Medical Marijuana: 'Be Careful,' Ex-White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner Tells DOJ About 'New Lax Enforcement' Policy; 'Use May Explode for Healthy People'
/PRNewswire/ -- "Be careful about the new lax enforcement policy for medical marijuana," former White House Drug Policy Spokesman Bob Weiner is telling the Department of Justice and the Obama Administration.
"You may get way more than you bargained for", Weiner cautions of the new policy barring states attorneys from busting and prosecuting users and caregivers of so-called "medical" marijuana who act "in accordance with state law."
"Prescription marijuana use may explode for healthy people."
Unfortunately, as many as 90% of purchases at clinical distribution centers are "false defenses", some law enforcement agents report - "which means individuals are not really sick but simply want the pot," Weiner asserts.
"Medical marijuana is not as effective as other healing mechanisms for many illnesses such as glaucoma, pain, or nausea that users try it for because of false hype leading to false hope. Just as laetrile was legalized in the 1970's in 27 states to cure cancer but was found to be useless apricot pits, leading Senator Kennedy in a Senate hearing to decry the 'false hope' delaying true treatment, 'medical' marijuana today could be a placebo delaying far better treatments," according to Weiner.
"Many medical marijuana advocates press its use for pain killing and appetite enhancement," Weiner asserted, "but you might feel just as good after a shot of gin. Science, not politics, must drive what is determined to be safe and effective medicine in America. The medical marijuana advocates never mention the potentially better applications of THC in marijuana from suppositories, jells, aerosols, or the already approved pill Marinol -- they just want the high from the smoked version.
"There is a real danger that if marijuana is made essentially a prescription drug, its abuse and usage explosion could parallel other prescription drugs over the last decade, such as OxyContin, which have tripled nationally and quintupled in many locations because of the ease of availability."
"No one wants to deny a dying cancer patient a hit of grass, if that's what he or she wants. But to announce and implement a policy of broad-brush non-enforcement when there is so much loose about usage of medical marijuana and its distribution is a dangerous policy."
"The new policy, a three-page DOJ memo anyone can download, does not only say leave the users alone. It also says leave the 'caregivers' alone if they comply with state law. The distribution centers, which are suppliers, and the staff could well be considered 'caregivers'. DOJ would have serious problems discerning between illicit dealers and distributors."
Weiner served as White House Drug Policy Office spokesman for 6-1/2 years and communications director of the House Select Narcotics Committee for five years.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Misleading the Public on Health Care with Spoken Words
TT Note: Perhaps the public and Congress should read the bill. Then, we would know when someone is trying to mislead us with eloquent words. Listening to the words last night makes one wonder what bill has he seen? Certainly, it's one that no one else has!
President Obama Misleads Public on Health Care for Illegal Aliens; Illegal Aliens Would Benefit Under H.R. 3200
/PRNewswire/ -- "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," President Obama said in a carefully worded statement to a Joint Session of Congress and the American public last night. The problem, notes the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), is that the health care reforms proposed in H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009, clearly would benefit illegal aliens.
"Perhaps the reforms that President Obama advocates would not cover illegal aliens, but those are not the reforms currently under consideration by Congress," commented Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "H.R. 3200, the legislation that the House will be voting on, would allow illegal aliens to benefit from the government-financed public option, and includes no verification provisions to prevent illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer subsidies to purchase private health insurance."
President Obama's assertion that illegal alien would not be covered under AAHCA is directly contradicted by an August 25 report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, issued by the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan research arm of Congress concluded, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegal present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the [Health Insurance] Exchange."
Once in the Exchange, participants are free to enroll in the government run health insurance program. This public option, established under H.R. 3200, would be heavily or entirely subsidized by the American taxpayers. While illegal aliens are barred from receiving "affordability credits" to help pay for private insurance, CRS noted the absence of any mechanism in the bill to verify citizenship or legal residency.
"There is no reason why the controversy over whether illegal aliens will be eligible for massive health care subsidies should persist," said Stein. "The president, congressional leaders, and the public all agree they should not. The authors of H.R. 3200 can easily remove the ambiguities from the House bill, and Senate leaders can include specific language barring illegal aliens from all nonemergency benefits in the bill that is being written in that chamber.
"President Obama himself can also play an important role in seeing to it that his wishes are carried out by publicly urging leaders of both houses to include clear, unambiguous language in their legislation that would preclude illegal aliens from coverage under his health care reform proposal," Stein continued. "FAIR stands ready to work with the White House and congressional leaders to develop legislative language that would make sure that President Obama's pledge to the American people is fulfilled."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
President Obama Misleads Public on Health Care for Illegal Aliens; Illegal Aliens Would Benefit Under H.R. 3200
/PRNewswire/ -- "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," President Obama said in a carefully worded statement to a Joint Session of Congress and the American public last night. The problem, notes the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), is that the health care reforms proposed in H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009, clearly would benefit illegal aliens.
"Perhaps the reforms that President Obama advocates would not cover illegal aliens, but those are not the reforms currently under consideration by Congress," commented Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "H.R. 3200, the legislation that the House will be voting on, would allow illegal aliens to benefit from the government-financed public option, and includes no verification provisions to prevent illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer subsidies to purchase private health insurance."
President Obama's assertion that illegal alien would not be covered under AAHCA is directly contradicted by an August 25 report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, issued by the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan research arm of Congress concluded, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegal present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the [Health Insurance] Exchange."
Once in the Exchange, participants are free to enroll in the government run health insurance program. This public option, established under H.R. 3200, would be heavily or entirely subsidized by the American taxpayers. While illegal aliens are barred from receiving "affordability credits" to help pay for private insurance, CRS noted the absence of any mechanism in the bill to verify citizenship or legal residency.
"There is no reason why the controversy over whether illegal aliens will be eligible for massive health care subsidies should persist," said Stein. "The president, congressional leaders, and the public all agree they should not. The authors of H.R. 3200 can easily remove the ambiguities from the House bill, and Senate leaders can include specific language barring illegal aliens from all nonemergency benefits in the bill that is being written in that chamber.
"President Obama himself can also play an important role in seeing to it that his wishes are carried out by publicly urging leaders of both houses to include clear, unambiguous language in their legislation that would preclude illegal aliens from coverage under his health care reform proposal," Stein continued. "FAIR stands ready to work with the White House and congressional leaders to develop legislative language that would make sure that President Obama's pledge to the American people is fulfilled."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Utility Wants to Pour $334 Million of Taxpayer Money Down Carbon Capture Rat Hole
/PRNewswire/ -- Utility giant AEP has applied for $334 million in stimulus money to construct the first commercial scale CO2 capture and storage project at a West Virginia coal-fired power plant. That's about half the money needed for the project. The project goal is to capture 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year and then to store it 1.5 miles below the surface. Left unanswered, however, are some very significant questions:
Q How much of a difference in atmospheric CO2 levels will this make?
A Atmospheric CO2 accumulation from this plant is the product the emissions (0.0015 billion metric tons of CO2) times its persistence in the atmosphere (estimated to be 40%), which equals 0.0006 billion metric tons of CO2. Since 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2 weights 7.81 billion metric tons, the atmospheric persistence of the plant's emissions is roughly 0.0006 / 7.81, which equals 0.000077 ppmv. So AEP plans to spend $670 million -- remember half is taxpayer money -- to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.000077 ppmv per year. That's only $8.7 trillion per ppmv avoided.
Q How much of a hypothetical change in temperature will be achieved by this $670 million expenditure?
A If the project started burying CO2 in 2015 as planned, then between 2015 and 2100 the atmosphere would contain about 0.0065 ppmv less CO2 (85 years x 0.00077 ppmv per year). Using the IPCC's simplified expression for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2 and 380 ppmv for our base year 2007, we get a change in CO2-related forcing of about 0.000092 W/m2, which works out to between 0.0000276 degrees Celsius to 0.000092 degrees Celsius of potential warming avoided over those 85 years.
That works out to a rate of between $7.3 trillion to $24.3 trillion spent per hypothetical 1 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature avoided. Remember, this is only a hypothetical temperature difference; it's not at all certain that any temperature difference would actually occur! Moreover, even if this miniscule temperature increase were avoided, it's not at all clear that any climatic benefits would actually occur. Global warming is better, after all, than global cooling.
"The only thing worse than AEP's application to throw $334 million in taxpayer money down the carbon capture rat hole be the Obama administration granting the request. Stimulus money is supposed to jump-start the economy not be wasted on politically correct boondoggles that provide no value to society," said Steve Milloy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Q How much of a difference in atmospheric CO2 levels will this make?
A Atmospheric CO2 accumulation from this plant is the product the emissions (0.0015 billion metric tons of CO2) times its persistence in the atmosphere (estimated to be 40%), which equals 0.0006 billion metric tons of CO2. Since 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2 weights 7.81 billion metric tons, the atmospheric persistence of the plant's emissions is roughly 0.0006 / 7.81, which equals 0.000077 ppmv. So AEP plans to spend $670 million -- remember half is taxpayer money -- to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.000077 ppmv per year. That's only $8.7 trillion per ppmv avoided.
Q How much of a hypothetical change in temperature will be achieved by this $670 million expenditure?
A If the project started burying CO2 in 2015 as planned, then between 2015 and 2100 the atmosphere would contain about 0.0065 ppmv less CO2 (85 years x 0.00077 ppmv per year). Using the IPCC's simplified expression for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2 and 380 ppmv for our base year 2007, we get a change in CO2-related forcing of about 0.000092 W/m2, which works out to between 0.0000276 degrees Celsius to 0.000092 degrees Celsius of potential warming avoided over those 85 years.
That works out to a rate of between $7.3 trillion to $24.3 trillion spent per hypothetical 1 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature avoided. Remember, this is only a hypothetical temperature difference; it's not at all certain that any temperature difference would actually occur! Moreover, even if this miniscule temperature increase were avoided, it's not at all clear that any climatic benefits would actually occur. Global warming is better, after all, than global cooling.
"The only thing worse than AEP's application to throw $334 million in taxpayer money down the carbon capture rat hole be the Obama administration granting the request. Stimulus money is supposed to jump-start the economy not be wasted on politically correct boondoggles that provide no value to society," said Steve Milloy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama
/PRNewswire/ -- The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
-- Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
$1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the
evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
this service.
-- Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to
remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of
money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were
dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons
make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for
the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
-- Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
$1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the
evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
this service.
-- Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to
remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of
money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were
dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons
make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for
the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Health Care Reform Bill Allows Cities to get Grants for Beautification?
TT Note: Perhaps the good Congressmen should really read the current Health Care Reform Bill. Perhaps they should note all the non-health projects that have been slipped in to the bill. Has any American thought to ask their Congressman "why"? The Congressmen just may be hard pressed to explain how a new sidewalk or swing set are in the best interest of the country's health.
Health Care Bill Fact of the Day: Billions in Pork Barrel Spending for ‘Community Transformation’ and ‘Beautification’
Under the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s “Affordable Health Choices Act,” local governments can apply for “community transformation” grants to build jungle gyms, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and grocery stores, to install streetlights, and to establish new farmers’ markets.
The dollar amount of these grants, and of the total “community transformation” earmark program, is left to the discretion of the Obama administration....http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/12/1health-care-bill-fact-of-the-day-billions-in-pork-barrel-spending-for-community-transformation-and-beautification/
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Health Care Bill Fact of the Day: Billions in Pork Barrel Spending for ‘Community Transformation’ and ‘Beautification’
Under the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s “Affordable Health Choices Act,” local governments can apply for “community transformation” grants to build jungle gyms, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and grocery stores, to install streetlights, and to establish new farmers’ markets.
The dollar amount of these grants, and of the total “community transformation” earmark program, is left to the discretion of the Obama administration....http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/12/1health-care-bill-fact-of-the-day-billions-in-pork-barrel-spending-for-community-transformation-and-beautification/
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, June 08, 2009
The Debt Highway
TT Note: Wow. This video really puts the current government spending into perspective. I know I'm not comfortable with the speed at which we are going. How about you?
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New Federal Stem Cell Rules Would Hinder Existing Research, Consumer Group Warns
TT Note: Another fine example of the changes made in policy over the last 3 months or so. Help one group. Destroy another. This seems to be the rule of the land these days.
Stem cell research does have some great potential. Why not let the earlier approved lines continue their research?
/PRNewswire / -- -- Regulations governing stem cell research proposed by the Obama Administration -- unless modified before final implementation on July 1 -- prohibit federal funding of important research that had received funding under the Bush Administration, Consumer Watchdog said today. The nonpartisan, nonprofit group called on the National Institutes of Health to change the draft regulations.
On March 9, President Obama signed an executive order intended to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. As part of the order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were directed to develop regulations "to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law."
"Most of us were heartened when President Obama lifted Bush Administration restrictions on funding stem cell research, but the perverse effect of these proposed NIH rules is that the limited research scientists were able to conduct under Bush will now be ineligible for federal funding," said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project Director. "Certainly this is not what President Obama intended and the regulations must be modified."
Bush allowed the NIH to fund research on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived before 9 pm, Aug. 9, 2001. In practice there were about 20 lines that were available to scientists that qualified for federal money. Embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into virtually any cell in the body, are derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and would otherwise be destroyed.
The Bush approved stem cell lines were derived before the proposed NIH rules and do not meet some of their specific technical standards. In addition some stem cell lines derived with state or private funding or in other countries since 2001 don't meet some of the technical specifications of the proposed NIH rules.
For instance, under the new NIH guidelines donors would have to be told that the embryos would be used for stem cell research. When some of the earlier lines were derived, donors were told more generically that the embryos would be used for research. The new regulations call for an explicit statement that the results of using the human embryonic stem cells may have commercial potential and that the donor would not receive any financial benefit from such commercial development. They also would have to be told that the stem cell lines derived from the donated embryos might be maintained for many years.
"The NIH guidelines set the highest standards and make sense going forward," said Simpson. "However the earlier lines were derived under Institutional Review Board (IRB) supervision, following ethical guidelines then in place, suggested by such organizations as the National Academies of Science, or covered by state regulations like those of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. It would be wrong to preclude them from federal funding going forward. You can't hold someone to standards that didn't exist when these lines were derived in good faith according to then existing standards."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Stem cell research does have some great potential. Why not let the earlier approved lines continue their research?
/PRNewswire / -- -- Regulations governing stem cell research proposed by the Obama Administration -- unless modified before final implementation on July 1 -- prohibit federal funding of important research that had received funding under the Bush Administration, Consumer Watchdog said today. The nonpartisan, nonprofit group called on the National Institutes of Health to change the draft regulations.
On March 9, President Obama signed an executive order intended to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. As part of the order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were directed to develop regulations "to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law."
"Most of us were heartened when President Obama lifted Bush Administration restrictions on funding stem cell research, but the perverse effect of these proposed NIH rules is that the limited research scientists were able to conduct under Bush will now be ineligible for federal funding," said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project Director. "Certainly this is not what President Obama intended and the regulations must be modified."
Bush allowed the NIH to fund research on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived before 9 pm, Aug. 9, 2001. In practice there were about 20 lines that were available to scientists that qualified for federal money. Embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into virtually any cell in the body, are derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and would otherwise be destroyed.
The Bush approved stem cell lines were derived before the proposed NIH rules and do not meet some of their specific technical standards. In addition some stem cell lines derived with state or private funding or in other countries since 2001 don't meet some of the technical specifications of the proposed NIH rules.
For instance, under the new NIH guidelines donors would have to be told that the embryos would be used for stem cell research. When some of the earlier lines were derived, donors were told more generically that the embryos would be used for research. The new regulations call for an explicit statement that the results of using the human embryonic stem cells may have commercial potential and that the donor would not receive any financial benefit from such commercial development. They also would have to be told that the stem cell lines derived from the donated embryos might be maintained for many years.
"The NIH guidelines set the highest standards and make sense going forward," said Simpson. "However the earlier lines were derived under Institutional Review Board (IRB) supervision, following ethical guidelines then in place, suggested by such organizations as the National Academies of Science, or covered by state regulations like those of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. It would be wrong to preclude them from federal funding going forward. You can't hold someone to standards that didn't exist when these lines were derived in good faith according to then existing standards."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Obama: Muslim Father, Mormon Mother, Is He a Musmon?
TT Note: Sometimes, stories just pop out and demand attention. For me, this is one of them. The LDS has long been allowing posthumous baptisms. My understanding is their members believe it is their duty to try and save everyone. I really do wonder what the Obama family thinks of this development of his mother now being a Mormon. How does that mesh with his Islamic upbringing? How does that mesh with his current belief, whatever that may be?
LDS Church Investigates Baptism Performed for Obama's Late Mother
The following article is from Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter and is copyright by Richard W. Eastman. It is re-published here with the permission of the author. Information about the newsletter is available at http://www.eogn.com.
Several newsletter readers have written to point out a story in today's newspapers: President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was performed in the same temple on June 11, said Radkey, who found the record while doing genealogy research in the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints immediately reiterated its policy regarding proxy baptisms. "The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us, and it is counter to church policy for a church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related," said LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter.
"The church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts," he added. "However, this is a serious matter, and we are treating it as such."
The White House declined to comment Tuesday.
Many newspapers are carrying the story today. You can find some of the articles at http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Mormon+Church+Obama%27s+mother.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
LDS Church Investigates Baptism Performed for Obama's Late Mother
The following article is from Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter and is copyright by Richard W. Eastman. It is re-published here with the permission of the author. Information about the newsletter is available at http://www.eogn.com.
Several newsletter readers have written to point out a story in today's newspapers: President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was performed in the same temple on June 11, said Radkey, who found the record while doing genealogy research in the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints immediately reiterated its policy regarding proxy baptisms. "The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us, and it is counter to church policy for a church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related," said LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter.
"The church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts," he added. "However, this is a serious matter, and we are treating it as such."
The White House declined to comment Tuesday.
Many newspapers are carrying the story today. You can find some of the articles at http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Mormon+Church+Obama%27s+mother.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Let's Get Tough on Detroit? What a Joke
TT Note: Sacrifice the automakers? Obama wouldn't dare risk that move. Here's a thoughtful insight to possible agendas for the powers in Washington.
GM Bankruptcy? Tell Me Another
By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
Wall Street Journal
March 31, 2009
President Obama rightly says "sacrifices" must be made if GM is to emerge as a viable company. But there's one sacrifice he won't make: his re-election chances, by leaving the fate of the UAW truly up to a bankruptcy judge.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123853988781575499.html?mod=article-outset-box
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
GM Bankruptcy? Tell Me Another
By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
Wall Street Journal
March 31, 2009
President Obama rightly says "sacrifices" must be made if GM is to emerge as a viable company. But there's one sacrifice he won't make: his re-election chances, by leaving the fate of the UAW truly up to a bankruptcy judge.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123853988781575499.html?mod=article-outset-box
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, March 09, 2009
The Obama Trillion-Dollar Tax Hike and America's Charitable Sector
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Americans for Tax Reform today took a look at the provisions in Obama's budget outline that affect charitable giving:
One of the most controversial aspects of the Obama trillion-dollar tax hike is the effect that it will have on America's charities. America is built on a concept of "civil society." We don't expect government institutions to be the primary provider of care for those in need. We expect charities to do that. The Obama tax hike takes aim directly at charities, just at a time when America needs them the most.
Where charities currently stand. In 2006 (the latest year for which the IRS has data), families donated $187 billion to charities. Corporations donated another $16 billion. Foundations, trusts, and estates contributed $131 billion more. Charitable contributions are tax-deductible, and face very few restrictions in current tax law. According to the Office of Management and Budget, all these charitable contributions cut federal taxes by $58 billion every year.
The Obama Trillion-Dollar Tax Hike's Double Assault on Charities
-- The Obama trillion-dollar tax hike brings back the itemized deduction phaseout (Pease) in 2011 for married couples making $250,000 and single people making $200,000. Nearly all itemized deductions will have to be reduced by 3% of the extent that income exceeds this level. So, a married couple making $1,000,000 will see their itemized deductions (including charitable contributions) reduced by ($1,000,000-$250,000)*.03, or $22,500. The Pease limit can only reduce itemized deductions by 80%.
-- The Obama trillion-dollar tax hike also creates a new limit above and beyond Pease. No matter what tax rate you fall into, your itemized deductions (including charitable contributions) cannot benefit you any more than if you found yourself in the 28 percent bracket. Returning to our $1,000,000 taxpayer, he finds himself in Obama's new, higher 39.6 percent bracket (up from today's 35 percent, incidentally). If he gives an additional $1000 to charity, it won't reduce his income tax burden by $396, as one might expect. Rather, his income taxes would only go down by $280.
How will this assault on charitable giving change things in America?
Suppose families decide, on the aggregate, that they will give one percent less to charity as a result of this limitation. For every 1 percent decline in household charitable giving, that's nearly $2 billion less given to charity. The impact could be much greater if families decide to keep more of their money, rather than give it away. That's $2 billion that's not available for churches, shelters, and other worthy causes.
And all this because Obama wanted to "spread the wealth." The true victims of this tax increase will be America's poor. Potentially, they could be left to choose between no help at all, and a bureaucratic government handout. This should be seen as part of the larger Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan to get rid of civil society and have all altruism funded by the government.
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
One of the most controversial aspects of the Obama trillion-dollar tax hike is the effect that it will have on America's charities. America is built on a concept of "civil society." We don't expect government institutions to be the primary provider of care for those in need. We expect charities to do that. The Obama tax hike takes aim directly at charities, just at a time when America needs them the most.
Where charities currently stand. In 2006 (the latest year for which the IRS has data), families donated $187 billion to charities. Corporations donated another $16 billion. Foundations, trusts, and estates contributed $131 billion more. Charitable contributions are tax-deductible, and face very few restrictions in current tax law. According to the Office of Management and Budget, all these charitable contributions cut federal taxes by $58 billion every year.
The Obama Trillion-Dollar Tax Hike's Double Assault on Charities
-- The Obama trillion-dollar tax hike brings back the itemized deduction phaseout (Pease) in 2011 for married couples making $250,000 and single people making $200,000. Nearly all itemized deductions will have to be reduced by 3% of the extent that income exceeds this level. So, a married couple making $1,000,000 will see their itemized deductions (including charitable contributions) reduced by ($1,000,000-$250,000)*.03, or $22,500. The Pease limit can only reduce itemized deductions by 80%.
-- The Obama trillion-dollar tax hike also creates a new limit above and beyond Pease. No matter what tax rate you fall into, your itemized deductions (including charitable contributions) cannot benefit you any more than if you found yourself in the 28 percent bracket. Returning to our $1,000,000 taxpayer, he finds himself in Obama's new, higher 39.6 percent bracket (up from today's 35 percent, incidentally). If he gives an additional $1000 to charity, it won't reduce his income tax burden by $396, as one might expect. Rather, his income taxes would only go down by $280.
How will this assault on charitable giving change things in America?
Suppose families decide, on the aggregate, that they will give one percent less to charity as a result of this limitation. For every 1 percent decline in household charitable giving, that's nearly $2 billion less given to charity. The impact could be much greater if families decide to keep more of their money, rather than give it away. That's $2 billion that's not available for churches, shelters, and other worthy causes.
And all this because Obama wanted to "spread the wealth." The true victims of this tax increase will be America's poor. Potentially, they could be left to choose between no help at all, and a bureaucratic government handout. This should be seen as part of the larger Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan to get rid of civil society and have all altruism funded by the government.
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Nothing Toxic About Sarah Palin
There's nothing toxic about Sarah Palin... unless you happen to be on "the other team". I can't remember when a choice made by any political party has so energized a group! I wasn't particularly involved when Geraldine Ferraro was picked as VP on the Democratic side so I can't compare this to then. It seems she was truly picked just to try and give a token nod to women.
The Dems are saying Palin was a contrived pick to get the women. To me that is demeaning. What they're basically saying is that any woman would have brought the women (aka pied piper rats?) to the voting booth. I have news for you guys, we are picky about who we support, man or woman.
Palin is the entire package. She has balanced family and job and still managed to look good doing it. She doesn't seem to ruffle easy, she's not intimidated by the good-old-boys and man is she sharp.
There is electricity in the air. McCain showed the Democrats what "change" is all about. It's not a guy who has spent his life re-writing himself and grooming himself to be the President. This is what real is all about. This is what change is all about.
---
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---
The Dems are saying Palin was a contrived pick to get the women. To me that is demeaning. What they're basically saying is that any woman would have brought the women (aka pied piper rats?) to the voting booth. I have news for you guys, we are picky about who we support, man or woman.
Palin is the entire package. She has balanced family and job and still managed to look good doing it. She doesn't seem to ruffle easy, she's not intimidated by the good-old-boys and man is she sharp.
There is electricity in the air. McCain showed the Democrats what "change" is all about. It's not a guy who has spent his life re-writing himself and grooming himself to be the President. This is what real is all about. This is what change is all about.
---
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
