A
Compendiium of Various Official Lies, Business Scandals, Small
Murders, Frauds, and Other Gross Defects of Our Current Political,
Business and Religious Moral Lepers.
Presenting a new magazine that contains material that is not found
elsewhere and is very difficult to post on the Internet. The
‘Voice of the White House’ will appear in each issue containing
material not found on TBR News for very obvious reasons.This
publication will appear once a week, on Wednesday, every week, will
be ten pages in length and is available by subscription only. The
price is $5.00 a month and can be paid via PayPal or by check, sent
to ‘Morris Productions, 3015 E. New York St. Ste A2-190, Aurora,
Il 60504.’ If you don’t like it, and Bush supporters can read
the Drudge Report for free, you can cancel at any time.
TBR Ebooks
Civil
insurrection in America and government countermeasures: The official
papers
By
Bradley Moscrip
An
in-depth study of official American plans to construct FEMA
detention centers in America and specific recent U.S. Army domestic
counterinsurgency plans. Here is a sampling of the ebook contents:
Gun
Control by Confiscation
As the American general population is known to be
the most heavily armed in the world, immediately upon the
declaration of Martial Law and the execution by the military of
counterinsurgency programs, it has been determined that the BATF,
will begin the process of rounding up all rifles, pistols and
so-called assault weaponry from the civil population. Lists of gun
collectors obtained from firearms dealers, gun magazine subscription
lists and other sources will be the basis for these mass
confiscations. Gun owners will be supplied documentation by the BATF
showing which pieces have been confiscated so that in the future,
they will be told, they can recover their weapons when the state of
emergency has passed. In actuality, weapons that do not have a high
value or are not suitable for arming loyalist police forces, will be
destroyed by order
This
study is available from tbrnews at$5.00
by PayPal
The
Voice of the White House
Washington,
D.C., October 14, 2009: “I have been in and around Washington
politics for twenty five years, on and off, and I have never seen
such completely crazy actions on the part of either Republicans or
Democrats. The screeching rage on the part of the disenfranchised
GOP that is resulting in mindless, hysterical attacks on anyone and
everyone that gets in their sights would be highly entertaining if
it weren’t for the revolting spectacle it is presenting to the
entire world. This sort of filth slinging and hysteria might be fine
for the Knesset , or the Parliament in Taiwan but here is goes over
like a very dead cat in the fridge. The party of Abraham Lincoln is
now represented by utter lunatics like the mumbling and erratic
Palin, the bombastic racist like Limbaugh the dope addict and a
coven of shrieking “tea baggers” that show up everywhere,
yelling like drunken Irish at a wake. The difference is that the
Irish are intelligent and will sober up in the morning but the
‘tea baggers’ are stupid and beyond redemption. All of this
started when the defeated Republicans joined forces with an arrogant
“health care” and drug industry to block, by any means possible,
a health care bill that would do terrible damage to their bloated,
obscene profits. The needs of many Americans are of no interest
whatsoever to corrupt Congressmen, crooked lobbyists and greedy pill
merchants but they all apparently are totally unaware that like the
Emperor, they are wearing no clothes in public and are both the
objects of scorn, derision and ridicule. If ever a political party
and ideology can be said to have committed suicide, we are seeing a
classical example of it now. As for the insurance companies, the
government should take them over, jail their CEOs and start from
scratch.”
With
Western Europe heavily dependent on Russian oil and natural gas, the
newest pipelines suggested by Gazprom and other Russian state-ran
energy companies, which bypass Eastern European nations, appear
to be nothing more than good business.
The
three pipelines named Nord Stream, Nabucco, and South Stream, are
according to Gazprom representatives, being built to allow an
increase in flow of oil and natural gas to the EU in order to avoid
energy shortages.
Gazprom,
which supplies 28% of Europe's natural gas supply, says that the
projects are simply to increase supply output, since the North Sea
output has declined over the past couple of years.
Existing
pipelines run from Russia, through the former Soviet bloc states and
Poland, and from there to Germany and the rest of the EU.
These pipelines are vital to Eastern European nations as a source of
energy, and new fears are arising that Russia is simply building the
newest pipelines in order to isolate Eastern Europe from the West.
These
fears are not unfounded. The FOI, a Swedish Defense Ministry
research affiliate, in a recent report found that there have been at
least 55 direct politically linked, energy supply disruptions since
the fall of the Soviet Union. http://www2.foi.se/rapp/foir1984.pdf
Zbigniew
Siemiatkowski, a former head of Poland's security service has
been quoted as saying, "Yesterday tanks, today oil," when
questioned about the Nord Stream pipeline.
Thus,
the question stands, is Russia positioning itself to exert more
influence over Eastern Europe? There are certainly
reasons to worry, as it was not long ago that in an effort to exert
influence over the Ukrainian elections, that Russia cut-off the
natural gas and oil supply to the country. Such actions may
indeed be repeated, regardless of international opinion.
It
seems quite disturbing that in wake of the recent U.S. decision to
withdraw from the commitment of installing a ballistic missile
defense shield system, that the EU and other Western leaders are so
trusting of Russia. Poland, who long suffered under Soviet
Rule, has long maintained that Putin's government has ambitions of
retaking or at least controlling former Soviet satellite states.
One
must admit that when compared to past actions, such as the incursion
into Georgia, Russia may certainly be seen justly as a
threat to neighboring states. And as the current pipeline
system cannot be disrupted without interrupting flow to the EU,
it would indeed give Russia a strategic advantage over
Eastern Europe to have the ability to supply energy to the EU
directly.
The
situation has certainly driven a slight wedge between Eastern Europe
and the rest of the continent, as German officials have maintained
support for the project as progress in meeting energy demands of
Europe. Gazprom and Russian officials have dismissed Eastern
European fears as unfounded and backward, stating that “The wall
broke down 20 years ago,” and maintain that the project
is commercial not strategic.
In
the end, regardless of which side one takes in this
controversy, it would seem most prudent for the international
community to keep an eye on Russia's future dealings with Eastern
Europe. Though it maybe perhaps conspiratorial to ascribe
imperial aspirations to Russia this early, the fact that Russia
intends to build these new pipeline routes as well as were so
greatly disturbed with the U.S. missile defense shield plans in
Poland and the Czech Republic, that it seems cautionary
action to maintain a close watch is necessary.
Comment:
The
560 milelong
offshore section of the South Stream pipeline will run from the
Beregovaya station on theRussianBlack
Sea coast to Bulgaria's city of Varna
Because of the Russia–Ukraine
gas disputes, the pipeline is routed through Turkey's
waters to avoid the exclusive
economic zone of Ukraine.
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the
delineation of the course for laying of such pipelines on
continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal state(s)
From
Varna, in Bulgaria, the pipeline will run to Pleven.
From there, the southwestern route will continue through Greece
and Ionian
Sea to southern Italy. Greece has also proposed that the
southern pipe may also supply the Turkey-Greece-Italy
pipelineThe
northwestern pipeline will run from Pleven to Serbia. From
Serbia, , one branch continues through Hungary to Austria
ending atBaumgarten..
Another branch will run through Hungary and Slovenia
to Arnoldstein
in Austria near the Italian border to supply northern Italy.
South
Stream has been seen as diverting some gas exported through Ukraine,
instead of providing a new source of gas for Europe. At the same
time, a bigger part of the offshore route of South Stream is
expected to be laid through the continental shelf of Ukraine
Although Ukraine has limited opportunities to ban the project, the
laying pipeline on the continental shelf of Ukraine would require a
large-scale environmental impact assessment study and environmental
permits from Ukrainian authorities. There is speculation that
Ukraine will permit the construction of South Stream in exchange for
Russian permit to build the White
Stream offshore gas pipeline from Georgia
to Ukraine
WASHINGTON
- Just days after the Nobel committee in Oslo awarded United States
President Barack Obama its coveted peace prize, two of Washington's
most prominent foreign policy hawks launched a new group and ad
campaign designed to depict the president as weak and defend the
more aggressive policies of his predecessor, George W Bush.
The new group,
Keep America Safe, was co-founded by neo-conservative heavyweight
William Kristol, who also edits The Weekly Standard; and Elizabeth
(Liz) Cheney, the outspoken daughter of Bush's vice president, Dick
Cheney, who is believed to harbor political ambitions of her own.
"Amidst the great challenges to America's security
andprosperity, the current administration
too often seems uncertain, wishful, irresolute, and unwilling to
stand up for America, our allies
and our interests," according to the mission
statement of the new group, whose third founder-director,
Debra Burlingame, is also co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and
Strong America.
"Keep America Safe believes the United States can only
defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of
strength," the statement says.
"We know that America has, for 233 years, been an
unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces
are the best the world has ever known, and that the
world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies
and feared and respected by our enemies."
"Keep America Safe will make the case for an
unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for
victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human
rights, and for a strong American
military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we
live," it says.
The new group, which, under the rules of its incorporation,
will be permitted to lobby the US Congress and endorse political
candidates, will focus initially on raising money to help
disseminate its video ads, the first of which is currently featured
on its website.
"The left has dozens of organizations and tens of millions
of dollars dedicated to undercutting the war
on terror," Kristol told Politico on Tuesday. "The good
guys need some help, too."
Earlier this year, Kristol co-founded with his long-time
collaborator, Robert Kagan, another hawkish group, the
neo-conservative Foreign Policy
Initiative, which has published open letters urging Obama to promote
democracy in Russia, send tens of thousands more troops to
Afghanistan, and reassure Washington's Central European allies
about its defense commitment.
The two men were also co-founders and directors of the
Project for the New American
Century, a number of whose 1997 charter members, including the elder
Cheney, former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and their two top
aides - I Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Paul Wolfowitz,
respectively - played key roles in promoting the 2003 invasion of
Iraq and Bush's other first-term policies when the hawks exercised
their greatest influence.
Kristol and Cheney, who are also commentators for the
far-right Fox News, have been among the sharpest right-wing critics
of Obama's efforts to court foreign opinion, especially in Europe
and the Muslim world whose publics were most alienated by the Bush
administration's policies, according to public
opinion surveys.
They have been particularly scornful of the Nobel committee's
decision to honor Obama.
Cheney, a lawyer who headed the State Department's Middle
East democracy-promotion programs from 2002 to 2004 and is
reportedly considering running for congress next year, called the
award a "farce" and suggested that Obama send a
"mother of a fallen American soldier to
accept the prize on behalf of the US military ... to remind the
Nobel committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night
because the US military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the
world today".
Kristol called the committee "anti-American".
Like most other far-right and neo-conservative commentators,
they have tried to paint Obama's foreign
policy as designed to weaken and constrain US power in a dangerous
world by abandoning policies championed by Cheney's father, whose
memoirs she is reportedly helping to write.
"By turning away from the policies that have kept us
safe, by treating terrorism as a law-enforcement matter, giving
foreign terrorists the same rights as American
citizens, launching investigations of CIA [Central
Intelligence Agency] agents, cutting defense spending,
breaking faith with our allies
and attempting to appease our adversaries, the current administration
is weakening the nation, and making it more difficult for us to
defend our security and our interests," the new group's mission
statement reads.
The developing right-wing narrative against Obama has been
most comprehensively laid out by neo-conservative columnist Charles
Krauthammer, in an article entitled "Decline Is a Choice: The
New Liberalism and the End of American
Ascendancy" published this week by Kristol's Weekly Standard
and featured on the Keep America Safe website.
"The current foreign
policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction,"
according to the article, which goes on to argue that Obama's
acknowledgement in various major speeches that Washington's conduct
abroad has not always lived up to its principles "effectively
undermine[s] any moral claim that America might have to world
leadership".
"[T]he new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond
its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust and distaste for American
dominance," according to Krauthammer, an unabashed promoter of
global US dominance since 1990 when he penned a famous essay in
Foreign Affairs entitled "The Unipolar Moment".
"For what might be called the New Liberalism the
renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are
essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power - the old
Clintonian view - but rooted in the conviction that America is so
intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it
cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of
overarching world power."
Under Obama, Washington is engaged in "strategic
retreat", according to Krauthammer.
He cites as evidence, among other things, the
administration's abandonment of the phrase "global war
on terror"; the "unilateral abrogation" of
missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic;
"indecision on Afghanistan"; the failure to treat Iraq as
a "prize ... of great strategic significance that the administration
seems to have no intention of exploiting"; support for a "Chavista
caudillo" in Honduras; and "heavy and gratuitous America
pressure on Israel".
The notion that such measures, which he sees as futile
efforts to regain the moral high ground, will "lead to
reciprocal gestures from the likes of Iran and North Korea is simply
childish".
"In a word, it is a foreign
policy designed to produce American decline - to
make America essentially one nation among many," a process
furthered by domestic policies that are social democratic and
European in their privileging of butter over guns, according to
Krauthammer.
"[W]hile globalization has produced in some the illusion
that human nature has changed, it has not," he went on.
"The international arena remains a Hobbesian state of nature in
which countries naturally strive for power ... Do we really want to
live under unknown, untested, shifting multipolarity? Or even worse,
under the gauzy internationalism of the New Liberalism with its
self-enforcing norms?"
The point was echoed by Cheney in her critique on Fox News of
the Nobel's decision.
"What the committee believes is, they'd like to live in
a world in which America's not dominant," she said. "They
may believe that President Obama also doesn't believe in American
dominance and they may have been trying to affirm that belief with
the prize. I think, unfortunately, they may be right, and I think
it's a concern."
Words
of wisdom from an American leader: “The United States must be
humble and must be proud and confident of our values but humble in
how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own
course.
“If
we are an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way but if we are
a humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
President
Barack Obama, the newly-minted winner of the Nobel Peace Prize,
speaking about U.S. engagement with the rest of the world, including
anti-American leaders? No, the exhortation for superpower humbleness
came from George W. Bush when he was running for president in 2000.
Whether
this was campaign rhetoric or conviction will never be known but if
it was the latter, it ended eight months into Bush’s first term.
The
word “humble” disappeared from Washington’s political lexicon
after the Sept. 11, 2001 mass murders in New York and Washington and
during the rest of Bush’s eight-year presidency, the United States
came to be seen, in large parts of the world, as the epitome of
superpower arrogance.
“Humble”
is back in fashion. Nine months into his first term, Obama told the
United Nations General Assembly he was “humbled by the
responsibility that the American people have placed upon me” and
determined to meet the challenge of collective action. Three weeks
later, he stood in the White House Rose Garden to say he was
“deeply humbled” by the Nobel Committee’s decision to give him
the Peace Prize.
But
like his predecessor, who was resented in much of the world, Obama
is running into foreign policy problems as resistant to humility and
the collective action the president often conjures as they were
resistant to Bush’s unilateral approach. Does Obama’s rock
star-like celebrity help?
So
far, not really. In Germany, for example, 93 percent of those polled
in a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project said they had
confidence the U.S. president would do the right thing in world
affairs. Would that translate into more German troops for the war in
Afghanistan which is unpopular in Germany? Not likely.
In
his speech to the United Nations, Obama pointed out that American
unilateral actions had fed “an almost reflexive anti-Americanism,
which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.”
While anti-Americanism may be on the wane in many parts of the
world, there is no sign of a corresponding increase of support for
U.S. foreign policy on key issues.
Nor
is there evidence of a wholesale decline in the tendency of a good
number of U.S. political figures to assume that people from other
countries think like Americans. That has been a perennial problem in
America’s dealings with the world. It was the reason, for example,
why the Bush administration was so surprised by the resounding 2006
electoral victory of Hamas, the Islamist group shunned as terrorists
by most of the West, in Gaza.
CONTRADICTION
IN TERMS?
More
recently, that’s why some in Washington were taken aback by the
angry reaction in Pakistan to a bill passed in Congress this month
that tripled U.S. assistance over the next five years. It was meant
as part of an effort to build a new relationship with Pakistan,
whose cooperation Washington needs to fight Taliban and al Qaeda
elements along the border with Afghanistan.
The
bill contained language on conditions tied to the tripled aid that
were seen by many Pakistanis as a humiliating violation of national
sovereignty and an affront to dignity, an issue particularly
sensitive in Pakistan, which is one of the few countries apparently
immune to Obama’s charm. (The Pew survey’s favorability rating
for the United States showed a drop from 19 percent in 2008 to a
dismal 16 percent in 2009).
What
seemed perfectly legitimate to lawmakers in Washington — no
disbursement of aid unless Pakistan demonstrated a “sustained
commitment” to crack down on terrorism — was seen as an insult
by the Pakistanis. Which raises the question whether a humble
superpower is a contradiction in terms.
Or
whether humility will impress the leaders Obama has to deal with if
he wants to succeed where Bush and other presidents failed - get
North Korea and Iran to drop their nuclear ambitions, persuade
Israel and the Palestinians to end their conflict, defang
international terrorists and last but not least, achieve his dream
of a nuclear-free world.
On
that, he sounded a somber note when he commented on his Nobel Peace
Prize: maybe not “in my lifetime.” Sobering detail: Obama is 48.
(You
can contact the author at Debusmann@reuters.com)
ED. Here
is an article that is sure to please some and infuriate others.
Regardless of how it is viewed, the facts are entirely correct.
With all the controversy raging over health-care
reform in the United States, we present a plan which is
superior to anything currently being discussed, a plan meeting
all optimal criteria, one whose soundness was demonstrated through practical
implementation in a very remarkable society.* As such, it
serves today as a model for white people everywhere.
No German
under Hitler had to worry about the expense of getting sick or
injured. Under National Socialism there was affordable,
noninflationary, universal health care.
No weaseling, chiseling HMOs. No welching under the
government of Adolf Hitler, which made the health and well-being of
its citizens a top priority!
German hospitals offered the finest care and had the most
modern equipment, surpassing that in the United States and other
Western countries.
Patients could choose their own doctor or hospital,
and even the poorest were assured full medical treatment.
They could stay up to one year in a hospital — with
a special allowance of pocket money! If medical
attention was required after that, one could stay on indefinitely,
with all expenses being covered by public health funds.
How did it work?
The German health-care program under Hitler was run
through something called the Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (AOK),
which translates roughly as General Local Medical Account.
Unlike the US Social Security or Medicare programs, which are subject
to the whims of irresponsible politicians, this was a dedicated
program, financed by modest payroll deductions and underwritten by a
sound, stable, debt-free economy.
When patients went to the hospital or to a doctor, there were no
charges or pocket-book biopsies. They got in free
— no questions asked, other than those pertaining to their
particular medical condition.
For those opting for private coverage, there were any number
of Ersatzkassen — supplementary accounts — from which
one might choose. These offered a few additional features but
did not cost much more than the basic AOK plan.
Under either the public or private plan, one could remain
in the hospital for up to a year, with provision for
longer stays as needed at no expense. No one
was dumped out in the street or forced to lose the family home
because he couldn't pay his medical bill.
The Third Reich program was so well managed and so popular,
that it has been kept by the postwar German regime up to
the present day.
How was this model program possible? Well, first
of all, as has been mentioned already, the health of
the German people was given top priority and placed ahead of
profit.
It is true that individuals should take personal
responsibility for their own health, and not rely on
government to rescue them from bad habits and physical
neglect. And no country was more advanced in taking
pro-active measures to encourage its citizens to adopt a healthy
lifestyle and stay physically fit than Hitler's Germany.
But even within a generally healthy population, there will be
times when illness and accidents do occur, something which no
responsible national community can overlook.
Secondly, under the National Socialist
system — unlike that of the American business model — no
sanction was given to parasites or profiteers. Ambulance-chasing lawyers
and the anti-social behavior of pharmaceutical and insurance
companies in gouging the public with obscene prices and
premiums — something perfectly acceptable under a
regime of laissez-faire liberal capitalism, such as we have
— was simply unheard of in Hitler's Germany.
Thirdly, with tuition-free higher
education in National Socialist Germany, doctors had no
need to charge exorbitant fees for their services — unlike
their American counterparts, who see this as the only way
to recoup the outlandish expense of medical college.
Fourthly, there was a cap on the cost of private
insurance and medicines.
Finally,
with both a public and private option, real competition was built
into the system, no one had to worry about losing his or her health
insurance, and everyone was happy.
Unfortunately, most Americans find something like this hard to
conceive of. They are used to living in a mixed-up,
interracial, dog-eat-dog society, in which it's everyone for
himself or herself. They tend to think of what is described
here as Utopian, because they are unable to make the fundamental
distinction between a system comprised of corrupt, prostitute
politicians committed to alien interests and one dedicated to the
greater good of the people and
The
caricature of 'socialized medicine' is used by corporate interests
to confuse Americans and maintain their bottom lines instead of
patients' health.
August
3, 2009
by
Michael M. Rachlis
Los
Angeles Times
Universal
health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time
since World War II. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose public coverage for
only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a
universal program for hospitals and physicians' services. As a
policy analyst, I know there are lessons to be learned from studying
the effect of different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as
a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am
saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.
Our
countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a
British heritage of representative government and now ownership of
GM. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems,
healthcare costs and vital statistics.
The
U.S.' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the
world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?
On
coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician
services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also
provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care,
pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are
co-pays.
On
the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are
underinsured and healthcare bills bankrupt more than 1 million
Americans every year.
Lesson
No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage
problems.
On
costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S.
spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion
per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost
entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands
of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care.
Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative
costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and
suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single
payer.
Lessons
No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative
costs and can negotiate lower prices.
Because
most of the difference in spending is for non-patient care,
Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more
often and take more drugs. We even have more lung transplant
surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we
are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly
three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20% lower.
Lesson
No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their
funding goes to services, not overhead.
The
Canadian system does have its problems, and these also provide
important lessons. Notwithstanding a few well-publicized and
misleading cases, Canadians needing urgent care get immediate
treatment. But we do wait too long for much elective care, including
appointments with family doctors and specialists and selected
surgical procedures. We also do a poor job managing chronic disease.
Heavy
infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance
Frustrated parents of a big infant who is being
denied insurance view the system as "absurd."
October
12, 2009
by
Nancy Lofholm
The
Denver Post
GRAND
JUNCTION — Alex Lange is a chubby, dimpled, healthy and happy
4-month-old.
But
in the cold, calculating numbered charts of insurance companies, he
is fat. That's why he is being turned down for health insurance. And
that's why he is a weighty symbol of a problem in the health care
reform debate.
Insurance
companies can turn down people with pre-existing conditions who
aren't covered in a group health care plan.
Alex's
pre-existing condition — "obesity" — makes him a
financial risk. Health insurance reform measures are trying to do
away with such denials that come from a process called
"underwriting."
"If
health care reform occurs, underwriting will go away. We do it
because everybody else in the industry does it," said Dr. Doug
Speedie, medical director at Rocky Mountain Health Plans, the
company that turned down Alex.
By
the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight
for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th
percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.
"I
could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4
months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet
or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange,
a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. "There is
just something absurd about denying an infant."
Bernie
and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with
Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their
rates 40 percent after Alex was born. They filled out the paperwork
and awaited approval, figuring their family is young and healthy.
But the broker who was helping them find new insurance called
Thursday with news that shocked them.
"
'Your baby is too fat,' she told me," Bernie said.
Up
until then, the Langes had been happy with Alex's healthy appetite
and prodigious weight gain. His pediatrician had never mentioned any
weight concerns about the baby they call their "happy little
chunky monkey."
His
2-year-old brother, Vincent, had been a colicky baby who had trouble
putting on pounds.
At
birth, Alex weighed a normal 8 1/4 pounds. On a diet of strictly
breast milk, his weight has more than doubled. He weighs about 17
pounds and is about 25 inches long.
"I'm
not going to withhold food to get him down below that number of
95," Kelli Lange said. "I'm not going to have him
screaming because he's hungry."
Speedie
said not many people seeking individual health insurance are turned
down because of weight. But it does happen. Some babies less hefty
than Alex have had to get health endorsements from their
pediatricians. Adults who have a body-mass index of 30 and above are
turned down because they are considered obese.
The
Langes, both slender, don't know where Alex's propensity for pounds
came from. Their other child is thin. No one in their families has a
weight problem.
The
Langes are counting on the fact that Alex will start shedding pounds
when he starts crawling. He is already a kinetic bundle of arm- and
leg-waving energy in a baby suit sized for a 9-month-old.
They
joked that when he is ready for solid food, they will start him on
Slim-Fast.
Meanwhile,
they made Alex's plight public on KKCO this week. They plan to
appeal Rocky Mountain's denial.
If
that doesn't work, they plan to take their case to the Colorado
Division of Insurance.
"My
gripe is not with Rocky Mountain," Bernie said. "It's with
the general state of the health care system."
BEIJING -- Sudden declines in China's imports and exports
show the country's economic slowdown is entering a new and more
serious phase, exacerbating the global slump while jolting Chinese
companies and workers used to years of soaring sales and salaries.
The surprising reversal adds to concerns over whether the
Chinese economy -- on track to surpass Germany this year as the
world's third-largest and the only one in the top tier still
expanding -- can help support growth and stave off deeper financial
pain elsewhere around the world.
China's customs agency said Wednesday that November's exports
fell 2.2% from a year earlier, the first decline since June 2001.
That marked a major shift from a 19.2% gain in October and a nearly
26% rise in 2007.
Imports suffered an even steeper drop, down 17.9% in October
from a year earlier. They had risen 15.6% in September and more than
20% last year. The import figure signals weakness in domestic
consumption, bad news for companies that export to China, and also
falling demand for manufacturing components -- which spells trouble
for China's future exports as well.
Chinese producers of low-end goods such as toys and textiles
have been struggling all year. But now, sales of higher-end
machinery and electronics are declining as the U.S. economy has
deteriorated sharply.
China is the third-largest export market for the U.S., and
has been a major buyer of commodities. But its imports of iron ore
fell 7.9% in November. Crude oil imports were down 1.8% to their
lowest level this year, contributing to weakening global oil demand.
"The most striking real economic fact of the past
several months is not continued U.S. economic weakness, but that
China's economy has slowed much more quickly than anyone had
forecast," Australia's central bank Governor Glenn Stevens said
this week.
Lo,
last week, when news of the Conservative Bible Project broke on
Twitter, the Tweeple rang out with sarcasm.
Progressives
fired off fake verses one might find rewritten by the "family
values'' fundamentalists behind Conservapedia, the so-called
"trustworthy'' online information source for all things
right-wing.
Verily
I say unto thee, these U.S. conservatives, led by Andy Schlafly,
begat by Phyllis Schlafly, best known for stopping the equal rights
for women amendment, consider modern translations of the Bible to
contain too much "liberal bias.''
For
example, the "economic parables'' aren't suffused with
sufficient – I kiddeth thee not – "full free-market
meaning.''
To
take that to its logical anti- socialist conclusion, when Jesus fed
those two little fishes and five loaves of bread to the multitude,
he should have charged the going market rate.
No
wonder the lefty-libs on Twitter launched their snark attacks.
"Let
my people GOP!''
"I
will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence I can see
Russia."
"Physician,
heal thyself. And your patients without insurance should heal
themselves, too."
"Suffer
the little `preborn' children to come unto me, and forbid them not
dominion of women's bodies."
Now,
you'd think that, considering all the fundamentalist keening and
wailing over, as many of them deem it, the abortion
"holocaust,'' the Bible has lots to say about the termination
of pregnancy.
But
it doth not, not according to some serious theological scholars.
In
fact, according to the Washington-based Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice, which has many papers published on its website,
one of the few places it is mentioned is Exodus 21:22-25 – and
even there, the pregnant woman is considered to have "greater
moral and religious worth than the fetus.''
Yes,
surprisingly, there are indeed people of faith who believe that
abortion is a choice "a woman must make for herself in keeping
with her faith, beliefs, conscience, and her own personal
situation."
Yet,
if you saw those "Life Chain'' demonstrators on street corners
all over town two Sundays ago, with signs equating abortion to
murder, you would think that religious groups have no regard at all
for women's lives, health, independence or, if you believe in that
sort of stuff, souls.
That
despite how Genesis 2:7 states: "Then the Lord God formed man
of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul."
Which
corresponds with Canada's legal definition of personhood, which
states, in much less florid language, that life begins after birth.
The
thing about so many of these anti-choicers is, while they profess to
be pro-life, most are doing little or nothing to ensure that no
child is born unwanted, or that women get the support they need if
they do go to term.
Such
as state-funded daycare.
Instead,
it's about taking women back to – conservative – Bible times.
How else to explain why they also advocate abstinence-only sex
education? Why not appeal to their church leaders to drop their
prohibitions against contraception?
In
fact, many of these groups insist that, if a woman has sex, she
should face the consequences – as if having a baby as punishment
is a good reason to be a mother.
As
for the woman, she doesn't matter.
According
to numbers released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, a
world-renowned research and policy institute on reproductive health,
every year, illegal abortions result in 70,000 deaths, with an
additional five million women getting treatment for complications
resulting from unsafe abortions.
Would
Jesus want that?
Oh
yes, say the Conservative Bible Project backers who insist that the
scriptures be rewritten to kill the "pervasive and hurtful myth
that Jesus would be a political liberal today.''
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Spc. Ross E. Vogel, III,
27, of Red Lion, Pa., died Sept. 29 in Kut, Iraq, of injuries
suffered from a non-combat related incident.He was assigned to the 67th Signal Battalion, 35th Signal
Brigade, Fort Gordon, Ga.
The
circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Staff Sgt. Alex French IV,
31, of Milledgeville, Ga., died Sept. 30 in Kwhost, Afghanistan, of
wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit using an
improvised-explosive device. He was assigned to the 1st
Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, Lawrenceville, Ga.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two
soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.They died Sept. 29 in Jolo Island, the Philippines, from the
detonation of an improvised-explosive device.The soldiers were assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Special
Forces Group, Fort Lewis, Wash.
Killed were:
Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw, 37, of Markham,
Ill.
Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, 26, of Bethany, Okla.
October
3, 2009
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Spc. Russell
S. Hercules Jr., 22 of Murfreesboro, Tenn., died Oct. 1 in
Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents
attacked his unit using small arms fireHe was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 101st
Aviation Regiment, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sgt. Ryan C. Adams, 26 of Rhinelander, Wisc., died
Oct. 2 in Logar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy
forces attacked his vehicle using rocket-propelled grenade fire. He
was assigned to the 951st Engineer Company (Sapper), Wisconsin Army
National Guard, Rhinelander, Wisc.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sgt. Roberto D. Sanchez, 24 of Satellite Beach, Fla.,
died Oct. 1 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered
when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive
device.He was assigned
to the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment,
Hunter Army Airfield Ga.
October
4, 2009
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two
soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.They died Oct. 2 in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of injuries
sustained when enemy forces attacked their unit using small arms
fire.
Killed
were:
Sgt.
Aaron M. Smith,
25, of Manhattan, Kan. He was assigned to the 2nd
Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade
Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry),
Fort Drum, N.Y.
Pfc.
Brandon A. Owens,
21, of Memphis, Tenn. He was assigned to the 118th
Military Police Company, 503rd Military Police Battalion,
16th Military Police Brigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort
Bragg, N.C.
October
5, 2009
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Staff
Sgt. Thomas D. Rabjohn,
39, of Litchfield Park, Ariz., died Oct. 3 in Wardak province,
Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device
detonated during an attempt to disarm it.He was assigned to the 363rd Explosive Ordnance Detachment,
Coolidge, Ariz.
The
Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was
supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Spc.
Paul E. Andersen, 49, of Dowagiac, Mich., died Oct. 1 in
Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his
camp using indirect fire. He was assigned to the 855th
Quartermaster Company, South Bend, Ind.
October 7, 2009
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who
was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Maj. Tad T. Hervas, 48, of Coon Rapids, Minn., died Oct. 6 at
Contingency Operating Base Basra, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a
non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 34th
Infantry Division, Rosemont, Minn.
The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of eight
soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.They died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered
when enemy forces attacked their contingency outpost with small
arms, rocket-propelled grenade and indirect fires. They were
assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade
Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
Killed
were:
Staff
Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, 25 of Savannah, Ga.
Sgt.
Justin T. Gallegos, 27, of Tucson, Ariz.
Sgt.
Joshua M. Hardt, 24, of Applegate, Calif.
Sgt.
Joshua J. Kirk, 30, of South Portland, Maine.
Sgt.
Michael P. Scusa, 22, of Villas, N.J.
Spc.
Christopher T. Griffin, 24, of Kincheloe, Mich.
Spc.
Stephan L. Mace, 21, of Lovettsville, Va.
Pfc.
Kevin C. Thomson, 22, of Reno, Nev.
The
Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was
supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Spc. Kevin O. Hill, 23, of Brooklyn, N.Y., died Oct. 4 at
Contingency Outpost Dehanna, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when
enemy forces attacked his unit using small arms and indirect fires. He
was assigned to the 576th Mobility Augmentation Company, Fort
Carson, Colo.
Army
Releases September Suicide Data
The Army today released suicide data for the month of
September.Among active-duty soldiers, there were seven potential
suicides.One has been
confirmed as a suicide, and six are pending determination of the
manner of death.For
August, the Army reported 11 potential suicides among active-duty
soldiers.Since the
release of that report, four have been confirmed as suicides and
seven remain under investigation.
There were 117 reported active-duty Army suicides from
January 2009 through September 2009.Of those, 81 have been confirmed, and 36 are pending
determination of manner of death.For the same period in 2008, there were 103 suicides among
active-duty soldiers.
During September 2009, among reserve component soldiers who
were not on active duty, there were seven potential suicides.Among that same group, from January 2009 through September
2009, there were 35 confirmed suicides.Twenty-five potential suicides are currently under
investigation to determine the manner of death.For the same period in 2008, there were 40 suicides among
reserve soldiers who were not on active duty.
Over the past year, the Army has engaged in a sustained
effort to reduce the rate of suicide within its ranks.This effort has included an Army-wide suicide prevention
stand-down and chain teach for every soldier; the implementation of
the Army Campaign Plan for Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and
Suicide Prevention; the establishment of both a Suicide Prevention
Task Force and Suicide Prevention Council; a long-term partnership
with the National Institute of Mental Health to carry out the
largest ever study of suicide and behavioral health among military
personnel; and more than 160 specific improvements to Army suicide
prevention policies, doctrine, training and resources.
“Whether it’s additional resources, improved training or
ensuring those in our Army community can readily identify the
warning signs of suicidal behavior, all our efforts often come down
to one soldier caring enough about another soldier to step in when
they see something wrong, “ said Brig. Gen. Colleen McGuire,
Director, Army Suicide Prevention Task Force.“Soldiers will be willing to do that if they know help is
available, if they believe there is no stigma attached to asking for
that help, and if they are certain that Army leaders remain
absolutely committed to the resiliency of our entire Army Family.”
Soldiers and families in need of crisis assistance can
contact Military OneSource or the Defense Center of Excellence (DCOE)
for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Outreach Center.Trained consultants are available from both organizations 24
hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
The Military OneSource toll-free number for those residing in
the continental U.S. is 1-800-342-9647,
their Web site address is http://www.militaryonesource.com.
Overseas personnel should refer to the Military OneSource Web
site for dialing instructions for their specific location.
The DCOE Outreach Center can be contacted at 1-866-966-1020,
via electronic mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org
and at http://www.dcoe.health.mil
.
The
Army's most current suicide prevention information is located at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/default.asp
.
October
9. 2009
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sgt. 1st Class Kenneth W. Westbrook, 41, of Shiprock, N.M.,
died Oct. 7 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.,
of wounds suffered Sept. 8 when insurgents attacked his unit in the
Ganjigal Valley, Afghanistan, using small arms and indirect fire. He
was assigned to the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley,
Kan.
October
12, 2009
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Spc. George W. Cauley, 24, of Walker, Minn., died Oct. 10 in
Bagram, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his
vehicle with an improvised explosive device on Oct. 7 in Helmand
province. He was assigned to the 114th Truck Company of the
Minnesota Army National Guard in Duluth, Minn.
October
13, 2009-
The
Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was
supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Lance
Cpl. Alfonso Ochoa Jr.,
20, of Armona, Calif., died Oct. 10 while supporting combat
operations in Farah province, Afghanistan.He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd
Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine
Corps Base Hawaii,
Kaneohe Bay.
The
Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was
supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Staff
Sgt. Aaron J. Taylor, 27, of Bovey, Minn., died Oct. 9 while supporting combat
operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.He was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 372, Marine
Wing Support Group 37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.
