Health Care in 2010

Health Care is a very important issue in American society. It was a historic moment since the House passed the health care reform bill possibly to be signed by President Barack Obama in the first time in American history. Health care reform should exist in America. America has serious problem in terms of quality of life, people are dying, and premiums are massively expensive. The neo cons say that most Americans are satisfied with their insurance. I wonder if they would say that to those that are suffering to pay their bills. Even my health care insurance is increasing greatly and my insurance was once not that expensive. Some have to pay $500 a month for their insurance, which is hugely expensive. Some neo cons are right that we should have the right kind of health care reform though. The extremes of allowing the government have control over every aspect of health care is wrong and the other extreme of doing nothing (or let private Big Pharma control or HMOs to rule all of our health care without any type of oversight. We know the wicked history of some of the acts of Big Pharma) is wrong as well. The truth from a fair perspective is that Obama's health care bill has legitimate provisions in it, but it isn't perfect either. The bill passed in a 219-212 vote after more than a year of bitter partisan debate. All 178 Republicans opposed it, along with 34 Democrats. The plan will cost about $950 billion dollars for 10 years (the revenue to pay for it will be Medicare taxes going up on high income people according to CNN). Most of it will effect small businesses in 2014. The bill wants small businesses to offer its workers health care or be in risk of paying a fine. The bill will not make cancel health care benefits unto its workers. The proponents of this bill claim that it will extend health care insurance to 32 million Americans, protect people with preexisting conditions from being discriminated against to not recieve adequate health care, decrease the deficit, and allow choices. The critics of the bill believe that this bill will increase the deficit, covertly fund abortions, some of it is unconstitutional, and it's one step towards a government takeover of all health care. A lot of the Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn, and other were joyful and celebrating this result. The reality is that this bill isn't a government takeover per se, but the bill isn't perfect either. Regardless of what happen, health care reform should exist in this country. That is what people from across the political spectrum subscribe to indeed. People from across the political spectrum can agree to oversight in the insurance industry, getting health care from across state lines easily, and fighting against fraud plus waste in our health care. The health care debate last night was intense with Stupak being called a baby killer and Congress people called slurs, because of their views. That was wrong of course. The health care bill mentions that it bans publicly funded abortions and Obama signed an executive order forbidding public funding of abortion too. You can make up your mind if you agree with this health care bill or not. Health care isn't a whim that should be possessed solely by the few. Health care certainly has the right to be made avaliable among the whole human race not only in America, but throughout the world. A civilized society truly should have a better health care system than what we have in the USA.




Terrorism is an important issue to find about. The synagogue bomb plot is found to be directed by the federal government. Defense attorney believe that the aleged plot to bomb New York synagogues was hatched and directed by a federal informant. The lawyers for 4 men from Newburgh want to have a motiton to dismiss the terror indictment against them. They said that the informat badgered the defendants until they got involved in the plot. They beleive that the informant chose the targests, supplied fake bombs for the synagouges and a fake missile to shoot down planes. The motion said that he also offered to pay the defendants, who attorneys alleged weren't inclined toward any crime until the informant began recruiting them. The government well knew that their case had been a government-inspired creation from day one and that defendants had not been independently seeking weapons or targets. One patsy in this affair is David Williams. The FBI promised to give his brother a liver transplant if he joined a government created al-Qaeda group. This is common in federal cases where the FBI ferrets out patsies and those with mental health issues (in order to frame them in promoting the manufactured war on terror). This also achieve to try to convince Americans to surrender their constitutional rights (including telign on their neighbors, endure surveilance, and unquestionngly support foreign wars responsible for killing millions of people). The defendants in the New Jersey Fort Dix Army terror case painted a similar picture to the one in New York. “The only terrorist conspiracy was one planted and nurtured by the informant,” declared defense attorney Rocco Cip during the trial. The FBI’s role in the case was admitted by a provocateur. “The FBI informant paid to infiltrate a band of suspected terrorists in South Jersey said yesterday that he offered to organize their attack on U.S. soldiers, but only because he wanted to build trust and find out more about the group,” the Star-Ledger reported on November 11, 2008. In Miami, the FBI case against the so-called Miami Seven came apart at the seams when it was discovered a government provocateu provided money, video cameras for conducting surveillance, cellphones and suggested that the patsies target the Miami FBI office. During the trial in 2006, it came out that Narseal Batiste (or the supposed ringleader) had not met with an actual terrorist or did he recieve emails or write transfers from the Middle East. He didn't posses any al-Qaeda literature or even have a picture of Osama bin Laden according to the Washington Post. Terence Kindlon is a defence lawyer who represented a client in the New York synagogue case told the Times Online that the whole operation was a foolish waste of time and money. It as revealed in 2009 that the FBI informant provocateur in tthe base was a man named Shaded Hussain. He was a former New York state motel owner who became a FBI informant in 2002 to avoid deportation to Pakistan after being arrested on fraud charges. Hussain and the FBI were so desperate to fabricate a cse that they promised a liver transplant for the terminally ill brother of David Williams (he's one of the men standing trial according to the New York Daily News). The FBI for years have used CONTELPRO in using dirty tricks to entrap and discredit Americans. This involved harrassment or protect organizations like civil rights and anti-war movement (with agent provocateurs). According to Dnaiel Brandt, there were planted stories in the media, informants, trumped up charges, etc. that the anti-war activists didn't realize at the time. COINTELPRO didn't even in the 1960's even after these misdeeds (including the evil actions done by the CIA, the Pentagon, and local law enforcement agencies around the USA) were uncovered in the 1970's. Governmetn subversion of political disssent and COINTELPRO like acts is common today. Hal Turner is a FBI agent with the code name of Valhalla. “he received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on such groups as the Aryan Nations and the white supremacist National Alliance,” according to news accounts. The Department of Homeland Security, working closely with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, has attempted to conflate white supremacy and the growing patriot movement in the United States. The new revelations about the New York synagogue bombing case prove that the government will go to extreme lengths to create phony terror threats and frame patsies. Propaganda about al-Qaeda and Muslim extremism is the order of today in the 21st century. Now, the corporate media (in league with the CIA and the Pentagon) are demonizing patriots as equivalent to terrorism. Some even in the media want to compare the Oath Keepers to radical extremists. Some people in the Tea Party movement have been collectively called racists, because of the action of a few racists. Even thought, racism in any form ought to be completely rjeected. It doesn't matter show does it. Muslims, Christians, and other groups of people are demonizing people left and right. So, we should call for the reformation of government rejecting the evil occuring in this government.



Richard Nixon have done more crime and dirt than some realize. It's a known fact that Nixon tried to scuttle President Lyndon Johnson's 1968 peace talks. Even LBJ called Nixon's error in this regard as despicable. This is just as evil as Watergate and Nixon's Mafia's ties. There is a newley released Johnson phone call to Seantor Everett Dirksen just before the November 1968 election. The Seantor GOP leader Dirksen agreed with LBJ calling Nixon's actions as treason and pledged to call his party's Presidential candidate on the carpet on it. President Johnson scolded Nixon and Nixon denied that his actions were to sabotage President Johnson's efforts to end the war. Nixon and his staffers burst into loud and sustained laughter after Nixon had a conversation on the issue. LBJ accused Nixon of using a pro-China agent named Anna Chennault to allow South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu to hold out until after the election. LBJ knew about NSA intercepts, the FBI wiretaps, and CIA bugs that knew about Nixon. Later, after Dirksen had absorbed more of LBJ's report on Nixon's perfidy, Dirksen said, "I'd better get in touch with him, I think." In mid 1971, President Nixon was told by Bob Halderman about President Johnson's Vietnam filed (like the decision behind LBJ's pre-election bombing halt). These files were in the Brookings Institution in D.C. Some of Nixon's agents were considering firebombing the Brookings Institution. So, Nixon wanted Anna Chennault to stay away from the peace talks. LBJ dropped out, so a 3 way deal can be made in the peace talks in Paris (among Hanoi, Saigon, and Washington). Nixon feared that if Johnson succeeded, Humphrey would win the november election. Kissinger worked with Nixon to end the Paris Peace talks.
In July 1968, Chennault introduced the ambassador to the GOP presidential hopeful at a hush-hush meeting at Nixon's New York apartment. According to Chennault, Nixon told Bui Diem he could "rest assured" that, if elected, "I will have a meeting with (Thieu) and find a solution to winning the war." He added that Chennault was to be "the only contact between myself and your government." Johnson confronted Nixon about this sabotage. Mrs. Chennault claimed to want to end the war, but Nixon wanted it to continue. On the other hand, LBJ did not listen to a young White House aide named Richard Holbrooke, who went on to become a top State Department official. Holbrooke later charged that Nixon and his co-conspirators "massively, directly and covertly interfered in a major diplomatic negotiation …probably one of the most important negotiations in American diplomatic history." Nixon continued the war causing more than 20,000 people to die.



John Yoo says that war could to strike "supected enemies" with drones inside the U.S. On March 19, 2010, Yoo (who was a former U.S. Attorney General) was confronted by author and activist David Swanson. His blog is After Downing Street. He asked John Yoo the question about: "...Is there any law on the books that would prevent a war time president from shooting a missile from a drone at a suspected enemy within the United States?” Yoo said that he doesn't believe that it's a Constitutional issue and that the government can't shoot missiles at whomever it feels like anywhere. He said that we could shoot missiles at suspected enemies at war. The President has the right to defend America during an attack that is in progress. This involves a direct confrontation and a clear threat. Yet, in the case of drone bombings and the use in wars that are currently being enacted overseas, strikes at these targets are used to take out enemies (or suspected people) before any attacks can be carried out by them. Innocent people have been killed in these drone strikes. The Cosntitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. The US though haven't declared war since WWII. What's alarming is that Yoo's use of war as justification for drone bombings in the United States is proof that the term have been ambigiously used over the decade to promote a policy. This policy is open-ended military, law enforcement, and intelligence campaign agaisnt a loosely defined enemy under the guise of terrorist. There are plenty of examples of where a number of American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights are defined as enemies. One example is the MIAC report that compared conservatives, pro-lifers, patriots, Ron Paul supporters, liberatarians, independents, and others as potential domestic terrorists. The government have striked at protesters for years. The 6th Amenddment guarantees the accused a trial by jury. The Amendment doesn't address only accused United States citizens but any person within the United States. In most states, by custom, non-citizens are extended the same Bill of Rights protections that citizens have. While law enforcement has the right to open fire on a suspect if that suspect attacks first, it doesn’t have the right to execute suspects if that person can be apprehended safely. Yoo's response was brief and it only discussed about whether or not the drones could be used in the United States (against a suspected enemy like David Swanson's asked). Yoo cited the Civil War as a justification for drone bombings on American soil, but didn't make the clear distinction between open military conflict and the suspected criminality of the target when open conflict is not occuring. Before elaborating, Yoo’s first statement on the issue was the most correct, “the government can’t shoot missiles at whoever it wants anywhere.” However, overseas the government has been, escalating these attacks even further under the current administration. This question should also be asked of the current Attorney General Eric Holder by civil liberties activists in the future (pertaining to drone attacks). In the current war on terror, some neo cons believe that anyone could be a suspect and that as civilians casualties overseas show, anyone can also be a victim. The fact is that drone attacks in this war on terror should end.



People already know about the opium wars. This was about the British pushing recreational drug usage of opium onto the Chinese people. The drugs were used as a means to promote British imperialism. In midnight of July 1, 1997, Hongkong was restored to China from Britian. The remember the event and date well. The British seizure or Hongkong was a big crime of the British Empire. The British Empire took over India, and used India to flood China with Opium. The British used the Royal Navy to flood China with opium in order to loot China's resources. Even Ted Koppel once in Nightline admitted that before 1921 that the British Empire was the world's leading drug trafficker in the 19th century. Abusers with opium can damage their immune system and their body. Ironicaly, some in the Royal family used opium from the royal apothecracy at Balmoral. It caused higher infant mortality rates. That is why the Emperor of China in 1729 banned the import of China, except in small amounts as licensed for medicine. By 1700, a stronger Imperial decree was issued prohibited both the smoking of opium and it importation. Even Confucianism condemned strongly the use of drugs like opium. The British Empire have its roots form the British East India Company (which some believed have influence from the Venetian bloodlines). The BEIC grew in 1600 and was a spin off of the Levant Company. The Company traded in India and by 1815 it governed most of India directly or indirectly. It imposed land taxes in India. Lord Palmerston justified the evil opium wars by promoting the British demand for "free trade." Bengal was apart of the BEIC's opium monopoly system. Lord Palmerston and Queen Victoria ruled India in imperialism in the 1800's. The British Empire adopted Adam Smith's "globalization" extreme laissez faire economy philosophy. This is contrary to the American System wherefore Henry Carey fought for projects to build Asia up via railroads. Some feel if Carey's designs were meet, then all of Asia would develop as dramatically as Japan is. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that breakthroughs in science and technology can improve human survival and stabilize population growth. There is not only value in human labor, but human creativity in order to benefit the whole economically, morally, politically, and spiritually. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, followed this belief, that human behavior was best ordered by each man following his hedonistic desires to their lawful conclusion. He argued that opium was a legitimate product, the same as any other commodity, that the objective laws of the ``invisible hand'' must be allowed to determine all economic activity, and anything which stood in the way, such as national governments, were an obstacle which must be removed. Adam Smith of course supported British colonialism. In the other side of the Left/Right paradigm, Karl Marx supported British colonialism. Man is more than a political animal as taught by Aristole. He or she is a functioning being with high intellectual and great value. Marx called Carey a Russophile for wanting an alliance with British Empire. This is shocking stuff, but it proves that Karl Marx was a puppet of the elite. Marx's supporters claimed that later on, Karl Marx oppose colonialism and imperialism though. The British Empire supported an extreme form of globalization that isn't true capitalism, but a promotion of an old oligarchy (or centralizing wealth and industry into a few hands). He wasn't an independent freedom fighter since his ideology has been promoted for thousands of years by Illuminists. Marx supported the Opium war and as a racist wrote that the Chinese people had a disposition for opium. He was racist against his own people being very satanic. Carey found that the British Empire preven industrial development among India, banning exports of machinery from England to India, and refusing to develop India's rich iron and coal desposits. Along with oppressive taxation, India suffered economically. Carey describes how in 1813, British ``free trade'' removed tariffs on cloth imported into India, ``but with the restriction on the export of machinery and artisans maintained in full force.'' Within twenty years, Indian cloth manufacturing was completely wiped out. The British invaded China in violation of China's sovereignity of rejecting the legalization of opium. The first Opium looted and destroyed the Emperor's Summer Palace from 1856-1860. Later, China had choas and warring Taiping and Triad ganga. Sun Yat-sen tried to create a Republic in the early 1900's, but China wasn't strongly united. So, the lesson here is that national sovereignity, nationalism, and true economic policies are superior to the evil policies of Empire & imperialism.









By Timothy