Thursday, December 19, 2013

Cooking the Books on Climate Change

Cooking the books; misstating and representing the "Surveyed" Papers said to support Global Warming to come to a 97% support:
"First the Los Angeles Times, and now the popular website Reddit have banned critical comments on global warming orthodoxy in responses to their articles. Giuseppe Macri of The Daily Caller reports:A content editor on Reddit's science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven't done the same."About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers," Reddit content editor Nathan Allenwrote in grist. "When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn't a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum."" 
"Allen explained further:When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation."
-Thomas Lifson:

"Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”" 
-James Taylor:
"Key components of the manufactured "consensus" fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.
Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.
Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.
In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."
"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech."
-Marc Morano: U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

7% of 538 Papers on Climate Change endorsing Global Warming is not 97% it is not even 50%, it is in the vast minority.
"More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]"
-Marc Morano: Climate Depot

Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute.
“is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.  NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency.  It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.  NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda.  This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”
...The report is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.”  Moreover, it is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed.  That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose.  What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?  That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.
...The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas.  The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment.  The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.”&; The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes.&; “The hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of ‘full scientific certainty’ but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility,” the report states.

The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere.  For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent.  The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world.  Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming
-Peter Ferrara: forbes

On September 17th, 2013:
 "...a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.: 
-Tony Lee:

That report you can read for yourself here:
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science [REPORT]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis -forbes
Seen Here:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong:
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

-David Rose: DailyMail UK

So what we get from all this is and other data not represented here but freely available elsewhere; Is that some leading scientists and World Leaders are working together to manipulate data for their own objectives. Carbon Tax, Air Tax, Etc.

Real scientific data shows that the World goes through multiple cooling and warming periods every decade or couple of decades and that we are actually based on historical known levels to present in a starved CO2 environment and no where near the World Norm.

We are being manipulated for someone else's personal gain, and we need to put a stop to this once and for all.

R. William Holzkopf Jr.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Webcam Intrigue: Helping Spies Spy on you

"If you're one of those people who gets made fun of for putting a piece of tape over your webcam, don't worry—you're not crazy. Unfortunately, your paranoia is justified, since it is, in fact, possible for the internet's n'er-do-wells to secretly seize power of your computer's forward-facing camera."

For Your Safety: Dragnet Spying Tactics

'It's not Spying, it's data collection' {For Your Safety} -American Senators

is like saying

'It's not PeepingTom, It's Bathroom Maintenance' {For Your Safety}

-R. William Holzkopf Jr.
Director of the ACLU’s Privacy and Technology department Ben Wizener appeared on CNN to say “this is a good day for Edward Snowden.”
Wizener believes that yesterdays court ruling from a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush which challenged the NSA’s blanket data collection program is “what happens when important legal issues are decided in open courts, where both sides get to make legal arguments. Rather than in secret courts where the government alone gets to present arguments to a court. This is, I think, a good day for Edward Snowden. This is what he had in mind. He saw programs. He doubted their legality. He saw that the oversight mechanisms had failed. That secret courts had become a rubber stamp. That congressional committees had been enabling rather than, than actually exercising oversight. And so he brought the information to the public through journalists and he brought it to the lawyers who brought this case.”
“American Senators tell us that Brazil should not worry, because this is not ‘surveillance,’ it’s ‘data collection.’ They say it is done to keep you safe. They’re wrong. There is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement — where individuals are targeted based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion — and these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever. These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.”

With Reckless Abandon: U.S. aids hardline Islamists

I'm afraid not many will truly understand this at all, and how it will affect us.

There is a war for power and the balance is shifting incredibly close to the side that supports Rights restriction and things that look very much like forms of slavery.

This is not to say Russia is the 'Golden Savior', however Russia is the blockade that helps maintain the balance of sanity in the World currently (Irony served mainly to Americans), whatever sanity remains.

If Russia falls so does the rest of the World.

America fell a long time ago and we are currently reaping what has been sewn.

"The Islamic Front includes the Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Haqq, Ansar al-Sham, and the Kurdish Islamic Front. Jaish al-Islam, or Army of Islam, is itself a coalition of mercenary groups funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Although the front reportedly excluded al-Nusra and the al-Qaeda inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS), it shares a radical jihadist ideology.
Jaysh al-Islam, formerly known as Liwa al-Islam or the Islam Brigade, is supported by Saudi Arabia and has cooperated with al-Nusra, the most successful and vicious fighting group in Syria that has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. This collaboration is left unmentioned in corporate media reports on the new Islamic alliance." -infowars
"U.S. Moves to Support Al-Qaeda Lite in Syria. Islamic Front shares same violent jihadist ideology as al-Qaeda." -Alex Jones

Friday, December 13, 2013

EU claims Oreos as addictive as Cocaine

"When you eat refined processed sugars, they trigger production of your brain’s natural opioids — a key ingredient in the addiction process. Your brain essentially becomes addicted to stimulating the release of its own opioids as it would to morphine or heroin."

Read more @

Cooking Splenda (Sucralose) produces Dioxins

"The discovery that thermal breakdown through cooking can lead to the formation of highly toxic and equally persistent chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, should raise a series of red flags for consumers, manufacturers and regulators as the information becomes more widespread. A cursory perusal of the World Health Organization’s description of ‘Dioxins and their effects on human health,’ which lists it as belonging to the “dirty dozen” of the world’s most dangerous pollutants, will see what is at stake here."

A new, in-depth review on the synthetic sweetener sucralose (marketed as Splenda), published in the journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, is destined to overturn widely held misconceptions about the purported safety of this ubiquitous artificial sweetener.
Found in tens of thousands of products and used by millions of consumers around the world, sucralose’s unique ability to dissolve in alcohol and methanol as well as water, makes it the most versatile and therefore most widely used artificial sweetener in production today. And yet, its popularity is no indication nor guarantee of its safety, as is evidenced by the widespread use of other artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which while being safety approved in 90 nations around the world, has been linked to a wide range of serious health conditions including brain damage.

To big to Fail; Obamacare the ACA!

"When people become apologists for a fatally flawed system, they tend to put defense of that system above the welfare of its victims."

"“The only way to ensure the participation of the young invincibles is to strengthen the mandate by making the opt-out tax as costly as buying insurance.” Got that, healthy young people? If you think Obamacare is not for you, Akhilesh Pathipati wants to jack up your fine, big time." -K. Lloyd Billingsley

This isn't choice people. 
This is Forced acceptance. 
This is Totalitarian and only a people who are not free get ultimatums and forced measures put upon them by their own Elected officials!

Wake up and smell the Tyranny.

Before it's too late!

Below text written by K. Lloyd Billingsley of

As we have noted, Obamacare violates medical ethics by first doing harm. In the early going, in violation of repeated presidential promises, Obamacare stripped many embattled Americans of the health plans they had selected. This pushed them toward the dysfunctional and insecure Obamacare website, where they would get the news about higher premiums and bigger deductibles. Even on December 1 key parts of the website were not even built, so those who “enrolled” might find on January 1 that they don’t have insurance after all. The doctors people were told they could keep are fleeing the system. That is quite a record of damage, but one Obamacare enthusiast wants the system to be even more punitive.
Akhilesh Pathipati is a Stanford medical student who has “worked on health initiatives in Massachusetts and California,” according to his author line in this Sacramento Bee piece. Obamacare “has had its share of well-publicized struggles,” he writes, “but it’s only a matter of time before the website glitches are gone.” Further, “the flaw in an otherwise straightforward design is a weak individual mandate.”
“Young people like me are the linchpin to making health care reform successful,” he says. But without their participation, “more gets paid out than gets paid in so premiums rise, and the system falls apart.” If the young and healthy “invincibles” determine that the costs are too high and decline to participate, Obamacare punishes them with a fine. As Pathipati has it, if a young man earning $40,000 a year declines even the cheapest plan, “opting out would only cost him a $300 tax penalty.” The Stanford medical student has the answer.
“The only way to ensure the participation of the young invincibles is to strengthen the mandate by making the opt-out tax as costly as buying insurance.” Got that, healthy young people? If you think Obamacare is not for you, Akhilesh Pathipati wants to jack up your fine, big time.
Pathipati acknowledges that young people are not signing up in sufficient numbers, and the prospect of stiffer fines is unlikely to make them do so. But young and old alike can learn a lesson here. When people become apologists for a fatally flawed system, they tend to put defense of that system above the welfare of its victims. Medical student Akhilesh Pathipati has yet to learn that if a treatment harms the patient one should stop the treatment.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Cop shoots 23 Year Old Unarmed Student

Cop Kills Unarmed Student

Honor Student shot and killed by Campus Police Officer after traffic stop on Friday December 6th, 2013 as reported by KSAT.

Robert Cameron Redus, 23, was a communication arts major from Baytown set to graduate in May, according to Debra del Toro, UIW spokeswoman.
The Officer unloaded his weapon into the Student...
“I didn’t hear him say anything like, ‘Get down on your hands and knees,’ you know? I didn’t hear him say anything. He just started shooting,” one witness said. “He emptied the gun on him… Boom, boom, boom.Six shots — five or six.”
Another witness, Mohammad Haidarasl, says that Redus’ last words were “Oh, you’re gonna shoot me?” said to Carter in a sarcastic off-handed tone. Haidarasl added that he heard the officer saying “Stop resisting, stop resisting.”
What has gotten into our Police force when they just start shooting unarmed Citizens!?
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Other Incidences:

19 year old killed by Police when Father Tries to prevent him from buying cigarettes.
13 year old with toy rifle killed by police.
22 year old man killed by police because he called the Officer a 'Bitch'.
52 year old man who had medical problems but was no threat and was standing still when killed.
Police shooting at a Minivan full of Kids, no death but no excuse.

Edit [12.15.2013]
17-year-old Jesus Huerta
"So this teen shot himself in the head...while in custody in a police cruiser...with his hands cuffed behind his back...I must say, I'm just a little bit skeptical." Libertarian Girl

Friday, December 06, 2013

Pope Francis A Deceiver?

Hey MORON's!

It's NOT Capitalism!!! It's the Socialist Take over of Capitalism!!!
And this happened before even I was born, it just became more visible in the past decade.

I'm not saying, the whole World couldn't use a dose of [Wake The F- Up!], and pursue time tested items like Charitable organizations instead of Government Welfare. One Worked amazingly well, the other is in utter failure.

I'm not saying that a One World Government (In a PERFECT UNIVERSE), might have a positive effect, wherein Citizens remained Sovereign, and Religion did not dictate our Politics and Methodology, but Common Sense and Logic did. However, the people and Groups currently vying for control, have nothing, absolutely nothing in the rest of the Worlds best interest; and they have become bold in that they announce it every chance they get like Bullies on street corners threatening you for your lunch money.

I'm not saying Pope Benedict is wrong when he says we need to level the playing field... but the problem is not with Capitalism, it is the Socialist and Socialist policies around the World that have over the years and more so in recent time infiltrated and twisted a system that made the West Prosperous and created the Largest ever wealthy Middle Class in history, where even the poor, had a roof, clothes and food, (At least in the United States for a time).

If anyone is selling you on how bad capitalism is, the off chance they are some kind of Socialist or closet Socialist is high. Socialism is one word to describe a whole entity of groups of similar foundation and process, of which is called Collectivism. Under Collectivism you have Socialism, Fascism, Communism and others.

Collectivists antipathy is Capitalism, and hate any method that makes progress and gives individuals freedom. Collectivism preaches Equality but in the end is always run by a few power hungry and greedy individuals who subjugate the rest, by creating dividing the people against each other, while raking in property and wealth from those that follow them and those that don't. The followers initially give up their rights and wealth by choice thinking its for the greater good. The Non-followers are forced to, and in historical cases and even in some places in the world just plain out killed for what they have.

Capitalism in basic, is 'to the best persons the Spoils' and many people have the ability to gain such things. Those that don't, either haven't tried or just don't have a knack for it (sorry, not everyone can be a Doctor, even with all the education possible). The intelligent thing to do is find an area you are good in (Aptitude and Skills tests), and put your focus and effort into that.

Some people that are attracted to Collectivism are those who want something for nothing. Yes it is possible to have truly free and excellent Health care for example, however that requires completely changing our paradigm on how we operate in terms of buying and selling, manufacturing and trading, and so on.

This will never happen though, at least for the moment since too many powerful people, who are given power by everyone else in one way or another. Believe that pieces of rock and metal have financial wealth, and pieces of paper based on the concept that because someone [says so], a piece of paper now has an arbitrary amount of value without the backing of a physical object like let's say Gold or Silver or even Platinum.

Many of the powerful people in the World have acquired most of the Gold Silver and Platinum, so they create 'Fiat' monetary systems so now they can have wealth that is created out of thin air. Need more money.. just print it, adjust numbers and play with speculation to keep prices reasonable to the amount people earn, so that inflation doesn't go wildly out of control. The inflation is debt, it is passed on to the non-wealthy so that the powerful can become more wealthy and powerful.

This in turn is used against us that don't understand simple concepts like wealth, property and how they apply to a Sovereign Individual and a system of economics.

So we are told lease this, and credit this while not being taught how to properly manage our finances (Part purposeful intent and part self-infliction), We Mortgage to affect our credit instead of saving and buying outright. our Inflation goes up because some idiot printed more money, but in fact that idiot is smarter than us because He holds the keys to our wealth, and most of what we own is debt because we gave Him much of the wealth we have, because we didn't own items outright.

So the Talking Heads blame the Rich, the Rich Blame the Rich, the poor are enticed, they are incited to riot, to hate the rich, to hate the middle class, as the Middle class hates the rich and the poor.

The Middle Class:
The Rich; because if a middle class person goes out of there tax bracket into the higher one by $1.00 they now pay much more heavily in taxes than the probably should.
The Poor; because many are on Welfare and the middle class is taxed heavily for that as well.

The Poor:
The Rich; because they have more money than they know what to do with, because they can afford to be extra charitable, because they are in a position that the rest are not. Even if they worked for it.
The Middle Class; similar arguments.

The Rich:
The Rich; Seems like a shell game, but their are varying levels of being "Rich". The very powerful rich are not 'seemingly' affected by laws and bills and such that would affect the "New" Rich or Less wealthy Rich, so inciting the public against their Rich counterparts gains them Wealth and power.
The Poor; because they are a burden on society, they are uneducated, they are a disease.
The Middle Class; because these people have the ability to become Rich and that would take away the Wealth for those who already have it.

Collectivism starts by making Big wide promises that sound good in theory but to implement are impossible under the current paradigm. Then it makes the former system look bad by instituting changes that are sold to help people, but end up doing the opposite. The people become angry because now they cannot put food on the table and their losing their house, or their vehicle, or they can no longer buy clothes for themselves or their kids.

Collectivism, then shows how bad the former system is and how good it's system will be. People just want to eat, have their homes back and be clothed so logic with common sense and intelligence go out the window for anything that will change their circumstance (whether through fault of their own or not).

Then Collectivism engineers financial crisis's and eventually monetary collapse all while using leaders who people thought where linked to the former system but in actuality where either bought by the Collectivists or for whatever deranged reason actually believed in their tenets.

After everything is in ruins, and possibly after a civil uprising (that could cause many deaths), While everyone is in a rage and blaming each other the Collectivist comes in and offers a solution, usually one that points a finger at any group but their own. and offers a new Monetary system (Still based on the old but dressed up in fancy new lingo), and promises a plate of food in every home, a bed for every head if you will just give us your unconditional surrender, they will make all this happen.

I look at the Soviet Union, I look at Nationalist Germany, I look at Cambodia and much of Africa. I look at China. How anyone with a brain can not see the utter failure of Collectivisms support of the people, how the common people suffer and become mostly uneducated. How the few dictate everything, no matter how ludicrous and irresponsible and dangerous. How their is no respect for decency or life.

And then claim that the only thing that made the vast majority of common people Wealthy and free in the Modern World for the FIRST TIME EVER in recorded history is the issue.

No! The issue is the usurpation and commandeering of the ship we call Capitalism and it's utter destruction from the inside out by the very people saying it is bad.

We could very well wake up one day to find ourselves in a concentration camp, or worse!

Hippies had one thing right, Everyone should be free and happy. However to maintain such a thing people need to defend such a thing against all forms of tyranny.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -POGO

Cops shoot at young calf

WTF is this!???

'When Criminals are our Saints and the Law our Demons, a sad World we live indeed.' -RWHjr.

Warning: Graphic In Nature

*This is from 2012

Thursday, December 05, 2013

The ACA (Obamacare) Woe be upon those who have to support everyone else

End Result:

The Why:

The How:

Not enough 'Young' people are signing up for the ACA (Obamacare), this is an issue for Obama the ACA government supporters and the IRS. WHY you ask?
Because Young people statistically are healthier (Reason for forcing people by mandate to have the ACA), Many in theory would pay the higher rates which one would need to get the appropriate amount of health coverage if ever needed.

With out all these Young working class people paying exorbitant rates, to cover all the 'Unhealthy' (Many older persons, over the age of 45+), the system could very well collapse by weight alone.

Also, People considered in the older category will be counseled on changes so that their coverage can be minimized, especially the most 'at risk' patients.

And the Nugget in the box no one seems to be talking about; people 75 years of age and older will get "End of Life Counseling", meaning if you are 75+ you do not get Health insurance, you are either healthy or you die. This is tantamount to Euthanasia!

A large majority of Americans especially the 45+ and 'At Risk' persons, have gotten Insurance cancellations because their insurance plans don't meet the Governments idea of Health coverage.. so many who need excellent care will have to down grade and those who need no care will have to divvy up.

Obama ended up extending the time frame for ACA sign up, may have been because his approval rating dropped to 9%, but I'm sure angry Americans of all colors who realized that the "promises" Obama and his talking heads fed them to win votes, where empty, might have been another.

It's hard to see exactly what manner  of reaction Obama and his groupies were going for, since their is so much duplicity abound.

"Free" Healthcare is always a nice Utopian idea, until one realizes (if it ever occurs to them at all), that someone still has to pay for it in the end.

The only way to supply it here Stateside would be to force every Citizen to do just that so that every Citizen can get it.

And guess what, Forcing someone to pay for something is NOT free by any means. Free-Gratis, means getting something for 'Absolutely' Nothing.

So how is "Universal Health Care" or the ACA (Obamacare), Free?
It is not!
It is a Tax! A Tax on Healthcare, passed on to Each Citizen, Well each Citizen that Works and is not wholly on Welfare, that is. Though some of our taxes are already paying for that as well!

What happens when more people are on the Welfare system than working to fund it?

It is really simple math.

If you have 15 people; 5 of which are working and getting taxes taken out for Welfare and other Government Programs. Plus paying (getting taxed) by force to fund a "Free" healthcare system.

And, you have 10 people on Welfare and not working, which allows them to get that said Healthcare for free.

At what point would any of the 5 working people forgo their jobs to gain free healthcare?

{This does not include those who work minimally and are on some welfare programs but not all. Many of these people will eventually figure out it is easier and cheaper to not work and try their hand at full Welfare, so as to not have to pay the costs for nonworking welfare recipients.}

This is an extreme postulation, but plausible.
Too many people are spouting rhetoric they do not understand, because Joe Schmoe and Lucy Ducey and their Fav Political Leader said so!

Yet as they spout what they don't understand as veritable and indisputable, not one has actually read the whole 5000 + page Healthcare Bill, or seen and talked to Pharmacists who just throw up their hands because the Government State or Federal are not paying their bills for the pills that people are being subscribed.

Smaller Pharmacy's are either going out of business or going into or completely going into [Compounding] (
Have fun everyone, what's in your wallet!?