From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 07:49:41 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:49:41 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Prevent Swine Flu Message-ID: <14f401ca57c4$bcb2ee50$3618caf0$@com> here's what snopes has to say: http://www.snopes.com/medical/swineflu/prevent.asp Even though they declare it to be a mixture of truth...everything stated in this e-mail makes sense!! :-) Rena > Prevent Swine Flu - Good Advice > > > Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital , Bombay Hospital , Saifee Hospital , Tata Memorial etc. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W). (Where the hell is this??? LOL) > > The following message given by him, I feel makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know > > The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is. > > While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu): > > 1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications). > > 2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (unless you want to eat, bathe or slap). > > 3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt). *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected one. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method. > > 4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.* > > > 5. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption. > > 6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm. > > I suggest you pass this on to your entire e-list. You never know 20 who might pay attention to it - and STAY ALIVE From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 07:51:39 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:51:39 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] MY NEW TRUCK Message-ID: <14f801ca57c5$02f53a80$08dfaf80$@com> I bought a new Chevy Avalanche And returned to the dealer yesterday because I couldn't get the radio to work. The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated. 'Nelson,' the salesman said to the radio. The radio replied, 'Ricky or Willie?' 'Willie!' he continued and 'On The Road Again' came from the speakers. Then he said, 'Ray Charles!', and in an instant 'Georgia On My Mind' replaced Willie Nelson. I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say, 'Beethoven,' I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said, 'Beatles,' I'd get one of their awesome songs. Yesterday, some guy ran a red light and nearly creamed my new truck, but I swerved in time to avoid him. I yelled, 'A** H***!' Immediately the radio responded with... "Ladies and gentlemen, The President of The United States" Damn I love this truck... From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 07:54:16 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:54:16 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Four years later, still no hospital in St. Bernard Parish Message-ID: <14f901ca57c5$60636160$212a2420$@com> Syl, Landry is mad at the Meraux Foundation for their part in selling land to the apartment developers. He thinks this is going to hurt the foundation's feelings. Which is a good reason for not having anyone from the Council on the Hospital District Board. JY ----------------------------------------------------- "Landry said the board is looking at two potential land sites for the hospital" I thought the site across the street from the government complex had already been selected. They should have gone with the Franciscans & they wouldn't have to look for a management company. They were here for us from the beginning ! Syl From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 08:26:16 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:26:16 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Barack Obama has failed to defeat conservatism in America Message-ID: <151f01ca57c9$d8be8cd0$8a3ba670$@com> The correct definition to that of a "Conservative" is this: Anything that politically is disliked by a liberal/socialist/Marxist/Communist. (and vice versa as conservatism is the exact opposite of Marxist philosophy). To be a "republican these days", one might waiver to liberal ideology to please a portion of "political correctness", constituency, or a weakness in standards. Therefore, consider oneself a conservative if what you believe in is abhorrent to morals/belief system/and faith. Not to quiver, but to stand strong by what you feel is righteous vs. a socialist opponent (remember, the term "liberal" is pass? and thus has gone extremist left in worldviews, viewpoints and opinions). Therefore, to disregard the Almighty in any manner (no matter how minute it may seem) is to join the ranks of socialists/atheists, etc. If one should fall from grace or be tempted from his/her staunch conservative standpoint, one should stand back up and resume the rite of passage towards favor of God. (ex. Adultery, corruptness, criminal activity and so forth). ie. Satan and darkness/socialist/etc.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<---------------------------->>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>GOD/Conservatism and enlightenment. One has to ardently work toward goodness, no matter the outcome. At least you will know that what you aim to achieve has been considered in your heart to be the correct decision to that means. . Yes. No one is perfect. However, it is perfection that should be our goal, whether we fall from grace permanently or stand tall and run the course. Our Maker has outlined very clearly what we must do no matter the earthly consequences. Which side will you take? -JER-- From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 08:27:33 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:27:33 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] How NOT to Tweet Message-ID: <152001ca57ca$09193e20$1b4bba60$@com> Yes. And to those who know me, I'm neither an 8th dwarf and "twitter while I work". Nor do I find it prudent to blatantly be overwhelmed with unnecessary details, information overload, or characters who have little going on in their lives but to be chained to a desk, portable device or an electronic device that wishes to be the recipient of electronic mail for the purpose of knowing as much as God knows. There are far too many devices available for information that arrives too quickly to flood the choices into oblivion. Even Tweety bird won't tweet because he's afraid of being inundated with useless material on a minute-by-minute basis. But then again, a whole new bag of worms created by our technologists might tempt Tweety into submission. But then, that's my opinion and prerogative because I have a phone, a cell phone, many computers, radios and TV which actually keeps me busy throughout my every-living day and night. --jer-- ----------------------------------------------------- Those that know me know I'm a big fan of Twitter. Like all things, care needs to be taken, especially if you have access to a business or government account, as the Jefferson Parish Emergency Management Department learned. http://tinyurl.com/yg7lps2 Westley From westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 08:42:19 2009 From: westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:42:19 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] 45 Years Ago Today: We Have a Rendezvous With Destiny - Ronald Reagan Message-ID: <152a01ca57cc$16d604b0$44820e10$@com> Audio: http://tinyurl.com/ygy7yxa Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks. I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good." But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down-[up] man's old-old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"-this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming-that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow. Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil. At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore. Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how-who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down. Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed. We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer-and they've had almost 30 years of it-shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead. Now-so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have-and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs-do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency. But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing. Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things-we're never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. Now-we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that. A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary-his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due-that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can. At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road. In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth? I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations. I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country. No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. Federal employees-federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do. But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died-because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the-or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men-that we're to choose just between two personalities. Well what of this man that they would destroy-and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing. This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there. An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load. During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won. Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer-not an easy answer-but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace-and you can have it in the next second-surrender. Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face-that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand-the ultimatum. And what then-when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin-just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this-this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits-not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much. From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 18:03:33 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:03:33 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Four years later, still no hospital in St. Bernard Parish Message-ID: <176e01ca581a$7df76640$79e632c0$@com> It seems that Council members who appointed themselves to boards and commissions, such as the HSD and HRQL, may be effected. I am assuming should this amendment fail, the Council members would remove themselves and appoint another resident:: Per recent Press Release on www.sbpg.net : ""Should the measure fail, the membership of council members on state authorized boards and commissions would be in jeopardy."" http://www.sbpg.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1177:proposed-fee-for-services-still-on-ballot-in-st-bernard&catid=2:local-news&Itemid=2 Councilmembers are currently prohibited by Home Rule Charter Sec 2-06 (below) as follows: PAGE 7 Home Rule Charter CURRENT Sec. 2-06. Prohibitions. (a) A council member shall hold no other elected public office, appointed position in government service, or be a compensated official or employee of the parish government or any of its political subdivisions during the term for which elected to the council. However, council members may hold the positions of notary public, an officer in the military service, a member of a charter commission, a delegate to a constitutional convention, or a member of a political party committee. No former council member shall hold any compensated appointive office or employment of the parish government or any of its political subdivisions until one (1) year after expiration of the term of office to which elected. (b) Except as specifically provided in this Charter, neither the council nor any of its members shall appoint, remove, direct, or supervise any administrative officers or employees whom the president or any of his subordinates are empowered to appoint. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Summary 2538 ?A council member shall hold no other elected public office or any compensated appointive office or employment of the parish government or compensated office of any state political subdivision until one year after leaving office. Appointments to boards and commissions are allowed as long as said appointments are not compensated?. Copy Public Hearing Notice proposed amendment (may have to copy and paste) http://www.scribd.com/doc/19461585/Council-Appointments-to-Boards-and-Commissions-Summary-2538-Council-Public-Hearing-Notice SJK -----Original Message----- Syl, Landry is mad at the Meraux Foundation for their part in selling land to the apartment developers. He thinks this is going to hurt the foundation's feelings. Which is a good reason for not having anyone from the Council on the Hospital District Board. JY From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:24:02 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:24:02 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Saying "No" to Your Right to Know Message-ID: <17c901ca582e$1e6b5150$5b41f3f0$@com> Saying "No" to Your Right to Know By Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." - Barack Obama, August, 2008 As we write, a small group of White House officials and three senators are huddled in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office deciding what kind of health care you and your family will be allowed to have. Major policy decisions, such as whether or not there will be a government run "public" option, are being made. Backroom deals are being cut - all in secret. No C-SPAN cameras allowed. If you think you should have a voice in this process, there is a place to make your voice heard. Just visit healthtransformation.net . What Did Liberals Learn From the Townhalls? Shut Out the Troublemakers It's not like Americans have been apathetic about the future of our health care. Since this process began, we've demanded to know what is happening. Last summer, Americans filled townhall meetings, many armed with copies of the 1000+ page bill that had been filed in the House - a bill that most lawmakers had never read. And the more we learned, the less we supported the Pelosi Plan. But what did Speaker Pelosi and the other supporters of liberal health care reform learn? How did they decide to use this input from the American people? After August, Liberals Were More Determined Than Ever to Ram Through a Bill Some began cancelling town hall meetings. Others actually carded people in the audience to make sure they lived in their district. Still others began verbally chastising the citizens who asked questions. Upon their return to Washington, it was clear that they had discounted what they heard at the town hall meetings. It was as if their meetings with the American people had never happened. They were more determined than ever to ram through legislation. Democrats Blocked an Attempt to Require That Bills Be Posted Online In the Senate, the Finance Committee decided to pass a vague proposal - containing no legislative details or cost analysis - and allow no opportunity for the American people or their elected representatives to know what was being considered until after it was done. During the process, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to require that all bills be publicly available for 72 hours with legislative text and an official budget analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prior to being considered. The Democrats blocked the amendment, never allowing it to get fair and full consideration by the Senate, even though eight Senate Democrats supported the requirement. Senators Bayh (Ind.), Lincoln (Ark.), Pryor (Ark.), McCaskill (Mo.), Landrieu (La.), Nelson (Neb.), Lieberman (Conn.) and Webb (Va.), should be commended for later contacting the leadership urging them to support the change. "When We Come Back In September, I Will be Available to Answer Any Question That Members of Congress Have" It appears clear that the decision has been made to ignore the promise President Obama made to worried Americans in the summer of 2008 and again last July when he declared: "So I just want everybody to know, Congress will have time to read the bill. They will have time to debate the bill. They will have all of August to review the various legislative proposals. When we come back in September, I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that." It is unfortunate that the Democratic leadership has decided it would be easier to rush their legislation through rather than honoring the people's right to know. Then again, maybe that choice is all Americans need to know when judging the Democrats' healthcare bill. Go to healthtransformation.net to Make Your Voice Heard President Obama has failed to deliver on his repeated promises of transparency and openness. But that doesn't mean that we have to silently accept a government health care bill that was negotiated in secret and paid for with deals cut with special interests using our tax dollars. Please sign the Center for Health Transformation's (CHT) petition at click here , to tell Washington that We The People demand that all bills be publicly available, including legislative language and accurate budget analysis, at least 72 hours prior to any vote by Congress or committees in Congress. There's still time to make your voice heard. "60 Minutes" Takes On Medicare and Medicaid Fraud The correspondent announced the report with the warning that "it might raise your blood pressure." He was right. Last Sunday night, CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a not-to-be-missed expose of something that the Center for Health Transformation has been warning about for months: The unbelievable amount of fraud taxpayers are footing the bill for in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. "60 Minutes" estimates that an amazing $90 billion in spending on these programs each year is due to fraud. That's right in line with what CHT's Jim Frogue and I report in our book Stop Paying the Crooks . For more on CHT's campaign to fight Medicare and Medicaid fraud, click here . To watch the "60 Minutes" report, click here . Your friends, Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:26:20 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:26:20 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Morning Bell: Is Government Run Health Care Inevitable? Message-ID: <17d301ca582e$707339e0$5159ada0$@com> WEDNESDAY, OCT 28, 2009 Is Government Run Health Care Inevitable? Americans who like making their own health care choices received welcome news yesterday when Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he would be willing to block final passage of Obamacare if the government run health insurance program Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced Monday survives the amendment process during the Senate debate. Lieberman explained: ?I think that a lot of people may think that the public option is free. It?s not. It?s going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn?t, it?s going to add terribly to our national debt.? Lieberman is dead on. A government run insurance company will be massively more expensive than its proponents claim. Pressed by the leftist news organization Talking Points Memo to respond to ?experts? who say the government run plan will actually save money, Lieberman responded: ?Well all the history we have of health entitlement programs, including the two big ones that I dearly support, Medicare and Medicaid, is that they end up costing more than we?re prepared to pay, and they add to the debt, and then they add to the burden on taxpayers.? Again, the facts back Lieberman up here 100%. In 1967, the experts predicted that the new Medicare program would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion?off by nearly a factor of 100. The leftist TPM shot back noting that the government run health company is supposed to be ?financed by premiums, and unable to draw on federal funds.? The statement would be comically naive if the stakes weren?t so high. Does the left really expect the American people to believe that the same government that bailed out General Motors, Chrysler, and scores of highly unpopular banks, would not bailout the already-government-run insurance company they fought so hard to create? Addressing the ?opt out? clause in Reid?s proposal, Lieberman commented : ?I would vote against a public option plan even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.? This is also true. A government run health insurance program would create a new entitlement program designed to do nothing more than force every American into government run health care. This is not a bug of the plan, it is a feature. Just ask proponents of the plan like Michael Moore who told Rolling Stone this summer: ?If a true public option is enacted ? and Obama knows this ? it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won?t be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make.? Candidate Barack Obama?s own campaign website back up Moore?s claim, quoting Obama at a 2008 speech in Ames, Iowa : ?If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system. ? So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices. ? Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.? But the scariest part of Obamacare is that it does not even need a ?whole new government entitlement program? to push more and more Americans into government run health care. As Heritage scholar Dennis Smith has documented, even in the Senate Finance Committee version of Obamacare, which does not include a new government run insurance program, almost half of the newly insured Americans would get their new insurance through Medicaid . The House version of Obamacare, with the new government program, is no different . The point is that no matter how the government run health insurance debate works out, Obamacare will move us closer towards government run health care. The only question is how fast it will do so. But there is still hope. Heritage Vice President for Government Relations Michael Franc explains : But don?t lose heart. Conservatives will be in a position to prevail because, ultimately, America remains a right-of-center nation. And ultimately this debate will not just be one about our health system. Rather, it will be a complex and layered debate about many other issues, issues where conservative values carry the day. Lawmakers will be hearing from their constituents on issues as varied and important as the individual?s relationship to government, the size and scope of that government, debt and deficits, our responsibilities to future generations, life (both at its beginning and its end), the level of taxation on individuals and work, job security, and privacy. We?ll win because there is no other option. QUICK HITS Despite his ethics pledge, during his first nine months in office, President Obama has rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings. In what would be the company?s third bailout , GMAC, is seeking $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion more in taxpayer money. Insurgents attacked two guesthouses and a hotel in downtown Kabul that housed United Nations staff and other international personnel, killing at least eight people in one of their most daring attacks on the Afghan capital. Stating a position that would undermine the entire plan , a high-ranking Iranian official said Tuesday that even if the country agreed to a United Nations-sponsored plan to ship its enriched uranium abroad for further processing, it would not ship it all at once. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) told CSPAN that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is not happy with efforts to make sure Obamacare does not force taxpayers to pay for abortions. From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:38:06 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:38:06 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] THIS 1948 CARTOON MAY BLOW YOU AWAY!!! Message-ID: <17da01ca5830$150d0610$3f271230$@com> Highly recommended viewing. This cartoon was made in 1948. It is long but worth the time to watch. Truer today than ever before, and scary. http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetch ed-in-1948.html http://tinyurl.com/yfqzr4d From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:38:22 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:38:22 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Bombing of Pearl Harbor 68th Anniversary Memorial Service planned Message-ID: <17db01ca5830$1e835b40$5b8a11c0$@com> Bombing of Pearl Harbor 68th Anniversary Memorial Service planned Program to be held Monday, Dec. 7 at Pearl Harbor Park in Chalmette The Pearl Harbor Survivors Association will hold a Memorial Service on Monday, Dec. 7 from 11 a.m. to noon to commemorate the 68th Anniversary of the Bombing of Pearl Harbor at Pearl Harbor Park 5601 Paris Road in Chalmette. For more information, contact Shirley Rambeau, Secretary of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association and Louisiana State Chairperson of the Sons and Daughters of Pearl Harbor Survivors, at srambeau at hotmail.com or 504-338-2500. # # # From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:41:22 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:41:22 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] MILLIONS MORE IN FEDERAL FUNDING "HIT THE STREETS" IN ST. BERNARD Message-ID: <17df01ca5830$8a339030$9e9ab090$@com> MILLIONS MORE IN FEDERAL FUNDING "HIT THE STREETS" IN ST. BERNARD NEW ORLEANS - Only three months after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) and the Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) announced $13.8 million for St. Bernard Parish's roadway restoration project, the three agencies announced another $70.6 million to support the post-Katrina recovery project. "The streets of St. Bernard Parish were so greatly damaged by Hurricane Katrina that residents' travels throughout their communities were often impeded," said FEMA's Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office Acting Director Tony Russell. "As a result, Parish President Craig Taffaro Jr. has developed a plan to repair this critical infrastructure. And, in unison with our state partners, we've continued to provide eligible funding as the actual scope of this recovery project increases." The federal agency's recent funding of $70.6 million covers damages that were not originally included in previous obligations for St. Bernard's roadways. This supplementary flow of recovery dollars is concurrent with FEMA's policy, whereby all public assistance grants provided are "living grants." This means that as additional eligible damages are found and documented, the agency will continue to obligate recovery dollars accordingly. "St. Bernard's growth and recovery continues to benefit when FEMA, the Governor's Office and St. Bernard Parish Government officials reach milestone cooperative agreements such as this wide-reaching $70.6 million public assistance grant that is absolutely critical to repairing miles and miles of roads damaged by Hurricane Katrina," President Taffaro said. In order to identify Hurricane Katrina damages, FEMA, the state and parish representatives jointly "walked the streets," assessing hundreds of miles of roadways throughout St. Bernard. "This is an important investment in the future of St. Bernard Parish, and another example of what can happen when federal, state and local officials work together to truly assess the recovery needs of our citizens," said Paul Rainwater, executive director of the Louisiana Recovery Authority. To date, FEMA has provided a combined total of $84.4 million in public assistance for St. Bernard Parish's roadway restoration project, which is currently underway. When FEMA approves projects through its supplemental Public Assistance grant, the funds are transferred to a federal Smartlink account. Once the funds have reached this account, the applicant can request reimbursement from GOHSEP for eligible work completed. The Public Assistance program works with state and local officials to fund recovery measures and the rebuilding of government and certain private nonprofit organizations' buildings, as well as roads, bridges and water and sewer plants. In order for the process to be successful, federal, state and local partners coordinate to draw up project plans, fund these projects and oversee their completion. Created in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) is the coordinating and planning body leading the most extensive rebuilding effort in American history. The central point for hurricane recovery in Louisiana, the LRA works closely with the GOHSEP and partners with state and federal agencies to oversee more than $20 billion worth of programs, speed the pace of rebuilding, remove hurdles and red tape and ensure that Louisiana recovers safer and stronger than before. FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. # # # Editors: For more information on Louisiana disaster recovery, visit www.fema.gov /latro. From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:41:53 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:41:53 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Grand Opening of Paul Noel Gym and Fuel Youth Center on Saturday, Nov. 21 at 9 a.m. Message-ID: <17e001ca5830$9c4bfaa0$d4e3efe0$@com> St. Bernard Parish President Craig P. Taffaro, Jr. Cordially invites you to a Grand Opening To celebrate Growth and Recovery In St. Bernard Parish Paul Noel Gym and Fuel Youth Center Saturday, November 21 at 9 a.m. 210 E. Moreau Street in Chalmette The gym is located behind the School Board Administration Building at 200 E. St. Bernard Highway in Chalmette. From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:47:02 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:02 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Congress Needs Some Skin in the Game Message-ID: <17e101ca5831$54b4fe70$fe1efb50$@com> Congress has no "skin in the game." Under the heading Who's got a skin in the game?, William Safire penned a column about the origin of the phrase. He writes, "The skin in this case is a synecdoche for the self. [T]he game is the investment, commitment or gamble being undertaken. Thus, investors in a company will be more comfortable in their own skins if they know that the managers are personally invested as well - that they share the risk and have an incentive to share the gains." Congress needs to put some skin in the game and we need your help to keep the pressure on and spread the word! Bailouts....stimulus bills...cash for clunkers...hundreds and hundreds of billions - maybe even trillions - spent without a single Member of Congress being held accountable for what their wild spending spree will do to our future stretching beyond even our grandchildren. And now the icing on the cake is their gold-plated government takeover of our health care system! Only in Washington do they think that spending $900 BILLION of our tax dollars on a new government program that will take away our rights as patients is a good thing! Nancy Pelosi is so proud that she is only spending $900 billion of our money to fund her government takeover of health care that she is actually BRAGGING in the media! We need to hold EVERY SINGLE Congressman and Senator accountable for voting for this health care monstrosity and need your help to do it. * I need your ideas. What ideas do you have that would have these Congressmen and Senators "put some skin in the game." How should we hold them accountable for their upcoming votes on this gold-plated government takeover of health care? Some have suggested asking each Congressman and Senator who plans on voting yes to sign a pledge that they will give up their Cadillac Congressional health care plan and take the same government health insurance plan they want to force the rest of us on. That's a great idea and a start, but we need as many ideas like this as possible to find the best ones to force Congressmen and Senators to "put some skin in the game." We've set up a dedicated webpage where you can go and tell us your ideas. To keep you apprised, we will post on our website some of the top ideas we get. Thank you for your continued support on this important issue. Sincerely, Rick Scott Chairman, Conservatives for Patients' Rights 700 12th Street NW, Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20005 From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 20:49:45 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:49:45 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] FREE COUPONS Arts & Crafts Expo Message-ID: <17e801ca5831$b5e3d6d0$21ab8470$@com> Christmas in every corner... come see Louisiana's BIGGEST Arts & Crafts Expo in Kenner at the Ponchartrain Center or in Covington at the Fairgrounds. Fun and entertainment for the whole family. Food booths, music, rides for the kids. Admission is $5.00. Children under 13 admitted free. Please enjoy the coupons for $1.00 off any purchase of $10.00 or more. From westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:05:14 2009 From: westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:05:14 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Ramifications of Comer v. Murphy Oil Message-ID: <17ee01ca5833$df50c7b0$9df25710$@com> Ramifications of Comer v. Murphy Oil by Keith Loria October 28, 2009 02:25 PM. In Comer v. Murphy Oil, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the suit alleging global warming exacerbated damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.The court ruled that plaintiffs do have standing to assert cnuisance, trespass and negligence claims and that these claims did not represent nonjusticiable political questions. J. Russell Jackson, a partner with Skadden Law who defends companies' products and advertising in trial and appellate courts, spoke to Public Nuisance Wire about the ramifications of this decision. PNW: Why is the Comer decision important? Jackson: This case is important because it is a class action for compensatory and punitive damages brought by private property owners. It was less surprising when the Second Circuit in AEP found that governments and municipalities had standing to sue to reduce emission levels of greenhouse gases. But the Fifth Circuit's Comer decision would seem to throw the courthouse doors wide open to suits brought by almost anyone to seek money from entities that they allege contributed to global warming. PNW: What does the reversal mean for future cases dealing with climate change? Jackson: If the Comer decision is allowed to stand -- and that's a big "if," since a petition for rehearing en banc is likely and the Fifth Circuit is renowned to be a pretty conservative court -- then further lawsuits for compensatory and punitive damages seem likely. People should note, however, that merely because a litigant is held to have "standing" to sue in federal court does not mean that he will be successful. These climate change cases present extraordinarily difficult issues of causation. As the federal district court in the recent Village of Kivalina decision noted, these greenhouse gases are alleged to have built up over hundreds of years from a wide variety of sources across the globe. That makes it awfully difficult to pin causation in fact and legal (or "proximate") cause on some arbitrarily-selected group of present-day defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel may have succeeded in getting a toe in the door to the federal courthouse, but they are right to be concerned that they may be thrown out of court on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. PNW: What other concerns do you have? Jackson: One of my biggest concerns is that we appear poised to use the judicial system -- the most inefficient, expensive, and undemocratic regulatory tool of all -- as the primary means of retroactively deciding what should have been done decades ago, and yet no damage award will actually do anything to prevent the impacts of climate change that plaintiffs keep saying are coming. To have a court retroactively "tax" greenhouse gas emissions when they were perfectly legal at the time is fundamentally unfair and ultimately will impose on future American consumers extrarodinary burdens that they presently are unprepared to face. Moreover, the discovery costs, lawyers' fees, and wasted productivity associated with litigating these cases are unnecessary and will do nothing to solve the alleged problem. And they do nothing to deal with the responsibility that each consumer bears for his or her own historic "carbon footprint," as certain activists would term it. America's climate change policy should not be forged in closed chambers by men and women in black robes wielding wooden gavels; it should be publicly debated, analyzed, and adopted by the politcally-accountable branches of government. PNW: What do you think was the court's motivation for this decision? Jackson: I think the Fifth Circuit panel felt unduly hamstrung by the Supreme Court's discussion of the causal chain alleged in Massachusetts v. EPA. The plaintiffs here are not governmental entitites and, as private plaintiffs suing for damages, they merit no lenient standard. The district court in Village of Kivalina demonstrated that even in public nuisance cases involving alleged water pollution, if the sources of pollution are too diffuse or the plaintiffs live too far downstream, they lack the sort of causal connection that makes their injury "fairly traceable" to the defendant's conduct, and thus they have no standing. That certainly is the case here, where the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions are alleged to have combined with other gases from other sources across the globe and over time to combine to trap heat in the atmosphere, which then allegedly impacted the strenth or ferocity of a hurricane. Just to say it is to show how convoluted the causation theory is. PNW: Any last thoughts? Jackson: Regardless of whether the Fifth Circuit rehears Comer en banc or not, it's important to note that the panel's opinion mentioned in more than one place that its conclusion that the "fairly traceable" requirement for standing had been met in no way meant that the complaint could survive a proximate cause challenge in a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. Indeed, Judge Dennis made it plain that he would have affirmed a dismissal on such grounds. So anyone who tells you that the decisions in AEP and Comer mean that climate change cases will actually make it all the way to trial is incredibly naive or optimistic. One other thing. I think it's important that the Fifth Circuit held that the private property owners had no standing to bring claims for damages based on so-called civil conspiracy to "conceal" the alleged dangers of global warming. These civil conspiracy and fraud claims are even further causally removed from the challenged conduct than the nuisance claims, and it was important to see the court recognize that and eliminate them from the litigation. From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:12:41 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:12:41 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Committee Approves Bipartisan Credit Rating Agencies Reform Legislation Message-ID: <17f001ca5834$ea2f1be0$be8d53a0$@com> Financial Services Committee Approves Bipartisan Credit Rating Agencies Reform Bill Washington, DC - Today, the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 3890, the Accountability and Transparency in Rating Agencies Act, introduced by Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises. The Committee passed H.R. 3890, with bipartisan support, by a vote of 49-14. "The Accountability and Transparency in Rating Agencies Act aims to curb the inappropriate and irresponsible actions of credit rating agencies which greatly contributed to our current economic problems," said Chairman Kanjorski. "This legislation builds on the Administration's proposal and takes strong steps to reduce conflicts of interest, stem market reliance on credit rating agencies, and impose a liability standard on the agencies. As gatekeepers to our markets, credit rating agencies must be held to higher standards. We need to incentivize them to do their jobs correctly and effectively, and there must be repercussions if they fall short. This bill will take such steps. I look forward to moving it through the legislative process." A summary of H.R. 3890 follows: * Stronger than the Administration's Plan on Rating Agencies. The Accountability and Transparency in Rating Agencies Act expands on the initial credit rating agency legislation proposed by the Administration in that it: * Creates Accountability by Imposing Liability. The bill enhances the accountability of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) by clarifying the ability of individuals to sue NRSROs. The bill also clarifies that the limitation on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or any State not to regulate the substance of credit ratings or ratings methodologies does not afford a defense against civil anti-fraud actions. * Duty to Supervise. The bill adds a new duty to supervise an NRSRO's employees and authorizes the SEC to sanction supervisors for failing to do so. * Independent Board of Directors. The bill requires each NRSRO to have a board with at least one-third independent directors and these directors shall oversee policies and procedures aimed at preventing conflicts of interest and improving internal controls, among other things. * Mitigate conflicts of interests. The legislation also contains numerous new requirements designed to mitigate the conflicts of interest that arise out of the issuer-pays model for compensating NRSROs. Additionally, the bill significantly enhances the responsibilities and accountability of NRSRO compliance officers to address conflicts of interest issues. * Greater Public Disclosure. As a result of the bill, investors will gain access to more information about the internal operations and procedures of NRSROs. In addition, the public will now learn more about how NRSROs get paid. * Revolving-Door Protections. When certain NRSRO employees go to work for an issuer, the bill requires the NRSRO to conduct a 1-year look-back into the ratings in which the employee was involved to make sure that its procedures were followed and proper ratings were issued. The bill also requires NRSROs to report to the SEC, and for the SEC to make such reports public, the names of former NRSRO employees who go to work for issuers. ### From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:13:50 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:50 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] 'Gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation' Message-ID: <17f101ca5835$132986c0$397c9440$@com> October 28, 2009 | By Amanda Reinecker 'Gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation' After 13 days of secret, closed-door negotiations on health care legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced Monday that he had reached an agreement with Senators Chris Dodd (D-MT) and Max Baucus (D-CT), and three top administration officials. Unfortunately, Senator Reid did not tell the American people much else. Even many lawmakers remain in the dark regarding the outcome of this "secret deal that Senator Reid wants to get passed and signed into law 'this year,'" writes Heritage Senate Relations expert Brian Darling. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, summed it up: "It will be a thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, raises taxes and slashes Medicare for our seniors to create new government spending programs. That's not reform." Even as some of the final details of the bill do go public, it is likely that lawmakers won't know in advance entirely what it is they are voting on. This is because the legislation the Senate Finance Committee "agreed" to -- all 1,502 pages of it -- is the most massive piece of legislation ever introduced by Congress. paperweight But length isn't the only record the "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009" claims, as Heritage health policy analyst Ed Haislmaier notes. "For the first time in fifteen years, [Congress] has set a new all-time division record for gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation." What we do know about Reid's 'secret deal' Although Senator Reid did not go into great detail about the health care "reform" legislation, he did mention that bill includes a government-run health insurance "option" that would "compete" against private health plans. In an attempt to gain much-needed support from skeptical moderates in both parties, liberals have added a new twist to the "public option": a provision allowing states to opt out of the program. This would require states to pass legislation by 2014 rejecting participation in the federal government run plan. But this new wrinkle is really more of the same, warns Heritage health policy analyst Nina Owcharenko . "This latest Senate ploy creates the illusion of an 'option' rather than making any fundamental changes to the controversial proposal." Owcharenko explains why this "opt-out" model is just another government-run plan that is guaranteed to fail: 1. States can only opt-out of the government-run plan, not the entire bill. But the rest of the bill contains hundreds of provisions, such as the expansion of Medicaid, which will place major financial burdens on the states. 1. It is still a government-run plan because the government will require non-participating states to meet federal conditions. These government-determined conditions could include the creation of state-level public options that mirror the federal plan. 1. States will likely select the public "option" because of the bureaucracy and enormous administrative complexity required for a state opt-out. Federal conditions will limit states' ability to create alternatives. 1. State innovation will suffer under the massive health care proposal's employer and individual mandates, and government micromanagement of an industry that represents one-sixth of our economy. So even though the states would be able to "opt out" of the government-run health insurance program, the federal government will make it very difficult to do so. And for the few states that do succeed in withdrawing, the government will still dominate their health care systems. A true state "opt-out" provision would allow states to opt out of the bill in its entirety, argues Owcharenko. "Any other opt-out is just another shell game that is intended to appear as a concession but in reality provides for greater federal control and blocks much needed structural changes." > Other Heritage work of note * "If Congress wanted to make real progress" on immigration reform, Heritage President Ed Feulner advises , "it should embrace the KISS principle: Keep it Simple, Stupid." For example, rather than trying to completely overhaul immigration policy all at once, lawmakers should gradually introduce policies that would achieve real reform and advance America's interests. Feulner recommends that Congress work to strengthen the E-Verify program, a cost-effective and proven way for employers to ensure that they are operating within the law by hiring only legal residents. And he urges lawmakers to consider a genuine temporary worker program -- not just another form of amnesty -- that would allow foreign workers to reside in the United States for a short period. * President Obama's "plans for the Pentagon are awfully reminiscent of Carter's defense program," writes Heritage national security expert James Carafano. Unfortunately, many of Carter's policies of soft diplomacy and military cutbacks made the U.S. a vulnerable target in the eyes of her enemies -- and the danger is that we could face these dangers again today. "Unless the nation seems firmly committed to backing [rhetoric] with some hard muscle," argues Carafano, "those with no love of America will interpret the rhetoric as the vapid mooings of a nation in retreat." * "Because Fox dares to report news critical of the administration, President Obama has instituted a White House boycott of the network," writes Heritage expert Brian Darling. And while the White House heaps abuse on its critics, the administration its heaping taxpayer money on its allies. For example, $250,000 from the so-called "stimulus" package has been assigned to a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders. * The Obama administration's plan to send a $250 check to every senior -- nominally to offset the lack of a cost-of-living increase -- would cost future generations about $13 billion. "With [Social Security] already facing massive unfunded deficits in the decades ahead, the proposed giveaway is exactly the wrong approach," writes Heritage President Ed Feulner. > In other news * The United Nations is looking into pricey housing markets, such as those in New York City, and investigating whether such expensive locations violate the "right to affordable housing." * A Los Angeles man has been arrested on "suspicious circumstances of a miscarriage" of a 13-week-old fetus believed to be his. If he is charged with murder, the case could reignite the controversy over when human life begins. * Two suicide bombers struck Baghdad over the weekend, killing 155 people in the worst bombing in two years. Meanwhile, President Obama recently reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to withdrawing its troops from the country. * The U.S. dollar continues to slip as the Euro and Chinese Yen increase in value. * Conservatives still outnumber liberals and moderates, according to a Gallup poll. The most recent poll found that 40 percent of Americans identified themselves as conservative while only 20 percent said they were liberal. Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org-a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report. From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:23:34 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:23:34 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] To Comfort You Message-ID: <17f801ca5836$6f2abab0$4d803010$@com> Some more great news!! It gets better every day! Let me get this straight. We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:23:51 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:23:51 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Urgent Warning for Friday Message-ID: <17f901ca5836$790ec5d0$6b2c5170$@com> ALIENS ARE COMING TO EARTH ON FRIDAY AND THEIR MISSION IS TO ABDUCT ALL GOOD LOOKING AND SEXY PEOPLE. YOU WILL BE SAFE , I'M JUST E-MAILING YOU TO SAY GOODBYE. Ha, Ha!!!!! From westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:31:15 2009 From: westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:31:15 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] MILLIONS MORE IN FEDERAL FUNDING "HIT THE STREETS" IN ST. BERNARD Message-ID: <181401ca5837$81f875f0$85e961d0$@com> In honor of the 45th anniversary of Reagan's "Rendezvous with Destiny" speech, everyone should call their representative and urge them to reject this government intrusion. Just one more example of Obama's effort to control us through government programs. Richard Pass this along to everyone you know! From Westley at da-parish.com Wed Oct 28 21:36:30 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:36:30 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] To Comfort You Message-ID: <181501ca5838$3d8500e0$b88f02a0$@com> I do know what could go right after experiencing this past calamity. --the end of the world. It's about the best thing that we could imagine in light (or should I say darkness) of how mankind has thrown away a perfect world. --jer-- ----------------------------------------------------- Some more great news!! It gets better every day! Let me get this straight. We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?