Health Care, in Today's News 10.08.09

Health Care. The Catholic News Agency reports that the US bishops sent an open letter today to Congress stating that they will "vigorously oppose" the health care bills unless they prevent taxpayer funds form paying for abortion, make care available for everyone and ensure that immigrants have access to the health system.

One can only applaud the long-overdue pledge to do something about the health care legislation. And the three objects of their resolution are worthy. And if the bishops were to prevail on Congress, the victory might effect changes in other parts of the legislation.

It is necessary to point out, however, that the bishops entirely miss the point of the present drive to reform health care. Obama and both parties are intent on transforming medical care from a compassionate basis to a cost-cutting, government-controlled basis. Such a change will be great for those who own the wealth of the country, but disastrous for everyone else.

No where do the bishops refer to this transcendent issue. Not only do they ignore it, they have given the impression over and over again that they would support the legislation if their three concerns are met. (By the way, the bishops did not include the right to conscience for medical workers in their central issues of concern in their open letter. Previous statements always included it. This omission is surely a step in the wrong direction.)

Here are two matters in the legislation that call out for the Church leaders to say something:

1). The proposed legislation calls for levying a fine on those who do not procure health care insurance coverage. The proposed fine may be as much as $3,000 per person!!! It doesn't take any imagination at all to see that this provision would affect the poorest, least advantaged people in the country. And surely, a good percentage of these are found among the faithful. Do the bishops have anything at all to say about this? Shouldn't they be shouting from the rooftops? They might say that their concern for affordable coverage for all covers the question of fines. Maybe so, but it is a little strained. The point is that the Congressional leaders are serious about imposing fines. And therefore the Church leaders should be serious about vigorously and expliciitly opposing the fines.

2). A number of proposals have been made for the legislation that involve evaluating doctors on their performance, on how many tests they order, etc. Those receiving the least rating would have their medicare payments reduced. Such provisions will encourage doctors to avoid seriously ill patients and other situations that may put them in a bad light. Again it is simple to see that the victims of this proposed provision will be found among the faithful, especially the elderly and those with chronic illnesses. Is it not reasonable that the faithful would expect their Church leaders to take a stand on this key issue? What is involved here is the beginning of the abolition of compassionate health care, the great contribution and legacy of the Catholic Church. It is a disgrace that the leaders are silent on something like this.

In general the Church leaders stance on the health care legislation has been off. They seem to frame everything in a stance of support to what they see as a "much-needed" reform of health care. The object seems to be that they can attain their goals by cooperating with the framers of the legislation. It won't work. These legislative leaders are carrying out their orders and they are nothing but intent; repeat intent. If the legislators get their way, the health care of Americans, including the faithful, will sharply decline. Such a reality ought to induce the Church leaders and bishops to oppose the thrust of the proposed legislation. Perhaps their open letter is a step in this direction. Let us hope.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 10.07.09

Afghanistan. The so-called Presidential review of war strategy for Afghanistan is a fraud designed to fool the public into thinking that Obama's decision will be fair and reasonable based on a studied discussion of all options.

Obama feels obliged to go through this charade because he has lots and lots of opposition that must be neutralized. First is the military, who are pushing strongly for a mammoth increase in troops to Afghanistan. Second is his own party's left wing who are angry with Obama for not carrying out his campaign pledge to pull out of Afghanistan. Third are the 'allies' who are fatigued by trying to help the US in an effort that they could care less about. Fourth is the American public whose opposition to the war grows with each new poll of their opinions. 

Obama has no policy options that will help him out of the mess. He desperately does not want to send in more troops because the resulting major war will get in the way of the 'reforms' he wants to accomplish. But, if he holds the line on troops, he risks the Taliban and al Qaeda scoring major victories and destabilizing what is left of the American-imposed government. Plus, his troops in Afghanistan will be somewhat short of being inspired. And a continuing US presence in Afghanistan will feed public opposition and disenchant the left wing of the Democrats.

Obama hopes to avoid sending in more troops by somehow reaching an understanding with the Taliban. His dream is to convince the Taliban to shut out Al Qaeda and then play a 'positive' role in building a new Afghan government. If agreed, then the US will basically leave the Taliban alone. This approach is really only making a virtue out of necessity, because so many Afghan provincial leaders have formed blocs with the Taliban to overthrow the present government. 

The idea of driving a wedge between the Taliban and al Qaeda is so unreal that one wonders if Obama takes it seriously. He probably thinks that nothing ventured is nothing gained, so why not.

The approach that Obama wants to pursue would keep U.S. troop levels roughly constant while refocusing the broader American mission in Afghanistan on killing individual al Qaeda leaders rather than protecting the Afghan population.

If he follows through with this, the US will definitively lose the war. The Afghan population will fall away, if they haven't already. The Afghan government will surely fall if the US orients away from protecting the population. Trying to kill individual al Qaeda leaders might have a success or two, but it will never work and amounts only to busy-work. The Taliban will easily see that they are winning, and will have no inclination to make a deal with the invaders.

An honest review of war strategy would reveal that there are no options that serve Obama's interests. If he were smart he would cut and run, and minimize the loses. But there is no possibility of US withdrawal. The political price Obama would pay is too much for him.

*****

A humorous footnote: The Afghan troop decision is one of the most consequential for the Obama regime. To make sure he is covered politically, he has called in anyone connected with the war for the 'review'. So the question is, where is the person responsible for foreign policy, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? She is nowhere to be found. Obama has completely isolated Clinton, and also he keeps her under control by having her in his administration. Say what you will about Obama, but in this case he has demonstrated some adroit political maneuvering, while Clinton does her best to seem important.

H1N1 (Swine) Flu Update No 51, in Today's News 10.07.09

H1N1 (Swine) Flu. Canada decided to postpone or limit seasonal-flu vaccination programs because an authoritative study has shown that it is easier to contract swine flu if one has annual seasonal flu shots!!

Here's a great quote (from today's Wall Street Journal page A6) from Perry Kendall, provincial health officer for British Colombia, "Concurrent inoculations for seasonal flu and H!N1--as are being given in the U.S. and other countries--would be a logistical nightmare, and it is unclear what will happen if both vaccines are administered at the same time. We don't know if you can give H1N1 in one arm and another in the other arm. Does one vaccine trump the other?"

And so the swine-flu-scare campaign directors screw up again. The failed to foresee such elementary questions as Kendall's. The authorities really have no idea what the swine flu bug is all about. And they know even less about the vaccine and its effects.

All that is important to them is to stampede the public into receiving their vaccine.

********

Perhaps in partial answer to the above, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appealed anew today for widespread inoculation against a surging swine flu threat, calling the vaccine is unconditionally "safe and secure."

One wonders if she is worried about eating those words someday in the future.

The public is not buying all the hype about swine flu and the vaccine. The resistance is so great that it has forced Sebelius into making very risky statements.

New information such as the Canadian action only adds to the doubts of Americans about swine flu.

******

The publicity barrage has begun by the swine-flu campaign directors. Articles on this and that aspect of the flu are beginning to appear daily. Television infomercials are due to appear any day.

Hang on to your hats. The authorities are desperate to save their campaign, and they may say anything to convince the public to get shots.

Israel, in Today's News 10.06.09

Israel. One of the risks taken by Obama in delaying an attack on Iran, is that the Israelis will take action anyway that would precipitate American involvement in militarily confronting Iran. Obama is undoubtedly acutely aware of this danger. If he is smart he is having the US intelligence agencies working extra hours to keep track of what the Israelis are up to.

But, as time marches on, the Israelis become more and more frustrated with Obama trying to buy time as he pretends to negotiate with the Iranians. One can be sure that Israel has a plan to force the US into an attack on Iran. Sooner or later, and sooner is getting closer and closer, they will implement their plan.

On October 5 the US took an unprecedented action to deter Israel. The US actually abstained on a resolution before the United Nations Security Council that Israel give up its nuclear weapons!! Diplomatic circles were stunned by the US failure to defend Israeli nuclear weapons, as they had done repeatedly in the past. Usually the US votes 'no' on such resolutions, ignoring the nuclear weapons in Israel while demanding Iran produce none.

In effect, the US was making a shot across the bow of Israel. The message certainly was that if Israel attacks Iran directly or indirectly, the backing of US is not assured. 

The US did this because they are getting worried about Israel's plans. As a discussion piece in today's Wall Street Journal (page A21) said, "Also factoring in the administration's thinking are reports that the Israelis are in the final stages of planning an attack on Iran's nuclear installations." [!!!!!!!!]

Be prepared for all kinds of fireworks on the Iran issue in the next few months.

BTW, the strain between Obama and Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu was shown in Netanyahu characterizing Obama over an accidentally open microphone as "worse than Chamberlain" .

Catholic Church, in Today's News 10.05.09

Catholic Church. The Catholic brain-trust has produced recently an article on Catholic-Jewish dialogue in 2002, followed by a clarifying note on June 18, 2009, followed by a statement of principles October 5, 2009, and an accompanying explanation letter. 

All this because leading rabbis 'had feelings of hurt' over some of the documents' statements. As Cardinal George and four other Bishops said, the June 18 note "led to misunderstanding and feelings of hurt among members of the Jewish community. Because we are dialogue partners, this hurt is ours as well."

To which the proper reaction is: Oh come on!!! In the name of all that is holy, stop it!!

Is the world really expected to believe this charade that the rabbis are "hurt." We are talking of grown men after all. No, they are not hurt, they are simply using an emotional word to get their way. 

Is it so difficult for the Church leaders to see that if they continually jump to respond to Rabbis' complaints they are in effect giving the Rabbis veto power over whatever the Rabbis don't like in Church policy? 

And what about the Church leaders? Are they so naive that they buy this 'hurt' stuff? Or are they consciously participating in the make-believe? Let the reader decide.

In the meantime, a war threat looms on Iran, compassionate health care is about to be abolished, unemployment soars and is predicted to remain high until 2013, steps are being taken to institute a world government, etc., etc. And the Church leaders spend enormous time trying to please the Rabbis, who will never be pleased.

One wonders if the Church leaders have ever heard of the idea of doing a cost-benefit analysis.

For insightful discussion on this issue, see the Maurice Pinay blog, "USCCB States Principles for "Dialogue" Fraud."

World Government, in Today's News 10.05.09

World Government. The Cryptocracy is moving quickly (and quietly) to set up the framework for the beginnings of their world government. The recent G-20 meeting decided to crown themselves as the directorate for the world in the first step toward a full-fledged world government. The G-20 will now sit in judgement of each country's economy and make appropriate recommendations on how to improve. The G-20 decided that the International Monetary Fund will provide the staff and administration (and also the enforcement) for the G-20 decisions.

The IMF annual meeting is occurring now, and they are dutifully proceeding to create what the G-20 wanted. Today's Wall Street Journal (page A10): "Among tasks already assigned to the IMF is the analysis of plans by G-20 nations to boost growth and monitoring whether nations are carrying them out. Along with the Financial Stabilization Board, an organization of central bankers and regulators, the IMF will preform similar work on regulatory proposals. The G-20 is also counting on the IMF to develop early warnings of asset bubbles and other major problems."

Unbeknownst to the world's population, this process is very far along. While it seems like a lot of busy work now and has the 'justification' of solving the economic crisis, the reality in the long run is that this process will result in the world dictatorship of the Cryptocracy. It will mean the end of Christian civilization.

The Cryptocracy and the apparatus it is developing are deadly (literally) enemies of the Church. One can pray for the Church leaders to wake up and to recognize the attack against the Church. One can also pray for a leader(s) who will tell the truth and fight uncompromisingly against the attempt to eliminate Christ's teachings and legacy.

*********

October 7 postscript. The IMF efforts to organize itself to serve the G-20 includes rearranging the governing structure of the IMF. Such change is frightening to some of the members of IMF. For example, Saudi Arabia. Today's Wall Street Journal (page A10): "Saudi Arabia is negotiating a substantial contribution to the International Monetary Fund in large part to assure its ownership share of the fund isn't reduced." The amount is around $10 billion.

Big changes are quietly rolling ahead. Is anyone in the Church even aware of what is going on?

H1N1 (Swine) Flu Update No 50, in Today's News 10.05.09

H1N1 (Swine) Flu. The cryptocracy must be thinking: What a group of incompetent boobs are running our current campaign to institute mandatory vaccination!!!

First, the directors of the campaign over-sold the danger from swine flu. As a result public cynicism flowered.

Next, they failed to allow enough time to test the vaccine. This too undermined public confidence in the government's swine-flu efforts.

Next, they managed to have the vaccine available weeks after the pandemic was supposed to strike. Their carefully planned schedule for developing the campaign was blown out of the water. As a result that had to bring their media propaganda virtually to a halt for a few weeks to allow the vaccine producers to catch up.

Now, they failed to figure out that a large number of skilled personnel will be needed to administer the vaccine. Today's Wall Street Journal (page one): "...state and local budget cuts coupled with limits on who can administer the vaccine cold hamstring the campaign."

The cryptocracy must be bewildered by the inability of their employees to carry out their tasks in a competent manner.

Be prepared now for the campaign directors' desperate efforts to avoid disaster. Scare tactics and a massive media blast are coming. "But health officials expect demand to rise as they unleash [!!] a media campaign to promote the vaccine and if the public hears more reports of deaths of otherwise healthy adults and children..." [Emphasis added.]

Plus, the campaign directors always have in their back pocket the 'discovery' that swine flu has morphed into something much worse.