Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Obama Says Race a Key Component in Tea Party Protests
Obama Says Race a Key Component in Tea Party Protests
In a new book, President Obama talks candidly about race and the presidency
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted: March 2, 2011
African-Americans have been an integral part of the White House since it was built in part by slaves. In Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, veteran U.S. News White House reporter Kenneth T. Walsh traces this sometimes fraught history from its roots all the way to the Barack Obama presidency.
As he began his second year in office, Obama's presidency was not going well. His legislation to overhaul the healthcare system was still bogged down in Congress. The unemployment rate, which polls showed was the top concern of most Americans, remained stubbornly high at about 10 percent, and much worse in many African-American communities. Obama's job-approval ratings had dropped markedly from the astronomical levels of his first few months to below 50 percent.
Adding to his woes, in January 2010 the race issue erupted again in an unusual and unexpected way. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader and an Obama ally, was embarrassed because of some racially insensitive comments he had made to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the authors of a new book, Game Change, about the Obama campaign. It turned out that Reid had predicted in 2008 that Obama could succeed as an African-American presidential candidate partly because he was "light-skinned" and because he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect."
Reid quickly apologized, and many black leaders, including the president and Attorney General Eric Holder, defended him as a decent man who was not a racist. But Republicans tried to score political points, with party chairman Michael Steele and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, calling on Reid to resign as majority leader. He refused, but the furor showed how race remained just below the surface of American life. Racial polarization was again on the rise. In January 2010, 96 percent of African-Americans approved Obama's job performance, virtually unchanged from his 100-day mark in April 2009. But whites were losing faith in him, with only 44 percent approving his job performance, compared with 62 percent the previous April, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll in January 2010.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff said, "I don't think you can find a guy who's done more to try to put this issue [of race] off the table." But McInturff added, "I don't think the press really understands how difficult this guy's position is" because his support among whites was so "precarious." This was largely because the economy was in such distress, and most whites, except perhaps for young people, didn't have a close bond with Obama to begin with.
African-Americans' views on achieving racial equality also were growing more negative, even though black voters remained in strong support of Obama. According to McInturff, only 11 percent of blacks said that African-Americans had reached racial equality, down by 9 percentage points in one year, and 32 percent said equality would not be attained in their lifetimes, up by 9 points. Four in ten whites said African-Americans already had reached racial equality, while 31 percent said it would happen soon.
Obama addressed this pessimism among blacks in an address at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in Washington on January 17, 2010, to mark the holiday devoted to Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Calling for patience and pragmatism, the president said, "Sometimes I get a little frustrated when folks just don't want to see that even if we don't get everything, we're getting something. King understood that the desegregation of the armed forces didn't end the civil rights movement, because black and white soldiers still couldn't sit together at the same lunch counter when they came home. But he still insisted on the rightness of desegregating the armed forces. . . . 'Let's take a victory,' he said, 'and then keep on marching.'"
Lincoln and King. On March 12, 2010, President Obama welcomed me into the Oval Office for an interview for this book. Dressed in an elegant dark blue business suit and tie with an American flag pin in his left lapel, he was serene and confident. Behind him was the portrait of George Washington that has hung in the Oval Office for many years. Flanking that portrait were two busts added by Obama, reflecting his own values and heroes—behind him on his right was a likeness of Martin Luther King Jr., and on his left was one of Abraham Lincoln.
Obama was in a reflective mood. He began the interview by saying he had been "fully briefed" on my topic and was ready for me to "dive in." He proceeded to methodically defend his effort to build a race-neutral administration. "Americans, since the victories of the civil rights movement, I think, have broadly come to accept the notion that everybody has to be treated equally; everybody has to be treated fairly," the president told me. "And I think that the whole debate about how do you make up for past history creates a complicated wrinkle in that principle of equality."
Calmly, candidly, and with typical intellectual precision, Obama gave one of his most extensive analyses of the country's racial situation and his goals for improving it. He made clear that he was president of all Americans, not just of African-Americans, and didn't want to be thought of only as a black president, even though he acknowledged that the country had been extremely proud in November 2008 when a majority of voters made history by electing him. He said he wasn't sure how many Americans still saw him "through the lens of race," although he acknowledged that, within the black community, "there is a great pride that's undeniable," and many African-American children "may feel a special affinity to me as a role model." He compared all this with Irish-Catholic Americans who felt enormous pride in John F. Kennedy's election as the first Irish-Catholic president in 1960.
I asked him if he was very conscious of his own race as he conducted the business of the presidency, and his answer was insightful. "You just don't think about it, you really don't," he replied. "You've got too many other things to worry about."
I asked him how much he felt an obligation or responsibility as the first African-American president to advance racial justice and make up for some of the past disparities between blacks and whites. He replied, "Well, I think that every president should feel an obligation to deal with not only issues of discrimination, but also the legacy of slavery and segregation that has been such a profound part of our history. You know, obviously it's hard for me to engage in a mind experiment and say, well, if I weren't African-American, would I feel less strongly about it or more strongly about it—and I know I feel strongly about it. I do come to this issue with personal experiences that are unlike any previous presidents'.
"But I also think that anybody in this office who cares deeply about the future of the country would be looking and saying to themselves, the population is changing; the future workforce is going to have a lot more African-American and Latino and Asian workers. And if those populations don't feel fully assimilated into the culture, aren't performing at high levels educationally, are caught in cycles of poverty—that that's not good for America's future. And that's certainly how I feel—and I would like to think that any president would feel that way."
Backlash. There were many effects stemming from Obama's presidency, both those that were expected and those that were not. One was a surprising surge in the number of black Republican candidates in the midterm elections of November 2010. At least 32 African-Americans were running for Congress as Republicans . . . the largest number since Reconstruction, according to The New York Times. The last time there was a black Republican serving in the House was 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left office after eight years. The New York Times found that "many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama's election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible—for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support—was not." The states where these candidates were running included Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida.
[Top aide] Valerie Jarrett told me, "I think at the time of his victory, there was an enormous amount of historical significance to this country being able to elect a person who was African-American as president. I think that there are probably people who still see him as an African-American president favorably and unfavorably. But the vast majority of people, I think, see him as their president. I think that because he inherited such a crisis on all fronts—two wars, an economic meltdown, a fiscal meltdown, the largest deficit in our nation's history, and a health crisis, energy crisis, education crisis, confidence crisis around the world—because of this extraordinary moment in history when he stepped in, I don't think there has been a lot of time to focus on his race. People just want to know, 'Are you going to be able to improve the quality of my life?'"
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.
His goal, he said, was to be as effective and empathetic a president as possible for all Americans. If he could accomplish that, it would advance racial progress for blacks more than anything else he could do.
In a new book, President Obama talks candidly about race and the presidency
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted: March 2, 2011
African-Americans have been an integral part of the White House since it was built in part by slaves. In Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, veteran U.S. News White House reporter Kenneth T. Walsh traces this sometimes fraught history from its roots all the way to the Barack Obama presidency.
As he began his second year in office, Obama's presidency was not going well. His legislation to overhaul the healthcare system was still bogged down in Congress. The unemployment rate, which polls showed was the top concern of most Americans, remained stubbornly high at about 10 percent, and much worse in many African-American communities. Obama's job-approval ratings had dropped markedly from the astronomical levels of his first few months to below 50 percent.
Adding to his woes, in January 2010 the race issue erupted again in an unusual and unexpected way. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader and an Obama ally, was embarrassed because of some racially insensitive comments he had made to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the authors of a new book, Game Change, about the Obama campaign. It turned out that Reid had predicted in 2008 that Obama could succeed as an African-American presidential candidate partly because he was "light-skinned" and because he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect."
Reid quickly apologized, and many black leaders, including the president and Attorney General Eric Holder, defended him as a decent man who was not a racist. But Republicans tried to score political points, with party chairman Michael Steele and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, calling on Reid to resign as majority leader. He refused, but the furor showed how race remained just below the surface of American life. Racial polarization was again on the rise. In January 2010, 96 percent of African-Americans approved Obama's job performance, virtually unchanged from his 100-day mark in April 2009. But whites were losing faith in him, with only 44 percent approving his job performance, compared with 62 percent the previous April, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll in January 2010.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff said, "I don't think you can find a guy who's done more to try to put this issue [of race] off the table." But McInturff added, "I don't think the press really understands how difficult this guy's position is" because his support among whites was so "precarious." This was largely because the economy was in such distress, and most whites, except perhaps for young people, didn't have a close bond with Obama to begin with.
African-Americans' views on achieving racial equality also were growing more negative, even though black voters remained in strong support of Obama. According to McInturff, only 11 percent of blacks said that African-Americans had reached racial equality, down by 9 percentage points in one year, and 32 percent said equality would not be attained in their lifetimes, up by 9 points. Four in ten whites said African-Americans already had reached racial equality, while 31 percent said it would happen soon.
Obama addressed this pessimism among blacks in an address at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in Washington on January 17, 2010, to mark the holiday devoted to Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Calling for patience and pragmatism, the president said, "Sometimes I get a little frustrated when folks just don't want to see that even if we don't get everything, we're getting something. King understood that the desegregation of the armed forces didn't end the civil rights movement, because black and white soldiers still couldn't sit together at the same lunch counter when they came home. But he still insisted on the rightness of desegregating the armed forces. . . . 'Let's take a victory,' he said, 'and then keep on marching.'"
Lincoln and King. On March 12, 2010, President Obama welcomed me into the Oval Office for an interview for this book. Dressed in an elegant dark blue business suit and tie with an American flag pin in his left lapel, he was serene and confident. Behind him was the portrait of George Washington that has hung in the Oval Office for many years. Flanking that portrait were two busts added by Obama, reflecting his own values and heroes—behind him on his right was a likeness of Martin Luther King Jr., and on his left was one of Abraham Lincoln.
Obama was in a reflective mood. He began the interview by saying he had been "fully briefed" on my topic and was ready for me to "dive in." He proceeded to methodically defend his effort to build a race-neutral administration. "Americans, since the victories of the civil rights movement, I think, have broadly come to accept the notion that everybody has to be treated equally; everybody has to be treated fairly," the president told me. "And I think that the whole debate about how do you make up for past history creates a complicated wrinkle in that principle of equality."
Calmly, candidly, and with typical intellectual precision, Obama gave one of his most extensive analyses of the country's racial situation and his goals for improving it. He made clear that he was president of all Americans, not just of African-Americans, and didn't want to be thought of only as a black president, even though he acknowledged that the country had been extremely proud in November 2008 when a majority of voters made history by electing him. He said he wasn't sure how many Americans still saw him "through the lens of race," although he acknowledged that, within the black community, "there is a great pride that's undeniable," and many African-American children "may feel a special affinity to me as a role model." He compared all this with Irish-Catholic Americans who felt enormous pride in John F. Kennedy's election as the first Irish-Catholic president in 1960.
I asked him if he was very conscious of his own race as he conducted the business of the presidency, and his answer was insightful. "You just don't think about it, you really don't," he replied. "You've got too many other things to worry about."
I asked him how much he felt an obligation or responsibility as the first African-American president to advance racial justice and make up for some of the past disparities between blacks and whites. He replied, "Well, I think that every president should feel an obligation to deal with not only issues of discrimination, but also the legacy of slavery and segregation that has been such a profound part of our history. You know, obviously it's hard for me to engage in a mind experiment and say, well, if I weren't African-American, would I feel less strongly about it or more strongly about it—and I know I feel strongly about it. I do come to this issue with personal experiences that are unlike any previous presidents'.
"But I also think that anybody in this office who cares deeply about the future of the country would be looking and saying to themselves, the population is changing; the future workforce is going to have a lot more African-American and Latino and Asian workers. And if those populations don't feel fully assimilated into the culture, aren't performing at high levels educationally, are caught in cycles of poverty—that that's not good for America's future. And that's certainly how I feel—and I would like to think that any president would feel that way."
Backlash. There were many effects stemming from Obama's presidency, both those that were expected and those that were not. One was a surprising surge in the number of black Republican candidates in the midterm elections of November 2010. At least 32 African-Americans were running for Congress as Republicans . . . the largest number since Reconstruction, according to The New York Times. The last time there was a black Republican serving in the House was 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left office after eight years. The New York Times found that "many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama's election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible—for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support—was not." The states where these candidates were running included Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida.
[Top aide] Valerie Jarrett told me, "I think at the time of his victory, there was an enormous amount of historical significance to this country being able to elect a person who was African-American as president. I think that there are probably people who still see him as an African-American president favorably and unfavorably. But the vast majority of people, I think, see him as their president. I think that because he inherited such a crisis on all fronts—two wars, an economic meltdown, a fiscal meltdown, the largest deficit in our nation's history, and a health crisis, energy crisis, education crisis, confidence crisis around the world—because of this extraordinary moment in history when he stepped in, I don't think there has been a lot of time to focus on his race. People just want to know, 'Are you going to be able to improve the quality of my life?'"
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.
His goal, he said, was to be as effective and empathetic a president as possible for all Americans. If he could accomplish that, it would advance racial progress for blacks more than anything else he could do.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Socialists Organizing Women to Amp Up U.S. Turmoil
Socialists Organizing Women to Amp Up U.S. Turmoil
The U.S.'s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America has been organizing, labor and youth in support of the spreading labor unrest.
Noreen Connell
Now they're going after women!
Activists from the National Organization for Women will join the D.S.A. controlled National Jobs for All Coalition as it begins a monthly "first Friday" vigil on March 4 in New York and other cities around the country.
Long time D.S.A. member Noreen Connell, is a former assistant commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor. Also a former president of N.O.W. New York State and current head of National Jobs for All's Women's Unemployment Task Force, Connelll says that, while the jobs crisis is harming all sectors of society, "women and girls are being hit especially hard".
According to the Communist Party USA's Peoples World;
Organizers of vigils, set to coincide with the release of unemployment information by the Bureau of Labor Statistics each month, aim to pressure Congress to enact a federal jobs program. In the meantime, they will push for extension of unemployment benefits, resumption of federal assistance to states and municipalities to avoid layoffs resulting from draconian budget cuts and the creation of "green jobs" at the expense of the defense budget.
The coalition sponsoring the vigils represents "all sections of the American working class": it includes the National Rainbow Coalition, the D.S.A./Communist Party controlled Jobs with Justice, the radical Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, leftist Jewish Groups, labor unions, "peace" groups, "religious" organizations and others.
posted by Trevor Loudon at 3/03/2011 12:26:00 PM
The U.S.'s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America has been organizing, labor and youth in support of the spreading labor unrest.
Noreen Connell
Now they're going after women!
Activists from the National Organization for Women will join the D.S.A. controlled National Jobs for All Coalition as it begins a monthly "first Friday" vigil on March 4 in New York and other cities around the country.
Long time D.S.A. member Noreen Connell, is a former assistant commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor. Also a former president of N.O.W. New York State and current head of National Jobs for All's Women's Unemployment Task Force, Connelll says that, while the jobs crisis is harming all sectors of society, "women and girls are being hit especially hard".
According to the Communist Party USA's Peoples World;
Organizers of vigils, set to coincide with the release of unemployment information by the Bureau of Labor Statistics each month, aim to pressure Congress to enact a federal jobs program. In the meantime, they will push for extension of unemployment benefits, resumption of federal assistance to states and municipalities to avoid layoffs resulting from draconian budget cuts and the creation of "green jobs" at the expense of the defense budget.
The coalition sponsoring the vigils represents "all sections of the American working class": it includes the National Rainbow Coalition, the D.S.A./Communist Party controlled Jobs with Justice, the radical Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, leftist Jewish Groups, labor unions, "peace" groups, "religious" organizations and others.
posted by Trevor Loudon at 3/03/2011 12:26:00 PM
Obama to Hit States Up for $118 Billion to Cover Medicaid Expansion
Bungalow Bill
BungalowBillCW
The Congressman has no clothes. Billy Long exposed. http://t.co/vOlciHw
22 hours ago · reply
Didn't we already know Congress is full of jackassses? http://t.co/t5h4TiK
22 hours ago · reply
Don't trust Obama with this states opt out of Obamacare idea. http://t.co/m44cxA7
22 hours ago · reply
Obama gives Mitt for Brains Romney a compliment for Romneycare. http://t.co/Mvud2cD
22 hours ago · reply
Join the conversation
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Obama to Hit States Up for $118 Billion to Cover Medicaid Expansion
Obama has been given states and their rights some lust lately. You can't call it love, because lust, and not love, betrays. Remember last week, Obama said the states could opt out of Obamacare under certain conditions. Consider the next fact, and ask yourself how is any state going to opt out when the federal government comes after this large sum of money from struggling states across the fruited plain.
Obamacare is set to expand Medicare. For this expansion, the federal government will look to the states for $118 billion dollars total by 2023. Here's what you need to know from National Review:
The massive increases in new federal spending under the health care law did not include the new Medicaid state spending mandates; and American taxpayers are still discovering the extent of PPACA’s costs. In 2017, state governments will be forced to spend new money on expanded Medicaid populations, and by 2020, the states will shoulder these new costs fully. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) originally estimated new state spending on Medicaid at $20 billion between 2017 and 2019, and an independent report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that new state spending would be even higher at $43.2 billion through 2019. More recently, CBO has estimated a $60 billion cost to the states through 2021. …
This report conservatively estimates that PPACA will cost state taxpayers at least $118.04 billion through 2023.
The state-by-state findings9 of this report indicate just how unrealistic PPACA’s Medicaid mandates are for the states. California will spend at least another $19.4 billion on Medicaid; perhaps that is why former Governor Schwarzenegger said, “It is not reform to push more costs on states that are already struggling … and this bill … is a disaster for California…” The Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimated that Texas alone will be forced to spend $27 billion—more than the program’s entire annual budget today. The state of Idaho found that the law would grow its Medicaid program by nearly 50 percent. With $675 million in new costs for his state, it is not surprising that Governor Beshear (D-KY) recently said, “I have no idea how we’re going to pay for it.” Finally, former Governor Bredesen (D-TN) noted reality: “I can’t think of a worse time for this bill to be coming … nobody’s going to put their state into bankruptcy or their education system in the tank for it.”
Posted by Bungalow Bill
BungalowBillCW
The Congressman has no clothes. Billy Long exposed. http://t.co/vOlciHw
22 hours ago · reply
Didn't we already know Congress is full of jackassses? http://t.co/t5h4TiK
22 hours ago · reply
Don't trust Obama with this states opt out of Obamacare idea. http://t.co/m44cxA7
22 hours ago · reply
Obama gives Mitt for Brains Romney a compliment for Romneycare. http://t.co/Mvud2cD
22 hours ago · reply
Join the conversation
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Obama to Hit States Up for $118 Billion to Cover Medicaid Expansion
Obama has been given states and their rights some lust lately. You can't call it love, because lust, and not love, betrays. Remember last week, Obama said the states could opt out of Obamacare under certain conditions. Consider the next fact, and ask yourself how is any state going to opt out when the federal government comes after this large sum of money from struggling states across the fruited plain.
Obamacare is set to expand Medicare. For this expansion, the federal government will look to the states for $118 billion dollars total by 2023. Here's what you need to know from National Review:
The massive increases in new federal spending under the health care law did not include the new Medicaid state spending mandates; and American taxpayers are still discovering the extent of PPACA’s costs. In 2017, state governments will be forced to spend new money on expanded Medicaid populations, and by 2020, the states will shoulder these new costs fully. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) originally estimated new state spending on Medicaid at $20 billion between 2017 and 2019, and an independent report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that new state spending would be even higher at $43.2 billion through 2019. More recently, CBO has estimated a $60 billion cost to the states through 2021. …
This report conservatively estimates that PPACA will cost state taxpayers at least $118.04 billion through 2023.
The state-by-state findings9 of this report indicate just how unrealistic PPACA’s Medicaid mandates are for the states. California will spend at least another $19.4 billion on Medicaid; perhaps that is why former Governor Schwarzenegger said, “It is not reform to push more costs on states that are already struggling … and this bill … is a disaster for California…” The Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimated that Texas alone will be forced to spend $27 billion—more than the program’s entire annual budget today. The state of Idaho found that the law would grow its Medicaid program by nearly 50 percent. With $675 million in new costs for his state, it is not surprising that Governor Beshear (D-KY) recently said, “I have no idea how we’re going to pay for it.” Finally, former Governor Bredesen (D-TN) noted reality: “I can’t think of a worse time for this bill to be coming … nobody’s going to put their state into bankruptcy or their education system in the tank for it.”
Posted by Bungalow Bill
The idiocy of the UN Human Rights Council
The idiocy of the UN Human Rights Council
The WSJ looks at what the UN Human Rights Council has had to say about Libya. Now that it's cool to condemn Libya, even the Human Rights Council is coming out against Gadhafi's leadership of his country. But just a couple of weeks ago, they issued its "universal periodic review" and all sorts of good things to say about Gadhafi's Libya.
The report notes that "a number of delegations commended [Libya] for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stake holders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."
You'll be pleased to learn that the Gadhafi government offers a generous assessment of its own rights record. Cuba commended Gadhafi for "the progress it made in . . . primary education," and North Korea lauded Libya's "achievements in the protection of human rights." These were not surprise judgments.
But what to make of Australia, which "welcomed [Libya's] progress in human rights"; or Canada, which praised "the recent legislation that granted women married to foreigners the right to pass on their Libyan nationality to their children;" or Poland, which highlighted Libya's "achievements in recent years, including its efforts to combat corruption and trafficking."
The U.S., which joined the Council as a sign of the Obama Administration's good global citizenship, "supported [Libya's] increased engagement with the international community." At least the U.S. also "expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners" along with other rights violations. Similarly tepid statements of concern were offered by the Australians, Canadians and Poles. Too bad they couldn't muster the nerve of Switzerland, which tartly noted that Libyan "courts continued to pronounce death sentences and inflict corporal punishment, including whipping and amputation."
The Council will meet next month to consider the UPR, which is embarrassing enough given its timing and obsequious content. But the real embarrassment is that a human rights body with members like Libya and Cuba is taken seriously.
Anytime you hear someone intone about the necessity of involving the United Nations or express concern over the lack of love for the United States in the U.N., remember that this is the same organization whose ironically named Human Rights Council saw all sorts of progress and encouragement from Libya's "achievements" in human rights. What a joke!
The WSJ looks at what the UN Human Rights Council has had to say about Libya. Now that it's cool to condemn Libya, even the Human Rights Council is coming out against Gadhafi's leadership of his country. But just a couple of weeks ago, they issued its "universal periodic review" and all sorts of good things to say about Gadhafi's Libya.
The report notes that "a number of delegations commended [Libya] for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stake holders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."
You'll be pleased to learn that the Gadhafi government offers a generous assessment of its own rights record. Cuba commended Gadhafi for "the progress it made in . . . primary education," and North Korea lauded Libya's "achievements in the protection of human rights." These were not surprise judgments.
But what to make of Australia, which "welcomed [Libya's] progress in human rights"; or Canada, which praised "the recent legislation that granted women married to foreigners the right to pass on their Libyan nationality to their children;" or Poland, which highlighted Libya's "achievements in recent years, including its efforts to combat corruption and trafficking."
The U.S., which joined the Council as a sign of the Obama Administration's good global citizenship, "supported [Libya's] increased engagement with the international community." At least the U.S. also "expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners" along with other rights violations. Similarly tepid statements of concern were offered by the Australians, Canadians and Poles. Too bad they couldn't muster the nerve of Switzerland, which tartly noted that Libyan "courts continued to pronounce death sentences and inflict corporal punishment, including whipping and amputation."
The Council will meet next month to consider the UPR, which is embarrassing enough given its timing and obsequious content. But the real embarrassment is that a human rights body with members like Libya and Cuba is taken seriously.
Anytime you hear someone intone about the necessity of involving the United Nations or express concern over the lack of love for the United States in the U.N., remember that this is the same organization whose ironically named Human Rights Council saw all sorts of progress and encouragement from Libya's "achievements" in human rights. What a joke!
Compassion: NJ Union Goons Strand Disabled Seniors and Dialysis Patients to Attend Rally
A new Jersey State Senator is justifiably calling for the dismissal of Communications Workers of America members after they cruelly stranded seniors and disabled clients last Friday so they could all go to Trenton to greedily demand more of your taxpayer money. Not only should they be fired, they should be brought up on charges, if at all possible.
State Sen. Joe Kyrillos, (R-13), of Middletown today called for the immediate firing of the 17 CWA workers he said staged a so-called "sick-out" last Friday to attend a rally, effectively leaving Monmouth County seniors stranded.
"It is outrageous that 174 disabled and elderly clients who depend on SCAT were stranded by what appears to be a coordinated effort by employees to disrupt service without notice," said Kyrillos. "The actions of these workers is completely unbecoming of any public servant, and should make every taxpayer in Monmouth County furious. CWA, the union representing these employees, needs to denounce their members for putting the well-being of these vulnerable individuals at risk, and the employees in question should be fired."
Kyrillos said 17 SCAT workers, including 14 bus drivers for the developmentally disabled and senior citizens, took sick leave with no notice on Friday, Feb. 25 - "the same day as a coordinated demonstration organized by labor leaders at the State Capitol." Service was disrupted for 174 clients who take SCAT buses to medical appointments or work.
H/T.
This was the same rally where the incendiary rhetoric of the "working people" compared Governor Christie to Libyan psychopath Moammar Khadafy.
More at link
Thanks to Instapundit for the link and the reminder it was a CWA goon who assaulted Tabitha Hale last week.
State Sen. Joe Kyrillos, (R-13), of Middletown today called for the immediate firing of the 17 CWA workers he said staged a so-called "sick-out" last Friday to attend a rally, effectively leaving Monmouth County seniors stranded.
"It is outrageous that 174 disabled and elderly clients who depend on SCAT were stranded by what appears to be a coordinated effort by employees to disrupt service without notice," said Kyrillos. "The actions of these workers is completely unbecoming of any public servant, and should make every taxpayer in Monmouth County furious. CWA, the union representing these employees, needs to denounce their members for putting the well-being of these vulnerable individuals at risk, and the employees in question should be fired."
Kyrillos said 17 SCAT workers, including 14 bus drivers for the developmentally disabled and senior citizens, took sick leave with no notice on Friday, Feb. 25 - "the same day as a coordinated demonstration organized by labor leaders at the State Capitol." Service was disrupted for 174 clients who take SCAT buses to medical appointments or work.
H/T.
This was the same rally where the incendiary rhetoric of the "working people" compared Governor Christie to Libyan psychopath Moammar Khadafy.
More at link
Thanks to Instapundit for the link and the reminder it was a CWA goon who assaulted Tabitha Hale last week.
NJ Democrat Defies Union Thugs: 'We’ve Got To Be Fair With Taxpayers'
When you're a greedy, spoiled union goon used to life sucking off the public teat, those are words you never, ever want to hear. Especially when it's a prominent Democrat uttering them. Naturally they're already making empty threats against him and are having a temper tantrum. They just refuse to accept the fact the free ride is over.
Calling it an attempt to throw out collective bargaining rights, leaders of New Jersey’s public workers unions Monday said they will launch a full court press against a bill sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney that would force public employees to pay more for their health care benefits.
Hetty Rosenstein, state director for the Communication Workers of America, said her union would picket, extract pledges from lawmakers to oppose it and hold "lobby days" against the bill (S2718) over the next several weeks.
"It becomes illegal to negotiate anything different than what’s in that bill," said Rosenstein. "It preempts all collectively bargaining."
Bill Lavin, president of the state Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, said police and firefighters will protest it at a Statehouse rally Thursday and press all 120 lawmakers.
"It’s totally unacceptable. I think if that were to pass, it will guarantee that the Democrats will lose the majority," he said. "We’re shocked that Steve Sweeney, who calls himself a Democrat, would act in this manner ... He’s rolled over for the governor in every instance."
The pushback comes as the legislation has gained bipartisan support in the state Senate, with Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) signing on as a prime sponsor.
Public employees pay 1.5 percent of their salaries towards their health benefits. Under Sweeney’s plan and a proposal by Gov. Chris Christie, workers would pay a portion of their premiums instead and would have more plans to choose from.
Under Christie’s plan, public workers would pay 30 percent of their premiums within three years. Under Sweeney’s, they would pay a sliding scale based on income, with the highest earners eventually paying 30 percent. Christie’s plan would require current retirees to pay part of their premiums.
"I understand people being emotional, but we really have to be fair with people. We’ve got to be fair with taxpayers," said Sweeney, who denied the bill was an attempt to eliminate collective bargaining. "I’m the guy that did paid family leave. I’m the one that did the minimum wage (increase). I’m absolutely pro-worker."
Anything above the current 1.5% they're paying and they come absolutely unglued. Is it any wonder they're not receiving an ounce of sympathy from those of us in the private sector who pay a much higher percentage?
By the way, when the shrill Ms. Rosenstein follows through on her promise to hold "lobby days," let's just hope her people don't leave seniors and dialysis patients stranded again.
Calling it an attempt to throw out collective bargaining rights, leaders of New Jersey’s public workers unions Monday said they will launch a full court press against a bill sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney that would force public employees to pay more for their health care benefits.
Hetty Rosenstein, state director for the Communication Workers of America, said her union would picket, extract pledges from lawmakers to oppose it and hold "lobby days" against the bill (S2718) over the next several weeks.
"It becomes illegal to negotiate anything different than what’s in that bill," said Rosenstein. "It preempts all collectively bargaining."
Bill Lavin, president of the state Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, said police and firefighters will protest it at a Statehouse rally Thursday and press all 120 lawmakers.
"It’s totally unacceptable. I think if that were to pass, it will guarantee that the Democrats will lose the majority," he said. "We’re shocked that Steve Sweeney, who calls himself a Democrat, would act in this manner ... He’s rolled over for the governor in every instance."
The pushback comes as the legislation has gained bipartisan support in the state Senate, with Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) signing on as a prime sponsor.
Public employees pay 1.5 percent of their salaries towards their health benefits. Under Sweeney’s plan and a proposal by Gov. Chris Christie, workers would pay a portion of their premiums instead and would have more plans to choose from.
Under Christie’s plan, public workers would pay 30 percent of their premiums within three years. Under Sweeney’s, they would pay a sliding scale based on income, with the highest earners eventually paying 30 percent. Christie’s plan would require current retirees to pay part of their premiums.
"I understand people being emotional, but we really have to be fair with people. We’ve got to be fair with taxpayers," said Sweeney, who denied the bill was an attempt to eliminate collective bargaining. "I’m the guy that did paid family leave. I’m the one that did the minimum wage (increase). I’m absolutely pro-worker."
Anything above the current 1.5% they're paying and they come absolutely unglued. Is it any wonder they're not receiving an ounce of sympathy from those of us in the private sector who pay a much higher percentage?
By the way, when the shrill Ms. Rosenstein follows through on her promise to hold "lobby days," let's just hope her people don't leave seniors and dialysis patients stranded again.
Video: Young Children of Female Suicide Bomber On Palestinian TV - Asked "How Many Jews Did Mama Kill?"
Want to see what satanic depravity looks like? Here you go: (VIDEO)
Sirhan Sirhan Parole?
Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of former Senator Robert F. Kennedy, is looking to be released from jail. Sirhan assassinated the presidential candidate in 1968 in Los Angeles as it appeared that he was poised to win the Democratic nomination.
Now Sirhan is attempting to get out of jail on parole. Although release may be unlikely, this is his 13th attempt at release. He obviously has been turned down every time so far.
The parole board has repeatedly rejected Sirhan's appeals for release for failing to accept responsibility or show remorse for Kennedy's death.
Sirhan had shot Kennedy on behalf of the Palestinians, or so he says.
Personally, I don't know why we haven't fried the guy yet.
Now Sirhan is attempting to get out of jail on parole. Although release may be unlikely, this is his 13th attempt at release. He obviously has been turned down every time so far.
The parole board has repeatedly rejected Sirhan's appeals for release for failing to accept responsibility or show remorse for Kennedy's death.
Sirhan had shot Kennedy on behalf of the Palestinians, or so he says.
Personally, I don't know why we haven't fried the guy yet.
Communist News Predicts "Civil War" If Assault on Workers Rights is Not Turned Back
The Union Protests in Wisconsin have spawned widespread hatred, intimidation and violence from Progressives the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Tea Party began attending town halls last year.
But now the Protests in Wisconsin have spawned a new threat...
A Possible Civil War.
According to an Article on the Communist Party USA News, People's World, if the assault on Workers Rights is not turned back, things could get uglier:
"changes in labor law that permit firing workers who organize or strike to defend themselves, and changes in the modes of private production, these public enemies have made great progress toward rolling workers' rights back to where they want them to go - to the mid-19th century.
Wisconsin is showing that public workers, when they are united with those they serve, can block, stop, and - if we ALL lend a hand - reverse this exceedingly dangerous assault. If this assault is not turned back, we could see a confrontation between haves and have-nots that could rival the conflict over slavery in its devastating consequences for our country."
It also seems that the Communist used to see the Private Sector Employees as the 'Cutting Edge' of their movement. Now they believe the Public Employees are their new 'point man':
"Marxists long thought (and it was born out in much experience in the past century) that production workers in mass industries would lead the path toward genuine democracy and progress throughout the world. The advancing social nature of production was a powerful argument for more democratic controls over large-scale economic institutions (corporations), who were growing "too big to fail" and in many ways "too big to remain private" without unacceptable costs to society.
Most democratic reforms of the past century were focused on addressing various aspects of the growing social inter-dependencies in advanced capitalist economies. In fact, more socialized relations - in the form of more regulatory and income redistribution legislation (e.g. Social Security, Medicare and other public health care programs, public education, labor protections, civil rights, environmental regulation, financial regulation, and so on) - have given rise to a very large domain of public, nonprofit and quasi-public institutions upon which we all depend. Even the corporations depend on these institutions while they simultaneously, and schizophrenically, seek to corrupt them so that they do not stray into the "hands of the people," who, they noisily proclaim, are not "entitled" to anything.
Thus public workers - in a sense, the kernel of the socialized component and infrastructures of our society - may have replaced private production workers as the leading edge of this titanic democratic struggle now under way."
The Communists then decide that Predicting Civil War isn't enough, they also feel the need to encourage and glorify the continued on going Chaos and even predict victory:
"Perhaps it's too soon to finally judge - but it is a fascinating and thrilling moment for the entire progressive movement to ponder. Not just ponder: put your shoulder to the wheel, brothers and sisters, because this train is bound for glory."
So let this sink in to all of You who feel that the Union Protests aren't your concern.
Because while you are standing on the sidelines, the Communists are utilizing the misled and misinformed in order to push forward their progressive agenda.
And if they don't get their way...
Are Predicting a Civil War.
But now the Protests in Wisconsin have spawned a new threat...
A Possible Civil War.
According to an Article on the Communist Party USA News, People's World, if the assault on Workers Rights is not turned back, things could get uglier:
"changes in labor law that permit firing workers who organize or strike to defend themselves, and changes in the modes of private production, these public enemies have made great progress toward rolling workers' rights back to where they want them to go - to the mid-19th century.
Wisconsin is showing that public workers, when they are united with those they serve, can block, stop, and - if we ALL lend a hand - reverse this exceedingly dangerous assault. If this assault is not turned back, we could see a confrontation between haves and have-nots that could rival the conflict over slavery in its devastating consequences for our country."
It also seems that the Communist used to see the Private Sector Employees as the 'Cutting Edge' of their movement. Now they believe the Public Employees are their new 'point man':
"Marxists long thought (and it was born out in much experience in the past century) that production workers in mass industries would lead the path toward genuine democracy and progress throughout the world. The advancing social nature of production was a powerful argument for more democratic controls over large-scale economic institutions (corporations), who were growing "too big to fail" and in many ways "too big to remain private" without unacceptable costs to society.
Most democratic reforms of the past century were focused on addressing various aspects of the growing social inter-dependencies in advanced capitalist economies. In fact, more socialized relations - in the form of more regulatory and income redistribution legislation (e.g. Social Security, Medicare and other public health care programs, public education, labor protections, civil rights, environmental regulation, financial regulation, and so on) - have given rise to a very large domain of public, nonprofit and quasi-public institutions upon which we all depend. Even the corporations depend on these institutions while they simultaneously, and schizophrenically, seek to corrupt them so that they do not stray into the "hands of the people," who, they noisily proclaim, are not "entitled" to anything.
Thus public workers - in a sense, the kernel of the socialized component and infrastructures of our society - may have replaced private production workers as the leading edge of this titanic democratic struggle now under way."
The Communists then decide that Predicting Civil War isn't enough, they also feel the need to encourage and glorify the continued on going Chaos and even predict victory:
"Perhaps it's too soon to finally judge - but it is a fascinating and thrilling moment for the entire progressive movement to ponder. Not just ponder: put your shoulder to the wheel, brothers and sisters, because this train is bound for glory."
So let this sink in to all of You who feel that the Union Protests aren't your concern.
Because while you are standing on the sidelines, the Communists are utilizing the misled and misinformed in order to push forward their progressive agenda.
And if they don't get their way...
Are Predicting a Civil War.
Pirates Anchor Danish Yacht With Hostages
Pirates Anchor Danish Yacht With Hostages
They are holding 7 hostages. Two Danes, their three children and two crew members.
AP: NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — A Danish family kidnapped by pirates has reached the shore of Somalia, officials and a pirate said Wednesday, likely meaning a long hostage ordeal for the couple and their three teenage children who were abducted while yachting around the world.
A Somali pirate had warned that if any attempt was made to rescue them, they would meet the same fate as the four American yachters slain by their pirate captors last week. Any chance of a quick rescue seemed to disappear Wednesday.
The sailboat being piloted by Jan Quist Johansen, his wife and their three children, ages 12 to 16, anchored near the coastal village of Hafun late Tuesday, said Yusuf Abdullahi Sanyare, the commissioner of Hafun, which lies on Somalia's northern tip.
We pray they will be released safely. Especially the children. Looking for an Islamic rule against you know, the taking of and murder of child hostages. You know to argue for their release.
.....didn't find one.
Update: Well whaddya know, I did find one. Its from the The International Union for Muslim Scholars based in Dublin Ireland. I wonder if the pirates even recognize that group?
In the case of war, it is not permissible to kidnap innocent or enemy civilians who must not be made a target of any act of war. From the Islamic point of view, civilians are those who are non-combatants, such as women and children, as well as elderly men who have no role in the fighting, and priests. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has given an express order "not to kill women and children." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim) He also said: "Do not kill any young person." (Reported by Abu Dawud) In an order to Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the commander of the army, he said: "Never kill a child or an employee." (Reported by Ibn Majah) This last order includes anyone who is employed in non-combat capacity, such as factory workers, medical personnel, and the like. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also highlighted the prohibition of killing an elderly man, a priest, or a hermit dedicated to worship. The same prohibition of killing elderly men is confirmed by Abu Bakr. Moreover, Jabir ibn `Abdullah, the Prophet's Companion, is quoted as saying that Muslims "did not kill business people who were unbelievers." The majority of scholars in the Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Islamic law extend this prohibition, on the basis of analogy, to include other non-combatants, such as those who are physically or mentally handicapped, and those who lock themselves in a house or a church, labourers, farmers, and tradesmen. Imam Ash-Shawkani has formulated a clear rule of analogy on this particular issue. This rule makes it clear that "it is unlawful from the Islamic point of view to kill anyone who is of no benefit to the enemy and cannot do the Muslims any harm."
Update: Reading assignment on the difficulties of Sharia law and the issue of Children. Custody specifically in this document.
Update II: An opposing hadith in comments
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy.
I would think that would not apply in this case because the hostages were not in the line of fire of a direct attack against combatants. There was no battle. Also so far as I know Christians and Jews are not treated the same as Pagans under Sharia.
They are holding 7 hostages. Two Danes, their three children and two crew members.
AP: NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — A Danish family kidnapped by pirates has reached the shore of Somalia, officials and a pirate said Wednesday, likely meaning a long hostage ordeal for the couple and their three teenage children who were abducted while yachting around the world.
A Somali pirate had warned that if any attempt was made to rescue them, they would meet the same fate as the four American yachters slain by their pirate captors last week. Any chance of a quick rescue seemed to disappear Wednesday.
The sailboat being piloted by Jan Quist Johansen, his wife and their three children, ages 12 to 16, anchored near the coastal village of Hafun late Tuesday, said Yusuf Abdullahi Sanyare, the commissioner of Hafun, which lies on Somalia's northern tip.
We pray they will be released safely. Especially the children. Looking for an Islamic rule against you know, the taking of and murder of child hostages. You know to argue for their release.
.....didn't find one.
Update: Well whaddya know, I did find one. Its from the The International Union for Muslim Scholars based in Dublin Ireland. I wonder if the pirates even recognize that group?
In the case of war, it is not permissible to kidnap innocent or enemy civilians who must not be made a target of any act of war. From the Islamic point of view, civilians are those who are non-combatants, such as women and children, as well as elderly men who have no role in the fighting, and priests. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has given an express order "not to kill women and children." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim) He also said: "Do not kill any young person." (Reported by Abu Dawud) In an order to Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the commander of the army, he said: "Never kill a child or an employee." (Reported by Ibn Majah) This last order includes anyone who is employed in non-combat capacity, such as factory workers, medical personnel, and the like. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also highlighted the prohibition of killing an elderly man, a priest, or a hermit dedicated to worship. The same prohibition of killing elderly men is confirmed by Abu Bakr. Moreover, Jabir ibn `Abdullah, the Prophet's Companion, is quoted as saying that Muslims "did not kill business people who were unbelievers." The majority of scholars in the Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Islamic law extend this prohibition, on the basis of analogy, to include other non-combatants, such as those who are physically or mentally handicapped, and those who lock themselves in a house or a church, labourers, farmers, and tradesmen. Imam Ash-Shawkani has formulated a clear rule of analogy on this particular issue. This rule makes it clear that "it is unlawful from the Islamic point of view to kill anyone who is of no benefit to the enemy and cannot do the Muslims any harm."
Update: Reading assignment on the difficulties of Sharia law and the issue of Children. Custody specifically in this document.
Update II: An opposing hadith in comments
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy.
I would think that would not apply in this case because the hostages were not in the line of fire of a direct attack against combatants. There was no battle. Also so far as I know Christians and Jews are not treated the same as Pagans under Sharia.
Eric Holder: Black Panther Case Focus Demeans 'My People'
Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.
Holder's frustration over the criticism became evident during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) accused the Justice Department of failing to cooperate with a Civil Rights Commission investigation into the handling of the 2008 incident in which Black Panthers in intimidating outfits and wielding a club stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.
The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.
"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black. (MORE)
Holder's frustration over the criticism became evident during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) accused the Justice Department of failing to cooperate with a Civil Rights Commission investigation into the handling of the 2008 incident in which Black Panthers in intimidating outfits and wielding a club stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.
The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.
"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black. (MORE)
New Video Explains that Tax Competition Is a Powerful Mechanism to Restrain the Greed of the Political Class
(VIDEO) Here’s a new mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, narrated by Natasha Montague of Americans for Tax Reform, that explains why the process of tax competition is a critical constraint on the propensity of governments to over-tax and over-spend.
The issue is very simple. When labor and capital have the ability to escape bad policy by moving across borders, politicians are more likely to realize that it is foolish to impose high tax rates. And they oftentimes compete for jobs and investment by lowering tax rates. This virtuous form of rivalry helps explain why so many nations in recent years have lowered tax rates and adopted simple and fair flat tax systems.
Another great feature of the video is the series of quotes from winners of the Nobel Prize. These economists all recognize competition between governments is just as desirable as competition between banks, pet stores, and supermarkets.
The video also discusses how politicians are attacking tax competition. It mentions a privacy-eroding scheme concocted by governors to tax out-of-state purchases (how dare consumers buy online and avoid state sales tax!).
And it also discusses a very destructive tax harmonization effort by a Paris-based bureaucracy (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, subsidized with American tax dollars!), which would undermine fiscal sovereignty by punishing jurisdictions that adopt pro-growth tax systems that attract labor and capital.
The issues discussed in this video generally don’t get a lot of attention, but they are critical for the long-run battle to restrain government. Please share widely.
P.S. This speech by Florida’s new Governor is a good example of how tax competition encourages governments to do the right thing.
The issue is very simple. When labor and capital have the ability to escape bad policy by moving across borders, politicians are more likely to realize that it is foolish to impose high tax rates. And they oftentimes compete for jobs and investment by lowering tax rates. This virtuous form of rivalry helps explain why so many nations in recent years have lowered tax rates and adopted simple and fair flat tax systems.
Another great feature of the video is the series of quotes from winners of the Nobel Prize. These economists all recognize competition between governments is just as desirable as competition between banks, pet stores, and supermarkets.
The video also discusses how politicians are attacking tax competition. It mentions a privacy-eroding scheme concocted by governors to tax out-of-state purchases (how dare consumers buy online and avoid state sales tax!).
And it also discusses a very destructive tax harmonization effort by a Paris-based bureaucracy (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, subsidized with American tax dollars!), which would undermine fiscal sovereignty by punishing jurisdictions that adopt pro-growth tax systems that attract labor and capital.
The issues discussed in this video generally don’t get a lot of attention, but they are critical for the long-run battle to restrain government. Please share widely.
P.S. This speech by Florida’s new Governor is a good example of how tax competition encourages governments to do the right thing.
Marc Lamont Hill Upset Over Idea of White Scholarships Because “Being White Itself Is a Form of Scholarship” – Video 3/2/11
(VIDEO) African-American Studies professor Marc Lamont Hill is upset over a Texas student’s plan to organize white scholarships. He says “there’s no need” for white scholarships because, “Being white itself is a form of scholarship.” Hill contends, “White people have access to school in ways that black people don’t.”
Hill dismissed the idea as a “spectacle that we see every year” from “white folk who are becoming increasingly frustrated with the fact that the world might be becoming just a little bit more fair.”
Hill dismissed the idea as a “spectacle that we see every year” from “white folk who are becoming increasingly frustrated with the fact that the world might be becoming just a little bit more fair.”
US Socialists & Union Activists Investigated By FBI
Fact Not Beck Conspiracy: US Socialists & Union Activists Investigated By FBI for Providing Material Support to Islamic Terrorist & International Marxist Groups They Work With
Docs Reveal TSA Plan To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers
Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.
The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports.
The 173-page collection of contracts and reports, acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, includes contracts with Siemens Corporations, Northeastern University, and Rapiscan Systems. The study was expected to cost more than $3.5 million.
One project allocated to Northeastern University and Siemens would mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians and assess what they carried. In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.
“This would allow them to take these technologies out of the airport and into other contexts like public streets, special events and ground transit,” says Ginger McCall, an attorney with EPIC. “It’s a clear violation of the fourth amendment that’s very invasive, not necessarily effective, and poses all the same radiation risks as the airport scans.”
It’s not clear to what degree the technologies outlined in the DHS documents have been implemented. Multiple contacts at the DHS public affairs office didn’t respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon. A privacy assessment included in the documents for one aspect of the plans that focused on train security suggests that images wouldn’t be tied to any personally identifiable information such as a subject’s name. Any images shared outside the project or used for training purposes would have faces blurred, and employees using the system would be trained to avoid privacy violations, the document says. If the scanners were to adopt privacy enhancements deployed in new versions of the airport full body scanners currently being tested by the TSA, they would also use nondescript outlines of people rather than defined images, only showing items of interest on the subject’s body.
But EPIC’s McCall says that those safeguards are irrelevant: If scanners are deployed in public settings, it doesn’t matter if they show full naked images or merely the objects in a user’s pockets. “When you’re out walking on the street, it’s not acceptable for an officer to come up and search your bag without probable cause or consent.,” she says. “This is the digital equivalent.”
In August of last year, Joe Reiss, the vice president of marketing of security contractor American Sciences & Engineering told me in an interview that the company had sold more than 500 of its backscatter x-ray vans to governments around the world, including some deployed in the U.S. Those vans are capable of scanning people, the inside of cars and even the internals of some buildings while rolling down public streets. The company claims that its systems’ “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.” But Reiss admitted that the van scans do penetrate clothing, and EPIC president Marc Rotenberg called them “one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”
On top of exposing research into possible expansion of the scanner program, EPIC has also filed a lawsuit against the DHS that fights the use of the scanners in airports. The group is arguing its case in a D.C. appellate court next week, though some expect the scanners to be ruled constitutional.
Check out the full documents obtained by EPIC below: (MORE)
The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports.
The 173-page collection of contracts and reports, acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, includes contracts with Siemens Corporations, Northeastern University, and Rapiscan Systems. The study was expected to cost more than $3.5 million.
One project allocated to Northeastern University and Siemens would mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians and assess what they carried. In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.
“This would allow them to take these technologies out of the airport and into other contexts like public streets, special events and ground transit,” says Ginger McCall, an attorney with EPIC. “It’s a clear violation of the fourth amendment that’s very invasive, not necessarily effective, and poses all the same radiation risks as the airport scans.”
It’s not clear to what degree the technologies outlined in the DHS documents have been implemented. Multiple contacts at the DHS public affairs office didn’t respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon. A privacy assessment included in the documents for one aspect of the plans that focused on train security suggests that images wouldn’t be tied to any personally identifiable information such as a subject’s name. Any images shared outside the project or used for training purposes would have faces blurred, and employees using the system would be trained to avoid privacy violations, the document says. If the scanners were to adopt privacy enhancements deployed in new versions of the airport full body scanners currently being tested by the TSA, they would also use nondescript outlines of people rather than defined images, only showing items of interest on the subject’s body.
But EPIC’s McCall says that those safeguards are irrelevant: If scanners are deployed in public settings, it doesn’t matter if they show full naked images or merely the objects in a user’s pockets. “When you’re out walking on the street, it’s not acceptable for an officer to come up and search your bag without probable cause or consent.,” she says. “This is the digital equivalent.”
In August of last year, Joe Reiss, the vice president of marketing of security contractor American Sciences & Engineering told me in an interview that the company had sold more than 500 of its backscatter x-ray vans to governments around the world, including some deployed in the U.S. Those vans are capable of scanning people, the inside of cars and even the internals of some buildings while rolling down public streets. The company claims that its systems’ “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.” But Reiss admitted that the van scans do penetrate clothing, and EPIC president Marc Rotenberg called them “one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”
On top of exposing research into possible expansion of the scanner program, EPIC has also filed a lawsuit against the DHS that fights the use of the scanners in airports. The group is arguing its case in a D.C. appellate court next week, though some expect the scanners to be ruled constitutional.
Check out the full documents obtained by EPIC below: (MORE)
Navy to name warship for Murtha despite protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Navy says it is forging ahead with its decision to name a warship for the late Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, despite protests the decorated Vietnam War veteran was disloyal in his 2006 accusation that Marines had murdered Iraqi civilians.
Three Facebook sites opposing the Navy’s April 2010 decision bristle with thousands of angry postings. The Navy website with the announcement drew critical comments. The Washington Times voiced its outrage in an editorial titled “Sink the Murtha.”
But the Navy is standing firm.
A spokeswoman for Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Mr. Mabus is sticking with his decision to name a warship for Murtha, who was a retired Marine Reserves colonel and the powerful former chairman of a House defense appropriations panel. He died in February 2010 at age 77.
Three Facebook sites opposing the Navy’s April 2010 decision bristle with thousands of angry postings. The Navy website with the announcement drew critical comments. The Washington Times voiced its outrage in an editorial titled “Sink the Murtha.”
But the Navy is standing firm.
A spokeswoman for Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Mr. Mabus is sticking with his decision to name a warship for Murtha, who was a retired Marine Reserves colonel and the powerful former chairman of a House defense appropriations panel. He died in February 2010 at age 77.
FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1933 executive order outlawing the private ownership of gold in the United States was arguably unconstitutional. But why did he do it ? Many historians and economists point to efforts to get the economy moving again as the reason, the theory being that people were hoarding gold and the velocity of money in circulation needed to be sped up.
But the real reason for the gold confiscation was a bailout of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank. And the evidence has been printed right in front of our faces.
PAPER REPLACES SPECIE
During the 1800s, paper money was suspect in the eyes of many. Nobody would ever choose a government-issue $20 note over a $20 gold coin. Gradually during the late 1800s and early 1900s, confidence in government paper money increased to the point where it was widely accepted. People accepted the money because they felt confident they could exchange it at the US Treasury or any Federal Reserve Bank for gold at any time – it even said so on the notes. Without the gold exchange clauses printed directly on the notes, the public would have been much less likely to accept them. Silver Certificates and United States Notes circulated alongside Gold Certificates, which were legally interchangeable dollar-for-dollar.
THE “FED” AND EASY MONEY
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was established and it began issuing Federal Reserve Notes the following year.
Once free of the restrictions imposed by the limitations of available physical gold for coinage, the quantity of Dollars in circulation increased dramatically. The increase was mostly in the form of paper money, not specie.
The result was an economic “boom”, also known as “The Roaring Twenties” (1923-1929). But like all artificially-induced stimulus, it came to a crash in the fall of 1929. The burden of over-extended credit was the culprit. Prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve, money in circulation consisted of copper, silver, and gold coins, United States Notes, Silver Certificates, and Gold Certificates. All of these were non-interest-bearing, were issued directly by the US Treasury, and did not have any debt associated with their issuance.
Notes issued by the Federal Reserve, however, were generally lent out, with interest due. So for every Federal Reserve dollar in circulation, somebody needed that dollar to pay off a debt. During the Roaring Twenties, a lot of people took on debt, resulting in a great credit expansion. When only physical gold and silver was used as money, institutions were very cautious about lending it out because if the debtor defaulted, the creditor would be out some serious (sound) money.
But with the advent of Federal Reserve Notes, the bank was more willing to lend. And with easier qualification terms, people stepped up to the window. The increased willingness to lend was due to the fact that the item being lent out was just a piece of replaceable paper, not a hard-to-get piece of gold. Sure, the notes said “redeemable in gold” (otherwise they might have been refused in commerce). But few members of the public actually exchanged such notes for actual gold. And thus, the Federal Reserve was free to lend almost at will, with little regard for loan losses. When the interest burden of all that new credit began to weigh more-heavily on the general economy, the inevitable credit contraction led to the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. Everyone was suddenly reluctant to borrow, banks were reluctant to lend, and the velocity of money in circulation slowed to a crawl.
A GOLD RUN ?
The financial footing of the United States became shaky. European countries which were holding substantial quantities of US gold-clause notes began presenting them to exchange for physical gold. The US Government’s fixed price of gold at $20.67 per troy ounce had been in effect for some time. But as the Great Depression deepened, the free-market price of gold started creeping up above that. This was an indication that confidence in gold-clause notes was starting to wane. A gold run on the Federal Reserve bank was imminent. And that was something that couldn’t be tolerated.
And the reason that a gold run couldn’t be tolerated, is that neither the Federal Reserve nor the US Treasury held anywhere near enough gold to back all the Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes that were in circulation. And printing more of these notes would only erode confidence in them even further. The gold fractional-reserve system was at the end of the road.
GOLD-CLAUSE NOTES
This is a typical gold-exchange clause found on Gold Certificates issued by the US Treasury from about 1905 to 1922.
And the clause on series 1928 US Treasury Gold Certificates looked like this:
Series 1914 Federal Reserve Notes carried this gold-clause:
1928 series Federal Reserve Notes were printed with this:
HOW MANY IN CIRCULATION ?
Proof that the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Treasury were in serious trouble, that they didn’t have nearly enough gold to back the notes issued, can be found in the tables in the appendix to this article.
The total numbers of various notes issued are available from a number of sources. The appendix shows data reported in two books: “The Standard Handbook of United States Paper Money”, 6th edition (1977), by Chuck O’Donnell; and “The Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money”, 1981 edition, by Gene Hessler.
To calculate the total face value of all gold-clause notes in circulation, it is necessary to know how many were issued, and how many may have still been around in 1933. The appendix tables do not include US Treasury Gold Certificates issued prior to 1905. Quantities of pre-1905 Gold Certificates were relatively small, and most would have been redeemed (and replaced with new notes) before 1933. The number of notes issued is known. The number surviving in 1933 can only be estimated.
According to the US Treasury, the average life span of a current $100 bill in circulation is about 7.5 years. Adjusted for inflation, one-hundred 2011 Dollars is equal to roughly five 1933 Dollars. Five Dollars in 1933 was a fair amount of money. The velocity of money in circulation was much lower then as well, especially during the Great Depression. A person receiving a $5 bill in change in 1933 would be unlikely to wad it up and casually stuff it in their pocket. They would more likely carefully squirrel it away for some other “rainy day”. So in 1933, a typical $5 bill would not get worn out as fast as a 2011 $100 bill. And larger-denomination notes would circulate even less often. Gold-clause notes would likely be the most tightly-held (and least circulated) of all types of notes, followed by Silver Certificates and US Notes (in that order). So it is probably a fair assumption that, on average, the “half-life” of gold-clause notes in circulation would be at least 20 years – meaning that after every 20 years or so, half the notes remaining in circulation would have to be replaced due to being worn out. The majority of gold-clause notes were issued shortly before 1933 during the 1928-1933 period, so they would still be in relatively new condition in 1933.
All this doesn’t account for gold-clause notes that were turned in for physical gold, even though they may have still been in good condition. But if Federal Reserve Notes were turned in while still in good condition, the notes would have simply been placed back into circulation by the Federal Reserve Bank or US Treasury. Many US Treasury Gold Certificates turned in for redemption may have actually been cancelled and not re-released into circulation.
GOLD SHORTFALL
Records indicate that the total gold reserves of the country in 1933 were 4 Billion dollars worth. And at $20.67 per troy ounce, that equates to about 6,000 metric tons of gold.
The total face value of US Treasury Gold Certificates issued from 1905 to 1928 equates to more than 16,000 metric tons of gold. Taking the generous assumption that the US Treasury did not issue more Gold Certificates than they had gold to back them, would mean that only 37.5% of all 1905-1928 Gold Certificates were still outstanding in 1933. In other words, if 37.5% of all Gold Certificates were still outstanding in 1933, the US Treasury would have just enough gold to back them.
Now the real problem is the gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes. Since these were generally re-released upon redemption (if in good condition), the only attrition in the quantity of notes outstanding would be due to replacement of worn-out notes. A conservative estimate of the total number of Federal Reserve Notes still in circulation in 1933 would be at least 75%.
The total face value of gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes issued prior to 1933 was equivalent to nearly 54,000 metric tons of gold. If 75% of them were outstanding in 1933, that would still be 40,500 metric tons of gold that the Federal Reserve Bank (and the US Treasury) didn’t have. Even taking the extremely low estimate of only 37.5% of the Federal Reserve Notes remaining, that would still be over 20,000 metric tons of gold. With US gold reserves at 6,000 tons, this would be a shortfall of 14,000 tons. But those 6,000 tons were needed to cover the US Treasury Gold Certificates. So at the very minimum, Federal Reserve Notes to the tune of 20,000 metric tons of gold were “circulating naked” in 1933.
THE BAILOUT
So along comes FDR. One of the very first things he did was issue an executive order basically outlawing the private ownership of gold bullion. US Treasury Gold Certificates were no longer legal tender when held by the general public, unless exchanged at the US Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank for other non-gold paper. The US Treasury could then transfer 6,000 metric tons of gold to the Federal Reserve as a token backing for the “full faith and credit of the United States”. Reportedly, the US Treasury sent gold certificates to the Federal Reserve in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes. So the net result of this exchange was that the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank held US Treasury Gold Certificates backed by US Treasury gold, while the US Treasury held Federal Reserve Notes backed by “credit”. These actions bailed out the privately-controlled Federal Reserve bank, which as of 1933 would no longer be in danger of collapsing due to a sort-fall of 20,000 or more metric tons of gold.
As citizens complied with the new ”law” by turning in gold, the gold reserves of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve increased. After most of the public’s gold was turned in, FDR raised the official price from $20.67 to $35.00 per troy ounce. How “convenient”. Gold-clause Federal Reserve notes were not recalled and remained in circulation. But they could no longer be exchanged for gold, except by certain foreign central banks. Those with connections were able to buy valuable assets with mere paper. Wealth was concentrated in fewer hands.
The new series of 1934 Federal Reserve notes no longer had any gold clause, they were only redeemable for “lawful money”, whatever that was.
THE FALLOUT
FDR’s actions in bailing out the Federal Reserve Bank set in motion the ultimate debt-enslavement of the US Government and its citizens.
ANOTHER GOLD CONFISCATION ?
The credit contraction which started in 2008 has many similarities to 1929. But this time, there is no gold limitation constraining the printing presses. Some people believe that another gold confiscation is a very real possibility. But the major difference between now and 1933 is that in 1933 the Federal Reserve owed a lot of gold that it didn’t have. Today the only backing for the US Dollar is the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Government debts, domestic and international, can now be paid with nothing more than newly-printed paper. The liabilities of the Federal Reserve Bank are no longer denominated in gold, and they haven’t been since Richard Nixon closed the international dollar-gold exchange window in 1971.
APPENDIX
United States Gold Obligation
Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes
Total Face Value of Notes Issued, 1907-1933
Table Columns:
Series: Year of enactment (issue).
District: Federal Reserve Bank District.
$FV: Face Value of note in Dollars.
Notes Issued: Total number of notes printed and issued.
The Total Face Value is the sum of the
face values times the numbers of notes.
US TREASURY GOLD CERTIFICATES
Series $FV Notes Issued Total Face Value
1907 10 105,094,800
1922 10 160,604,000
1905 20 4,676,000
1906 20 55,954,587
1922 20 87,120,000
1913 50 1,624,000
1922 50 5,984,000
1922 100 2,444,000
1907 1,000 228,000
1922 1,000 80,000
1928 10 130,812,000
20 66,204,000
50 5,520,000
100 3,240,000
500 420,000
1,000 288,000
5,000 24,000
10,000 36,000
$ 10,754,999,740.00
Official US price 1933: $20.67 (per troy oz)
Total gold obligation: 0.52 Billion troy oz.
Total gold obligation: 16,183 Metric Tons
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
Series/District $FV Notes Issued Total Face Value
1914 A 5 90,400,000
B 5 297,852,000
C 5 103,824,000
D 5 73,216,000
E 5 45,932,000
F 5 54,476,000
G 5 164,876,000
H 5 41,704,000
I 5 29,280,000
J 5 43,928,000
K 5 28,536,000
L 5 91,848,000
1914 A 10 69,756,000
B 10 176,728,000
C 10 56,616,000
D 10 43,856,000
E 10 27,528,000
F 10 31,400,000
G 10 84,804,000
H 10 21,508,000
I 10 14,376,000
J 10 16,448,000
K 10 12,988,000
L 10 41,432,000
1914 A 20 25,760,000
B 20 58,704,000
C 20 30,088,000
D 20 38,544,000
E 20 16,944,000
F 20 15,956,000
G 20 46,776,000
H 20 10,748,000
I 20 6,600,000
J 20 9,172,000
K 20 6,872,000
L 20 35,756,000
1914 A 50 1,052,000
B 50 5,264,000
C 50 3,720,000
D 50 6,012,000
E 50 1,664,000
F 50 868,000
G 50 3,988,000
H 50 572,000
I 50 160,000
J 50 372,000
K 50 216,000
L 50 1,365,000
1914 A 100 728,000
B 100 3,084,000
C 100 636,000
D 100 668,000
E 100 416,000
F 100 476,000
G 100 888,000
H 100 188,000
I 100 120,000
J 100 256,000
K 100 124,000
L 100 1,064,000
1918 A 500 17,600
B 500 125,600
C 500 24,000
D 500 15,600
E 500 23,200
F 500 34,400
G 500 38,000
H 500 14,400
I 500 7,200
J 500 16,000
K 500 6,000
L 500 24,000
1918 A 1,000 39,600
B 1,000 124,800
C 1,000 16,400
D 1,000 8,800
E 1,000 17,600
F 1,000 43,200
G 1,000 23,600
H 1,000 8,400
I 1,000 7,600
J 1,000 15,200
K 1,000 6,000
L 1,000 22,400
1918 A 5,000 800
B 5,000 1,600
C 5,000 0
D 5,000 400
E 5,000 400
F 5,000 8
G 5,000 800
H 5,000 400
I 5,000 0
J 5,000 0
K 5,000 0
L 5,000 2,800
1918 A 10,000 800
B 10,000 1,600
C 10,000 0
D 10,000 400
E 10,000 400
F 10,000 0
G 10,000 0
H 10,000 400
I 10,000 0
J 10,000 0
K 10,000 0
L 10,000 2,000
1928 A 5 8,025,300
B 5 14,701,884
C 5 11,819,712
D 5 9,049,500
E 5 6,027,600
F 5 10,964,400
G 5 12,326,052
H 5 4,675,200
I 5 4,284,300
J 5 4,480,800
K 5 8,137,824
L 5 9,792,000
1928-A A 5 9,404,252
B 5 42,878,196
C 5 10,806,012
D 5 6,822,000
E 5 2,409,900
F 5 3,537,600
G 5 37,882,176
H 5 2,731,824
I 5 652,800
J 5 3,572,400
K 5 2,564,400
L 5 6,565,500
1928-B A 5 28,430,724
B 5 51,157,536
C 5 25,698,396
D 5 24,874,272
E 5 15,151,932
F 5 13,386,420
G 5 17,157,036
H 5 20,251,716
I 5 6,954,060
J 5 10,677,636
K 5 4,334,400
L 5 28,840,080
1928-C D 5 3,293,640
F 5 2,056,200
L 5 266,304
1928-D F 5 1,281,600
1928 A 10 9,804,552
B 10 11,295,796
C 10 8,114,412
D 10 7,570,680
E 10 4,534,800
F 10 6,807,720
G 10 8,130,000
H 10 4,124,100
I 10 3,874,440
J 10 3,620,400
K 10 4,855,500
L 10 7,086,900
1928-A A 10 2,893,440
B 10 16,631,056
C 10 2,710,680
D 10 5,610,000
E 10 552,300
F 10 3,033,480
G 10 8,715,000
H 10 531,600
I 10 102,600
J 10 410,400
K 10 961,800
L 10 2,547,900
1928-B A 10 33,218,088
B 10 44,458,308
C 10 22,689,216
D 10 17,418,024
E 10 12,714,504
F 10 5,246,700
G 10 38,035,000
H 10 10,814,664
I 10 5,294,460
J 10 7,748,040
K 10 3,396,096
L 10 22,695,300
1928-C B 10 2,902,678
D 10 4,230,428
E 10 304,800
F 10 688,380
G 10 2,423,400
1928 A 20 3,790,880
B 20 12,797,200
C 20 3,787,200
D 20 10,626,900
E 20 4,119,600
F 20 3,842,388
G 20 10,891,740
H 20 2,523,300
I 20 2,633,100
J 20 2,584,500
K 20 1,568,500
L 20 8,404,800
1928-A A 20 1,293,900
B 20 1,055,800
C 20 1,717,200
D 20 625,200
E 20 1,534,500
F 20 1,442,400
G 20 822,000
H 20 573,300
I 20 0
J 20 113,900
K 20 1,032,000
L 20 0
1928-B A 20 7,749,636
B 20 19,448,436
C 20 8,095,548
D 20 11,684,196
E 20 4,413,900
F 20 2,390,240
G 20 17,220,276
H 20 3,834,600
I 20 3,298,920
J 20 4,941,252
K 20 2,406,060
L 20 9,689,124
1928-C G 20 3,363,300
L 20 1,420,200
1928 A 50 265,200
B 50 1,351,800
C 50 997,056
D 50 1,161,900
E 50 539,400
F 50 538,800
G 50 1,348,620
H 50 627,300
I 50 106,200
J 50 252,600
K 50 109,920
L 50 447,600
1928-A A 50 1,834,989
B 50 3,392,328
C 50 3,078,944
D 50 2,453,364
E 50 1,516,500
F 50 338,400
G 50 5,263,956
H 50 880,500
I 50 780,240
J 50 791,604
K 50 701,496
L 50 1,522,620
1928 A 100 376,000
B 100 755,400
C 100 389,100
D 100 542,400
E 100 364,416
F 100 357,000
G 100 783,300
H 100 187,200
I 100 102,000
J 100 234,612
K 100 80,140
L 100 486,000
1928-A A 100 980,400
B 100 2,938,176
C 100 1,496,844
D 100 992,436
E 100 621,364
F 100 371,400
G 100 4,010,424
H 100 749,544
I 100 503,040
J 100 681,804
K 100 594,456
L 100 1,228,032
1928 A 500 69,120
B 500 299,400
C 500 135,120
D 500 166,440
E 500 84,720
F 500 69,360
G 500 573,600
H 500 66,180
I 500 34,680
J 500 510,720
K 500 70,560
L 500 64,080
1928 A 1,000 58,320
B 1,000 139,200
C 1,000 96,708
D 1,000 79,680
E 1,000 66,840
F 1,000 47,400
G 1,000 355,800
H 1,000 60,000
I 1,000 26,640
J 1,000 62,172
K 1,000 42,960
L 1,000 67,920
1928 A 5,000 1,320
B 5,000 2,640
C 5,000 0
D 5,000 3,000
E 5,000 3,984
F 5,000 1,440
G 5,000 3,480
H 5,000 0
I 5,000 0
J 5,000 720
K 5,000 360
L 5,000 51,300
1928 A 10,000 1,320
B 10,000 4,680
C 10,000 0
D 10,000 960
E 10,000 3,024
F 10,000 1,440
G 10,000 1,800
H 10,000 480
I 10,000 480
J 10,000 480
K 10,000 360
L 10,000 1,824
$ 35,833,509,910.00
Official US price 1933: $20.67 (per troy oz)
Total gold obligation: 1.7336 Billion troy oz.
Total gold obligation: 53,919 Metric Tons
But the real reason for the gold confiscation was a bailout of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank. And the evidence has been printed right in front of our faces.
PAPER REPLACES SPECIE
During the 1800s, paper money was suspect in the eyes of many. Nobody would ever choose a government-issue $20 note over a $20 gold coin. Gradually during the late 1800s and early 1900s, confidence in government paper money increased to the point where it was widely accepted. People accepted the money because they felt confident they could exchange it at the US Treasury or any Federal Reserve Bank for gold at any time – it even said so on the notes. Without the gold exchange clauses printed directly on the notes, the public would have been much less likely to accept them. Silver Certificates and United States Notes circulated alongside Gold Certificates, which were legally interchangeable dollar-for-dollar.
THE “FED” AND EASY MONEY
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was established and it began issuing Federal Reserve Notes the following year.
Once free of the restrictions imposed by the limitations of available physical gold for coinage, the quantity of Dollars in circulation increased dramatically. The increase was mostly in the form of paper money, not specie.
The result was an economic “boom”, also known as “The Roaring Twenties” (1923-1929). But like all artificially-induced stimulus, it came to a crash in the fall of 1929. The burden of over-extended credit was the culprit. Prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve, money in circulation consisted of copper, silver, and gold coins, United States Notes, Silver Certificates, and Gold Certificates. All of these were non-interest-bearing, were issued directly by the US Treasury, and did not have any debt associated with their issuance.
Notes issued by the Federal Reserve, however, were generally lent out, with interest due. So for every Federal Reserve dollar in circulation, somebody needed that dollar to pay off a debt. During the Roaring Twenties, a lot of people took on debt, resulting in a great credit expansion. When only physical gold and silver was used as money, institutions were very cautious about lending it out because if the debtor defaulted, the creditor would be out some serious (sound) money.
But with the advent of Federal Reserve Notes, the bank was more willing to lend. And with easier qualification terms, people stepped up to the window. The increased willingness to lend was due to the fact that the item being lent out was just a piece of replaceable paper, not a hard-to-get piece of gold. Sure, the notes said “redeemable in gold” (otherwise they might have been refused in commerce). But few members of the public actually exchanged such notes for actual gold. And thus, the Federal Reserve was free to lend almost at will, with little regard for loan losses. When the interest burden of all that new credit began to weigh more-heavily on the general economy, the inevitable credit contraction led to the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. Everyone was suddenly reluctant to borrow, banks were reluctant to lend, and the velocity of money in circulation slowed to a crawl.
A GOLD RUN ?
The financial footing of the United States became shaky. European countries which were holding substantial quantities of US gold-clause notes began presenting them to exchange for physical gold. The US Government’s fixed price of gold at $20.67 per troy ounce had been in effect for some time. But as the Great Depression deepened, the free-market price of gold started creeping up above that. This was an indication that confidence in gold-clause notes was starting to wane. A gold run on the Federal Reserve bank was imminent. And that was something that couldn’t be tolerated.
And the reason that a gold run couldn’t be tolerated, is that neither the Federal Reserve nor the US Treasury held anywhere near enough gold to back all the Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes that were in circulation. And printing more of these notes would only erode confidence in them even further. The gold fractional-reserve system was at the end of the road.
GOLD-CLAUSE NOTES
This is a typical gold-exchange clause found on Gold Certificates issued by the US Treasury from about 1905 to 1922.
And the clause on series 1928 US Treasury Gold Certificates looked like this:
Series 1914 Federal Reserve Notes carried this gold-clause:
1928 series Federal Reserve Notes were printed with this:
HOW MANY IN CIRCULATION ?
Proof that the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Treasury were in serious trouble, that they didn’t have nearly enough gold to back the notes issued, can be found in the tables in the appendix to this article.
The total numbers of various notes issued are available from a number of sources. The appendix shows data reported in two books: “The Standard Handbook of United States Paper Money”, 6th edition (1977), by Chuck O’Donnell; and “The Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money”, 1981 edition, by Gene Hessler.
To calculate the total face value of all gold-clause notes in circulation, it is necessary to know how many were issued, and how many may have still been around in 1933. The appendix tables do not include US Treasury Gold Certificates issued prior to 1905. Quantities of pre-1905 Gold Certificates were relatively small, and most would have been redeemed (and replaced with new notes) before 1933. The number of notes issued is known. The number surviving in 1933 can only be estimated.
According to the US Treasury, the average life span of a current $100 bill in circulation is about 7.5 years. Adjusted for inflation, one-hundred 2011 Dollars is equal to roughly five 1933 Dollars. Five Dollars in 1933 was a fair amount of money. The velocity of money in circulation was much lower then as well, especially during the Great Depression. A person receiving a $5 bill in change in 1933 would be unlikely to wad it up and casually stuff it in their pocket. They would more likely carefully squirrel it away for some other “rainy day”. So in 1933, a typical $5 bill would not get worn out as fast as a 2011 $100 bill. And larger-denomination notes would circulate even less often. Gold-clause notes would likely be the most tightly-held (and least circulated) of all types of notes, followed by Silver Certificates and US Notes (in that order). So it is probably a fair assumption that, on average, the “half-life” of gold-clause notes in circulation would be at least 20 years – meaning that after every 20 years or so, half the notes remaining in circulation would have to be replaced due to being worn out. The majority of gold-clause notes were issued shortly before 1933 during the 1928-1933 period, so they would still be in relatively new condition in 1933.
All this doesn’t account for gold-clause notes that were turned in for physical gold, even though they may have still been in good condition. But if Federal Reserve Notes were turned in while still in good condition, the notes would have simply been placed back into circulation by the Federal Reserve Bank or US Treasury. Many US Treasury Gold Certificates turned in for redemption may have actually been cancelled and not re-released into circulation.
GOLD SHORTFALL
Records indicate that the total gold reserves of the country in 1933 were 4 Billion dollars worth. And at $20.67 per troy ounce, that equates to about 6,000 metric tons of gold.
The total face value of US Treasury Gold Certificates issued from 1905 to 1928 equates to more than 16,000 metric tons of gold. Taking the generous assumption that the US Treasury did not issue more Gold Certificates than they had gold to back them, would mean that only 37.5% of all 1905-1928 Gold Certificates were still outstanding in 1933. In other words, if 37.5% of all Gold Certificates were still outstanding in 1933, the US Treasury would have just enough gold to back them.
Now the real problem is the gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes. Since these were generally re-released upon redemption (if in good condition), the only attrition in the quantity of notes outstanding would be due to replacement of worn-out notes. A conservative estimate of the total number of Federal Reserve Notes still in circulation in 1933 would be at least 75%.
The total face value of gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes issued prior to 1933 was equivalent to nearly 54,000 metric tons of gold. If 75% of them were outstanding in 1933, that would still be 40,500 metric tons of gold that the Federal Reserve Bank (and the US Treasury) didn’t have. Even taking the extremely low estimate of only 37.5% of the Federal Reserve Notes remaining, that would still be over 20,000 metric tons of gold. With US gold reserves at 6,000 tons, this would be a shortfall of 14,000 tons. But those 6,000 tons were needed to cover the US Treasury Gold Certificates. So at the very minimum, Federal Reserve Notes to the tune of 20,000 metric tons of gold were “circulating naked” in 1933.
THE BAILOUT
So along comes FDR. One of the very first things he did was issue an executive order basically outlawing the private ownership of gold bullion. US Treasury Gold Certificates were no longer legal tender when held by the general public, unless exchanged at the US Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank for other non-gold paper. The US Treasury could then transfer 6,000 metric tons of gold to the Federal Reserve as a token backing for the “full faith and credit of the United States”. Reportedly, the US Treasury sent gold certificates to the Federal Reserve in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes. So the net result of this exchange was that the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank held US Treasury Gold Certificates backed by US Treasury gold, while the US Treasury held Federal Reserve Notes backed by “credit”. These actions bailed out the privately-controlled Federal Reserve bank, which as of 1933 would no longer be in danger of collapsing due to a sort-fall of 20,000 or more metric tons of gold.
As citizens complied with the new ”law” by turning in gold, the gold reserves of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve increased. After most of the public’s gold was turned in, FDR raised the official price from $20.67 to $35.00 per troy ounce. How “convenient”. Gold-clause Federal Reserve notes were not recalled and remained in circulation. But they could no longer be exchanged for gold, except by certain foreign central banks. Those with connections were able to buy valuable assets with mere paper. Wealth was concentrated in fewer hands.
The new series of 1934 Federal Reserve notes no longer had any gold clause, they were only redeemable for “lawful money”, whatever that was.
THE FALLOUT
FDR’s actions in bailing out the Federal Reserve Bank set in motion the ultimate debt-enslavement of the US Government and its citizens.
ANOTHER GOLD CONFISCATION ?
The credit contraction which started in 2008 has many similarities to 1929. But this time, there is no gold limitation constraining the printing presses. Some people believe that another gold confiscation is a very real possibility. But the major difference between now and 1933 is that in 1933 the Federal Reserve owed a lot of gold that it didn’t have. Today the only backing for the US Dollar is the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Government debts, domestic and international, can now be paid with nothing more than newly-printed paper. The liabilities of the Federal Reserve Bank are no longer denominated in gold, and they haven’t been since Richard Nixon closed the international dollar-gold exchange window in 1971.
APPENDIX
United States Gold Obligation
Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes
Total Face Value of Notes Issued, 1907-1933
Table Columns:
Series: Year of enactment (issue).
District: Federal Reserve Bank District.
$FV: Face Value of note in Dollars.
Notes Issued: Total number of notes printed and issued.
The Total Face Value is the sum of the
face values times the numbers of notes.
US TREASURY GOLD CERTIFICATES
Series $FV Notes Issued Total Face Value
1907 10 105,094,800
1922 10 160,604,000
1905 20 4,676,000
1906 20 55,954,587
1922 20 87,120,000
1913 50 1,624,000
1922 50 5,984,000
1922 100 2,444,000
1907 1,000 228,000
1922 1,000 80,000
1928 10 130,812,000
20 66,204,000
50 5,520,000
100 3,240,000
500 420,000
1,000 288,000
5,000 24,000
10,000 36,000
$ 10,754,999,740.00
Official US price 1933: $20.67 (per troy oz)
Total gold obligation: 0.52 Billion troy oz.
Total gold obligation: 16,183 Metric Tons
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
Series/District $FV Notes Issued Total Face Value
1914 A 5 90,400,000
B 5 297,852,000
C 5 103,824,000
D 5 73,216,000
E 5 45,932,000
F 5 54,476,000
G 5 164,876,000
H 5 41,704,000
I 5 29,280,000
J 5 43,928,000
K 5 28,536,000
L 5 91,848,000
1914 A 10 69,756,000
B 10 176,728,000
C 10 56,616,000
D 10 43,856,000
E 10 27,528,000
F 10 31,400,000
G 10 84,804,000
H 10 21,508,000
I 10 14,376,000
J 10 16,448,000
K 10 12,988,000
L 10 41,432,000
1914 A 20 25,760,000
B 20 58,704,000
C 20 30,088,000
D 20 38,544,000
E 20 16,944,000
F 20 15,956,000
G 20 46,776,000
H 20 10,748,000
I 20 6,600,000
J 20 9,172,000
K 20 6,872,000
L 20 35,756,000
1914 A 50 1,052,000
B 50 5,264,000
C 50 3,720,000
D 50 6,012,000
E 50 1,664,000
F 50 868,000
G 50 3,988,000
H 50 572,000
I 50 160,000
J 50 372,000
K 50 216,000
L 50 1,365,000
1914 A 100 728,000
B 100 3,084,000
C 100 636,000
D 100 668,000
E 100 416,000
F 100 476,000
G 100 888,000
H 100 188,000
I 100 120,000
J 100 256,000
K 100 124,000
L 100 1,064,000
1918 A 500 17,600
B 500 125,600
C 500 24,000
D 500 15,600
E 500 23,200
F 500 34,400
G 500 38,000
H 500 14,400
I 500 7,200
J 500 16,000
K 500 6,000
L 500 24,000
1918 A 1,000 39,600
B 1,000 124,800
C 1,000 16,400
D 1,000 8,800
E 1,000 17,600
F 1,000 43,200
G 1,000 23,600
H 1,000 8,400
I 1,000 7,600
J 1,000 15,200
K 1,000 6,000
L 1,000 22,400
1918 A 5,000 800
B 5,000 1,600
C 5,000 0
D 5,000 400
E 5,000 400
F 5,000 8
G 5,000 800
H 5,000 400
I 5,000 0
J 5,000 0
K 5,000 0
L 5,000 2,800
1918 A 10,000 800
B 10,000 1,600
C 10,000 0
D 10,000 400
E 10,000 400
F 10,000 0
G 10,000 0
H 10,000 400
I 10,000 0
J 10,000 0
K 10,000 0
L 10,000 2,000
1928 A 5 8,025,300
B 5 14,701,884
C 5 11,819,712
D 5 9,049,500
E 5 6,027,600
F 5 10,964,400
G 5 12,326,052
H 5 4,675,200
I 5 4,284,300
J 5 4,480,800
K 5 8,137,824
L 5 9,792,000
1928-A A 5 9,404,252
B 5 42,878,196
C 5 10,806,012
D 5 6,822,000
E 5 2,409,900
F 5 3,537,600
G 5 37,882,176
H 5 2,731,824
I 5 652,800
J 5 3,572,400
K 5 2,564,400
L 5 6,565,500
1928-B A 5 28,430,724
B 5 51,157,536
C 5 25,698,396
D 5 24,874,272
E 5 15,151,932
F 5 13,386,420
G 5 17,157,036
H 5 20,251,716
I 5 6,954,060
J 5 10,677,636
K 5 4,334,400
L 5 28,840,080
1928-C D 5 3,293,640
F 5 2,056,200
L 5 266,304
1928-D F 5 1,281,600
1928 A 10 9,804,552
B 10 11,295,796
C 10 8,114,412
D 10 7,570,680
E 10 4,534,800
F 10 6,807,720
G 10 8,130,000
H 10 4,124,100
I 10 3,874,440
J 10 3,620,400
K 10 4,855,500
L 10 7,086,900
1928-A A 10 2,893,440
B 10 16,631,056
C 10 2,710,680
D 10 5,610,000
E 10 552,300
F 10 3,033,480
G 10 8,715,000
H 10 531,600
I 10 102,600
J 10 410,400
K 10 961,800
L 10 2,547,900
1928-B A 10 33,218,088
B 10 44,458,308
C 10 22,689,216
D 10 17,418,024
E 10 12,714,504
F 10 5,246,700
G 10 38,035,000
H 10 10,814,664
I 10 5,294,460
J 10 7,748,040
K 10 3,396,096
L 10 22,695,300
1928-C B 10 2,902,678
D 10 4,230,428
E 10 304,800
F 10 688,380
G 10 2,423,400
1928 A 20 3,790,880
B 20 12,797,200
C 20 3,787,200
D 20 10,626,900
E 20 4,119,600
F 20 3,842,388
G 20 10,891,740
H 20 2,523,300
I 20 2,633,100
J 20 2,584,500
K 20 1,568,500
L 20 8,404,800
1928-A A 20 1,293,900
B 20 1,055,800
C 20 1,717,200
D 20 625,200
E 20 1,534,500
F 20 1,442,400
G 20 822,000
H 20 573,300
I 20 0
J 20 113,900
K 20 1,032,000
L 20 0
1928-B A 20 7,749,636
B 20 19,448,436
C 20 8,095,548
D 20 11,684,196
E 20 4,413,900
F 20 2,390,240
G 20 17,220,276
H 20 3,834,600
I 20 3,298,920
J 20 4,941,252
K 20 2,406,060
L 20 9,689,124
1928-C G 20 3,363,300
L 20 1,420,200
1928 A 50 265,200
B 50 1,351,800
C 50 997,056
D 50 1,161,900
E 50 539,400
F 50 538,800
G 50 1,348,620
H 50 627,300
I 50 106,200
J 50 252,600
K 50 109,920
L 50 447,600
1928-A A 50 1,834,989
B 50 3,392,328
C 50 3,078,944
D 50 2,453,364
E 50 1,516,500
F 50 338,400
G 50 5,263,956
H 50 880,500
I 50 780,240
J 50 791,604
K 50 701,496
L 50 1,522,620
1928 A 100 376,000
B 100 755,400
C 100 389,100
D 100 542,400
E 100 364,416
F 100 357,000
G 100 783,300
H 100 187,200
I 100 102,000
J 100 234,612
K 100 80,140
L 100 486,000
1928-A A 100 980,400
B 100 2,938,176
C 100 1,496,844
D 100 992,436
E 100 621,364
F 100 371,400
G 100 4,010,424
H 100 749,544
I 100 503,040
J 100 681,804
K 100 594,456
L 100 1,228,032
1928 A 500 69,120
B 500 299,400
C 500 135,120
D 500 166,440
E 500 84,720
F 500 69,360
G 500 573,600
H 500 66,180
I 500 34,680
J 500 510,720
K 500 70,560
L 500 64,080
1928 A 1,000 58,320
B 1,000 139,200
C 1,000 96,708
D 1,000 79,680
E 1,000 66,840
F 1,000 47,400
G 1,000 355,800
H 1,000 60,000
I 1,000 26,640
J 1,000 62,172
K 1,000 42,960
L 1,000 67,920
1928 A 5,000 1,320
B 5,000 2,640
C 5,000 0
D 5,000 3,000
E 5,000 3,984
F 5,000 1,440
G 5,000 3,480
H 5,000 0
I 5,000 0
J 5,000 720
K 5,000 360
L 5,000 51,300
1928 A 10,000 1,320
B 10,000 4,680
C 10,000 0
D 10,000 960
E 10,000 3,024
F 10,000 1,440
G 10,000 1,800
H 10,000 480
I 10,000 480
J 10,000 480
K 10,000 360
L 10,000 1,824
$ 35,833,509,910.00
Official US price 1933: $20.67 (per troy oz)
Total gold obligation: 1.7336 Billion troy oz.
Total gold obligation: 53,919 Metric Tons
Different and Dangerous: The Worker's Party and Chain Reaction Chaos
Conservative Refocus
By Barry Secrest
What a mess virtually anywhere we look. While the Democratic "Fleedom Fighters" of Wisconsin hide-out from their constituents, the Mideast continues its implosion, and the Iranians continue to garner ever more power for their Caliphate building, twelfth Imam seeking misadventures. Meanwhile, the worrisome protests, the world over, have reportedly now spread into North Korea with even a nibble in China.
But looked at in another way, it's almost as if the "democracy" protests, which started in Tunisia and spread throughout the Arab world, have seemingly found their way, somehow, to the shores of America of all places. So the question then quite logically becomes, is there a connection between an Arab world on fire and the worker's party protests here in America, and are these truly Democracy protests?
The answer is indeed, there may in fact be a connection, and talk of democracy might only be the spark-plug, as we are noticing a certain, very specific commonality at play in each of these events, and that commonality goes by the name of chain-reaction chaos by any measure available. So where does it all begin or end? To answer that question, all that one can do is to try to root out the various connections, and each of those connections will always have a sort of impetus built into itself. Our closest verifiable connection can obviously be found right here at home, along with the rather bizarre antics of the Democrats of Fleedom in Wisconsin, and that particular connection stands out as one bit of the mystery finally solved.
An Innocent Coincidence?
In an increasingly hemorrhagic naivete' concerning all things political, the one thing both I, and to be sure many others, couldn't quite figure out was the seeming benevolence of the Federal Government's stimulus program which went out, in large part, to all of the State Governments. This even while the Federal Government had virtually ignored the State's assertions that their rights were being abrogated under Obamacare. Granted, we both knew and understood that the States, as a result of their acceptance of Stimulus, would be coerced into more self-funding of various programs in the future, thereby reducing the Fed's outlays for these same services. It is also a granted that we understood that there was a certain amount of payola involved, as we had all experienced the Obama administration's penchant for a largely self-interested ideological agenda, in the first place.
But, still...there was something missing, much like an incomplete puzzle with one final missing piece-- easily identified as being missing--but knowing not exactly where that piece was or precisely what it looked like.
Alas, we have all now found it, and from the most unlikely of events, being a burgeoning public labor union dispute gone absolutely nuclear. Yes indeed, unraveling a mystery and finding that one particular kernel of truth that ties everything together can be an unusually liberating event--to wit-- it now appears that the public sector State and local Labor Union jobs were both primarily and directly protected by the Democrats of your Federal Government by way of the largely contrived monster stimulus of 09, at the extreme expense of "We The People." It's as simple as just that, and yet many of us, while only partially understanding this particular idea, just couldn't quite get our arms around the entire plot.
In a report dated March 10, 2010, nearly one year ago, Veronique De Rugy at Biggovernment.com cited data from the website Recovery.gov that indicates nearly 600,000 jobs were either created or saved at the Dept. of Education by the Stimulus, as compared to a relative pittance in virtually all other areas. But, it gets even better, you see, when De Rugy, comparatively innocent at the time, reports that "for the first time, more public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a Union than did private sector employees (7.4 million)," and this despite a depressingly severe economic downturn that left few, if any, in the private sector unaffected.
De Rugy goes on to point out that public sector union membership grew at a higher rate than the same private sector union membership, despite there being more than five times that number of employees within the private sector. She then ruminated over the fact that Obama's Union boss, Andy Stern, had been appointed to the debt commission effectively tying our eureka moment in a tidy package. And remember, this was reported nearly one year ago. But the bow on top for De Rugy would have to be her prediction, in ending her report, about the chances for these stimulus funds for education being made permanent, which is exactly the fight we are seeing right now with the collective rampage of both the Democrats and the Union members working against their employer, being, once again, We The People.
A Non-Working Workers Revolt In A Right Not-To-Work State
One also but needs to understand the cycles involved to get a grip on how these startling truths shake out. It's quite simple actually, when you follow the money. The public sector Union members largely depend upon the largess from their Democrat elected friends in order to politically back the Unions efforts at consistently taking bigger chunks of pay and benefits from the people of each State. In turn, the Unions collect exorbitant fees from their members, as much as a thousand dollars per person per year, and then politically fund those same Democrats lavishly in order to make sure that they are re-elected. Then, when it's time to renegotiate the union contract, these same Democrats will throw their political power and undying support behind the Union members, which is exactly what we are seeing now in Wisconsin and many other States, thus the bizarre Fleedom Democrats.
However, this year there arose a problem for the Democrats. The advent of the Tea Party and the Conservative awakening against the radical liberal agenda of both Obama and his liberal-leaning Congress stymied the Democrat's cycle of lavish doom in the form of an election. That, coupled with huge State deficits and the threat of these States becoming insolvent, meant a change was in order, thus ushering in the Republican takeover of both the US House along with State legislature after legislature in a domino effect, some for the first time in over 100 years.
Thus, we now have a President who seems to bizarrely function much as a Minister of defense for a relatively small special interest group--being the public Sector Unions--which had helped to propel the President into his office in the first place. So, why is it--still--that Obama would side with, at best, 10 million members of a special interest group against the other 300 million citizens whom he is expected to serve?
The answer to that question goes, in large part, to who butters the President's political and ideological bread. Not withstanding the long-held relationship the President has maintained with the "Workers of America." Remember, too, that whenever you read the words workers of America, or workers party or even the workers, this nomenclature has always been international code-speak for the forces of Communism and Socialism, and this is where the full-circle meets for Obama, and to a greater extent, a world that appears increasingly on fire.
A Shovel-Ready Democracy
Remember the President's admission of not long ago that, at the time of the stimulus, he simply did not understand that there were no shovel-ready jobs to throw the Stimulus at--despite the President's insistence that the Stimulus would go directly to shovel-ready jobs? Remember, too, that Obama seems to always fall unabashedly at labor Union's door no matter the impetus? One must further remember that Richard Trumka, probably the most powerful labor Union chief in America, essentially has carte blanche at the White House.
In fact, a recent interview had Trumka essentially crowing about how frequent his contacts were with either Obama himself or members of the White House staff. This fact becomes especially glaring when one notes that it was also recently reported and confirmed that at least eight of Obama's "expert" cabinet members have rarely if ever been consulted by Obama, even over two years, while a Labor Union leader effectively utilizes a swinging door to the White House.
In other words, Obama, the President of The United States, regularly consults with a Labor Union Leader--that being a special interest group-- more than even members of his own Cabinet? I think we can now conclusively put to bed all of the special interest group nonsense that Obama was spouting during the campaign.
Remember, also, when the private labor unions were essentially given the keys to both Chrysler and GM by way of the Chief Executive's mandate? Remember the billions of dollars that were crammed into these corporate entities by the Federal Government, only to later allow these same entities to declare bankruptcy, much of the proceeds then flowing to the Unions via executive fiat? Remember Obama's Supreme Court excoriation at the State of The Union speech in 2009? That was, in essence, about the Courts "leveling the playing field with Corporations and Unions" in the Citizen's United Case regarding who can underwrite Campaign ads and a judicial corporate victory.
The main thing to ultimately remember in that regard is just this: When a group of companies or corporations, which are made up of individuals, get together and set prices that citizens will have to pay, this is called collusion, which is an illegal act, and then becomes subject to anti-trust law penalties or worse. But, when a group of workers or employees, being individuals, get together to set the price for their labor and or benefits, this is called collective bargaining, and here you can thusly see a certain dichotomy at work. So what's the difference exactly? None within the nature of the thing itself.
The Party Of "We" versus The Party Of "Tea"
Meanwhile, the Public Union sector workers continue to spread their protests over an increasingly infected swath of America, and we can begin to see the possible beginnings of yet another ideological battle drawing out. In February of 2009, we witnessed the Genesis of modern-day major protests when a both outraged and injured Civil Society sparked the Tea Party Revolution that continues to this day. Conversely, in these Public Union inspired, democratically-leveraged protests, are we now seeing a counter-Tea Party mini-revolution from the Workers Party of America?
Remember too, the Tea Party Protests were a Constitutionally inspired groundswell aimed at out of control government growth, increasing taxation, and mammoth government spending from bail-outs, Tarp and the stimulus along with a Federal takeover of healthcare. The Tea Party, despite media ravings, certainly isn't an anti-government event intended to inspire anarchy as much of the media and a virtual majority of left-leaning politicos would have We the People believe. In fact, the forces of anarchy appear to be far more in play from these Union protests than ever was the case as it regards the Tea Party--this fact can easily be seen in the actions of public sector protests happening both here and in Greece.
In fact, the Tea Party celebrates a Government system in which a rule of law is rooted within the US Constitution and effectively champions a Government which should seemlessly fit in and represent the People's concerns both efficiently and justly. Espousing all that is both great and good about a limited Government system is a key tenet of the Tea Party protest. In contrast, the Public Sector Union protests, which we are witnessing, appear to be the antithesis of everything that the Tea Party revolution was all about. Greece II, in effect, is what we are now seeing to one degree or another.
Collective Coercion
In essence, these workers parties are battling to keep their collective bargaining agreements, along with their prime benefit packages, and pay while going against their employers, the Peoples of these States, who in virtually every case have had to cutback in some way or another. So what exactly does collective bargaining mean? Simple. It speaks to a collective of individuals and their group rights in abeyance to their employers needs, their employer, in this case, being the People. The main point here being that the US Constitution is built upon the primacy of the individual and certainly not the group. When we speak of groups, especially in this case, we are speaking of what is in effect nothing more nor less than a special interest group with benefits and the concept of group rights is simply a misnomer, the US Constitution certainly does not address group worker's rights.
These such special interest group's main concern is to retain their full pay, their full benefit packages and their full special interest group bargaining concessions. The penalty, if the groups demands are not met? A strike, which is a threat not to work. Do what we say or else is the basic message. The state of Wisconsin has made it quite plain that the protesters risk layoff, if not the possibility of eventual replacement of their positions, if they do not relent. Their answer? Obtaining false doctor's notes so that they can continue to maintain a government mired in gridlock. Gee, now wasn't that the Left's argument against the Republicans and Conservatives now serving in the Federal Government?
But, why is all of this happening now, exactly? Are we actually seeing a backlash from the worker's party as indirectly engineered by the Tea Party? Timing, as they say, is everything, insofar as it now appears that the worker's empire is striking back at the People. But the question then becomes, what, exactly, sparked the movement of the workers party to become so terribly outraged that it would risk obliteration by a refreshed Civil Society's now pending, but recycled, umbrage and is there some sort of connectedness with the protests firing up throughout the world?
Different and Dangerous
Partial answers to this burning question can, perhaps, be found in a sparsely-known news story which appeared in the UK Daily mail. The story titled "America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind protests" goes into some detail about American efforts to train and aid a rebel Egyptian agent who was part of a group planning to overthrow the Government of Egypt prior to the September elections of 2011. The report goes onto note that while the US government publicly backed the Mubarak Regime, US Diplomats were, in fact, secretly plotting ways to overthrow Mubarak's Government. Much of these facts came out in connection with the WikiLeaks Cable leaks.
However, another smoking gun of connectivity would be that both President Obama and various left-leaning activists groups, which included the Democratic National Committee, put their full political machine on alert and in action. What was their goal? To fire up and increase the union protests throughout as many states as possible thereby fomenting the chaos. Hmm... a sitting President and a major Party fomenting political unrest? Are these acts not both different and dangerous?
So the question then becomes why would the US Government plot to remove a singular keystone of peace within the Mideast and an avowed ally and then foment unrest here at home? And why would that same US Government virtually ignore the same attempts at Democratic overthrows occurring in Iran, Libya and several other Nations? Further, why would the US Government seek to overthrow one of the few Governments which sought a peaceful allegiance with a major US ally in Israel? We will endeavor to at least try to answer some of these questions in the next article. Suffice it to say, their does appear to be a common thread running through each of these ignored Regimes and that thread is beyond disturbing.
But, in light of US efforts at destabilization of an authoritarian controlled secular Democracy, that being Egypt, what happens if this successful overthrow births another Iran-like theocratic Islamic regime, which might, in many cases, be even worse than the Government it replaces?
You see, the question that is constantly being asked should not be: "Will the people of these various countries of the Mideast setup secular Democracies?"
Rather, the question should be: "Why would the people of these Mideastern countries set up secular Democracies when an easily overwhelming majority of them fervently believe in the activation of Shariah law within their governance?"
By Barry Secrest
What a mess virtually anywhere we look. While the Democratic "Fleedom Fighters" of Wisconsin hide-out from their constituents, the Mideast continues its implosion, and the Iranians continue to garner ever more power for their Caliphate building, twelfth Imam seeking misadventures. Meanwhile, the worrisome protests, the world over, have reportedly now spread into North Korea with even a nibble in China.
But looked at in another way, it's almost as if the "democracy" protests, which started in Tunisia and spread throughout the Arab world, have seemingly found their way, somehow, to the shores of America of all places. So the question then quite logically becomes, is there a connection between an Arab world on fire and the worker's party protests here in America, and are these truly Democracy protests?
The answer is indeed, there may in fact be a connection, and talk of democracy might only be the spark-plug, as we are noticing a certain, very specific commonality at play in each of these events, and that commonality goes by the name of chain-reaction chaos by any measure available. So where does it all begin or end? To answer that question, all that one can do is to try to root out the various connections, and each of those connections will always have a sort of impetus built into itself. Our closest verifiable connection can obviously be found right here at home, along with the rather bizarre antics of the Democrats of Fleedom in Wisconsin, and that particular connection stands out as one bit of the mystery finally solved.
An Innocent Coincidence?
In an increasingly hemorrhagic naivete' concerning all things political, the one thing both I, and to be sure many others, couldn't quite figure out was the seeming benevolence of the Federal Government's stimulus program which went out, in large part, to all of the State Governments. This even while the Federal Government had virtually ignored the State's assertions that their rights were being abrogated under Obamacare. Granted, we both knew and understood that the States, as a result of their acceptance of Stimulus, would be coerced into more self-funding of various programs in the future, thereby reducing the Fed's outlays for these same services. It is also a granted that we understood that there was a certain amount of payola involved, as we had all experienced the Obama administration's penchant for a largely self-interested ideological agenda, in the first place.
But, still...there was something missing, much like an incomplete puzzle with one final missing piece-- easily identified as being missing--but knowing not exactly where that piece was or precisely what it looked like.
Alas, we have all now found it, and from the most unlikely of events, being a burgeoning public labor union dispute gone absolutely nuclear. Yes indeed, unraveling a mystery and finding that one particular kernel of truth that ties everything together can be an unusually liberating event--to wit-- it now appears that the public sector State and local Labor Union jobs were both primarily and directly protected by the Democrats of your Federal Government by way of the largely contrived monster stimulus of 09, at the extreme expense of "We The People." It's as simple as just that, and yet many of us, while only partially understanding this particular idea, just couldn't quite get our arms around the entire plot.
In a report dated March 10, 2010, nearly one year ago, Veronique De Rugy at Biggovernment.com cited data from the website Recovery.gov that indicates nearly 600,000 jobs were either created or saved at the Dept. of Education by the Stimulus, as compared to a relative pittance in virtually all other areas. But, it gets even better, you see, when De Rugy, comparatively innocent at the time, reports that "for the first time, more public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a Union than did private sector employees (7.4 million)," and this despite a depressingly severe economic downturn that left few, if any, in the private sector unaffected.
De Rugy goes on to point out that public sector union membership grew at a higher rate than the same private sector union membership, despite there being more than five times that number of employees within the private sector. She then ruminated over the fact that Obama's Union boss, Andy Stern, had been appointed to the debt commission effectively tying our eureka moment in a tidy package. And remember, this was reported nearly one year ago. But the bow on top for De Rugy would have to be her prediction, in ending her report, about the chances for these stimulus funds for education being made permanent, which is exactly the fight we are seeing right now with the collective rampage of both the Democrats and the Union members working against their employer, being, once again, We The People.
A Non-Working Workers Revolt In A Right Not-To-Work State
One also but needs to understand the cycles involved to get a grip on how these startling truths shake out. It's quite simple actually, when you follow the money. The public sector Union members largely depend upon the largess from their Democrat elected friends in order to politically back the Unions efforts at consistently taking bigger chunks of pay and benefits from the people of each State. In turn, the Unions collect exorbitant fees from their members, as much as a thousand dollars per person per year, and then politically fund those same Democrats lavishly in order to make sure that they are re-elected. Then, when it's time to renegotiate the union contract, these same Democrats will throw their political power and undying support behind the Union members, which is exactly what we are seeing now in Wisconsin and many other States, thus the bizarre Fleedom Democrats.
However, this year there arose a problem for the Democrats. The advent of the Tea Party and the Conservative awakening against the radical liberal agenda of both Obama and his liberal-leaning Congress stymied the Democrat's cycle of lavish doom in the form of an election. That, coupled with huge State deficits and the threat of these States becoming insolvent, meant a change was in order, thus ushering in the Republican takeover of both the US House along with State legislature after legislature in a domino effect, some for the first time in over 100 years.
Thus, we now have a President who seems to bizarrely function much as a Minister of defense for a relatively small special interest group--being the public Sector Unions--which had helped to propel the President into his office in the first place. So, why is it--still--that Obama would side with, at best, 10 million members of a special interest group against the other 300 million citizens whom he is expected to serve?
The answer to that question goes, in large part, to who butters the President's political and ideological bread. Not withstanding the long-held relationship the President has maintained with the "Workers of America." Remember, too, that whenever you read the words workers of America, or workers party or even the workers, this nomenclature has always been international code-speak for the forces of Communism and Socialism, and this is where the full-circle meets for Obama, and to a greater extent, a world that appears increasingly on fire.
A Shovel-Ready Democracy
Remember the President's admission of not long ago that, at the time of the stimulus, he simply did not understand that there were no shovel-ready jobs to throw the Stimulus at--despite the President's insistence that the Stimulus would go directly to shovel-ready jobs? Remember, too, that Obama seems to always fall unabashedly at labor Union's door no matter the impetus? One must further remember that Richard Trumka, probably the most powerful labor Union chief in America, essentially has carte blanche at the White House.
In fact, a recent interview had Trumka essentially crowing about how frequent his contacts were with either Obama himself or members of the White House staff. This fact becomes especially glaring when one notes that it was also recently reported and confirmed that at least eight of Obama's "expert" cabinet members have rarely if ever been consulted by Obama, even over two years, while a Labor Union leader effectively utilizes a swinging door to the White House.
In other words, Obama, the President of The United States, regularly consults with a Labor Union Leader--that being a special interest group-- more than even members of his own Cabinet? I think we can now conclusively put to bed all of the special interest group nonsense that Obama was spouting during the campaign.
Remember, also, when the private labor unions were essentially given the keys to both Chrysler and GM by way of the Chief Executive's mandate? Remember the billions of dollars that were crammed into these corporate entities by the Federal Government, only to later allow these same entities to declare bankruptcy, much of the proceeds then flowing to the Unions via executive fiat? Remember Obama's Supreme Court excoriation at the State of The Union speech in 2009? That was, in essence, about the Courts "leveling the playing field with Corporations and Unions" in the Citizen's United Case regarding who can underwrite Campaign ads and a judicial corporate victory.
The main thing to ultimately remember in that regard is just this: When a group of companies or corporations, which are made up of individuals, get together and set prices that citizens will have to pay, this is called collusion, which is an illegal act, and then becomes subject to anti-trust law penalties or worse. But, when a group of workers or employees, being individuals, get together to set the price for their labor and or benefits, this is called collective bargaining, and here you can thusly see a certain dichotomy at work. So what's the difference exactly? None within the nature of the thing itself.
The Party Of "We" versus The Party Of "Tea"
Meanwhile, the Public Union sector workers continue to spread their protests over an increasingly infected swath of America, and we can begin to see the possible beginnings of yet another ideological battle drawing out. In February of 2009, we witnessed the Genesis of modern-day major protests when a both outraged and injured Civil Society sparked the Tea Party Revolution that continues to this day. Conversely, in these Public Union inspired, democratically-leveraged protests, are we now seeing a counter-Tea Party mini-revolution from the Workers Party of America?
Remember too, the Tea Party Protests were a Constitutionally inspired groundswell aimed at out of control government growth, increasing taxation, and mammoth government spending from bail-outs, Tarp and the stimulus along with a Federal takeover of healthcare. The Tea Party, despite media ravings, certainly isn't an anti-government event intended to inspire anarchy as much of the media and a virtual majority of left-leaning politicos would have We the People believe. In fact, the forces of anarchy appear to be far more in play from these Union protests than ever was the case as it regards the Tea Party--this fact can easily be seen in the actions of public sector protests happening both here and in Greece.
In fact, the Tea Party celebrates a Government system in which a rule of law is rooted within the US Constitution and effectively champions a Government which should seemlessly fit in and represent the People's concerns both efficiently and justly. Espousing all that is both great and good about a limited Government system is a key tenet of the Tea Party protest. In contrast, the Public Sector Union protests, which we are witnessing, appear to be the antithesis of everything that the Tea Party revolution was all about. Greece II, in effect, is what we are now seeing to one degree or another.
Collective Coercion
In essence, these workers parties are battling to keep their collective bargaining agreements, along with their prime benefit packages, and pay while going against their employers, the Peoples of these States, who in virtually every case have had to cutback in some way or another. So what exactly does collective bargaining mean? Simple. It speaks to a collective of individuals and their group rights in abeyance to their employers needs, their employer, in this case, being the People. The main point here being that the US Constitution is built upon the primacy of the individual and certainly not the group. When we speak of groups, especially in this case, we are speaking of what is in effect nothing more nor less than a special interest group with benefits and the concept of group rights is simply a misnomer, the US Constitution certainly does not address group worker's rights.
These such special interest group's main concern is to retain their full pay, their full benefit packages and their full special interest group bargaining concessions. The penalty, if the groups demands are not met? A strike, which is a threat not to work. Do what we say or else is the basic message. The state of Wisconsin has made it quite plain that the protesters risk layoff, if not the possibility of eventual replacement of their positions, if they do not relent. Their answer? Obtaining false doctor's notes so that they can continue to maintain a government mired in gridlock. Gee, now wasn't that the Left's argument against the Republicans and Conservatives now serving in the Federal Government?
But, why is all of this happening now, exactly? Are we actually seeing a backlash from the worker's party as indirectly engineered by the Tea Party? Timing, as they say, is everything, insofar as it now appears that the worker's empire is striking back at the People. But the question then becomes, what, exactly, sparked the movement of the workers party to become so terribly outraged that it would risk obliteration by a refreshed Civil Society's now pending, but recycled, umbrage and is there some sort of connectedness with the protests firing up throughout the world?
Different and Dangerous
Partial answers to this burning question can, perhaps, be found in a sparsely-known news story which appeared in the UK Daily mail. The story titled "America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind protests" goes into some detail about American efforts to train and aid a rebel Egyptian agent who was part of a group planning to overthrow the Government of Egypt prior to the September elections of 2011. The report goes onto note that while the US government publicly backed the Mubarak Regime, US Diplomats were, in fact, secretly plotting ways to overthrow Mubarak's Government. Much of these facts came out in connection with the WikiLeaks Cable leaks.
However, another smoking gun of connectivity would be that both President Obama and various left-leaning activists groups, which included the Democratic National Committee, put their full political machine on alert and in action. What was their goal? To fire up and increase the union protests throughout as many states as possible thereby fomenting the chaos. Hmm... a sitting President and a major Party fomenting political unrest? Are these acts not both different and dangerous?
So the question then becomes why would the US Government plot to remove a singular keystone of peace within the Mideast and an avowed ally and then foment unrest here at home? And why would that same US Government virtually ignore the same attempts at Democratic overthrows occurring in Iran, Libya and several other Nations? Further, why would the US Government seek to overthrow one of the few Governments which sought a peaceful allegiance with a major US ally in Israel? We will endeavor to at least try to answer some of these questions in the next article. Suffice it to say, their does appear to be a common thread running through each of these ignored Regimes and that thread is beyond disturbing.
But, in light of US efforts at destabilization of an authoritarian controlled secular Democracy, that being Egypt, what happens if this successful overthrow births another Iran-like theocratic Islamic regime, which might, in many cases, be even worse than the Government it replaces?
You see, the question that is constantly being asked should not be: "Will the people of these various countries of the Mideast setup secular Democracies?"
Rather, the question should be: "Why would the people of these Mideastern countries set up secular Democracies when an easily overwhelming majority of them fervently believe in the activation of Shariah law within their governance?"
Hospital turns Tim Hortons into temporary ER to handle overflow of patients
The elderly patient was lying on a stretcher in the emergency ward’s waiting room, right under the television.
Adam Lund was trying to have a private conversation with his patient, who was near the end of life and had problems that had suddenly flared up. The doctor was acutely aware he was having this discussion in front of an audience.
More related to this story
Hospital confronts social media uprising over care of dying baby
Photos
The Tim Hortons at New Westminster’s Royal Columbian Hospital was used as an overflow ER
“Everybody in the waiting room was sitting with their eyes on the television, trying to pretend that we were not doing patient-care right underneath them. They were either watching us do ER live or watching what was on television,” he said Tuesday in an interview.
That’s when he thought the overflow patients from the emergency room at New Westminster’s Royal Columbian Hospital would be better off at the adjacent coffee shop.
Dr. Lund said he felt he had to do something to protect the patient’s privacy and dignity. Two more patients were parked underneath the television in the waiting room. Others in the emergency ward were waiting for medications and treatments that had been ordered more than 90 minutes earlier. But no one could carry out the orders because the patients were not in a space where paramedics or nurses could do the work.
Dr. Lund said the decision was made in consultation with the emergency-room chart nurse, two emergency physician colleagues and paramedics.
Five patients were placed in the coffee shop, which features Tim Hortons coffee and doughnuts. The coffee shop is adjacent to the emergency ward in the same building. Patients were on stretchers in the coffee shop from 11 p.m. on Monday until 12:30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Placing patients in the coffee shop area was not something that had ever been presented to emergency physicians as an option to deal with overcrowding, Dr. Lund said. “It was something idly talked about in the past and discarded, but last night we decided to try it.”
B.C. Health Minister Colin Hansen said in an interview the coffee shop was designed to be used when emergency temporarily required more space. However, his staff later corrected the minister’s statement, saying physicians can use any space adjacent to emergency for clinical reasons if they feel it is appropriate. But the coffee shop had not been specifically designed to handle emergency room overflow, the ministry staff member said.
Mr. Hansen said he felt hospital staff responded appropriately to the surge in patients in the emergency ward. “This was after hours. The space was not otherwise used. It was properly cleaned before it was used for patients and properly cleaned afterwards. Appropriate screening was put up, so patients could have privacy,” Mr. Hansen said.
The region, which is growing rapidly, needs more facilities, he added. The government has spent $7-billion over the past decade on health-care facilities and is expanding Surrey Memorial Hospital. Once completed in a few years, the Surrey hospital should take off some pressure from Royal Columbian Hospital, he said.
NDP health critic Sue Hammell said the use of the coffee shop for emergency patients raises concerns over so-called hallway medicine and whether inadequate government funding was compromising patient care. “I think it is outrageous. What are we coming to when we are serving up our health care in a fast food restaurant?” she said.
She linked the problem of overcrowding in the emergency room at Royal Columbia Hospital to an aggressive cutback program instituted by the B.C. Liberal government shortly after its election in 2001. Acute-care beds were shut down, the government never delivered on a promise of 5,000 long-term beds and plans to expand health-care facilities were frozen. The government also closed St Mary’s Hospital in New Westminster, which was a community-based backup to Royal Columbian Hospital.
“The problems do not show up overnight,” she said. “The problems of delay and cutbacks have shown up a number of years later.”
Dr. Lund said overcrowding in the emergency ward at Royal Columbian Hospital is so routine that the hospital has non-medical staff called “emergency-room attendants” help out with patients on stretchers scattered around the nursing station. On Monday night, so many people showed up at emergency that the stretchers were “double parked in the hallways,” he said.
Hospital staff moved into the coffee shop shortly after it closed at 9:30 p.m. They pulled down the blinds and put up privacy screens. Consolidating patients in the space enabled two paramedic crews to return to the street. Administrators subsequently found a way to move some patients to a ward, freeing up space in the emergency room, “probably, partly, as a result of us doing this,” Dr. Lund said.
“I think it was a good decision,” Dr. Lund said. “We were able to move patients who were in a totally inappropriate space.”
Adam Lund was trying to have a private conversation with his patient, who was near the end of life and had problems that had suddenly flared up. The doctor was acutely aware he was having this discussion in front of an audience.
More related to this story
Hospital confronts social media uprising over care of dying baby
Photos
The Tim Hortons at New Westminster’s Royal Columbian Hospital was used as an overflow ER
“Everybody in the waiting room was sitting with their eyes on the television, trying to pretend that we were not doing patient-care right underneath them. They were either watching us do ER live or watching what was on television,” he said Tuesday in an interview.
That’s when he thought the overflow patients from the emergency room at New Westminster’s Royal Columbian Hospital would be better off at the adjacent coffee shop.
Dr. Lund said he felt he had to do something to protect the patient’s privacy and dignity. Two more patients were parked underneath the television in the waiting room. Others in the emergency ward were waiting for medications and treatments that had been ordered more than 90 minutes earlier. But no one could carry out the orders because the patients were not in a space where paramedics or nurses could do the work.
Dr. Lund said the decision was made in consultation with the emergency-room chart nurse, two emergency physician colleagues and paramedics.
Five patients were placed in the coffee shop, which features Tim Hortons coffee and doughnuts. The coffee shop is adjacent to the emergency ward in the same building. Patients were on stretchers in the coffee shop from 11 p.m. on Monday until 12:30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Placing patients in the coffee shop area was not something that had ever been presented to emergency physicians as an option to deal with overcrowding, Dr. Lund said. “It was something idly talked about in the past and discarded, but last night we decided to try it.”
B.C. Health Minister Colin Hansen said in an interview the coffee shop was designed to be used when emergency temporarily required more space. However, his staff later corrected the minister’s statement, saying physicians can use any space adjacent to emergency for clinical reasons if they feel it is appropriate. But the coffee shop had not been specifically designed to handle emergency room overflow, the ministry staff member said.
Mr. Hansen said he felt hospital staff responded appropriately to the surge in patients in the emergency ward. “This was after hours. The space was not otherwise used. It was properly cleaned before it was used for patients and properly cleaned afterwards. Appropriate screening was put up, so patients could have privacy,” Mr. Hansen said.
The region, which is growing rapidly, needs more facilities, he added. The government has spent $7-billion over the past decade on health-care facilities and is expanding Surrey Memorial Hospital. Once completed in a few years, the Surrey hospital should take off some pressure from Royal Columbian Hospital, he said.
NDP health critic Sue Hammell said the use of the coffee shop for emergency patients raises concerns over so-called hallway medicine and whether inadequate government funding was compromising patient care. “I think it is outrageous. What are we coming to when we are serving up our health care in a fast food restaurant?” she said.
She linked the problem of overcrowding in the emergency room at Royal Columbia Hospital to an aggressive cutback program instituted by the B.C. Liberal government shortly after its election in 2001. Acute-care beds were shut down, the government never delivered on a promise of 5,000 long-term beds and plans to expand health-care facilities were frozen. The government also closed St Mary’s Hospital in New Westminster, which was a community-based backup to Royal Columbian Hospital.
“The problems do not show up overnight,” she said. “The problems of delay and cutbacks have shown up a number of years later.”
Dr. Lund said overcrowding in the emergency ward at Royal Columbian Hospital is so routine that the hospital has non-medical staff called “emergency-room attendants” help out with patients on stretchers scattered around the nursing station. On Monday night, so many people showed up at emergency that the stretchers were “double parked in the hallways,” he said.
Hospital staff moved into the coffee shop shortly after it closed at 9:30 p.m. They pulled down the blinds and put up privacy screens. Consolidating patients in the space enabled two paramedic crews to return to the street. Administrators subsequently found a way to move some patients to a ward, freeing up space in the emergency room, “probably, partly, as a result of us doing this,” Dr. Lund said.
“I think it was a good decision,” Dr. Lund said. “We were able to move patients who were in a totally inappropriate space.”
Poll: Government Workers Should Pay More For Benefits
By a margin of 63 percent to 31 percent, Americans think that government workers should pay more for their benefits and retirement programs, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday morning.
Meanwhile, 42 percent say pay for government workers is too much, 35 percent say it's "about right," while 15 percent say it's too low, the poll found.
Although the survey by the Hamden-based polling institute was conducted on Americans' views nationwide, and its results were not specific to Connecticut, its questions about public employees' compensation are the same ones now at the forefront in this state.
That's because the administration of Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy faces negotiations with public employee unions during a state budget crisis, and Malloy said he is looking for concessions in not only pay, but also with regard to a pension-and-benefits agreement that extends to the year 2017.
Malloy has said that he needs $2 billion in savings and concessions over the next two years in public employee-related expenses, such as a pay freeze and higher employee contributions for health benefits, or he may need to lay off many of the 50,000 or so state workers.
The poll of 1,887 registered voters was conducted from Feb. 21 to 28 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Interviewers called land lines and cell phones, the university said.
The new survey also said American voters are split on the question of whether collective bargaining for public employees should be limited -- with 45 percent saying they support limits on the employees' negotiating rights and 42 percent saying they oppose such limits.
By a 47-41 percent margin, voters said that efforts by governors across the country to limit collective bargaining rights for government employees are motivated by a desire to reduce government costs rather than weaken unions, the survey found.
The poll also sampled Americans' opinions on the question of whether the federal government should shut down because of disagreement in Washington, D.C., over federal spending. It found that Americans are divided almost equally on that question -- with 46 percent saying it would be a good thing and 44 percent saying it would be bad.
If the federal government is forced to shut down over the spending impasse, voters say by a strong 78-18 percentage margin that President Barack Obama and members of Congress shouldn't be paid for that period.
Voters would blame Republicans more than Obama, 47-38 percent, for a government shut-down, the poll found.
The poll also showed that within the overall results, there were pronounced differences among the attitudes of Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.
"There is a partisan tinge to American voter attitudes toward government workers: By wide margins, Republicans say these workers are overpaid; want them to pay more for their benefits and want to limit collective bargaining," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the poll.
"Democrats say 2-1 that government workers are paid about right or too little, rather than too much and split over whether they should pay more for benefits, but they solidly defend collective bargaining," Brown said. "Independent voters, as usual, are in the middle."
On the possibility of a federal government shutdown, Democrats say 62-28 percent that it would be a bad thing, while Republicans reverse that by saying 63-28 percent that it would be good, the poll found. Independent voters say by a 47-42 percentage that it would be good rather than bad. By a 50-40 percentage, men say it would be a good thing while women say by a 48-41 percentage that it would be bad. White voters say it would be good by a 48-42 percentage, while black voters say it would be bad by 59 percent to 30 percent.
Here are other results from the poll:
--On the pay of government workers, 59 percent of Republicans say it's too much, while 6 percent say too little and 28 percent say it's "about right." Among independent overs, 42 percent say pay is too much, 13 percent say too little and 37 percent say "about right." Democrats: 31 percent say pay is too much, 24 percent say too little and 38 percent say "about right." Men say workers are overpaid vs. underpaid 44-11 percent, with 39 percent saying "about right." Women say 41-19 percent that they are overpaid, with 31 percent saying "about right." In union households, 37 percent say government workers' pay is too much, 22 percent say too little and 34 percent say "about right."
--Democrats are split 47- 45 percent on whether public employees should pay more for retirement and health benefits. Republicans say by a 72-22 percentage that the employees should pay more and independent voters agree by a 70-26 percentage. Men support this idea 68-27 percent, and women 58-35 percent. White voters support higher payments 67-29 percent, while black voters oppose higher payments 49-44 percent.
--On the question of limiting collecting bargaining rights of public employees to reduce state deficits, Republicans support it 59-25 percent and independent voters split 45-43 percent. Democrats oppose such limits 56-33 percent and voters in union households oppose it 62-29 percent. Men split 47-45 percent on that question while women support limits on bargaining 43-39 percent. White voters split 44-43 percent on that question, while black voters support such limits 49-37 percent.
Here is a link to the Quinnipiac University poll's news release on the survey. It includes the survey questions and detailed results.
Meanwhile, 42 percent say pay for government workers is too much, 35 percent say it's "about right," while 15 percent say it's too low, the poll found.
Although the survey by the Hamden-based polling institute was conducted on Americans' views nationwide, and its results were not specific to Connecticut, its questions about public employees' compensation are the same ones now at the forefront in this state.
That's because the administration of Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy faces negotiations with public employee unions during a state budget crisis, and Malloy said he is looking for concessions in not only pay, but also with regard to a pension-and-benefits agreement that extends to the year 2017.
Malloy has said that he needs $2 billion in savings and concessions over the next two years in public employee-related expenses, such as a pay freeze and higher employee contributions for health benefits, or he may need to lay off many of the 50,000 or so state workers.
The poll of 1,887 registered voters was conducted from Feb. 21 to 28 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Interviewers called land lines and cell phones, the university said.
The new survey also said American voters are split on the question of whether collective bargaining for public employees should be limited -- with 45 percent saying they support limits on the employees' negotiating rights and 42 percent saying they oppose such limits.
By a 47-41 percent margin, voters said that efforts by governors across the country to limit collective bargaining rights for government employees are motivated by a desire to reduce government costs rather than weaken unions, the survey found.
The poll also sampled Americans' opinions on the question of whether the federal government should shut down because of disagreement in Washington, D.C., over federal spending. It found that Americans are divided almost equally on that question -- with 46 percent saying it would be a good thing and 44 percent saying it would be bad.
If the federal government is forced to shut down over the spending impasse, voters say by a strong 78-18 percentage margin that President Barack Obama and members of Congress shouldn't be paid for that period.
Voters would blame Republicans more than Obama, 47-38 percent, for a government shut-down, the poll found.
The poll also showed that within the overall results, there were pronounced differences among the attitudes of Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.
"There is a partisan tinge to American voter attitudes toward government workers: By wide margins, Republicans say these workers are overpaid; want them to pay more for their benefits and want to limit collective bargaining," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the poll.
"Democrats say 2-1 that government workers are paid about right or too little, rather than too much and split over whether they should pay more for benefits, but they solidly defend collective bargaining," Brown said. "Independent voters, as usual, are in the middle."
On the possibility of a federal government shutdown, Democrats say 62-28 percent that it would be a bad thing, while Republicans reverse that by saying 63-28 percent that it would be good, the poll found. Independent voters say by a 47-42 percentage that it would be good rather than bad. By a 50-40 percentage, men say it would be a good thing while women say by a 48-41 percentage that it would be bad. White voters say it would be good by a 48-42 percentage, while black voters say it would be bad by 59 percent to 30 percent.
Here are other results from the poll:
--On the pay of government workers, 59 percent of Republicans say it's too much, while 6 percent say too little and 28 percent say it's "about right." Among independent overs, 42 percent say pay is too much, 13 percent say too little and 37 percent say "about right." Democrats: 31 percent say pay is too much, 24 percent say too little and 38 percent say "about right." Men say workers are overpaid vs. underpaid 44-11 percent, with 39 percent saying "about right." Women say 41-19 percent that they are overpaid, with 31 percent saying "about right." In union households, 37 percent say government workers' pay is too much, 22 percent say too little and 34 percent say "about right."
--Democrats are split 47- 45 percent on whether public employees should pay more for retirement and health benefits. Republicans say by a 72-22 percentage that the employees should pay more and independent voters agree by a 70-26 percentage. Men support this idea 68-27 percent, and women 58-35 percent. White voters support higher payments 67-29 percent, while black voters oppose higher payments 49-44 percent.
--On the question of limiting collecting bargaining rights of public employees to reduce state deficits, Republicans support it 59-25 percent and independent voters split 45-43 percent. Democrats oppose such limits 56-33 percent and voters in union households oppose it 62-29 percent. Men split 47-45 percent on that question while women support limits on bargaining 43-39 percent. White voters split 44-43 percent on that question, while black voters support such limits 49-37 percent.
Here is a link to the Quinnipiac University poll's news release on the survey. It includes the survey questions and detailed results.
Does Federal Law Trump an Oath to the Constitution? Obama decision on DOMA, Repub Precedent
It’s not every day that the Obama administration borrows a page from the conservative legal playbook. But that’s what happened last week when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.
According to a letter Holder sent to Congress, DOMA’s requirement that the federal government recognize only heterosexual marriage “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” and should therefore be struck down. “This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute,” Holder wrote, though he noted that the administration will continue to enforce the law and will provide Congress “a full and fair opportunity” to assume DOMA’s legal defense.
Despite the angry protestations of leading conservatives—former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fumed that “the president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama” while the Capitol Research Center’s Matthew Vadum argued that Obama could be impeached for failing to defend DOMA—the president’s decision actually follows in the footsteps of two significant conservative precedents.
First, there was Solicitor General (and future Supreme Court nominee) Robert Bork’s approach to the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo. Bork’s job as solicitor general was to give the government's position in defense of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The only problem was that Bork believed one of FECA’s provisions, which allowed Congress to appoint members to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. In Bork’s view, the power to make FEC appointments fell exclusively within the executive branch.
So instead of submitting one brief to the Supreme Court, Bork submitted two, one challenging the constitutionality of the appointments provision and the other strongly defending the rest of FECA. Bork also ensured that the FEC would be filing its own brief defending the provision he had attacked. In its ruling, the Court largely sided with Bork, striking the appointments provision while upholding other aspects of the law. As Bork later explained of his approach, “it would seem to me not only institutionally unnecessary but a betrayal of profound obligations to the Court and to Constitutional processes to take the simplistic position that whatever Congress enacts we will defend, entirely as advocates for the client and without an attempt to present the issues in the round.”
That’s what Obama and Holder did last week. Keep in mind that while the Constitution requires the executive branch to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the president also swears an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. The question is what happens when the executive is charged with executing a law he deems unconstitutional. Should a contested congressional statute trump an oath to the Constitution?
Deputy Solicitor General (and current Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Roberts faced that dilemma in 1990. At issue that year in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission was a government policy giving preferential treatment to minority-owned stations seeking a broadcast license from the FCC. According to the George H.W. Bush administration this racial preference was unconstitutional. Roberts therefore filed a brief with the Supreme Court describing the policy as “precisely the type of racial stereotyping that is anathema to basic constitutional principles” while permitting the FCC to mount its own defense of the minority preference. The Court sided with the FCC.
So unless Gingrich and other conservative critics are also willing to denounce Bork and Roberts for violating the rule of law, they have no coherent argument against Holder and Obama. In fact, conservatives might even want to thank the administration. While Obama’s decision was probably unnecessary to secure DOMA’s eventual legal defeat, it has given the GOP a powerful campaign issue. It may also have set the stage for some political payback. As the liberal UCLA law professor Adam Winkler worried last week in response to Holder’s announcement, “Think of the laws that might be undermined by the next Republican president.”
According to a letter Holder sent to Congress, DOMA’s requirement that the federal government recognize only heterosexual marriage “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” and should therefore be struck down. “This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute,” Holder wrote, though he noted that the administration will continue to enforce the law and will provide Congress “a full and fair opportunity” to assume DOMA’s legal defense.
Despite the angry protestations of leading conservatives—former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fumed that “the president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama” while the Capitol Research Center’s Matthew Vadum argued that Obama could be impeached for failing to defend DOMA—the president’s decision actually follows in the footsteps of two significant conservative precedents.
First, there was Solicitor General (and future Supreme Court nominee) Robert Bork’s approach to the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo. Bork’s job as solicitor general was to give the government's position in defense of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The only problem was that Bork believed one of FECA’s provisions, which allowed Congress to appoint members to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. In Bork’s view, the power to make FEC appointments fell exclusively within the executive branch.
So instead of submitting one brief to the Supreme Court, Bork submitted two, one challenging the constitutionality of the appointments provision and the other strongly defending the rest of FECA. Bork also ensured that the FEC would be filing its own brief defending the provision he had attacked. In its ruling, the Court largely sided with Bork, striking the appointments provision while upholding other aspects of the law. As Bork later explained of his approach, “it would seem to me not only institutionally unnecessary but a betrayal of profound obligations to the Court and to Constitutional processes to take the simplistic position that whatever Congress enacts we will defend, entirely as advocates for the client and without an attempt to present the issues in the round.”
That’s what Obama and Holder did last week. Keep in mind that while the Constitution requires the executive branch to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the president also swears an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. The question is what happens when the executive is charged with executing a law he deems unconstitutional. Should a contested congressional statute trump an oath to the Constitution?
Deputy Solicitor General (and current Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Roberts faced that dilemma in 1990. At issue that year in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission was a government policy giving preferential treatment to minority-owned stations seeking a broadcast license from the FCC. According to the George H.W. Bush administration this racial preference was unconstitutional. Roberts therefore filed a brief with the Supreme Court describing the policy as “precisely the type of racial stereotyping that is anathema to basic constitutional principles” while permitting the FCC to mount its own defense of the minority preference. The Court sided with the FCC.
So unless Gingrich and other conservative critics are also willing to denounce Bork and Roberts for violating the rule of law, they have no coherent argument against Holder and Obama. In fact, conservatives might even want to thank the administration. While Obama’s decision was probably unnecessary to secure DOMA’s eventual legal defeat, it has given the GOP a powerful campaign issue. It may also have set the stage for some political payback. As the liberal UCLA law professor Adam Winkler worried last week in response to Holder’s announcement, “Think of the laws that might be undermined by the next Republican president.”