them. Find the data and educate the people. For example: how many Americans die every year due to medical mistakes as compared to those that die due to improper handling of guns? How many die every year on our highways due to alcohol? What is the real fight here, saving lives or an agenda? On issues like health care, mortgage loans, foreign policy the Republicans stay the course and do nothing to sell the conservative view to the public or expose the Democratic failures. How many of the states currently in financial distress are liberal led? In essence the democrats say “A” and the Republicans respond with “B”. Again reacting to the Democratic position.
· The Republicans used the
· Who did the republicans put in charge of the party? The best person available who could articulate conservative values in a manner that sells it to the general public. Someone who can direct a team and effective marketing campaign or was he selected primarily on race as a reaction to a black president?
· Take health care, what is the Republican plan? Most conservatives would answer reform. What does this reform look like? We don’t know because we are too busy reacting to the Democratic agenda. This started long before Obama.
· Take a look at the major wars in our history. When we made the enemy react to us we won. As long as we reacted to them,
· As a final note, consider how Reagan handled foreign diplomacy, he made the world react to
In the air to air combat environment there is a term used called the “OODA Loop.” This term describes a process of collecting information, thinking and making decisions. This process can be applied to any competitive game, process, combat operation, competitive business deal or politics. The “OODA Loop” is a continuousprocess of gathering information, processing the information, making decisions and taking action. The more accurately the information is collected and processed the better the decisions will be. The most important factor in the process is speed. The speed, at which the information is collected, processed and the ensuing decisions are made and action is implemented the better the opportunity to defeat the adversary. Completing the process faster on a recurring basis than the adversary will eventually put the adversary on the defensive. Now we are driving the fight and the adversary is reacting to us. The opportunity for victory increases exponentially. The “OODA Loop” is defined as follows:
Observe – Watch the adversary and evaluate, collect information
Orient- Position yourself based on the observations
Decide - Make decisions about your course of action
Act - Take positive aggressive action
on the offensive and keep the adversary reacting to us.
Leadership, marketing, personal action and an approach the makes the Democrats react to the conservatives are the keys to turning the Titanic in time. Please join me in the effort!
Jon Ray
29 July 2009
Posted at 09:38 AM in Common Sense, Conservative Movement, Important Political Point, Political Points, Reporting - Journalists | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
President Obama ... What Are You Doing? It is obvious you want to run this Great Country into the ground. For What? So you can be in control?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company. At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book The Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”
“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.
“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”
The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”
At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.
“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”
In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.” But they do not revisit the issue of when exactly the “fetus” would properly be considered a “human being.”
“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original],” wrote the authors. “Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.”
The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.”
“From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens."
“There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation,” wrote the authors.
The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.”
“Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say,’” write the authors. “But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.”
Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Stanford. He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass. His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists “Human Ecology” as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.
“Dr. Holdren,” says the Web posting, “is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977),
Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).”
The next to last subsection of the chapter on “Population Limitation” in “Human Ecology” is entitled, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” which the authors stress is an “unpalatable idea.”
“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”
“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”
In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not asked about his comment in “Human Ecology” that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the population-control ideas he expressed in 1973. “In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, ‘decline in fertility to well below replacement,’ close quote, in the United States, because, quote, ‘280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many,’ close quote,” said Vitter. “What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be today?”
“I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States,” Holdren responded. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.
“I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities,” Holdren continued. “It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”
In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”
“No, senator, I do not,” said Holdren.
The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned inquiries from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s statement in “Human Ecology” that a baby will “ultimately develop into a human being.”
Thank You ... Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted at 02:23 PM in Letter to Obama | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Most of the Doctors voted for Obama. I did my own random Doctor survey (32 Doctors) and most (25) Doctors admit that they voted for Obama because they wanted "CHANGE" (there is that 'magic word' again) and now the same Doctors are negatively speaking about Obama! I wonder what happened? The Doctors now have a 'bad attitude' about Obama's 'Push (rush) to pass through the 'Health Care Plan ! You know, the Health Care Plan that will absolutely bankrupt The United States of America and also be IMPOSSIBLE to reverse once set in motion.
This 'Health Care Plan' is nothing more than ... "Out of Control Politicians and Obama" to have Control of the American Peoples lives. Don't you get it? Total Control.
Now what do we do? Impeach? Call Congress and give your opinion? Throw in the towel? Move to another country? What?
Why don't you do your own Doctor survey !
roger real honest news
Posted at 01:22 PM in "Shame on You", Letter to Obama | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
When someone wants to talk politics and you don't have much time, at least use some "One Liners"
You may add to this list anytime...
Posted at 09:03 AM in Political One Liners | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Stupid is! what Stupid does! Read this article and watch the video and remember that these politicians are running this country and somebody had to have voted for them ... again and again and again! Just appalling.
roger realhonestnews
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) – When it comes to health care reform, President Barack Obama has succumbed to the “Rahm Emanuel factor," meaning he will make a deal about anything, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told reporters at the National Press Club on Friday.
Rahm Emanuel is the White House chief of staff and a top political adviser to the president.
Conyers was complaining about President Obama not pursuing a "single-payer" health care system as the goal of his health-care reform efforts. This is a system that Conyers supports and that he says Obama also used to support.
“I can remember when Obama agreed with me,” said Conyers.
As for why Obama changed his mind and now supports the health-care reform proposal under consideration in the House (which would create a "public option" government-run insurance provider to compete with private insurance companies),
Conyers told the reporters: "I'm just guessing now, because we haven't talked about it, but he wants it because of the Rahm Emanuel factor. Okay. I'm glad you asked me. The Rahm Emanuel factor, to quote him, is that, look, we want success, and we're willing to make a deal about anything. Does that make you feel pretty comfortable about health care?" “And that’s the whole idea, is that he wants a bill," said Conyers. "He wants to win in the off-year elections. He [Emanuel] wants our president reelected the next time he comes up, and so do I. But I don't want anything that's stamped ‘reform’ and let it go at that.”
Conyers then said that the approach President Obama is taking now will not achieve its objective of holding down health-care costs.
“This will not hold down costs. It will not cover everybody,” Conyers said in reference to the current health care legislation on Capitol Hill.
“It will not take away the misery of hundreds of thousands of people who have been caught--we have so many horror stories about people having to go in bankruptcy,” said Conyers. “Well, we're having a hearing on it next week in Judiciary--about the major cause of personal bankruptcies is health care bills, hospital bills, doctor bills--and the tragedy of people not being able to eat or pay rent, or even get their pharmaceutical prescriptions.”
Posted at 02:02 PM in Important Political Point, Letter to Politicians | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This is an article from the American Thinker ... Doesn't everybody get it? I wonder just how many of us are really out there?
July 28, 2009
Obama's Teachable Moment
Joe Easley
President Obama said he hopes for a "teachable moment" in the Gates incident. Well, it is, but not for the reasons Obama thinks.
The greatest impact is not his own racial profiling of a white Cambridge cop or the missed opportunity to mediate some racial healing (see also his speech to the NAACP). No, the most salient fact is that we have a president who, by his own admission, reaches conclusions and makes decisions without having all the facts.
Substitute his strident calls for action on the economy, global warming, health care, etc., in the phrase "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role [insert issue here] played in that", but I have determined that we must act now , no matter the cost or negative effects on people's lives!
There are people who make uninformed decisions without regard for consequences like Obama; businessmen lose companies, doctors lose patients, and individuals lose family, friends and fortune.
They are charitably called inept. Most of us would call them stupid. It is frightening to realize what we will lose as a result of Obama's stupidity. It is even more than frightening, knowing that he's "acting stupidly", to think that he might get away with it.
Conservatives, have great "American Thinkers" among us !
Posted at 08:25 AM in Letter to Obama, Real-Conservative Thinkers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)