Fire Season So Far, 2010

    August 7th, 2010

    The season started out in May with an assignment to Delta Junction, Alaska. I was mobilized with the ORCA Incident Management Team from Southern Oregon. We originally deployed on May 27 to be staged at Fairbanks and were assigned enroute to the Gilles Creek Fire at Delta Junction.

    Fire burning in Black Spruce

    Fire quickly moves through a stand of Black Spruce

    The team arrived in Fairbanks in 85˚ heat and 13% humidity, making fire conditions extreme. We in-briefed with Alaska Forestry Administrators then picked up rental cars and headed out for Delta Junction, 100 miles to the southeast. Alaska was alive with fires during our time there, being listed as number one priority in the United States for most of the first half of June. There were more than 30 fires being manned during our tenure in Alaska.

    Arriving in Delta Junction on a Saturday evening, we began setting up an Incident Command Post (ICP) at the Delta Elementary School. This is a huge undertaking and the Logistics Section is to be commended for the HARD work they accomplished in getting office space organized, providing meals for 600+ people, setting up showers and providing camping space for all to set up tents. They faced many challenges and overcame them all.

    Our first five or six days were warm and pleasant. We did have to acclimate to the sun not setting and getting dark at night. The sun would get about treetop level then circle around the north horizon and start rising in the east. I could have read a book inside my tent all night without a flashlight!

    Then the rain started! Over the next 11 days, we got four inches of rain in the ICP, and about the same over the fire. About that same time four more fires were added to our management team, making up the Delta Complex. The firefighters got containment lines around the fire and we turned the fire back to the local unit on June 14.

    I had no assignments for the next six weeks, then on August 2, I was called up to be the Public Information Officer for the Bull Fire in Wyoming. I arrived at the base camp about 3:00 P.M. Monday afternoon and started to set up shop. About 4:00 A.M. Tuesday morning a thunderstorm dropped about a half inch of rain over the camp and fire (and lots of lightning). The Incident Commander shut down the operation and I checked out and drove back home on Wednesday.

    This Thing Called Wildfire

    May 10th, 2010

    This Thing Called Wildfire

    Wind washing the tree branches

    Rolling over rocks and rills

    Ever present, never seeing

    Fire approaching the line.

    Will the line hold?

    Driving flames quickly over hills

    The smell of burning pine

    Smoke blocking the sun

    Never slowing, never ceasing

    Hot enough to melt everything in its path

    Trees explode like gunpowder

    Grass combusts an acre at a time

    Shovels digging, Pulaski’s scratching

    Chainsaws screaming

    And they expect us to stop this thing

    This thing called Wildfire.

    Forty boots plodding, dirt and dust flying

    Yellow shirts strung out on the trail

    Helicopters beating the air overhead

    Watching snags that make the dead

    Radio chatter fills the air

    Directing crews and tankers along the flanks

    Chugging toward the fire’s head

    Cut the head off the animal

    Cool the flame with water

    Build a fire line and burn it out

    Protect the assets in its path

    Herd it around a mountain

    The mighty firefighters tame the beast

    This thing called Wildfire.

    By Ken Malgren

    © 2010

    Snopes.com Exposed as Fraud

    February 18th, 2010

    THIS MAY SURPRISE YOU

    snopes.com
    For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the ‘tell-all, final word’ on any comment, claim and e-mail..

    But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com . Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kind of makes you wonder what they were hiding.  Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers.. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

    David and Barbara Mikkelson in  the San Fernando Valley of California started the web site about 13 years ago – and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over
    the past couple  of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions – or
    skepticisms – is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven
    wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.

    When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama’s Birth Certificate had been properly validated, I  realized something was
    wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with  both.

    Then a few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville  hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big
    splash across the Internet.   Supposedly the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their
    statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place.

    I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this, and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers. Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to
    speak with him about it.. He never called Bud.  In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm
    as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their  homework and got to the bottom of things. Not!

    Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are very Democrat and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelsons liberalism revealing itself in their web site findings.

    Gee, what a shock!

    So,  I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes..com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts: Proceed with caution. Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.

    Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelsons do. After all, I can  personally vouch from my own experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.

    Use www.truthorfiction.com and there are other much better sources.

    American Government Fails to Inform Citizens About Terrorism

    January 7th, 2010

    I didn’t compose this but the material is worth reading and understanding.

    Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ‘ Munich ‘ was based. He was Golda Meir’s bodyguard – she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

    In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information that every American needs to know — but that our government has not yet shared with us.   He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O’Reilly show, on Fox News, stating publicly that it would happen within a week.  At the time, O’Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show.  But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.

    Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred.  His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments.  Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.

    Now for his future predictions.  He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S.   Will occur within the next few months.   Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will never try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again.  Aviv believes our airport security is a joke — that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.   For example:

    1) Our airport technology is outdated.  We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.

    2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire.  Because of that, now everyone has to take off his or her shoes.  A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives.  Now we can’t bring liquids on board.  He says he’s waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked!  Every strategy we have is reactionary.

    3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.  Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in.  It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink and then detonate the bags before security even gets involved.  In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even enter the airport.

    Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate…

    (i.e. Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time.

    The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.  Aviv says terrorists won’t need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.

    Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to ‘alarm American citizens’ with the facts.  The world is quickly going to become ‘a different place’, and issues like ‘global warming’ and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.

    On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don’t have to be concerned about being nuked.  Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons.  They like to use suicide as a front-line approach.  It’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s effective, and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to ‘meet their destiny’.

    He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad.  But will be, instead, ‘homegrown’ – having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S.  He says to look for ‘students’ who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East.  These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won’t know/understand a thing about them.

    Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will, inevitably, face.  America still has only had a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact soon.

    So, what can America do to protect itself?  From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence.  We need to, instead, follow Israel, Ireland ‘s and England ‘s hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust ‘aware’ citizens to help.  We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, ‘like babies’.  Our government thinks we ‘can’t handle the truth’ and are concerned that we’ll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism.  Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.

    Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities.  The results?  Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out…in fact, in Chicago; someone tried to steal the briefcase!

    In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well ‘trained’ that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, ‘Unattended Bag!’  The citizens themselves would quickly & calmly clear the area.  But, unfortunately, America hasn’t been yet ‘hurt enough’ by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it’s their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

    Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were ‘lost’ without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there.  (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!)

    He stresses the importance of having a plan, that’s agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terrorist emergency.  He urges parents to contact their children’s schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel.

    Does your family know what to do if you can’t contact one another by phone?  Where would you gather in an emergency?  He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

    Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off the ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.   How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak?  You need to have a plan.

    If you believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send to every concerned parent or guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever and whomever.  Nothing will happen if you choose not to do so, but in the event it does happen, this particular email may haunt you.

    Congratulations to Boise State Broncos

    January 6th, 2010

    The Boise State Broncos defeated the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs to claim the title at the 2010 Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Arizona on January 4, 2010.Number 6 ranked BSU executed both good offense and good defense against the number one ranked defense in college football, number 4 ranked TCU. Boise State executed a complex punt-fake play from their 33 yard line that resulted in the go-ahead touchdown four plays later. The Broncos are often accused of using “Trick Plays” to win games. I submit that any play that is within the rules of NCAA football is not a trick. They practice complex plays on a daily basis, which other teams don’t and that’s why they work.
    The Broncos finished a perfect 14-0 season and will likely improve their ranking to number 2, 3 or 4 nationally depending on the outcome of the National Championship game between Alabama and Texas.
    Next year’s preseason rankings will certainly place the Broncos in the top 10 and maybe even the top 5 teams in the nation. What a day it will be if Boise State can crack the BCS system by ending up in the National Champion Ship Game in 2011.

    Climategate: This time Al Gore lied

    December 19th, 2009

    Andrew Bolt

    Friday, December 18, 2009 at 02:14pm

    Al Gore’s claim last week that the Climategate emails were insignificant relied on two main defences. Both are so flagrantly wrong that it’s not enough to say Gore is simply mistaken.

    No, Al Gore is a liar.

    Last week we showed that the first of his Climategate defences was so preposterously wrong that it was doubtful he had even read the leaked emails he tried to dismiss. You see, five times in two interviews he dismissed the emails as dated documents that were at least 10 years old:

    I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.

    In fact, most of the controversial emails, as I showed, were from just the past two years - and the most recent from just last month – November 12, to be precise.

    So Gore was so wrong on the first count that it was difficult to think of any way an honest man could have made such a mistake. Five times.

    But now Steve McIntyre has exploded the second argument Gore made. And now all doubt in my mind is gone. Gore must have simply lied.

    Gore’s second argument was that these emails which seemingly showed Climategate scientists trying to silence or sack sceptical scientists were taken out of context, since the two sceptical papers they referred to were in fact published, after all.

    Here is the relevant passage in his interview with Slate:

    Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

    A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

    That is actually false.

    But before I go to McIntyre’s evidence on this, first note Gore’s rhetorical trick – or deceit.

    His trick is to ignore the mountain of emails that clearly suggest a collusion against sceptics, and the hiding of data, and to suggest instead that the allegations boil down to just a single email about a single instance of two Climategate scientists allegedly blocking two papers.

    Here are just some of the Climategate emails that Gore ignored, which all seem evidence of the very collusion to hide data or censor sceptics that he denies. They include ones like this (from 2005):

    At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

    Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone

    And this (from last year):

    From: Phil Jones

    To: santer1@XXXX

    Subject: Re: A quick question

    Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

    Ben,

    Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

    Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

    And this (from last year):

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    And this (from Tom Wigley in 2003, as the Climategate cabal organised the ousting of a sceptic-friendly editor of Climate Scientist):

    PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work—must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

    Note that not one of these emails is, as Gore claimed, “more than 10 years old”. The oldest is from 2003 , and the most recent is from just last December.

    But let’s go now to the one email Gore does specifically defend as “out of context”. It is this one, which again is not 10 years old but was sent in 2005 by Climategate scientist Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit:


    The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

    (“K” is Kevin Trenberth, a fellow IPCC author.)

    Now to Steve McIntyre (go here for his full explanation):

    The [warmist] “community“‘s response to this has been: move along, there’s nothing to see. A typical defence is that of Ronald Prinn of MIT … : that improper peer review activities by CRU and their associates didn’t “matter” because McIntyre and McKitrick were discussed by IPCC after all:

    “Five papers by McIntyre and McKitrick were published and then referenced and discussed in the IPCC.”

    [This is Gore’s argument, too: “the study (sic) ended up being included and discussed anyway”.]

    McIntyre resumes:

    I’m going to place the money quote in context, showing that Jones and Trenberth did in fact live up to their threats, breaching other IPCC rules along the way.


    First of all, contrary to the statement by Prinn (and others), the paper being threatened was not a McIntyre and McKitrick paper; it was Michaels and McKitrick (Climate Research 2004)… The Michaels and McKitrick paper was originally submitted to International Journal of Climatology in May 2004 and was then assigned to Andrew Comrie of the University of Arizona. Comrie sought a review from the omnipresent Phil Jones (and apparently two others). The submission was rejected…

    Contrary to the spin of Prinn and others, it is a matter of fact that Trenberth and Jones kept Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the AR4 First Draft. (I searched and confirmed this.) As an IPCC peer reviewer, McKitrick and another reviewer (Vincent Grey) vigorously objected to the exclusion.

    Trenberth and Jones flatly rejected their comments. The following is one example. Consult the AR4 First Order Draft Review Comments for others.

    References are plentiful. Those of value are cited Rejected. The locations of socioeconomic development happen to have coincided with maximum warming, not for the reason given by McKitrick and Michaels (2004) but because of the strengthening of the Arctic Oscillation and the greater sensitivity of land than ocean to greenhouse forcing owing to the smaller thermal capacity of land.

    Ross tells me that there was no peer reviewed literature at the time (or to this day) specifically supporting the Trenberth and Jones attribution of the effect to the “strengthening of the Arctic Oscillation”.

    In the Second Order Draft, Trenberth and Jones were once again successful in keeping Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the IPCC Draft. Once again, as IPCC peer reviewers, McKitrick and Grey objected and once again, the Trenberth and Jones Author Responses were dismissive…

    However, there was a complication for Jones and Trenberth, who had thus far been successful in carrying out their threat. This time, there was a second article (de Laat and Maurelis. IJC 2006) making very similar arguments to Michaels and McKitrick…

    This time, Trenberth and Jones grudgingly agreed to mention the two articles in the IPCC report. However, they accompanied the mention with an extremely dismissive characterization – a characterization which (1) was made without any citation to peer reviewed literature and (2) that had not itself been submitted to external IPCC peer reviewers; and (3) to which Michaels and McKitrick had no previous opportunity to reply…

    McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

    Despite the IPCC (Jones and Trenberth) claim that the results “cease to be statistically significant”, Ross tells me that this is not the case and that there is no peer reviewed literature supporting this claim…

    Jones and Trenberth clearly lived up to the threat to keep Michaels and McKitrick 2004 out of the IPCC AR4 First and Second Drafts, and when that effort foundered somewhat with the addition of de Laat and Maurelis 2006, they inserted a dismissive editorial comment that was not supported by any reference to peer reviewed literature and which had not been itself subjected to the formal IPCC process.

    While there are other cases of comments being added in the Final Draft to deal with review comments to the Second Draft, there was no reason for the distortion of the IPCC procedure in this particular case, other than the prior deliberate effort to keep the Michaels and McKitrick article out of the IPCC report.

    So Gore’s defence of the Climategate emails is wrong in almost every detail, and spectacularly so. The emails are not at least 10 years old, the evidence of collusion to hide data is not limited to just two sceptics’ papers, and the papers were indeed kept out of two drafts, and then criticised in the report without any peer-reviewed literature to support those attacks.

    Gore lied. And he lied because Climategate is a scandal so big that he had to.

    No Wonder . . .

    November 4th, 2009

    It’s the day after Election Day and I’m totally disgusted. The voter turnout for Boise City Elections was only 17.57%. That means that 82.43% of registered voters are apathetic. It’s no wonder that we have rampant widespread corruption at all levels of government. At the local level, the Boise City Council has unilaterally acted in defiance of the citizens of Boise. They removed the Ten Commandments Monument without consulting the citizens. Then when the voters rebelled and voted to keep the monument, the City Council refused to honor the voter’s request. Now the Councill has spent $90,000.00 on a Public Relations firm to shove a trolly system for downtown down the throats of the citizens. Projected costs to the citizens:  $65 million! Analysts have stated that is a low-ball figure. As with most government programs, $65 million will more likely cost $100 million. Then there is the operation and maintenance costs that have not even been addressed.

    Three candidates campaigned on integrity at the local level and were against the abuse of power the current council exercises. All three were defeated by liberal incumbents or challengers. I would be tempted to say that the citizens of Boise deserve what they get. This country was founded on the principle of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” There are 110,749 registered voters in Boise City; 91,285 folks couldn’t be bothered to get off their ass and take 15 minutes and vote. That is not “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” that is government by the few for the few of the many.

    This is the same trend on the national level. Only a minority of eligible voters bother to vote. Is it the system? Would it make a difference in turnout if voting was done on Saturday. Maybe Oregon is on the right track with vote-by-mail. I don’t know what the answer is, but if it doesn’t change soon. the United States Constitution cannot survive.

    In the Old Testament, whenever the people neglected God, they got an evil ruler. So far the United States has told God to get out of schools, sporting events and in some cases churches. President Barry has publicly proclaimed, “We are not a Christian Nation.” Looking at the rampant spending of the Democrats, this country is broke. Consider the erosion of our freedoms:  health care that will no longer be the individual’s decision, but will be made by a Czar if Obamacare passes. Guess who gets to pay for all this spending? The taxpayers. The spending of the last 10 months can’t be repaid in 25 years. The nationalization of banks and car manufacturers is another example. If a business makes bad decisions and fails, it isn’t up to the taxpayer to bail them out.

    I submit that we now have an Evil Ruler and we have only ourselves to blame. Voters must take an active part in the process. Voter turnout in any election should never be less than 90%.

    Open Letter to Congress:

    August 23rd, 2009

    No, this isn’t my creation. I happen to agree with every point of it. This is in response to a number of Democrats, including President Obama, who have referred to people who disagree as “Un-American” or “racist.” I will not be talked down to by those elected to REPRESENT us.

    I will not be treated as a sheeple. My land, my property, and my earnings are not yours. They are given only in the defense of this nation, its people, its liberties, and its ideals. My heritage has worked to create this nation, has secured this nation, and sought to maintain this nation. My lineage will seek to preserve this nation in its liberties, rights and privileges.

    I will not be spoken to as a lesser, your act of representation does not afford you status or title of nobility. It does however provide you the requisite to represent; your district, your state, your constituents; your fellow citizens. It does not provide you the duty nor debt to represent your business, your interests, your financiers or their business. These I abhor, and I will seek to remove you from your representation by this offense.

    You were not elected for the common good of man, or the betterment of society, nor to try and achieve such. You were elected to protect and preserve. Failure to do so is derelict; and I will work to relieve you of such duties.

    You were not elected for your associations with party, rather for your resolution and desire to represent. Failure to place your representation above your party is a failure of your simple responsibility.

    You were not elected to cater, coddle, or seek the interests of the select. You were not elected to promote your ideas, your future, or your ways, short of also representing our ideas, future, and ways. Do not foist upon me your ideals, your views, and your morals; to do so belittle my own, this nation’s, and its citizens within.

    Seek to protect and preserve that which is already afforded, and minimize that which is not. Do not afford that which you are not entitled to give, or is wrong to take. I have not given to you the right, either implicitly or explicitly, to take what I have earned, regardless of the results. You have only been afforded the duty to protect and preserve, betterment was never involved.

    I have been given the intellect, the ability, and the responsibility to self-determination, self-reliance, and self-empowerment. I do not require your assistance in these, and consider it an affront to believe that I do. Your desire to control, direct and guide my decisions through deceit and deception is an attack on the liberties you took an oath to preserve.

    Your failures to perform the duties ordained, and to which you swore an oath to execute will only require that I work to disenfranchise you, render you voiceless, and render you obsolete, relegating you to the dustbin of the tomes of history.

    Sincerely,

    This Citizen of the United States

    Posted by “laclede” on http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=88729

    What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says

    August 12th, 2009

    Read what the bill says. It’s not what the politicians are telling you. Your health care will be determined by a Health Czar that doesn’t answer to anyone!

    The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says
    John David Lewis
    August 6, 2009

    What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

    This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

    This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

    We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

    (All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

    1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

    This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

    ‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

    and, under “Definitions”:

    ‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

    and:

    ‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

    and:

    ‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
    ‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
    1. This section amends the Social Security Act
    2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
    3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
    4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
    5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
    6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
    7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

    2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

    What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

    ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
    (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
    (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

    1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
    2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
    3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

    3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

    Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

    (a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

    (b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
    (1) Hospitalization.
    (2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .
    (3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
    (4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .
    (5) Prescription drugs.
    (6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
    (7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
    (8) Preventive services . . .
    (9) Maternity care.
    (10) Well baby and well child care . . .

    (c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

    (3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
    (A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

    1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
    2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

    4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

    Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

    (a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

    (1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
    (2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

    (The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

    The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

    5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

    1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
    2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
    3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
    4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
    5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
    6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

    5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?

    Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

    ‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
    ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
    ‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
    ‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
    ‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

    1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
    2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
    3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
    4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

    6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

    What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

    (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

    (e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

    1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
    2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

    7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

    What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

    ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
    ‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
    ‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
    ‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
    ‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
    ‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
    ‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

    And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

    (3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

    1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
    2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
    3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
    4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

    8. 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

    What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

    (3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

    And, page 145, section 312:

    (4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

    1. Do nothing and you are in.
    2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

    9. 9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

    What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

    (f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

    And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

    ‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—
    ‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
    ‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

    EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

    1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
    2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

    North Fork of the John Day Complex

    August 8th, 2009
    North Fork Complex as seen from the air.

    North Fork Complex as seen from the air.

    The North Fork Complex is comprised of seven fires resulting from an August 1, 2009 lightning storm. These fires are located in or adjacent to the North Fork John Day Wilderness, 15 miles southeast of Ukiah, OR.

    The Complex received significant precipitation August 6 and 7, slowing fire progression for the time being. Weather outlook shows a warming and drying trend which may increase fire behavior.

     

    September 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  

    Categories

    Visit our friends!

    A few highly recommended friends...