What are we talking about?

It is discrimination against the white male of the heterosexual variety.

Big time!

Over time there has been a plethora of discriminating set asides, quotas and other diversity preferences for jobs, schooling, loans, housing, etc.: first for blacks, then other minorities; then women; followed by gay and lesbians and then transgendered. The only group left out of these unconstitutional preferences and the one bearing the full brunt of these institutionalized practices is the straight white male.

This is a reprehensible situation that should not be allowed to persist or exist. It is far more pervasive and discriminatory than most people realize.

The costs of these policies are extremely high, both to the victims and to society. Ultimately we all benefit when the person selected for a position, job or admissions to school is the best one and not the one of politically correct color, religion, sex or sexual preference.

The White Man's Burden
Robin of Berkeley March 09, 2011

I was just filling out an application to be a provider for an insurance panel. And one of the questions they ask is, "Are you a GLBT-owned business?"

GLBT means gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. I rolled my eyes when I saw this. I thought, "So, if I share my bed with a woman, I would be a superior therapist, a more desirable member of your insurance panel?"

Of course, the questionnaire also asked whether I were a minority- or female-owned business. Apparently, if I were an Asian woman who sleeps with other women, I would be a Most Valuable Player in the psychotherapy world.

What also occurred to me while filling out the application is that every special category exists aside from that of a white, straight male. If someone is gay or a woman or a person of color, the welcome mat is laid out. But what about an ordinary Joe, a working-class stiff from Toledo?

How does he get into college when all the recruitment efforts are aimed at others? And if he does get in, how does he afford it -- especially now, with Obama at the helm?

I heard a while back that ObamaCare snuck a backdoor scheme into ObamaCare, for the government to make student loans, not the banks. If this happens, you better believe that the money will be shelled out based on "social and economic justice."

Some young men turn to the military as a way of accessing needed funds for college. What are the consequences?

They are, in fact, grave: white, working class men are at much higher risk of being mortally wounded in the battleground than their privileged counterparts. And while the working class risk their lives, the snooty elite go to college on daddy's dime.

So let's put the pieces together here: everyone aside from a white, straight guy can obtain all sorts of special help in the form of jobs, financial aid, and college enrollment. On top of this, there are scholarships and grants galore for most people, aside from white males. (There are even college scholarships for illegals.)

But a white guy -- even one with who is broke -- gets very little. He may choose to join the Army instead, and possibly be seriously injured.

What is wrong with this picture?

Of course, I really shouldn't talk since I helped create the mess we're in. As a feminist, I spent much of my youth marching for women's rights. I have expended countless hours complaining about inequities toward women.

But I have seen the light. I now realize that we've created a monster with so many people wailing about sexism and racism and all the other "isms."

After decades of grievances, we haven't turned into a fairer nation; we're simply an angrier one. In the age of Obama, aggrieved groups have joined together to demand their rights, endeavoring to put the white man under their thumb.

Now men are marginalized and demonized. They are given the demoralizing message that they are unnecessary. Of course, this message is fallacious.

The United States would cease to operate if conservative white males went on strike tomorrow (not necessarily a bad idea, by the way). We'd do just fine shorn of most of the metrosexual crowd -- the college professors and the activists. But we'd crash and burn without the manly man. It's he who does the essential work that others cannot, like patrol our streets, extinguish fires, and drive tractors.

As a former progressive, I know how tempting it is to blame others for our own problems. It's easier to implicate the "system" or the Man than to take a good and hard look in the mirror.

But this life is not about "getting mine;" it's about what we have to offer the world. It's about living with dignity and honor, not a thirst for revenge.

Life is not fair; it is not supposed to be fair. Someone, somewhere will always have more, while others will have less. Disappointment is hard-wired into this human realm; and this is just as true for the white man as the person of color.

The Buddha put it this way, that life is composed of the "l0,000 joys and the l0,000 sorrows." We grow old, we get sick, and, one day, we and our bodies will perish.

And when that day happens, we won't take anything with us except for our character -- or lack of it. And there are no amount of laws or affirmative action programs that can change the way the world works.

A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_white_mans_burden.html

When it comes to admission to colleges, for example, this same parallel applies. Asians have to score much higher on their SAT’s to get in the same schools as whites whereas Hispanics are admitted with much lower scores and blacks even lower than that. No matter how you evaluate this, it is racism; that is, how a person is treated (admission to college) is based on race and not on abilities.

THIS IS RACISM! (Technically, it can be considered to be reverse racism.)

“Affirmative” action is a euphemism for sanctioned reverse racism. It is “negative” for the vast majority of more deserving or qualified individuals who are discriminated against because of these race based policies.

We see the same unequal treatment or opportunities in other areas such as bidding for federal, state or municipal contracts. This has become government mandated racism brought to you by the compassionate liberals. It is, however, a technical violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and it should not be condoned or accepted.

Affirmative action needs to be relegated to the trash heaps of history. This includes not only governmental related programs but also in education and the private sector. The state of Arizona with the successful approval of its Proposition 107 in the recent elections is the most recent state to ban this legislated discrimination.

We strongly recommend that the remaining states should pursue passage of similar legislation. Federal affirmative action policies should also be deep-sixed.

Some call it reverse racism or reverse discrimination but whatever the appellation, it is still discrimination. Technically, it should also be considered to be a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees equal rights and protection.

Unfortunately, liberals and Progressives don’t see the noxious ramifications of their actions to all parties involved nor to the negative global effects on society. Such imposed policies have clearly identifiable, permanent and significant impacts some of which are outlined in the editorial below.

Racial demagoguery must cease and affirmative action policies abrogated.

Racial Stupidity and Malevolence
Walter Williams       9/7/2010

The white liberal's agenda, coupled with that of black race hustlers, has had and continues to have a devastating impact on ordinary black people. Perhaps the most debilitating aspect of this liberal malevolence is in the area of education.

Recently, I spoke with a Midwestern university engineering professor who was trying to help an inner-city black student who was admitted to the university's electrical engineering program. The student was sure that he was well prepared for an engineering curriculum; his high school had convinced him of that and the university recruiters supported that notion. His poor performance on the university's math placement exam required that he take remedial math courses. He's failed them and is now on academic probation after two semesters of earning less than a 2.0 grade point average.

The young man and his parents were sure of his preparedness. After all, he had good high school grades, but those grades only meant that he was well behaved. The college recruiters probably knew this youngster didn't have the academic preparation for an electrical engineering curriculum. They were more concerned with racial diversity.

This young man's background is far from unique. Public schools give most black students fraudulent diplomas that certify a 12th-grade achievement level. According to a report by Abigail Thernstrom, "The Racial Gap in Academic Achievement," black students in 12th grade dealt with scientific problems at the level of whites in the sixth grade; they wrote about as well as whites in the eighth grade. The average black high school senior had math skills on a par with a typical white student in the middle of ninth grade. The average 17-year-old black student could only read as well as the typical white child who had not yet reached age 13.

Black youngsters who take the SAT exam earn an average score that's 70 to 80 percent of the score of white students, and keep in mind, the achievement level of white students is nothing to write home about. Under misguided diversity pressures, colleges recruit many black students who are academically ill equipped. Very often, these students become quickly disillusioned, embarrassed and flunk out, or they're steered into curricula that have little or no academic content, or professors practice affirmative-action grading. In any case, the 12 years of poor academic preparation is not repaired in four or five years of college. This is seen by the huge performance gap between blacks and whites on exams for graduate school admittance such as the GRE, MCAT and LSAT.

Is poor academic performance among blacks something immutable or pre-ordained? There is no evidence for such a claim. Let's sample some evidence from earlier periods. In "Assumptions Versus History in Ethnic Education," in Teachers College Record (1981), Dr. Thomas Sowell reports on academic achievement in some of New York city's public schools. He compares test scores for sixth graders in Harlem schools with those in the predominantly white Lower East Side for April 1941 and December 1941.

In paragraph and word meaning, Harlem students, compared to Lower East Side students, scored equally or higher. In 1947 and 1951, Harlem third-graders in paragraph and word meaning, and arithmetic reasoning and computation scored about the same as -- and in some cases, slightly higher, and in others, slightly lower than -- their white Lower East Side counterparts.

Going back to an earlier era, Washington, D.C.'s Dunbar High School's black students scored higher in citywide tests than any of the city's white schools. In fact, from its founding in 1870 to 1955, most of Dunbar's graduates went off to college.

Let's return to the tale of the youngster at the Midwestern college. Recruiting this youngster to be a failure is cruel, psychologically damaging and an embarrassment for his family. But the campus hustlers might come to the aid of the student by convincing him that his academic failure is a result of white racism and Eurocentric values.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/09/08/racial_stupidity_and_malevolence/page/full/

Unfortunately, this specious explanation results in unwarranted quotas and reverse discrimination and engenders reactive racism, cynicism and frustration. Those who would have been most qualified, deserving and productive and contributed far greater to the welfare of society as a whole have been denied the opportunity because of bean counting. Thus, in the end, we all pay a price for this unfounded, pernicious demagoguery.

Juvenile Jabs Don't Deserve Standing O's

Thomas Sowell 08/09/2010

A graduating senior at Hunter College High School in New York gave a speech that brought a standing ovation from his teachers and got his picture in the New York Times. I hope it doesn't go to his head, because what he said was so illogical that it was an indictment of the mush that is being taught at even our elite educational institutions.

Young Justin Hudson, described as "black and Hispanic," opened by saying how much he appreciated reaching his graduation day at this very select public high school. Then he said, "I don't deserve any of this. And neither do you."

The reason? He and his classmates were there because of "luck and circumstances."

Since Hunter College High School selects its applicants from the whole city on the basis of their test scores, "luck" seems a strange way to characterize why some students are admitted and many others are not. If you can't tell the difference between luck and performance, what has your education given you, except the rhetoric to conceal your confusion from others and perhaps from yourself?

Young Mr. Hudson's concern, apparently, is about what he referred to as the "demographics" of the school — 41% white and 47% Asian, with blacks, Hispanics and others obviously far behind.

"I refuse to accept" that "the distribution of intelligence in this city" varies by neighborhood, he said.

Native intelligence may indeed not vary by neighborhood but actual performance — whether in schools, on the job or elsewhere — involves far more than native intelligence. Wasted intelligence does nothing for an individual or society.

The reason a surgeon can operate on your heart, while someone of equal intelligence who is not a surgeon cannot, is because of what different people actually did with their intelligence. That has always varied, not only from individual to individual but from group to group — and not only in this country, but in countries around the world and across the centuries of human history.

One of the biggest fallacies of our time is the notion that, if all groups are not proportionally represented in institutions, professions or income levels, that shows something wrong with society. The very possibility that people make their own choices, and that those choices have consequences — for themselves and for others — is ignored. Society is the universal scapegoat.

If "luck" is involved, it is the luck to be born into families and communities whose values and choices turn out to be productive for themselves and for others who benefit from the skills they acquire. Observers who blame tests or other criteria for the demographic imbalances which are the rule — not the exception — around the world, are blaming whatever conveys differences for creating those differences.

They blame the messenger who brings bad news.

If test scores are not the same for people from different backgrounds, that is no proof that there is something wrong with the tests. Tests do not exist to show what your potential was when you entered the world but to measure what you have actually accomplished since then, as a guide to what you are likely to continue to do in the future. Tests convey a difference that tests did not create.

But the messenger gets blamed for the bad news.

Similarly, if prices are higher in high-crime neighborhoods, that is often blamed on those who charge those prices, rather than on those who create the higher costs of higher rates of shoplifting, robbery, vandalism and riots, which are passed on to those who shop in those neighborhoods.

The prices convey a reality that the prices did not create. If these prices represent simply "greed" for higher profits, then why do most profit-seeking businesses avoid high-crime neighborhoods like the plague?

It is painful that people with lower incomes often have to pay higher prices, even though most people are not criminals, even in a high-crime neighborhood. But misconstruing the reasons is not going to help anybody, except race hustlers and politicians.

One of the many disservices done to young people by our schools and colleges is giving them the puffed-up notion that they are in a position to pass sweeping judgments on a world that they have barely begun to experience. A standing ovation for childish remarks may produce "self-esteem" but promoting presumptuousness is unlikely to benefit either this student or society.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/543075/201008091843/Juvenile-Jabs-Dont-Deserve-Standing-Os.aspx

Is this fair?

Of course not!

This is reverse discrimination, plain and simple. People are being penalized because their skin is white (or they came from China or Japan, etc.). Such a policy fosters resentment from those who are discriminated against and exacerbates racial tensions and is counterproductive.

In the following editorial by Sen. James Webb of Virginia, a Democrat, he calls for the abolishment of this divisive, inequitable, morally wrong and unconstitutional (strictly speaking) policy. He states that:

“Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners.”

We strongly agree.

Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.
James Webb    July 22, 2010

The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

How so?

Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.

The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.

The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."

The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.

Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html

Yes, racism was endemic decades ago, most notably against blacks and Jews. Though it will never entirely disappear because of human nature, only a very small percentage of Americans adhere to such hatred. However, you would never know it if you listened to the newscasts of the “mainstream” media where it still sounds like an epidemic.

What they also absolutely refuse to acknowledge yet seemingly condone as being understandable is the far more prevalent, increasing and vitriolic black on white or Hispanic racism. Do you hear many newscasts excoriating famous and influential black athletes, actors and actresses, music stars or even politicians spewing racial hatred against Whites? Of course not! But if there was one mentally deranged white person walking around in Podunk, Idaho wearing the KKK garb it would saturate the news.

We vehemently and resolutely feel that a major impetus for the rise is due to Obama and his election to the Presidency, his racially charged attitudes and the atmosphere of black entitlement at the expense of other races. How could have he attended sat in his Black nationalist church for 20 years and accept the racist, hateful rantings of Reverend Wright and others unless he agreed? Or exalt and revere the contemptuous, despicable Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam?

Many blacks ignorantly and contemptuously parrot their mantra “It’s our time now!”

Really? We don’t think so. No one should have priority over anyone else based on race, religion, etc. (We will save our polemic against affirmative action for another time which distilled to its essence is government facilitated and condoned racism of black over white.)

The following articles illustrate this continued pattern but even more insidiously, it yet again reveals our American President, Obama, not denouncing such behavior of this black on white racism.  Reverend Wright made sure that he stayed the course and remained a faithful black nationalist.

What is this all about? Though we know little of Jay-Z, he recently and unequivocally revealed himself to be a racist, refusing any white people entrance to his reception though blacks were freely admitted. Apparently, he and Obama are friends and he has been to the White House on several occasions.

Have you heard any denunciations of this behavior by Obama? Of course not! Zero. Yet, he had no problem last year insinuating himself in a Cambridge, Mass police matter, claiming racism, when his belligerent, disorderly black professor friend was appropriately arrested by a white police officer.

Obama’s silence on this matter once again speaks volumes on his racist underpinnings, continues to reveal his ineptness and lack of impartiality and prudence and why he really isn’t the President for all Americans.

The following two articles will further elucidate this situation.

Jay-Z bash ignites race controversy
By WENN.COM

Rapper Jay-Z has been caught up in a race scandal following allegations security at his BRIT Awards afterparty on Tuesday banned white people from entering the VIP area.

The 99 Problems superstar threw a lavish bash at Merah nightclub in London following his Best International Male Solo win at the ceremony.

But the night descended into chaos after fights broke out amid people scrambling to get close to the star.

And the atmosphere turned even nastier after security personnel working on the doors of the VIP room allegedly refused to allow any white people into the area, while letting black partygoers straight through, according to Britain's Daily Star newspaper.

The publication's music reporter Kim Dawson writes, "I've been to countless showbiz bashes but never have I met meatheads like those at the Jay-Z do (party). Jay-Z is a megastar and yet it was clear white people were not welcome in his VIP area. While the red rope was lifted for black guests to breeze through, let's just say it stayed down if your face didn't fit. I have never felt so intimidated. It left me feeling like a mauled dog."

Meanwhile, black pop star Alesha Dixon, who attended the party, was also left disgusted at the way the bash was organized.

She reportedly told the newspaper at the party, "My friends have been getting knocked about and no-one seems to care. I need to get out of here. What a horrible end to the night. I was having a blast at my record label party and now the mood is soured. I wish I'd never come."

The publication claims the rapper's representative insisted the security was hired by the club, but the venue's bosses state they had no idea of any problems.

URL   http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2010/02/18/12925501-wenn-story.html

Jay-Z: President Obama Was Playing The Blueprint When I Called Him
'I've been invited to the White House a couple of times,' Hov tells the BBC.
By Jayson Rodriguez

Jay-Z has dropped Barack Obama's name in his rhymes, and Obama referenced Jay's lyrics when he dusted his shoulder off during a campaign appearance before he ascended to the White House. But it turns out the pair have more than just a passing appreciation for rhetorical flourishes.

In an interview with Jonathan Ross airing on the BBC Friday (February 19), Jay-Z revealed that the president has invited the rapper to the White House a number of times since Obama's inauguration.

"I've been invited to the White House a couple of times," Hov told Ross, although he said he hasn't taken up the president on the offer just yet. "Hopefully we'll keep him in for eight years, so I'll have time to get there."

The Brooklyn MC was an avid supporter of Obama during the presidential campaign and referenced him in a series of lyrics, most notably for Young Jeezy's hit "My President."

"Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk/ Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run/ Barack Obama ran so all the children could fly," he raps on the track. "So I'mma spread my wings/ You could meet me in the sky."

"It's just the progression. ... You sat, you walked, you ran, you ran to fly," Jay told MTV News about his Obama rhyme last year on the eve of the inauguration. "You know, just the progression and how far we've come as a nation. It feels good to say that, 'cause I never had that type of feeling to say 'as a nation,' like I was part of the American dream. And I believe a lot of people didn't feel like a part of the American process for so long."

Although Obama has professed a love for an eclectic playlist of music that includes Stevie Wonder and Bob Dylan, he also said he is a fan of Jay-Z.

Jay-Z confirmed Obama's admiration when he told Ross the president was playing one of the rapper's albums when answered a phone call from Hov.

"Barack loves hip-hop," Jay said. "When I called him he was playing [The] Blueprint in the gym."

URL   http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1632296/20100219/jay_z.jhtml

'It's Not About Me'? Obama Mentions Himself 132 During 'Jobs' Speech

According to a report in the Des Moines Conservative Examiner as well as from other sources, Obama used the word "I" 96 times and the words "me" or "my" 18 times in his State of the Union Address.

The following is a letter to Senator Bayh written by Dr. Stephen Fraser, an Anesthesiologist practicing in Indianapolis, who pored through the entire document and enumerated several areas of concern. Many of these issues have been intentionally and dishonestly denied by Obama, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats. You can check them out for yourself to vouch for their validity.

July 23, 2009

Senator Bayh,
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to you ur banks accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation: illegal aliens.

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same!

Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor's time, proffession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.

Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.

Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!

Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Respectfully,

Stephen E Fraser MD

Approximately 1/6th of our population does not have any medical insurance coverage either because of a lifestyle choice, they are temporarily between jobs, have not applied for federal coverage for which they are eligible, or are not a legal citizen of the United States. All of these people, however, do have access to medical care. If they show up in an emergency room , they must be treated. That is a Federal law. They can not be turned away! The rest of us who have employer provided heath insurance plans or have purchased private insurance on our own are paying for these estimated 47 million uninsured.

Let's repeat this again: EVERYONE in America has access to the healthcare system even if they are unable or unwilling to pay for services rendered and even if they have no insurance.

So what is all the fuss about at Town Hall meetings set up to discuss President Obama's obsession with healthcare reform?

Obama and Congressional Democrats claim that this reform is all about increasing the quality of care, increasing affordability and making healthcare available to all Americans. Unfortunately, these reasons are all fallacious and are pretenses for the real goal: Government run and controlled healthcare with social engineering and wealth transfer. Everything else is an intentional LIE! What, for example, does affirmative action in medical school admissions have to do with quality of health care? There are many more affirmative action provisos like this one in the legislation.

All across the United States innumerable Americans - most of whom have never protested anything in their lives - are doing so also because they do not trust the Federal Government. Period. One only need to look at the abysmal track records of Social Security (going broke), Medicare and Medicaid (grossly underfunded and going broke) and the United States Postal Service (posted a $7 billion loss in 2007 and 2008) to see the typical inefficiencies, incompetence and wretched mismanagement characteristic of  the Federal government.In the end, we the TAXPAYERS, will be paying the price and ending up with less and rationed care, higher taxes, fewer choices, inferior quality of care and fewer innovations.

Then we have privacy issues, bureaucratic interference in an individuals' medical care, rationing, etc...