Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Restoring a government that moves backwards to the European model America revolted against is not moving forward.
We often hear that one of the reasons health care “reform” is necesary in the US is because the uninsured overwhelm emergency rooms. We hear horror stories of overcrowded emergency rooms with long wait times, which would only be better if we had a national health care system like Canada.
A couple of interesting facts:
Average US emergency room wait time: 4.05 hours
Average Canada emergency room wait time: 8.9 to 23 hours
I confess the numbers are not apples-apples, but they are certainly in the ballpark and highly illustrative. Have any commenters seen a direct comparison?
Update: OK, the numbers are more apples-apples than I thought. The US 4 hour number is total time from coming in the door to leaving or getting a bed, the same as the Canadian numbers. The CNN report linked above got their data from here.
Tags: canada, emergency room
Category: Uncategorized
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/07/the-emergency-room.html
Edit: Now are you talking someone actually needing emergency care or someone in for the flu seeking care?
*My wife works in a hospital and has a close friend that works in an emergency room in a major city.
I realize it's not perfect but it's much better than the long lines socialized medicine is proven to create.
*Government run programs are proven to be very, very inefficient. What makes you think they will improve any current emergency room issues?
Government kept within the constraints of the Constitution was what built this nation.
Empowered people, self accountability, responsibility is what built this nation.
Why do you want to ensure those things are not restored?
We provide basic health care. Anyone that shows up an emergency room can not be denied care (if they need it). That's a pesky fact you ignore.
Indian Reservations exist in America and the list of "alcoholic" countries you give have gov health care.
*Those reservations also have free college education, dental, gov housing etc... and sure as hell hasn't helped them to take care of themselves.
You sir are the dolt if you can't see that gov dependency "breaks" the will of the people, costs jobs etc..
Pathetic you aren't for empowering the people vs empowering the government/big business.
Just didn't want you to miss it:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44787089
Seems to be a pattern of a standard of living that falls apart when government is empowered vs the people being empowered.
Proof is in the pudding as they say and big government programs are lethal to freedom, middle/lower class etc...
Kinda like an Indian Reservation? Seems like government care can be not so good?
Polish Health Services
2005-06-15
In Poland every employee must be insured. Their health contributions reach the state insurer, who in turn guarantees financing for medical care. In theory, patients should not pay for treatment in a state-run health center, but in reality this is not always the case.
In Poland, those covered by universal health insurance (obligatorily or optionally) can use free health services. Its rules are defined by a law of Jan. 23, 2003 on universal insurance in the National Health Fund (NFZ). Insured individuals and members of their families are eligible for free medical services if they use the services of doctors and medical centers which have signed contracts with the NFZ. The NFZ finances health services and ensures drug refunding for patients. It has a central office in Warsaw and 16 provincial branches.
Public and private service providers who have signed contracts with provincial NFZ branches must provide health services. Service providers include health insurance doctors (physicians and dentists), public and private healthcare centers (hospitals, ambulance services, health centers and clinics), and individual, specialist and group medical practices.
In Poland, funds for healthcare come from both public and private sources. Most funds are sent to the NFZ, which collects health insurance contributions. For 2005, the NFZ has a total of zl.32 billion at its disposal. Another source of public support for the healthcare sector is the national budget-in 2005 a total of zl.3.4 billion. A third source is money provided by local governments, which generate their income from local taxes.
http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/sci_health/health/wv/link.shtml
How is Poland's socialized health care working out? Fact is that poverty kills and government dependent people end up in poverty. Do you dare to dispute it?
Winter freeze kills 79 in Poland
AFPDecember 22, 2009
WARSAW - Ten people have died of cold in Poland over the past day, taking the toll since winter set in earlier this month to 79, police said Tuesday.
A national police spokeswoman told AFP that 10 people had been found dead since Monday.
The majority of the victims were homeless men who died while drunk, police said.
Fifty-two of the 79 deaths recorded since December 1 occurred since Friday, as temperatures plunged to minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus four Fahrenheit).
By Tuesday, temperatures had risen to around zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit).
Police and municipal employees have boosted patrols in areas where the homeless gather, notably public parks and allotments, to try to persuade them to head to special hostels.
The death toll is far from unusual in Poland, which regularly faces harsh winter conditions.
In the 2008 to 2009 winter season, for example, police recorded 82 deaths from hypothermia.
Poland's highest winter toll in recent years was in 2005 to 2006, when 233 died.
http://www.canada.com/news/Winter+freeze+kills+Poland/2370272/story.html
Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.
“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”
cont....
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/58921
A U.S. House Democrat who opposes the health care overhaul announced Tuesday he is defecting to the GOP, another blow to Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.
U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith spoke to reporters at his home in northern Alabama, a region that relies heavily on defense and aerospace jobs.
"I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt," Griffith said as his wife Virginia stood by his side.
cont...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091222/D9COJHCO0.html
Posted by: sarshee Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:37:40 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 176966 [Send a link via email] [Share on Facebook] [Tweet this post]
I was just watching FOX News and saw that the White House Christmas Tree had some interesting ornaments this year. Remember that the ones sent with religious symbols were returned to the senders with the message that there would be no religious symbols allowed.
But guess what shows up now. An ornament with the picture of Chairman Mao,a famous Drag Queen ornament, and of course an ornament of the "ONE" himself superimposed on Mt. Rushmore.
I can deal with the last one as a joke, but the other two are just too much. Is there no shame or decency in this administration. Do we have to desecrate the White House with this trash? I will do all I can to HOPE AND CHANGE his address back to Chicago in 2012.
I think your intentions may be in the right place but your method of getting there ultimately betrays those you say you want to help.
gov is corrupt and has to take from the people to expand. It takes far more than it ever gives.
[2]There are two slightly different federal definitions of FPL, and the bill is unclear as to which would apply for purposes of determining subsidies. However, the difference in this case is only $100 (or for four times the FPL, $400). This is vastly outweighed by the size of the tax penalty ($3,000).
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2737.cfm
I read it- that's why I included the article down to that point.
Here's what it comes down to. If Obama was for the people and Congress was too- they'd do these few things first.
1) They'd allow drugs from Canada to come in. They aren't because Obama's promise to big pharmacy is more important than the American people.
2) They'd open up the competition amongst insurance companies vs allowing insurance companies to protect their markets with state lines.
3) The gov wouldn't FORCE people to buy something they didn't want.
etc.........
By supporting the bill you are supporting the big corporation agendas above and throwing the "people" under the bus.
What sector of the economy is going to provide the jobs beginning in the Q1? (Hope you are right- hard to believe that jobs continue going so quickly under Obama)
*Lower number of unemployment applicants doesn't count when people are unemployed so long that they no longer qualify for beneifts.
Regardless of one's views of the Senate bill, it does not comport with the broad popular themes articulated by President Barack Obama and the many congressional leaders who have championed these policies. Contrary to the President's repeated promises to the American people,[5] the Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would:
Cause many Americans to lose their current health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that up to 10 million Americans would no longer be covered by their employers.[6] Given the bill's incentives for employers to discontinue job-based coverage, independent analysts expect the loss of employer-based coverage to be much higher.
Bend the cost curve up. According to independent analysts and government actuaries, the bill would substantially increase total health care spending instead of reducing it as promised. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), recently judged the projected savings from the Medicare updates as "doubtful" and estimated that the total national spending on health care would increase.[7]
Impose many new taxes on middle-class Americans. The Senate bill contains over a dozen new taxes, including a 40 percent excise tax on high-priced health plans and special fees and taxes on insurance, drugs, medical devices, and anyone who violates the new mandates.[8]
Reduce many seniors' access to Medicare benefits and services. The bill would reduce Medicare payments by an estimated $493 billion over 10 years,[9] including payment reductions for Medicare Advantage, hospital care, home health care, and nursing homes.
Provide federal funding for abortion. Contrary to the President's clear statement to Congress and the nation on health care reform,[10] the Senate bill would provide funding for abortion. The House would prohibit using taxpayers' dollars to finance abortion, but a similar amendment to the Senate bill was tabled without even a floor vote.[11]
Surveys consistently show that the American people clearly want health care reform but do not support the bills sponsored by the House and Senate leadership. While they want Congress to enact policies that would increase choice and competition, and thereby help to control costs and rectify inequities in the health insurance markets, they do not favor a federal takeover of the health care system. Nor do they want the power to make key health care decisions transferred from individuals, families, and medical professionals to government agencies, departments, commissions, and advisory boards.
Much better options are available. Reform of the tax treatment of health insurance is a top priority. Eliminating the federal tax code's discrimination against workers who do not or cannot obtain health insurance through the workplace would expand health insurance coverage; today these persons get no tax relief for the purchase of health insurance coverage. Removing the legal barriers to individuals and families who wish to buy health insurance in a state other than their state of residence would also open health insurance markets to real free-market competition. Promoting state-based health insurance market reforms, designed by state and not federal officials, could dramatically expand coverage, cope with adverse selection in the markets, and secure affordable health insurance under the varying conditions that prevail within the states for the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
Beyond these options, if Congress were truly serious about "bending the cost curve down," it should fo
cont...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2353.cfm
The Senate health care bill includes a well-known "employer mandate" provision that would require employers to either offer a "qualified" health plan and pay 60 percent of the premium or pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per full-time employee.
What is less well-known is that the provision would also tax companies even if they do offer insurance -- but only if they hire people from low- and moderate-income families who qualify for, and elect to accept, premium subsidies. And the tax penalty for hiring those employees -- arguably the people who need jobs the most -- would be a whopping $3,000 per employee per year.
The combination of this tax penalty and the rules for determining who qualifies for premium subsidies would encourage companies to engage in some new and repulsive forms of employment discrimination.
Who Would Qualify for a Subsidy?
There are two criteria for qualifying for a subsidy under the Senate bill:
First, family income -- not how much this employee is paid by this company, but total family income -- would have to be below four times the federal poverty level (FPL). The FPL depends primarily on family size[1]; for 2009, four times the FPL would be $43,320 for a single adult with no children and $88,200 for a family of four (regardless of whether it is a single parent with three children or two parents and two children).
Second, the premium share to be paid by the employee would have to be more than 9.8 percent of family income.
Note that in both cases, whether a company has to pay the $3,000 tax depends not on how much that company pays the employee but on the total income of all the employee's family members from all sources. (Normally employers do not know the income of their employees' family members, but the Senate bill calls for the IRS to tell employers which employees fall into this category on a monthly basis.)
Here are some examples of how these provisions would play out.
The Single Parent v. the "Second Income." Suppose an employer is faced with two applicants for the same job at the same pay: a single parent of three children and a married parent with two children and a working spouse.
In this case, the "four times FPL" threshold is about the same for both applicants, since they both have the same family size.[2] However, once hired, the applicant with the working spouse will have a higher family income, so the single parent is more likely to qualify for a premium subsidy --
cont....
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2737.cfm
A false "healthy nation" bill in exchange for poverty, no jobs, little to no way to self sustain while big corporations loot the wealth is a good deal?
Posted by: Trinityz1 Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:46:16 PM
In reply to: extelecom who wrote msg# 176900 Post # of 176919
yeah well....when the poor's stomachs are gnawing on their backbones......
they won't give a rip about healthcare
Theft from the people of America. If you are a person that backs the betterment of the people, as you claim, you would come from a different approach than big gov.
You would be for the empowerment of the people opposed to the machine that is designed to make the people dependent upon gov care.
The fact you are for gov becoming more empowered vs restoring power to the people is why you are clearly fraudulent in your claims
EDIT: Well said! Now consider some historical FACT vs rhetoric:
*I'm sure you'd rather not acknowledge the FACTS behind Obama and his actions so go ahead and say "bbbbuuuttttt Bush.... neo con..... lies, war, tea baggers etc....." LMAO
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44745538
Promising change after eight George Bush and Republican dominated years, Barack Obama won the most sweeping non-incumbent victory in over 50 years along with congressional Democrats gaining large House and Senate majorities. In addition, at 56.8%, voter turnout was the highest since Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war and his "Southern" and "law and order" strategies beat Hubert Humphrey and independent George Wallace in 1968.
On election night, the mood celebrated hope for progressive change, an end to imperial wars, and a new day for America. When word came around 10PM, expectant thousands in Chicago's Grant Park erupted with chants of "yes we can," hoping Obama would make a difference at a time of deepening economic duress.
In its November 4, 2008 editorial titled, "The Next President," The New York Times called it "one of those moments in history when it is worth pausing to reflect on the basic facts," then listed some:
-- for the first time, Americans elected a black president;
-- his triumph was "decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country, (and will change direction) to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world;"
-- he "committed to ending a bloody and pointless (Afghan) war (and) restore Americans' civil liberties and (the nation's) reputation around the world;"
-- he must now "prevent an economic collapse fed by greed and an orgy of speculation (by) impos(ing) control, coherence, transparency and fairness," in contrast to George Bush; and
-- he "now needs the support of all Americans (to help him deal with the) many other urgent problems that must be addressed."
Endorsing his candidacy early on for a socially liberal new beginning, Nation magazine editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, looked for a "transformational presidency, (a) new era of possibility, a historic opportunity for a progressive governing agenda and a mandate for bold action....Tonight we celebrate," she said.
Campaigning, he offered change, a new course, sweeping government reforms, addressing people needs, and "ensur(ing) that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists," the same ones he said wouldn't run his administration, but would "have a seat at the table," and why not given their large contributions to him and other Democrats.
Little wonder that a year later hope is now disillusion, frustration, and anger over promises made, then broken with an awakening knowledge that change won't come unless growing millions demand it.
A Man of the People or Machine Politics
Obama rose through the system, a man James Petras calls "the greatest con man in recent history" in comparing him to Melville's Confidence Man: "He catches your eye while he picks your pocket." He talks change but delivers continuity.
He's a highly skilled demagogue doing Lincoln one better through his campaign and early months in office by fooling enough of the people to matter.
Connected to the fringes of Chicago politics, he served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 - 2004. After a failed 2000 congressional race, he became a US senator in 2004, then used his position for a successful presidential bid. While "cordial, (but) not close" to Richard Daley, he endorsed his reelection, and called his connection to former fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, "a bone-headed mistake," after he was indicted and convicted on federal corruption charges. Also troubling was his "political godfather," Emil Jones, Jr., former Illinois Senate president, who was tainted by an "ethical cloud."
His chief fundraiser is Penny Pritzker, some describe as America's most powerful woman and one of the richest as heiress to part of the Pritzker fortune. Believed over $40 billion, most of it is grandfathered in tax-free offshore trusts. Only the little people pay taxes as a prominent scafflaw once said.
An October 2008 Bloomberg "Power of Penny Pritzker" article stressed the enormous influence she wields in Democrat party circles as a fundraiser extraordinaire, and, according to Warren Buffet, she's the person to call when you want to "get the job done."
Bloomberg largely credited her with getting Obama elected and mentioned her connection to the subprime meltdown. Called by some the "subprime queen," she was one of its originators when she ran the failed suburban Chicago Hinsdale-based Superior Bank. With $2.3 billion in assets, it was from predatory lending, sloppy bookkeeping, overstating securitized assets, and suspected fraud kept hidden until regulators closed it in July 2001. Behind the scenes, Pritzker has clout in the administration without headlines because of her connection to Wall Street and other powerful interests.
The Illusion of "Yes We Can"
As a senator, Obama's voting record told all, that he supports power, not progressive change, but few took the trouble to check it:
-- he backed Homeland Security funding that, like the Patriot Act, violates constitutional rights by centralizing militarized law enforcement under the executive;
-- he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005 and did again recently as president; more on that below;
In her book "The Twilight of Democracy," Jennifer Van Bergen said the 2001 act (still the law) gives:
"tremendous powers to central authorities, undermine(s) civil liberties, and enable(s) suppression of opposition. (It's the) mainstay of government oppressive power (as it) authorizes and codifies a near-absolute and permanent invasion of (our) private lives, sets vast precedents in immigration law....dissolves....human rights (civil liberties, and erects) a massive law enforcement apparatus (targeting) immigrant(s) and citizen(s worldwide)." This act alone gives the executive unchecked power, erodes due process, free association, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
It eviscerates fundamental Bill of Rights freedoms, ones Obama voted to sacrifice and does as president by agreeing with Congress to extend three Patriot Act provisions set to expire at year end - to let government operate roving wire taps, search any person's business, personal, and library records by authorization of a national security letter, and spy on foreign nationals with no known links to terrorist designated groups.
-- in 2006, he campaigned for extremist Joe Lieberman over anti-war candidate Ned Lamont;
-- despite earlier and current rhetoric, he supports permanent wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan with no withdrawal timetables;
-- he advocated adding 100,000 combat troops to the military at a time America has no enemies;
-- he's unreservedly pro-Israel (a leader James Petras calls "America's first Jewish president"), including continuing the annually supplied billions and latest weapons and technology for its imperial agenda and occupation of Palestine;
-- he stayed silent during Operation Cast Lead; pays disingenuous lip service to the peace process he renounces; and favors destabilizing Iran, perhaps attacking its nuclear sites, and deposing its leadership in support of the Israeli Lobby and imperial American interests;
-- he opposed an amendment capping credit card interest rates at 30% and still does; and
-- he backed George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" scheme to destroy public education and now has his own.
He supported:
-- medical providers in wrongful injury cases;
-- the right of mining companies to strip mine everywhere, including on government lands;
-- the Bush administration's 2005 Energy Policy Act in spite of critical campaign rhetoric; it was secretly drafted and provides billions in industry subsidies;
-- vastly expanded nuclear power; lax industry regulation; billions in subsidies, and numerous other benefits to promote a dangerous technology;
-- harmful biofuels production and other agribusiness interests, including global GMO food proliferation, known to harm human health and should be banned;
-- privatized healthcare despite the benefits of universal single-payer he rejects as well as real reform;
-- free, not fair, trade deals like NAFTA and the WTO;
-- the death penalty and America's prison-industrial complex; and
-- repressive immigration legislation targeting Latinos, including militarized borders, police state raids, roundups, imprisonments, and deportations.
He opposed the 2006 Military Commissions Act but supports military tribunals and preventive detentions for torture prison detainees.
He waffled on CIA interrogation practices and won't prosecute offenders.
He voted to expand NSA eavesdropping powers while rhetorically opposing "excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, and enhanced interrogation techniques like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency." More below that as president he authorized these and other abhorrent practices he disingenuously condemned as a candidate.
He voted to approve rogue Bush administration appointments, including Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, and Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security.
He backed the 2007 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959), called the "thought crimes" act. It passed the House but not the Senate.
He opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney or prosecuting all high-level torturers, and overall had a more Republican than Democrat voting record. It's unsurprising as on war and peace, Israel/Palestine, Wall Street, and most things business, it's hard telling the difference.
In the Senate, he earned his bona fides, showed he was "safe," and once elected hasn't disappointed - the powerful, that is, not the people growing increasingly discontented for being betrayed by a leader no different from the rest.
Pre and Post-Inaugural Appointees
From transition to his economic, national security, and other high-level team, most are former administration officials - from Wall Street, the military, and other key power centers for continuity, not progressive change he disdains. The result has been the worst of all possible worlds, including permanent wars, eroded civil liberties and social services, and plundering the nation's Treasury for Wall Street while ignoring the public interest.
Wall Street's Financial Coup d'Etat
Like his predecessor and previous ones since Ronald Reagan, Obama put a criminal cabal in charge of furthering the greatest wealth transfer in history - from the public to the top 1%, unfettered by rules, regulations, the law, or onerous taxes. It's designed to keep offshoring high-paying jobs, wipe out the middle class, hollow out America, turn it into Guatemala, centralize power, end social services, destroy communities and local infrastructure, and leave poverty, unemployment, homelessness, hunger, a permanent underclass, and despair in its wake under militarized tyranny for enforcement.
From her experience as a high-level Washington/Wall Street insider, Catherine Austin Fitts describes the process that:
-- "Engineered a (1990s) fraudulent housing and debt bubble," continued under Obama with a planned larger than ever one planned; more on that below;
-- "Illegally shifted vast amounts of capital out of the US," a process still ongoing; and
-- "Used 'privatization' as a form of piracy - a pretext to move government assets to private investors at below-market prices and then shift private liabilities back to government at no cost to the private liability holder."
Engineered globally, it's a government-business cabal to create housing, debt, and other bubbles, substitute new ones for old, and manipulate markets up or down for enormous profits. It involves pump and dump schemes, naked short selling, and various other ways to suck wealth from the many to the few so cleverly that few know what's happening, or when they do it's too late.
From the wreckage comes proposed financial reform, but watch out. It's for a new global monetary control scheme under a Financial Stability Board (FSB), working cooperatively with the secretive Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the Basel, Switzerland-based central bank for central bankers run by the monetary authorities of six dominant nations - America, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, and Britain. If established, it's the next, perhaps final, step toward ruling elite control of the world's money - their long sought holy grail to complete their coup d'etat triumph over all humanity, with Obama facilitating the process in defiance of the public interest he abandoned on day one as president.
Democracy for the Few, not the Many
More than ever, American democracy is bogus under a police state apparatus sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. Included are:
-- an array of pre and post-9/11 anti-terrorist measures;
-- decades of illegal surveillance of individuals and activist groups, more virulent and sophisticated than ever under Obama;
-- a war on free expression, dissent, and constitutional freedoms, using the courts to enforce repression, especially since the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Penalty Act with its eased surveillance restrictions and draconian death penalty and habeas-stripping provisions; it smoothed passage of the 2001 Patriot Act and other repressive measures that followed;
-- alone, the Patriot Act erodes Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments due process rights by permitting indefinite detentions; the First Amendment's freedom of association, Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and more.
Secret Surveillance and Threatened Cybersecurity Tyranny
Obama usurped unchecked surveillance powers, including warrantless wiretapping, accessing personal records, monitoring financial transactions, and tracking emails, Internet and cell phone use to gather secret evidence for prosecutions. In addition, his Justice Department claims the federal government can't be sued for illegal spying, an interpretation no member of Congress or administration ever made, not even George Bush or his Republican allies.
In March, Obama's DHS cybersecurity head, Rod Beckstrom, resigned over NSA's greater role in guarding government computer systems, its concentrated power with no checks or balances, and the continuation of Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping called secret and not reviewable by courts for reasons of national security.
Under Obama, NSA partnered with the Justice Department, DHS, FBI, CIA, and the nation's other spy agencies as a collective big brother targeting political dissidents using police state authority against anti-war protestors, environmental and other activists, Muslims, Latino immigrants, and lawyers who defend them.
Privacy is no longer possible as potentially everyone and everything is surveilled, including:
-- all financial transactions and records;
-- every check written;
-- every credit card or other electronic purchase;
-- all publications subscribed to;
-- our complete medical history;
-- every plane, train, bus or ship itinerary, especially in or out of the country;
-- our phone records and conversations; and
-- every computer key stroke.
Our entire private space is now public if spy snoops decide to invade it.
Cybersecurity Legislation that Threatens a Free and Open Internet
In April, the 2009 Cybersecutity Act (S 773) and companion legislation (S 778) to establish a cybersecurity czar were introduced in the Senate, purportedly to protect against cyber espionage or attacks that might cripple critical infrastructure and comprise national security. Don't believe it.
If enacted in original or redrafted form, they'll give Washington unprecedented power over the Internet by:
-- federalizing critical infrastructure security, including banks, telecommunications and energy, then shifting power from providers to Washington;
-- giving the president carte blanche authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency for reasons of national security; and
-- potentially crippling privacy as well as security by order of the executive alone, regardless of constitutional protections.
Political Persecution Under Obama
He declared war on Islam, Latino immigrations, animal and environmental rights activists, anyone challenging state power, and civil rights lawyers who defend them too vigorously.
Using familiar police state tactics, Muslims especially have been persecuted for their faith, ethnicity, prominence, activism, and charity. They've been singled out, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in their right to counsel, entrapped by paid informants, tried on secret evidence, convicted on bogus changes, given long sentences, then incarcerated for extra harsh treatment as political prisoners in segregated Communication Management Units (CMUs). They violate US Prison Bureau regulations stating:
-- "staff shall not discriminate against inmates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political belief (including) administrative decisions (involving) access to work, housing and program."
Also, the Supreme Court's February 2005 Johnson v. California decision, ruling that segregating prisoners by race, ethnicity or language is illegal. The practice began under George Bush and continues unchanged under Obama.
So does the war on Latino immigrants, undocumented ones here because NAFTA and WTO rules destroyed their livelihoods at home, forcing them North for jobs to support their families.
As a sweeping anti-terrorism bill, the November 2002 Homeland Security Act (HSA) created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), giving Washington repressive police state powers used vigorously thereafter. In March 2003, its largest investigative and enforcement arm was established - the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Along with Muslims, Latinos are its prime targets, using militarized unconstitutional tactics against vulnerable, defenseless people who've been persecuted ever since.
Like his predecessor, Obama's shock troops target them at the border, at work sites, and in their homes. Using goon-squad tactics, they're illegally confronted with shotguns, automatic weapons, and seized without warrants or explanation, then held for prosecution, imprisonment or deportation with no acknowledgement of their rights. Innocent as well as undocumented Latinos are arrested, including their families, often by pre-dawn swat-like private home intrusions.
In August, Obama announced stepped up immigration enforcement through more centralized control for better ways to track, process, incarcerate, and/or deport growing numbers of undocumented immigrants - not treat them humanely as international law and DHS/ICE regulations stipulate.
In this and numerous other ways, Obama is doing Bush one better by exceeding his harshness, lawlessness, and betrayal of the public trust. Against Latinos, it's through aggressive immigration enforcement with planned legislation coming to include a temporary guest worker program so employers can exploit them as serfs, much like the 1942 - 1964 Bracero Program under which millions of Mexican migrant farm workers had no rights, were harassed and oppressed, then deported when no longer needed.
In Obama's America, only the privileged have rights, not people of color, the poor, and growing numbers going hungry, without jobs, and other life's essentials his budget allocations won't fund.
Part II will conclude Obama Year One: Betrayal and Failure.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Lendman News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Obviously you LOVE OBAMA saving big business and serving them as did Bush. Hypocritical you call that "change" and try to sell as such.
Peg- Obama should have done something DIFFERENT than the spending Bush done, continued globalization, continued gov alliance with big business etc...
Under Bush, the Democrat Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank, assets became over valued as a result of easy credit. It created a short term, false economic boom (wasn't false for the corporations that made obscene profits) etc...
Once again you are pathetic and off target when defending Obama as being different.
Bottom line is people losing jobs, higher taxes, more globalization, more war, more debt, destruction of the dollar etc... THAT'S THE FACTS and your spin is BS
Peg- your pathetic reasoning of faulting Bush is weak rational for backing Obama. Especially when Obama is serving the same interests as Bush did.
Have you noticed that Obama spent enormous amounts of money and jobs are still being lost at alarming rates?
Did you notice gov is going to tax lower/middle class heavier in times that families are struggling all the while gov workers are getting more money?
Are you nuts? Can you really not see that Obama is serving big business and globalization?
Did you miss that he is not going to create competition amongst private insurance companies BUT Obama is going to force people to buy insurance?
Did you miss that the dems are protecting big pharmacy by blocking cheaper meds from Canada?
Did you miss that banks that are favorable of Obama get more stimulus money than those that aren't favorable?
Did you notice Obama threatened politicians if they didn't vote for the health care bill regardless of what they thought was right/wrong?
Did you notice all the pork in the Obama Bills?
Did you notice Obama destroying our dollar and crawling into bed with China?
etc.....
Fantastic morning!!
You certainly spin to support the big biz politicians!! You failed to mention that they vote for the people vs your kind that supports big gov/big biz.
Seriously- are you a blogger who is affiliated with any political groups? If so, you are legally required to disclose such info.
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page
amendment courtesy of Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their
staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. It took me less than
a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the
same trough!
Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana! Congressman John
Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require
congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us
(under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).
Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his
petition (very simple). I have immediately done just that at:
http://fleming.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=55§iontree=29,55
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!
If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have
to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families. To
do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy!
I agree that the majority are owned 100% by big biz- just as the democrats.
There's a few politicians who are genuine. IE- Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
You may not agree with their policies/direction but they are part of the very few who are for the people vs big biz.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc... are just as much sell outs as are most of the front republicans.
It's bipartisan corruption and this administration is no different.
*The only reason one party stands against the other is that they want the control/kickbacks etc... but all are completely willing to serve the same interests that run washington.
There lies the problem. Obama is more big biz big gov politics.
That's why he is not worthy of defending.
It looks very much like what we currently have. Protection for big pharmacy, big insurance, washington politics etc.... Politicians bribed and threatened to get on board etc...
Have you ever heard "Don't steal! The government HATES competition!"?