DONATE

Showing posts with label GOP Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP Candidates. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Personal Memo: The Road to the Convention

Brokered Convention 2012
Newt is counting on a Brokered Convention to win the GOP nomination. A Brokered Convention is incumbent on Romney not acquiring the minimum amount of delegates to take the nomination by Convention time.

On Super Tuesday I voted for Rick Santorum who did win my State.

I got to tell you though, if Newt did have a chance to win a Brokered Convention I would go with it.

On the other hand the social values of Rick Santorum are something to get behind. I am guessing there would have to be a large amount of back room dealing in a Brokered Convention for Newt to pull out a nomination; however dealing is something Newt has experience in as a former Speaker under a Left oriented President Clinton.

JRH 3/21/12
**********************************
Personal Memo: The Road to the Convention

From Rick Tyler
Sent: March 21, 2012 3:50 PM

Can Newt still win the Republican nomination?

Yes.

Is he still the only candidate who can beat Barack Obama?

Most definitely.

I am writing to you today because I know you to be among those who have closely followed Newt Gingrich. I have known Newt for many years. It was a great privilege to have served as his spokesman for over a decade.

Since late last year I have been working with a small team that makes up the Winning Our Future Super PAC, a team solely dedicated to helping Newt secure the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Working with such a loyal group of supporters has been a great and tremendously challenging experience.

Recently, many in the mainstream media have essentially dismissed Newt's campaign. You may have been tempted to do the same. But let me tell you why I believe that this race is far from over.

First, a short history lesson. For decades prior to Newt's election to Congress from the Sixth District of Georgia, the Republican Party was a regional party and not a national party. But Newt believed that our nation is conservative and that the GOP could once again become a governing party if it adhered to conservative principles. But first we needed to recruit and train candidates that could run as conservatives. To do that, Newt developed courses for GOPAC to teach Republican candidates to win elected offices throughout the country. But he did not stop there. Newt understood that helping our candidates to get to Congress would require a strong network of local grassroots support. Newt spent a great deal of time helping local, county and state parties organize, recruit the right candidates and raise money. Then in 1994, he successfully nationalized the Congressional races with a set of bold ideas contained within the 'Contract with America'. The result was a stunning victory for Republicans creating the first majority in both the House and the Senate in forty years.

The reason the election of 1994 was so successful was the power of ideas that inspired a nation. Nine-million MORE voters turned out for Republicans than did in the last off-year elections in 1990 while at the same time, one-million FEWER voters showed up to vote for Democrats. That was a ten-million vote swing in favor of the GOP.

When elected, Speaker Gingrich:

·         Formed the Conservative Opportunity Society in the Congress, which still meets today to shape public policy based upon conservative principles.

·         Took on President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party directly.

·         Led the charge to balance the Federal Budget cutting both taxes and spending.

·         Strengthened the military and reformed Welfare.

·         Helped the private sector create 11 million jobs with pro-growth economic policies. During his speakership, the Dow Jones rose over 130% and the NASDAQ rose over 180%.

Compare this success to what is going on in the race for the Republican nomination today.

The front-runner Mitt Romney has steadfastly refused to run an issues-based campaign.  Instead, he has engaged in a scorched-earth strategy outspending his competitors by tens of millions of dollars running false ads against his Republican opponents. These negative ads have had a devastating effect on voter enthusiasm and turnout. Remember, the key to winning majorities in 1994 is directly related to inspiring voters to turn out for a positive set of ideas. Mitt Romney has eviscerated the enthusiasm the Republicans had just a few short months ago. We simply cannot beat Barack Obama with depressed turn-outs.

Romney has offered nothing to inspire voters. His strategy is rooted in the fact that he does not have a conservative record to run on.

As a US Senate candidate in 1994, Romney ran against the Contract with America and the conservative agenda.

He ran to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy and lost badly. In fact, he was the only Republican Senate challenger to lose that year. As a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said that it was a burden to run with an R attached to your name.

He called his views "progressive".

As governor, he enforced the nation's strictest and unconstitutional gun-control laws. He supported pro-abortion laws including the radical position of giving a judge authority to overrule the parents of a minor daughter seeking an abortion. He appointed pro-abortion judges. His state was 47th in job growth. He passed "Romneycare" which included a health insurance mandate, the forerunner to "Obamacare". He supported the radical environmentalists' job-killing cap and trade policy. Romney left the governor's office in disgrace. More than half the voters believed he did a poor or very poor job.

But more recently and perhaps most disturbingly, Romney revealed his true colors as a nanny-state politician when he condemned the poor to a cycle of government dependency and hopelessness declaring on CNN that he did not worry about the poor, the government takes care of them.

No wonder he only runs ads tearing down his competitors. Romney does not want you to know his record.

All in all, Romney is not us.

He has never been with us because he simply does not believe in the America we believe in. That's why he sounds so disingenuous; it's because he is. He does not believe what he says most of the time. Romney has failed to wrap up the nomination because the conservative base will not support him - the same base WE will need to beat Obama.

Then there is Rick Santorum.

He initially looked like a candidate Conservatives could like. But a look at his record shows he was often at odds with conservative ideas. When Santorum first ran in 1990, he said he "danced around" the issue of abortion because he was for most of his adult life up until that point, pro-choice. He modified his position when he found out that more voters in his district were pro-life.

He described himself as a "progressive conservative" which is, not only an oxymoron, but completely ignorant and irreconcilable.

Any conservative with any sense of history and judgment could not possibly describe himself as a progressive. Just to make the point, it was the progressive movement that promoted eugenics which, when repudiated, morphed into the pro-abortion movement.

The progressives also gave us Prohibition. That is the same thinking of the people who are now telling us today what we can and cannot eat.

Santorum supported Arlan Spector for President.

Spector was one of the most ardent pro-abortion members of the US Senate yet Santorum endorsed him for President in 1996. Santorum also endorsed Spector for his reelection over conservative Pat Toomy. Santorum said that Spector could be counted on for the votes where we needed him to be with us. But Spector was the deciding vote for Obamacare. So while Romney invented it, Rick Santorum, it can be said, gave it to us by supporting Spector's reelection. Spector, as you know, went on to switch to the Democratic Party.

So much for us counting on him.

Santorum, like Romney, is a big-government Republican.

He once claimed credit for saving the Food Stamp program. He voted for Medicare Part D, a program bigger than Obamacare. He voted to raise the debt ceiling five times. He voted twice to force FedEx to unionize. He voted against "Right to Work" and anything else the union bosses told him to vote for or against. He voted for Planned Parenthood funding even when he said he didn't support it. He voted for the "bridge to nowhere". His success in getting earmarks is legendary, a legacy he says he's proud of.

In fact, when Santorum was in the Senate leadership, government spending continued to explode and yet he provided no leadership to stop it. His mantra was and is “go along to get along" because he's a team player. He may be that, but he is no leader. And let's not forget, in 2006, he ran to the left of Bob Casey. Like Romney, he thought the key to getting reelected was to run as a moderate. He lost his Senate seat in Pennsylvania, the same state Romney is currently beating him in, by 18 percentage points -- a modern-day record defeat.

Here is why I am writing to you and why I don't want you to give up on Newt.

I am not going to attempt to persuade you that the challenge is not great. It is. But Newt can still win.

But, let's look at the current reality.

Newt is far behind in the delegate count according to the mainstream media.

But many of those delegates that they are counting have not even been selected yet.

Romney's challenge remains getting the required number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. Today, that looks increasingly unlikely if Newt stays in the race.

Despite what the pundits are saying, Romney needs Newt to exit this race as soon as possible so he can eliminate Rick Santorum. If that happens he will likely get enough delegates to win and wrap it up.

Santorum simply cannot beat Romney in a one-on-one contest. Santorum needs Newt to stay in the race to deny Romney as many delegates as possible to keep him from getting the required number of delegates before the Republican National Convention in Tampa. If that happens then Romney would fail to get enough votes on the first ballot to secure the nomination. After losing the first ballot, all the delegates are released and can vote for any candidate they choose.

In that scenario, Newt has a very good chance of winning the nomination.

Remember, the delegates at the convention are not casual observers. They know the history of all the candidates. They know Romney is not a conservative. He did not govern as one and would not. They know Rick Santorum did nothing to stop the spending spree in Washington and was absent without leadership when conservatives needed him.

They also know that it was Newt Gingrich who led the way in shaping our party to go toe to toe against liberal Democrats, not by accommodating them but by beating them with conservative policies.

They know that Newt has a proven track record of increasing voter enthusiasm and turnout. They know he would beat Barack Obama in a debate and on election day in November.

Given that choice, I believe the delegates will do the right thing and nominate Newt Gingrich.

Today, our Party has tried to recapture the conservative spirit it had when Newt was Speaker by forming the Tea Party, a direct challenge to the establishment. It was the Tea Party after all that led the way to recapturing the majority in the US House in 2010. It was not the GOP establishment. They are still active today and will be a force at the convention.

If the Republican delegates in 1976 picked Ronald Reagan over the establishment's candidate, Gerald Ford, we would not have suffered through four years of Carter. In August, if the delegates pick Newt, we will not have to suffer four more years of Barack Obama.

It can happen. In fact, it is likely to happen.

But to ensure it does, I need you to continue to believe in Newt and his ideas of energy independence, job growth, free enterprise and prosperity. While the other candidates and the media focus on trivia, Newt will continue to focus on the issues that matter to our future.

For Newt's entire career, which you already know, he has taken on what for virtually every other politician goes into the "too hard" file.

He led the GOP to being a governing majority when no one thought it could happen.

He led the fight for tax cuts, spending cuts, Welfare Reform and a balanced budget when the establishment said it was too hard.

Washington cannot intimidate Newt.

He is the only candidate with a record of standing up to Washington, which is why the establishment is working so hard to defeat him.

He is the only candidate who knows how to energize voters to turn out.

And most importantly, he is the only candidate capable of defeating Barack Obama in the fall.

These are serious times and require an experienced and serious leader.

If you are in a state that has not voted, please vote for Newt and help get others to do the same. We need as many delegates in Tampa as possible to win a brokered convention.

Consider running for delegate yourself.

Some say a brokered convention is bad for the Party, but what is bad for the Party is to give it over to the moderate establishment who, as in years past, will lead us to defeat.

Newt showed us how we can win and be a governing majority and he did it by running and governing on conservative values.

If you can financially help it would be a big help to Newt, we would be grateful. You can do so by clicking the donate button below.


And while I am asking for money, it is not my main objective in writing to you.

I am writing to you personally to ask you again to believe in Newt and our conservative movement. We can beat Barack Obama in the fall but it will take the right candidate with a solid conservative record - someone who has worked tirelessly for decades to make the Republican Party competitive by representing conservative values.

It's time to choose Newt Gingrich to be our nominee. Please go to TimetoChoose.com and join us.

Sincerely,

Rick Tyler
Winning Our Future
______________________
Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Newbill Links Discrediting Romney

Mitt Romney - John Holdren
Tony Newbill has sent me four links relating to John Holdren, Mitt Romney, Global Warming, De-development-Depopulation, Obamacare and Barack Obama. Newbill’s first two links is how invested Mitt Romney is into the Global Warming cause AND into the advice of genocide advocate John Holdren. Global Warming and the de-development-depopulation agenda of Holdren and like-minded eco-Marxists is to bring into existence a One-World government through the auspices of the United Nations to make the planet earth a better place to live for human beings; i.e. in the Leftist utopian mindset.

I am focusing on the Mitt Romney portion of Newbill’s links because it is a huge disclosure that Romney’s faux image projection of a Conservative. The latter two links focus on just how bad Obamacare is for America because choices are made by the Federal government about medicine rather than by medical patients. There is a point about the last two links in that no matter how often Romney denounces Obamacare he truly seems to have an affinity for the Socialistic Medicine program.

JRH 2/11/12
**********************************
Romney's John Holdren Problem  
WHY I DO NOT TRUST MITT ROMNEY

Above Subject sent by Tony Newbill
Sent: 2/4/2012 8:48 AM

Romney’s John Holdren Problem


[NRO post is largely based on below article]

Romney's Bad Advice

Posted 10/14/2011 06:46 PM ET

Campaigning: The GOP front-runner for 2012 sought advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the president's current science czar — an advocate of de-developing America and population control.

Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, but no coupling in our view is more bizarre than when John Holdren, now President Obama's assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy.

Holdren's bizarre views are best suited for an adviser to someone like, say, Pol Pot.

He views humanity as a plague on the planet and the Industrial Revolution as a tragic mistake. The fewer people, he believes, the better, and he's not shy about the ways he would use to reduce their number.

Why Gov. Romney, a reasonable person, would pick such a man to advise him on anything is beyond us.

On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency's draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.

A Dec. 7, 2005 memo from the governor's office announcing the new policy listed among the "environmental and policy experts" providing input to the policy one "John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University."

This is the same person who wrote that a "massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States."

Holdren wrote that along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the "recommendations" section of their 1973 book, "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."

Paul Ehrlich is also the author of the 1968 tome, "The Population Bomb," which warned of imminent mass starvation from overpopulation unless excess humanity is dispensed with.

Holdren has spoken in favor of such things as forced abortions, confiscation of babies, mass involuntary sterilization, bureaucratic regulation of family size, and a planetary regime to enforce climate regulation and population control.

Romney, speaking at a University of New Hampshire town hall on June 3, said: "I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world's getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that."

So do Holdren and Al Gore.

In June, Gore, on his blog, praised Romney's climate stance: "While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party."

He agrees with Romney's statement: "And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing."

This comes on top of the architect of Massachusetts health care reform (RomneyCare), M.I.T. economist John Gruber, talking about also being called on to fashion ObamaCare.
"The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we'd done in Massachusetts," he said. "They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model."

One of the features of ObamaCare, the product of an administration that funds Planned Parenthood, is its inclusion of contraceptives as a covered expense and its designation of pregnancy as a "preventable" condition, as if it were a disease.

Romney was pro-choice when he ran for governor but shifted his position as he entered the national stage.

One of the things voters look for in a candidate is sound judgment and steadfastness. It will be up to the voters to decide if Mitt Romney is a good choice or a very bad echo of the current administration.

At the very least, he will need to clarify his stance on these and other topics. Some consistency, please.
_______________________________
WHY I DO NOT TRUST MITT ROMNEY …

October 21st, 2011
This is article 126 of 156 in the topic Global Warming

Basically, I think Mitt Romney is every bit a manufactured image as Barack Obama – the progressive’s dream candidate who is himself a progressive RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Let us, for a moment, concentrate on one issue of great importance to me: global warming. The progressive wet dream which subverts science in order to convince the public that it is prudent to install a permanent political class in America and provide them with unfettered access to the taxpayer’s money and control over individual citizens. In short, the Marxist dream of an “enlightened ruling class” controlling an unexceptional populace using scientific means. Central planning writ so large as to look like totalitarianism.

Mitt Romney’s position on global warming …

As reported in the Boston Globe …
“Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real.” (June 4, 2011)

“In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.”

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’ <Source>

But as we can all plainly see, Romney has a terrible history of saying or doing anything that will allow him to gain or maintain power. A flip-flopper of the first order.

As reported in Politico Pro …
“Mitt Romney tweaks climate stance.” (August 24, 2011)

“Hours after being called ‘mushy on environmental issues’ by a Republican senator, Mitt Romney has tweaked his position on global warming.”

“Asked Wednesday at a Lebanon, N.H., town hall meeting whether he believed in global warming and if humans contribute to rising temperatures, Romney said he doesn’t know.”

“’”Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,’ Romney said, as reported by Reuters. ‘I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.’” <Source>

But even worse than his position on global warming was his scientific advisor for global warming issues …

For what I can tell, Mitt Romney has a clear association with the Marxist devil himself, John Holdren.

“[Obama’s] Science Czar John Holdren, a participant in ClimateGate who has advocated de-developing America and putting sterilants in the public water supply.”

“Holdren has also spoken in favor of forced abortions, confiscation of babies, targeted as well as mass involuntary sterilization, bureaucratic regulation of family size, and global authoritarian government. If there is a line between ultra-left ideologue and evil maniac, Holdren clearly crosses it.” <Source>

And it might be a long-term relationship?

December 7, 2005 — ROMNEY ANNOUNCES STRICT NEW CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1. 2006

“New clean air rules balance environmental and economic goals”

“Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“’Massachusetts continues to be committed to improving air quality for all our citizens. These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,’ Romney said. ‘They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.’”

“Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation and are designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury from power plant smokestacks.”

“The combination of these market-based mechanisms with stringent CO2 caps will lead to cost-effective environmental gains.”

“In the development of greenhouse gas policy, Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts. These include John Holden, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy and Billy Pizer, an economist at Resources for the Future, an environmental policy think-tank based in Washington D.C.” <Source>

John Holdren is currently in the news …

“Obama Science Czar Led UN Effort to Hide Proceedings, Subvert FOIA, Records Indicate”

“Washington, D.C., October 17, 2011 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request today with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), run by controversial White House Science Adviser (and former Mitt Romney climate adviser) John Holdren. The FOIA request seeks records involving an apparently co-ordinated effort between OSTP and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to subvert and circumvent U.S. law.

“Specifically, CEI’s FOIA request seeks details of the Obama Administration’s involvement in a UN IPCC plan to hide official online correspondence in non-governmental accounts. The express purpose of creating a non-government web-site “cloud” communications system was to avoid national transparency laws, such as the U. S. FOIA. However, with OSTP having taken over the lead U.S. role in the IPCC in 2009, this also implicates the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA).”

“The new IPCC system sought to shield U. S. government employees working on the Fifth Assessment Report from FOIA requests by hiding their correspondence, even though they are being tasked and paid by the federal government to work on the report. The scandal-plagued IPCC is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. CEI demonstrates in its FOIA request that the IPCC’s motivation to avoid future FOIA requests was past embarrassment over releases of earlier communications between IPCC officials and participating bureaucrats, appointees and scientists working on the assessment reports.” <Source>

From what I can tell, Holdren is a committed Marxist ideologue willing to subvert science and country to pursue his chosen twisted philosophy.

Bottom line …

There was RomneyCare in liberal Massachusetts which President Obama credits as being the model for ObamaCare. A legislative initiative which is based on Marxist-like Central Planning and can implement rules and regulations which could easily cost you your life. No matter what you may think of Sarah Palin, she had the issue pegged correctly: Death Panels overseen by government bureaucrats, responsible to no one except their political appointers.

Then there was global warming and the demonization of carbon dioxide –- with regulations over our energy creation, distribution and usages. All based on the science as promoted by a committed Marxist ideologue, John Holdren.

Now being a member of the James Bond method of threat assessment, I am saying:

Once is happenstance;

Twice is coincidence;

Three times it is enemy action!

Not being able to rely on Mitt Romney, whose words and deeds are subject to change at the drop of a poll, I believe that we cannot take a chance that – no matter what Romney’s business background might have been – the man is a Massachusetts’ liberal in the mold of fellow Massachusetts’ progressive democrats: Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Barney Frank.

His past actions say he is a progressive!

I would rather vote for a Herman Cain, a businessman with a background in statistical analysis, than another “go along to get along liberal politician” who appears to have the same demeanor and empty-suit quality as Barack Obama. A man without core beliefs and who will throw anyone under the bus should it prevent him from assuming the responsibility which rightly falls on his shoulders.

I do not like Mitt Romney based on what I see. And when the liberal mainstream media falls in behind the idea that Romney is the chosen GOP candidate, the hair on the back of my neck stands up and all of my senses cry out: Danger, Danger.

Say what you will, the plastic doll that is Romney is more likely to continue the policies of Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama than not. He has proven he is susceptible to lobbying and may be likely to sell us down the drain. Especially to keep up his blow-dried appearance.

– steve

Reference Links …


“The GOP front-runner for 2012 sought advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the president’s current science czar — an advocate of de-developing America and population control.”

“Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, but no coupling in our view is more bizarre than when John Holdren, now President Obama’s assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy.”

“Holdren’s bizarre views are best suited for an adviser to someone like, say, Pol Pot.”

“He views humanity as a plague on the planet and the Industrial Revolution as a tragic mistake. The fewer people, he believes, the better, and he’s not shy about the ways he would use to reduce their number.”
________________________________
Obama Science Czar Led UN Effort to Hide Proceedings, Subvert FOIA, Records Indicate

CEI Files FOIA Request Seeking Public Records on Climate Change Policies

October 17, 2011

Washington, D.C., October 17, 2011 - The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request today with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), run by controversial White House Science Adviser (and former Mitt Romney climate adviser) John Holdren.  The FOIA request seeks records involving an apparently co-ordinated effort between OSTP and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to subvert and circumvent U.S. law.

Specifically, CEI's FOIA request seeks details of the Obama Administration's involvement in a UN IPCC plan to hide official online correspondence in non-governmental accounts.  The express purpose of creating a non-government web-site "cloud" communications system was to avoid national transparency laws, such as the U. S. FOIA. However, with OSTP having taken over the lead U.S. role in the IPCC in 2009, this also implicates the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA).

The new IPCC system sought to shield U. S. government employees working on the Fifth Assessment Report from FOIA requests by hiding their correspondence, even though they are being tasked and paid by the federal government to work on the report.  The scandal-plagued IPCC is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.  CEI demonstrates in its FOIA request that the IPCC's motivation to avoid future FOIA requests was past embarrassment over releases of earlier communications between IPCC officials and participating bureaucrats, appointees and scientists working on the assessment reports.

CEI's FOIA request notes that this practice was described by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), during oversight of Bush Administration dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as "creat[ing] non-governmental accounts for official business" and as "using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."  The methods employed by OSTP and the IPCC are similar to those involving Abramoff, if with vastly greater potential impact on the United States and its economy.

"The effort to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act has apparently been conducted with direct assistance by the Obama White House," said Christopher Horner, CEI Senior Fellow.  "Shortly after taking office, the Obama administration moved the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce to OSTP, run by Dr. John Holdren. The plan to create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.

"This scheme sought to free UN, European Union, and U.S. bureaucrats and political appointees from oversight and the threat of prying taxpayers which accompanies the use of official e-mail channels, for official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers and facilities," Horner continued. "Running it out of the White House also triggers questions about subverting the Presidential Records Act."

The similar practice, serving as the forerunner obstruction to transparency for IPCC-related work, was refusing to produce records that are held in federal government computers on the grounds that the information belongs to the IPCC and is therefore not subject to FOIA.  This practice and that it is not lawful was affirmed in a report by the Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General earlier this year.

"As negotiations resume next month on a successor agreement to the failed Kyoto Protocol, CEI looks forward to the White House ceasing this unlawful activity and providing prompt access to the requested records so that U. S. taxpayers can know what they and the IPCC are doing behind the scenes," Horner concluded.

__________________________________
Worse Than Death Panels

Feb 04, 2012

During the debate over ObamaCare, more than one critic charged that government panels would make life and death decisions affecting patient care.

Now it seems the Obama administration is contemplating something that is even scarier: doctors would be given immunity from malpractice lawsuits, but only if they practice medicine according to government guidelines. The pressure would be enormous. Have you ever met a doctor who wanted to be sued?

The original "death panel" charges were not entirely baseless. Former Senator Tom Daschle, who wrote the blueprint for health reform, advocated a "comparative effectiveness" agency that would decide which medical procedures were worthwhile and which ones were not. As a model, Dashiell pointed to the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness (NICE) in Britain. How are patients faring under that regime? According to the World Health Organization, about 25,000 British patients die prematurely every year because they do not have access to cancer drugs that are routinely available in the United States and continental Europe.

There is no similar agency with comparable powers under ObamaCare. But there are many ways in which the same results can be achieved indirectly. For example, Medicare has announced it will start paying more to hospitals that follow a dozen procedures, including administering antibiotics prior to surgery and anticlotting medication to heart attack patients. It will pay less to hospitals that don’t comply. The same thing is about to happen to doctors. Those who comply on up to 194 different metrics — including adopting electronic medical records — will get higher fees. Those who resist will get lower ones.

These are examples of a much larger trend: Washington telling the medical community how to practice medicine. Even though a recent study finds little relationship between the inputs Medicare wants to pay for and such outputs as patient survival, and even though the latest pilot programs show that paying doctors and hospitals for performance doesn’t improve quality, we are about to usher in the era of big brother medical care.

Remember these words: "evidence-based care." They are likely to be very much a part of your future. IF you are elderly or disabled, odds are that Medicare will eventually refuse to pay for any procedures that … READ THE REST at Townhall.com.
_____________________________________
Romney's Bad Advice

© 2000-2012 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor's Business Daily, IBD, CAN SLIM and corresponding logos are registered trademarks of Investor’s Business Daily, Inc
____________________________________
WHY I DO NOT TRUST MITT ROMNEY …

© copyright Back to Basics 2012.
____________________________________
Obama Science Czar Led UN Effort to Hide Proceedings, Subvert FOIA, Records Indicate

Competitive Enterprise Institute | 1899 L ST NW Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-331-1010 | Fax: 202-331-0640
__________________________________
Worse Than Death Panels

John C. Goodman is president and founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank established in 1983. Goodman’s ideas on health policy can also be found at his own blog, where he provides daily analysis and lively discussion on a wide range of health care topics.