HOW COME YOU'RE NOT SICK OF MY STUFF?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Roni Bell wrote:
Sue,
I emailed Barrasso, Lieberman, Enzi, Bennet, Udall and Markey today - personal notes with the EC outline. (See "How Would You Like To Keep Your Paycheck" - following post.)
It's a weird thing "out there," in that you and one other are the ONLY ones who responded to my tax outline.
I'm beginning to think receivers of my emails are deleting or have already trained to dump in junk.
Must of annoyed far too many.
How come you're not sick of my stuff?
____________________________________________________________________
Roni,
Your tax proposal is sound policy.
Why aren't people responding?
Many Generation Xer's from 18 to 39 yrs. old, remain permanently unemployed, smoking pot, sucking down "meth" and stuffing "coke" up their noses while they fret about global warming and still live at home with Mom and Dad.
Taxes are only something their late-middle aged parents pay. Any proposed increase to their burgers and soda pop is "fight'n words."
Many other people are in the phase of their lives that I call "Empire Builders." They are married, have children and a mortgage. They lead hectic lives because they are engrossed in their growing businesses/jobs, family and the local Friday night football game.
Taxes get withheld from their paychecks and are considered horrible but the 2 year old's high fever is the most pressing issue. Any proposed increase the sky high county and state sales taxes that they pay to feed and clothe their family is "fight'n words."
The ghetto inhabitants, rural poor and illegal immigrants could care less about taxes. They don't pay property or income tax and they sure as heck don't want to see any changes to the existing system. They "got food stamps and Medicaid". Any proposed increase in their beer money sales taxes is' fight’n' words.'
The teachers, firefighters, policemen, air traffic controllers, librarians, postal workers, etc., are not allowed to make any decisions -or for that matter vote without instructions from their unions. To do otherwise would be "fight'n words."
Politicians learn from the first day in office to never ever use the word," TAXES."
That word inflames passions and creates hostility.
All of their proposals, decisions and policies are cloaked in, "to repair those dangerous roads", "for the poor impoverished children", "to combat Global Warming", "universal health care", etc. on and on.
Do not be silenced
More than a few of the politicians, from the local to the federal government, merely feed at the public trough, but most are well intentioned and dedicated. They are eager to do the right thing.
Art for the World
Sue
www.mshollis.com

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KEEP YOUR PAYCHECK?

bY Roni Bell Sylvester

Wouldn't you like to keep your paycheck?
You can.
Here's how.
"Income" tax is the genesis of all ill-designed, unnecessary policies that have destroyed your freedoms, liberty, and Democratic Republic of America.
This is how it works: The federal government takes your paycheck (income) and spends it any way they want.
Once upon a time, you were a part of voting on how you wanted them to spend your money; but not today.
Over time, bureaucrats and “The Power, Money and Control” hungry, slowly took away your rights of participation. Now you are not allowed any say in how your money is spent!
Would you like to keep your paycheck?
Did you know you can?
Did you know you have the right to keep your paycheck?
Here’s how:
a) Write, call, email your federal incumbents - and governor the minute you're finished reading this!
b) State slowly and clearly, “You may not have my paycheck!”
c) Demand they immediately stop action on any policy that exceeds the original scope of the Constitution of the United States of America; like policies including health, climate, education.
d) Demand they abolish income tax completely.
e) Demand they transition in the Federal Equitable Consumption tax.
If they haven’t heard of the Equitable Consumption tax, take the time to explain it kindly and articulately (Brief outline follows.). Do not get angry or ugly. Show grace and stay calm while you firmly take your stand. Remember. You are not doing anything wrong. You are instead, doing everything that’s right.
How to end income tax and transition in The Federal Equitable Consumption tax.
Each entity that sells goods and services, will have the newly developed software program connected to their computerized method of collecting the payment. This software program will automatically adjust cash, check, debit, credit card receipts, and a 50 state universal percentage of less than 10% would be withdrawn and sent directly to federal.
The soft ware program would be the "tax collector."
Federal spending would be confined to handling by-ways (interstate roads, skyways and shorelines), International Defense, and International Trade - as originally defined in the U.S. Constitution.
Through sales tax, most states already have a form of Equitable Consumption tax. The software would simply eliminate the shackle of "tax collector" from retailers. This software program includes an adaptation mechanism whereas the collected percentages would be broken out according to how each state’s County, Community and State’s voters determine.
States would enjoy the return of states rights, and handle its unique needs including education, medical, welfare, roads.
This is extremely desirous, for each State would enjoy a higher yield on monies collected, simply because they would not accrue “travel” fees.; i.e. looping through D.C. State's would enjoy using this higher yield on monies collected to fund education, welfare and medical needs for every age and at every level. It would be like money once lost...now found, for such as "higher education."
Each person who sets foot on U.S. soil would contribute towards the re-building of America. Illegal immigrants, tourists, drug dealers, hookers - everyone, would pay taxes each time they purchased something.
Each person who earns their living in America, would be able to keep their paycheck, thereby budget their own money.
The countless hours and money wasted calculating the dollars and interpreting tax codes would be converted into a production growth that will meet the newly realized interest in purchasing products.
Honest citizens who made mistakes on their tax forms, will be de-criminalized.
Class warfare would diminish.
It would remove the invasive, un-bridled, un-fair powers of the I.R.S.
Families could actually "budget" their money.
It's as fair for Joe the plumber to spend maybe $20.00 total and maximum tax on a $100.00 wrench, as John the rich man to spend $200,000 on a $1,000,000 jet, or Harriet the medical marijuana user to spend $200.00 on a thousand dollar prescription.
This is so straight forward, fair, and simple to execute that it absolutely must be implemented!
Charitable citizens would have the means, opportunity, freedom, desire and good cheer to "give their neighbor in need."
All goods and services should be taxed equally. Not one item should be exempt. For examples, all medical, food, clothing, shelter everything, should be taxed. This would avoid the return of "The Money, Power and Control" hungry and their creations of the most worthless products of all, their thousand page babbles of policies that serve and enrich only them.
Presently the nation wide Gross State Product number is falling more and more rapidly. Why? Policies built around income discourages production in the U.S. With an end to such, U.S. production would re-surge powerfully.
Because not all people pay income tax, it stands to reason that mathematically - Federal, State, County and Community would most likely collect more from its Equitable Consumption than income. For example, in Colorado, the GSP exceeds Income; and not all that income is taxed, but all GSP would be.
Individuals who off-shore their money (really in effort to simply “keep their private property"- which is their paycheck ) would no longer have reason to do so. They’d keep their money in America, thereby increasing deposits, thus improving the financial stability of banks which then would be in a sounder position of loaning money to give businesses needed capital to produce goods and services.
The enthusiasm generated from the masses opportunity to keep paychecks, would immediately result in everything great, bold and needed to bring back a healthy America!
Not one good thing has been born out of “income” tax.
The only salvation for America, is to clearly demolish “income” tax, transition in The Federal Equitable Consumption, and return states rights through their own State, County and Community Equitable Consumption tax.
Keeping your paycheck is the change you need more than anything else!
It must be done today; before any more damage is done to you and your America.
Contact your representatives!

OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE ROT!

"Calls For A Massive Boycott"
By Ron Ewart
President National Association of Rural Landowners and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright October 28, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

If you are not insulted by the latest antics coming out of Obama and the U. S. Congress on nationalized health care, you are either brain dead or you "ain't" payin' attention. The dolts in Washington DC think they can deceive you by changing the name of Nationalized Health Care with a "Public Option", to Nationalized Health Care with a "Consumer Option". They must think you are pretty stupid and it would appear that many Americans are. Nevertheless, the audacity and arrogance of Larry, Mo and Squirrelly and their go-along minions, knows no bounds.
It's an old propaganda gimmick. If the rhetoric heats up against a government initiative, they change the name and re-package it. They have been doing it for 100 years or more. Remember man-caused global warming? Now it's climate change which obviously leads to mandatory Cap and Trade legislation. Climate change ..... cap and trade, balderdash! A skunk by any other name. If you're buyin' this health care and "climate change" garbage, your intellect, good sense and common sense are in serious question, or worse, the cavity where your brain resides is empty.
For those whose brain fills the space in their cranium and they haven't lost too many neurons or brain cells, they ought to be able to see through this smoke and mirrors with their eyes closed.
Both nationalized health care and cap and trade are red herrings of the highest magnitude and represent one of the greatest cons and Ponzi schemes ever devised by man. Neither is supported by science, a national need, nor is either constitutional. Either one will break the bank. Both of them together will sink the good ship America in a sea of red ink where it will rot forever on the rocky bottom, never to surface again.
But worst of all, nationalized health care and cap and trade legislation are outright frauds, perpetrated on the American people by a group of conmen (and women) that will go to any lengths, including propaganda, hype, distortion and lies, to get you to believe that what they are proposing is motherhood, apple pie and Chevrolet, all rolled up into one shiny cookie. They think that you are the Parrot in, "Polly want a Cracker?"
If either legislation is passed by this treasonous congress and signed by Obama, the American people should rise up in a massive peaceful boycott against all things government, local, state or federal. They should make the Boston Tea Party look like spin-the-bottle between 2-year olds. They should dwarf the 9-12 March on Washington by shutting down all arteries of transportation throughout America, en masse, until government relents to the Consent of the Governed. They should refuse to pay their taxes, again en masse, local, state, or federal, until government returns to the limits of its power contained in the Constitution and lives up to its solemn, fiduciary duty to spend the money in the treasury (our money) wisely and not hand it out, willy-nilly, to buy votes, or in Obama's words "Spread the Wealth". The fact is: America's wealth is not Obama's to spread!
Further, America is not Obama's nation to significantly transform into his community-organizer image, socialism by any other name. The Constitution is not Obama's or the U. S. Congresses' plaything that they can twist, re-interpret, pervert or modify at their whim, to rationalize and then implement their radical agenda. The American people are not Obama's or the U. S. Congresses' subjects that they can manipulate or enslave by executive order, unconstitutional legislation, court decree, or illegal treaties signed and ratified by the traitors within our Republic, in direct violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. What they do is treason.
If this Obama health care rot, or cap and trade legislation is passed, all Americans who still believe in freedom, liberty and unalienable, individual rights, as a gift from our creator, must rise up by the millions in a massive peaceful boycott against government, so that the message is crystal clear that we will not let the 545 people in Washington DC tear down the fabric and the foundation of our freedom, or dilute or repeal our sovereignty. We the people of America are not pawns or serfs of the government, we are sovereign.
Be advised however, that protests or boycotts are of little consequence if only a handful of people participate. Without millions of people engaging in reclaiming this, our Constitutional Republic, the few that do participate will be wasting their time and America, as a land of liberty, is destined to fail, once and for all.
Once again, let us repeat:
"YOUR MONEY IS GOVERNMENT'S MAJOR POWER OVER YOU: The first power that government has over you is YOUR perception that YOUR money is their money. The second power that government has over you is by using the money they take from you by force, against you. The third power that government has over you is that you will religiously obey their laws."
"Only when the people realize that their tax money is being used to environmentally enslave them; only when the people realize that their tax money is being used to "feed" a growing population of other people dipping their bills in the government "pig trough" and those "takers" voting for those very same politicians who take our tax money by force to keep the "trough" full; only when the people realize that our government is using our tax money to merge America into the one-world-order; only when the people realize that the only way to stop this insanity is to peacefully resist government, en masse, in every way possible, will principled changes ever occur."
Our Republic is in grave peril. The question is, who will help save her? Will you?

FINANCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS

By Doug Whitsett Do you ever wonder where environmental organizations get the money to finance their countless lawsuits? The eight most litigious environmental organizations have filed about one thousand six hundred federal court cases against the federal government during the past 15 years. The National Wildlife Federation alone has filed 427 environmental law suits in federal court during that period.
Between 2000 and 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed more than 400 lawsuits in federal district court in addition to filing more than 160 appeals in federal appellate courts. That organization’s website claims that “it works through science, law, and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction”.
Meanwhile, the Center has filed or appealed more than one suit in federal court each week for the last nine years.
Would you be surprised to learn that the preponderance of the money to fund these myriad lawsuits comes from the taxpaying public? Our tax dollars, yours and mine, are being used by these extremist environmental organizations to sue the federal government to prevent access to our cornucopia of natural resource wealth.
Let me explain.
These tax exempt organizations are receiving billions of federal tax dollars in attorney fees and costs, for winning or settling environmental cases against the federal government.
The actual amount awarded in these settlements is often confidential, even though money comes from tax dollars and should be a matter of public record.
There are two major sources of these federal tax dollars.
The first is the Judgment Fund that is a line item expense in the Congressional budget. The fund was created to pay attorney fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs in cases involving the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and several other public laws that also allow the prevailing plaintiff to recover costs and attorney fees.
According to the Budd-Falen Law Offices, in just the time between January 2003 and July of 2007, the Judgment Fund paid nearly 42,000 claims totaling more than $4.7 billion taxpayer-dollars to reimburse prevailing radical environmental organizations for their legal costs and attorney fees. The average reimbursement to the prevailing non-government environmental organization was $112,000. The total amount paid per settlement may never be known because neither the federal government nor its agencies appear to track the payments from the Judgment Fund.
The second major source of prevailing plaintiff payments is the Equal Access to Justice Act. In this scheme, funds are taken from the losing federal agency’s budget to pay the attorney fees and costs claimed by the winning environmental organization.
Between 2003 and 2005, the United States Forest Service alone paid about $1.7 million to 44 prevailing environmental organizations. Once again, it appears that neither the federal government nor its agencies are tracking the cumulative costs of the Equal Access to Justice Act. In fact, the amount of the individual settlement payment made by the agencies to the environmental organizations is often kept confidential.
The federal law allows the court to require the government to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs when the plaintiff prevails in court. The law specifically prohibits the prevailing defendant government agency from recovering their costs and attorney fees. When a case is settled out of court the law allows for the plaintiff to recover their costs and attorney fees if the settlement substantially favors the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff is unlikely to settle out of court unless the defendant government agency agrees that the settlement “substantially” favors the plaintiff insuring that the environmental organization gets paid.
This I win or you lose scheme is providing a steady stream of tax revenue to the litigious environmental organizations.
These tax exempt, extremist groups are also extracting their taxpayer-funded bounty in lawsuits filed in state courts. Many of the states, including Oregon, have similar prevailing plaintiff statutes. According to the Attorney General’s staff, during the 2009 Legislature more than thirty fairness to prevailing plaintiff bills were introduced that would have enhanced their access to this ongoing cash tsunami.
A BILLION A YEAR INDUSTRY
The Budd-Falen Law Offices have documented well more than a billion federal tax dollars being transferred to prevailing environmental lawsuit plaintiffs in each of the last nine years. This total is incomplete because the law firm only tracked certain groups and state settlement costs were not included in their study. The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have no way of determining the total amount of their tax dollars that are being funneled to these radical environmental organizations. No one appears to be keeping records.
Citizens are being forced to expend millions of their own private funds to intervene, or participate in these lawsuits to protect their way of life. They have no chance of recovering their costs and attorney fees if they prevail. In fact, the private citizen is paying attorney fees and costs to defend his way of life, while his tax dollars are being used to promote and finance the same lawsuit that would destroy his way of life.
It is often difficult to find any meaningful difference between policies being promoted by government agencies, and policies being promoted by radical environmental organizations through their myriad lawsuits. That distinction is further blurred by the fact that both the agencies, and the environmental organizations, are funded with the same tax dollars.
One thing is certain. The billions of tax dollars funneled to these radical environmental groups is not creating business opportunities and is not creating jobs. Rather, it is serving to destroy businesses, jobs and American wealth.
THE FAILING DOLLAR
The ongoing weakness of the United States dollar is a significant threat to American prosperity that should be of great concern to everyone. Since 2002 the value of the dollar is down 34%, as measured against a basket of other currencies. That loss in dollar value has averaged 5% for each of the past seven years.
The long term dollar devaluation has resulted from world-wide investor concern with the absurd growth of the United States national debt. The short term devaluation of the dollar is primarily an issue of supply and demand.
In their effort to curtail the current recession, and to prevent commodity deflation, the Federal Reserve has flooded the market with more than a trillion dollars. In response, the dollar has fallen 12% in value since the Obama inauguration. Recently, the loss in dollar value has accelerated to an alarming rate.
The combination of the loss in confidence in the United States economy, and this massive oversupply of dollars, has caused investors to flee away from United States currency.
The result is loss of American wealth, loss of American industry, and loss of American jobs.
If the value of the US dollar had remained at the 2002 level, $685 dollars would purchase the same ounce of gold that now costs $1,040, and $45 would buy the same barrel of oil that cost $70 today.
Home prices in Oregon have declined significantly, in some areas by more than 20%. However, when we factor in the 34% deflated value of the dollar, the actual loss in value of those homes is closer to 50%.
For instance, if we were to sell a home for $200,000 today we could reinvest the money in a similar home at essentially the same price. However, if we chose to invest the $200,000 in commodities such as gold and oil, or if we chose to invest the money in other currencies, it would purchase a third less of these commodities than the same $200,000 would purchase if the dollar value had remained at the 2002 level.
Moreover, the recent gains in the stock markets are largely an illusion. There is no net gain when the price of stocks increases by one third, while the value of the currency decreases by one third. According to the Wall Street Journal, when compared with another currency such as the Euro, the S&P 500 peaked at around 1700 Euro in 2000, plummeted to 600 Euro in March of this year, and now stands at about 700 Euro. So compared to other world currencies, our stock market has lost nearly 60% of its capitalized value since the year 2000.
Most of the U.S. stocks, and virtually all of the homes, are owned by Americans. The devaluation of the dollar has caused a massive decline in the U.S. share of the global wealth. That wealth is being transferred to other nations, and to multi-national corporations and investment banking consortiums. That transferred wealth is being used to capitalize industrial growth, and to create jobs, in other nations that compete with our own industries.
The certain result of the flight of U.S. wealth and capitol will be prolonged high unemployment as the jobs, follow the money, overseas. As I have said before, in my opinion, this great nation is seriously on the wrong path. It is time for new leadership and new fiscal policy.
Remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
___________________________________________________________
COMMENT
Some more multipliers that need to be added to the amount taxpayers get gouged via eco-activists lawsuits include: Government grants (They receive millions!), abortion of resource production (They shut down communities.), dilution of safe, economical, cheap supplies of domestically furnished goods to consumers, and - - higher costs to consumers. Do you think the cost of doing business with these groups is offset by the product they make? Can you define said product? In addition to your money the before-mentioned money government already gives to these groups, do you contribute to them directly? Roni

TOO MANY

By Jim Beers

In December 1967 Paul Ehrlich (a butterfly specialist) predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Additionally he predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon at that time. Tough guy that he was he said government would be forced to make many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. He called for the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would necessarily be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size. Ever since Ehrlich invoked the imagery of a human population bomb, human overpopulation has been blamed for a variety of societal problems from poverty and genocide to unemploymant and environmental decline.
Dr. Ehrlich is one of the early "fathers" of the environmental movement. His anti-human extremism was spawned in the midst of the "free love" and "peace" revolution in the 1960's. Roe v. Wade, The Endangered Species Act, The Wilderness Act, and Animal Welfare Act are each hallmark "accomplishments" of that period of federal government growth. This decade of American history was in fact a period wherein the federal government grew to "save us" from predictions of famine, societal disintegration, and an environment as pictured in the movie "Blade Runner". This federal growth spurt mirrored the 1930's spurt that was justified to "save us" from The Depression, and the 1910 - 1920 spurt that was purported to create a more powerful central government seen as necessary to make the USA a leader of the gestating world government known at the time as The League of Nations. Each of these radical degradations of our Constitutional Republic was an advancement of the radical communal theories of Karl Marx, the "man as just another animal" philosophies of Darwin and Margaret Sanger, and the intellectual snobbery of late 19th century British elites like George Bernard Shaw that advocated all-powerful central governments run by that small group of intellectuals that is so much "wiser" than the rest of us.
Ehrlich's followers include the modern-day environmental extremists and animal rights radicals that similarly espouse more absolute central government control to "save" both the environment and animals from humans and their activities. Claims of "global warming" (it was global cooling in Ehrich's day) and assertions about the "importance" of a "native ecosystem" are, like the claims of Marx and Sanger, unjust assaults on the dignity and rights of man for the purpose of putting all power over the many in the hands of a few. Like the claims of Darwin and Shaw, history will show that they were merely personal agendas dressed up in slanted "science" and myths like Teutonic fables about Aryan supermen.
Dr. Ehrlich and all his forerunners came to mind this morning as the news broadcasts wailed about the plight of San Francisco elites trying to deal with increasingly super-abundant and aggressive sea lions on piers where boatowners and tourists mingle and in the waters where swimmers are becoming reluctant to swim. This West Coast phenomenon is matched by current news reports from the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota of mountain lion sightings and signs in the river bottoms that wend through the suburbs.
Consider, if you will, the public propaganda that informs us about the sea lion and cougar situations:

·The absolute and "eternal" federal protection of The Marine Mammal Protection Act for all sea lions is never mentioned. When will there ever be "enough" or "too many" seals, sea lions, sea otters, etc.? The widespread situation of state laws "protecting" cougars that are not officially present in those states are an abomination. If state governments are advocating the establishment of cougars, let them expose that agenda and then be answerable for the effect of such establishment.

·We are constantly reminded that "we" are in "their" habitat. Are they ever in "our" habitat?

·Assertions that there has "never" been a "documented" attack by cougars on a person in this state are ludicrous. Is the fact that there has "never" been a documented attack by a grizzly bear in Tennessee relevant when one gets loose or wanders into the Smoky Mountains? Does anyone really believe that cougar attacks, bear attacks, wolf attacks, or shark attacks are always reported (or "confirmed) by some central authority? History, both current and historical, is replete with thousands of such attacks that are always glibly glossed over by modern "experts.

·Cougar sightings and damages in Eastern and Midwestern states have been denied and ridiculed for thirty years by "experts" such as state and federal employees, University professors, and environmental organization employees. Could the fact that each and every one of these persons wants such animals (just like wolves and bears) to become established everywhere have any influence on their "professional" pronouncements?

·We are constantly reminded that both cougars and sea lions are "native" species. Since "native" is meant to denote those animals in the USA that were present when Columbus introduced European "pollution"; what biological similarities to America circa 1492 even exist today? Why would anyone advocate a return to several hundred thousand humans in present-day America living primitive lives that Thomas Hobbes the 17th century philosopher would only describe as lives of "brutishness and misery"?

·We are constantly reminded that cougars and sea lions are "completely protected" and that they may not be harmed in any way. So who is responsible when a cougar kills a child or a sea lion bites a swimmer? If I may not defend myself or my family; I have become an animal LESS IMPORTANT than a wild animal in the eyes of (MY OWN?) government.

·We are told to "contact police" in case of an emergency. Aside from the delay in the case of a real emergency (like during a rural burglary or a camping encounter with a grizzly bear), what are the costs of all these "tranquillizing" and "releasing in the wilderness" and "releasing far 'up the coast'" publicity stunts. Why is there never any mention of the cost of gathering of all these "experts" (females in uniforms, uniformed Jim Fowler "wannabees", deputy sheriffs, policemen, and the ubiquitous seal or cougar "advocate" from a nearby "center") and all the equipment from special guns, large nets and cages to A-frame trucks and special boats? In times of economic stress, especially, those costs compared to local hunters (as Florida employs for problem alligators and to control numbers) that USE the animals and PAY for a license or armed law enforcement officers that kill the animal and employ a productive disposal and USE system are like comparing the costs of public education and home schooling.

·There is never any mention of the very real and deadly danger from the presence of these large predators in populated areas. Aside from the nonsense about not "looking at them" and "puffing up" we are left with the impression of animals exciting to see (like tourists that live elsewhere see them) and of no real danger. Those fostering these notions are guilty of a serious endangerment of fellow humans.

·There is never any mention of the impact of all these sea lions on marine commercial fisheries or the inshore plant and animal communities where people fish and recreate. Similarly there is never any mention of the impact of mountain lions on deer or elk numbers, on pets, or on livestock. Just as abundant sea lions impact fisheries, so too do established cougars reduce numbers of game animals, pets, and livestock as well as human activities from hiking to visits to grandmother's house and going to and from school buses.
The media loves these stories. "Animal interest" stories always please readers and prove a useful vehicle for writers to hone their emotional hyperbole. The folks that provide the grist for these stories are mainly state and federal biologists, University professors, Non-Government Organization radicals, and urban socialists.
Their motives can be lumped into two categories. First, if you believe in The Tooth Fairy you would probably believe that their motivation flows from a child-like conviction that there should be no management, no control, and no use of any animals because (Mother) Nature is deserving of our worship and she will do as she will.
The second category, that I happen to subscribe to, is that the activists share the following agenda:
Stopping further development in urban areas, be it more piers or home building. This makes these lands more susceptible to eventual government control or purchase.
Justification for urban clearances "to protect" and/or "save" said critters.
Justification for more citizen control in/near/ and around "critical" habitat for said critters.
Making both urban and rural living habits more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making urban and rural work and worksites more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making urban and rural businesses from farms and ranches to daycare centers more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making private property owners from boat owners and ranchers to dog breeders more and more dependent on government and more susceptible to government offers of acquisition or government mandates.
Isn't it strange that these very followers of Ehrlich and Sanger and Darwin NEVER accept that there are TOO MANY of any animal? Be it wolves or cougars or Canada geese, etc. there is no place off limits and no densities considered too high. Yet these very same radicals (The White House staff and Washington politicians are overflowing with them) constantly war on humans that are always TOO MANY for their own good. Abortion, euthanasia, birth control, school indoctrination, aberrant sex encouragement, family destruction, and pressure on religious organizations to cooperate or be destroyed are expanded both nationally and internationally. On the one hand we do everything we can to reduce human numbers by violence, aberrant sex, marriage destruction, and propaganda as we protect animals from any and all human impacts. What is wrong with this picture?
If anyone is not sickened by this situation there is only one solution; change more names. Biologists have changed names of animals like:
Killer whales are now "Orcas" (no longer "killers" but nondescript "Orcas".)
Old squaws are now "long-tailed ducks" (no longer politically incorrect and sexist ducks that chatter 24/7 but merely ducks with a long tail.)
Upland Game Birds are now "Upland ground birds" (no longer "game" for hunters but now simply birds that spend a good deal of the day on their feet as opposed on the wing or in trees.)
Following up on this approach I propose that we rename these two "problem" animals. I suggest that we rename sea lions as "Marine Dogs". Doing away with the picture of the "sea" as a dangerous place and replacing and replacing it with the innocuous word "marine" that few understand and replacing the dangerous aura of lions with that of "dog" we make this "problem" seem even more benign and cute. Mountain Lions (cougars) present a similar issue of perception. I suggest we rename them "Hill Tabbies". What is more benign than a grassy hill and a pet cat? How could a marine dog or a hill tabby be dangerous? Who would not delight in protecting such animals, no matter the cost?
Sarcasm is only worthy because the situation is so stupid and resistant to truth. One hundred years of denigrating humans (always TOO MANY) while elevating wild animals (never TOO MANY) to super-human status is both morally repugnant and intellectually vapid. Like the destruction of our US Constitution during this period we have let the lowest among us gain more and more control of the lives and activities of the rest of us. We have made a bed that we cannot lie in, only die in.
Jim Beers 7 October 2009

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF AN EQUITABLE CONSUMPTION TAX?

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF AN EQUITABLE CONSUMPTION TAX?
Let us know!

Write to: Itsmypaycheck@q.com

A TIP O THE HAT TO DAN MAES!

The following exchanges between Roni Bell, Dan Maes and Ric, pertain to the following info from Judge Napolitano regards "income" tax and states.
Dan Maes is the only candidate for a public office (That I'm aware of.) who's made serious inquiry about an Equitable Consumption Tax.
A tip O the hat to you Dan!
Roni
http://www.heirsoflibertypress.org/article.php?id=53
__________________________________________________
From: Dan Maes
To: 'Roni Sylvester'
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: Dan - info on Judge Napolitano
Interesting. If there is legitimacy to any of this then why has it not been successfully challenged and defeated? If it were truly that blatantly and illegally instituted I would think it would have been successfully overturned by now.
Dan Maes
Re-Energizing Colorado's Economy
Republican Candidate for Governor
www.danmaes.com
303-670-2010
___________________________________________________
RESPONSE:

Fear Dan. Plain and simple.
People are "afraid" to be bunch quitter enough (I.e. have the courage) to "challenge and defeat" income tax. Afraid of ridicule, dismissal, destruction and more. Besides, the alternatives have been weak, overly complex, still penalize retailers, and are presented by people whose presentations are shrill - radical - silly- and the transition not well thought through.
Dan, you know this from sales; two people can present the exact same product, yet people will more readily purchase from one - instead of the other...Why? Because of the "presentation."
Remember "income" tax exsists only because it is unfortunately: a) The main control mechanism of both parties. b) Like a dysfunctional marriage...it is a "known." Regardless how ugly and bad it is, people stay with it because they perceive it's better than surging into the "unknown." c) Trial Lawyers of America. Largest, most powerful lobbying group with overwhelming D.C. presence.
The person - whether an incumbent or new candidate - who fleshes out the entire concept of Equitable Consumption (EC) Tax, and presents it in a clear, rational way - that shows voters exactly how they can "keep their paycheck" - and the many other positive benefits of not having "income" taxed, will win races.
They have to be bold enough to point out in a "non-partisan" layperson's language, why both parties are equally at fault for not executing said transition.
If Michael Steele and the Republican party structured the RNC platform around this, the Republican party would win races - and friends - across the nation.
But - they too have fears...(see the beforementioned).
Finding "good presenters" who will lead the charge...will be far more challenging then the actual "transitioning."
Ending income tax and transitioning in an EC tax is the salvation of America. That...is an undeniable fact.
Roni
____________________________________________________ COMMENT:

Roni
This is an interesting history and educational piece for sure. Combine this with the push for an EC, it would be something to consider for building a powerpoint or video presentation to be shown and passed around. One of the things I've learned about trying to kill something in existence politically, is that you have to have something to offer in its place. You can't win an argument to stop something and replace it with a vacuum.......the EC would be the perfect replacement offer. (but then you have to deal with turning retailers into tax collectors for the state, which we already do with the sales tax collection) just my $0.02 on this. Ric
__________________________________________________
Ric,
The software program at the cash register, would handle everything. The retailer would NEVER be put in the position of tax collector.
Roni

COUNT DRACULA IN DISGUISE

"Nationalized Health Care -
Count Dracula in Disguise"
An Article and YouTube Video
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright August 12, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

The issue of Nationalized Obama Care (not national health care) has captured the nation again, as it did with Hillary Care in 1994, that cost the Democrats the loss of the House and the Senate to the Republicans. This over 1000-page, legal mumbo-jumbo monstrosity is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever proposed by any American government since the American Revolution. It will take over every aspect of our lives, remove any semblance of individual privacy and drive the price of health care and just about everything else, through the roof. Income taxes will be increased on everyone to pay for it and it won't be enough. Government, in order to manage our health care for us, will have access to our income tax records, our medical records and our employment records. All this information will be collected in giant government computer data bases and then dumped into lap tops that can be lost or stolen. None of our private information will be safe. Every single American will be just a social security number to these over-paid politicians and bureaucrats.

Our economy will suffer big time. Jobs will be lost in response to health-care penalties on small businesses. Small businesses will go out of business as nationalized health care picks winners and losers. Being "big" will get you an exemption, or outright favorable treatment.

But worse, it will be a trial lawyer's dream come true, as they "mine" the legislation for potential class- action lawsuits against individuals, doctors, medical-care professionals, hospitals, clinics, health-care agents and insurance companies, accompanied, of course, by exorbitant attorney's fees.

The American producer, again, in the name of irrational compassion, is being asked to pay for the non-producers, as if the non-producers have an absolute right to the earnings of the producers. That is pure socialism, if not Marxism and it is blatantly unconstitutional. Nationalized health care will pay the health care costs of over 12 million illegal aliens. In the end, government will be forced to ration health care for the elderly and the very young, because there will not be enough money in the treasury to pay for it all, no matter how much they raise taxes. Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, Nationalized Health Care can be headed nowhere else but national bankruptcy.

This horrid piece of law, along with all the other pieces of new law this President and this Congress are shoving down our collective throats, will bury the country in debt, we will never be able to repay. America is already a huge credit risk. As the money runs out, rationing of health care will increase. As you reach an advanced age, you will be on the long list of those who will eventually receive care, just like all other socialized medicine models in other countries. Waiting times for health care will double or triple.

The decision-maker will be a bureaucrat, somewhere in the bowels of the federal government and they will be able to decide whether you live or die, not you or your doctor. The decision will be based on the medical condition of the individual, the cost of the health care for that medical condition, the individual's future contribution to society (by a government-set standard) and further, based on available funds. This, by any other name, is rationing.

Nationalized health care, along with Cap and Trade legislation and all the other socialist and radical environmental legislation the Obama Administration and the U. S. Congress are passing AGAINST the American people, will eventually break the back of our economy and we will enter a phase of hyper inflation. Seniors on fixed incomes will find their money buys less and less. Many will go hungry and starve. Government will respond to the "hunger" emergency by raising taxes and taking more control. Deep recessions or even depressions will be with us until America collapses. In short, what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing to America will take the U. S. Constitution and dump it in a deep hole in the ground, they will pour dirt over it and bury it, once and for all ..... if we let them.

All sane Americans must rise up against this destruction of our freedom and liberty and they had better rise up very quickly, or none of us will recognize an America that was based on the foundation of individual freedom, as a gift from our creator, that no man or a government should have the power to put asunder, but did anyway.

In response to this government-instituted injustice, we have produced a YouTube video entitled: "Nationalized Health Care - Count Dracula in Disguise". You can view the video at:

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Pn21bD1fKi8&feature=email.

ARE THEY RUNNING SCARED?

By Ron Ewart
President -National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright August 7, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

When propaganda, hype, distortions and lies don't work, there is always desperation and desperation is flowing out of the White House and Capitol Hill like raw sewage gushing out of a broken sewer main. Are they running scared? You bet they are because their unconstitutional, in-your-face antics have awakened a "sleeping giant" and the "giant" grows increasing restless by the day. A cattle stampede has more direction than these idiots in Washington DC.
Many have said that Obama is an intellectual genius, but his foreign and domestic decisions in the last six months tell a much different story. What sane person in their right mind, would try to shove a Century's worth of socialist crap down the throats of a slowly awakening American electorate, in six months mind you ..... an electorate that is being jerked awake by the jerk in the White House and by the in-bred, dim bulb traitors that occupy the Capitol building? The word bright or intellectual genius, doesn't come to mind with any of them. However, sophomoric, inexperienced, infantile, hypocritical, lunatics and fascism are more fitting metaphors for this cabal of out-of-touch, arrogant, non-representatives of the people ..... with a few exceptions of course.
But now they have gone and done it. The genie is out of the bottle and those who thought everything was under their control, are having a cat fit. How dare Americans get angry about nationalizing health care, banks and businesses, irrational cap and trade legislation, the non-sense that is man-caused global warming, amnesty for illegal aliens, edging towards the one-world-order and the unprecedented take over by the federal government of the public education system and the food, land, water and energy production in the United States. How ungrateful are these Americans who would complain about how their hard-earned tax money was and is being spent. These unruly upstarts must be quelled and crushed at all costs and by any means, says the liberals in power.
Americans weren't supposed to be that smart. After all, hasn't government been dumbing down the American people for a hundred years? But talk about mis-reading the tea leaves. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have stirred up a hornets nest and in desperation they are resorting to name calling and tattle tailing to stem the tide. It isn't going to work. Americans are slow to rile, but when they do, nothing will stop them until their appetite for their perception of justice has been satisfied. What a glorious sight it is to behold. Americans have a spine after all. Too bad they are about a half a century too late in their disgust of rising government tyranny.
This whole sanctimonious belly aching by those in power and the government-owned media who aid and abet them, reeks of hypocrisy. How short our memories are to what the liberal-sponsored community action groups did during the Vietnam war, or their continuous caterwauling against Bush and the Iraq war. They are now vilifying the real grass-roots tactics being used by all political stripes in this rising American tide of opposition to national health care and other socialist and global garbage Obama and his minions are attempting to foist upon us. The difference is, the current movement is real grass-roots outrage, not the manufactured protests by Code Pink, Unions and socialists groups that have been going on since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
So now, what do the tellers of lies and the twisters of truth, do? They resort to calling the riled up American people a mob who have lost their civility and bring Nazi swastikas (Pelosi) and venomous vitriol to town-hall meetings ..... you know, those same pesky Americans who cling to their guns and their bibles. But these Harvard-trained educated idiots open up a White House website to get neighbor to snitch on neighbor, if one neighbor has the gall to utter an opinion in opposition to the government's position on their unconstitutional, socialist agenda. That folks is pure desperation. That folks is pure fascism, if not bordering on Nazism.
Are these nuts in Washington DC running scared? Of course they are and for good reason. Finally, government is beginning to "fear" the people, as it should be. The natives are restless and all Hell is about to break loose. We say, "..... rise up Americans and give these enemies of freedom a taste of their own medicine, but a taste based on the foundation of liberty, not the whining of socialist losers."

CONVERSATION ABOUT EQUITABLE CONSUMPTION TAX

First came Roni Bell Sylvester's:
OK. So we've allowed our culture to run amok.
OK. So we've allowed our culture to run amok.
Now what?
And how do we stop the God awful elected officials from further exasperating this situation?
After all, they use the good guys (you and I) money to plant and groom along swarms of ignorant feral humans, forcing us with the challenge of either re-domesticating them or die.
Why'd these elected ones do this to us? Their votes depend on this homegrown illiteracy.
Heck! They boast how they personally own orchards of money trees that bear the never-ending harvests of dollars they give to the ferals. Now this might be a harmless if was treated as the fantasy fairy tale it is. But it isn't.
Regardless the fact that pulling out certain segments of society and consciously dumbing them down is the most insidious forms of racism and inequality, it's a practice these elected ones now do...and with in your face blatant-sy!
One of their racist and dumbing down ideas became evident during the "forced busing" era in Denver.
With great sadness two of my black neighbors shared, " I've worked hard all my life to get out of the ghetto. Now they want to bus my children right back in there."
Now we have an America that is not only feral, it is illiterate, racist, and heavy with manners deficit and rudeness obesity.
We've made America very sad and sick.
The good news is there is an affirmative action you can do today. One that will most certainly bring America back happy and healthy!
What is it? Eliminate "income" tax, and transition in an Equitable Consumption (EC) tax as the sole form of taxation.
If you demand your representative stop every policy in the pipeline, end income tax, transition in EC tax, then restart policy making based on the new EC tax, you'd be responsible to bringing Americans the best change of all!
In brief, here's how it'd work: Develop software program that would automatically justify cash, check, debit/credit card receipts (zero retailer handling), then carve off withdraw and send approximately 17% EC tax directly to state.
States would have independent agreements with Federal that would define the percentage they'd send Federal.
Federal would be forced to return to its original Constitutional design of handling only: By-ways, international defense and international trade.
States rights would return, and they'd thereon - and rightfully so - handle everything else unique to their state; including education/medical/welfare/roads.
States would enjoy higher yield on monies collected because of eliminating the D.C. round trip routing fees.
Work and get paid in America? You'd be able to keep your paycheck, budget your money, and never again have to deal with the un-known of not knowing how much federal would keep.
Buy stuff in America? Each time you did so, you'd participate in the re-building of America!
Do payroll taxes? Those countless hours and money doing so, would be freed up to meet your production growth.
Imagine that! A real - workable, common sense economic stimulus plan!
Exempt medical; remember now, under this plan, states would handle medical, therefore federal's pursuit of universal health care would vanish.
You can begin today!
How?
Demand incumbents and candidates for public office promise to let you, "Keep my paycheck!"
Demand they, "End 'income' tax and transition in Equitable Consumption tax!
Tell them, "This may be the worthiest action you'll ever perform for your country!"
If you do this, you will help stop the insidious growth of federal and its feral followers.
More importantly, you will slay the monster of gross rudeness, racism and illiteracy, and return our culture to the sweet realm of knowledge, civility, grace and good manners.
I'm happy to start. Will you join me?
http://www.RoniBell.Blogspot.com 8/5/09
____________________________________________________________
Then came the following:----- Original Message -----
From: O'Irish
To: * Roni Bell Sylvester
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: "OK. So now we've allowed our culture to run amok" by Roni Bell Sylvester 8/4/09

My friend Joyce responded to your piece I forwarded earlier today. She has some points, and I'm not sure how to respond to her, so decided to forward them to you for your comment. Thanks.. Leslie
________________________________________________________________
1) This makes some sense...but what would happen to poor states that have a lot of low in come people? How would the retired and jobless come out with any more than they already have.
2) I think some states all ready do a good job helping people obtain the basic needs to live/ with the help of the federal Gov.
3) If any help from them is taken away by no income tax...then a lot of people will still suffer and do with out food, shelter and medical care.
4) We need to remember most cities are not "community" in the true sense of the word. We put a can in the food bank box...and if we do attend church we help those in need at our church. In a perfect world we would all go to church...there would be those who have a lot and those less fortunate, and benevolence would be handled by our community we live and worship in.
5) Sadly we have fallen far away from true giving, as Jesus taught. And the poor will always be with us Jesus said. Why, because this is where we can practice our kindness and compassion.
6) I do not believe there is a fix to our countries woes. We are all tested every day to help our neighbor...and hate character defects such as greed, sloth, laziness, and the list goes on...as long as we continue to promote sin, under the false umbrella of freedom of choice, and free speech, a country in which children of eight can see sights that will stay with them forever, God will not be our shield and buckler much longer.
7) I believe we no longer own our country...it has been bought with greed money, and is run by a few. I wish it where different, and I will always respect what I thought was America the Beautiful..but while we lay sleeping the wolves came in.
Love cures people-both the ones who give it
and the ones who receive it.
Joyce
_____________________________________________________________
Dear Joyce,

You care enough to respond. Therefore you - and good folks like Leslie - are the one who are going to shoulder the turn around of this country. The rest - will sit by and watch - thinking it's our "responsibility" to "entertain" them. For this I thank YOU!
I've numbered your questions:
1) They'd have more - by the mere fact states would not incur those "travel" fees (looping our money through D.C.). Right now I believe the circulation fee costs us about 60 cents per $ sent.
2) States will be able to do even a better job when federal gets out of the picture.
3) The Equitable Consumption tax will more than fill the gap. I have economists working on this.
4) Great thoughts. Actually - when people get to keep their paycheck - and budget their money, 10% tithing to ones church will be easier than the present 20-49% we now give federal.
5) Sometimes I ponder on whether or not it's time for us to first take care of our caretakers - show them compassion - as part of their health care so that they in turn can continue caring for the poor and hungry. The way it's set up now, our caretakers are being ridiculed, stolen from, overregulated, lied to and more.
6) There is a fix. If indeed income tax was eliminated and replaced with an Equitable Consumption tax, people would put some of their paycheck in savings (rebuild banks), and purchase goods and services with the rest (rebuild production/jobs). It would end the corrupt control income tax provides both parties (thereby at least making a nitch in cleaning out the crooks).
Remember: Income tax serves only the collectors. This process personally enriches them with money, power and control.
This is why the collectors will fight against an Equitable Consumption tax.
The bread crumbs they dole out come to us at a cost we can not afford.
Snoopin in ones income is invasive, and it penalizes, criminalizes, perpetuates class warfare and more.
Only around 50% of people in America pay income tax, leaving the remaining 50% not participating in bringing back good health to America.
An Equitable Consumption tax would give everyone equally - an opportunity to participate in the re-building.
Thank you again Joyce. Your thoughts are appreciated.
Hope this helps.
Roni
http://www.RoniBell.Blogspot.com

MORE ON GIVING "INCOME" TAX THE BOOT!

By Roni Bell

Since "income" tax is the main reason most policies either come into being - and or are structured, why don't we demand it end, and demand a transitioning in an Equitable Consumption tax?
Every individual - regardless gender, politics, etc. I've presented this to has enthusiastically embraced it.
In brief, here's the concept to "End income tax and transition in an Equitable Consumption tax."
Design a software program whereas cash, check, debit/credit card receipts would be automatically ajusted, and say 17% EC tax withdrawn and sent directly to STATE. The retailer would NEVER be placed in the hideous position of being a "tax collector."
Each State would have its own agreement with Federal as to how much they'd send to Federal for Federal's purpose of handling the Constitutional design of Federal, and that is ONLY our By (sky-high-water) Ways - International Defense and International Trade!
States would enjoy a higher yield on collected money, for they would not incur D.C. routing "travel fees."
States would justly enjoy the return of states rights, and handle the needs (like education/medical/welfare/roads) unique to their state.
Each person who sets foot on U.S. soil would be a participant in the re-building of America. Illegal immigrants, tourists, drug dealers, hookers - everyone, would pay taxes each time they purchased something.
Each person who earns their living in America - would be able to keep their paycheck, thereby budget their own money, and therefore deal with the "known" as opposed to the un-known of never knowing what the hell the IRS would withdraw.
This would free-up the countless hours and money employers spend on payroll tax. This money could be put into production growth to meet the newly realized interest in purchasing products.
Medical (prescribed by a physician) products should be exempt. That alone would correctly eliminate federal dabbling in health care...I.e. universal health care.
Presently - well meaning honest citizens are criminalized just because they make a mistake on one of the thousand finite detailed tax code. I knew a gentleman who made his living selling catalog sized "updated tax laws" to CPA's. The way income tax is structured today, no-one can fill out their own form without fear of making a mistake. This is beyond absolutely WRONG!
We can begin by asking each incumbent and candidate for public office, "Will you let me keep my paycheck?"
PS: I'll wager a bet that any candidate/incumbent - regardless their party affiliation - who runs on the platform of an Equitable Consumption tax - will win!

CLIMATE REVOLT

Provided by: Marc Morano Morano@ClimateDepot.com

Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!
Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and 'trade him to New York Times or Washington Post'
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Climate Depot Exclusive
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."
Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction
Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."
"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.
Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:
“I think it's time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.
Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”
ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”
ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"
Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”
Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."
William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."
William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”
ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post." [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]
Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum's editorial an "alarmist screed."
“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views," Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.
Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report
To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration's U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 )
Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]
The American Chemical Society's scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.
On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”
The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.
In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009
In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist's Reaction to Baum's Editorial: (For full letters see here.)
Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.
Thomas E. D'Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.

#Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?

Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.
The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.

R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands, Texas

#
Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!

Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?

Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.

Dennis Malpass
Magnolia, Texas

#I can't accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.

Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah, Tenn.

#Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum's editorials. But his use of "climate-change deniers" to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate's complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to "do our part" for Earth's climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other "free-market fanatics," and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.
Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.

#I would like to see the ACS Board cap Baum's political pen and trade him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.
Wallace Embry
Columbia, Tenn.

#In the interest of brevity, I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June 22 edition of C&EN to one word: Disgusting.
Louis H. Rombach
Wilmington, Del.

#I am particularly offended by the false analogy with creationists. It is easy to just dismiss anyone who dares disagree as being "unscientific."
Daniel B. Rego
Las Vegas

#While Baum obviously has strong personal views on the subject, I take great offense that he would use C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.
William Tolley San Diego

#I appreciate it when C&EN presents information from qualified supporters of either, and preferably both, sides of an issue to help readers decide what is correct, rather than dispensing your conclusions and ridiculing people who disagree with you.
P. S. Lowell
Lakeway, Texas

#I am a retired Ph.D. chemical engineer. During my working years, I was involved in many environmental issues concerning products and processes of the companies for which I worked. I am completely disgusted with the June 22 editorial. I do not consider it to be very scientific to castigate skeptics of man-made global warming. [...] [Global warming fears are] not of particular concern because "the ocean is a very large sink for carbon dioxide." [...] The overall problem here is that there is already an abundance of scientific illiteracy in the American public that will not be improved by Baum's stance in what should be a scientific magazine. Theories are not proven by consensus—but by data from repeatable experimentation that leaves no doubt of interpretation.
Charles M. Krutchen
Daphne, Ala.

#Please do not keep writing C&EN editorials according to the liberal religion's credo—"Attack all climate-change deniers, creationists, conservatives, people who voted for George W. Bush, etc." It is a sign of weakness in your argument when you attack those who disagree. [...] Your choice of terminology referring to skeptical scientists who don't toe your line as CCD, climate-change deniers, and putting them in association with Holocaust deniers, is unworthy of an editorial in a scientific periodical. Who don't you go head-to-head with the critics? Please don't keep doing this. Find a scientific writer for the editorial page. We get plenty of this pap from the mainstream media and do not need it in C&EN.
Heinrich Brinks
Monterey, Calif.

#Your utter disdain of CCDs and the accusations of improper tactics you ascribe to them cannot be dismissed. However bitter you personally may feel about CCDs, it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you. The results presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you call the CCD's "favorite whipping boy," do indeed fall into the category of predictions that fail to match the data, requiring a return to the drawing board. Your flogging of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is not only infantile but beggars you to contribute facts to back up your disdain. Incidentally, why do we fund climate studies by U.S. Global Change Research Program if the problem is settled?
William E. Keller Santa Fe, N.M.

16TH AMENDMENT

Dear IMPC:

The 16th Amendment is illegitimate and never fully ratified. There were not enough yes votes but the lame duck Secretary Knox made sure it was approved anyway.
Here's how the vote went.
12 states did legitimately ratify
12 states did not legitimately ratify
23 states violated their own state Constitution with errors
___________
48 states
They need 3/4 to pass or 36 states
They only had 12 but lets throw in the other 23 for 35 anyway
They never got, never had it and it is illegitimate
Plus the so called income tax is a tax on profit and gain even the high courts decided knowing the people were not as dumb as they looked.
Here is the rest of the story on the American tax system on the natural born sovereign and free state CITIZENS.
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/FreedomFromTaxesNew.dwt.asp
Jack Venrick
Enumclaw, Wash(edout)ington
www.freedomforallseasons.org

SPREAD THE WEALTH

By Ron Ewart
For almost 100 years, people in national and international high places have been trying to merge the wealth and resources of a free and prosperous America, into the Hell hole that is most of the rest of the world. There are some countries who are the exception of course, but very few. In other words, the powerful and wealthy, who think they know what is best for every human on earth, have been trying to "spread the wealth" of a great nation ..... a wealth and prosperity created by its very freedom ..... and parcel it out to those who have not done a very good job of managing their own national affairs, or wisely using their own natural resources, while immersed in the grips of the resident dictator, or under the unrelenting and abusive hand of a socialist or communist government.
Oh, their motives sound noble enough, in that most of these world-government overtures have occurred right after a world war. But their stated motives of trying to prevent further planetary blood shed, are but a part of a much greater hidden agenda ..... that hidden agenda being total power and total control over all the peoples, wealth and resources of the Earth. But the dirty little secret is, a free America and our pesky little constitution, stand in their way. The efforts to take down a free America, have been and are still going on with a vengeance and growing by the day. The not-so-hidden agenda of the current president and U. S. Congress are furthering that effort, by buying off the American people so they won't mind a little constitutional destruction behind the scenes.
President Woodrow Wilson, in order to end the bloodshed of any further World Wars after World War I, promoted the idea of a "League of Nations". He wrongly thought that our Constitution was a major impediment to establishing the "League" and stated clearly that it should be changed to adapt to the new world order. The "League of Nations" failed miserably and ended up in the scrap heap of grandiose ideas that never had a chance in the first place, because they were built on a "bed of sand".
After World War II, the same thing occurred, for the same supposed reasons, and the United Nations (UN) was born in 1945. As the UN grew in stature, the number of nations, (now about 192 countries) and money, what happened was totally predictable ..... abject corruption. What do you expect from an organization that is embedded with dictators, despots, socialists and communists. What could you expect from a bunch of corrupt leaders gathering together for the sole purpose of stripping America, the big "daddy" on the block, of all of its wealth and resources and its sovereignty, for their own ends?
The sad part is, the United States has paid the lion's share of the money that has kept this corrupt organization in "business". Otherwise it would have folded like the League of Nations, as it should have. In other words, Americans have been and are having to bear the cost of the instrument of their own destruction. Not too bright on our part, is it?
For 100 years, Americans have been faced with an organized effort by powerful nationalists and internationalists, to rip America apart and dilute its sovereignty, with the purported goal of establishing a One-World-Order. Democrat and Republican presidents alike, have openly promoted this idea. In our minds, that should be treason.
The now deceased and much heralded journalist, Walter Cronkite, stated openly after his career ended, that world law and world courts should be established to prosecute those on the world stage, who would dare to flaunt or violate the world law. (see his video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbBOnopr4iM) That would mean that Americans could be extradited from the U. S., to who knows where, and tried in a world court for so-called violations of the world law, by who knows what judges, with who knows what biases. As bad and corrupt as U. S. judges and our courts are, most Americans would much rather take their chances in an American court, where there is at least a half-hearted attempt to follow the Supreme Law of our Land.
But let's get down to some very serious questions:
1. Who would run this world government? The United Nations? You have got to be kidding. Would you put your life in the hands the most corrupt organization that ever existed since the dawn of time?
2. Who would draft the "world law"? Bureaucrats in the UN? Socialists from Europe? Communists from Russia? Despots and Dictators from the middle East, Central and South America, or worse, Africa? Come on!
3. Under what foundation would such a world law be drafted? This question is really scary.
Have any of you seen what policies the United Nations have drafted already and are trying to implement world-wide right now? Each UN policy reeks of socialism .... a socialism that is to be funded by and forced on, the backs of once-free Americans .... because we are rich.
One of the last issues to be addressed with world government, is what happens to the people of Planet Earth, if the power, strength, wealth, freedom and sovereignty of America, are diluted to the point of being virtually impotent under the new world order? It is readily acknowledged that had it not been for the power, wealth, military might and the millions of American men and women who sacrificed their lives, limbs and minds in two world wars, over a billion people might still be in chains today and Americans might be speaking Japanese or German. If it wasn't for the military might of America, rogue nations would take us on by military force or terror, on a daily basis. It is best, at this time in history at least, that these rogue nations fear us. Negotiating with them is pure insanity, as some in our government want to do.
If it weren't for the wealth, strength, freedom and sovereignty of America, who would be the greatest consumers of international goods? What countries would starve because we no longer would live in the land of plenty and "buy" what the world markets have to offer under world government? What would happen to all countries on all the continents, if the last bastion of freedom were to be reduced to the level of a third-world nation? The answers to these questions are all too obvious.
America is the last great hope of a world gone mad. If it and its freedom and sovereignty dissolves, the world dissolves with it.
U. S. Senator Daniel Webster wrote: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands -- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."
The hard truth is, Senator Webster is absolutely right and millions of Americans had better get it through their thick heads that they are the last great hope for the preservation of America and its freedom and liberty and the last great hope for sanity in the world. The alternative is world government, as we have just described and serfdom on a planet-wide scale, that would come with it.
If Americans succumb to the siren call of the one-world-order, our children and grand children and all future generations who long to be free, will cry the screams of men in chains.
World government may be a possibility in the future, but only after all other nations have adopted the individual freedom and liberty promised by our Constitution, as etched into the annals of history for all free men to see. Until then, world government had better remain a pipe dream, of rich and powerful men.

MORE ON UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6719226.ece
By Colleen

Why should this story have anything to do with you? This young man is going to die because under NHS rules he is not going to have the liver transplant that he needs. Who cares you say? He did it to himself? Yes, but he was never warned about the dangers of alcohol as the schools only teach about the dangers of drugs.
And there is a shortage of donated livers. OK I can understand that.
However, what is the real reason he cannot get a transplant? Because in the past the NHS would sell the donated organs to patients who need them overseas who can afford to pay the higher prices that the livers can command. And life style choices enter the picture. If the choices that you make regarding your health are not the good choices that government says you should be making then you do not deserve the right to a transplant.
Yes, that is right! In the past The National Health Service would sell the organs to the highest bidder overseas! I will underscore and print in red ink the statement in the story that confirms what I have just said. There was such an outcry about this the NHS says that it no longer sells the organs, but can we be sure of that?
Now the question you need to ask yourself is this. Can I trust my government if they adopt the socialized medicine concept that the U.K has not to do the same thing? Sell donated organs to the highest bidder in order to pay for the "free medical care for everyone"? Right now it is against the law to sell bodies or body parts, but how long will it stay that way?
We can not trust our government to manage our banks and financial institutions, so how can we trust them with dealing with the health problems?
Already in India it is common to see woman with one scar on their backs from where there they sold one of their kidneys. The husbands are the bosses, and if he thinks he can solve his financial problems, his wife is the one to give up one of her kidneys. Of course the husband keeps the money and she is left with one kidney.
Organs have become big business.
I discovered this through my research in trying to find the right place to donate my body for medical research. While cleaning out my desk I came across an ad from the newspaper that I had saved. The headline screamed FREE CREMATION.
Underneath that attention-grabbing headline they said that with my whole body donation to medical science and education this company will GIVE ME A FREE CREMATION. Great I thought! I had always wanted to donate my body to science as I have had a long and well-documented history of my back problems with copies of my x-rays taken from 1958.
If you go to this web site: www.medcure.org you can see how professional this web site it is attracting its future customers, because in the end, that is what you will become, just another one of their customers. You donate your body and they distribute the parts of the body to others. They are the intermediary, or the middleman in the equation. They slice and dice you and send your most valuable parts unto different medical schools who need your body parts for teaching or for research.
This is how it works. You sign the papers before you die and then inform your next of kin to call a special number that they give to you. Alternately your next of kin can donate your body to them. The most important part is to have your next of kin to call them before they do anything else. They will contact the nearest funeral home to come and pick up the body. Then your body will be taken by the funeral home and then flown back to their place of business, which is in Portland, Oregon. They will pay for your body to be transported. Then in 3 weeks time any parts of you not used will be cremated and sent back in a lovely heart-shaped cardboard box with a package of wild flower seeds. Then your next of kin can scatter your ashes according to your wishes.
Of course there are some caveats. They will not take your body if you are overweight or damaged in an accident - or have a disease like Aids or Hepatitis.
If you die in a hospital then health officer makes a determination if your body can be donated for science or research. If you qualify then you are off to the races; or rather others are off to the races to see who gets you first. When you donate your body for scientific research then you have to give them the whole body. You can not ask that special parts be donated to another agency.
I just called the company to ask them what their policy is if I am transported at their cost to their place of business and for some reason they can not use my body. Will my family then be sent a bill to pay for the expenses of the cost of transporting my body? I was informed that they do all kinds of tests first to make sure your body is not suffering form some kind of infectious disease. Sometimes they discover that a body has an infectious disease at the time of death but for some reason it was not detected. They will go ahead and cremate the body and return the ashes to the family or scatter them at sea, what ever your wishes were when the papers where signed. They assume the cost of this and they have never sent a bill to the family if they receive a body and can not make any use of it. Well, that is good to know, as I would hate to think my sons would have to pay for my body to be transported to Portland, Oregon.
Now this got me to wondering, what is going on here? How can they pay for the cost of transporting my body all the way across the country to be sliced, diced, and then sent off to other parts of the country to the different institutions that need those very valuable body parts? A call to their office informed me that they receive funding from different sources that receive money from grants given to them.
In the end I decided to donate my body to the University of Texas, the Health Science Center at Houston - because they will keep the bodies for up to 2 years. This way if I am hanging on ice or in some freezer I know that eventually I will be picked up and used by the University of Texas for teaching and research purposes. They will come and pick up my body if I die within 100 miles of Houston. I live about 50 miles from Houston. If I die somewhere else than my body will go to Medcure.org in Portland. I always like to have a backup plan in reserve incase things go topsy-turvey.
Please read this story and ask yourself, what will my country do to save money to pay for the treatment of giving us free medical care?
Cheers!
Colleen
___________________________________________________________________

Colleen,
Did you write this? Excellent information.
Thank you,
Roni
__________________________________________________________________
Yes Roni, I wrote this as I want as many people that I can to really know exactly what is at stake here if we allow our President and the democratic party to shove this "free medical plan" down our throats. You can post it onto your web site if you wish. I still have not figure out how to post stuff. I am on working on a story that clearly shows on the NHS is failing its customers, the taxpayers in Britain that have paid for this free medical care all their working lives. And 23% of their wages go to just pay for the NHS system. Then you ad the rest of the taxes and it comes up to 50%. No wonder so many of the Britains try to come to our country.
Keep up the good fight. Thank you for telling me that it was excellent information. I had only recieved one comment from a lady, my age, who refuses to believe that this play for "free medical care" is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. She believes I am making a mountain out of a molehile. I wrote and told her that after living and seeing how socialized medicine works, I know what I am talking about. And I will back up what I say with actual articles from their own countries newspaper, The London Times. That is why I include the web address so they can read the article from their own newspages.
Take Care !
Colleen