Alright, I know it isn't gloating. When I saw the democrats today mentioning dear ol' Teddy, it kind of brought a tear to my eyes. Not really, I'm lying. They were so smug, I wanted to lobb a couple of smoke bombs in the room. It is so amazing to me that a bill can be passed when the citizens of American do not support this obamintion of a bill, they are lying their butts off, manipulating the CBO, bribing senators, left and right , (just left) and the estimated cost (situational math) of this whole takeover. I know they will sign this tomorrow morning. But, I am not giving up, because they have to go home tomorrow and cohabitate with their constituents. They are in for a treat. Another beautiful issue is there is going to be a big confrontation when the the senate meets the house and the two bills collide. The lines are being drawn in the sand. The liberals are standing strong on the abortion funding and public option, the moderates are adamant about the the elimination of the taxpayer funded abortion and a bill without a public option. The other black cloud is the blatant bribery by Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid. The joke is on the American people since it is our taxes paying these bribes. If a private company did this, Eric Holder would be investigating them as we speak. As I've said in previous post, the stimulus bill resources are being used as a democratic slush fund , because it surely not stimulating the economy. However, Obama said he is pleased, and that is what matters. I hope the 2010 midterms becomes a blood bath for democrats who think that they should decide what we need even though we don't want it. Oh yes, the "Hypocrites of Demcare." I was so impressed with the Govenor of Nebraska. He called Ben Nelson's bluff. That takes integrity and pride, something the democratic senators checked at the door. As I've said many times before, contact and/or visit your representatives and express your views. This is our chance to be heard. "Save our healthcare."
Fool on the hill:
Fool on the hill, Part II:
Obama's Latest Health Care Lie
Matt Welch
December 22, 2009
That would be in remarks the president made yesterday:
The Congressional Budget Office now reports that this bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first decade, and by as much as $1.3 trillion in the decade after that. So I just want to be clear, for all those who are continually carping about how this is somehow a big spending government bill, this cuts our deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years, and by over a trillion in the second. That argument that opponents are making against this bill does not hold water.
There are actually multiple lies and deceptions in this paragraph, beginning with the verb "reports" to describe what the Congressional Budget Office does. The CBO, as Peter Suderman documented in his foundational Reason feature on the organization, does not "report," it "projects," in highly speculative fashion, what a proposed piece of legislation may cost. What's more, as Suderman detailed in a more recent piece that every American should read before listening to a word the president says, the CBO is bound in its "scoring" to take at face value what every living politician–Obama included–knows to be a stinking lie. That is, Congress' promises to make hundreds of billions of dollars worth of unspecified future spending "cuts." From the article:
[A]s the health care debate has progressed throughout the year, Congressional Democrats have become far more adept at getting the CBO to count the beans just the way they want.
Indeed, they have become so skilled at getting what they want out of the CBO that the office has taken to including strongly worded warnings that the various bills' real costs may not actually match their estimates.
Analysts at the CBO are not blind to this, but they must score bills as if what is written is what will happen. However, they are not prohibited from issuing strong warnings about what might happen if the legislative reality they assumed for scoring purposes somehow does not come to pass
Which is exactly what they have done (read the whole thing for multiple examples). And even given Obama's root lie of "reports," and passing over the absurd lie that this is somehow not "a big spending government bill," there's a lie built into the very CBO claim that the president is waving around like a lie-shattering club. Cue ABCnews.com's Jake Tapper:
But the deficit reduction number cited by the president has been disavowed by CBO.
When CBO first guesstimated by how much the Senate health reform legislation would reduce the deficit, they said it would be about half a percent of GDP -- $1.3 billion, said Democrats.
But on Sunday, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf issued a correction, downgrading the estimate from half a percent of GDP to between a quarter and a half a percent. The reason is that CBO misinterpreted when recommendations from the Medicare Advisory Committee would kick in.
Finally, as Suderman again has tirelessly pointed out, cutting the deficit is not the same as spending less, contra Obama's formulation here. Why, it's almost as if you could write something every day about the president's health care mendacity!
I'm still waiting for those who whooped and hollered when Obama said "we will call you out" to react with similar enthusiasm when the caller-outer-in-chief is caught red-handed. I guess we'll have to wait until they find themselves on the other side of the legislative argument. Who coulda guessed that the "reality-based community" would fudge facts to win fights just like the faith-based monsters they replaced?
Reason.TV:
Senior Dem: Kill the Senate health reform bill and start over
By Michael O'Brien - 12/23/09 02:12 PM ET
The Senate's healthcare bill is fatally flawed, a senior Democrat atop a powerful committee said on Wednesday.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the Senate's bill is so flawed that it's unlikely to be resolved in conference with the bill to have passed the House.
"The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago," Slaughter wrote in an opinion piece for CNN's website.
Slaughter argued that while the House bill is far from perfect, the Senate bill's exclusion of a public option, along with abortion funding restrictions and other measures, make the bill undeserving of a vote.
Specifically, Slaughter said, the Senate bill would charge seniors higher premiums, would fail to nix health insurers' antitrust exemption and would not go far enough in extending coverage to people in the U.S.
"Supporters of the weak Senate bill say 'just pass it — any bill is better than no bill,' " Slaughter wrote. "I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills."
The New York Democrat also sounded a note similar to what Republicans have said (though for different reasons): Scrap the current healthcare bill, and start over.
"It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board," she said. "The American people deserve at least that."
Update, 2:54 p.m.: A Senate Republican aide chimed in on Slaughter: "Unfortunately for moderate Democrats, all the sweetheart deals in the world couldn’t help you win an election when voters from across the political spectrum hate you because of your support for this disastrous bill."
Kill Bill Vol. III:
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option." (Government Run Option) I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
After the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit last week in Denmark, it appears that not much is moving forward for the climate change advocates. President Obama made a rock-star appearance at the end of summit to make a lackluster speech of platitudes and nothing of importance. The gigantic nemesis shadowing the whole summit was the exposure of the damning emails and documents hacked from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. There is so much doubt now along with dwindling support on both sides of the Atlantic ocean and across the world. Many countries are demanding investigations into this blatant conspiracy in which, is probably one of the largest scams of the scientific community ever. East Anglia's Phil Jones has stepped down and Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann. Al Gore is out there making incorrect statements and looking like a total fraud. Opponents are having a field day with incriminating evidence, feeling vindicated after years of being shunned in the climate community. Christopher Monckton, Patrick Michaels, Climate Depot and others are exposing more and more deceiving and malicious information perpetrated by advocates of climate change. How do the climate change advocates counter this disturbing leaks of sensitive information? Everyone knows how the main stream media ignored this story for weeks and only Fox news, the internet news agencies and bloggers ran with this paramount story. Now, everybody is reporting on this daily. Who would of thunk it? I read an article estimating that climate change reform would cost the world's economies about $40 trillion. That would help the world's economies. I think we need to move towards alternative enegy sources, however, as in most cases, the government wants to totally overhaul energy and mess it up like how they are on the path with healthcare reform. I feel we are a bit egotistical believing that we can have this much devastating impact on our earth. I say this because scientists have proclaimed that one erupting volcano creates more pollution than the whole country for twenty years. Now, I don't know if this is true or not, but, I understand that our earth has dealt with ice ages, earthquakes, fires and so on, and earth has repaired itself for millions of years. One other point is carbon dioxide. We exhale carbon dioxide. Is the EPA going to charge every American carbon credits for breathing? Is the EPA going to tax all living plants since they feed on carbon dioxide? I realize this sounds rediculous, that is my point. our government and world governments are trying so hard to rule every aspect of our lives, its a sin. I'm waiting for President Obama to announce a new program called "Cash for Caulkers." I will caulk my whole house and increase the indoor air pollution in my home. Cha-ching! Obama said caulking and insulating is "sexy." I can't wait to see an article in Maxim on caulking. We have 10% unemployment and our President is hawking caulk. Lord save us. How come France gets 90% of their energy from nuclear and the U.S. only gets about 15%? I do not believe our government wants to ween us off foreign oil dependency. They know we have an ample supply of oil, oil shale, natural gas and clean coal technologies at our disposal. Harvest these resources and fund alternative energy technologies. That would fund the clean energy technology research and create hundreds of thousands of jobs and pull us out of this lagging recession. Sidenote: The GDP was downgraded for the second time to 2.2%, all government growth. If a private company made this type of mistake stating numbers, Obama and his sycophants would have them investigated yesterday. Who will investigate the Fed? Call your representatives, voice your opinion.
Larry Murphy on Copenhagen:
Physicist Piers Corbyn on the Alex Jones Show:
Gov. Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg and other NY pols: Health care bill is prescription for disaster
BY Erin Einhorn and Kenneth Lovett In Albany and Michael Mcauliff In Washington
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Tuesday, December 22nd 2009, 4:00 AM
Farrall/GettyNY pols fear the proposed health care plan would blow a $1 billion hole in the state's budget.
Drew/APGov. Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg both have major concerns about the Senate health care proposal. Take our PollHealthy or unhealthy?
Would the national health care reform bill be good for New Yorkers?
Yes, we need universal healthcare
No, it will cost us too much
I'm waiting to learn more about the bill's costs
Related NewsArticlesHealth care reform bill: Numbers for New York State are sickeningSenate votes along party lines as health care bill passes huge testLupica: Nelson, Lieberman do number on health billColo.
Congresswoman, feminists lash out at health bill abortion restrictionsSenate to vote on $626 billion defense spending billObama says nation on 'cusp' of making health care reform a realityHealth care bill snowed in by political shenanigansThe Senate health reform bill is packed with lumps of coal for New York's Christmas stocking.
Gov. Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg and other officials warned the Senate plan would:
- Force the city to close 100 health clinics.
- Blow a $1 billion hole in the state's budget.
- Threaten struggling hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities.
"It is really a disgrace and we've got to make sure that we fight before the bill is finally passed," Bloomberg fumed.
New York ended up on the short end as Senate brokers showered cash on states whose senators were among the last holdouts before Democratic leaders locked up the 60 needed votes.
New York's best hope now is emergency surgery to undo the shafting before the bill becomes final.
A health care overhaul passed by the House last month is more generous to the city and state, and negotiations over the differences start in January.
Under the Senate plan, the biggest rewards go the states that, unlike New York, have been Scrooges to the poor in need of medical care.
"We are in a sense being punished for our own charity," Paterson said Monday.
Paterson was also bitter that states like Massachusetts and Vermont, which were also generous, got last-minute deals that erase their extra costs.
But even more galling is that a place like Nebraska will have the feds pick up 100% of its Medicaid costs, while New York will continue to cover half on its own.
The bonanza for the Cornhusker State was part of the price to get the 60th vote, conservative Democrat Ben Nelson.
One of the biggest whacks the state faces is a $5.5 billion cut over 10 years in federal help taking care of sick people who can't pay.
Bloomberg believes that part of the Senate bill would cost the city $540 million.
"It would require us to close all of the 100 health clinics and a bunch of the ambulatory care things that we provide, overnight, cause the money would disappear," he said.
"We've already had some 40 nursing homes and 23 hospitals close in New York State in four years," said Dan Sisto, head of the Health Care Association of New York State.
New York House members have begun to map their push to undo the damage, starting with a letter to the Democratic leadership.
"New Yorkers will more than pay their share for increasing health coverage around the country," says the letter, which Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel wrote and expects to send today, signed by 24 members. "Yet New York will receive far less than the national average in federal relief."
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the key architects of the Senate bill, insists that on balance, New York will do well.
"The Senate bill is good for New York in ways that the House bill isn't," said Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon.
He noted that Medicare Advantage funding - cut for most states - is preserved for 800,000 New York patients, and the state would get more generous support for its children's health insurance program.
Schumer also helped prevent $3 billion in cuts that were proposed for the state's teaching hospitals, most of which are in New York City.
"The House bill is better in some ways," he admitted. But Fallon said Schumer pledges to try to fix what ails the Senate version when both chambers hold a conference. "We will try to get the best out of both bills for New York."
Paterson's budget aides say the House bill would actually save the state roughly $4 billion a year.
But some insiders have hinted the House may have to accept much of the Senate's bill to keep the fragile coalition still working to pass it from fracturing. mmcauliff@nydailynews
Five Reasons It Might Not Pass
Obamacare still may not be inevitable.
By Rich Lowry & Robert Costa
Harry Reid got his 60. Ben Nelson resorted to the typical Washington expedient in such situations and bought into a few window-dressing compromises, in exchange for an enormous Medicaid benefit to his state. The Cornhusker Kickback joins the Louisiana Purchase as the latest evidence that there’s nothing like a hundred million or so in federal dollars to alleviate a senator’s deeply held concerns about the substance of Obamacare. Nelson’s sellout is a gigantic step toward the passage of the bill, but it’s not over yet. Here are five obstacles that still stand between Reid-Pelosi and a White House signing ceremony:
1. Public Revulsion. The bill was already under water in every major public-opinion poll, and opposed by a margin of almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll put its support at freezing, 32 percent. A few ticks downward and the bill will be in the 20s.
Is anything that has happened recently likely to change the trajectory? The Reid bill just got even longer, and the new version includes more tax increases. Even by the standards of the United States Congress, the process has been hide-the-children ugly: massive payoffs to the on-the-fence senators and a heedless, late-night rush to pass something, anything. The Democrats have shown no inclination to let public opinion hold them back, but the stiff headwind makes everything a little harder and reduces an already-small margin for error.
One subset of public opinion will be particularly important: Nebraska. If Nelson is perceived to have made a career-defining choice that will end his designation as a conservative Democrat and a pro-lifer, and if he takes an immediate dive in the polls, it will cast a pall over other Blue Dogs inclined to play ball. In that case, the various payoffs on offer won’t seem worth the larger cost of supporting the bill. It’s too early to tell exactly how it’s going to play in Nebraska, but Nebraska Right to Life has been appropriately excoriating about Nelson’s betrayal.
Democrats have set out to disprove Lincoln’s adage that without public sentiment nothing can succeed. They may yet succeed, but sailing into the teeth of such a howling headwind of public opinion won’t be easy.
2. The Stupak Dozen. Nelson cut a deal so far short of the Stupak language in the House that the National Right to Life Committee is going to score the cloture vote on the bill as a vote to subsidize abortion on demand. That won’t matter to anyone in the Senate, but it could have a major effect in the House. After her initial 220–215 victory, Pelosi can afford to lose only two net votes. Bart Stupak has declared the Nelson language unacceptable and vows to oppose the final bill if it doesn’t include the restrictions contained in his amendment. As John McCormack points out, earlier in the year Stupak was part of a bloc of Democrats who wrote a letter to Pelosi saying they’d stand against “any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or -subsidized health-insurance plan.” Eleven of those signatories voted for the House bill.
Then there’s Joseph Cao, the Louisiana Republican who voted for the bill at the last moment during the first House vote but has said he would vote against the bill — even if doing so might cost him his seat — if it funds abortion. Surely, not all of the Stupak Dozen have that level of commitment. The full weight of the Democratic establishment will come crashing down on them if they threaten the bill. Still, it would take only two or three of them to upset the entire effort. One option would be simply to give them what they want. But will Barbara Boxer stand for the Stupak language in the Senate? This has been a devilish dilemma for the Democrats from the beginning, and it hasn’t gotten any easier as the stakes have gotten higher.
3. Who Pays? As a practical matter, it should be relatively easy to find a compromise on revenue sources. That doesn’t involve a hot-button cultural issue or a matter of deep principle like abortion. But the differences in financing between the Senate and the House bills are vast. The Senate relies on a so-called Cadillac tax on pricey insurance plans, the House on a surtax on the wealthy. The Senate long ago declared the surtax anathema, and the House is just as dismissive of the Cadillac tax. The unions hate the Cadillac tax, since they enjoy such plans themselves, the fruit of collective bargaining. If the House gives in, it will create even more unrest on the Left. If the Senate gives in, it could upset the fragile deal for 60. If this disagreement over financing doesn’t represent as dire a threat to the future of the bill as the other factors we are cataloguing, it’s still a stumbling block.
4. Feeling Blue. “Blue Dog Democrat” is understandably becoming a term of derision, denoting a willingness to object only enough to be noticed before caving in to the Democratic leadership. Yet the Blue Dogs still have to be a worry for supporters of the bill. When Obamacare first passed the House, 28 Blue Dog Democrats, more than half of their 52-member coalition, were on board. This is a pool that surely includes some very nervous votes. As Michael Barone points out, nearly 70 percent of the Blue Dogs represent districts that voted for John McCain. A vote for this bill must look even more like a potentially career-ending decision now than it did the first time around.
Keep an eye especially on the Pennsylvanians. Rep. Patrick Murphy already has four GOP opponents in his suburban Philadelphia district. After supporting round one of Obamacare, the auto bailouts, TARP, and the stimulus, Murphy may be looking for a way back toward the center. Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper and Christopher Carney, both elected in the 2006 anti-Bush sweep, represent blue-collar districts in the Keystone State in which Obama failed to reach 50 percent last year. You can bet that trio is watching the polls. Other Blue Dogs are simply getting out. In the past month, Reps. Bart Gordon (D., Tenn.), Dennis Moore (D., Kan.), and John Tanner (D., Tenn.) have all announced their retirements.
Don’t count on the Blue Dogs, though, since most of them are experts at folding under pressure.
5. The Left. Progressives are pained, at what should be their very moment of triumph. The Senate dashed their dreams of the public option. Without it, many on the left are abandoning ship. “This is the real sticking point,” said Howard Dean last Sunday. “There hasn’t been much fight from the White House on that.” It was always unlikely, no matter how much Bernie Sanders grumbled, that left-wing senators would block the deal. It’s easier to imagine a firebrand or two in the House doing it. No fewer than 60 liberals in the House imprudently made a pledge to oppose a bill without a public option. Almost all of them can be expected to eat it. But what if one or two don’t? Public-option scold Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) is continuing to pressure Obama to move further left. “What we’re saying is now’s your moment, big guy, you’re the Mariano Rivera of this situation,” he said to MSNBC last week. “You’re going to come in at the end, and there’s still a chance to do it.” That’s not going to happen, but perhaps a few of Weiner’s colleagues are ideologically besotted enough to lash out at the president’s “betrayal” when he doesn’t “come in” the way they hope he will.
All of this means that Democrats shouldn’t be celebrating until they have the bill on Obama’s desk. But make no mistake: The momentum for the bill that Reid had to fake a week or so ago is now real, at least within Congress. Early next year, the question may shift from whether Democrats can pass the bill, to whether Republican can make the sort of gains in 2010 and 2012 necessary to repeal it.
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. Robert Costa is the William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow at the National Review Institute.
Daft statement of the day:
"It's not if healthcare passes, it's when healthcare passes."
Barack Hussein Obama
Kill Bill Vol. III: Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option." (Government Run Option) I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
Are we nuts for thinking the supposed "Blue Dog democrats or Independents" would do the right thing for the unborn or women? In the end, it is all about what their final buy off (bribe) is. Some are calling it "Cash for Cloture." I knew in my heart Ben Nelson would sell out just like Lieberman and Landreiu. They are democrats and when Obama calls them into the oval office and they graciously heed to his wishes. To hell with our country. I still haven't grasp the fact that Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid is bribing these deplorable senators with taxpayer money from the stimulus bill, which is the liberal left's slush fund. This is another step for our lame representatives to pass government run healthcare. There are many more hurdles they will face. The senate version is much less liberal than the house's version. There will be a major fight when congress convenes. I think the sensitive issues will be taxpayer funded abortion and the infamous public option. And that is just a few. My hope now is this gets tied up in debate for the next several months and we, the American people can bombard our representatives with phone calls and emails on how we feel about their total disregard for our way of thinking. Lieberman, Landreiu, Dodd, Sanders, Lincoln and Nelson need to go as soon as possible after selling out with their sweetheart deals on the taxpayer's backs. We need to field competent candidates to run against these traitors of the American public. Do you ever wonder why Harry Reid has a vote at 1:00am on Saturday morning? Why he pushing this so hard when it doesn't go into effect until 2014? Because it is such a bad bill! They are admitting it. It is a turd of a bill. No one has really seen the factual information in the bill. The real cost of the bill is $2.5 TRILLION. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers.pdf
The CBO sent dirty Harry this letter contained in the link above (it is 38 pages, typical government) and read the text. It is rather revealing. Our messionic President said that this healthcare reform will be "deficit neutral." That is a flat out lie. Hence, the letter in the link. One other pet-peave I have is how many people do not have insurance. The numbers changes daily. I've heard 24M, 36M, 46M and 13M. Does anyone care that many people can afford health insurance, however, they rather purchase Winnebago motor homes and cars instead of insurance. Also, millions are eligible for medicaid that haven't even applied for insurance. Then there are the illegal aliens (the democrats future voter base) who will end up being insured under this healthcare bill. In closing, if this healthcare bill becomes law, it will be the largest government power grab and redistribution of wealth ever seen by any country in history. Needless to say, we are gifted as Americans to oppose this travesty of a bill and to fight it with everything we have. If this bill passes, it will be a starting point for the government to take over everything else we cherish and freedom will be a thing of the past. "Don't tread on me."
Mike Huckabee in Nebraska:
Harry (Scrooge) Reid morning after passing healthcare bill. The ghosts of the American people:
§ 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
Daft statement of the day:
"We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money."
Barack Hussein Obama
Clueless in Washington, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI Does the RI stand for "real idiot"?:
US Court Orders Records Unsealed In Cap-And-Trade Fraud Case
By Ian Talley, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. legislators have obtained a court order unsealing documents in a case involving a multi-million-dollar cap-and-trade fraud.
Republican legislators say the records--due to be opened to the public in early January--could shed light on the potential challenges of policing a new, trillion-dollar commodities market that would be created under climate legislation that Congress is considering.
In a rare filing by House lawyers, Reps. Joe Barton (R., Texas) and Greg Walden (R., Ore.), the ranking members respectively of the Energy Committee and the Oversight Subcommittee, asked a federal district court in California to unseal all the closed records regarding the successful prosecution for fraud of Anne Masters Sholtz, a former California Institute of Technology economist.
Lawmakers say Sholtz's case could expose the weaknesses of a federal cap-and- trade system because it involved the same market mechanism meant to cut emissions.
In particular, said one Republican aide, the case may shed light on the challenges of prosecuting fraud in such a system.
Sholtz, who helped design a small California cap-and-trade program, allegedly hustled New York Investment firm AG Clean Air out of more than $12 million between 1999 and 2001 by selling fake emission credits.
Despite an estimated $50 million to $80 million in claims against her in bankruptcy filings and nine complaints, she pleaded guilty to one of six counts of wire fraud in 2005. Sholtz received what the lawmakers say was a veritable slap on the wrist for the felony--a sentence of five years probation with one year of home detention.
"Did they not have enough proof? Did they have good leads, but faced practical difficulties? Were there witness, evidence, strategic problems? These are the questions that we hope to answer with the unsealed documents," the Republican aide said.
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
§ 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
Kill Bill Vol. III:
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option." (Government Run Option) I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
