A WARNING LETTER TO AMERICA

A WARNING LETTER TO AMERICA

From my friend Gandalf over at UP Pompeii:

Dear Mr and Mrs America,

I am writing this letter to you in the hope that I can draw to your attention the dangerous route your country is taking,

 I am naught but an ordinary Englishman who is seeing the danger signs springing up in the country where my children live, below is what I see happening in America, and I would not like to see the USA going down the same disastrous route that the UK has been taken by its government.

Many years ago, just after the small argument that America and Britain had over taxes,people from all over Europe migrated to the New World, they came for a new life and a new start, they did not come as French Americans, Dutch or German Americans or even English Americans, they arrived and became “Americans” , they signed up to the American way.

These people remembered their old country but were committed to their new one, its values principles and practices were the bedrock of their being in America.

These people set about building the most powerful country on the planet, they had a common aim, a common belief and a common will, that will was to build America for their children.

These people endured much hardship and privation but they did not give up, they were determined to build America.

The foundations of your country was built by these people, the ideals of your country are steeped in the sweat and blood of these early Americans.

Alas the sacrifices of these people appear to be slipping into history, they are being relegated to folklore.

The  foundations that were laid are being eroded and there is a great danger that America will no longer be American unless a change of course is made.

The Balkanization of America could happen, Multiculturalism has reared its destructive head in the USA.

Multiculturalism is an invention of  socialist dogma, its main premise is that all cultures can live in complete harmony in the same space without surrendering any of their cultural beliefs and practices.

On the face of it that is true, indeed Europe has many cultures on its land mass but they are all in their own space these spaces are called countries, each country , as you know has its own unique culture.

It is precisely that concept that multiculturalism dislikes intently, multiculturalism states that you can have  significant populations of other cultures, practicing their culture,  living in Germany for example and there will not be any conflict of cultural ideals, provided that the host country – in this case Germany makes concessions to the other culture.

Multiculturalism does not tolerate the concept of a united nation state, united in the sense of its own culture being predominant within that country, this is a big no – no.

The multiculturalist concept fractures countries and leads to the partition of those countries, Kosovo is a prime example of this happening.

When the “guest”  cultures grow bigger the demands upon the” host” country grow stronger, inevitably the host country has to surrender more of its own values, principles and practices in order to accommodate the wishes of their guests – not to do so would be seen as racist or Xenophobic.

Islam has now taken root in the USA, Islam will not surrender any of its beliefs and practices, Islam will demand that the USA accommodate all of its wishes, Islam will demand that the USA introduces legislation that makes it unlawful to criticize Islam, Islam will demand its own Sharia legal system, Islam will demand its own food (Halal), Islam will demand its own schools (Madrases) Islam will demand its own governing body

Islam will grow in the USA, the birth rate of Muslims is very high, when sufficient numbers are reached they will eventually demand their own state – Balkanization will have started.

Should any American want to see what Multiculturalism and the influx of Islam into a country results in, all I can say is  take a look at the UK, a good hard look.

If Mr and Mrs America want to keep America American, remember your roots, do not allow your government to sign away your history, The labour government have done just that in the UK – without our permission

America has  a “Democrat” President, the policies of the democrats in America are almost exactly the same as  the Labour government in the UK, they are all based upon socialist concepts, The EU is based on Socialist concepts and is run by ex communist party members, as is the UK.

If America wants to be overrun by hordes of people who do not support the American way of life, who expect to be given precedence upon arrival in the US, who will have no allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, who will jeer and insult American military personnel, who will overtly declare their hatred of America and will plan to destroy the USA and all it stands for – then carry on with the socialist multicultural model.

I know many in America are aware of what is happening and I hope that many many more will realize the situation as well, there is however one thing all Americans must remember – AMERICA IS NOT TOO BIG TO FALL, you now have the enemy within, you like the UK have a fifth column in your country.

Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

Michelle Malkin 

Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 9, 2009 11:36 AM

Sarah Palin’s warning about the effects of Obamacare on the elderly and infirm have been met with derision and ridicule. William Jacobson has a good round-up.

Meanwhile, the effects of socialized medicine in Britain — engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels on which Obamacare would be modeled — continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm:

*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions

*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

*Elderly suffer in care shambles

*Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer

*NHS neglects elderly depression.

*NHS failure on Down’s screening kills healthy babies

*‘I said to the nurse, please feed her:’ Pauline Pringle’s mother went into hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated case

Last year, my mother-in-law fell off her Stannah and broke a hip. If that sounds like the cue for a Les Dawson joke (”I was hoping it would be her neck”), it isn’t: I’m fond of my mother-in-law and the result of her little accident, not funny in the least, was that she nearly died. After a belated but successful operation, she developed c diff (clostridium difficile, the nation’s favourite hospital killer bug after MRSA), and three courses of antibiotics failed to clear the infection.

Suddenly a robust, cheerful woman of 79, whose only mobility problem had been climbing stairs, began to talk of never leaving hospital again but of being “laid out on a marble slab” – and when the hospital asked for our permission not to resuscitate her should she lose consciousness, we realised this was no paranoid fantasy.

Thanks to the efforts of her five children, who travelled long distances to see her, brought food, pleaded with staff not to write her off and eventually – because the pleas were falling on deaf ears – moved her to another (I’m afraid, private) hospital, my mother-in-law is still around, less active than she used to be, but alive to see in another new year. She was lucky. We were lucky. But as I’m beginning to discover, many people with elderly relatives are not.

Pauline Pringle wasn’t lucky. Her mother Sarah Ingham died around the same time and in similar circumstances, on January 6 last year: a badly dislocated hip was missed and after the operation that eventually followed, Sarah spent 12 weeks in Tameside hospital, Manchester, failing to shake off a post-operative infection and – denied a proper diet – losing three and a half stone in weight. She was then sent home, where the local GP knew nothing of her discharge and didn’t recognise her as the same woman he’d seen three months earlier. She died within a fortnight. At the inquest the coroner, John Pollard, said that he would be writing to the hospital to demand an explanation for Sarah’s malnourishment: “It is totally unsatisfactory in a major city in a western democracy that families have to bring food into a hospital because their loved ones are not being fed properly by staff.”

…One much quoted figure suggests that up to half a million elderly people in the UK are being abused at any one time. Unlike child abuse, elder abuse is rarely reported beyond local newspapers, and those who inflict it are less likely to be held to account.

When a House of Commons health committee produced its report, Elder Abuse, in 2004, it suggested that “abuse in domiciliary settings is the commonest type”. Overall, though, whereas the old are more likely to be robbed of money or possessions by their nearest and dearest, they’re more likely to starve to death in a hospital or care home. Dr Adrian Treloar, a specialist in geriatric psychiatry, caused a furore in 1999 when he applied the phrase “involuntary euthanasia” to the way in which elderly patients in NHS hospitals were being deprived of food and water and “left at the bottom of the pile”.

*Shame on the doctors prejudiced against Down Syndrome

[D]espite all the progress which children with Down Syndrome are now making in schools and homes up and down the country, the medical profession in general still has a visceral bias in favour of eugenic termination, which its practitioners are often startlingly crude in expressing. This is not based on a realistic and up-to-date assessment of the possibilities open to those with Down Syndrome, still less of the happiness which such people can and do bring to families and even communities as a whole: it is a function of the fact – which is undeniable – that people with Down Syndrome are likely to cost the NHS more in subsequent medical treatment than a child without any disabilities.

Yesterday the BBC News website ran a selection of comments on this issue by members of the public. One in particular, by Heather of Livingston, Scotland, is worth reproducing in full here: “I was told that my daughter had Down’s when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and every doctor, gynaecologist I saw tried to convince me a termination was the best option. I was still offered this at 26 weeks! One reason given to me by a cold-hearted consultant was that ‘these babies put a strain on the NHS’. My daughter was stillborn and when pregnant again, I refused all tests apart from a scan. It’s not society who are looking for the ‘perfect baby’, it’s the medical profession.”

Death panels? What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels.

***

Related:

Ann Althouse

She doesn’t say that the government will kill disabled (or elderly) persons directly, but that death will occur as a result of the decisions of cost controlling bureaucrats with the power to determine who can receive various treatments. I don’t know why “level of productivity in society” is in quotes, nor do I know whether it is the plan to ration care on this basis. Those are actually serious matters, and I’d like to know the answers. What Kleefeld is doing is trying to sweep Palin aside as a big crazy wacko.

Yes, she used a colorful expression “death panel,” but it’s a good and fair polemical expression if in fact life-saving care will be rationed on this basis. I have found myself saying, in conversation, “I’m afraid Obama is going to kill me.” Now, I’m not picturing him or one of his minions coming over to murder me, but I am afraid that as I get older and need expensive care to keep me alive that I will be told I cannot have it, because at my age, in the government’s opinion, there’s not enough life left in me to be worth the money that I would take from the system that needs to pay for everything.

Watch video

*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmichellemalkin%2Ecom%2F2009%2F08%2F09%2Fdeath%2Dpanels%2Dwhat%2Ddeath%2Dpanels%2Doh%2Dthose%2Ddeath%2Dpanels%2F&feature=player_embedded

Another reality check from Deroy Murdock.

And concern about the Obamacare end-of-life provisions from Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane.

Obama Administration: Home of the Whopper

Obama Administration: Home of the Whopper

By Bryan Riley

A recent Washington Post op-ed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius suggests a new motto for the Obama Administration: “Home of the Whopper.”  The Sebelius piece contains no fewer than 10 health care whoppers, including:

 

Whopper Number 1: Americans are too stupid to buy their own health insurance. 

 

SEBELIUS: Americans are left to worry about whether they’ll get laid off and lose their insurance or wake up from surgery with a $10,000 bill because they didn’t read the fine print on their policy. 

 

FACT: Most health care policies are fairly straightforward.  My own Health Savings Account plan is so simple that even a congressman could understand it.  I pay everything up to the deductible, and the insurance company pays everything after the deductible.  According to the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the number of Americans covered by these plans has grown from 0 in 2004 to 8 million today. 

 

Whopper Number 2:  Americans can’t get coverage for preexisting conditions.

 

SEBELIUS: The current health-care system gives insurance companies all the power. They get to pick and choose who gets a policy. They can deny coverage because of a preexisting condition.

 

FACT: That’s not true for the 177 million Americans who have group health insurance, where it’s illegal to deny coverage to someone who has a preexisting condition.  It’s true that someone who waits until after they’re sick to apply for an individual policy can be denied coverage or charged a higher premium, but once they’re approved their coverage can never be dropped or their premium increased due to a change in their health. 

 

Whopper Number 3: Government health care will promote stronger doctor-patient relationships.

 

SEBELIUS: Imagine a system in which your doctor spends as much time trying to keep you healthy as treating you when you’re sick, in which you and your doctor have all the information you need to choose the treatments that work best for you, in which you never have to fill out the same paperwork twice. Health reform is the first step in that direction. 

 

FACT: This ABC news report on how Medicaid-financed dental care works for children demonstrates how government health care programs could work for the rest of us:

 

Little boy: “They said if you don’t stop crying, um, that I couldn’t see my mom again.”
Little girl: “I was like crying for my mom and I was crying because they were hurting me”. 
Reporter: “And did anybody stop?”
Little girl, shaking head: “Hmm-mmm.  I told them to stop but they wouldn’t stop.” 
Mom: “He (her five-year-old son) comes walking out of that door, his whole shirt was full of sweat, he had blood dripping from his mouth, and all I could see was silver shining through.” 

 

Whopper Number 4: Young college grads have a tough time finding health insurance.   

 

SEBELIUS: When my two sons graduated from college, I had mixed feelings. I was incredibly proud of their accomplishments, but I dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance when they left school. 

 

FACT: If her sons lived in Kansas, they could have bought the same type of policy I have for $36 per month, less than most people spend on cable television.  If they didn’t qualify for that plan and didn’t get a job that offered coverage, her family still could have afforded the guaranteed-issue insurance plan available to anyone in the state who has no other options. 

 

Whopper Number 5: Americans shouldn’t waste their time trying to understand the details of Obama’s proposal.

 

SEBELIUS: [W]e can’t let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring.  Nor should we let ourselves be distracted by attacks that try to use the complexity of health reform to freeze Americans in inaction.

 

FACT: An insurance agent who advised his clients to ignore the fine print in a proposed policy could wind up in jail.  Anyone who says “don’t worry about the details, this is too complex for you to understand anyway,” probably has something to hide. 

 

Whopper Number 6:  More government means more choices. 

 

SEBELIUS: By giving Americans choices, health reform will switch the roles. Americans will get peace of mind and insurance companies will start getting nervous.

 

FACT: It is difficult to see how people will get peace of mind if they are forced to switch control of their health care from their current insurance plans, which 72 percent of Americans are satisfied with, to Congress, which 24 percent of Americans are satisfied with

 

Whopper Number 7: The Obama plan will help entrepreneurs.

 

SEBELIUS: Right now, many entrepreneurs are paralyzed by our fractured car insurance system. They know that if they leave their job, they might not be able to get car insurance for their families.

 

FACT: I misquoted Sebelius by replacing the phrase “health insurance” with “car insurance.”  As long as someone can pay their premiums, they never have to worry about losing their car insurance just because they change jobs.  But the federal government’s tax and regulatory policies deny people the same flexibility when it comes to health insurance. 

 

Whopper Number 8: The Obama plan will slow health-care costs without slashing benefits or reducing the quality of care. 

 

SEBELIUS: By acting now, we have the chance to slow health-care costs in a way that doesn’t slash benefits or reduce care.

 

FACT: Previous federal efforts to meddle in health care, including misguided tax policy and flawed Medicare reimbursement schemes, have resulted in skyrocketing insurance premiums.  The best way to slow health-care costs is to give more power to consumers, and the Obama plan would do the opposite.    

 

Whopper Number 9: Government health care will deliver incredible results at low prices. 

 

SEBELIUS: Instead, we can make investments in prevention, wellness and health information technology that will allow the health-care system to deliver incredible results at prices we can all afford.

 

FACT: Because government programs under-pay doctors and hospitals for their services, those health care providers are forced to make up the difference by shifting costs to people who have insurance.  According to Milliman, Inc., Medicare and Medicaid under-payments increase the cost of health insurance by $88 billion.  Instead of fixing this problem, President Obama has proposed even more Medicare cuts.

 

Whopper Number 10: There is no alternative solution to the nation’s health care problems.

 

SEBELIUS: We’ve learned over the past 20 years that “socialized medicine” and “government-run health care” are code words for “don’t change anything.” With some insurers raising premiums by more than 25 percent and 14,000 people losing their health insurance every day, Americans want to hear something more from their leaders than “wait and see” and “more of the same.” 

 

FACT: It is the Obama administration that has blocked change by rejecting simple, mainstream proposals to improve health care, for example by providing financial support to people who can’t afford insurance or giving a tax break to individuals who buy their own insurance. 

 

Unfortunately for Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to cloud the health care reform discussion by throwing out new whoppers every day rather than engaging in an honest public debate.  

 

Bryan Riley is an insurance agent and a former candidate for Kansas Insurance Commissioner. 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obama_administration_home_of_t.html at August 10, 2009 – 08:51:31 PM EDT

Business as Usual In a time of fiscal crisis, the earmark-friendly Congress maintains its spendthrift ways.

Business as Usual
By: Tait Trussell
Monday, August 10, 2009

 


In a time of fiscal crisis, the earmark-friendly Congress maintains its spendthrift ways.

Even before Congress departed for its August vacation, legislators were giving themselves the royal treatment.

 

According to Roll Call, the House Appropriations Committee recently tagged $132 million for two elite Gulfstream jets on to the 2010 defense appropriations bill. The jets are specifically meant ferry around in style members of Congress and other key Washington officials. The House has already approved nearly $200 million for three Gulfstream jets, on the lame excuse that this was no earmark but merely an expansion of a current Defense Department program.

 

Lavish airfare is just one of the latest and most flagrant examples of pork spending run wild in the nation’s capital. In March, for instance, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. Tucked into the bill were 8,000 earmarks, spending items inserted by members for pet projects. The profligacy has become so flagrant that in 2009, earmarks rose to $19.6 billion in taxpayer dollars, according to the non-partisan watchdog organization Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

 

The feeding frenzy at the federal trough has not gone unnoticed. On July 6,

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) released a report on pork barrel projects in the stimulus bill that he believed were not only wasteful but actually “harmful” to economic growth. Coburn noted that Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board estimates that at least $55 billion of the stimulus funds may be lost to fraud, waste and abuse. Typical examples of what Coburn saw as wasteful stimulus projects included:

 

  • $15 million for “shovel-ready” repairs to little-used bridges in rural Wisconsin, which were given priority over widely used bridges that are structurally deficient.
  • $800,000 for the little-used John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, to repave a back-up runway. This “Airport for Nobody” has already received tens of millions in taxpayer dollars.
  • $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passage” in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway.
  • $2 million for a Nevada non-profit that will conduct a weatherization contract, after recently being fired for the same type of work.
  • $1.15 million for the installation of a new guardrail for the non-existent Optima Lake in Oklahoma. (In a rare break for taxpayers, the Army Corps of Engineers has since announced that the project is “not going forward.”)

 

And that’s not all. Some 622 projects worth $880 million were found in the CAGW analysis of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. In the stack of funding proposals was one for Senate appropriator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) for the Vermont Biofuels Initiative. According to an article in the Economist, the International Council for Science concluded that “the production of biofuels has aggravated rather than ameliorated global warming.” Meanwhile, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.VA) expects $1.25 million for research into the impact of coal liquidification in China. (Sheer expense aside, one would think the issue would be more pertinent in Byrd’s own coal-mining state.) And no discussion of earmarks would be complete without mention of John Murtha (D-PA), Congress’s pork-barrel champion. As chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Murtha is seeking funding for 23 programs worth $90 million.

 

For all his pork-raising prowess, Murtha faces stiff competition from departments like the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Committee, known informally as (THUD), which is seeking around $584 million worth of appropriations for 2010. In our time of gargantuan federal spending and threats from abroad, $2.48 million is expected from Subcommittee Chair John Olver (D-Mass.) for seven museum projects. Among them is the so-called Arcadia Players Concert; $1.35 million more will go for theatre projects; and another $250,000 for something called the Wolf Trap Performing Arts multi-use trail.

 

In the Senate Financial Services and General Government appropriations Committee, the most pork-friendly member is the appropriations subcommittee chairman and the number-two man in the Senate majority, Dick Durbin (D-Il.). Durbin is currently calling for nine projects costing $4.3 million. Some $400,000 of the Durbin gifts would go to Western Illinois University Small Business Development Center, whose website lists a faculty of one person.

 

Then there are the oddities. The CAGW’s preliminary analysis of the Senate version of the 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies Appropriations Act turned up $220.7 million in spending. Among the outstanding earmarks was $1 million for Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for, of all things, Morman crickets in Nevada and $4.8 million for research on wood use. Most taxpayers can tell them that wood is, among other things, the source of those 1,000-plus page bills Congress keeps passing and which no one has time to read.

 

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D.N.Y) put in for $400,000 for Jazz programs at Lincoln Center, which, according to CAGW, already has a balance of $198 million. The analysis of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act includes $4 million for Golden Gate National Recreational Area, the centerpiece of which is the former penitentiary, Alcatraz. Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) wants $1.2 million for 600,000 rat traps. Aloha, at $2 a rat.

 

Strangest of all are the pork projects that no one – including their intended beneficiaries — seems to want. Thus the town of Union, New York, is encouraged to spend a $578,000 grant it did not request for a homelessness problem it claims it does not have. Similarly, some $560 million was stuck in the appropriations for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine program – this despite the fact that the Pentagon does not want it. More bizarrely still, some 10,000 deceased individuals received stimulus checks. (The Social Security Administration blames a tough deadline.)

 

Don’t look to President Obama to put an end to the increasingly audacious spending projects. Peter Orszag, the White House Director of the Office of Management and Budget, told ABC News March 1 that as Obama prepared to sign the earmark-laden spending bill this spring, he saw it as “last year’s business,” not his. Never mind that the bill had been introduced and debated in Obama’s reign and had funding for Obama priorities.

 

It is true that during the presidential campaign Obama promised to pore through spending bills “line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” On his account, at least, he has been faithful to that pledge. When the $787 billion stimulus package became law February 17, the president said that there were no pork projects and earmarks in the bill. “I know lots of folks out there have been saying, ‘Oh, this is pork, and this is money that’s going to be wasted,” the president said. “Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it.” A wealth of evidence, and taxpayer dollars, suggests otherwise.

That Obama has violated a pledge to cut earmarks should not be surprising. After all, Obama as Senator in 2008 racked up 53 earmarks totaling $97.4 million.

But the fact that Congress has continued to spend wastefully at a time of steeply rising debt and an economic recession makes the president’s laissez-faire approach to the pork-filled free-for-all that much more troubling.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers