Common Sense Healthcare Letters

-->

February 8, 2010

Regarding Ms Hudson's letter asking what is so scary about healthcare reform. The problem is they way the Democrats are trying to accomplish the reform. You don't need a 2000 page bill the reform healthcare, but you do need a 2000 page bill to re-structure the country under the guise of healthcare. The President's Healthcare reform (Obamacare) will force everyone over 18 to buy Health Ins and have direct access to your bank accounts to make sure it's paid for. The college student who came up with the idea for the "Governement Option", defined it as an incremental step toward single payer; aka Socialized Healthcare. And while socialized medicine may sound good to all of us that pay too much for healthcare, it is bankrupting every country were it exists. The only way socialized medicine has ever worked, is the quality of service has to be reduced. Further the President has backed away from many from his promises, that you can keep your doctor and that health care will not be rationed. Finally, Obamacare was to be paid for by reducing $500 billion from Medicare, claiming the reduced budget will result in better care for seniors. All this was just too much for Americans to swallow. You now have the President blaming the "Just say no" Republicans for the failure of Healthcare reform, even though the Democrats in both the Senate and House have passed healthcare reform bills and did not need one Republican vote until January when they lost their super majority in the Senate. Obamacare is not about lowering the cost of Healthcare; it's about a plan for massive increase in federal governmental control and that's what so scary.

February 9, 2010

Does America have the worst health-care system of the 19 industrial nations? The answer is of course no. When you hear comments like this, the first question you should as is, “Says who?” (Yes, who's on First?) The answer in this case is the World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking criteria was as follows 1) Life expectancy 2) Responsiveness 3) Inequality in health care outcomes 4) Inequality in responsiveness and 5) Inequality in individual spending. It is the last three that results in the US being ranked last. The reason is obvious, if you don't have socialized medicine, then you can not score well with the given criteria. Another problem is, the information needed for such a comparison is not collected from the individual countries, leading Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calling the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Life expediency is also misleading; as it's based on differently calculated infant mortality rates, and non-medical deaths that are high in the US such as suicides and homicides and car accidents; if you remove non-medical deaths, America leads life expectancy compared to any other western nation. So lets put these rankings to bed.

Now a quick look at price per patient for Canada and France. In Canada if you have anything that can't be treated by an office visit with a GP, you will be placed on a waiting list, and there is also no recourse if you do not agree with a doctors diagnoses. Canada keeps it's health care costs down through denied care, long waiting lists and lack of access to the latest technology. In France, which has a Medicare type system for everyone, the cost is held down by a fascists type control . The government controls the medical schools, the doctors salaries, the acceptance of malpractice cases, and how much the doctors can charge; the average French doctor makes just a little more than a policemen or fireman, his only perk being they are exempt from the national 40% Social Security Income tax. Even with this level of control, the cost of health care has skyrocketed leading to the financial crisis that currently exists in France today. Much of the higher costs of US Healthcare is a result of research and development, something the French and Canadians are happy to utilize, but don't pay a cent for. There is also the fact the US has highest survival rates for prostrate and breast cancers. You see you get what you pay for.

The Myth of Carbon Credits Part 2; The Derivatives Market

As I mentioned in my last article, The Myth Of Carbon Credits , the whole idea behind Man Made Climate Change is to create a new financial market for Cap and Trade; to trade Carbon Credit Derivatives (CCD). There is no way to discuss Man Made Climate Change without mentioning Al Gore and the United Nations, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since it's inception the United Nations stated purpose was to regulate the industrial countries of the world and redistribute their wealth to poorer countries. This can not be done, unless an organization, such as the IPCC, has regulatory authority that overrides sovereignty; this has already been accomplished by EU directives, which have the authority of law over EU member nations. In essence the United Nations intent is to use the discredited concept of Man Made Global Warming to create a world regulatory authority using carbon credits as a Global currency. The idea of carbon credits is simple enough, if you are a big oil company, like Shell Oil, you simply need to shut down a couple of poorly producing oil fields and you will be flush with carbon credits. If you are a big industry polluter, you will buy these credits and simply pass the cost on to the consumer; referred to as "pay to pollute". What is hoped is there will be companies investing in low C02 producing technology, that will be offset by the resulting carbon credits (low C02 producing technology has been referred to as “Green Technology”, however there is nothing “Green” about reducing C02, since C02 is what is used by plants for photosynthesis, which makes them green; the theory of Man Made Climate Change and carbon credits, will have no effect on reducing any pollution, as it is again, a method for the re-distribution of wealth).

The CCD market will, by definition become as complicated as the Sub-prime financial market of old. As investors in CCD market, speculators have no need for carbon credits, they are simply buying CCD, to drive up the price and make a profit; that's what speculators do. Further there is another derivative called a Credit Default Swap (CDS), which is an unregulated insurance policy on investments. A CDS is unregulated because 1) the insurer does not have to hold funds in reserve in the event the insured investment losses money, and 2) anyone can buy one of these insurance policies, regardless if they own the insured investment; this has been compared to going into a retirement home and buying life insurance on the residents. What eventually happened with the sub-prime meltdown was, the banks sold 10 times more CDS insurance policies than Mortgage Derivatives, and when housing tanked and the mortgage securities value was suspect (i.e. toxic), the banks could not pay the the CDS and had to be propped up by the US Tax Payers. This is how a bubble forms and explodes and there is no reason why this will not happen again. If the CCD tank, as the well intentioned company is converting to low C02 technology, the CCD will be worthless and the company will have no compensation.

The use of Credit Default Swaps and other derivatives has a negative effect far worse that the occasional bubble. The real problem is the Fed gave an “implicit guarantee” with these banks, that they are too big to fail. Even after TARP expires Oct, 2010, the government will still guarantee the banks to the tune of over $23 trillion (that's trillion with a “t”). This means the banks can continue to keep the casino going, gambling with these financial instruments, rather than investing in American businesses. It is a recipe for national failure; and if they create another bubble and it blows up, the Fed will continue to pay. But it doesn't have to be this way. With the stroke of a pin, Congress can regulate Credit Default Swaps, and restrict derivatives to individual contracts, based on articulated needs, such as commodities and Interest Swaps; not just profit for profit sake. The message to the banks should have been, “You gambled all your money away, now you need to get back to the work of investing in America”; the casino is CLOSED.

The Progressive Movement; Genocide for the Right Reasons

The Progressive Movement had much of it's start with Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912. The party's platform promised a new contract with the people The platform was the same as it is with Progressives today. It believed in big government to regulate industry and protect the working class. This included; social welfare, health insurance, higher and more taxes (inheritance and income), more strength to unions and bank reform. The Progressives also saw what they believed were serious flaws with the current structure of the government, called for ways to recall judicial decisions that they did not agree with and easier methods to amend the US Constitution. It is no coincidence that this Progressive Movement started at a time soon after Charles Darwin and Karl Marx published their nihilistic works, and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia that would end in victory in 1917.

With the Origin of the Species, Darwin finally allowed science to remove the exceptionalism of mankind that exists in religion and Marx redefined the value of human life by it's ability to serve the communist society,"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust". This in turn led to the Eugenics movement by Darwin's half cousin, Sir Frances Galton. Galton never justified genocide, but dehumanized the population into those that deserved life and those that don't. Margarette Sanger, the founder of Planned parenthood and an avid Eugenicist, remarked, "We can not improve the race until we first cut down production of it's least desirable members." Sanger wrote extensively on population control, encouraging forced sterilization and abortions. One of her greatest fans was Adolf Hitler who praised her writings and is believed to have had a strong influence on Hitler's "Final Solution".

The Progessives continue to extol the the philosophy of Marx, Mao and Stalin and yet recoil in horror at National Socialism and Adolf Hitler? The reason is both complex and simple. The simple answer is the Progressive movement, after embracing pre-war fascism, immediately distanced itself, once the Holocaust was publicized. While genocide may seem the obvious rational, history has shown that reasoning to be faulty; Progressives have no problem with genocide as long as it suits their agenda. The real answer is twofold; the first was the lack of deny-ability. When Progressives find themselves on the wrong side of history (as the always do), they deny the facts and/or rewrite history. While Stalin and Mao kept their genocide hidden behind closed doors for decades, Dwight Eisenhower ordered "Document everything"..."because the day will come when this will be denied".

Other than capitalism however, fascism contains all the philosophy of Progressives. First you have Eugenics, the belief that the cultural elite is genetically superior and the useless eaters of the world need to be extinguished. As George Bernard Shaw said, “If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.” The Progressive Eugenics purveyors included Shaw, Julian Huxley, Charles Darwin, HG Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Marie Stopes (co-founder of planned parenthood with Margaret Sanger) and George Orwell. The Eugenic forced sterilizations in the United States of blacks in the 1920's, peaked the interest of Hitler, which he incorporated in his book Mein Kampf.

Then you have Anti-Semitism of the intellectual left; even those that are Jewish themselves. Karl Marx was the personification of the self hating Jew. Prior to the establishment of Israel, the Arab Muslim members of the United Nations had already declared Israel an illegal state that had to be destroyed; the UN further ordered an embargo of any weapons into the area presuming it would lead to Israel's annihilation. The UN has always been the dream of the Intellectual left and their progressive plan for world government. Since that time through 2002, the Security Council "condemned", "censured", "deplored"or "strongly deplored". Israel 49 times; the Arabs: Zero. And while it has been impossible to deny the Holocaust, the progressive continue to court deniers such as Iran's President Ahmadinejad who was asked to speak at Columbia University a few years ago. Finally there is failure of the intellectual left criticize Islamic Terrorism. Recent school curriculum's, always a product of the intellectual left, defines Jesus (of Nazareth) as a young Palestinian and the 9/11 murderers were not Islamic Fundamentalists but simply a generic "teams of terrorists." Hitler also promoted universal healthcare (for productive citizens). One could say that fascism took capitalism from the right and socialism and genocide from the left

One of the core beliefs of the Progressive movement is "Sustainable Development"; this is a code word for population control. The United Nations has Agenda 21, which basically says to deny resources until the population is sustainable. The Malthusism take on population control is there are two checks; positive ones, which raise the death rate, and preventative ones, which lower the birth rate. Interestingly enough, Marx never talked of genocide. Marx believed that over-population was a byproduct of capitalism. Marx talked of the The Revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Destruction of the Capitalist State, the Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, and the Creation of Socialism; of the Bourgeoisie class Marx said it should be, " swept out of the way and made impossible". While he meant this figuratively, Stalin, Mao and Pot did not. The Point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, was to regenerate man to perfection,"In communist society, where no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic." Marx believed that science would create the environment for this perfect man, dwelling in this perfect society. What became apparent to all subsequent communists dictators is, it is much easier to kill a man than re-educate him; so they did so by the tens of millions. Further if one was to live in the Socialistic perfection of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is much easier with a reduced population; the. After 2-3 million Cambodians died from the forced evacuations of the cities, Pol Pot's foreign ministered stated, "As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man." The Progressives distanced themselves from Hitler, because he annihilated the Jews out of hatred. But deaths of ten times the Jewish Holocaust, are acceptable means as non-regenerated masses are sub-human and the end will be an improved, regenerated species. This is the second answer; the rationalization of the elite, that they the Progressives will be the administrators as mankind is perfected.

Hitler-13 million
Stalin- 43 million
Mao- 50-70 million

The swastika, the hammer and sickle, or the red star; they represent the Intellectual left and progressives attempts to wrest the worker from the rich industrialist so they can administer their annihilation; it's how it always turns out. Once again we learn that Einstein was right, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So much for intellectualism and the Progressive agenda.

Alex Jones; A Skewed World View

Alex Jones is the best there is at what he does. Not since Mae Brussell has someone emerged capable of digesting so much information and then present it a recognisable and logical form that can be understood. Unlike Mae however, I take issue with some of Jones' conclusions. It seems like the Global Warming scientists, he massages the data to produce the desired outcome. But unlike those scientists, he also gives you all the raw data to figure it out for yourself. Jones always encourages his audience to look up everything themselves and come to their own conclusions. So there is no attempt to decieve with Jones, he just has a Worldview that he firmly believes in and it is nice to find someone in Alex Jones position with a value system still intact.

We live in dangerous times. Starting with the end of the Clinton Presidency, the bankers were turned loose to rape and pillage with the help of the Federal Reserve and Congressional Banking and Financial Committees; throw in the American Dream Commitment, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and suddenly we were threatened with Martial Law unless we pay the bankers $700 billion (some say a lot more). We have the United Nations and our President pushing for World Government and redistribution of wealth, masquerading as science. The American people are angry and stunned to see a Congress, seemingly wanting to commit political suicide rather than kill a healthcare bill that 65% of the country doesn't want. All this and we still have Islamic terrorist waging a world wide war against democracy and capitalism. And more than anything else, there is Eugenics, the plan to remove the useless eaters from the planet. But, Mae Brussell once warned of Mark Lane, conspiracy theorist and attorney for Jim Jones, calling him a clearing house for conspiracy theories and that seems to be what Alex Jones has become. He mixes in-depth and legitimate investigations and guests with the improbable lunacy that is the 911 Truth conspiracy. Here he has had to lie, tell half truths and edit out contrary evidence. Alex Jones rambles on about how Global Warming doubters are always passed off as being in collusion with "Big Oil", then brands anyone who is vocal about their disbelief that 911 was an inside job, as stooges of the new world order. I have seen all the tapes and read all the books and the 911 conspiracy makes no sense at all. In this case Alex Jones seems involved in the bank robbery gone bad, but has no choice but follow-up through with it to the end (his analogy). This is not to say that Glenn Beck is always accurate. The other day he presented in mock disbelief that the Federal Reserve made $45 billion profit in 2009, more than the combined totals of all private banks in the US. What he didn't tell you is all profit by the Federal reserve goes into the US Treasury. The majority of this profit was from The Federal Reserve buying up discounted agency bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; turns out these assets were worth much more than anticipated My test of a conspiracy is this, if it takes thousands of people to stay quiet or lie, if no one can give you a cohesive time line, and the conspiracy is of such immense complexity, that it is unimaginable, and no one ever does come forward to explain it (like the Manhattan Project), than it is likely a fraud.

I am a retired Police Officer after 27 years and an Assistant Scout Master with my sons Boy Scouts Troop. Alex Jones views this as an abomination. When it comes to public safety, Jones is simply an anarchist. Jones saves his most passionate and visceral hate rants for the police. Jones antipathy for authority is a central part of his personality (hatred of authority this extreme usually has it's roots in ones upbringing (but it is not my intent to psychoanalyze Jones). Still, videos of Jones being arrested, shows him being loud and obnoxious prior to is arrest and then meek and compliant once he's out of ear shoot of the cameras. This is not to say there are not abuses by the police, but especially in a crowd control situation, the police are usually far outnumbered and can only hope to control these situations by intimidation; without the fear instilled by the appearance of "Jack Booted thuggery" the police would quickly loose control. While Alex Jones may think his megaphone rants and DVD's are the savior of the Republic, the truth is (and always has been), it is Law Enforcements adherence to the Constitution that protects the citizenry from tyranny. For, if the police do not respect civil rights of the citizenry, then by definition, there are no civil rights. Our founding fathers were very clear about the need of, and enforcement of, the rule of law; something Jones just doesn't get. The police are often called upon to keep the peace in unpopular situations and can be left looking like the bad guy; but that's their job, and no cop ever took an oath to public safety to win a popularity contest. But, as usual, when his ranting and raving is over and he has been victimized, Jones will turn to police for help as every citizen does.

When it comes to members of the Armed Services, Alex Jones is at the height of his hypocrisy. When Janet Napolitano released the Homeland Security Bulletin, Jones rightfully had a field day with her identifying returning veterans as prone to radicalization. But Jones only uses this indignity when it suits his current rant. The truth is Jones is much more prone to make our armed service members the focus of an ugly viseral rant, branding them a willing arm of the New World Order. Jones has even proclaimed that he has more courage utilizing his free speech, then those willingly in harms way to protect that right. Apparently he views lower ratings a greater sacrifice than the blood of the true freedom fighter, the American soldier.

Another problem I see with Jones is his tendency to extrapolate trends from isolated incidents, especially when it has to do with Law Enforcement (I know, you're shocked).

Police officers are stopping and shaking down motorist.Yes, but this occurred only in a small town in Texas (Tenaha), near the Louisiana state line. There the police where obviously violating the 5th amendment and abusing asset seizure laws. This is a town with a population of about 1000; it is hardly a national trend;

Cities only hire police officers with low IQ's, less than 100. Again, Yes; but this only happened in one small town in Connecticut. My experience is there is a dumbing down of the of the testing and vetting process, which might give the same result, but comes from a completely different direction.

The police routinely ignore the crimes of Hispanic Illegal Aliens. Jones says this happens in Austin, TX. I have a close friend who works fro Austin PD, and while the city is a Sanctuary City, and INS is not routinely called when Mexican Nationals are arrested, the idea that the police ignore crimes committed by Mexican Nationals is ludicrous. At most, there is a lack of tenacity in properly identifying Mexican National arrestees. If properly done, a majority of these illegal aliens would be held held (incarcerated) for the the most minor offense, due to their in-ability to properly identify themselves. However, there is no authority to do this, with mandatory cite and release statuses. Jones latest rant, was illegal aliens are only fined one dollar for DUI. Since this would violate 14th amendment, equal protection statutes, I suspect it is more of a "blood from a turnip" case; and since you can't imprison someone for their inability to pay a fine, they are simply setup on a low monthly payment;

When illegal aliens are turned over to ICE they are routinely given a green card and a job. This one seems to be from 2006 where a fence building company was fined for using illegal aliens to build fences, including the Mexican Border fence. He then apparently made up the ICE/green card part to make it sound like a conspiracy;

Boy Scouts are being trained by Homeland Security to carry out anti-terrorists raids; again let me again qualify this by admitting to be an Assistant Scoutmaster. Yes, this one has some truth. But that is a very qualified “yes”. The scouts in question are not the rank and file Boyscouts; they are a small sub-section called Explorer Scouts. There are about 4 million Boyscouts, of which 148,000 are Explorer Scouts. The age requirements of Boy Scouts is 10-17 years old; the age requirements for Explorer scouts is 14-20. The stated purpose of the Explorer Scouts is to expose them to career related programs, including aviation, medicine, science and law enforcement. Of the 148,000 Explorer Scouts, about 35,000 choose law enforcement and it is these scouts that are exposed to all aspects of law enforcement, including Homeland Security branches and anti-terrorism techniques;

The police are being federalized. 7.5 years LASD, with the Los Angeles Sheriff, 19 yrs with Santa Cruz Police. I have worked with SWAT, other police agencies, county and state attorneys and have seen no sign of the feds; heck the FBI doesn't even investigate non-violent bank robberies anymore. There were only two signs of possible federal intrusion. The first was a presentation about the NRF (National Response Framework) teaching a standardized method for response and documentation of Incident Management, known as the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The other was another presentation on the NSA/CSS and the matrix used for the National Intelligence Agencies in the United States. The idea that Homeland Security can come in on a training day and turned us into Federal Agents after watching a few videos is just ridiculous;

The story of the 10 YO girl arrested for a plastic knife; this seems to be combination a 10 YO girl who was arrested for bring a steak knife to school in Ocala, FL, (to cut her steak lunch; still way stupid of the school) and a 1 YO who kept a plastic knife from lunch and brought it into his class room in Youngstown, OH (this one had a better ending as school dropped all charges after the parents said they would sue the school for supplying their child with a deadly weapon);

The Bush Administration, through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and TARP, actually paid off the banks to the tune of $23.7 trillion. Well no, that's not what happened. The figure was based on testimony by Neil Barofsky who is the head of the TARP oversite agency (SIGTARP). The Wall Street Journal reported on this; "Mr. Barofsky also estimated the government's potential exposure to programs aimed at fixing the financial crisis at $23.7 trillion. To get to that figure, Mr. Barofsky combined direct spending with all the government guarantees and programs and assumed the "gross exposure" the government could face if all the programs were tapped to their fullest potential. "These numbers may have some overlap, and have not been evaluated to provide an estimate of likely net costs to the taxpayer," his report noted". So the report says the $23.7 trillion figure is not an estimate of likely cost to the taxpayer, only possible exposure. Still a horrifying amount, but not a government payout to the Banks.

There is probably no person who cares more than his country than Alex Jones. He talks about the many sleepless nights he spends worrying about "us"; the citizens of this republic. I too am a Constitutionalists (it comes with the job) and know we must have an educated electorate to survive. One does not have to be a 911 Truther, to know we live in dangerous times and we have more to fear from our government than any foreign source. I know Alex Jones does not expect anyone to just blindly believe everything he says, but you do have to wade through a very skewed world view to get there.

Pres Obama, America Already Knows it's Core Values

-->

“And, you know, If there's one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And that I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here --” President Obama

What are our core values? The question is fraught with esoteric rhetoric. The truth is, every person has a unique collection of elements that make up their personal core values. I'm not going to spend any time on the importance of one value over another or what values lead to successful moral life. What I am going to spend a little time on is, what I see are the unique core values of the American psyche. Simply stated personal values are those behaviours and world views that one gives a higher level of worth (or value). “Personal core values are at the very core of your being. They are the values you hold closest to your heart, the values that resonate most completely with your soul”. However there are also cultural core values. In the United States, we as Americans have some very unique core values. Interestingly enough, many of these core values come from our form of government. In no other country, does government play so intrinsic a role in core values, as in the United States. A definition of cultural core values is, a basic framework you can use to understand, analyse simple beliefs, or rules about what a culture represents and how it solves problems. The first part of this definition is striking, because few nations really care what their culture represents, but in the US, we have been raised with the idea that we are the bastion of Democracy and in some corners, the “United States is the last best hope for the preservation of freedom and liberty throughout the world”.

Ask an American what it means to be an American and he will tell you it's about living in a free country. This is what sets us aside from the rest of the world; we define ourselves not by the fact we were born here, not by our language or love of Queen, but by a form of government that guarantees freedom. Back to my definition of cultural core values; so what are the rules that defines what our culture represents? The rules are enumerated as inalienable rights due all people, guaranteed to American citizens and protected by the United States Constitution; inalienable are rights given, not by a king, not by a government, but by our creator. Finally, the cultural core value definition includes how a culture solves its problems. All this talk of freedom and liberty are hollow words, unless the culture determines how its decisions are made. Do we allow dissenters to burn flags, allow hate speech, and free criminals because of government misconduct? Or, do we not turn our backs on tyranny and genocide throughout that world? Cultural problem solving is a measure of honesty and integrity, which in the final analysis is a determination of the maturity of a culture.

These are the core values of the American people, so when you hear what President Obama said at the beginning of this blog, all Americans should pause for a moment to realize what he is actually saying; particularly, “..I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are”. Here you actually have the President of the United States regretting that he was negligent in the progressive necessity of redefining the core values of the American People. President Obama could have said, he regretted not speaking directly “with” the American people about what their core values are, but what he said was, not “speaking directly 'to' the American people". The first is a fact finding mission and the latter is indoctrination. It might be enlightening that President Obama gave over 400 speeches last year; that's more than one speech a day! One has to wonder, how many speeches he would have given if he hadn't been “just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us”.

I'll leave you with this; if the President and the Democrats were legislating reforms that conform with American core values, then it would not have been necessary for him to try and redefine them; American core values come from the bottom, up not the top down. We have the Declaration Of Independence, that defines that freedom and liberty comes from a power greater than man and a Constitution that protects and defends these rights, we don't need the progressive relativism that the President is trying to force on this country. The progressives are not the first to try and rob the American people of their liberty for a promise of safety or in this case, entitlement. We have all seen it before and it has been said over and over,“We don't want what you're are selling”.

The Boston Massacre and Socialism

With the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, many of the old arguments regarding healthcare and socialism have been coming back, as the American people one again see the prospect of real bi-partisan heathcare reform, less the special deals and bribery that have part and parcel of Obamacare. If there is one question that continues to resonate over and over it's Rodeny King's, “Why can't we all just get along?” Why not indeed. Some of the reasons are as basic as perspective and decisive as the belief the Bourgeoisie continue to hold down the Proletariat and neither are capable of governing themselves. The primary argument though, tends to center around freemarket vs socialism. While the term socialism is still, not well tolerated in arguments in healthcare, they usually try to redefine socialism as any and all government services. First, lets not forget that by definition the government is “We the people”. But, our founding fathers were not so deluded, that they believed that government would always be the people. In fact, they foresaw the “government” becoming the tyrannical entity that it has become today. Our government was designed to work from the bottom up. The power and influence was to be delegated to the individual states and limited central of federal government have only those powers that were delineated in the Constitution, and there was even added a list, or Bill of Rights to further protect the individual from the federal government. There can really be no tyranny without a far reaching federal government , which our founding fathers attempted reel in at every step. There was even an argument that the United States should have no standing army, as a standing army is the most common vehicle used to overthrow a free people. In what is probably the strongest argument for an armed citizenry, James Madison (the primary author of the Constitution) said that he felt the states had nothing to fear from a standing army due to the existence of state militias (an armed citizen army).

The reason I have spent so much time is the tyranny of collectivism (the needs of the masses over the rights of the individuals; socialism, communism, fascism), relies on a strong central government. As I said before, there are those that would argue that local and state services are a form of socialism. This is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Socialism is a system of government, in which a central government controls the means of production and all social services. Compare that to the citizens of a city or county, empowering a police force or paying for a fire department.. These services are paid for by local taxes and are directly accountable to not only a local board of supervisors or city council, but to the average citizen himself. Compare that to a federal bureaucrat, who sits on a board deciding how much your doctor will be paid for services or what services are eligible to a person your age and physical condition. In the first case the citizen dictates the type of police or firefighter they want and are directly accountable to the same citizens. With socialism there is no accountability, because the rights and needs of the individual has been abrogated for the needs of the collective. With socialism there is no room for exceptionalism, as the collective dictates demands that the quality level of service is always lowered, so there is the illusion of equal care; I say illusion, because there is always an elite requiring something better for “expediency” sake.

Geithner-gate 101

At the end of 2008, Congress approved $700 billion dollars, Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, to buy up so called, toxic mortgage securities, that were stopping the banks from making loans. However, then Treasury Security Henry Paulson along with Ben Bernanke, the new head of the Federal Reserve under Obama, decided that it would be better to just loan the money to struggling "banks and non (Investments) banks”.  At the time it is alleged Timothy Geithner President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (and heir apparent to the Obama's Secretary of the Treasury)  signed off on $1.2 trillion to be channeled through the investment bank AIG, to some these troubled financial institutions, not just in the US but throughout the EU. Wall Street Aristocracy got 1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans 

Early January, 2010, Congressman Darrell Issa, released information he received from his own federal Freedom of Information request, regarding the exchange of money between the Federal Reserve and AIG. What was discovered was shocking and most likely illegal. As it turned out, AIG funneled the money to national and international banks whom they owed money. The debt owed by AIG was in the form of stock derivative called a Credit Default Swap or CDS. A CDS is similar to a insurance policy, AIG did not have to have any money in reserve in case the insurance had to be paid out and the beneficiary doesn't have to have any connection to the property.

According to a series of emails obtained and made public by Congressman Darrell Issa, AIG had planned to inform investors in a regulatory filing published on December 24, 2008, that it had paid counter-party banks owed money at a rate of 100 cents on the dollar. The banks were owed the money for credit-default swaps they had entered into, mainly on behalf of clients.
AIG Told to Keep Quiet About Payments

These CDS' only value, is that of a marker to his bookie; in this case the bookie had to pay out.
The companies in the United States that invested in these CDS were, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank and Wachovia. The International banks were in France, Germany, Britain and Switzerland; $30 billion of AIG stock was bought, along with purchases of stock from "RBS, based in Edinburgh. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), Barclays Plc (BARC) and UBS AG (UBSN) each borrowed at least $15 billion (using stock as collateral), according to the graphs, which reflect deals made by 12 of the 20 eligible banks during the last four months of 2008.
Fed Gave Banks Crisis Gains On Secretive Loans

At a time when the economy of the country was teetering on the verge of collapse, these banks colluded with each other to pay off these CDS, these derivatives serve no other purpose, than enriching these elitist bankers who already destroyed the economy.

Hours earlier, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee said his panel will investigate bailout decisions Geithner signed off on when he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York....The New York Fed quietly funneled billions to banks to satisfy financial commitments AIG had with them. The deals might have cost taxpayers billions more than necessary because Geithner declined to demand concessions from the banks, an earlier watchdog report said.
Treasury and the Federal Reserve refused to say which banks benefited from the “backdoor bailouts” or how much money they got until after it was disclosed in news reports. Banks including Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale benefited from the deals...AIG had been negotiating the values of banks’ contracts before the government took it over in September 2008, according to published reports. Geithner considered reducing the payments for two days before paying the banks off in full.

Geithner to Testify on Secretive Bailout Deals

Unfortunately, Geithner is having some problems with this defense. One looming issue are emails from New York Fed Lawyers, at the time Geithner was still president, that instructed AIG not to disseminate how the funds were distributed. While there is no smoking gun or email with Geihtner's name on it yet, it is beyond  reasonableness to believe that the third most powerful economist in the world, who was moving up to be the Secretary of the Treasury, in what was described as a seamless transfer,  turned a blind unknowing eye to AIG and Goldman Sachs, while he continued overview of the New York Fed.