Global Warming?

Coworker tells a school teacher customer that the horrible, cold weather we've been having makes him doubt global warming. She then lectures him on how cold weather is proof of global warming, since that means the glaciers are melting.

Now, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but ice has to remain at 32 degrees to be ice. You raise the temperature to 33 to melt it, that's a rise in temperature. As the water melts, the temperature is not going to decrease because there's more cold water around. The water's going to be 33 degrees, and it's going to have to stay 33 degrees to remain water. If anything, the temperature may go up.

Anyway, I explained to Dom that mankind accounts for 15% of the greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming. Mother Gaia *snicker* accounts for the other 85%. The US accounts for roughly 5% total. So, knowing that manmade global warming is bunkum, that nothing we do is going to have any measureable impact on global warming, and that unless we turn off all electricity tomorrow and go back into the stoneage we're not going to manage more than a .5% total reduction (and that's being generous), does it make any sense to write all this bullcrap legislation and outlaw good lightbulbs and hi-flow toilets? Resoundingly, intelligently, NO.

Health Care Bill HR 3200

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3200

I have been reading this, and it is intolerable. Here's a link to some real gems that have been Twittered:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html

I hope whoever wrote this and votes for it burns in hell. And I hope they burn before too.

More Camel In The Tent

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/04/01/235493/us-to-enforce-cyber-security-in-private-companies.htm

The US government could gain powers to enforce cyber-security standards in private companies for the first time under new laws designed to dramatically step-up the US cyber-defences.

Legislation expected to be introduced in the US Senate today will extend the US government's cyber-security programme from military networks to private systems used to control critical infrastructure such as electricity and water, The Washington Post reports.

The legislation calls for the appointment of a White House cyber-security "czar" with the authority to shut down both government and private computer networks during a cyber-attack, according to officials interviewed by the paper.

The news comes following disclosures of the extent of cyber-espionage activities of Chinese hackers against western governments.

Research by a Canadian security group has revealed that the Chinese operation, dubbed GhostNet, infiltrated more than 1,000 computers in more than 100 countries.

US Intelligence officials have warned that a major attack on private computer networks could compromise systems used by banks, utilities and transport networks, causing social and economic panic.

The US has begun a 60 day review of its defences against cyber-attacks.
---------------------------------------
What is scarier? Chinese viruses running amok in our computers, or government officials running amok with the power to commandeer computer networks?

I'd like to know if private networks include the networks of private citizens. Also, for how long are they going to be authorized to shut down the networks, and what exactly constitutes such an emergency that they'd be authorized to do this.

Maybe my tinfoil's just a little too tight today, but the idea of the government shutting down the "backbone" because of imminent rumblings of revolution seems like a likely possibility down the road.

HR 1388 The Give Act

Passed in both House and Senate. Sent all my representatives a letter prior, telling them not to vote for it. Sent them a nastygram afterwards telling them they'd just betrayed their country - because they just voted to restart slavery. Also written into the bill is a provision prohibiting groups, companies, and organizations from protesting the bill and mandatory volunteerism, a direct violation of our rights listed in the First Amendment.

My promise is the same as it has always been. I was born free, I've lived as free as possible, I'll die free. Any attempt to interfere in that perfectly natural chain of events will be met by increasing levels of force.

Meanwhile, everyone's torqued off because AIG execs got the bonuses they were promised by the Obama administration - after which those bonuses were taxed at 90%. To those folks who don't know, that's called a bill of attainder - i.e. any bill that specifically targets one group of people. This is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Like, actually listed "no bills of attainder."

Now comes word that the head of GM has stepped down at Obama's request. We'll see if he tries to "appoint" a new CEO - whether by executive fiat or by strong "suggestion."

This country is irredeemably broken. Congress just crapped all over the "no involuntary servitude" amendment (one you'd think a black president would know something about), and our right to protest. And they kept us distracted from this with a bread-and-circuses routine that further destroys the free market.

If you don't have your mags loaded already, put down the Doritos and go load some between American Idol commercials.

H.R. 1388 "Give Act"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:

My concerns are many with this Bill.
What gives the Government the right to require individuals to give 3 years service under the guise of “volunteer” service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the Bill passed and then iron out the details.

It talks about uniforms and “camps.” They revise the word “camps” and call it “campus.” There is language about Seniors and Community organizations.

Some language in the Bill is particularly disturbing like:

- “leverage Federal investments to increase State, local, business, and philanthropic resources to address national and local challenges;

- encourage national service efforts to address pressing national challenges, such as improving education for low-income students, increasing energy conservation, and improving the health, well-being, and economic opportunities of the neediest individuals in the Nation;

-expand and strengthen service-learning programs through year-round opportunities, including during the summer months, to improve the education of children and youth and to maximize the benefits of national and community service, in order to renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community to children and youth throughout the United States;

- increase service opportunities for our Nation's retiring professionals

-encourage members of the Baby Boom generation to partake in service opportunities

- Civilian Community Corps shall be called the "National Civilian Community Corps"

-the Director determines appropriate "Uniforms"

Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer? The Government should NOT legislate Volunteerism.

-How much money will this National program cost?

And scariest of all:

From the Misc. section, #6104: (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational

backgrounds.

I'm watching this nation commit suicide, 25 traitors just opened another box of razorblades. We'll watch this one very closely.

Meanwhile, Robert DeNiro responds to evil in the appropriate manner:

H.R 875 More Camel In The Tent

HR 875: The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 creates a new .gov agency in addition to the FDA to control food production. Bill was introduced by the wife of a Monsanto lobbyist. Vaguely written and possibly far reaching into our own backyards.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html

Kinda Scary

So Eric Holder opened his fat yap about the Obama administration banning AR15s to save Mexico from its own self about a week ago.

Two days later, Walmart nearest me has been bought out of all, and I do mean ALL, militarily useful calibers, and then a few that aren't. Normally they keep about 2000rds of 9mm, 1500 .40S&W, 1000 .45ACP, on hand. All gone. Not a single box remaining. Someone or a lot of someones also bought out about 1000rds of .38, 500 .357Mag, 1000 .380Auto, 400 .44Mag, and about 350 .357SIG. Not to mention an ungodly amount of .308 and .223.

My hand to God, it was not me.

Bulk food, dried food, medical supplies, and all manner of firearms are flying off the shelves, and from what I'm hearing online, they're flying off the shelves everywhere, not just my little burg.

Last time I was in Sportsmans Warehouse, they were sold out of every large frame, high capacity handgun they'd ever carried. All the 1911s were still there, but there was not a single Sig, HK, XD, or Glock in 9mm or .40S&W to be had. Bushmaster and Armalite are backordered a year in AR15s.

Weird, ain't it? Country elects the leftest most candidate we've seen in years, but still someone who says they'll bring the nation together, and then the nation en masse goes out and prepares for war. It's not just people on the right buying ARs, AKs, Berettas and Glocks. Its everyone. And in uncertain economic times, they are going out of their way to spend thousands of dollars on the most effective tools for killing people that they can lay their hands on, and the ammunition to run them, and the food and supplies necessary to survive.

Sic vis pacem para bellum

It's not just me who believes it these days.

To All My Valued Employees

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last yearʼs Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY:

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations . . .
you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero.. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It's quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I'll fire you. I'll fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....

Signed, THE BOSS
-------------------------------------
Probably shows up on Snopes as not having been written by anyone at all, but it's terrific nonetheless, and describes, to a T, what's going on in this country. God help us.

Turns Out The Stimulus Bill Is Far More Than Unconstitutional Deficit Spending And Counterfeiting

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Email | Print | A A A

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST
----------------------------------------
And this is with just 20 days in office under his belt. I dread to think what we'll be hearing about in 2 YEARS.

FWIW, I wrote both the SOBs who claim to represent me in the Senate.

And Off We Go Towards Nationalization!

Barney Frank: TARP's comp curbs could be extended to all businesses
Would be part of broader bill limiting hedge funds, credit-raters, and mortgage securitizers; 'deeply rooted anger'

By Neil Roland
February 3, 2009 3:01 PM ET

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

The provision will be part of a broader package that would likely give the Federal Reserve the authority to monitor systemic risk in the economy and to shut down financial institutions that face too much exposure, Mr. Frank said.

Also included in the legislation: registration requirements for hedge funds and proposals aimed at curbing conflicts of interest at credit-rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s.

The bill, which the committee is working on in consultation with the Obama administration, also will require financial institutions that bundle mortgages into securities to share in potential losses. This would give banks and mortgage-specialists an incentive not to make bad loans, he said. Institutions that securitize loans improperly will incur tougher penalties.

“There have been too few constraints on major financial institutions incurring far more liability than they could handle,” Mr. Frank said.

The committee hopes to have a general outline of the legislation by early April, he said. It will be the panel’s first priority in its effort to restructure financial regulation in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Mr. Frank has summoned the CEOs of Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and the seven other U.S. financial firms that got $125 billion from TARP to testify at a Feb. 11 committee hearing.

Mr. Frank seems to be in synch with the Obama administration in his plans for executive compensation.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to all U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program legislation enacted in October seeks to give companies receiving aid under the $700 billion bailout a number of incentives to curb what it calls excessive executive pay.

Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”

Under the legislation, banks receiving bailout money must limit golden parachute payments to senior executives to no more than three times the executives’ base pay. The companies also must subject any bonuses or incentives to clawbacks if the payouts are based on bank’s misleading financial statements.

In addition, bailout recipients can’t offer top managers incentives that “encourage unnecessary excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution.”

These limits apply to the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and the next three most highly compensated executives in a bank receiving rescue funds.

Mr. Frank said provisions on golden parachute payments and bonus clawbacks would probably be in the legislation, though he declined to provide more detail because “we’re early in the process.”

A congressional oversight panel headed by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren also recommended last week that Treasury consider revoking executive bonuses at failed institutions getting federal aid.

Currently, these institutions must subject bonuses to clawbacks only if the payouts are based on banks’ misleading financial statements.

The top Republican on the committee, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, said last month he has reservations about giving the Fed new powers, such as the authority to monitor systemic risk.

Mr. Frank said today that after lawmakers address issues on systemic risk, they will consider how to bolster investor protection via changes at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The committee also will review proposals to assist struggling homeowners and expand the housing supply, and to strengthen international financial institutions such as the World Bank, he said.
---------------------------------------------
Every time I think federal officials have finished plumbing the nether regions of the logical abyss, up comes another geyser of sledgehammered crap to prove me wrong. In this case, the geyser of sledgehammered crap has a name, Barney Frank.

Pull your head out Barney, and smell what you're slinging.

Look At All The Ways

They're wasting our money!

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/

HR 45 - Canada Style Gun Registration

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as `Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I––LICENSING

Sec. 101. Licensing requirement.

Sec. 102. Application requirements.

Sec. 103. Issuance of license.

Sec. 104. Renewal of license.

Sec. 105. Revocation of license.

TITLE II––RECORD OF SALE OR TRANSFER

Sec. 201. Sale or transfer requirements for qualifying firearms.

Sec. 202. Firearm records.

TITLE III––ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS

Sec. 301. Universal background check requirement.

Sec. 302. Failure to maintain or permit inspection of records.

Sec. 303. Failure to report loss or theft of firearm.

Sec. 304. Failure to provide notice of change of address.

Sec. 305. Child access prevention.

TITLE IV––ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Criminal penalties.

Sec. 402. Regulations.

Sec. 403. Inspections.

Sec. 404. Orders.

Sec. 405. Injunctive enforcement.

TITLE V––FIREARM INJURY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH

Sec. 501. Duties of the Attorney General.

TITLE VI––EFFECT ON STATE LAW

Sec. 601. Effect on State law.

Sec. 602. Certification of State firearm licensing systems and State firearm record of sale systems.

TITLE VII––RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW

Sec. 701. Subordination to Arms Export Control Act.

TITLE VIII––INAPPLICABILITY

Sec. 801. Inapplicability to governmental authorities.

TITLE IX––EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 901. Effective date of amendments.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that––

(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature;

(2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;

(3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;

(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;

(5) gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and

(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.

(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that––

(1) firearms trafficking is prevalent and widespread in and among the States, and it is usually impossible to distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate trafficking; and

(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.

(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are––

(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;

(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- In this Act:

(1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms `firearm', `licensed dealer', `licensed manufacturer', and `State' have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.

(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term `qualifying firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `qualifying firearm'––

`(A) means––

`(i) any handgun; or

`(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

`(B) does not include any antique.'.

TITLE I––LICENSING

SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license––

`(A) under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or

`(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

`(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term `applicable date' means––

`(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

`(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.'.

SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include––

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding––

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

(b) Regulations Governing Submission- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations specifying procedures for the submission of applications to the Attorney General under this section, which regulations shall––

(1) provide for submission of the application through a licensed dealer or an office or agency of the Federal Government designated by the Attorney General;

(2) require the applicant to provide a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, containing a photograph of the applicant, to the licensed dealer or to the office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable, at the time of submission of the application to that dealer, office, or agency; and

(3) require that a completed application be forwarded to the Attorney General not later than 48 hours after the application is submitted to the licensed dealer or office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable.

(c) Fees-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall charge and collect from each applicant for a license under this title a fee in an amount determined in accordance with paragraph (2).

(2) FEE AMOUNT- The amount of the fee collected under this subsection shall be not less than the amount determined by the Attorney General to be necessary to ensure that the total amount of all fees collected under this subsection during a fiscal year is sufficient to cover the costs of carrying out this title during that fiscal year, except that such amount shall not exceed $25.

SEC. 103. ISSUANCE OF LICENSE.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an application that meets the requirements of section 102 of this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the individual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm.

(b) Effect of Issuance to Prohibited Person- A firearm license issued under this section shall be null and void if issued to a person who is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm.

(c) Form of License- A firearm license issued under this section shall be in the form of a tamper-resistant card, and shall include––

(1) the photograph of the licensed individual submitted with the application;

(2) the address of the licensed individual;

(3) the date of birth of the licensed individual;

(4) a license number, unique to each licensed individual;

(5) the expiration date of the license, which shall be the date that is 5 years after the initial anniversary of the date of birth of the licensed individual following the date on which the license is issued (or in the case of a license renewal, following the date on which the license is renewed under section 104);

(6) the signature of the licensed individual provided on the application, or a facsimile of the application; and

(7) centered at the top of the license, capitalized, and in boldface type, the following:

`FIREARM LICENSE––NOT VALID FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE'.

SEC. 104. RENEWAL OF LICENSE.

(a) Application for Renewal-

(1) IN GENERAL- In order to renew a firearm license issued under this title, not later than 30 days before the expiration date of the license, the licensed individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (3)), in a form approved by the Attorney General, an application for renewal of the license.

(2) CONTENTS- An application submitted under paragraph (1) shall include––

(A) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(B) current proof of identity of the licensed individual; and

(C) the address of the licensed individual.

(3) REGULATIONS GOVERNING SUBMISSION- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations specifying procedures for the submission of applications under this subsection.

(b) Issuance of Renewed License- Upon approval of an application submitted under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall issue a renewed license, which shall meet the requirements of section 103(c), except that the license shall include the current photograph and address of the licensed individual, as provided in the application submitted under this section, and the expiration date of the renewed license, as provided in section 103(c)(5).

SEC. 105. REVOCATION OF LICENSE.

(a) In General- If an individual to whom a license has been issued under this title subsequently becomes a person who is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm––

(1) the license is revoked; and

(2) the individual shall promptly return the license to the Attorney General.

(b) Administrative Action- Upon receipt by the Attorney General of notice that an individual to whom a license has been issued under this title has become a person described in subsection (a), the Attorney General shall ensure that the individual promptly returns the license to the Attorney General.

TITLE II––RECORD OF SALE OR TRANSFER

SEC. 201. SALE OR TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING FIREARMS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(bb) Unauthorized Sale or Transfer of a Qualifying Firearm- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, unless, at the time and place of the transfer or receipt––

`(1) the transferee presents to a licensed dealer a valid firearm license issued to the transferee––

`(A) under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009; or

`(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 established by the State in which the transfer or receipt occurs;

`(2) the licensed dealer contacts the Attorney General or the head of the State agency that administers the certified system described in paragraph (1)(B), as applicable, and receives notice that the transferee has been issued a firearm license described in paragraph (1) and that the license remains valid; and

`(3) the licensed dealer records on a document (which, in the case of a sale, shall be the sales receipt) a tracking authorization number provided by the Attorney General or the head of the State agency, as applicable, as evidence that the licensed dealer has verified the validity of the license.'.

SEC. 202. FIREARM RECORDS.

(a) Submission of Sale or Transfer Reports- Not later than 14 days after the date on which the transfer of qualifying firearm is processed by a licensed dealer under section 922(bb) of title 18, United States Code (as added by section 201 of this Act), the licensed dealer shall submit to the Attorney General (or, in the case of a licensed dealer located in a State that has a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of this Act, to the head of the State agency that administers that system) a report of that transfer, which shall include information relating to––

(1) the manufacturer of the firearm;

(2) the model name or number of the firearm;

(3) the serial number of the firearm;

(4) the date on which the firearm was received by the transferee;

(5) the number of a valid firearm license issued to the transferee under title I of this Act; and

(6) the name and address of the individual who transferred the firearm to the transferee.

(b) Federal Record of Sale System- Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish and maintain a Federal record of sale system, which shall include the information included in each report submitted to the Attorney General under subsection (a).

(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.

TITLE III––ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS

SEC. 301. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101 and 201 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(cc) Universal Background Check Requirement-

`(1) REQUIREMENT- Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person other than such a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with subsection (t).

`(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other.'.

------------------------------------

Letters will be going out to the congresscritters tomorrow.

Everyone who touches this for any reason other than to denounce and villify it deserves to be hung from a lamp pole, their bodies left to be used for target practice.

California Bans Big Screen TVs

Starting in 2011, state regulators want retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models of power hungry LCD and plasma sets. The industry opposes the new rules and warns of higher prices.

By Marc Lifsher
January 3, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento –– That 52-inch, flat-screen television on the family room wall
may have a terrific picture, but there's a big drawback: It's an energy hog.

State regulators are getting ready to curb the growing power gluttony of TV sets by drafting the nation's first rules requiring retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models, starting in 2011.

The consumer electronics industry opposes the regulations, expected to pass in mid-2009, and claims that they could remove some TVs from store shelves and slightly boost sticker prices.

But the California Energy Commission is looking for ways to relieve the strain on the power grid. Officials say the standards, once fully in place, would reduce the state's annual energy needs by an amount equivalent to the power consumed by 86,400 homes.

During a peak viewing time when most sets are on, such as the Super Bowl, TVs in the state collectively suck up the equivalent of 40% of the power generated by the San Onofre nuclear power station running at full capacity. Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill.

Some manufacturers could struggle to meet the new standards, particularly those that make plasma TVs. And the regulations could create a "gray" market, sending consumers intent on buying power-hungry models to Amazon.com and other Internet retailers based outside the state.

Sales of television sets are growing by 4 million a year, the vast majority of them flat-panels. LCD –– liquid crystal display –– sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs; larger models use proportionately more. Plasma TVs, which command a relatively small share of the market, need more than three times as much power as bulky, old-style sets.

The regulations would be phased in over two years, with a first tier taking effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and a more stringent, second tier on Jan. 1, 2013. Purchasers of Tier 1-compliant TVs would shave an average of $18.48 off their residential electric bill in the first year of ownership, the Energy Commission estimates. Tier 2 sets would save an additional $11.76 a year.

Over the years, California has pioneered similar tough standards for appliances, home insulation and food service equipment that eventually were adopted by the federal government and promoted to consumers with utility rebate programs.

"I think this is basically doable," said Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld, an international leader for more than three decades in finding ways to save energy by boosting the efficiency of household appliances.

"Refrigerators and air conditioner manufacturers have grown up with standards, and, now, they are generally considered successes." he said. "But this is a new wrinkle for the TV industry."

Television manufacturers, wholesalers and national electronics chains stress that they are committed to making energy-frugal products and are moving as quickly as they can to respond to consumers' desire for energy-efficient televisions. But they aren't enthusiastic about the California plan, which they say will limit customer choice.

"The passion is correct. The proposal is not," said Doug Johnson, senior director of technology at the Consumer Electronics Assn. in Arlington, Va. "We can accomplish this without regulation as a result of innovation and voluntary approaches."

Mike McMaster, president of Wilshire Entertainment Inc., worries that a rush to impose TV efficiency standards "would be basically the end of our business." His locations in Thousand Oaks and Valencia employ 54 people and specialize in sales and installation of custom home theater systems centered on extremely large TVs.

"It would kill dealerships because people would buy on Amazon and have them shipped in and maybe not pay sales tax," he said. "If a customer wants a 12-cylinder car or a 60-inch plasma that uses this much energy, they're going to get it."

But shoppers waiting for a Best Buy store to open in Sacramento's post-Christmas fog showed little concern that some less efficient televisions might not be available two years from now.

"They should take them off the shelves," said Sam Ortega, a retired state worker. "We need to monitor our energy. It's good for everybody."

California should apply the same efficiency standards to televisions that it has used for the last 32 years with refrigerators and other products, argued Duane Larson, director of customer energy efficiency at Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest investor-owned utility, which serves customers from the Oregon border to the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles.

About two years ago, PG&E began thinking about applying energy-efficiency know-how to the consumer electronics industry, whose products, including computers, televisions and audio equipment, have become common in nearly every room of a house.

"We project that by 2010, one-quarter of the energy in a house will be used by consumer electronics," Larson said.

Increasing TV energy efficiency provides a triple benefit to California by boosting the economy, lowering electricity ratepayers' utility bills and helping the state meet its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2020, Larson said. "Every dollar spent on energy efficiency returns $2 in savings," he added.

Such savings should be encouraged, but not at the expense of businesses, large and small, that may see sales fall if they don't offer a wide variety of televisions, industry officials say.

The industry isn't sure how the regulations will affect it. The Consumer Electronics Assn. presented three scenarios to the commission, showing 10%, 20% and 30% drops in product availability and each of their potential financial effects.

If 30% of televisions fail to meet standards and can't be sold, California could lose $130 million in tax revenue and 15,800 jobs, Shawn DuBravac, an economist with the Consumer Electronics Assn., testified at a Dec. 15 Energy Commission workshop.

Rosenfeld was skeptical. DuBravac's numbers sounded "like arguments we heard from General Motors and Ford that SUVs are more profitable to make and create more jobs," he said. "There's a catch to it, as we all know."

What's more, Rosenfeld noted that a number of television makers already produce models that meet the proposed commission efficiency standards and that 87% of current stock complies with the planned 2011 threshold. That deadline may be pushed back a bit if the industry needs a little more time "to get used to the standards," he said.

More time might make the efficiency standards a lot more palatable, said Bob Smith, a training executive at AVAD, a Van Nuys wholesaler that supplies TVs and related equipment to independent installation contractors.

"I would hate to wake up one day and discover that 30% of my flagship products were no longer allowed to be sold." he said. "But I have no objection to regulations per se as long as there's enough lead time for manufacturers to meet the target."

marc.lifsher@latimes.com
----------------------------------
Idiots. That's all that needs saying.

Man Jailed For Not Supporting Kid Who Isn't His

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28080381/?gt1=43001

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A Philadelphia man was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man's daughter and spent two years in jail for falling behind on payments.

Dauphin County prosecutor Edward M. Marsico Jr. told The Patriot-News of Harrisburg that he is examining the case of Walter Andre Sharpe Jr., who has been unable to recover the money even after establishing that he isn't the girl's father.

The investigation has no specific targets, Marsico said.

Sharpe's troubles began in 2001, when he signed for a certified letter addressed to Andre Sharpe, the girl's father. The letter ordered Andre Sharpe to attend a child support conference in Dauphin County, where the girl's mother lived at the time.

Walter Sharpe, who was already supporting four children from a previous marriage, ignored the letter, and a judge ruled he was the father after neither man showed up. The county family welfare agency then began garnishing Walter Sharpe's wages from his job at a trash-hauling company.

He served four six-month jail terms for not keeping up with support payments between 2001 and 2005, then lost his job. Petitions he filed for DNA testing were opposed by the court's domestic relations officials and denied by the judge.
-----------------------------------
Divorce court and child support stuff is messed up to begin with. This is even more so. Our justice system is irretrievably and irrevokably damaged.

More On Emanuel And Mandatory Service

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d6-Obamas-chief-of-staff-choice-favors-compulsory-universal-service

Rep. Rahm Emanuel wants to force people 18 to 25
to labor for the government.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, President-Elect Barack Obama's choice for chief of staff in his incoming administration, is co-author of a book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, that calls for, among other things, compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25. The following excerpt is from pages 61-62 of the 2006 book:

"It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs."

Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist "this is not a draft," but go on to write of young men and women, "the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service." They also warn, "[s]ome Republicans will squeal about individual freedom," ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service.

As chief of staff, Emanuel will not be in a position to directly introduce public policy, but his enthusiasm for compulsory service, combined with Barack Obama's own plan to require high school students to perform 50 hours of government-approved service, suggest an unfortunate direction for the new administration.
------------------------------
"Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service."

I've got ten thousand rounds of rifle ammunition that say different, you son of a bitch, so go die in a fire. I was born free. I'll live free. I'll die free. Any attempt to interrupt that perfectly natural chain of events will be met with increasing levels of force.

More On Obama And Mandatory Service

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d7-Obamas-compulsory-service-proposal-becomes-explicit

When I wrote in September about Barack Obama's plan to mandate fifty hours of community service for high school students, I had to pull together two different documents to make the case. One was the national service plan (PDF) on his campaign Website, which said that "Schools that require service as part of the educational experience create improved learning environments and serve as resources for their communities." The other was a speech he gave in December 2007, promising that "[a]t the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities."

I thought the overall policy direction contained there was painfully clear, and so did editors at the Providence Journal and the East Valley Tribune, who ran versions of that column. But I got some flack from people who found wiggle room in the need to draw a line between those two statements.

Well, no more. On the president-elect's official transition Website, Change.gov, the "America Serves" page now contains the following language [Note: The page was changed, removing the explicit "require" language, after the publication of this article. The original is still in the Google cache here]:

"The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start."

No extrapolation needed, thank you. The policy intent is now written out plain to see.

Yes, I'm aware that fifty hours of mandatory community service hardly rises to the level of a military draft. It's not even the mandatory universal citizen service his new chief of staff wants to inflict on everybody between the ages of 18 and 25. But it is a top-down mandate by the federal government that students perform state-approved labor.

I personally object to such requirements even when they come from the local school district. I want my kid to learn to volunteer and to contribute to the community, but that means volunteer, and for causes he picks, to the extent that he believes is appropriate, with a little nudging from within the family, not from bureaucrats. Government mandates destroy the whole idea of volunteerism, and the inevitable insistence that service be performed for an approved organization or cause (which is the case with most existing service requirements) is, frankly, a bit totalitarian.

Our children, as well as ourselves, are independent individuals. We are not resources to be drawn upon by politicians. Nor do we owe our labor to the government.

We've had enough of authoritarianism under the Bush administration. We don't need to begin the Obama administration with a dose of involuntary servitude.
-------------------------------------
Graduating next week. Won't get me this time. Might have to go back for a second or even third degree, and on my honor I will not take the diploma if it means giving this bastard his involuntary servitude hours.

Rahm Emanuel Discusses Mandatory Service

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d97_1226605466

NY Times reporter discusses with Rahm his universal mandatory service plan. It sounds like he's proposing that every 18-25 spend the three summer months in a barracks somewhere.

You son of a bitch. Here's how that conversation SHOULD have gone.

Socialist Medicine: A Look At What's To Come

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=amVFPFBe40Ak&refer=home

In this link:

Cancer Patients Lose Shot at Longer Life in U.K. Cuts (Update1)

By David Altaner and Bruce Rule

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) –– Jack Rosser's doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.'s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.'s National Health Service says that's not worth the expense.

Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS –– the government agency that funds the nation's health care. The resident of the town of Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and next month may find out if his second plea is successful.

``It's immoral,'' Rosser's wife, Jenny, said. ``They are sentencing him to die.''

The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and providing more services for a wider number of people.

About 800 of 3,000 cancer patients lose their appeals for regulator-approved drugs each year because of cost, Canterbury- based charity Rarer Cancers Forum said. The U.K. is considering whether to make permanent a preliminary ruling that four medicines, including Sutent, are too expensive to be part of the government-funded treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

`It's Outrageous'

``It's outrageous,'' said Kate Spall, a full-time activist who has helped about 100 patients appeal NHS denials of cancer medicines. ``We are not asking for anything new or exciting or novel. We are asking for what the rest of the western world is getting.''

To help curb expenses, the government created the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, known as NICE, in 1999 to review medicines and recommend whether the NHS should fund them.

``There is a view that all treatments should be available. Unfortunately, that's not possible,'' said Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director. ``There is a limited pot of money.''

He said the four cancer drugs provide a ``marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost'' and that the agency had to keep in mind that funds spent on the medicines could be used elsewhere to help others at a greater value. ``Those are the hidden patients, the ones who benefit from the things the NHS does spend money on,'' Littlejohns said.

NICE Review

NICE is reviewing its Aug. 7 preliminary recommendation that Sutent, Roche Holding AG and Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Nexavar, and Wyeth's Torisel shouldn't be funded in light of their cost of 20,000 pounds to 39,000 pounds a year per patient. All four medicines have been approved by European and U.S. regulators and are sold in other countries as well. A final ruling is expected in March.

While a drug is under review, the decision whether to pay for a therapy falls to the NHS's 156 local organizations, called trusts.

Of the 3,000 applications for exceptional funding for cancer patients a year, the most-requested drug was Sutent, said the Rarer Cancers Forum, which focuses on cancer cases that fall outside the more common ones such as colon, breast, lung and prostate.

Sutent, which stops cancer cells from dividing and chokes off a tumor's blood supply, was first approved for European use in July 2006. Kidney cancer sufferers taking the drug had a median survival rate of 26.4 months, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology in May.

Five Years to Live

New York-based Pfizer provided NICE with Sutent cancer- survival data that were released after its review began to try to persuade the agency to reverse its decision, and has offered to make the first treatment free, company spokeswoman Emily Bone said.

On Nov. 4, the government proposed giving NICE more flexibility in approving higher-cost drugs and allowing patients to buy the medicines themselves without losing access to government-funded health care. Final recommendations on the proposals aren't due until early next year and Rosser can't wait that long for his medicine, Spall said.

Rosser, of Kingswood, England, was diagnosed with cancer four days after Emma was born in July 2007. After operations in August and March to remove a kidney, adrenal glands and bone tumors, he was told he might live two to five years. In July, he was told by doctors that Sutent would help, but the South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust said it wouldn't pay for the treatment.

`Very Expensive'

``I read the letter and I burst into tears,'' said Rosser, who was forced to retire from his air-conditioning and sheet- metal company because of the illness.

South Gloucestershire, the trust that includes Rosser's home, accepts applications for Sutent funding only for exceptional cases, said Ann Jarvis, director of commissioning at the trust, in an e-mail. ``Unfortunately for very expensive drugs, if they are proven to only provide a small benefit we have to prioritize other treatments.''

The trust plans to review its Sutent policy at a meeting next month, spokeswoman Sue Pratt said today.

Kidney cancer patient Kathleen Devonport, a 65-year-old retired factory worker, called it ``heartbreaking'' to have to beg her local health officials to provide her with Sutent. The County Durham Primary Care Trust, in northern England, initially turned her down in March 2007, then agreed to supply the Sutent seven months later only after she responded to a cheaper medicine paid for by an anonymous donation.

Offer Vetoed

Jenny Rosser, 41, said she is looking into getting her husband into a clinical trial for Sutent, but so far she has been told that his cancer would need to advance further to qualify.

Meanwhile, he is surviving on painkillers coupled with steroids for inflammation after vetoing his wife's offer of selling the house to pay for his treatments. In late October, he had another operation to remove growths on his spine and neck.

Jenny Rosser said the policies seem aimed more at saving cash than treating people.

``It seems like a money-saving exercise,'' she said. ``If a patient dies, tough.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Bruce Rule in London at brule1@bloomberg.net; David Altaner in London at daltaner@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 17, 2008 08:19 EST

Election 2008

Like Kevin at the Smallest Minority said, it was disaster vs. catastrophe, and disaster won. Like my father said "now we need to resolve that the resistance outlives them."

I really can't say anything more that's decent.

Sundown At Coffin Rock

Sundown at Coffin Rock
by Raymond K. Paden

The old man walked slowly through the dry, fallen leaves of autumn, his practiced eye automatically choosing the bare and stony places in the trail for his feet. There was scarcely a sound as he passed, though his left knee was stiff with scar tissue. He grunted occasionally as the tight sinews pulled. "Damn chainsaw", he thought.

Behind him, the boy shuffled along, trying to imitate his grandfather, but unable to mimic the silent motion that the old man had learned during countless winter days upon this wooded mountain in pursuit of game. He's fifteen years old, the old man thought. Plenty old enough to be learning. But that was another time, another America. His mind drifted, and he saw himself, a fifteen-year-old boy following in the footsteps of his own grandfather, clutching a twelve gauge in his trembling hands as they tracked a wounded whitetail.

The leg was hurting worse now, and he slowed his pace a bit. Plenty of time. It should have been my own son here with me now, the old man thought sadly. But Jason had no interest, no understanding. He cared for nothing but pounding on the keys of that damned computer terminal. He knew nothing about the woods, or where food came from...or freedom. And that's my fault, isn't it?

The old man stopped and held up his hand, motioning for the boy to look. In the small clearing ahead, the deer stood motionless, watching them. It was a scraggly buck, underfed and sickly, but the boy's eyes lit up with excitement. It had been many years since they had seen even a single whitetail here on the mountain. After the hunting had stopped, the population had exploded. The deer had eaten the mountain almost bare until erosion had become a serious problem in some places. That following winter, three starving does had wandered into the old man's yard, trying to eat the bark off of his pecan trees, and he had wished the "animal rights" fanatics could have been there then. It was against the law, but old man knew a higher law, and he took an axe into the yard and killed the starving beasts. They did not have the strength to run.

The buck finally turned and loped away, and they continued down the trail to the river. When they came to the "Big Oak," the old man turned and pushed through the heavy brush beside the trail and the boy followed, wordlessly. The old man knew that Thomas was curious about their leaving the trail, but the boy had learned to move silently (well, almost) and that meant no talking. When they came to "Coffin Rock," the old man sat down upon it and motioned for the boy to join him.

"You see this rock, shaped like a casket?" the old man asked. "Yes sir." The old man smiled. The boy was respectful and polite. He loved the outdoors, too. Everything a man could ask in a grandson ....or a son.

"I want you to remember this place, and what I'm about to tell you. A lot of it isn't going to make any sense to you, but it's important and one day you'll understand it well enough. The old man paused. Now that he was here, he didn't really know where to start.

"Before you were born," he began at last, "this country was different. I've told you about hunting, about how everybody who obeyed the law could own guns. A man could speak out, anywhere, without worrying about whether he'd get back home or not. School was different, too. A man could send his kids to a church school, or a private school, or even teach them at home. But even in the public schools, they didn't spend all their time trying to brainwash you like they do at yours now." The old man paused, and was silent for many minutes. The boy was still, watching a chipmunk scavenging beside a fallen tree below them.

"Things don't ever happen all at once, boy. They just sort of sneak up on you. Sure, we knew guns were important; we just didn't think it would ever happen in America. But we had to do something about crime, they said. It was a crisis. Everything was a crisis! It was a drug crisis, or a terrorism crisis, or street crime, or gang crime. Even a 'health care' crisis was an excuse to take away a little more of our rights." The old man turned to look at his grandson.

"They ever let you read a thing called the Constitution down there at your school?" The boy solemnly shook his head. "Well, the Fourth Amendment's still in there. It says there won't be any unreasonable searches and seizures. It says you're safe in your own home." The old man shrugged. "That had to go. It was a crisis! They could kick your door open any time, day or night, and come in with guns blazing if they thought you had drugs ...or later, guns. Oh, at first it was just registration -- to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals! But that didn't work, of course, and then later when they wanted to take 'em they knew where to look. They banned 'assault rifles', and then 'sniper rifles', and 'Saturday night specials.' Everything you saw on the TV or in the movies was against us. God knows the news people were! And the schools were teaching our kids that nobody needed guns anymore. We tried to take a stand, but we felt like the whole face of our country had changed and we were left outside."

"Me and a friend of mine, when we saw what was happening, we came and built a secret place up here on the mountain. A place where we could put our guns until we needed them. We figured some day Americans would remember what it was like to be free, and what kind of price we had to pay for that freedom. So we hid our guns instead of losing them."

"One fellow I knew disagreed. He said we ought to use our guns now and stand up to the government. Said that the colonists had fought for their freedom when the British tried to disarm them at Lexington and Concord. Well, he and a lot of others died in what your history books call the 'Tax Revolt of 2008,' but son, it wasn't the revolt that caused the repeal of the Second Amendment like your history book says. The Second Amendment was already gone long before they ever repealed it. The rest of us thought we were doing the right thing by waiting. I hope to God we were right."

"You see, Thomas. It isn't government that makes a man free. In the end, governments always do just the opposite. They gobble up freedom like hungry pigs. You have to have laws to keep the worst in men under control, but at the same time the people have to have guns, too, in order to keep the government itself under control. In our country, the people were supposed to be the final authority of the law, but that was a long time ago. Once the guns were gone, there was no reason for those who run the government to give a damn about laws and constitutional rights and such. They just did what they pleased and anyone who spoke out...well, I'm getting ahead of myself."

"It took a long time to collect up all the millions of firearms that were in private hands. The government created a whole new agency to see to it. There were rewards for turning your friends in, too. Drug dealers and murderers were set free after two or three years in prison, but possession of a gun would get you mandatory life behind bars with no parole.

"I don't know how they found out about me, probably knew I'd been a hunter all those years, or maybe somebody turned me in. They picked me up on suspicion and took me down to the federal building."

"Son, those guys did everything they could think of to me. Kept me locked up in this little room for hours, no food, no water. They kept coming in, asking me where the guns were. 'What guns?' I said. Whenever I'd doze off, they'd come crashing in, yelling and hollering. I got to where I didn't know which end was up. I'd say I wanted my lawyer and they'd laugh. 'Lawyers are for criminals', they said. 'You'll get a lawyer after we get the guns.' What's so funny is, I know they thought they were doing the right thing. They were fighting crime!"

"When I got home I found Ruth sitting in the middle of the living room floor, crying her eyes out. The house was a shambles. While I was down there, they'd come out and took our house apart. Didn't need a search warrant, they said. National emergency! Gun crisis! Your grandma tried to call our preacher and they ripped the phone off the wall. Told her that they'd go easy on me if she just told them where I kept my guns." The old man laughed. "She told them to go to hell." He stared into the distance for a moment as his laughter faded.

"They wouldn't tell her about me, where I was or anything, that whole time. She said that she'd thought I was dead. She never got over that day, and she died the next December."

"They've been watching me ever since, off and on. I guess there's not much for them to do anymore, now that all the guns are gone. Plenty of time to watch one foolish old man." He paused. Beside him, the boy stared at the stone beneath his feet.

"Anyway, I figure that, one day, America will come to her senses. Our men will need those guns and they'll be ready. We cleaned them and sealed them up good; they'll last for years. Maybe it won't be in your lifetime, Thomas. Maybe one day you'll be sitting here with your son or grandson. Tell him about me, boy. Tell him about the way I said America used to be." The old man stood, his bad leg shaking unsteadily beneath him.

"You see the way this stone points? You follow that line one hundred feet down the hill and you'll find a big round rock. It looks like it's buried solid, but one man with a good prybar can lift it, and there's a concrete tunnel right under there that goes back into the hill."

The old man stood, watching as the sun eased toward the ridge, coloring the sky and the world red. Below them, the river still splashed among the stones, as it had for a million years. It's still going, the old man thought. There'll be someone left to carry on for me when I'm gone. It was harder to walk back. He felt old and purposeless now, and it would be easier, he knew, to give in to that aching heaviness in his left lung that had begun to trouble him more and more. Damn cigarettes, he thought. His leg hurt, and the boy silently came up beside him and supported him as they started down the last mile toward the house. How quiet he walks, the old man thought. He's learned well.

It was almost dark when the boy walked in. His father looked up from his paper. "Did you and your granddad have a nice walk?"

"Yes," the boy answered, opening the refrigerator. "You can call Agent Goodwin tomorrow. Gramps finally showed me where it is."