RFFM.ORG

Mexican Drug Smuggling: Not Viewed As A Crime, But As A Culture

by Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Editor's Note:  Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Rapacki is an independent intelligence analyst who receives and disseminates critical intelligence and policy information from and to law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials, and government and community leaders; he is the author of dozens of white papers, bulletins and briefings, and he is frequently called on to share his expertise with public and private security directors and organizations.

President Reagan had barely been out of office hours; the sun had not even yet to retire for the evening on his ranch in California, and the movement to develop a North American Union began in earnest.  From Bush to Clinton to Bush, and now Obama, there is growing haste to open the southern border along California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and welcome just about anyone who wants to mosey on up to America.  Heck, there is very serious talk and planning about a Super Highway from Mexico thru America and into Canada.  But with the increased “rush hour” traffic come a pesky not-so-little problem of drugs.  Lot’s of drugs.  Tons of drugs; sometimes, even more drugs than lettuce or other produce making its way northward.

 

What’s a politician to do?  I mean you can only call so many summit meetings to address the drug war; after a while, these summits appear as nothing more than nice vacations in Cabo or some other little Mexican beach town.  You can order many cameras worth millions of dollars to create a “virtual fence,” and then decide that’s not working so tear down the same cameras just installed.  You can dispatch a small army of Border Patrol Agents, and when the public thinks that will help, you quietly reduce the build-up.  You rotate U.S. National Guard troops to the border as a show of force, but while they are on scene, not carrying weapons or ammo, and just changing the oil in federal vehicles, they are not allowed to interdict any drug smugglers coming into America, just observe. The games go on and on.  All the while, and in between tons of drug seizures by dedicated, over-worked, out-numbered American law enforcement, drugs continue to pour into America.

 

It’s difficult to talk tough and all enforcement like, when, and at the same time, your agenda is to do away with the boundaries, the very borders of the United States of America that make America sovereign, and welcome a new North American Union – similar to the European Union.  But what to do with that pesky drug problem?  As much as Americans are having “change” rammed down their throats, not even the radical politicians in Washington believe citizens of the Late Great United States will sit idle and allow drugs to be forced down their throats the same way Health Care, and a host of other socialized ventures have.  Besides, the drug business in Mexico is truly a business venture, an export business, a way of life for many, and for many more, a culture.

 

Similar to the steady flow of drugs, there is a steady flow of worshippers who come and kneel in front of a statue; they dip flowers in water and wipe them over his face.  These worshippers leave offerings in a donation box, and little notes at the base of this statue.  Who are these worshippers?  Many are the drug runners about to depart on their delivery.  What is the statue that is worship?  His name is Jesus Malverde, a Robin Hood-style bandit who died in 1909 after being hung for years of crimes; mostly stealing from the rich.  Other worshippers at this statue are seeking safety in their “run for the border” and into the U.S.  This statue is not alone.  In Tijuana, the statue is Juan Soldado, an executed rapist, and they pray to him for protection before crossing the border.  In the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, the worshippers fall before the statue Santa de Cabora; a girl who was banished from Mexico for allegedly inciting an Indian up-rising.  There are other statues spread around Mexico, and still more worshippers. 

 

The country of Mexico is under a drug war siege.  More than 20,000 have died this past year in drug cartel violence; the violence is everywhere, even in what was once quiet, remote fishing and vacation villages. Complete cities have been abandoned, left to the cartels as some sort of weird trophy in a “Twilight-Zone” movie.  Police officers are chosen for assassination.  Mayors and city leaders are chosen for assassination.  Civilian collateral damage is everywhere; even women and young children are not exempt from the carnage.  Tourists are not exempt.  Two weeks ago, two American diplomats were not exempt.  There are no rules other than leave the drugs alone, leave the drug carriers alone, leave the drug tunnels and alleys and pathways into the United States alone.  Leave the business of drug exporting alone.  It is, and it has been, a part of the economy and culture of Mexico long before any of us came along. 

 

Schools have been built by the drug-lords.  Streets have been paved, houses built, electricity came to small villages and cities from these same drug-lords.  In the State of Sinaloa, Mexico, $3.8-billion comes into the coffers from drug trade.  Many, many people south of the United States border view the drug business as an “economic activity like any other,” says Tomas Guevara, a sociologist at the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. 

 

So…the “elites” in America should probably stop putting on a not-so-good public show of concern about border issues, and begin to find a new tax model.  After-all, isn’t that what they do best?  Then throwing open the border and promoting a North American Union, which they have been planning all these years in secret, can come out into the light of day for all to see, as well as to benefit from the new businesses and supporting economies that will spring up in concert with all the drug economic business activity. 

 

To change this long-term problem, you need to change the culture in which it thrives.  Changing a culture changes a nation and a people…look at what Obama and company have already done to America, as they move to change our heritage and our culture. 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]   

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Obama's Redistribution Of Wealth: Inside-Out, Not Top-Down

Plan To Disenfranchise Middle Class and Poor May Lead To Something Worse Than Socialism

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Many have asserted there are those who wish to destroy America's economy and replace capitalism and the free enterprise system with European-style socialism or something even worse.  I didn't want to believe this.  It seemed like a wild conspiracy theory, but the actions of the so-called progressives who dominate our government tell me this is true.

 

There is a myth President Barack Obama's campaign promise to redistribute America's wealth was top-down, meaning wealth would be taken from the have's and given to the have-nots.  However, in reality, Obama's agenda is targeting the middle class and poor as well.

 

Health care reform represents a perfect example of how Obama will achieve his radical agenda.  The fact is, the wealth of the United States is going inside-out, not top-down.  The current health care reform law illustrates my point perfectly.  Besides the law destroying one of the best health care systems in the world, the United States will be plunged into a chasm of debt from which it might never recover.

 

Some say the Democratic Party desires to create a form of government akin to European-style socialism.  However, one of the primary tenets of Communism is to disenfranchise the middle class and poor.  Recent reports from large corporations indicate adherence to the guidelines within the health care reform law will negatively impact their bottom lines and, subsequently, these costs will be passed on to all Americans in the form of higher taxation and skyrocketing inflation.  This will have a devastating impact on what is already a struggling economy.  For example, AT&T, the nation's largest communications provider, released data reflecting the fact the health care bill will cost this corporation $1 billion in the first year alone of the implementation of this new law.  Of course, AT&T will not be the only business which will see its profits greatly reduced.  The fact of the matter is the losses suffered by huge corporations and companies are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

 

But the impact of overhauling America's health care delivery system will also lead to the loss of jobs because many large firms will not be able to offset their expenses by simply passing higher costs along to their customers.  The first victims regarding the loss of revenue concerning giant corporations and companies will be their employees.  More Americans will lose their jobs and the current unemployment rate of nearly 10% will soon soar.  In actuality, the true numbers regarding unemployment are closer to 17%, due to the fact current unemployment statistics do not reflect those who have fallen off the unemployment rolls, taken part-time jobs or have stopped looking for work entirely due to the fact jobs just aren't there.  Subsequently, the top-down myth regarding redistribution of wealth is just that...a myth.  America's wealth is flowing from the inside-out to nations which own our debt, including China and Japan.

 

However, since the establishment media is complicit in the radical plan to reform America's form of government, those in the middle class and the poor will eventually blame capitalism for their problems.  This was the case in the 1930's when Communist organizations flourished in the United States.  Even though President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was in full flower, it took World War II to end the Depression and stifle the myth that Communism was the answer to our nation's woes.

 

Today, there is a common misperception that the poor are flourishing under Obama's administration.  The truth is support for the first African-American President in U.S. history among blacks has decreased by 10% since his election.  There has been little or no job creation for those who live in the inner cities and this has led to frustration from many minority leaders who believed Obama's election would be a windfall for the economically depressed.  Therefore, the fear regarding whether the U.S. is turning towards socialism may actually be an understatement of what lies ahead for the country.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]  

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Is The U.S. Helping To Prepare For Attack Against Iran?

by Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Editor's Note:  Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Rapacki is an independent intelligence analyst who receives and disseminates critical intelligence and policy information from and to law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials, and government and community leaders; he is the author of dozens of white papers, bulletins and briefings, and he is frequently called on to share his expertise with public and private security directors and organizations.

1.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met on Monday (March 22, 2010) with Vice President Joe Biden for dinner.  The dinner followed an all afternoon meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The Prime Minister met with Mr. Obama on Tuesday, and then there were a series of media interviews with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

2.  Israel launched air strikes against targeted area in the Gaza Strip last Friday.  Israel military sources confirmed six sites were targeted, including two tunnels dug near the Israeli border and a weapons manufacturing site near Gaza city.  This action was in response to Palestinian launched rocket attacks over the past couple of weeks.

3.  There is growing belief that the current United States administration is not forthcoming with Israel, nor is a strong partner with Israel against various known enemies.  In essence, Israel is measuring mounting evidence of the need to defend itself without assistance.

4.  The deputy leader of Hezbollah stated on March 18th, violence could spread across the Middle East with Israel paying a heavy toll if Israel uses military action against Iran.  This warning is extended to any country that allows either Israel or the U.S. to launch an attack from their soil.

5.  Mr. Obama, upon entering the presidency, promised Israel crippling sanctions against Iran and its nuclear program.  Then the Obama Administration placed forward for Israel that they be patient while Washington builds a coalition against Iran.  This has not occurred, the coalition has not developed, Israel has repeatedly warned that Iran is a clear and present danger to Israel, and Israel has been patient all the while Iran continues to develop into a nuclear power with full intentions of destroying Israel.

While most of America has been swept up in the national health-care debate, there are "soft findings" that a U.S.-led attack on Iran is quickly approaching and may even be a couple of weeks away.  If valid, this action would directly and immediately impact America's economy, especially at the gas pump.

There is vetted intelligence that a major arms shipment to Diego Garcia has occurred, including, but not limited to: "...195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000 lb Blu-117 bombs...all used for an assault on Iran's nuclear facilities."  Additional bunker bombs of various caliber have already been shipped to this base.

Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory and it has been used by the U.S. as a military base for munitions storage, aircraft deployment since 1971.

The shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, received a $699,500 contract to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California to Diego Garcia.  Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders' website by the U.S. Navy.  The United States has publicized many of its actions connected to this build-up as a calculated strategy of shaping, or reshaping, Iran's actions.

If the United States does launch an attack against Iran, there will be an immediate and huge spike in oil prices; inflation will take off drastically in all consumer areas, having been held in check by the Federal Reserve for sometime now; the dollar could devaluate significantly quickly, and gold and silver would become even more significant -- not only for individuals, but among nations as well.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Health Care is NOT a "Right"

by David E. Smith, Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute

Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debate and ultimately pass the onerous health care "reform" bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea -- affirmed by some radically "progressive" lawmakers -- that health care is a "right." This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda. The implicit claim in the assertion that health care is a "right" is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that health care is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God. 

To see the difference in government-mandated health care and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights or not as they see fit. The government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech. In contrast, our radically "progressive" friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called right to health care. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?

What is really at issue is not whether health care is a "right" but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded health care. What other cherished American "right" has ever required that we diminish another's liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques and synagogues? Why then, does this "right" to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others? 

Make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new health care "right" will be forced on every American, and it will be made possible by taking from citizens "according to their ability" and giving to others "according to their needs" (Karl Marx, 1875).

According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-OH), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions and mandates and require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed. 

Health care lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase "right to health care," which he argues "does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for health care":

 

How much health care is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment? Indeed, what is health care? Long term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils? And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the health care costs of those who are wealthier and sicker? These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a right to health care.

 

President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation -- legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created socialized health care system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although, the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable. 

Above also posted at: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34804

Visit Illinois Family Institute at:  http://www.illinoisfamily.org/

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]  

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

Health Care Reform: Striking Parallels Between Far Left's Vision for U.S. and former USSR's 1936 Constitution

Editor's Note:  Ed Tait is the founder of www.edtait.com, a blog dedicated to sharing information about the United States, a unique and grand experiment, which was founded by great men.  On his website, Tait defines what Ronald Reagan referred to as "The Shining City On A Hill" whereby rights are endowed to men from their Creator, not government.  Tait highlights parallels to America's departure from the vision of the Founding Fathers and rights provided to citizens of the former USSR.  Tait's posting below contains excerpts from the former Soviet Union's Constitution of 1936.  The similarities between the former Soviet Union's Constitution--which came from the evil minds of Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky and other Communists--mirror some of the values held today by America's far left and should send a chill down the spine of all who cherish freedom.

 

Following is the full text of Section X of the former Soviet Union's Constitution of 1936

1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR

Adopted December 1936

CHAPTER X

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS

ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.

The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.

ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

1. freedom of speech;
2. freedom of the press;
3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
4. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

ARTICLE 126. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the masses of the people, citizens of the U.S.S.R. are ensured the right to unite in public organizations–trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations,’ sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies; and the most active and politically most conscious citizens in the ranks of the working class and other sections of the working people unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.

ARTICLE 127. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.

ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

ARTICLE 129. The U.S.S.R. affords the right of asylum to foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people, or for their scientific activities, or for their struggle for national liberation.

ARTICLE 130. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to abide by the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to observe the laws, to maintain labor discipline, honestly to perform public duties, and to respect the rules of socialist intercourse.

ARTICLE 131. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to safeguard and strengthen public, socialist property as the sacred and inviolable foundation of the Soviet system, as the source of the wealth and might of the country, as the source of the prosperous and cultured life of all the working people.

Persons committing offenses against public, socialist property are enemies of the people.

ARTICLE 132. Universal military service is law. Military service in the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army is an honorable duty of the citizens of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 133. To defend the fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. Treason to the country–violation of the oath of allegiance, desertion to the enemy, impairing the military power of the state, espionage is punishable with all the severity of the law as the most heinous of crimes.

******

 

In part, Tait writes:

Do you notice the difference, between the Constitution written by the Founders and this one…notice that the Founders began by making it clear that rights did not flow from government, they were endowed by the Creator….

And notice the similarities to the FDR attempt in America for a ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and the similarity to what the Progressives want…

“Fundamental change”…fear it, fight against it…fight to force your representatives in Washington to honour the Constitution…

What a striking difference…what the Creator has given, will not be taken away, regardless the attempts of government…however rights offered by government can and will be taken away based on the will of those currently in power…of course, for the benefit of the collective…

Courtesy www.edtait.com

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Health Care Reform: Government To Have Access To Americans Medical Records

Private Medical Information Will Eventually Be Made Available To Government Bureaucrats In Charge Of Health Care

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

If anyone has time to go through the more than 2,700 pages in the Senate version of the current health care reform bill, there are some aspects of this legislation that should send a chill down the spine of any American.  But, for a moment, let's take time to review how medical records have been shared in the past.

 

Whenever you saw a new physician, one of the first things they needed was your past medical history, specifically related to what a doctor might need to know about your treatment.  This new doctor would ask you to sign a release form to be sent to a physician who treated you previously to share specific information.  These forms were only good for a prescribed period of time and detailed exactly what information you did and did not want shared with the new doctor.  For example, a specialist might need to know about any pre-existing conditions which might have an impact on a medical procedure he or she might perform.

 

Also, you simply might be seeing a new general physician who would need access to your past medical history.  The bottom line is medical information was always kept in-house, unless the patient requested their medical records be sent to a new health care provider.

 

As a journalist, I have found that relating information from an anecdotal perspective is the best way to get a point across.  Therefore, let me share a recent experience I had during a visit to my family doctor, who I have been seeing for over five years, who works at a medical center which serves a small town in central Illinois.  I struck up a conversation with one of the nurses who collected data, including my weight, blood pressure, what medications I was currently taking, etc.  "We are putting all of our medical records into a database," the nurse told me.  Immediately a red flag went up, so I asked her who will have access to this information?  "Oh, all your medical records will be on a computer, but no one outside this facility will have access to your private records."

 

Now anyone who knows the least bit about computers understands full well once information is downloaded into such a system, it can be readily shared with others, accessed by hackers or find its way into the hands of those who should not be privy to such information.

 

But let's get back to Obama's health care reform plan.  One of the provisions within the bill is that all Americans medical information should be compiled and stored electronically.  Supposedly, this data will strictly be meant to stay in-house, as my nurse ensured me it would be.  However, if health care reform becomes law, if it desires, the government will have access to the medical records of every American citizen.  Of course, those who support health care reform will say nothing will change regarding privacy laws.  But the simple fact medical providers will have this data on their systems will make it that much easier for the government to further intrude in our private lives.

 

For example, the government could compile data on what ethnic groups experience the most heart attacks.  Or, even more intrusive, health care reform could open up records regarding an individual's psychiatric history or whether a patient went through an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program.  Our medical lives could become an open book.  And, most assuredly, the government would find reasons why such data would serve the greater public good.

 

The information obtained by the government could and probably would be used to determine whether a patient "deserved" care in their later years, i.e., was an individual a smoker?  If so, should they be entitled to extensive care concerning conditions related to the fact they smoked?  This analogy could be drawn out to include any and every possibility, in order to eventually ration health care to those who deserve it because they led healthy lives and those who did not.

 

It has already been demonstrated health commissions will be created under Obamacare which will determine who will be entitled to medical services.  Last year, a federal panel came out with a finding which said women ages 40 - 49 did not need yearly mammograms.  This contradicted past medical findings which clearly indicated women in this age group should have mammograms annually in order to detect breast cancer in its early stages.  Unbelievably, one of the panel's rationale regarding their decision suggested annual mammograms for women 40 - 49 subjected them to greater stress and anxiety.  Of course, the federal panel's decision was met by a firestorm of criticism from experts in the field of breast cancer and psychologists who pointed out the obvious regarding the fact women not having mammograms in this very important period of their lives would indeed suffer through more anxiety and trepidation concerning their health.

 

Under Obamacare, there would be similar panels, staffed by government bureaucrats and statisticians who would hand down decisions based on information other than data provided by medical experts, as was the case with the decision made by the federal panel regarding mammograms.  The bottom line here would be the rationing of health care services to save money, ultimately excluding groups which did not fall within a statistical matrix.

 

Without a national database which included detailed information about the medical status of all Americans, these panels would not be able to function.  Therefore, ultimately, information--compiled in good faith by doctors who have private practices or physicians who work for larger medical centers--will be made available to the government whose intentions may not be in the best interest of a patient.

 

The passing of comprehensive health care reform may be decided within days.  There is much more at stake here than meets the eye of the casual observer.  A database containing the medical records of every individual in the United States will be a treasure trove for those who believe government has all the answers.

 

 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama’s Doublespeak: Plan To Reform No Child Left Behind "Smoke and Mirrors"

by Donna Garner *

 

* Donna Garner is a contributor to RFFM.org.  Garner resides in central Texas and was an educator for 33 years before her recent retirement.   Garner was appointed by President Reagan and re-appointed by President Bush to serve on the National Commission on Migrant Education in the late 1980's through the early 1990's.   Garner was chosen to serve on the English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) writing team for Texas when the TEKS education standards were developed for the public schools (1995-97).   

 

Garner was also the lead writer of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD) for ELAR when educators grew concerned about the lack of explicitness, grade-level specificity and measurability in the TEKS.   As a volunteer, Garner worked closely with Texas State Board of Education members and the Texas Education Agency to write new ELAR standards that were adopted in May 2008.   Garner was a writer/researcher for Scott & White Hospital's Worth the Wait abstinence education program.  

 

Almost five years ago, she became the writer/consultant for MyStudyHall.com which is an online tutorial to help students ages 10 through 100 learn English skills.   Garner is currently a researcher and author involving political, social and education issues and she is an advocate for many pro-family, pro-life organizations. 

 

OBAMA PLAN MORE ABOUT INDOCTRINATION THAN EDUCATION

 

Obama just announced his plan to rewrite the provisions of No Child Left Behind (“Obama Calls for Sweeping Overhaul in Education Law” by Sam Dillon, 3.13.10 -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?ref=education ). 

 

I expect Obama’s poll numbers may skyrocket over this announcement because who would not want all students to be ready for college or the workforce when they graduate?

 

This “smoke and mirrors” plan is typical Obama rhetoric, and it is somewhat difficult to track because it is so carefully couched in education doublespeak.  Let me see if I can help to clarify.

 

Plain and simple -- Obama intends to change the way an entire generation of children thinks:  

National standards  →  national tests  →  national curriculum → teachers’ salaries tied to students’ test scores  →  teachers teaching to the test each and every day  →  Obama indoctrination of our public school children 

 

Making the Federal Government the “Teacher”

 

Obama’s plan will make the federal government the “teacher” in every public school classroom in 48 states (Texas and Alaska not included).  How can this happen?  It is being perpetrated on our nation through  incremental stages that began almost the first day Obama took office. 

 

To receive the U. S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) federal funds, states have to “play the game”

by committing to national standards, national tests, national curriculum, and a national database.

 

States must institute value-added assessments (VAA).  Students’ subjectively assessed scores (the opposite of objective scoring with right-or-wrong answers) on the national tests and on various subjectively scored projects will be tracked on a national database from the individual student back to the individual teacher. 

 

This federal knife will be held over teachers’ heads to force them to teach exactly what is in the national standards -- multiculturalism, political correctness, diversity, global warming, environmental extremism, homosexuality, social justice, etc. 

 

Teachers will then be evaluated, given merit pay, or fired based upon the subjectively assessed scores of their students. 

 

When Common Core/Race to the Top was initiated, the public was told that the national standards would only apply to Reading and Math.  On 3.10.10, the much-awaited Common Core Standards draft was released.  What the public presumed would be the Reading standards turned out to be entitled “Common Core English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies & Science.”  The title indicates that Obama and the U. S. Department of Education intend to extend their control over every aspect of the public school curriculum. 

 

If the federal government can change the way our American children think, they can change our nation in one generation.

 

A Possible Example of Subjectively Scored Projects

 

Because of the inherent nature of portfolio assignments, they are graded subjectively based upon the opinion of the scorer.

 

For instance, a student could decide to produce a portfolio on the subject of  “The Discrimination of Gays in the Military.”  He could produce limited documented text but could be scored high if he includes zany, glitzy graphics in which he uses all sorts of techie applications.

 

Another student could do endless hours of research and produce a factual, well-researched, well-documented, and clearly written expository paper on “Destroying Unit Cohesiveness by Gays in the Military.”  This student could be scored low because of the subjectivity of the scoring of portfolio projects.

 

A third student could write a fully illustrated paper with audio and film clips on her experiences as a community

organizer (complete with first-person, emotion-laden victimization examples), and this portfolio project could score higher than a well-organized and well-researched expository paper on the possible illegality of ACORN’s activities.   

 

Obama Caught in Inconvenient Situation of Breaking the Law

 

Obama’s inconvenient problem right now is that he and the U. S. Department of Education are in violation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.  NCLB strictly forbids the federal government from taking over the control of public schools through national standards, national tests, national curriculum, and a national database.  (Please see provisions posted at the bottom of this commentary.)

 

Obama is trying to change the NCLB laws as fast as he can before the public figures out that he is breaking the provisions set forth in the current law. 

 

 Obama’s Plan in Action

 

Last year, 48 state Governors (except for Texas and Alaska) signed the Common Core standards adoption agreements before the public was told about the national tests.   

U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan waited until the state contracts were signed before he made the rest of the plan clear:  

 

·     Up until the last of January (2010), the 48 states who signed the agreements thought they only had to commit to teach 85 % of the Common Core standards.  In February of 2010, they were told by a deputy executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers that states will not be allowed to pick and choose; they must use the entire national standards document word for word -- 100% of them.

·     National tests will be created based upon the Common Core national standards.  These tests will be subjectively assessed so that social justice themes can be interwoven throughout, and students’ test grades will be dependent upon the value system of the scorers.

·     To get the Race to the Top funds, states will have to be a part of the Common Core national standards.   

·     To get the Race to the Top funds, states will also have to implement an elaborate tracking system [a national database provided by none other than Bill Gates I feel sure] that would link student test and portfolio scores to individual teachers.  

·     This obviously means that teachers (whose merit pay will depend upon how their students do on the national tests and portfolios) will teach their students a national curriculum to get them ready for the national assessments.  

·     The vendors and lobbyists will be only too glad to develop the national curriculum. They will love dealing with The Beltway crowd rather than being required to pass their instructional materials through public hearings with conscientious citizens who check for factual errors.  

·     The reality is that all public school teachers will teach to the national tests and assessments created by the federal government because teachers’ salaries and employment security will depend upon it.   

·     Please read the following 3.2.10 article posted on EducationWeek.org that indicates liberal-left Linda Darling-Hammond and others of her same persuasion will be in charge of developing the national tests:   http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/23/23assessment.h29.html?tkn=YWSFjb7lP0Ul6RKoCAcO2bcgAdhvfr8s6u2D&cmp=clp-edweek

·     On March 4, 2010, the following states were awarded Race to the Top funding (Phase 1) with Phase 2 to be awarded in the next few months: Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee

 

Where Is the Media When We Need Them?

 

I and others who have tracked this federal takeover of the public schools by Obama and the U. S. Department of Education are very puzzled? 

 

Why have FoxNews and other major networks not reported on this federal takeover?  They have spent large amounts of time reporting on the federal takeover of healthcare but not on Obama’s plan to indoctrinate our public school students.

 

Where are the tea partiers who are appalled at the intrusiveness of the federal government into every aspect of our lives?  Why are they not leading the efforts to uncover and defeat Obama’s plan to take over the public schools of our country?

 

Won’t you join with me in contacting your friends and neighbors, the tea partiers, the media, and also your elected officials? Our children are our “most important product.” Why would we put them in the hands of Obama and the federal government?

 

“Each one teach one” is the way to mount a grassroots effort to stop this dreadful federalization of our public schools.

 

No Child Left Behind Law  

 

SEC. 9526. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS.

(a) PROHIBITION- None of the funds authorized under this Act shall be used —

(1) to develop or distribute materials, or operate programs or courses of instruction directed at youth, that are designed to promote or encourage sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual;

(2) to distribute or to aid in the distribution by any organization of legally obscene materials to minors on school grounds;

(3) to provide sex education or HIV-prevention education in schools unless that instruction is age appropriate and includes the health benefits of abstinence; or

(4) to operate a program of contraceptive distribution in schools.

(b) LOCAL CONTROL- Nothing in this section shall be construed to —

(1) authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, review, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's instructional content, curriculum, and related activities;

(2) limit the application of the General Education Provisions Act;

(3) require the distribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate materials; or

(4) create any legally enforceable right.

SEC. 9527. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

(b) PROHIBITION ON ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM- Notwithstanding any other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided to the Department under this Act may be used by the Department to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in an elementary school or secondary school.

(c) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING FEDERAL APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION OF STANDARDS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no State shall be required to have academic content or student academic achievement standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in order to receive assistance under this Act.

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect requirements under title I or part A of title VI.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON BUILDING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate national school building standards for a State, local educational agency, or school.

SEC. 9529. PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED TESTING.

(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law and except as provided in subsection (b), no funds provided under this Act to the Secretary or to the recipient of any award may be used to develop, pilot test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject, unless specifically and explicitly authorized by law.

(b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to international comparative assessments developed under the authority of section 404(a)(6) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 and administered to only a representative sample of pupils in the United States and in foreign nations.

SEC. 9530. LIMITATIONS ON NATIONAL TESTING OR CERTIFICATION FOR TEACHERS.

(a) MANDATORY NATIONAL TESTING OR CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department or otherwise available under this Act may be used for any purpose relating to a mandatory nationwide test or certification of teachers or education paraprofessionals, including any planning, development, implementation, or administration of such test or certification.

(b) PROHIBITION ON WITHHOLDING FUNDS- The Secretary is prohibited from withholding funds from any State educational agency or local educational agency if the State educational agency or local educational agency fails to adopt a specific method of teacher or paraprofessional certification.

SEC. 9531. PROHIBITION ON NATIONWIDE DATABASE.

Nothing in this Act (other than section 1308(b)) shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this Act.

 

 

 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

Hope and Change Or A Fight For The American Dream And The Battle Against Oppression

An Essay by the Rev. Nancy Cahalan

 

The Rev. Nancy Cahalan is a contributor to RFFM.org.  Cahalan is a Pastor who resides in southern Illinois.

 

    In 1976, I graduated high school.  Because that year was our nation's bicentennial year, NBC ran an essay contest for graduating seniors.  The title of the essay was "What Is An American?"  I entered that contest and became one of the finalists.

    I have been thinking about that essay lately and how things have changed in this country in the 30 some years since I graduated high school.  The America that I see today is nothing like the America I saw then.  The America that I saw then was an America whose government was actually by the people and for the people.  Today our government is voted for by the people, but it does not represent the people.  It represents a select few special interests and the egos of those who are supposed to have the good of the people first and foremost in their hearts and minds, not what kind of deal they can make for themselves.  Back room, locked door deals are NOT the way that governing is to happen here in America.  Corruption running rampantly and blatantly, for the whole world to see, is NOT how things should be.

    Well, they will say, you are just being naive.  You just don't understand how politics work, they will say.  OK.  Maybe I am naive and don't understand how THEIR politics work.  But I do know much about being honest, about following the law, about listening to others--even when what they have to say may not be pleasing to my ears, about leading a group of people and having to put my own ego and wants on the back burner in deference to what those whom I am leading say they want.  I am a pastor.  As such, I do have to walk a very fine line where my words and my actions are concerned.  So, too should our elected officials.

    Most of the American people do not want the present form of health care take over that is being crafted to be foisted upon them--whether they want it or not.  They do not want it because they can see the disaster that awaits them and future generations if it becomes law.  They can see the increased costs and the decreased access to care.  They can see that their ability to choose will be taken from them.

    The present president, Barack Obama, was elected without anyone finding out very much about who he was or what he really believed.  Obama himself told us that we were to judge him based on those with whom he kept company.  He keeps company with socialists, communists, people who blow up government buildings and wish they could blow up more government buildings.  Obama follows the writings of a man, Saul Alinsky, who was once mentored by Al Capone's enforcer, Frank Nitti, whom Alinsky called "the Professor" and of whom Alinsky became a student.

 

    We are told that Mr. Obama is brilliant and yet we are not given access to his school transcripts.  I hear over and over again about what a great speaker he is.  I don't see it.  When he does not have a teleprompter in front of him, he hems and haws.  His speaking is full of "ums" and "uhs".  To me, that is NOT a good speaker.  A good speaker is one who can speak without all those little annoying non-words, whose words flow freely and who actually shows that he or she has a good grasp of the facts.  Mr. Obama has shown, time and again, that he does not even have that (i.e., Obama's gaffe:  57 states and two more to go).

    I believe that if the America that was birthed in 1776, that hundreds of thousands of people have fought and died to defend, of which millions have sacrificed to become a part, the country to which Ronald Reagan referred to as the "shining city on a hill" is to survive, if America is to remain a bastion of freedom, then "We the People" are going to have to continue to fight back with everything that we have.

 

    We are, once again, a people under tyranny, only, sadly, this time it is a tyranny of our own making.  We have allowed these corrupt officials to take over with barely a whimper on our part.  I am as guilty as anyone else in thinking that there was not much I could do to stop what was happening.  But there is plenty that we can all do.  We just have to 'not grow weary in doing good' as the Bible urges us.  Whether you believe in the Bible or not, if you believe in this country, on the principles on which it was founded, in the Constitution as it was written--not as some would like to rewrite it, you must not grow weary in this fight.  It is a fight and it is one we must win.

 

    We must defeat those who believe that sharing the wealth is the way of the future for everyone, except themselves.  (Note that the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company have yet to share any of their wealth with us.)  We must defeat those who think that freedom is an outdated concept that doesn't work.  We must defeat those who think that some government bureaucrat knows how we should live our lives better than we do.  We must defeat those who will change America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the cowed and the home of the oppressed.  WE MUST! 

Another article by NANCY CAHALAN: 

Obama With The Sound Off: The Face Of An Angry Man? http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/obama-with-the-sound-off-the-face-of-an-angry-man-.html

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Health Care Reform: Nothing To Do With Health Care: It's About Control

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Since the far left assumed leadership of the Democratic Party and both Houses of Congress, it was clear to most political observers the expansion of big government would be at the top of their legislative agenda.  When Barack Obama became President, the dreams of liberal extremists were within their grasp.  It has been said there are three ways to control a population.  By controlling food, water and energy, government can assume power over its citizens.*  However, when government takes control over an individual's health--or how that health care is provided--it is the ultimate expression of power.

 

According to Mr. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, their reasons for reforming health care are truly altruistic.  They claim health care is a right which is denied to many American citizens.  It should being forced down the throats of Americans--whether they want it or not.  However, their brand of health care, if passed--would result in the government taking control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

 

Yet the following rhetorical questions must be asked of these politicians who are, supposedly, looking out for the greater good in society.

 

*  Why would Democrats risk majority status of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in their pursuit of health care reform.

 

*  Why would the Democratic Party alienate a huge voting bloc which consists of senior citizens (and millions of baby boomers who soon will be included in this group) to pursue their goals.

 

*  Why would the Democratic Party put America's economy in further debt for generations to come.

 

*  Why would a Democratic President dedicate more than one-fourth of his first term in office to push for health care reform which a vast majority of the public clearly does not want.

 

The answers to the above questions are all too obvious.  Health care reform has nothing to do with providing greater access to quality medical services for Americans.  This quest is all about control.  If health care reform is passed by Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama, it will simply be a means for government to get its foot into the door, ultimately leading to the government controlling many aspects of our lives.

 

The legislation will one day dictate what we can eat; what doctors we can see; what medical procedures will be approved or not approved dependent upon an individual's age or social status.

 

The belief that providing everyone access to health care under a government-run system will bring costs down is a fairy tale.  It is impossible to place from 30 to 47 million uninsured on the health care rolls without drastic increases in costs through higher taxation and higher insurance premiums.

 

The ultimate goal of the far left is to create a two-class system in America.  Passing any of the current versions of health care reform will put the United States and its people well on the road to socialism.  The very wealthy will have their own doctors, will have access to any specialist and be able to afford any procedure(s) they desire.  The middle and lower classes in American society will experience rationing of health care, they will have little or no control regarding what doctors they will be able to see and, more important, their access to specialists (and the services they provide) will be determined by government bureaucrats, not medical personnel.

 

If anyone believes they will be sitting in a doctor's waiting room with Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama or Sean Penn, this will not be the case.  There will be those who by status and wealth will have unfettered access to quality health care which will be denied to a vast majority of our nation's population.

 

Those who oppose health care reform legislation have not had time to focus on the actual delivery of medical services because proposed legislation is so all-encompassing.  This has been part of Obama's strategy from the beginning.  Republicans now say let's start over and work on health care reform from the ground up.  However, a bill that now totals more than 2,700 pages is filled with items, including the formation of health care commissions, mandatory requirements on small businesses and increased taxation which has diverted attention away from the quality of health care that would result from such legislation.

 

For example, Democratic leadership has targeted $500 billion in cuts from Medicare.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid would like the country to believe these reductions in costs would simply result from the control of systemic fraud and revamping Medicare Advantage--which provides senior citizens with prescription drug benefits.  The truth of the matter is, other aspects of Medicare would be greatly impacted by bills introduced in both the House and Senate.  The only way $500 billion can be reduced from the Medicare budget would be through rationing health services for those on Medicare which includes seniors and the disabled.

 

The control over America's health care system is so important to socialists, they have literally reverted to bribing their less liberal Democratic brethren.  The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and other back room deals or threats demonstrate just how important passing any health care bill is to Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  These individuals may say their only goal is to improve and make more affordable health care available to all Americans.  By the way, eventually, even those who are in the United States illegally would also be entitled to the same health care.  Obama will achieve this goal either by including illegals in the legislation itself or push for comprehensive immigration reform later in his presidency.

 

No, health care reform has little to do with providing better medical services.  In reality, it is a giant first step on the way to European-style socialism and the intrusion of Big Brother in to the lives of us all.

 

*  RELATED ARTICLE:  FOOD, WATER AND ENERGY = CONTROL OF AMERICANS by Joyce Morrison http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/07/food-water-and-energy-control-of-americans.html [posted July 18, 2008]

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Illinois Circuit Breaker: Property Tax Relief For Middle + Lower Income Seniors, Disabled Cut By 50%

Assault on Seniors and Disabled Continues

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza

 

In 2009, the Dept. of Labor announced there would be no Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) for individuals receiving Social Security benefits.  According to the Consumer Price Index, there was no inflation for the past fiscal year, therefore a yearly increase in Social Security benefits was not warranted--for the first time in over a quarter of a century.  Though the Dept. of Labor predicted inflation would not increase for two years, it has been reported Social Security recipients will not receive a COLA for at least 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 

Middle and lower income seniors and disabled received more bad news when applications for the state of Illinois' Circuit Breaker program were recently sent out to those who qualify. 

 

From the Dept. on Aging's web site http://www.cbrx.il.gov/ which administers the program, Circuit Breaker is defined as:

 

The Illinois Department on Aging's Circuit Breaker program provides grants to senior citizens and persons with disabilities to help them reduce the impact of taxes and prescription medications on their lives.  When the costs of property taxes and prescription medicines begin to "overload" our seniors and persons with disabilities, this program steps in to help, just as a circuit breaker prevents overloads in an electrical system.

 

For the first time in nearly thirty years, the state's Circuit Breaker tax relief grants were cut by half.  Those who applied online received the following information regarding an estimated $20 million reduction in monies allocated to and for those seniors and disabled who qualify for property tax relief.  This info is also from the Dept. of Aging's web site http://www.cbrx.il.gov/ 

NOTICE: In past years, the Department on Aging has been able to issue Circuit Breaker grants at the maximum allowable amounts. However, the state budget for fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010) did not fund the Circuit Breaker program at those levels. In order to continue to provide the Circuit Breaker grant benefit to older adults and persons with disabilities on and after July 1, the Department made the difficult decision to cut each grant awarded in half. This decision based on budgetary cutbacks cannot be appealed.

Thank you for your understanding.

The media has written little about the decrease in Circuit Breaker benefits. 

However, an article in the Springfield State Journal-Register on July 9, 2009, titled "Quinn rejects budget, layoff notices go out" by Ryan Keith http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x737359780/Layoffs-furlough-days-in-latest-budget-cut-plan reported :

Department on Aging cuts total more than $29 million and include:
• 12 furlough days
• 10 percent cut in some programs and grants
• $20 million reduction in Circuit Breaker grants

The Circuit Breaker program also provides discounts for license plate renewals for those who qualify.

One state senator said he was unaware of these cuts, saying the Circuit Breaker program is very important to seniors and disabled.  Many see the reduction of the Circuit Breaker grants as a further assault on those who need it most. 

Though $787 billion was provided to states under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus package) and President Barack Obama claimed two million jobs were either saved or created through the stimulus program, clearly much of these funds were targeted to preserve government jobs, providing little relief to small businesses in the private sector.

Shortly after the Dept. of Labor announced there would be no Cost Of Living Adjustment for those receiving Social Security, Obama threw seniors a bone by announcing Congress would consider a one-time payment of $250 in fiscal year 2010 to offset the COLA freeze.  At the time, the one-time payment was earmarked to come out of the stimulus package, but the $250 benefit to seniors was then included in a 2010 $85 billion jobs program which was reduced to $15 billion by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  The bill is currently pending in Congress and will, most likely, be signed into law by Obama.  However, this legislation (jobs bill) did not include the one-time $250 payment to Social Security beneficiaries.

During Mr. Obama's presidential campaign, he spoke of "spreading the wealth around."  Many advocates for seniors and disabled clearly understand this redistribution of wealth was not "top down" but "inside out", meaning the middle class and poor are not the beneficiaries of Obama's political agenda.  In reality, trillions of dollars are flowing out of the nation's coffers because of ever-mounting debt.  The clear beneficiaries of the redistribution of wealth concept are bankers and lobbyists, including politicians who voted themselves a cost of living increase for the current fiscal year. 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.