The Obama GrabTM

Everyone surely knows the whole body naked-scanning machines that TSA rushed into service at airports around the country immediately after the mid-term elections. These days they are impossible to miss while traveling.

If one were to wonder if safety was forgotten in the rush to field the machines as quickly as possible, here’s some food for thought:

• Boston TSA employees seem to be experiencing a higher than average rate of skin cancer¹
• FDA has not tested the full body scanners for safety²
• NIST has not tested the full body scanners for safety³
• additional action was recommended by the Johns Hopkins University to avoid exceeding the general public dose recommendation of 100 mrem per year⁴
• the units have areas where beam overshoot will expose bystanders to repeated doses; protective shields were recommended, but seem to not have been implemented⁵
• the systems were never studied for their cancer inducing properties using standard methods such as mutant mice⁶
• the often quoted comparison between cosmic background radiation received during flight and the scanning machines is inaccurate, because the energy levels of the radiation are orders of magnitude different⁷
• the dose estimations are likely to be inaccurate (too low), because the energy levels used concentrate more of the radiation in and near the skin, causing localized doses much higher than the “full body average”⁸

To be fair, the FDA responded to some of these issues⁹. Strangely, in the lengthy response nowhere does the FDA state that it studied the systems itself, or that the FDA has determined the systems to be safe. The response made reference to third party safety studies, but not only were these studies not performed on behalf of the FDA on the systems themselves, some of them pointed out issues that had not been addressed by the TSA¹⁰.

Further, a key study made by JHU was heavily redacted, making independent verification impossible. Not to mention that the characterization of the third party evaluations was at best questionable, as the FDA claimed NIST had provided “safety data”, when NIST states that it didn’t test the units for safety¹¹.

And last but not least, in a response to the FDA, it seems that the JHU report was inconsistent and in fact implies that the primary radiation was measured in a manner that provided a lower than actual reading¹².

Perhaps we should all just drive a car or resign ourselves to the Obama Grab^TM until we can all vote out the Dear Leader and his gang that brought us this multi-billion dollar skin cancer experiment.

© 2011, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Obama Motion - Uncovered

The corruption case for former Illinois governor Blagojevich is getting more interesting thanks to a PDF file snafu with a defense motion document.

While the judge has ordered certain topics to be kept under seal, it seems that someone chose to redact text ¹ by changing the background color of the text, rather than completely erasing the text.

Anyone with some experience with Adobe Acrobat can easily uncover the text, either by cutting and pasting it to another document, or by changing the text color back to what it would normally be.

We have attached a version of the PDF that shows the previously hidden parts of the document. However, we wanted to highlight the parts that had been erased, and instead of changing the document so that the previously hidden text looks normal, we chose to change the text color such that the redacted portion appear white on a black background.²

A revelation in the previously hidden parts of the document is that Blago alleges that he talked to Obama about the Senator seat shopping that landed him in his current predicament, in addition to other corrupt topics. Further, Blago claims that tapes and documents the government doesn’t want to produce to the defense prove his case.

What makes this interesting, is that if the tapes and documents are as damaging as Blago alleges, then Obama might be caught in a lie when he claimed to never have spoken with Blago about such topics.

It would be very interesting indeed, if Blago’s defense will turn into Obama’s version of the blue dress with spots.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

A shortened version:

1. It will cost $750 annually to go without health insurance, even if you are young and healthy. (Section 1501)

2. You won’t be able to get health insurance premiums that reflect your (presumably good) lifestyle. (Section 2701).

3. You won’t be able to bargain for lower health insurance costs by agreeing to certain coverage limits. (Section 2711).

4. You won’t be able to save by choosing a policy that doesn’t cover some preventive care. (Section 2712).

5. You won’t be able to offer cheaper insurance to employees by limiting the definition of “children” to something less than 26 years of age. (Section 2714).

6. “You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.” Regardless of if you need such services or not. (Section 1302).

7. Trying to balance cost of the plan with what percentage the plan covers is limited. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You can’t offer (or buy) policies with higher deductibles than $2,000/$4,000 in exchange for a lower premium. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. It will cost an employer with more than 101 employees $750 (or $2,000 to $3,000, depending on what comes out of the closed door meetings) not to offer insurance. (Section 1513).

10. You can’t place more than $2,500 into a Flexible Health Spending Account. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. Physicians will be pressured into limiting the services they use through government monitoring. (Section 3003 (i))

12. A physician won’t be able to own a hospital. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. A current physician owner of a hospital won’t be able to expand the hospital, except in limited circumstances, and even then the expansion is very limited. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B), Section 6601 (i) (3) (E) and Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. The government will control premium increases. (Section 1003)

15. The government will take $2.3 billion or more every year from the pharmaceutical industry. (Section 1404, and Section 9008 (b))

16. The government will take $2 billion or more every year from medical device makers. (Section 9009 (b), and Section 1405).

17. The government will take $6.7 billion or more every year from insurance companies. (Section 1406, and Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B))

18. Insurance companies will be limited in what kind of talent they can hire as CEOs, as deferred compensation is limited to $500,000. (Section 9014).

19. You will face a marriage penalty in that you will pay an additional 0.5% tax, or perhaps as much as 3.8%, on income over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. (Section 9015, and Section 1402)

20. Cosmetic surgery, or whatever is defined as such by the government, has a 5% tax on it. (Section 9017).

We won’t even begin with the many Constitutional problems this bill poses. Hope and change, Komrade.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Hold Onto Your Wallet!

In yet another act of “unprecedented transparency”¹, the Democrats have driven a bill through Congress that has now been signed by Obama (D) to raise the Congressional Credit Card limit to a staggering $14.294 TRILLION without the benefit of CSPAN capturing a single second of the closed door discussions.²

The vote in the Senate was taken just in time before the newly baked Senator Brown (R) from Massachusetts were to be sworn in, since he might have forced actual debate on the issue. It was simply safer for Reid (D) to drive the vote while the Massachusetts state officers with (D)’s behind their names were doodling and claiming that it just takes time to create the necessary documentation for Brown (R) to be sworn into office.³ After all, even when the results are not contested, it’s important to dot those t’s and cross those i’s, especially when a guy with an (R) is the topic, and not someone with a (D), isn’t it?⁴

Those in the Senate with (D) behind their names even claimed to wait for Brown (R) for any important vote, such as that on healthcare.

It must be that the (D) people don’t think that agreeing to spend $1.9 TRILLION is not an important vote. Interestingly, if $1.9 TRILLION doesn’t make the cut, but a healthcare plan supposedly costing $1 TRILLION or thereabout does, then is that an indication that the REAL cost of the healthcare legislation is far beyond $1.9 TRILLION? Harry (D), Nancy (D), please explain.

As we reported previously⁵, this bill increases the national debt “limit” by more than it has ever been increased before, both as a percentage of the total, and as an absolute number. Not even during the dark days of World War 2 was such a dramatic increase necessary.

So what’s different? A looming 2010 Congressional election disaster for those with a (D) behind their names has Harry (D) and Nancy (D) running scared, and Obama (D) can’t help but agree. With Brown (R) in the Senate now, Reid (D) might not have been able to push this (D) looneylaw through Senate, or at least not without some semblance of debate.

Yesterday, following up on his transparency pledge, Obama (D) chose to leave those pesky cameras outside yet again, and proceeded to sign this monster into law. All hail the chief, the Congressional Credit Card is safe from those pesky guys with (R) behind their names.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Spending your way to debt bondage

In the sea of self-righteous proclamations by Democrats in Congress to wait for the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts before engaging in further healthcare debate, the same induhviduals have carefully neglected to discuss the real elephant in the room. Namely the national debt.

The reason is now obvious. Harry Reid and company clearly wanted to pass the biggest increase in the national debt ever, and saying that they would wait for Brown on such a key issue would have made them liars.

So there it goes, a $1.9 TRILLION dollar addition to the national debt, care of the Democrat Senate.¹ The vote was on party lines, 60-40, and would have failed had Reid waited another few days.

To put this number in perspective, it represents about 53% of the 2010 federal budget, as submitted by the biggest spender ever to occupy the White House. It also increases the national debt by a whopping 15%, the biggest percentage ever, in addition to by far the biggest absolute value ever. And it increases the direct national debt to $45,000 for every American man, woman and child.

This vote by the Democrat controlled Senate shows that Democrats with Harry Reid at the helm take issue with Brown, who might have taken away their credit card and impacted their freespending habits. Should the Democrat controlled House concur that the credit card limit should be raised by this whopper, the Democrats lead by Reid, Pelosi and Obama will be free to spend their way into the worst possible future for the American people. Namely debt bondage.²

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Obama's Fall Gal?

Analyzing the stunning victory for the Republicans in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the Union, one comes away with various theories on what might have been playing out behind the scenes. Here’s one of those theories for your enjoyment.

Let’s pretend that we are a narcissistic¹ politician occupying the White House, and our only goal is to ensure re-election for a second term. Would it matter if our radical policies pass? Of course not. What matters is that enough people believe that we can bring Hope and Change™ and that problems are caused by the evil opposing party.

In that scenario, how would we approach a key Senate election in a traditionally radically Democratic state?

Easy. Act as if a Coakley victory is a done deal.

If it is, we continue to look like the Messiah™ that some would like us to be, and we can keep our policies going at full speed as before.

If it isn’t, it’s a blessing in disguise, as it provides a convenient explanation for the failure of our radical policies for healthcare, the economy, taxes and the environment. This guarantees that there will be a good load of warm steaming Hope and Change™ available when it comes time for our next re-election.

How likely is it that Obama pursued such a cynical² win-win strategy? You decide.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.