Friday, November 30, 2012

UK - If the Baby’s Sick, Kill it

Sick children and even disabled newborn babies, are reportedly being discharged from NHS hospitals in England only to die  slowly at home or in hospices in an unfathomable manner. The innocent children are being put on controversial “death pathways,” once only thought to have involved elderly and terminally ill adult patients.
The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), an organization that facilitates end-of-life treatment, is behind the inhumane program. The Daily Mail has learned the process of “withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.” In other words, patients — young and old — are slowly starved and dehydrated to death.

One doctor, acting as a whistle blower, admitted to starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital in a leading medical journal. The doctor describes it as a 10-day process, during which the baby becomes “smaller an shrunken.”

Roughly 130,000 elderly and terminally ill patients reportedly die on the Liverpool Care Pathway, or “death pathways.” LCP is now being independently investigated at the orders of ministers in England.
The Daily Mail has more details on this tragic story:

The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.
The previously mentioned doctor wrote of the pain of watching the slow, forced deaths of newborn babies. One baby’s parents decided to put their infant on the “pathway” because of a “lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies,” according to the doctor.
Here’s some of what the doctor wrote in the medical journal [emphasis added]:
The voice on the other end of the phone describes a newborn baby and a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies. I have a growing sense of dread as I listen.

The parents want ‘nothing done’ because they feel that these anomalies are not consistent with a basic human experience. I know that once decisions are made, life support will be withdrawn.

Assuming this baby survives, we will be unable to give feed, and the parents will not want us to use artificial means to do so.

Regrettably, my predictions are correct. I realise as I go to meet the parents that this will be the tenth child for whom I have cared after a decision has been made to forgo medically provided feeding.

Like other parents in this predicament, they are now plagued with a terrible type of wishful thinking that they could never have imagined. They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped.

They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.
After reading the article in the British Medical Journal, Dr. Laura de Rooy, a consultant neonatologist at St. George’s Hospital NHS Trust in London, wrote on the BMJ website: “It is a huge supposition to think they do not feel hunger or thirst.”
 “The LCP was devised by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool for care of dying adult patients more than a decade ago. It has since been developed, with [pediatric] staff at Alder Hey Hospital, to cover children. Parents have to agree to their child going on the death pathway, often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’,” The Daily Mail reports.
Obviously, not everyone agrees. Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice pediatric nurse, wrote to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and blasted the use of death pathways for young children.
“The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live,” she wrote. “It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a reasonable number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.”
She went on: “I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die…I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.”
For now the inquiry into the death pathways is ongoing. A Department of Health spokesman said that “End of life care for children must meet the highest professional and clinical standards, and the specific needs of children at the end of their life.”
But as Teresa Lynch, a spokeswoman for the Medical Ethics Alliance, points out: “There are big questions to be answered about how our sick children are dying.”
Source: The Blaze Posted on November 29, 2012 at 5:28pm by Jason Howerton To read more of the anonymous doctor’s testimony in the British Medical Journal,  (H/T: Drudge)

We need to look for ways to avoid medical treatment that is dictated by the government.  These parents and their sick children would be better off staying away from the hospitals. “First do no harm” no longer exists where government is in charge of patient care. State laws should be written to strip away the monopoly power being assumed by the Federal government.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Spotted Owl

Feds to Designate 9.6 Million Acres as 'Critical Habitat'
for Spotted Owl
(TheBlaze/AP) - The northern spotted owl is expected to be  
allocated roughly 9.6 million acres of forest land to protect it
from extinction- roughly twice what was dedicated during
the Bush administration in 2008.
This is how they take away our property. they use the
Endangered Species Act which was "created" thru the UN.   
This is how they collapsed our paper industry.  Area that they
want to take away from us and then note the list of the  
"UNSUSTAINABLE" items. timber is one thing we are NOT
ALLOWED to keep. how do you think they are going to
remove TIMBER as in WOOD out of our "environment". They
block us using a warm and fuzzy animal!
In this May 8, 2003, a northern spotted owl named Obsidian
by U.S. Forest Service employees sits in a tree in the
Deschutes National Forest near Camp Sherman, Ore.
The full > "critical habitat" plan will not be published until next
week, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced
that areas of Oregon, Washington and Northern California will
come under its provisions, almost all of it federal lands
The amount is down from nearly14 million acres proposed last
February,but far exceeds the 5.3 million acres proposed in 2008.
The biggest cut came in private timberlands -1.3 million acres.
State forests covering 271,000 acres remain.
Following a directive last February from the White House, officials
revised the latest plan to make room for thinning and logging inside
critical habitat to reduce the danger of wildfire and improve the
health of forests.
Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity said it
appeared the critical habitat plan and the previously adopted owl
recovery strategy were back in line with the Northwest Forest Plan
adopted in 1994 to protect owls and salmon.
"In restoring extensive protections on federal lands, today's
decision .marks the end of a dark chapter in the Endangered
Species Act's implementation when politics were allowed to
blot out science," he said."The owl has continued to decline
since its protection under the Endangered Species Act. Part
of the reason for that is the loss of habitat on private and s
tate lands."
But Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist for the GEOS Institute
and a former member of the spotted owl recovery team,
objected to plans to log and thin forests inside the critical
habitat area, saying no studies have been done on how it
could harm the owls. He added that one study shows it
reduces the amount of prey available.
as-critical-habitat-for-northern-spotted-owls> .
"We need to focus on protecting and restoring our remaining
mature and old-growth forests across all lands, so we can recover
endangered wildlife and produce sustainable jobs in rural
communities," Joseph Vaile, the program director of the Klamath-
Siskiyou Wildlands Center in Ashland, Oregon added
habitat-for-northern-spotted-owls> .
The designation of the spotted owl as a threatened species in 1990
triggered a 90% cutback in logging on national forests in the
northwest and similar reductions spread around the nation.
Even so, the spotted owl has seen a 40% decline during the past  
25 years, Fish and Wildlife officials said.
The Bush administration tried to undue some protections for the owls
and other species to allow for more logging, but the effort was turned  
back in court.
The timber industry reserved detailed comment on the latest proposal
until it can look at the full plan.

From the UN Agenda 21 document we get the following:
“UN Biodiversity Assessment Report:  What is Unsustainable?
Paved/tarred roads/highways/rails
Logging activities/harvesting timber
Power line construction
Ski resorts/Golf Courses
Fossil fuels
Agricultural equipment
Grazing of livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses etc.
Plowing of soil
Building of fences
Dam/reservoirs/straightening of rivers
Single family homes
Private property
Population Growth
Home Schooling”

Source: (TheBlaze/AP) –November 25, 2012, Posted on
November 22, 2012 at 8:40pm by Erica Ritz Spotted Owl
Granted 9.6 Million Acres of Critical Habitat Land | Agenda 21 <>

Forest fires on unoccupied federal land have destroyed the species these clowns wanted to protect in the first place. The Spotted Owl was given 9.6 million acres and it almost killed them.  We had our private property and our ability to make a living taken away. When timber was allowed to be harvested, we had far fewer forest fires and much better forest management.  We need to return to responsible harvesting of trees before the forest fires destroy everything.

My observation of wildlife is that, if left alone, they act in their own best interest, which is more than you can say for us.  I think continuing to sponsor the UN is unsustainable.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Communism Ahead

Does Government Want To Drain Americans' 401(k) Plan?

Posted 11/28/2012 06:39 PM ET

War On Wealth: As Washington debates what to do about the fiscal cliff that it foolishly created, many potential sources of new revenue will be thrown on the table. One of them is likely to be 401(k) plans.

Retirement is an American's reasonable expectation. We put money into investment plans so that our work today funds our hard-earned leisure of tomorrow.

But many in Washington see our investment accounts not as the expressions of well-planned, disciplined decisions but as untapped reservoirs of wealth they can drain to fix the problems that they caused.

The tax protection that 401(k)s have now can be wiped out by grasping politicians who refuse to do what's right, which is to severely cut spending.

The war on retirement, particularly 401(k)s, is quiet now. But that's because it's a cold war.And like the postwar tensions between the East and West, it could erupt at any time into a hot war.One group of retirement plan professionals is warning that the hostilities might be closer than many of us think. The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries launched on Monday, according to Reuters, "a media campaign intended to educate U.S. employers and workers that the federal government might consider changing the tax benefits of retirement savings accounts."

A website set up by the ASPPA advises account holders to tell lawmakers to "keep their hands off your retirement savings" and explains that "Congress needs to reduce the deficit, and part of deficit reduction will most likely be 'tax reform' that increases tax revenue" — the strong suggestion being that Washington is coming after Americans' 401(k)s.

If the ASPPA were alone in issuing its warnings, it could be written off as the hyperbole of an isolated group. But Washington's lust for Americans' retirement investments is well documented.President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments "asking for public comment on 'the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.'"

"In plain English," said Gingrich and Ferrara, "the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years."

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Total assets in 401(k)s are roughly $3 trillion. So even if they were seized in their entirety, they would merely retire less than 19% of Washington's $16.3 trillion debt.

Taxed at 50%, 401(k)s would narrowly cover the $1.3 trillion deficit that Washington rang up in 2012.

Already a large chunk of America's retirement is held in the federal government's hands. Between 1937 and 2009, Social Security took in nearly $14 trillion in payroll tax revenue.

In all but 11 of those years, the government collected more than it spent on benefits. Yet despite all the surpluses, the Social Security program is in financial trouble and Congress needs more revenue to fix it, just as it is looking for more of other people's money to avoid the fiscal cliff plunge.

Don't think for a minute that 401(k)s aren't on the table as a part of the solution. And when they are served up in front of hungry politicians, they can be quickly devoured. All that will be left for the account holders will be a few crumbs.

Read More At IBD:

2 pieces from 2010 when this issue came up in 2010.

Federal Mutual Fund Posted 05/11/2010 06:32 PM ET

Government Retirement: Democrats have obliquely admitted they covet Americans' pensions. Last week, congressional Republicans told them to stay away. The shame is that they had to do anything at all.

The first rumblings were heard in the 1990s, when Democrats were said to be coming after our retirement accounts. Back then, the warnings were easy to pass off as hyperbole or a cranky conspiracy theory. Today, they pass as prescient.

In January, Bloomberg reported the "U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and individual retirement accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry."Alarms went off.

In February, former House Speaker New Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara warned in our "On The Right" column that "Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings.""The idea," they said, "is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years."They will tell you that you are 'investing' your money. ... But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds."

Last week, Connie Hair wrote the following in Human Events about the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class released in February:"The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies."Hair says a "backdoor bull's-eye is on your 401(k) plan and trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.

 "Republican lawmakers are taking the threat seriously. They have expressed to the administration through a letter their "strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans." These congressmen know that among their Beltway brethren there exists an eagerness to "essentially dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan.

"This isn't the first time Democrats have eyed Americans' retirements. In 1993 the Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration considered an "unprecedented effort by the federal government to deal with its budget woes by turning to the more than $4 trillion in cash, stocks and other investments held by pension funds.

"They made another pass in 2008, when Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research who was invited by Democrats to testify, brought the idea of government "guaranteed retirement accounts" to the House subcommittee on income security and family support. Such accounts would be administered by the Social Security Administration. "Contributions" would be required and the payout would be a lean 3%.Ghilarducci didn't suggest that 401(k)s be eliminated, but she didn't have to.

She supports removing the favorable tax treatment they receive, which would virtually destroy their reason to exist. To close the loop, we refer back to the White House's middle-class task force report. It mentions guaranteed retirement accounts as a way to "give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk and, in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation."Or, as Gingrich and Ferrara say, the government would treat ostensibly private retirement savings the same negligent way it's treated Social Security. Let's not forget: The courts have ruled that Washington isn't obligated to pay back a dime it's seized from paychecks to fund Social Security.

Don't think Washington would never wreck private pensions in the name of the collective good. It happened in Argentina, and if the same group that's determined to take over the U.S. health care system stays in power long enough, it could happen here.

Read More At IBD:

It Takes A Pillage

Posted 07/01/2010 07:01 PM ET Retirement: Argentina nationalized private pension funds in 2008 under the guise of shielding them from the economic meltdown. But the funds have been used by lawmakers. That couldn't happen here, could it?

Socialist President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said the state was protecting private retirement from "policies of plunder." By moving tens of billions from the private sector and placing it in the public fisc, she claimed to be providing "an example" for others to follow as the global financial crisis heated up.

The Argentine Congress, making a promise it didn't intend to keep, said it would make sure the money would be used for pensions. Instead, it was used for government spending. Nearly $30 billion was stolen from the citizens of Argentina by the government that was supposed to protect them from thieves.

Democrats have been casting a similar greedy eye on Americans' pensions since at least the 1990s, though they typically kept their ambitions quiet. But in January, the lid on envy began to boil over.

• Bloomberg reported that the Treasury and Labor departments were inviting public comment on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) and individual retirement accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.

• A month later, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara, reacting to the appeal for public comment, warned in our On The Right column that "Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings."

• Then in May, based on what she had read in the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, Connie Hair wrote in Human Events that "the radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement."

The selling point for these plans would be much like the fiction that was peddled in Argentina: The funds would go into a pot that the government would protect from economic decline before they are distributed to retirees.

That sounds a lot like the mythical Social Security lockbox, in which Washington seizes a portion of Americans' private income, then uses what it doesn't pay out in Social Security benefits to finance the general budget. So it not only can happen here, it does happen here. It just hasn't yet spread to the private retirement accounts that Americans put their money in after Washington has taken a significant chunk of their paychecks to fund the crashing Social Security program. But it will, if we keep electing the same class of candidates that have created the problems plaguing us today.

Read More At IBD:

Read More At IBD:

We already know that money printing inflation has resulted in 12% inflation, not 2%.  Federal government spending on UN Agenda 21 implementation, to prevent global warming (hoax) accounts for the extra $1 trillion a year Obama is spending.  As the dollar looses value, we buy gold and silver. Now we have some incentive to empty all of our retirement accounts and head for the hills.  Perfect.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Night of the Global Warming Hoax

More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise by John Ransom

New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tends to now show that ice melt estimates previously calculated for Greenland have not significantly accelerated- as has been previously postulated- nor has the melt contributed in a meaningful way to the rise of sea levels.
Recently, much of the destruction on the east coast as a consequence of Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore was blamed on the rise in sea-levels, which have been blamed on…drum roll…global warming.
The newest revelation, amongst many in the last several years that have muffled the global warming chants of “settled science, settled science, settled science,” confirms that the model generally used to support climate change, global warming and/or Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore, is neither settled nor scientific.
Global Warming theorists have advanced the notion the melt from Greenland’s ice sheet is the prime culprit in elevated sea-levels. They advanced this theory after their previous theory- the ice melt in the Himalayas- was shown by the same process that has now debunked the Greenland ice theory to have been exaggerated.
And yes, the seas have risen not withstanding Obama’s election promise to make the seas stop rising. Presumably the Greatest Superhero President Ever was going to use some sort of magical veto power that was transmitted to him through his cartoon Nobel Prize Heroes to compel the seas to stop rising.
But back in the real world where science is based on facts, and prizes are awarded based on real accomplishments outside of Scandinavia and American Idol, the new report- which was generated by researchers at Princeton University- shows that the Greenland ice melt is happening at such a slow pace that in fact, there is no need to fret over the loss of ice in the Land of Green.
From the UK’s Register:
If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement:
At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).
So does this mean that Obama has to serve 3,250 four-year terms as president before he can make the seas actually stop rising?
Liberals would like to think so.
It will probably take that long just to get an Obama budget passed.
The Register says what the report really means is that sea-rise levels from the Greenland melt will be insignificant.
“Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount,” writes the Register. “Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms.”
But that’s very much a different conclusion than was drawn over the summer when scientists at NASA told us- gasp!- that all the ice in Greenland was melting at once, an event that had never been recorded in 30 years of satellite imaging of the ice sheets!
Imagine ice melting in the summer. Well, I never…
Yes. Never before- um, since they started looking at it in the late 1970s- had all the ice in Greenland melted at the same time. There must have been some union rule against it until now.
Bloggsters, like ScienceBlogs’ Greg Laden jumped on that NASA report saying “I have always felt that sea level rise would be quicker and higher than my colleagues in climate science have suggested.”
And he cited the report as more proof that the global-warming apocalypse, created by the fossil fuels that made possible things like indoor plumbing, modern medicine, sanitation and footwear not made from bark, will destroy the hallmarks of civilization like indoor plumbing, modern medicine, sanitation and footwear not made from bark.
But now we know that Laden was wrong.
And he’ll just have to find some other culprit for the change in the weather.
But getting past all the scientific inquiry and theorizing based on fantasy, not facts, is what global warming scientists do best.
It doesn’t have to be settled or science.  It just has to sell.
Source:  Townhall Daily, John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

Global warming is a hoax and U.N. Agenda 21 is a scam the federal government has been implementing since 1992.  This is the most outrageous waste of borrowed and printed dollars in U.S. history. It caused the closing of 100 coal-fired power plants, setting us up for unnecessarily expensive electricity, inflation and the coming meltdowns of our government debt and the U.S. dollar.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader