Slippery Tactics: Obama Declares War On Oil With Huge Tax Increases In The Offing For All Of Us Which Is Par For The Course For  Comrade Obama Who Hates America‏ - Obamacare Puts Transparency And Accountability On Death Bed - The Most Immediate Threat To Economic Freedom At The G-20 In Pittsburgh Is The Concerted Push Toward Global Governance - The Demographic Bomb - There Is A Reason That Social Security Is Bankrupt - There Are Consequences For Violating The Natural Law Of God - Judge In Case Of Arrested Notre Dame Pro-Lifers Is Married To Pro-Abortion ND Professor‏

 

 

 

 

 

FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERT
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Slippery tactics: Obama declares war on oil 
Calls to end fossil-fuel subsidies, impose new tax
--WND


FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERT
Slippery tactics: Obama declares war on oil
Calls to end fossil-fuel subsidies, impose new tax


Posted: September 28, 2009
4:18 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist. Subscriptions are $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of "The Late Great USA," a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation's sovereignty.


President Obama declared war on oil and natural gas at the United Nations global warming summit, and he made the same pitch to the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.


"I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge," he told the U.N.
 
In the draft final communiqué, the G20 nations agreed to phase out government subsidies to fossil fuels in the "medium term," without specifying target dates, according to a report published by Bloomberg.


The G20 draft document also asked the finance ministers to keep working on the "climate finance" issue as part of the preparation for the global climate summit scheduled for Copenhagen in December.


The Environmental Law Institute estimated that in the U.S., the biggest fossil fuel subsidies are tax breaks, the foreign tax credit and the credit for production of nonconventional fuels that added up to $72 billion over the seven year period studied, 2002 to 2008.


"Should Obama succeed, the end result will be tantamount to imposing a new tax on oil and natural gas production, with the outcome being that U.S. energy consumers will see energy price increases," Corsi warned.


"The Obama administration's budget request would strip essential capital from new American natural gas and oil investment by radically raising taxes on American production," Buddy Kleemeier, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the chief executive of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, told the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 10.


Corsi wrote, "Obama's actions are based on what Red Alert believes amounts to nothing more than 'junk science,' arguing that manmade carbon-dioxide emissions from the burning of oil and natural gas cause global warming."


He continued, "Unilaterally ending U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies would have a seriously negative impact on the U.S. economy."


Approximately 85 percent of the energy that drives the U.S. economy still comes from oil and natural gas.


"Simply put, why the Obama administration would shut down 20 percent of our nation's oil production and 12 percent of its natural gas is unfathomable," wrote Barry Russell, president and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.


"Why it would seek to take away 25 to 40 percent of the capital that finds and produces American natural gas – half of which comes from wells developed in the last four years – is undecipherable," Russell continued. "Why it would choose to hand the nation's energy future to foreign leaders like Hugo Chavez, whose hatred for our country is as clear as the glistening spittle he spews in his anti-American speeches, is clearly a tragic miscalculation."


Yet International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol claimed an agreement by the G20 to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels to fight climate change would be good news and should not take long to implement.


"This will improve energy efficiency and therefore energy security, lifting the burden on government budgets and reducing carbon dioxide emissions," Birol told the press.


Corsi said he believes Obama may be desperate for tax revenue to cover the projected trillion-dollar federal budget deficits the administration is planning to incur in the foreseeable future.


"Yet, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies as part of a global-warming ideological agenda seems a particularly strange way to stimulate the economy out of a recession," he wrote. "Eliminating tax provisions that encourage U.S. investment in oil and gas technology, exploration and production will certainly increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, with the resultant negative impact on our already negative balance of international trade."
Corsi asked, "How many jobs will Obama's move kill?"

 

 

 


 

The House and Senate health care bills would increase government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Increasing Budget Deficits Transparency All But Dead

 
 

September 24, 2009

Congress's Health Care Bills Would Increase Spending and Federal Budget Deficits

by Brian M. Riedl

 

Backgrounder #2324

 

Abstract: Both the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) and the bill authored by Senator Baucus would increase government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, even after assuming massive "savings" from cutting waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid. If lawmakers can easily cut nearly $1 trillion in waste from Medicare and Medicaid over the next 20 years, they should do so to reduce Medicare's $36 trillion unfunded obligation, not to fund massive new health care benefits.


This year's $1.6 trillion budget deficit and President Barack Obama's proposal to double the national debt over the next decade have made spending restraint and deficit reduction vitally important. Despite the President's pledges to "bend the curve" of health care spending growth downward and to "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits--either now or in the future,"[1] the leading health care plans in Congress would add trillions of dollars in new spending, even if they are deficit neutral.


These bills represent a staggering abandonment of fiscal responsibility and would result in higher taxes and slower economic growth for current and future generations.


"Bending the Curve" the Wrong Way


President Obama has repeatedly emphasized that health care costs too much for families, businesses, and the government. Focusing on soaring government health spending, the President recently told a joint session of Congress, "[O]ur health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.... If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined."[2] Thus, he has stated repeatedly that reform should "bend the curve" of health care spending growth downward.


Yet the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) would actually increase government costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that it would add $823 billion in net spending (with gross spending much higher) over the first 10 years.[3] Similarly, the Lewin Group estimates that it would add $626 billion in new spending in the first decade and $2.1 trillion in the second decade. Even these figures assume nearly $1 trillion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts over the two decades.[4] Rather than bending the cost curve down, the House bill would bend it up.


CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf has confirmed this. After surveying the existing House and Senate health plans in July, but before the Baucus bill was unveiled, he testified to the Senate Budget Committee:

In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs....


The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths.[5]

 

Nor would the House health plan reduce the growth of private health spending. Providing more Americans with health insurance would induce additional health care utilization. The Lewin Group reports that the House bill would significantly raise health costs for employers, which would then be passed down to employees through lower wages. Both the public sector and the private sector would face higher health care costs under the House bill.[6]


According to a quick, non-comprehensive analysis by the CBO, the bill authored by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) would increase net spending by at least $365 billion in the first decade, which includes $409 billion in proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts.[7] Because the Baucus bill would not fully phase in the spending until 2014, nearly all of these 10-year costs would occur in the last six years of the decade. These high annual costs would likely make the second decade substantially more expensive. Despite these costs, Senator Baucus's bill would still leave 25 million Americans without health insurance.[8] Moreover, it would do nothing to address the $36 trillion unfunded Medicare obligation.


Increasing Budget Deficits


President Obama has engaged in a rhetorical sleight of hand by asserting the importance of reducing the growth of health care spending and then using deficit neutrality as his standard of judgment. Deficit neutrality, which can match steep tax hikes with steep spending hikes, is not the same as spending neutrality. The House bill attempts to keep its deficits down by raising income taxes on small businesses and upper-income families by $588 billion in the first decade and by $1,148 billion in the second decade.[9] However, large tax increases do not make these large spending increases any more affordable.


Furthermore, these tax increases are not enough to bring deficit neutrality. By beginning the tax increases in 2011, but not fully phasing in the spending until 2014, the bill would create early surpluses that create the illusion of fiscal responsibility. However, once the program is fully operational, it would immediately begin running growing budget deficits. In the second decade, the Lewin Group estimates that it would run a $1 trillion budget deficit as the new tax revenues fail to keep pace with soaring costs. By 2029, the new taxes would not even cover half of the $330 billion in annual net spending.[10] Simply put, the House bill fails the President's test of long-term deficit neutrality.


The CBO's rough projection of the Baucus bill, absent its 500-plus amendments, shows potential deficit neutrality in the first decade. However, this would depend on Medicare and Medicaid cuts that may never materialize. Historically, such cuts have a poor track record: Medicare "savings" enacted in 1992 and 1997 have been routinely reversed when the required savings became painful.[11] A long-term analysis of the Baucus bill has not yet been released, so it is too early to determine whether it would run budget deficits after the first decade.


Are the Medicare and Medicaid Offsets Real?


President Obama's health care reserve fund proposal includes $622 billion in reductions in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid.[12] The President claims that all of the savings will come from cutting "waste and inefficiency" and thus will not reduce benefits at all.[13] Similarly, the Baucus bill would trim Medicaid and Medicare by $409 billion in its first decade and the House bill would trim it by $1 trillion over 20 years.


Yet if hundreds of billions of dollars in waste can be trimmed from these programs without reducing benefits, why are lawmakers waiting for a health care expansion bill to enact these changes? Medicare and Medicaid are already growing unsustainably, and Congress and President Obama have an obligation to taxpayers to eliminate waste and inefficiency regardless of the fate of these particular health care bills.


In reality, government waste is easy to identify, but difficult to eliminate. If lawmakers could easily cut nearly $1 trillion in waste from Medicare and Medicaid, they would have done so already. Therefore, this spending is likely either actual program benefits--such as Medicare Advantage--or waste that lawmakers have not determined how to eliminate. Either way, lawmakers would be irresponsible to make large, permanent spending commitments based on vague promises to reduce waste and inefficiencies that may never materialize. At a minimum, lawmakers should produce these savings before considering new spending.[14]


Even better, any Medicare and Medicaid savings should go toward shoring up these programs' shaky finances. Medicare faces $36 trillion in unfunded obligations, and Medicaid spending is set to double as a percentage of the economy over the next three decades.[15] Eliminating waste and inefficiency from these programs would reduce these long-term costs. Otherwise, taxpayers will be left with the same staggering funding shortfall for these programs and one fewer option to begin plugging the hole.


A New Approach Is Needed


Earlier this year, Senate negotiators trimmed the "stimulus" bill from $838 billion to $787 billion and portrayed this historically expensive bill as a victory for fiscal responsibility. Now, lawmakers trimming the cost of health reform to under $1 trillion over 10 years are portraying these bills as similarly fiscally responsible. The better description would be that the proposed bills would be slightly less destructive to the nation's long-run fiscal health than the more costly bills would have been.


America already faces soaring government spending, permanent trillion-dollar budget deficits, and the Social Security and Medicare costs of 77 million retiring baby boomers. Adding trillions of dollars in additional government spending and budget deficits is not responsible. It would expand already massive budget deficits, which would add more pressure towards higher interest rates, and would lead to slower economic growth, and eventually steep tax increases.


The current health plans do not meet the President's goals of slowing health care spending and not increasing the budget deficit. Congress should scrap the current plans and seek a new approach that improves the health care system based on real choice, competition, and transparency, while addressing the unsustainable spending trends.


Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.



[1]Barack Obama, "Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care," September 9, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse
.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress
-on-Health-Care
(September 21, 2009).

[2]Ibid.

[3]Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Analysis of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," July 17, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf (September 21, 2009).

[4]John Sheils and Randy Haught, "Long-Term Cost of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009; As Amended by the Energy and Commerce Committee in August 2009," Lewin Group, September 9, 2009, pp. 19-20, at http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/The%20Peterson%
20Foundation%20Report.pdf
(September 21, 2009). These numbers represent net federal cost minus Medicare and Medicaid savings.

[5]Z. Byron Wolf, "CBO Sees No Net Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans," ABC News, July 16, 2009, at http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009
/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
(September 21, 2009).

[6]Sheils and Haught, "Long-Term Cost of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," pp. 7 and 27-30.

[7]Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Senator Max Baucus, September 16, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs
/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf
(September 21, 2009). The CBO's analysis "does not constitute a comprehensive cost estimate for the proposal," and CBO analysts "have not taken into account all of the proposal's effects on spending for other federal programs or estimated the federal government's administrative costs for oversight and implementation that would be subject to future appropriations." Ibid., pp. 6 and 7.

[8]Ibid.

[9]Sheils and Haught, "Long-Term Cost of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," pp. 19-20.

[10]Ibid. These numbers represent net federal cost minus Medicare and Medicaid savings.

[11]Past legislative commitments for Medicare savings, such as "Docfix," have a largely unsuccessful history. See J. D. Foster, "Medicare's Financial Woes: Bigger Than Official Estimates," HeritageBackgrounder No.2174, September 2, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2174.cfm.

[12]U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Mid-Session Review: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010, August 25, 2009, pp. 50-53, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_msr/10msr.pdf (September 21, 2009).

[13]Obama, "Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care."

[14]See Stuart M. Butler, "Senate Finance 'MedPAC' Health Proposal Needs Savings Guarantee," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2507, June 26, 2009,at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2507.cfm.

[15]U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, pp. 29 and 39-41, at http://www.gao.gov/financial
/fy2008/08frusg.pdf
(September 21, 2009).

 
 

Morning Bell: Obamacare Puts Transparency and Accountability on Death Bed

 
The New York Times released a
new poll today finding that 55% of Americans believe President Obama has not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system and 59% said they thought the health care changes under consideration in Congress were confusing. In a follow-up interview, Paul Corkery, a Democrat from Somerset, N.J, said: “The Obama administration seems to have a plan, but I’m not understanding the exact details.” Corkery shouldn’t feel that bad. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the independent nonpartisan agency responsible for reviewing legislative initiatives with budgetary implications, has no idea what is in the legislation either. During yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee mark-up, the CBO realized only after the vote, that they had made a $600 million mistake in scoring an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).


The issues that the CBO does not have enough information to analyze are not minor either. In letters released on September 22nd, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf told Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) respectively that his agency simply had not been provided with sufficient legislative language and time to analyze
whether insurance premiums would go up under Obamacare or how many unauthorized billions of dollars in health benefits illegal immigrants would receive.


To ensure that the Senate would actually know what they were voting on, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an amendment that would have required that actual legislative text, as well as a final Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the bill, be posted for 72 hours on the Senate Finance Committee website for public review before the Senate Finance Committee could vote on its final passage. The Bunning amendment was
defeated on a largely party-line vote, with all Senate Democrats - with the exception of Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)- voting against it.


Since proponents of Obamacare have shown themselves to be completely indifferent to what their legislation will actually do to the American people, conservatives have offered other amendments that would hold President Obama accountable for his promise that Obamacare would not cause Americans to lose their current doctor or health care coverage:

 

·                  Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) offered an amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify that at least 75 percent of the physicians in the United States would accept Medicaid patients before the proposed mandatory Medicaid expansions are implemented. That amendment was defeated.

 

·                  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify Obamacare would not cause more than 1,000,000 Americans to lose the current coverage of their choice. That amendment failed on a party line vote.

 

 

·                  Another Hatch amendment provided that if the Medicare funding reductions in the Medicare Advantage program were to result in a loss of benefits for seniors using Medicare Advantage, those provisions would be nullified. That amendment was also rejected.

 

The majority in the Senate has completely gutted any semblance of transparency or accountability in the health care debate. They refuse to provide the legislative language and time necessary for the CBO to analyze their legislation and they have rejected all measures that would protect the Americans people from Obama’s broken health care promises. Common sense dictates that Congress needs to step back and start over instead of passing a plan that would reorganize one-sixth of our entire economy without even understanding what the consequences to average Americans would be.

 

 

 
 
Newscom

The most immediate threat to economic freedom at this G-20 in Pittsburgh is the concerted push toward global governance.

Leaders Should Promote Free Economies Three Points of View

 
 
 

September 23, 2009

 

Pittsburgh Should Be the Last G-20 Summit: Leaders Should Promote Free Economies Instead

by James M. Roberts

 

Backgrounder #2322

 

Abstract: In the past 10 months, the leaders of the G-8 and G-20 nations have met three times at elaborate and expensive summits to address the world's financial woes. But far from providing remedies for ailing economies, the summits' standard prescriptions for ever-more government intervention and regulations are likely only to impede economic recovery. This paper explains why free markets and limited government are the best responses to economic recession--and argues that the best thing for economies around the world would be for the fourth "G-Process" summit in Pittsburgh to be the last.


Although they just met at the opening of the annual United Nations General Assembly on September 23 in New York with 192 heads of state, the leaders of 20 of those nations could not resist tacking on another two-day meeting beginning on the afternoon of September 24 in Pittsburgh--another G-20 summit at the invitation of President Barack Obama.[1] 


The "G-Process" of annual summit meetings of the heads of state of the world's leading economies began in 1975, when the G-7 (composed of the major World War II allies--the U.S., U.K., France, and Canada--plus their former enemies Germany, Italy, and Japan) met to consider how to respond to the economic stagflation in their economies caused by the first "oil shock." (In response to the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] had imposed production cutbacks and restrictions on oil exports to the West and caused a dramatic spike in oil prices.[2]) After the Cold War ended, the addition of Russia made it a less cozy G-8.


Meanwhile, a separate series of G-20 meetings of finance ministers from Western nations and major emerging-market countries (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Mexico), which was created in the late 1990s to address the Asian financial crisis, was upgraded by President George W. Bush to summit level in November 2008 as world leaders rushed to deal with the global financial panic. Unfortunately, many of the more statist-oriented G-20 countries (China, Argentina, and some in the EU) as well as multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, are using the G-20 process to push an anti-free-market agenda in economies around the world.


The most immediate threat to economic freedom at this G-20 in Pittsburgh is the concerted push toward global governance that may emerge from decisions about the future role of international governance bodies, such as the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a supranational regulator-in-waiting that some fear may try to set global standards for pay structures[3] and might begin to intervene aggressively in the operations of private companies as well as tighten accounting standards to the level of regulatory overkill.[4] 


There are, however, areas where G-20 leaders could go a long way toward restoring growth and promoting prosperity. Most important is to reinvigorate the process of trade liberalization. G-20 leaders should also strategize on ways to reduce the many forms of government intervention and over-regulation that contributed greatly to provoking the 2008 crisis.


At the Pittsburgh summit, President Obama should call upon his fellow heads of state to reassert fiscal and monetary discipline in their countries, avoid excessive government interference, re-open their economies to trade by completing the Doha trade round, and preserve and protect the free enterprise system by allowing private markets to self-correct.


Enough Already


There are, of course, moments in world affairs when governments need to stand together in the face of threats to peace or prosperity. Certainly people around the globe needed the reassurance that came from the first G-20 summit in Washington in November 2008, when leaders took steps to stem the global panic that triggered the meltdown, agreed on measures to calm and fortify world financial markets, and attempted to mitigate the worldwide economic contraction. The "G" summitry, however, has grown to ridiculous proportions.


Originally a Group of Six--France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States--with Canada added in 1977, the G-7 process attempted to deal with the OPEC oil shock-induced economic crises of the 1970s as well as the need to re-design the post-World War II Bretton Woods international monetary system that had been based on the gold standard.


G-7 leaders (who were also Cold War allies) gradually added other foreign policy issues to their agenda. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the G-7 countries invited the Russian Federation to join in the hopes that the G-8 process could encourage Russia to stay on the path to market-based democracy. Unfortunately, those hopes have been dashed in recent years as Russia nationalized major corporations, squeezed out Western competitors, allowed unprecedented corruption in the law enforcement and court systems, and clamped down on freedom of the press. With Russian membership, the G-8 is a far less likeminded, cohesive, and effective group than the G-7.


G-20:  An Imperfect Vehicle


Meanwhile, the annual "Group of Twenty" (G-20) meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors was established formally in 1999,[5] following the 1998 Asian financial crisis, to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies and discuss key issues in the global economy every year.[6]


Given that leading emerging markets, such as Brazil, India, China, Mexico, and South Korea, and market-based democracies, such as Spain, Australia, and New Zealand, are members of the G-20-- and that all of those countries will need to trade and invest with each other in order for the world economy to recover--the G-20 was the handiest vehicle available to convene on an emergency basis at the summit level so that heads of state could respond quickly to the financial crisis that began in September 2008.[7]


At 20 members, however, the group is starting to approach the size, complexity, and divisiveness of other existing multilateral bodies, such as the economic commissions and councils of the United Nations. Moreover, some G-20 members are pursuing political philosophies that are diametrically opposed to the principles of free markets and ordered liberty that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.


Argentina, for example, is presently led by Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who succeeded her husband, Néstor, as President in 2007 and has continued his heavy-handed, statist, and interventionist approach to governing, which was vividly illustrated by their seizure from private citizens in November 2008 of $29 billion in private 401K-type pension funds to replenish the public treasury they had depleted.[8]  The Kirchners, who are allied with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, have manipulated official government statistics to report lower than actual inflation numbers and have refused to cut "a deal with the holders of some $20 billion of bonds who held out against a tough debt restructuring in 2005."[9]


"G" Meetings as Far as the Eye Can See?


Counting the July 2009 Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Italy (which incorporated most members of the G-20 in one way or another[10]), the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh will mark the fourth G-process meeting since the financial crisis began in September 2008. At a Rome press conference after the summit in Italy, President Obama himself wondered "about the wisdom of so many G-Whatever meetings in so many forums to so little effect."[11] (An observation that did not diminish his enthusiasm for such meetings, or for their questionable outcomes.)


In the past, dramatic high-level meetings had some impact because they were rare. Now, publicity-hungry politicians have gone to the well too often. The seemingly never-ending series of summits and high-level meetings have become almost irrelevant in terms of rallying public opinion. The G-8 summit in Italy was largely a waste of the world's time, as it was mostly an instant replay of the G-20 photo-op held just three months before in London. Consider the series of United Nations "Development Decades," first proclaimed in 1961.[12] The United Nations "Millennium Declaration"[13] 39 years later marked the fifth such proclamation, yet the job never seems to get done.
 
 
 

Pittsburgh G-20: Three Points of View Converge at Three Rivers

·                  false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 v:shapes="_x0000_i1032"> Posted September 24th, 2009 at 5.26pm in American Leadership.

 

Pittsburgh is famous for its Three Rivers. The city was founded in 1758 at the militarily and commercially strategic point where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers converge to form the might Ohio. It is somewhat ironic, then, that as the G-20 leaders arrive in Pittsburgh this evening for a sumptuous dinner hosted by President and Mrs. Obama amidst exotic flora and fauna at the Victorian-era, glass-walled Phipps Conservatory, they bring with them three major proposals for discussion.


President Obama wants to impose upon China (and Americans) his “Framework for Sustainable and Balanced Growth” which would demand that American consume less and save more, while requiring the Chinese to ramp up domestic consumption and reduce its trade surplus (presumably by revaluing upward the yuan and making Chinese exports less attractive).


Unfortunately the President did not consult fully with the American people before he signed them up for this potential financial fitness regimen, nor does he have any way to enforce his framework (short of ceding American sovereignty to some sort of global UN police state). The President also fails to take note in his framework of the massive, hemorrhaging fiscal deficits his costly programs could create if they are all passed by Congress. The President demands that American consumers do without and save instead of spend, but pushes “negative savings” in the form of huge Government deficit spending for as far as the eye can see. He could achieve his goal so much more easily by simply cutting the deficit by $500 billion or so per year.


Meanwhile, the Chinese are responding by putting pressure on the President Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Geithner through the rumblings they are promoting abut looking for a replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Of course, the reality is that there is no replacement handy right now. The Chinese didn’t get very far six months ago when the floated the idea of using Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).


Finally, not to be ignored, the Euros are demanding that the world (read the U.S.) use government regulations to put limits and controls on bankers’ compensation. Funny how regulations come so easily to them, while trust in marketplace discipline seems foreign.
Should be an interesting meeting……

 

·                  Author: Jim Roberts

·                  Interact: Sphere

·                  Share This

·                  alt="Print This Post" class=ecxWP-PrintIcon title="Print This Post" v:shapes="_x0000_i1034">

 

·                  Tagged with china

·                  environmental regulation

·                  G-20

·                  united nations

 

 

 

 

 

Newscom

It is time for the U.S. to cease its policy of backing Manuel Zelaya and support elections that can truly end the Honduran crisis.

Time for a U.S. Policy Change Zelaya Betrays

 

 

* Judge in Case of Arrested Notre Dame Pro-Lifers is Married to Pro-Abortion ND Professor 


 

[NOTE: The fact that there are pro-baby killing professors at Notre Dame speaks to Notre Dame NOT being institutionally Catholic BIG TIME! It is a scandalous disgrace that Notre Dame allows the likes of Edward Manier to teach the lies of the devil on a campus dedicated to the Mother of God! - Gary L. Morella]

 

Judge in Case of Arrested Notre Dame Pro-Lifers is Married to Pro-Abortion ND Professor

 

By Kathleen Gilbert
 
SOUTH BEND, Indiana, September 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The attorney representing the pro-lifers arrested while protesting Obama at Notre Dame today repeated his request that the judge in the case,
who is married to a pro-abortion Notre Dame professor, be removed from the case.
 
Attorney Tom Dixon's motion provides detailed support for his assertion in a previous recusal motion that there exists sufficient actual and perceived bias that Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, the judge assigned to the "ND 88" case, is required by Indiana state law to recuse herself in the matter.  Dixon states that ever since Judge Manier has known her husband, Professor Edward Manier, he has been a well-known and outspoken advocate of the pro-abortion position.
 
As his views were well-known and have largely defined his identity at Notre Dame, Dixon argues, it seems implausible that Judge Manier could claim to be unaware of his views on the "ND 88" case, which stem from "the single biggest controversy in the history of the University of Notre Dame."
 
The case surrounds the arrest of 88 pro-lifers from across America who were charged with trespassing after peacefully witnessing against the presence of President Obama at Notre Dame The university awarded Obama with the commencement speech and an honorary law degree on May 17 of this year. 
 
Arrestees were singled out for carrying pro-life messages onto campus - including images of aborted children, a large cross, and images of Mary - while several other trespassers with pro-Obama or pro-Notre Dame signage were allowed to roam the campus.
 
Dixon argues that the career of Judge Manier's husband at Notre Dame was largely defined by the very same controversies which prompted the pro-lifers to travel across America to ultimately land in the St. Joseph County court room.  In Indiana, a judge must recuse himself or herself from a case in the event of actual or perceived bias.
 
In the original recusal motion in August, Dixon says that
Judge Manier refused to answer whether her husband had ever written on the topic of abortion, saying only, "I'm not my husband." 
 
Dixon highlights several ways in which actual and perceived bias exists in the "ND 88" case. 
In addition to several writings revealing his pro-abortion beliefs, the professor donated "a significant sum of money" to Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, as well as additional donations to other pro-abortion rights candidates in the United States.
 
Manier, a supporter of the production of "The Vagina Monologues" on Notre Dame's campus, also attacked Pope Paul Paul VI's pro-life encyclical Humanae Vitae as "intellectually stillborn."
 
"When one analyzes Edward Manier's political contributions to pro abortion candidates and Political Action Committee, when one reads Edward Manier's writings referencing members of the Christian right, calling them 'fundamentalist mullahs' and 'jackleg preachers,'" Dixon writes, "it is hard to comprehend how Judge Manier could derive from her husband's writings the notion that he has no interest in the outcome of these cases."
 
Last week, University of Notre Dame law professor emeritus Charles Rice issued an open letter to University president Fr. John Jenkins, saying that the school's attempts at reconstructing a pro-life image were a "mockery" while yet refusing to request leniency for the 88 pro-lifers awaiting trial. 

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Notre Dame Pro-Life Efforts a "Mockery" While Pro-Life Protesters Continue to Face Charges: ND Law Prof 


88 Pro-Lifers Arrested at Notre Dame Still Facing Jail Time: Thomas More Lawyer Again Asks Fr. Jenkins for Leniency 


ND Prez Jenkins Has "No Interest" in Asking for Leniency for ND Protesters Despite Calls for "Dialogue" 


Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

 

 

Watch This Video Preview‏

From:

 GrassTopsUSA (Christopher@grasstopsusa-info.com)

Sent:

Tue 9/29/09 3:03 AM

 

 

View this email as Webpage

 

Please watch this video preview of Demographic Bomb.  Once you see this preview of Demographic Bomb (the sequel to Demographic Winter), I am sure you will agree that Demographic Bomb is even more compelling than the first installment (Demographic Winter) and that it tells a shocking story of a crisis that cannot be ignored.

Christopher Carmouche
GrassTopsUSA


 

false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 alt="Send Me The DVD Now" border=0 v:shapes="ecxecximg4">      What would you say if we told you that the financial meltdown of 2008 was just a birth pang... the first sign of a major social and economic upheaval not seen in the Western World since the Dark Ages?

     What would you do if you knew that
large portions of the human race were hurtling toward extinction ... not at some point in the distant future but during your lifetime?

     Such statements might sound a little far-fetched, but what would you say if we told you that some of
the world's most respected scientists, academicians, economists, scholars and public policy experts have been sounding the alarm for years... only to have their warnings fall on deaf ears?

     And moreover, what would you do if you knew that this upheaval is already happening... right now... that the worst is yet to come and that your way of life
and the lives of your children and grandchildren is already in dire peril?

     What steps would you take... what steps could you take right now... to protect yourself and your family from this social and economic disaster?

     On the economic front, we warned you about the financial crash of 2008 when we released the ground-breaking documentary, Demographic Winter, over a year ago.

      And on the societal front, our predictions were even more chilling.

     We're proud to say that Demographic Winter was the first documentary to critically examine the real root causes of this global crisis... the social implications as well as the economic implications... before most people had any inkling that there was a problem
.

     And now, with the release of the much-awaited sequel, Demographic Bomb, we dig even deeper into the problem.

     And this time around, we expose the real culprits and the inherently evil and racist policies that set this global crisis into motion and put us on the road to destruction.
We explain why this global crisis will only get worse if we refuse to act.

     Demographic Bomb uncovers all the shocking details and exposes how the United Nations, population-control advocates and others who benefit from diminishing the role of the natural family in society, have manipulated and exploited the weak... targeted the poor... promoted inherently racist policies, viciously attacked human rights (under the guise of promoting human rights)... and evaded political responsibilities for their actions.

     But more than that, Demographic Bomb illustrates that the law of unintended consequences is very real and shows exactly how the programs and policies that were set into motion by these culprits back-fired on each and every one of us and why these programs and policies pose an ever-increasing threat to those of us in the developed world... more specifically... to you... to your family... and to your progeny.







Who Is Harry Dent And How Does The Degradation Of The Natural Family Affect My Future?


     Harry Dent, Founder of H.S. Dent Investment Management and formerly with Bane & Company, is just one of the many renowned experts sounding the alarm in Demographic Bomb.

     As for his credentials... Dent is the man who accurately predicted over 20 years ago the decade-long Japanese economic downturn and the approximate date that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) would break 10,000.

     But what is really remarkable about Dent and those specific predictions is that most experts thought — to the point of derision directed at Dent in some cases — that both of the above events were highly unlikely at the time that Dent made his pronouncements.

     But Dent risked ridicule... stepped onto a ledge and not only proclaimed that both events could happen but accurately predicted approximately when both events would happen
.

     And Dent also predicted the economic crash-and-burn of 2008. While the rationale and methodology utilized in making this prediction is quite extensive, Dent illustrates the basis of the prediction by imposing two distinct graphs on top of each other.

     The first graph (the green bars in the picture below) is representative of the Dow Jones Industrial from the start of the post-World War II baby-boom through 2008 (just prior to the crash of 2008).

     The second graph (the blue and purple bars in the picture below) is representative of birth rates in the United States from the start of the 20th Century (approximately 50 years prior to start date of the first graph).

     Dent obtained the representation in the picture below by sliding the second graph (the blue and purple bars) to the right (along the horizontal, or "X" axis) approximately 45-50 years.



     And presto, the above picture appears to show a direct relationship between the birth rate and the future Dow Jones.

     In other words, fluctuations in the birth rate appear to directly correspond to fluctuations in the Dow Jones... 45-50 years into the future
.

     Now, here's the bad news: If Dent's graphical comparison is valid... what does the above picture say when it comes to the future of the Dow Jones and the market in general?

     And more importantly, what does the above picture say about your future job prospects... housing prospects... your retirement plan... your future standard-of-living... your children's future?


 




Have We Betrayed Ourselves?


     Is Dent's graphical representation just a coincidence?

     Hardly.

     When you watch Demographic Bomb... when you are confronted with the solid and empirical evidence from Dent and a host of other renowned scholars, academicians and scientists... you'll learn that Dent's graphical representation hit the bulls-eye.


     You'll also learn that world-wide population is only growing at present not because more children are being born but because people are living longer.

     And you'll learn that even more economic hardship will be coming our way as fewer working-age people shoulder the burden of supporting the ever-increasing population of elderly people.

     Of course, that knowledge should raise more questions.


               How far will birth rates spiral down?

               Will we ration health care for our elderly and infirmed?

               Will euthanasia be encouraged?

               Will we start to promote a culture of death?

    
The following chart should lead any rational person to at least consider those questions.


     Is it possible that population-control advocates and opponents of the natural family were wrong when they advanced the Malthusian-inspired argument that ever-increasing numbers of people would compete for diminishing resources?

     Or was Adam Smith, perhaps the greatest economist of all time, right when he advanced the concept that prosperity is associated with growing populations?

     When you watch Demographic Bomb, you'll be shocked at the compelling and irrefutable evidence supporting the latter.

     And moreover, you may even come to the realization - or at least acknowledge the possibility - that as we promoted a culture of population-control abroad and devalued the status of the natural family here at home... through no-fault divorce, abortion-on-demand, birth-control, radical feminism, the promotion of sex-education to the very young in our public schools and the celebration of behaviors that were considered perverse and unnatural throughout history, we forced birth rates below the replacement level at home and abroad. And in doing so, we may have condemned ourselves and the rest of world to a hell of our own making.

     Is it possible that we have been failed by the progressive ideas we thought would save us
?

     If you want to critically examine these questions, then you owe it to yourself to get a copy of Demographic Bomb and study the empirical evidence — evidence you're not getting in the Mainstream Media — yourself.







Just Who Are The Racists Here?


     There are a lot of people that don't want you to watch Demographic Bomb.

     In fact, when we released Demographic Winter, the prequel, to Demographic Bomb, those that did not want the message to get out, launched pre-emptive and slanderous attacks against the message of the documentary.

     Some went so far as to imply
"racism."

     Kathryn Joyce, in an article published in The Nation derisively titled,
"Missing, the 'Right' Babies" at one point insultingly described the themes explored in Demographic Winter as, "modern euphemisms for old-fashioned race panic."

     And other detractors, noting that many of the countries experiencing below replacement level birth rates are in Western Europe, falsely and scandalously claimed that the documentary advocated fewer
"brown babies" in the world.

     Of course, such idiotic accusations ignore the facts... mainly that many non-European countries are also experiencing below replacement level birth rates, and that Europe is drawing heavily upon the developing countries to replace laborers they are not producing, socially and economically impacting these countries severely.

     Moreover, such accusations also turn the obvious premise of the documentary on its head — namely that all societies must work to promote policies which will bring birth rates above the replacement level.

     But the icing on the cake...
the ultimate irony at play here is that racism and exploitation of the weak are traits that are historically tied to the population-control movement.

     And we don't make such an accusation carelessly.

     Demographic Bomb also explores the sordid history of the population-control movement, and how the movement's proponents have repeatedly exploited the weak... targeted the poor... promoted inherently racist policies... viciously and repeatedly attacked human rights (under the guise of promoting human rights)... and even committed genocide.

     And we don't just scratch the surface. We connect the dots.

     For example, one of the movements that is tied to population-control is eugenics, a movement that sought to
"improve" the human race by discouraging the "poor" and the "racially inferior" from "breeding."

    
In fact, the spiritual mother of the family-planning movement, Margaret Sanger — a women who is, without a doubt, revered by many of those who sought to slander the message of the documentary — promoted birth control within that context... she was an advocate for eugenics, even bringing her message personally to such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

    
And while Sanger's belief in eugenics may seem ironic to the uninformed, in truth, it's not ironic at all.

     In the United States, abortion and birth-control are promoted under the banner of
"women's rights" — that's not by accident — but in much of the world, abortion and birth-control are promoted through coercion... abortion and birth-control are mandated by the state.

    
Supreme Court Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even admitted as much (albeit in a slightly different context) to The New York Times on July 7, 2009:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

    
And yes, even today, the population-control movement is well-funded.

    According to the May 24, 2009 edition of The London Times:

"Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education."

"The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

"Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey."


    
And these individuals have a lot of economic clout. The Times goes on to mention that the above named individuals have given over 45 billion British Pounds (approximately 75 billion US Dollars) since 1996 to a variety of programs.

    
Buffett... Soros... Bloomberg... Turner... some of these individual may actually be strong proponents of eugenics. Some of them may simply be deceived... inadvertantly doing what they believe is the right thing.

     Far be it from us to judge what is in another person's heart but such a sad state of affairs certainly begs the question... just who are the racists in this debate?







And Our Elected Officials Still Don't Get It.


    One of the main reasons we released Demographic Bomb is because it contains a message which must be spread far and wide.

     Sadly... even though we are already witnessing the start of a monumental change that will cause poverty, pain and suffering across the globe, a biased media and even many of our elected officials are still pushing the discredited and inane policies which have already set off the demographic bomb.

     On the day we released Demographic Bomb, the stock market was still 40 percentage points below its all-time high from the previous year, the housing market was still in a slump, the affordability and availability of health care was a major concern to a great many people, and government officials were haggling over business bailouts and the promotion of environmental policies to supposedly encourage the conservation of resources.

     The Internet blog, Visionforum.com, put our schizophrenic national response in perfect perspective:

"Within one day of taking office, the president gave his answer to the first question. He would use the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to lift the ban on overseas abortion funding. The message: In tough economic times, it is important for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent preventing more life from coming into this world."

"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was even more creative in her baby-banning agenda. In a national television interview, she made it clear that one important way to stimulate the economy was for people to stop having babies.

"Pelosi defended her plan to make tax-payer subsidized child prevention an important part of the $825 billion economic stimulus package, explaining that 'contraception will reduce the cost to the states and to the federal government...no apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.'

"Translation: We must control the population because children are a burden on the economy — especially children from lower class families. The less of these children, the less money the government will have to spend on schools and healthcare."


     It's sheer madness... lunacy... why are our elected officials trying to solve a problem by pushing the very policies that played a major role in causing the problem in the first place?

     Republicans... Democrats... Liberals... Conservatives... it doesn't really matter... to a certain extent, our elected officials are all scurrying about trying to find solutions without a fundamental understanding of the root causes of the problem.

     Real solutions start with a fundamental understanding of the problem.

     Please view this trailer from Demographic Bomb and forward this e-mail to everyone you know. Help us get the message out.



Do not take our word for it. We invite you to use the "View the Trailer" button below to watch the shocking and riveting trailer to The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny for yourself.

After viewing this riveting trailer for just a couple of minutes... if you agree that Demographic Bomb is the most authoritative and shocking thing that you have seen... if you agree that it exposes the lies that have been spoon-fed to all of us for years... if you agree that we truly reap what we sow and that there is now a clear-and-present danger to your way of life and your children's and grandchildren's future... then please, spread the word, forward this e-mail far-and-wide to your family and friends.

 


 

P.S. . . . Please forward this email on to everyone in your address book.

 
 

Demographic Winter Exposing The Lies Of The Population Control Gore/Global Warming Crowd Is A Crisis That We Can’t Ignore

 

New Documentary Exposes Direct Link Between Failing Global Economy And Demographic Winter - Obama Promotes Euthanasia In Healthcare Plan

 

Exposing the Population Problem Lie – People Are NOT The Enemy Contrary To What The Certifiably Insane Would Have You Believe Like Pro-Abortion Obama Legal Pick Dawn Johnsen

 

THE Population Problem Is UNDER Population NOT OVER Population As Countries Are Literally Dying Out Due To The Contraceptive/Abortive Mentality Of The Age

 
 
 


 

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of D-Health fame are expecting number nineteen, and the radical environmentalists, feminists, and population controllers are aghast. But the Duggars have the better part.

 


Steven Mosher

 

With 19 You Get Heaven

 

by Steve Mosher

 

I am not a big fan of reality TV.  My tastes run instead to EWTN, FOX News and—because I travel a lot and have a farm—The Weather Channel.  But the news that D-Health reality-show stars Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are expecting their 19th child somehow reached me through the Internet anyway.

 


I cheered the news, as you might have expected.  My wife and I have a large family— albeit only half the size of the Duggars—and at PRI we encourage others to do the same.  One of my talks is entitled “Ten Great Reasons to have Another Child.”  There is plenty of room on God’s green earth for all of us, I tell audiences.

 

  
The Left predictably responded to the new arrival with jeers.  Don’t you know that babies cause global warming, Al Gore was heard to mutter, while David Letterman spewed his usual ration of dirty jokes.  For the population controllers at Planned Parenthood it was no laughing matter, however.  They have a particular animus towards those couples who are generous in welcoming children into their families.  “Breeders,” they sneeringly call us.

 


Looking at America today, one would have to say that these anti-natalists have won.  American women average only 2.09 children.  But this average hides vast disparities in the birth rate, from the latte-sipping singles who selfishly forswear children (and marriage) altogether, to the Duggars at the other extreme who believe that children are gifts from God.

 


At the time of America’s founding, there were lots of families like the Duggars.  Even today, those of us in the pro-life movement average three children, and most of us probably know at least one couple who has ten or more.  (The Moshers, through no fault of their own, fell one short of double digits.) Who are we, these generous-minded couples say with the Duggars, to reject any of God’s gifts?

 


Such generosity, however, comes at a heavy price. The Department of Agriculture Department now estimates that it costs $207,800 to raise a child from birth to age 18. Add to this the fact that the government now takes more than 40% of the average family’s money, in part to pay the cost of Social Security and Medicare for those who have no children.  

 


To those who look at this purely as a question of dollars and cents, the Duggars are fools.  They are spending a small fortune to raise a passel of children.  Yet they will not personally benefit from the millions of dollars in taxes that their grown children will one day pay to the government.  This money will instead go in part to make Social Security and Medicaid payments to those who had few children, or none at all.   

 


In 1940 there were 160 workers supporting each person on Social Security. By 2006 this number had fallen to 3.3 workers per pensioner.  By 2034, there will be only 2.1 workers for each person collecting a government retirement check.  Instead of mocking the Duggars for having so many children, the barren Left ought to thank them—and all pro-lifers—for helping to subsidize its retirement.  (Don’t hold your breathe waiting for an expression of gratitude, however.  It could be fatal.)

 

 


As for the Duggars, if they are anything like the Moshers, they don’t really care how the numbers work out. For they understand that, in the Divine calculus, Love doesn’t divide, it multiplies.  


And that it goes on multiplying forever.  

 

 

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.

 

 

 

Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here

Media Contact: Colin Mason
Email: colin@pop.org
(540) 622-5240, ext. 209

_________
(c) 2007 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
PRI is a 501(c)(3) educational organization. If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI,
please go to our Donations Page.  All donations (of any size) are welcomed and appreciated.

_________

The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation." Find us at www.pop.org.

PRI, PO Box 1559, Front Royal, VA 22630 USA     Phone: 540-622-5240

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[DrFrank c] Get Millions to Sign 'What's Good for the Goose is good for the Congress' HealthCare Reform Petition‏

From:

 pro-life-c-bounces@lists.abortiontruths.net on behalf of Dr. Frank (DrFrank@abortiontruths.net)

Sent:

Tue 9/29/09 5:02 AM

To:

Pro-life-c@lists.abortiontruths.net

 

Attachments:

1 attachment

 

ATT00001 (0.2 KB)

Sher Zieve <sher_zieve@yahoo.com>

From: Netty Wisbaum <netty@tasteofaz.com>
Subject: Get Millions to Sign 'What's Good for the Goose is good for the Congress' HealthCare Reform Petition
To: "'Netty Wisbaum'" <netty@tasteofaz.com>
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 6:56 PM

Get Millions to Sign 'What's Good for the Goose is good for the Congress' HealthCare Reform Petition

 

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.

Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that
they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition.  The process is very simple.  I have done just that at:


http://fleming.house.gov/index.html ..


Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians.


Regardless of your political beliefs, it sure seems reasonable that Congress should have exactly the same medical coverage that they impose on the rest of us.


Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!