Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The Sum of Good Government

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Friday, June 25, 2010

The Red Phone Has Rung

Obama Wants to Jail Americans with New Law

As reported in the Europe Union Times
June 15, 2010

Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.

Read the full article here ===>Obama Wants to Jail Americans with New Law.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Irresponsible Journalists Publish Without Checking the Facts

Yesterday I noted that a biased student journalist misrepresented a statement made by Delegate Bob Marshall. Apparently the student heard what she "wanted to hear" rather than what was actually said and meant by the speaker.

Media attending the press conference included ABC News, Channel 8, CBN, The Washington Post, Richmond Times, The Virginia Pilot, The Associated Press and other fine news sources. Yet, none of these professional journalist heard or interpreted Delegate Marshall's "alleged statement" in the way that student Ms. Kelsey Radcliffe did. And why is that? Simply because what she reported as being said was never said, nor the meaning she implied ever meant!

Yet, our local gossip rag, the Gainsville Times, simply took the article by Ms. Radcliff without checking any of the facts, nor even attempting to verify the veracity of the article, and published it outright causing great harm to a very honorable and highly dedicated public servant who has no inclinations even close to what Ms. Radcliff alleged!

Transcripts of the actual speech, made by CBNNews, are posted on Delebate Bob Marshall's website along with a video of the entire speech where anyone wishing to verify Bob's actual statement can do so. Bob did not use the word "God" at all in his statement, and he while he referred to fact that some Christians might suggest that the cause of the higher incidence of handicapped children following the abortion of a first child might be a special punishment, he never indicated nor claimed that was what he believed.

If we make a statement about what some others believe, that does not make us believers ourselves. For example, if I make a statement about what some communists believe, that does not make me a communist! Or if I make a statement about what some Christian sect or group believes, that does not make me a member of that group. It is a basic error in logic.

What Ms. Radcliff failed to report was the study by the Virginia Commonwealth University referred to by Delegate Marshall that concluded that first abortions of the first pregnancy are much more damaging to the woman than latter abortions which is supported by over 258 peer review studies from the National Library of Medicine as well as the results of research contracts with the US Public Health Service.

Perhaps Ms Radcliff should be a little more open to listening to a message she does not want to hear.

Could there be any connection between Ms. Radcliff's venom and that fact that Delegate Marshall was stating that Planned Parenthood should be defunded?

Planned Parenthood the nations largest abortion provider which has been caught hiding child sex abuse - 10 times!



Related Stories:

Undercover video nails largest abortion provider

Planned Parenthood admits 'bending' rules

Prosecutor wants assault reporting law changed

Video reveals Planned Parenthood's advice to lie

County yanks future funding from abortionists

Abortionists fighting to keep taxpayer money

Planned Parenthood to patient: Lie to judge

Video: Statutory rape concealed

Prosecutors get Planned Parenthood video

Hiding teen 'rapes' continues at Planned Parenthood

47 minutes of abortion sting video released

Planned Parenthood pressured to give answers

Abortionists: Here's how to evade reporting law

Planned Parenthood counsels 'teen' to hide felony

YouTube censors criticism of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood promotes casual sex to kids on website

Candidates warned against Planned Parenthood money

Abortionists defend agreeing to target blacks

Black leaders: De-fund 'racist' Planned Parenthood

Black pastors protest Planned Parenthood 'racism'

Planned Parenthood: Wanting fewer blacks 'understandable'

Fox News to feature teen who exposed Planned Parenthood

'Pedophile protection racket' still going strong

Planned Parenthood access to public purse in jeopardy

Outrage over Planned Parenthood Christmas 'gift' cards

Abortion survivor's new ad fires back at Obama

Obama ad goes to war with abortion survivor

Dems' abortion machinery rolls forward

Unearthed transcript shows Obama backed infanticide

Monday, February 22, 2010

Blatant Media Bias Shows Itself Once Again

Here is an excellent example of the blatant bias of the media where a reporter takes one sentence out of context from a press conference and twists its meaning and intent to push a personal position.

MANASSAS, VA-Reporter Kelsey Radcliffe released a news article three days after a press conference at which Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall spoke with pastors, clergymen and reporters regarding funding of pro-abortion organization Planned Parenthood. This article neglected to state the facts or the studies he and other speakers cited for their objections to giving this organization more taxpayer dollars. Instead, it focused on a single sentence taken out of context with the seeming intention of misrepresenting what he said, and at the same time being hurtful to disabled children.

Bob and his wife have five children. The adoption agency told them that one of their adopted children had a 50-50 chance of contracting a disabling genetic disease which causes death in early adulthood. Nevertheless, they went through with the adoption. Several years ago they found out she does not carry the gene for this disorder after all.

Bob and his wife firmly believe every child is a gift and a blessing. Contrary to the philosophy of Planned Parenthood, they think every child deserves a lifetime, regardless of whether that child is planned, unplanned, wanted, unwanted, disabled, "normal," has birth defects, is born outside of marriage, or is the result of sexual assault. Special needs children are especially important to them, which is why for three years Bob introduced legislation to add insurance coverage for autism.

During the press conference, Bob mentioned that Christians can have a special insight because the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to God in the Old Testament. Peer review medical research shows that induced abortion of the first pregnancy causes significantly higher complications in subsequent wanted pregnancies than in women who carry their children to term, and he believes many women would want to know this information before choosing to have an abortion. We truly do owe it to the best interest and well being of the mother and child to expose the potential dangers of these unfortunate first abortions, which are so aggressively promoted by Planned Parenthood. By concealing this information, Planned Parenthood takes a stance that is of such a lack of sensitivity or care to these young women that we must wonder why they receive any taxpayer dollars at all.
In 2008, peer review medical researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University published a report from official US sources on the higher incidence of low birth weight and premature births among women who had induced abortions vs. women who did not.

The study found that women who had one, two and three or more prior abortions were 2.8, 4.6 and 9.5 times more likely to have low birth weight children and the risk of premature birth was 1.7, 2.0 and 3.0 times higher for women with a history of one, two or three or more previous abortions. (See, Brown, J. S., et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2008;62:16-22) Bob specifically cited this VCU study at the press conference.

Yet Kelsey Radcliffe failed to mention this scientific study in her article which would allow readers to make up their own minds based on the facts. We must preserve objectivity and clarity in journalism, and one way to do that is to correct the record when facts are missing or misleading statements are made.

Readers should question why this organization opposes Bob's HB 334, now in the State Senate, to inform women about medical problems they and their children may have in future wanted pregnancies after a prior induced abortion. Since Planned Parenthood supports prenatal diagnosis and abortion of handicapped children because of their handicap, they must be asked how denial of peer review medical studies promotes the best interests of women. This is a disservice to women who deserve better.

I hope this clarifies any mistaken impressions left by Kelsey Radcliffe's article. If you have any questions you may contact Bob directly on his cell phone at 703-853-4213.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Obama's Dance Around the U.S. Constitution

From the Mindszenty Report
November 2009 Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation Vol. L1-No.11

The Shadow Cabinet: Obama's Dance Around the U.S. Constitution



One of the most popular radio dramas of the 1930's was The Shadow, which asked the question who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men? The Shadow knows! The Shadow's greatest power was his ability to cloud men's minds, so they could not know where he was or what he was doing. Perhaps this is the kind of power President Barack Obama wants so that the American people will never know what he is actually up to in the White House.

More Czars Than Russia


The most formidable legal obstacle to Obama's dark socialist agenda is the United States Constitution. To neutralize its restrictive impact on his plans, the President has enlisted a den of extra-legal advisors or super-aides who can implement policy, independent of his official cabinet members. Their very presence according to Michelle Malkin's 2009 book, The Culture of
Corruption
, will serve as a useful smokescreen to obscure the true source of decision-making.

His appointment of an ever-changing number of czars to help him deliver on campaign pledges as varied as health care reform, energy independence, climate change and cyber-:terrorism have kindled a firestorm of protests on Capitol Hill. Pundits have mockingly pointed out that Obama has had more czars in ten short months than the Romanovs had in over 300 years of rule in Imperial Russia.

Most of Obama's czars are in newly created positions. They range from the pedestrian such as Kenneth Feinberg-the Pay Czar, Ashton Carter-the Weapons Czar, and Earl Devaney-the Stimulus Accountability Czar, to the bizarre, such as Cameron Davis-the Great Lakes Czar and J. Scott Gratio-the Sudan Czar. Many of Obama's czars came with more than a hint of scandal. Adolfo Carrion, according to Malkin, is the ethically challenged Urban Czar, who was involved in so many pay-for-play schemes that even Obama's Chicago crony Tony Rezko would be impressed. Nancy DeParle, his Health Czar, comes to her office with conflict of interest corporate ties, while Auto Czar Steve Rattner has a questionable background in what Malkin calls his Shady Tinseltown Trade. More recently the conservative media has exposed the aggressive homosexual advocacy of Kevin Jennings, Obama's Safe Schools Czar.

The Czar System


Obama is not the first President to rely on unofficial advisors. What makes the Obama administration different from its predecessors is the sheer numbers of czars and the broad spectrum of their operations. As with his Afghan Czar Robert Holbrooke, nicknamed the Bulldozer, and the Mid East Peace Czar George Mitchell, the State Department already has ambassadors and peace negotiators for this region. Obama's czars often wield powers greater than those of Cabinet Secretaries but unlike Cabinet Secretaries and other high-ranking executive officers who had to undergo Senate confirmation, most of Obama's have not had to do so.

This violates Congress' constitutional duty to review, confirm, or reject any Cabinet appointees from the Executive branch. Cabinet Secretaries and heads of agencies are accountable to Congress as well as to the President. Obama's circumvention of the standard confirmation process eliminates any pretense that "his administration will be the most transparent in history." Virtually all of Obama's czars cannot be impeached or removed because they do not hold a formal office.

America's founding fathers believed that the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers is the cornerstone of the American Constitution. Congressional leaders from both parties fault the President for stripping them of their constitutional prerogatives. California Republican Congressman Darrell Issa believes that Obama has created a shadow cabinet that is a danger to the very question of who is advising the president and on what basis.

Out of Step


One need only look at the type of individuals who make-up the list of White House czars to determine how out of step with traditional America is the President. The most notorious of the Obama appointees has been Van Jones who was designated as the Green Czar and brought with him a legacy of extremism that would have delighted Obama's radical mentor Saul Alinsky.

Jones is not only a Black Nationalist but is a self-admitted Marxist-Leninist-Maoist who regards the police as the enemy of black people.

Glenn Beck and other conservative media exposed Jones' radical past, replete with film clips of several vulgar and bigoted statements that warranted his being forced to resign.

The Science Czar


Aother lightening rod on the Obama czar list is Science Czar John Holdren. He holds MS and PhD degrees in aerospace ngineering and plasma physics from MIT and Stanford and he is a "specialist" in global climate change, nuclear arms control and science and technology policy. Holdren barely escaped public scrutiny because excerpts from his past writings and speeches painted him as no friend to human life or American capitalism. In 1969 he teamed up with anti-population activist Paul Ehrlich to attack capitalism, which they felt was inherently harmful to the natural environment. They also called for a massive campaign ... to de-develop the United States and other Western nations..., which to them meant lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence. To prevent the "destruction of the planet by carbon emissions," they advocated the implementation of the misanthropic formula, succinctly named I-PAT, which Stephen Milloy's 2009 book Green Hell defined as reducing the product of a nation's population, affluence and technology in order to lessen the "carbon footprint" of man on the earth.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977 entitled Conscience: Population, Resources, and Environment, he argued for population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion. He also suggested infusing infertility drugs into the nation's drinking water or in food---all views he now denies. His hope was that this would eventually lead to a Planetary Regime with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions that would relieve the world's population crisis.

The Green Quarterback


Carol Browner, Obama's Global Warming Czar was the director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton Administration. While at the EPA her draconian regulations were a thorn in the side of American industry. According to Browner her ambitious agenda involves the creation of jobs while curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil with America leading the way for an environmentally sustainable world economy.

What appears to be causing more concern regarding her appointment is what exactly her newly created position as Energy Coordinator will entail. Obama defines her role as that of an overseer to promote a smooth cooperation among five or six different energy and climate entities. In football parlance, Browner is Coach Obama's green quarterback, who will be running plays from his climate change playbook with the goal of reducing America's carbon emissions, most likely at the expense of its population and industrial prowess.

No one can discount Browner's radical past. She belonged to Socialist International (SI) until 2008 according to the Washington Times. SI is an umbrella group of global socialist organizations that work for global governance while demanding that rich countries shrink their economies to reduce climate change. These are the very same anti-business and misanthropic groups that have been hounding American business from the government periphery. Now they are inside the system where they can change it into an unrecognizable distortion of the American way of life.

Browner also brings some heavy ethical and administrative baggage to her new post. According to author Michelle Malkin, an ethical cloud still hangs over Browner's EPA legacy. While she was linked with many lobbying scams of dubious legality her most serious offense was her involvement in the destruction of computer files in violation of a federal judge's order requiring the EPA to preserve its records. While the judge later held the EPA in contempt of court, she was surprisingly not mentioned.

The Diversity Czar


Mark Lloyd is Obama's Diversity Czar. He is not only a Saul Alinsky disciple, but has also praised Communist Hugo Chavez's incredible revolution in Venezuela and the way Chavez imposed restraints on cable TV and revoked the licenses of more than 200 radio stations that failed to follow the Chavez party line.

Since his July 29th appointment, Lloyd has been a lightning rod for conservatives, who are worried about his deep-seated vendetta against conservative talk radio and cable news. In his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America he wrote: my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.... This freedom is all too often an exaggeration.... blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

It is obvious that Lloyd will use the cover of diversity as a surreptitious means of imposing Fairness Doctrine-like regulations to silence conservative and religious talk radio. He proposes using the proposed FCC localism requirement, which can mean anything from running more public service announcements to putting strident comedian Janeane Garofalo on the air after Rush Limbaugh. Lloyd also wants to restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. He wants to ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing, while requiring commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public (government) broadcasting.

Local community organizers would be encouraged to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC, which could then revoke a station's license if it didn't comply or pay a large fee. Lloyd plans to extort money from broadcasters who air the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, all of whom have successfully competed in the marketplace of ideas, and then the extorted money would be used to underwrite left-wing talk radio, which nobody wants to listen to — such as the moribund Air America.

Local community organizers would be encouraged to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC, which could then revoke a station's license if it didn't comply or pay a large fee. Lloyd plans to extort money from broadcasters who air the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, all of whom have successfully competed in the marketplace of ideas, and then the extorted money would be used to underwrite left-wing talk radio, which nobody wants to listen to — such as the moribund Air America.

The Herd Mentality


Obama chose Cass Sunstein as the administrator of the White
House Office of Information and Regulatory Affair in the Office of Management and Budget. Though technically not a covert czar because he had to undergo the confirmation process, Sunstein's power to effectively decide what all of Congress' new laws legally mean warrants his inclusion in Obama's collection of unvetted advisers. Sunstein's nomination went to the Senate in April but was not approved until September. This delay explains why Obama implemented his czar system.

While the former Harvard Law School professor's academic background is in constitutional and administrative law, as well as regulatory policy, he is more widely known for his studies in law and behavioral economics. Since he oversees the federal government's regulatory apparatus, Sunstein will likely try to shape law and policy based on how people behave, especially their herd mentality.

Many conservatives have applauded this choice because of Sunstein's libertarian views, yet his brand of libertarianism seems to be one that has little or no connection with the traditional principles of Western Civilization. He has consistently stated or written that the 2nd Amendment does not grant an absolute right to keep and bear arms. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

By far his most damaging views relate to his advocacy of rights for animals. In his 2004 book, Animal Rights, Sunstein suggested that animals ought to be able to bring suit, with private citizens acting as their representativesjo ensure that their treatment does not violate_ current law. The trouble with animal rights activists is that you can never raise animals up to the human level but only lower humans to their level. With every right there is a responsibility. What responsibility can an animal assume? Sunstein's radicalism seems to be in the same league with those of Peter Singer, the Princeton University ethicist who favors the killing of disabled infants if it were in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.

Witch Doctor Cures


Media Research Center Director of Communications Seton Motley has joined Beck and Limbaugh as a resounding voice against Obama's radical departure from traditional American politics and government. Motley says revelations about Jones, Lloyd and others are changing Obama's public perception. What Americans are beginning to realize is that Barack Obama comes across as a reasonable guy and yet he keeps choosing very unreasonable people to serve in these unaccountable positions...

After Jones' swift departure, the country finally has awakened from its reverential slumber and realized that its new President has been trying to consolidate his power, ala FDR, with his Alinskyesque introduction of radicals into his administration. It was the conservative media that lifted the cover from the Obama regime. The country now sees that the extremists in Obama's Shadow Cabinet have just one thing in common and it is their disdain for traditional American life, especially its free enterprise.

The public will realize that Obama's czars were not properly scrutinized because their ideas deviated from those of the vast majority of the American people. They will understand that most of his czars favor power over policy and that they are the embodiment of Saul Alinsky's axiom of subverting an institution from within. The American people will realize what kind of change it was that Obama promised during his 2008 campaign. They will clearly see that this President has a much more sinister medicine for them than his grab bag of socialist elixirs and witch doctor economic cures. As Michelle Malkin said in an interview on Dangers of Apathy, "Obama should put the U.S. Constitution on his teleprompter!"

William A. Borst, Ph.D. can be contacted at PO Box 16271; St. Louis, MO 63105


The Mindszenty Report is published monthly by the
Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation,
7800 Bonhomme Ave.
P.O. Box 11321
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone 314-727-6279 Fax 314-727-5897
Subscription rate: $20.00/year, $36.00/two years.
Outside the U.S.A. $28.00

Thursday, January 21, 2010

George Soros and the Obama Administration

From the Mindszenty Report Vol. LIT-No.1 January 2010
Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation

The Puppet Masters: George Soros and the Obama Administration


The movie industry has had a lucrative field day with the idea of a powerful overseer manipulating weaker humans to spread terror over an entire population. In 1986 Hollywood embarked on what became a series of horror movies entitled The Puppet Master. The first film featured an elderly puppeteer named Andre Toulon, who like the archetypical mad scientist, created a series of deadly puppets that scourged the earth in a cascade of blood and terror.

Presidential Strings


The theme of the overseeing force has been a literary staple since Mary Shelley's 1818 Gothic novel, Frankenstein and the 1962 thriller, Richard Condon's The Manchurian Candidate, which was about an army sergeant, who was brainwashed to be a political assassin. Again culture provides a suitable metaphor for reality. President Barack Obama's woeful lack of experience, when coupled with his meteoric rise to the pinnacle of political and military power is enough to lend credibility to such popular suspicions.

His puzzled look and vapid rhetoric is enough to make one think that he is NOT the one in charge of his presidency. This supposition is enhanced by his continued firm reliance on an army of czars who run the country while he vagabonds around the world.

The puppet scenario raises the question as to what power behind Obama could be pulling his strings like the puppeteer Dr. Toulon. While it is quite possible that there is more than one puppet master, Obama's links to philanthropist and currency manipulator George Soros must head any list.

From all public accounts, Soros first met Obama in March 2004 when he was still an Illinois State Senator, running for a vacant U.S. Senate seat. Just as sixties' radical William Ayers launched Obama's Senate campaign in 2004, it was Steven Gluckstern of Soros' Democracy Alliance who held one of the biggest fundraisers for Obama's presidential campaign in April of 2007. Given Obama's strong socialist bent, Soros' early attraction is not surprising. It is becoming apparent that much of Obama's globalist agenda for the United States comes, at least indirectly, from Soros' globalist network.

A Nations Collector


George Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, on August 12, 1930. His father was the Esperantist writer Tivadar Soros. The elder Soros was a lawyer whose marriage into a wealthy merchant family allowed him the freedom to become an authority on Esperanto, an artificial language, created in the 1880s. The Esperantists hope to eliminate nationalism by persuading everyone in the world to drop his native tongue and speak Esperanto instead. It has served as a useful metaphor for Soros throughout most of his adult life. In response to a growing tide of anti-Semitism, the family fittingly changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, an Esperanto verb meaning will soar.

Soros wanted to go to Moscow to study Communism but his father persuaded him to go to London to study economics. Soros left for England in 1947 and graduated from the London School of Economics in 1952. One of his professors, the philosopher Karl Raimund Popper made a lasting impression on him. Popper foretold the fall of the closed or totalitarian societies in his 1945 book, The Open Society and its Enemies. Soros later molded his global network of foundations around Popper's vision. His Open Society Institute is his tribute-to-Popper's principle of Fallibitisnm, the belief that anything one believes may be wrong, and is therefore to be questioned and improved. Popper was an atheist like Soros. He taught that men were doomed to grope blindly for truth by trial and error. No matter how hard they tried they would never find any truth. The father of five, Soros has been divorced twice. In 1952 he became a successful broker, mastering the then obscure art of international arbitrage, which is the simultaneous buying and selling of commodities in different markets in order to realize immediate and sizable profits. He was extremely good at it as his fortune grew into the billions. By the 1990s Soros was manipulating world currencies to the extent that his dealings were creating financial panic and ruination, especially in the United Kingdom and Malaysia.

Soros is also a collector of nations who delights in his ability to influence their internal politics. He helped finance the Czech Republic's 1989 Velvet Revolution that brought Vaclav Havel to power. He has acknowledged having orchestrated coups or regime changes over the years in Croatia, Georgia, Slovakia, and Yugoslavia.

Davos Man


Despite his atheism Soros has a God Complex. He sometimes refers to himself in Biblical terms and has often bragged of his messianic ideas. In his own mind he is a Nietzschean superman. Some say he thinks he is the conscience of the world, dedicated to shattering all the traditional cultural canons, especially those of the American people.

Soros has expended several billion dollars over the years in America providing funding for abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other forms of social engineering. He also funds organizations that advocate open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, a cap and trade tax, defense spending reductions, an increase in the minimum wage and a world poverty tax. He is a major financial backer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which supports the rights of sex workers and radical feminists. President Obama's agenda during his first year in office seems to have come from the Soros playbook.

Much of Soros' activity is inspired by his animus for capitalism. He despises its competition because it limits his ability to corner markets and manipulate currencies, the wellspring of his enormous wealth. With regard to his concern for the environment Libertarian Michael Berliner believes that it is not clean air and clean water that Soros wants but rather the demolition of America's technological and industrial civilization.

Soros' relentless campaign to undermine American moral values makes him an avatar of the Davos Man, a term coined by the late Harvard University political science professor Samuel Huntington to describe a group of globalist international elites who have no allegiance to any country. The Davos Man views national boundaries as inevitably vanishing. Soros also sees nation-states as harmful vestiges of the past and believes national laws and administrative regulations are detrimental to world economies as are national currencies.

He does all of this in the name of promoting an open society, which to Soros is merely the negation of all organized society. Soros hopes to direct his activities for a more unified world economy that would enhance his own abilities to corner markets and direct policies for billions of people.

A Globalist Web


The best way for Soros to undermine America's economy and its cultural institutions is through a web-like structure of subversive groups. The keyword which all of them have in common is the open society, which is based on the Popperian notion that people act
on imperfect knowledge and nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth
. As a result someone has to direct them. The bulk of Soros' energies are centered on education, libraries, publishing, and media. Various scholarships are offered to students in order to give them access to greater resources.

Through his Open Society Institute, Soros funds groups that are part of an intricate web of globalist organizations that have been designed to advance his world agenda through stealth and subterfuge. His Democracy Alliance is led by two leading figures in the SEIU/ACORN nexus, namely Andy Stern, the international president of the of the Service Employees International Union and Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer.

Another important cog in the Soros global wheel of fortune is Drummond Pike, the head of the Tides Foundation. While the Republican Party and the right-wing media have recently had a field day highlighting criminal probes into ACORN's voter registration and subprime mortgage fraud schemes, hardly a word has been mentioned about ACORN's link to Pike's foundation, an $80-million-ayear conduit from wealthy donors, who wish to conceal their contributions to many of the same organizations now principally sponsored by Soros' cartel. Pike has been a longtime sponsor of ACORN co-founder, Wade Rathke, who had to leave his organization in 2008 after the New York Times revealed a decade-long ACORN/rides cover-up of a million-dollar theft from their treasury by his brother, Dale.

Another key component in the Soros globalist web is the Institute for Economic Thinking. The INET is another Soros front, which he launched with $ 50 million in seed money. INET educates the public about the weaknesses and contradictions in the current free market system. Soros hopes to use his INET to make research grants, convene symposia, and establish a journal that will thoroughly discredit the free market system which by socialist definition is always in crisis. He would replace it with a European form of state capitalism.

A Catholic Wedge


One of Soros' major contributions to Obama's election was his
work among the Catholic population. A full 54% of voting
Catholics pulled the lever for the most overtly pro-abortion candidate in American history. According to Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid, Soros poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of progressive Catholic groups, many of whom are now leading the Obama push to socialize American health care.

To underscore Soros' connection with Obama's Catholic supporters, Catholic League president Bill Donohue exposed the link between Soros and two left-wing groups, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) and Catholics United (CU). Soros' Open Society Institute gave the CACG $100,000, double what they gave in 2005.

Soros' funds were allocated for promoting two issues dose to the Catholic conscience, namely health care reform and illegal immigration. These two issues are very high on the agenda of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Soros' accolades adroitly used them to drive a moral stake through the heart of Catholic solidarity. The CACG media director confessed to AIM that we have been primarily focused on highlighting the moral dimensions of this issue and articulating how Catholic social teaching addresses health care as a human right central to a just society.

Using their seamless garment towels to cover the federal funding mandate for abortion in Speaker Pelosi's Health Care Bill, Catholic progressives have been working tirelessly for illegal immigrants being included in any health care reform. John Podesta, who runs Soros' Center for American Progress, admits that he works closely with CACG and CU. The reason Soros funds the Catholic Left is that he can make abortion rights a respectable Catholic position and thus split the Church down the middle.

James Todd of Pewsitter.com, which represents traditional Catholics, calls such groups nominal Catholic CINOs, or Catholics In Name Only. He believes they have been funded to counterbalance the growing influence of the faithful Catholics AND to try to deceive and mislead the middle of the road Catholics that have determined the last 13 Presidential elections.

A Hospice Nation


Abortion is not the only life issue on the Soros radar screen. Given the recent storm surrounding Sarah Palin's charge of death panels as part of Obama's Health Care Reform, it is important to understand Soros' stand on the other side of the life coin. As part of his cultural reform, Soros is one of the leaders in the right to die movement. Founded in 1994, Soros' Project on Death in America was one of the Open Society Institute's early projects. It sought to understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement. Its goal is to encourage people to overcome their fear of death and embrace the inevitable on their terms. It promotes both suicide and euthanasia. It, urges doctors to warehouse terminally ill people in hospitals and give palliative care to the gravely ill, that is care designed to help patients feel better while they are dying, rather than wasting finite medical resources on trying to cure them.

In 1994 Soros gave a speech that not only endorsed the Oregon Death with Dignity legislation, but also reported that he had offered to help his mother commit suicide. Erzebet Soros had long been a member of the Hemlock Society, an organization that urges its members to commit suicide. His mother had enough medication to take her life but-died without taking —Ever-the-vigilantson, Soros was ready and willing to assist her had she requested it.

Soros' philosophy on death would effectively turn American medicine into a Hospice Nation. It is a certainty that Soros' influence has been at work during the Health Care debate. The American people should be leery of any Soros-inspired death panel that may be lurking within its thousands of pages.

The White House Rabmbo


With Obama in the White House and Soros' access somewhat diminished, the argument can be made that Obama's chief martinet is his Chief of Staff, the native Chicagoan, Rahm Emanuel. He's the second son of a former Israeli terrorist, Benjamin M. Emanuel, a Jerusalem-born pediatrician, and member of the Ir on, a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine before Israel's nationhood in 1948. As Chief of Staff, Emanuel is in a perfect position to carry out Soros-like solutions for the many crises that have confronted Barack Obama since last January.

The 49-year old Emanuel was originally a Clinton supporter but he saw a brighter future with the Hawaiian Candidate. He is known for his take-no-prisoners style that has earned him the nickname Rahmbo. Stories abound concerning his ruthless style that includes profanity-laced bullying, threats, and a dead fish. The Chicago Tribune calls Emamuel a brutally effective taskmaster.

As a result of his combative style, not everyone in Congress, or Washington, likes the former Clinton official and four-term Congressman. Even some members of his own party, including members of the black and Latino caucuses bear no affection for him, especially those who feel he has run roughshod over their personal agendas. Even his long list of enemies is impressed with his energy, intellect and sheer will. He's aggressive and creates his own weather said one observer. Emanuel's approach stands in stark contrast to President Obama's whose own spineless demeanor of conciliation and surrender frightens few. Emanuel's strong liberal views rank him as the insider Soros.

What does this all mean for America's future? A strong argument can be made that there have been other weak presidents who had behind the scenes' control like Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson and maybe even George W. Bush. In all likelihood, as the Obama administration gets drawn closer to the unavoidable light of public scrutiny the umbilical cords linking him to more powerful forces such as George Soros, and Rahm Emanuel, will become increasingly more apparent

William A. Borst, Ph.D. is the author of Liberalism: Fatal
Consequences and the Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy.
Both are available from the author at PO Box 16271; St. Louis, MO
63105



The Mindszenty Report is published monthly by the
Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation,
7800 Bonhomme Ave.
P.O. Box 11321
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone 314-727-6279 Fax 314-727-5897
Subscription rate: $20.00/year, $36.00/two years.
Outside the U.S.A. $28.00

Virginia HOUSE BILL NO. 112

HOUSE BILL NO. 112
Offered January 13, 2010
Prefiled January 5, 2010
A BILL to extend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of unborn children.
----------
Patron-- Marshall, R.G.
----------
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
----------
Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia provides in Article I, Section 1 that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia further provides in Article I, Section 11 that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. That a human being is any organism, including an embryo, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with a member of the species Homo sapiens. For the purposes of certain inherent and constitutionally guaranteed rights, every human being is deemed a legal person in the Commonwealth.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being, and the natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn children.

§ 3. Subject to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia, the laws of the Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of development, the equality and inherent rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and the right to due process guaranteed by Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

§4. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, limit, or otherwise modify any determination of law regarding what constitutes appropriate medical services for pregnant women.

Virginia HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Offered January 13, 2010
Prefiled December 18, 2009
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study alternatives to the existing medical liability system that will reduce the costs of defensive medicine. Report.
----------
Patron-- Marshall, R.G.
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules
----------
WHEREAS, defensive medicine is the provision of medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit; and

WHEREAS, diagnostic defensive medicine practices ordered by physicians fearful of lawsuits have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices; and

WHEREAS, a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society and UConn Health Center researcher Robert Aseltine, Jr. titled “Investigation of Defensive Medicine in Massachusetts,” found that 83 percent of more than 900 physicians surveyed in Massachusetts reported practicing defensive medicine; that an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations, and 13 percent of hospitalizations, were ordered for defensive reasons; and that such practices cost an estimated minimum of $1.4 billion per year in Massachusetts; and

WHEREAS, an analysis in 1996 by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, based on data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease, found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a five percent to nine percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications; and

WHEREAS, other studies of defensive medicine, including a 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health and a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics failed to find that the costs of defensive medicine were as large as indicated by the Kessler-McClellan study; and

WHEREAS, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 analyzed more than 1,400 malpractice claims and found that in almost 40 percent of cases, no medical error was involved; and

WHEREAS, concerns over the costs of defensive medicine that results from the existing medical liability system has led to interest in far-reaching liability reform proposals, including administrative compensation systems for medical injury; and

WHEREAS, administrative compensation systems, modeled on workers' compensation systems or the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation program, would require the establishment of a specialized tribunal with specialized judges who would award compensation based on a standard that does not require proof of a provider's negligence;

now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study alternatives to the existing medical liability system that will reduce the costs of defensive medicine. The joint subcommittee shall have a total membership of 10 members appointed as follows: six members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates, in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates; and four members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice-chairman from among its membership.

In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall (i) determine the extent to which defensive medicine is practiced by health care providers in the Commonwealth; (ii) quantify the cost of defensive medicine and the effect of such costs on the health care system; (iii) determine the extent to which aspects of Virginia's medical malpractice system, including the cap on liability, contribute to the amount of defensive medicine practiced in Virginia; (iv) determine the extent to which the implementation of an administrative compensation system or other alternatives to the existing system would reduce defensive medicine practices; and (v) address potential challenges to the implementation of an administrative compensation system, such as its abrogation of the traditional role of juries and the judiciary.

Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the House of Delegates. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.

The joint subcommittee shall be limited to four meetings for the 2010 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $10,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.

No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the House members or a majority of the Senate members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.

The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2010, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2011 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state whether the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a House or Senate document. The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.

Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2010 interim.

Virginia HOUSE BILL NO. 11

HOUSE BILL NO. 11
Offered January 13, 2010
Prefiled December 7, 2009
A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 32.1-137.7 and 32.1-137.14 of the Code of Virginia, relating to health services; utilization review.
----------
Patrons-- Marshall, R.G. and O'Bannon
----------
Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions
----------
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That §§ 32.1-137.7 and 32.1-137.14 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 32.1-137.7. Definitions.
As used in this article:
"Adverse decision" means a utilization review determination by the utilization review entity that a health service rendered or proposed to be rendered was or is not medically necessary, when such determination may result in noncoverage of the health service or health services. When the policy, contract, plan, certificate, or evidence of coverage includes coverage for prescription drugs and the health service rendered or proposed to be rendered is a prescription for the alleviation of cancer pain, any adverse decision shall be made within twenty-four 24 hours of the request for coverage.

"Commission" means the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
"Covered person" means a subscriber, policyholder, member, enrollee or dependent, as the case may be, under a policy or contract issued or issued for delivery in Virginia by a managed care health insurance plan licensee, insurer, health services plan, or preferred provider organization.

"Evidence of coverage" includes any certificate, individual or group agreement or contract, or identification card or related documents issued in conjunction with the certificate, agreement or contract, issued to a subscriber setting out the coverage and other rights to which a covered person is entitled.

"Final adverse decision" means a utilization review determination made by a physician advisor or peer of the treating health care provider in a reconsideration of an adverse decision, and upon which a provider or patient may base an appeal.
"Medical director" means a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia who is an employee of a utilization review organization responsible for compliance with the provisions of this article.

"Peer of the treating health care provider" means a physician or other health care professional who holds a nonrestricted license to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia or under a comparable licensing law of a state of the United States and in who maintains the same or similar scope of practice or specialty or subspecialty, as defined by the American Board of Medical Specialties, as the treating health care provider. If the treating health care provider is not a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth, "peer of the treating health care provider" includes another health care professional who holds a nonrestricted license in the Commonwealth or under a comparable licensing law of a state of the United States in the same or similar specialty as typically manages the medical condition, procedure or treatment under review.

"Physician advisor" means a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia or under a comparable licensing law of a state of the United States who provides medical advice or information to a private review agent or a utilization review entity in connection with its utilization review activities.

"Private review agent" means a person or entity performing utilization reviews, except that the term shall not include the following entities or employees of any such entity so long as they conduct utilization reviews solely for subscribers, policyholders, members or enrollees:
1. A health maintenance organization authorized to transact business in Virginia; or
2. A health insurer, hospital service corporation, health services plan or preferred provider organization authorized to offer health benefits in this Commonwealth.

"Treating health care provider" or "provider" means a licensed health care provider who renders or proposes to render health care services to a covered person.

"Utilization review" means a system for reviewing the necessity, appropriateness and efficiency of hospital, medical or other health care services rendered or proposed to be rendered to a patient or group of patients for the purpose of determining whether such services should be covered or provided by an insurer, health services plan, managed care health insurance plan licensee, or other entity or person. For purposes of this article, "utilization review" shall include, but not be limited to, preadmission, concurrent and retrospective medical necessity determination, and review related to the appropriateness of the site at which services were or are to be delivered.

"Utilization review" shall not include (i) any review of issues concerning insurance contract coverage or contractual restrictions on facilities to be used for the provision of services, (ii) any review of patient information by an employee of or consultant to any licensed hospital for patients of such hospital, or (iii) any determination by an insurer as to the reasonableness and necessity of services for the treatment and care of an injury suffered by an insured for which reimbursement is claimed under a contract of insurance covering any classes of insurance defined in §§ 38.2-117 through 38.2-119, 38.2-124 through 38.2-126, 38.2-130 through 38.2-132 and 38.2-134.

"Utilization review entity" or "entity" means a person or entity performing utilization review.

"Utilization review plan" or "plan" means a written procedure for performing review.
§ 32.1-137.14. Reconsideration of adverse decision.

A. Any reconsideration of an adverse decision shall be requested by the provider on behalf of the covered person. A decision on reconsideration shall be made by a physician advisor, peer of the treating health care provider, or a panel of other appropriate health care providers with at least one physician advisor or peer of the treating health care provider on the panel.

The treating provider on behalf of the covered person shall be notified of the determination of the reconsideration of the adverse decision, in accordance with § 32.1-137.9, including the criteria used and the clinical reason for the adverse decision, the alternate length of treatment of the alternate treatment setting or settings, if any, that the entity deems to be appropriate, and the opportunity for an appeal pursuant to § 32.1-137.15.

B. Any reconsideration shall be rendered and the decision provided to the treating provider and the covered person in writing within ten 10 working days of receipt of the request for reconsideration.

Virginia HOUSE BILL NO. 10

HOUSE BILL NO. 10
Offered January 13, 2010
Prefiled December 7, 2009
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 38.2-302.1, relating to a person's participation in a health care system or plan; Virginia Health Care Freedom Act.
----------

Patrons-- Marshall, R.G., O'Bannon, Edmunds, Lingamfelter, Morgan, Pogge, Tata and Wright

----------
Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
----------
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 38.2-302.1 as follows:
§ 38.2-302.1. Virginia Health Care Freedom Act.
No law shall restrict a person's natural right and power of contract to secure the blessings of liberty to choose private health care systems or private plans. No law shall interfere with the right of a person or entity to pay for lawful medical services to preserve life or health, nor shall any law impose a penalty, tax, fee, or fine, of any type, to decline or to contract for health care coverage or to participate in any particular health care system or plan, except as required by a court where an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify any determination of law regarding what constitutes lawful medical services within the Commonwealth.

A Curious Avoidance of Scientific Fact

"...it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact...

September 1970 issue of California Medicine

The Source of Liberty

" Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."

Woodrow Wilson