The nation's mainstream media and Democrats are engaged in a major cover up of the most explosive scandal since Watergate. Their collaboration is aimed at concealing the truth about the previous administration's covert plan to spy on President Trump's transition team.
Leaks and news reports have surfaced in recent days alleging former Obama officials shared secret intelligence on members of President Trump's inner circle during the months before his inauguration. Former administration officials and Democrats have been quick to shrug off the charges.
Susan Rice, the former president's National Security Advisor, performed a reprise of her role in the Benghazi video transgression as the surrogate of deconstruction. Appearing on PBS, an indignant Ms. Rice claimed she knew "nothing about" the Trump surveillance charges. That was on March 22.
On April 4, Ms. Rice reappeared on the airwaves with an alternative version of the truth. This time Ms. Rice did not deny knowledge of the surveillance, but insisted she "leaked nothing to nobody" about the data collection. It was a telling use of a double-negative by an Oxford College graduate.
Ms. Rice tightroped her way through the interview to avoid prosecution. It is a felony punishable by up to ten years in federal prison to leak classified intelligence information. Someone in government leaked highly sensitive communications to the press about ex-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
In her tortured explanation, Ms. Rice attempted to portray 'unmasking' as a routine practice, which it is not. Democrats leaped to her defense, suggesting that any collection of intelligence on Mr. Trump's associates was inadvertent. That claim stretches the bounds of credulity.
"Unmasking" is intelligence community "speak" for revealing the identities of U.S. citizens who are unintentionally spied on by the government's electronic monitoring of foreign targets. National security officials routinely receive reports with the names of Americans redacted (blacked out).
The process of unmasking must be requested by authorized administration officials and forwarded to the NSA, FBI or CIA. An extensive paper trail should exist, including the names of officials who asked for the identities to be revealed. Safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized unmasking.
The FBI has the authority to request the records and follow the paper trail to determine the source of the leak. The agency also is one of the few government organizations with the power to grant an unmasking request. Yet FBI Director James Comey has been reticent to investigate the leak.
Not coincidentally, eight days before he left office, Mr. Obama worked behind the scenes to change the way surveillance was shared. He widened the list of administration officials who could view the raw NSA intelligence in a move to ensure the Russian-Trump issue would survive beyond his term.
This bombshell never made the front pages of any newspapers and was ignored by nearly every television network. The coverage stands in stark contrast to the media's inflammatory reporting on the widely debunked charges that the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in the election.
The same hypocrisy applies to Democrats, who have insisted on a plethora of probes to plow every rabbit hole to find the missing link between Trump and the Russians. Yet not a single Democrat appears interested in learning why a cloak-and-dagger operation targeted team Trump.
Spying on Americans is a breach of the public trust of the government's security apparatus. Depending on the circumstances it may also be a federal crime. If there has been no wrongdoing by the previous administration, Democrats should welcome the opportunity to clear the air.
The fact that Democrats and the media are concealing the scandal is a troubling sign the truth may expose the misuse of sensitive intelligence for political reasons. Republicans should demand an independent counsel be appointed to determine if there were flagrant violations of federal law.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Monday, April 3, 2017
America's Growing Cult of Death
With little fanfare, two more states legalized physician assisted suicide late last year. Colorado and the District of Columbia joined Oregon, Washington, Montana, California and Vermont on the list of jurisdictions that allow individuals to end their lives by lethal means.
These seven states are at the forefront of an propaganda campaign to remove the stigma from the polarizing issue of physician assisted suicide. Proponents have adopted new language, preaching dying with dignity and relief from chronic suffering as socially acceptable reasons to terminate life.
The advocates know that are gradually winning what once was an uphill political battle. The latest Pew Research polling shows that Americans are almost evenly split on the issue. The data reveals 47 percent of Americans favor physician assisted suicide, while 49 percent oppose the idea.
Any discussion of the issue requires a definition of terms. Most states allow individuals to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)," order which makes it legal to suspend cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In some circumstances, patients may consent to unhooking feeding tubes or respirators.
The measures cited above are generally accepted by most Americans and physicians. However, active euthanasia means deliberately ending a patient's life, usually by administering toxic drugs. In many cases, the doctor prescribes the drug and the patient ingests it without a physician present.
The American Medical Association, despite media reports to the contrary, continues to strongly oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Their disapproval has been seconded by the American Academy of Medical Ethics. Physicians are dedicated to saving lives, not killing.
Oregon become the first state to enact legislation on physician assisted suicide in 1997. Their experience serves as a cautionary tale of the ethical slippery slope. Each year the number of patients given lethal doses of medication has increased, quadrupling since 1997.
The most common reasons patients cited for their end-of-life decision was loss of autonomy, and the decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, according to data. Most patients who elect to die have no prescribing physician present when they ingest the drug.
Worldwide, more countries are joining the euthanasia bandwagon. One of the pioneers is the Netherlands, which authorized medical euthanasia in 2002. Since its inauguration, the number of physician assisted suicides has risen five-fold. In 2015, there were 5,500 people terminated.
Over the years the Dutch have radically extended the death regime to allow people with "social isolation or loneliness" to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. A recent case caused an international furor when a 41-year-old alcoholic was euthanized to escape his drinking problem.
To facilitate the increasing demand in the Netherlands, the Dutch have authorized mobile euthanasia units to roam the streets on call in the event a family doctor refuses to give a lethal drug dose to a patient. Increasingly, people are choosing to die without an explicit end of life request.
Some Dutch are reportedly carrying cards in their purses and wallets that say, "Do Not Euthanize Me," in case they are in an accident or taken to a hospital in a state of unconsciousness. It is a grisly reminder of what can happen once your give doctors the right to kill another human being.
Before physician assisted suicide becomes another "right" sanctioned by the American judicial system, the country needs to have a thorough airing of the dangers of allowing the practice. States with euthanasia laws have lax reporting standards, making it difficult to find factual data.
Whatever your views on euthanasia, more data and statistics are needed to address legitimate moral and ethical questions. Until all the facts are known about current state experiences with physician assisted suicide, Americans would be best served to remain skeptical about the practice.
These seven states are at the forefront of an propaganda campaign to remove the stigma from the polarizing issue of physician assisted suicide. Proponents have adopted new language, preaching dying with dignity and relief from chronic suffering as socially acceptable reasons to terminate life.
The advocates know that are gradually winning what once was an uphill political battle. The latest Pew Research polling shows that Americans are almost evenly split on the issue. The data reveals 47 percent of Americans favor physician assisted suicide, while 49 percent oppose the idea.
Any discussion of the issue requires a definition of terms. Most states allow individuals to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)," order which makes it legal to suspend cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In some circumstances, patients may consent to unhooking feeding tubes or respirators.
The measures cited above are generally accepted by most Americans and physicians. However, active euthanasia means deliberately ending a patient's life, usually by administering toxic drugs. In many cases, the doctor prescribes the drug and the patient ingests it without a physician present.
The American Medical Association, despite media reports to the contrary, continues to strongly oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Their disapproval has been seconded by the American Academy of Medical Ethics. Physicians are dedicated to saving lives, not killing.
Oregon become the first state to enact legislation on physician assisted suicide in 1997. Their experience serves as a cautionary tale of the ethical slippery slope. Each year the number of patients given lethal doses of medication has increased, quadrupling since 1997.
The most common reasons patients cited for their end-of-life decision was loss of autonomy, and the decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, according to data. Most patients who elect to die have no prescribing physician present when they ingest the drug.
Worldwide, more countries are joining the euthanasia bandwagon. One of the pioneers is the Netherlands, which authorized medical euthanasia in 2002. Since its inauguration, the number of physician assisted suicides has risen five-fold. In 2015, there were 5,500 people terminated.
Over the years the Dutch have radically extended the death regime to allow people with "social isolation or loneliness" to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. A recent case caused an international furor when a 41-year-old alcoholic was euthanized to escape his drinking problem.
To facilitate the increasing demand in the Netherlands, the Dutch have authorized mobile euthanasia units to roam the streets on call in the event a family doctor refuses to give a lethal drug dose to a patient. Increasingly, people are choosing to die without an explicit end of life request.
Some Dutch are reportedly carrying cards in their purses and wallets that say, "Do Not Euthanize Me," in case they are in an accident or taken to a hospital in a state of unconsciousness. It is a grisly reminder of what can happen once your give doctors the right to kill another human being.
Before physician assisted suicide becomes another "right" sanctioned by the American judicial system, the country needs to have a thorough airing of the dangers of allowing the practice. States with euthanasia laws have lax reporting standards, making it difficult to find factual data.
Whatever your views on euthanasia, more data and statistics are needed to address legitimate moral and ethical questions. Until all the facts are known about current state experiences with physician assisted suicide, Americans would be best served to remain skeptical about the practice.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Islamic Terror: Lessons From the London Attack
The barbaric attack in London near the iconic Parliament building was followed by the usual outpouring of sympathy. Governments worldwide, including the U.S., expressed solidarity. Perfunctory tributes for the victims rolled in. However, the moral outrage was eerily muted.
After the world was shaken by the events of September 11, 2001, leaders and ordinary citizens were angry. They demanded retribution for the senseless killing of 2,996 people. Since that tragedy, each new assault is greeted with somber public expressions before fading from the world's spotlight.
It raises a troubling question: Have world leaders and global citizens been desensitized to terrorist killings? There appears to be an almost grim acceptance that extremist violence is now a normal part of society. Resignation has become the enemy of action.
No democratic society should ever, ever tolerate terrorism as the price of freedom. Once a country concludes it is helpless to defend itself against the evil of terror, then it invites violence. Soon the terrorists will rule the nation through fear and intimidation the way drug cartels control Mexico.
Clearly, world leaders are tiring of the seemingly endless battle against terror. Too many believe threatening words are a substitute for a military campaign to eliminate ISIS and its Islamist-inspired offshoots. It is not working. The terrorists are winning. Something must change and soon.
Another clear lesson from the London attack is the ongoing failure of counter-terrorism intelligence organizations to deal with the threat. In the days after the brutal siege, it was learned that the killer Khalid Masood had an extensive criminal record and was once investigated for extremism.
Despite his past, Masood was not considered a threat by British intelligence. That has become a familiar pattern after each terrorist ambush both in Europe and the United States. Violent criminals with jihadist backgrounds are escaping detection because of inexplicable intelligence bungling.
For example, the thug who murdered 50 people and injured 53 last year at an Orlando gay night club had been "on the radar" of the FBI since 2013. The perpetrator Omar Mateen had made inflammatory comments about terrorism to co-workers and surfaced in an FBI investigation in 2014.
It was a similar scenario in the San Bernardino slaughter in 2015 when a man and a woman gunned down 14 and wounded 22 in California. The duo, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, had contacts with at least five people under FBI investigation for possible terrorist activities.
In the aftermath of the 2015 carnage in Paris, investigators discovered the mastermind of the massacre Oussama Atar had been arrested and imprisoned by the U.S. in Iraq in 2005. He was incarcerated in three different prisons, but was freed for humanitarian reasons to return to Brussels.
Intelligence impotence is a disturbing pattern that must be reversed if future terrorist attacks are to be prevented. In their defense, counter-terrorism officials are always quick to point out how many plots have been foiled. However, even one murderous rampage is one too many.
Terrorism demands a swift and lethal response, supported by a robust and effective intelligence effort designed to keep the world safe. Public indifference to the massacre of other human beings is the kind of defeatism that will undermine a country's freedom and embolden its enemies.
After the world was shaken by the events of September 11, 2001, leaders and ordinary citizens were angry. They demanded retribution for the senseless killing of 2,996 people. Since that tragedy, each new assault is greeted with somber public expressions before fading from the world's spotlight.
It raises a troubling question: Have world leaders and global citizens been desensitized to terrorist killings? There appears to be an almost grim acceptance that extremist violence is now a normal part of society. Resignation has become the enemy of action.
No democratic society should ever, ever tolerate terrorism as the price of freedom. Once a country concludes it is helpless to defend itself against the evil of terror, then it invites violence. Soon the terrorists will rule the nation through fear and intimidation the way drug cartels control Mexico.
Clearly, world leaders are tiring of the seemingly endless battle against terror. Too many believe threatening words are a substitute for a military campaign to eliminate ISIS and its Islamist-inspired offshoots. It is not working. The terrorists are winning. Something must change and soon.
Another clear lesson from the London attack is the ongoing failure of counter-terrorism intelligence organizations to deal with the threat. In the days after the brutal siege, it was learned that the killer Khalid Masood had an extensive criminal record and was once investigated for extremism.
Despite his past, Masood was not considered a threat by British intelligence. That has become a familiar pattern after each terrorist ambush both in Europe and the United States. Violent criminals with jihadist backgrounds are escaping detection because of inexplicable intelligence bungling.
For example, the thug who murdered 50 people and injured 53 last year at an Orlando gay night club had been "on the radar" of the FBI since 2013. The perpetrator Omar Mateen had made inflammatory comments about terrorism to co-workers and surfaced in an FBI investigation in 2014.
It was a similar scenario in the San Bernardino slaughter in 2015 when a man and a woman gunned down 14 and wounded 22 in California. The duo, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, had contacts with at least five people under FBI investigation for possible terrorist activities.
In the aftermath of the 2015 carnage in Paris, investigators discovered the mastermind of the massacre Oussama Atar had been arrested and imprisoned by the U.S. in Iraq in 2005. He was incarcerated in three different prisons, but was freed for humanitarian reasons to return to Brussels.
Intelligence impotence is a disturbing pattern that must be reversed if future terrorist attacks are to be prevented. In their defense, counter-terrorism officials are always quick to point out how many plots have been foiled. However, even one murderous rampage is one too many.
Terrorism demands a swift and lethal response, supported by a robust and effective intelligence effort designed to keep the world safe. Public indifference to the massacre of other human beings is the kind of defeatism that will undermine a country's freedom and embolden its enemies.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Fear of Flying: Why The Odds Don't Matter
Next time you're on an airplane peek at the passengers seated around you. Notice the guy with a white-knuckled death grip on the arm rests? His seat belt is so tightly cinched that he's in danger of losing consciousness. His soft whimpers can be overheard three seats away. That's me.
I hate flying. In fact, I don't even like being on an airplane. If God wanted us to soar in the sky, he would have given us wings. I am a land creature. I like the reassuring feel of my feet firmly planted on Earth. And yet I have logged over one million air miles, a sure sign of lunacy.
I take some measure of comfort in the fact there are many Americans who share my phobia. The National Institute of Mental Health says this fear, called aviophobia, affects 6.5 percent of the population. That means there are 20 million of us with the jitters every time we board an airplane.
For me, the fits of fidgeting start the night before the flight. I consult the weather both at my current location and destination. Oh, Oh. Forecast calls for thunderstorms. I imagine violently lurching around the sky, making sleep impossible. I pray the airline crew gets sick, scrubbing the flight.
I acquired my phobia the old-fashioned way. I earned it on a flight from Midland-Odessa to Dallas. It was the summer of 1972. As the commercial plane ascended, I spotted lightning flashes streaking across the evening sky. The takeoff was non-eventful, but we were soon engulfed in a thunderstorm.
The plane bucked and convulsed. Rain pounded the aircraft and downdrafts sent the airliner plummeting a couple thousand feet. I was terrified. When the plane finally landed in Dallas, I breathed for the first time since takeoff. I didn't just kiss the ground. I caressed it.
Now you understand my phobia. Well-meaning friends have tried to soothe my anxiety by reciting the fact that your chances of dying in a plane crash are one in 11 million. The odds are better (one in 5,000) that a person will perish in a car crash, they say. But what if I am that one in 11 million?
Don't get my wrong. I am not afraid of dying. I just think hurtling toward the ground and exploding into a fiery ball on an airplane would be particularly gruesome death. But in a perverse way, I want to be awake if the aircraft plunges to earth. I may never get another opportunity to see a plane crash.
Over the years, I have developed my own coping mechanisms. I always scan the pre-boarding area to see if there are any Catholic nuns on my flight. That is usually a good sign. Surely, God wouldn't allow a plane carrying a sweet old nun to crack-up in midair and unceremoniously thud to the ground.
Conversely, you don't want to occupy a seat next to the loudmouth salesman gulping gin and tonics and telling lewd jokes. His days are numbered. Never take a seat next to an atheist unless you have a death wish.
When I have confided in fellow passengers about my fear of flying, invariably one will employ logic, suggesting no one dies unless it is his or her time. I get that. But what if God is calling the passenger next to me? I get charred in the wreckage along with him. Seems terribly unfair.
Nearly 40 years after my Midland-Odessa experience, I was beginning to think my fears were unfounded. I had encountered no near brushes with death in the skies. And then IT happened. Two years ago I boarded a Southwest Airlines flight in San Antonio on a cloudless day.
We had just started our climb to cruising altitude when the entire plan shuddered. A passenger excitedly reported smoke billowing out of one of the engines. I was convinced this was that one in 11 million flight. The pilot calmly announced our aircraft would return to San Antonio airport.
Operating with only one engine the plane limped back toward touchdown. On approach, I glimpsed out the cabin window and saw the runway lined with a sea of ambulances and firetrucks. My pulse was racing faster than the plane's air speed. Thankfully, we landed safely without incident.
I swore that was my last flight. Never again would I tempt fate. The odds were starting to tilt in favor of an air disaster. Then I remembered I had an upcoming flight to see my grand kids. I couldn't disappoint them. It was at that precise moment that I decided I would become a nun.
Don't get my wrong. I am not afraid of dying. I just think hurtling toward the ground and exploding into a fiery ball on an airplane would be particularly gruesome death. But in a perverse way, I want to be awake if the aircraft plunges to earth. I may never get another opportunity to see a plane crash.
Over the years, I have developed my own coping mechanisms. I always scan the pre-boarding area to see if there are any Catholic nuns on my flight. That is usually a good sign. Surely, God wouldn't allow a plane carrying a sweet old nun to crack-up in midair and unceremoniously thud to the ground.
Conversely, you don't want to occupy a seat next to the loudmouth salesman gulping gin and tonics and telling lewd jokes. His days are numbered. Never take a seat next to an atheist unless you have a death wish.
When I have confided in fellow passengers about my fear of flying, invariably one will employ logic, suggesting no one dies unless it is his or her time. I get that. But what if God is calling the passenger next to me? I get charred in the wreckage along with him. Seems terribly unfair.
Nearly 40 years after my Midland-Odessa experience, I was beginning to think my fears were unfounded. I had encountered no near brushes with death in the skies. And then IT happened. Two years ago I boarded a Southwest Airlines flight in San Antonio on a cloudless day.
We had just started our climb to cruising altitude when the entire plan shuddered. A passenger excitedly reported smoke billowing out of one of the engines. I was convinced this was that one in 11 million flight. The pilot calmly announced our aircraft would return to San Antonio airport.
Operating with only one engine the plane limped back toward touchdown. On approach, I glimpsed out the cabin window and saw the runway lined with a sea of ambulances and firetrucks. My pulse was racing faster than the plane's air speed. Thankfully, we landed safely without incident.
I swore that was my last flight. Never again would I tempt fate. The odds were starting to tilt in favor of an air disaster. Then I remembered I had an upcoming flight to see my grand kids. I couldn't disappoint them. It was at that precise moment that I decided I would become a nun.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Ballooning Debt: A Threat To America's Future
This month America likely will bump up against the Congressional mandated debt ceiling of $20.1 trillion. If the past is a harbinger of the future, lawmakers and the president will increase the nation's borrowing limit rather than deal with the smoldering financial caldron.
On March 1, the nation's debt teetered at $19.9 trillion. But America borrows $100 million every hour of every day to pay for federal budget expenses. At that rate, the debt will nick the $20.1 trillion cap on March 16. Unless Congress lifts the limit, America cannot borrow another penny.
How did the United States reach this financial precipice?
Blame it on Washington lawmakers' insatiable appetite for spending. Since 2000, the federal budget has more than doubled from $1.78 trillion to $4.15 trillion for fiscal 2017. America's debt has nearly quadrupled during the same time frame, soaring from $5.6 trillion to nearly $20 trillion.
The federal government is spending more than it confiscates in taxes from Americans. The result is a deficit. To make up for the gap, Washington must borrow ever increasing amounts of money to fund the federal budget. Both political parties have done little more than pay lip service to the problem.
Despite sharp increases in borrowing, the net interest paid by the feds has remained essentially flat over the last few years, thanks to the Federal Reserve's politically-driven policy of artificially holding down interest rates. Last year's tab for interest on borrowed money was $432 billion.
However, interest rates are ticking upward, which will make it more costly to borrow money to fund the government.
Despite repeated dire warnings, there never appears to be any sense of urgency in Washington to pay down the debt and rein in spending. Former President Obama was the most recent chief executive to sound the alarm about the albatross of debt draped around the neck of U.S. fiscal policy.
At the beginning of his first term, Mr. Obama pledged to tackle government spending. "I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay--and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."
If only, Mr. Obama had heeded his own words. Instead, he racked up trillion dollar deficits in his first three budgets. After eight years in office, the former chief executive added a staggering $9 trillion in debt, the largest of any president in the nation's history. So much for fiscal integrity.
Some perspective: it took almost 200 years for the United States to accumulate $1 trillion in public debt. In a single year, the Obama Administration borrowed more than that amount. In just the last 16 years, lawmakers' unchecked spending has piled on nearly $15 trillion in debt.
The spending binge will not be curbed until Congress checks entitlement spending. Fifty-three percent of the federal budget is consumed by Social Security and health care entitlements, including Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. Elected officials refuse to deal with these hot potato issues.
By postponing the inevitable, Congress and the president are endangering the future financial solvency of the United States. If Washington waits too much longer to address the debt, Draconian taxes and ruthless benefit reductions will be required to restore financial order.
America cannot afford to avoid the issue because the day of reckoning is on the horizon. When it arrives, the younger generation will be punished because most of the burden will fall on their shoulders. Is that the future Americans want to bequeath to their grandchildren?
On March 1, the nation's debt teetered at $19.9 trillion. But America borrows $100 million every hour of every day to pay for federal budget expenses. At that rate, the debt will nick the $20.1 trillion cap on March 16. Unless Congress lifts the limit, America cannot borrow another penny.
How did the United States reach this financial precipice?
Blame it on Washington lawmakers' insatiable appetite for spending. Since 2000, the federal budget has more than doubled from $1.78 trillion to $4.15 trillion for fiscal 2017. America's debt has nearly quadrupled during the same time frame, soaring from $5.6 trillion to nearly $20 trillion.
The federal government is spending more than it confiscates in taxes from Americans. The result is a deficit. To make up for the gap, Washington must borrow ever increasing amounts of money to fund the federal budget. Both political parties have done little more than pay lip service to the problem.
Despite sharp increases in borrowing, the net interest paid by the feds has remained essentially flat over the last few years, thanks to the Federal Reserve's politically-driven policy of artificially holding down interest rates. Last year's tab for interest on borrowed money was $432 billion.
However, interest rates are ticking upward, which will make it more costly to borrow money to fund the government.
Despite repeated dire warnings, there never appears to be any sense of urgency in Washington to pay down the debt and rein in spending. Former President Obama was the most recent chief executive to sound the alarm about the albatross of debt draped around the neck of U.S. fiscal policy.
At the beginning of his first term, Mr. Obama pledged to tackle government spending. "I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay--and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."
If only, Mr. Obama had heeded his own words. Instead, he racked up trillion dollar deficits in his first three budgets. After eight years in office, the former chief executive added a staggering $9 trillion in debt, the largest of any president in the nation's history. So much for fiscal integrity.
Some perspective: it took almost 200 years for the United States to accumulate $1 trillion in public debt. In a single year, the Obama Administration borrowed more than that amount. In just the last 16 years, lawmakers' unchecked spending has piled on nearly $15 trillion in debt.
The spending binge will not be curbed until Congress checks entitlement spending. Fifty-three percent of the federal budget is consumed by Social Security and health care entitlements, including Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. Elected officials refuse to deal with these hot potato issues.
By postponing the inevitable, Congress and the president are endangering the future financial solvency of the United States. If Washington waits too much longer to address the debt, Draconian taxes and ruthless benefit reductions will be required to restore financial order.
America cannot afford to avoid the issue because the day of reckoning is on the horizon. When it arrives, the younger generation will be punished because most of the burden will fall on their shoulders. Is that the future Americans want to bequeath to their grandchildren?
Monday, March 6, 2017
Anarchy: Are Democrats Planning a Coup?
America's bold experiment in democracy has endured for 240 years. However, it may not survive another four years if the Democrats and their militant co-conspirators are successful in betraying the will of the people by toppling the presidency of Donald Trump.
Days after the election, deep-pocketed Democrat Party cash cows, including billionaire George Soros, huddled behind closed doors with union bosses, influential elected officials and liberal organizations at Washington's swank Mandarin Oriental Hotel to hatch a battle plan.
What emerged from that meeting was a scorched earth strategy designed to force a regime change by whatever means necessary, a shocking development for the nation that defined democracy. This was right out of a third-world country's political playbook.
The plan fashioned in secret was to capitalize on the myth of the Russian 'hacking' of the presidential election with a steady drumbeat of allegations about Moscow ties to Trump associates. It mattered little to Democrats there was not a scintilla of evidence the Russians hacked a single voting machine.
In the weeks following the clandestine meeting, protests flared up in many parts of the country. Marches on the nation's capitol became a regular feature. Disgruntled bureaucrats in the federal government formed shadow groups online to share ideas on how to resist the new administration.
Democrats in Congress called for resistance of the Trump agenda. Confirmation of cabinet nominees ground to a halt. Democrat senators boycotted hearings. They stormed out of other meetings, venting their disgust to the media echo chamber. Calls for impeachment rang out in the halls of the Capitol.
Democrats' behavior seemed more at home in Venezuela than in America.
Many Americans believe the media narrative that the acrimony is organic. However, it is becoming clear that the animosity has been orchestrated by radical activists on the payrolls of Soros and former President Obama, who are pulling the strings of protestor puppets.
A group calling itself, Indivisible, has been among the organizers for protests, including those at Town Hall meetings for House and Senate Republicans. The organization with ties to Soros has posted a 26-page guide on its website with pointers for disrupting constituent sessions.
Indivisible is planning a massive anti-Trump march in Washington on April 15, Tax Day. Similar protests are being mapped out for other cities. Indivisible has yet to disclose its donors, but the agitators are allied with MoveOn.Org, another Soros-financed group.
Hungarian-born Soros and his Open Society Foundation have funneled more than $7 billion over the years to more than 50 protest groups, most of which are now involved in an effort to blunt the Trump agenda. Soros wants to remove the president from office, not just thwart his campaign promises.
Organizing for Action, a newly-formed protest movement, traces its roots to Barrack Obama's first presidential campaign. Then it was called Organizing for America, but has morphed into an-anti Trump faction that now is partnering with Indivisible to obstruct the president's program.
The media cartel, led by The New York Times and The Washington Post, are in cahoots with the anti-Trumpers, peddling unsubstantiated stories that rely on unnamed sources and illegal government leaks of classified information. Their reporting is salacious, often untrue and always inflammatory.
The shrill voices in the media have fueled outrageous calls for the assassination of President Trump. Rupert Myers, a political correspondent for GQ magazine, took to social media to tweet the following: "Could Obama murder Trump and Pence, then pardon himself?"
What emerged from that meeting was a scorched earth strategy designed to force a regime change by whatever means necessary, a shocking development for the nation that defined democracy. This was right out of a third-world country's political playbook.
The plan fashioned in secret was to capitalize on the myth of the Russian 'hacking' of the presidential election with a steady drumbeat of allegations about Moscow ties to Trump associates. It mattered little to Democrats there was not a scintilla of evidence the Russians hacked a single voting machine.
In the weeks following the clandestine meeting, protests flared up in many parts of the country. Marches on the nation's capitol became a regular feature. Disgruntled bureaucrats in the federal government formed shadow groups online to share ideas on how to resist the new administration.
Democrats in Congress called for resistance of the Trump agenda. Confirmation of cabinet nominees ground to a halt. Democrat senators boycotted hearings. They stormed out of other meetings, venting their disgust to the media echo chamber. Calls for impeachment rang out in the halls of the Capitol.
Democrats' behavior seemed more at home in Venezuela than in America.
Many Americans believe the media narrative that the acrimony is organic. However, it is becoming clear that the animosity has been orchestrated by radical activists on the payrolls of Soros and former President Obama, who are pulling the strings of protestor puppets.
A group calling itself, Indivisible, has been among the organizers for protests, including those at Town Hall meetings for House and Senate Republicans. The organization with ties to Soros has posted a 26-page guide on its website with pointers for disrupting constituent sessions.
Indivisible is planning a massive anti-Trump march in Washington on April 15, Tax Day. Similar protests are being mapped out for other cities. Indivisible has yet to disclose its donors, but the agitators are allied with MoveOn.Org, another Soros-financed group.
Hungarian-born Soros and his Open Society Foundation have funneled more than $7 billion over the years to more than 50 protest groups, most of which are now involved in an effort to blunt the Trump agenda. Soros wants to remove the president from office, not just thwart his campaign promises.
Organizing for Action, a newly-formed protest movement, traces its roots to Barrack Obama's first presidential campaign. Then it was called Organizing for America, but has morphed into an-anti Trump faction that now is partnering with Indivisible to obstruct the president's program.
The media cartel, led by The New York Times and The Washington Post, are in cahoots with the anti-Trumpers, peddling unsubstantiated stories that rely on unnamed sources and illegal government leaks of classified information. Their reporting is salacious, often untrue and always inflammatory.
The shrill voices in the media have fueled outrageous calls for the assassination of President Trump. Rupert Myers, a political correspondent for GQ magazine, took to social media to tweet the following: "Could Obama murder Trump and Pence, then pardon himself?"
Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, you cannot believe this is the way a democracy is supposed to function. This dangerous game being played by Democrats and the media cabal is fueling rage among all Americans. If it doesn't stop soon, the country could explode.
Or worse, it could descend into anarchy. If you are shaking your head in disbelief, then you have not been paying attention to what is happening in your country.
Or worse, it could descend into anarchy. If you are shaking your head in disbelief, then you have not been paying attention to what is happening in your country.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Booming Black Market For Human Organs
No price tag can be put on human life. But, theoretically, your body could be worth as much as $45 million. You would have to sell every organ, tissue and usable chemical in your body to reap that bounty. However, there are no shortage of buyers, especially on the burgeoning black market.
Although trafficking in illegally harvested organs is a crime in most countries, the practice continues to flourish. The reason the murky business has grown is the mushrooming demand for organs and tissues coupled with the shortage of legal donors. That gap is being filled on the black market.
Consider in the United States alone there are more than 122,000 people on an organ waiting list. That is more than triple the number in 1993. Every ten minutes a new person is added to that waiting list. The biggest demand is for kidneys, fueled by the increase in diabetes and related diseases.
There were 33,595 transplant operations performed in the country last year, according to data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That represents an almost nine percent increase from 2015.
Worldwide the latest figures for 2014 show organ transplants reached a record of 119,873, reports the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. The biggest percentage of the transplants, 41.6 percent, were for kidneys. But this data doesn't tell the whole story.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that current organ transplants cover only about 10 percent of the global demand. A report by Global Financial Integrity revealed that black market organ sales generate between $600 million and $1.2 billion in profits annually worldwide.
Impoverished nations, including Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, are hotbeds of unscrupulous organ harvesting. Gangs in China, India and Pakistan often dupe or coerce poor people to surrender their kidneys. Wealthy patients around the globe are paying as much as $191,000 for a kidney.
In China, there are reports that members of dissident groups are executed by the government, but not before harvesting their organs. In Egypt, young men are tricked into showing up for a job, only to have their kidneys surgically removed by crooked doctors for sale on the black market.
There have been few arrests because illegal organ transactions are often laundered through mainstream health care organizations, including hospitals, clinics and medical professionals. Once the organs enter the system, they become legitimate and are thus nearly impossibly to trace.
Without some way to identify black market organs, there is no way to police the practice.
At least the United States has begun to prosecute a few cases. Five people in New Jersey were arrested for illegally obtaining kidneys for $10,000 and selling the organs for up to $160,000 to patients in need. But this is only the tip of a large and expanding iceberg of corruption.
For instance, in 2013 there were 121,272 Americans waiting for an organ. A total of 28,954 received a transplanted organ. However, there were only 14,257 donors recorded. That means 14,000 people may have received organs that were obtained on the black market.
The U.S. is one of nearly 100 nations that have signed on to a statement banning global organ exploitation. Despite the agreement, there has been no dent in the illegal trade of organs. One way to attack the problem is to increase the supply of organs from living and deceased donors.
In the U.S., surveys show overwhelming support among Americans for organ donation. Research puts the number as high as 95 percent of adults. However, only 48 percent have signed up as organ donors in event of their death. Closing that gap could help reduce the black market for organs.
However, more donors won't end the practice. Nations must develop sophisticated means to trace the origin of every transplanted organ before it reaches the patient. By vetting each organ, it will staunch the worldwide racketeering of body parts.
Although trafficking in illegally harvested organs is a crime in most countries, the practice continues to flourish. The reason the murky business has grown is the mushrooming demand for organs and tissues coupled with the shortage of legal donors. That gap is being filled on the black market.
Consider in the United States alone there are more than 122,000 people on an organ waiting list. That is more than triple the number in 1993. Every ten minutes a new person is added to that waiting list. The biggest demand is for kidneys, fueled by the increase in diabetes and related diseases.
There were 33,595 transplant operations performed in the country last year, according to data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That represents an almost nine percent increase from 2015.
Worldwide the latest figures for 2014 show organ transplants reached a record of 119,873, reports the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. The biggest percentage of the transplants, 41.6 percent, were for kidneys. But this data doesn't tell the whole story.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that current organ transplants cover only about 10 percent of the global demand. A report by Global Financial Integrity revealed that black market organ sales generate between $600 million and $1.2 billion in profits annually worldwide.
Impoverished nations, including Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, are hotbeds of unscrupulous organ harvesting. Gangs in China, India and Pakistan often dupe or coerce poor people to surrender their kidneys. Wealthy patients around the globe are paying as much as $191,000 for a kidney.
In China, there are reports that members of dissident groups are executed by the government, but not before harvesting their organs. In Egypt, young men are tricked into showing up for a job, only to have their kidneys surgically removed by crooked doctors for sale on the black market.
There have been few arrests because illegal organ transactions are often laundered through mainstream health care organizations, including hospitals, clinics and medical professionals. Once the organs enter the system, they become legitimate and are thus nearly impossibly to trace.
Without some way to identify black market organs, there is no way to police the practice.
At least the United States has begun to prosecute a few cases. Five people in New Jersey were arrested for illegally obtaining kidneys for $10,000 and selling the organs for up to $160,000 to patients in need. But this is only the tip of a large and expanding iceberg of corruption.
For instance, in 2013 there were 121,272 Americans waiting for an organ. A total of 28,954 received a transplanted organ. However, there were only 14,257 donors recorded. That means 14,000 people may have received organs that were obtained on the black market.
The U.S. is one of nearly 100 nations that have signed on to a statement banning global organ exploitation. Despite the agreement, there has been no dent in the illegal trade of organs. One way to attack the problem is to increase the supply of organs from living and deceased donors.
In the U.S., surveys show overwhelming support among Americans for organ donation. Research puts the number as high as 95 percent of adults. However, only 48 percent have signed up as organ donors in event of their death. Closing that gap could help reduce the black market for organs.
However, more donors won't end the practice. Nations must develop sophisticated means to trace the origin of every transplanted organ before it reaches the patient. By vetting each organ, it will staunch the worldwide racketeering of body parts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)