By Gerard Couzens

Argentine Falklands war veterans have threatened to invade the islands if Britain does not give up sovereignty.

Soldiers warned of a rerun of the 1982 conflict in a chilling message to Gordon Brown’s government today.

The threat came after diplomatic tensions between Britain and Argentina mounted as oil exploration in the Falklands continued and a Navy submarine was apparently dispatched to the area.

Argentines call the Falklands Islands Las Malvinas.

A spokesman for a leading Buenos Aires-based war vets’ association, reigniting fears a new conflict is looming, vowed: ‘If the Malvinas cannot be recovered peacefully we will return as soldiers.

‘We have sworn to defend our nation and that oath is always with us.

‘Malvinas is a national cause.’

Cesar Gonzalez Trejo, spokesman for the Malvinas Combatants’ Civil Association in Buenos Aires, also called for a national boycott of British products.

And he warned Argentine soldiers who fought against British troops nearly 28 years ago were also planning a Greenpeace-style protest against the oil drilling platforms.

HMS Sceptre, a Swiftsure-class nuclear powered submarine, is said to have been sent from southern Africa to make Argentina think twice about laying serious claims to the islands.

Trejo told Argentine daily Cronica: ‘It’s obvious Britain’s pirate incursion into maritime exploration in the Malvinas is part of a strategy planned 40 years ago.

‘They’ve sent their Navy to reinforce and protect their economic interests.’

Labelling Britain ‘invaders’ and ‘pirates’ he added in a message to the Argentine public: ‘As far as peaceful measures go, we have tools to boycott them which can do more damage than weapons.

‘The UK has direct and indirect financial interests in our country.

‘Not consuming their products or depending on them is the best way of confronting them.

‘There’s also an idea for a peaceful protest in boats like the Greenpeace protests without threatening the British.’

Trejo’s threats, made in the name of his association’s members, came a day after it emerged Argentine politicians are set to debate a bill forcing firms to choose between the south American nation and the Falklands.

The bill, yet to become law, imposes a 30-day deadline on firms to axe ties with the Falklands or face being kicked out of Argentina.

Backers say they hope to target firms like Barclays, a shareholder of British firm Desire Petroleum which is currently drilling for oil in the Falklands.

It also emerged today that British Embassy officials in Buenos Aires are bracing themselves for a new demonstration by Argentine protestors.

Scores of protestors armed with petrol bombs tried to storm the British Embassy earlier this month.

Around 100 masked activists marched on the building and burned the Union Flag to demonstrate against Britain’s ownership of the Falklands.

A new demonstration is planned for April 2.

Trejo, in a plea for peace which went against his earlier threats of war, said: ‘We are hoping for huge support from the Argentine people.

‘It’s not intended as a provocation but as a mass mobilization.

‘Those bent on violence should stay at home because we’re not going to burn flags or anything like that. The march will be peaceful.’

Argentina has claimed the Falklands since Britain established its rule in the 19th century and invaded the South Atlantic Islands in 1982.

After a two-month war they were forced to withdraw their troops.

Argentines still maintain a claim to the archipelago, which lies 300 miles from its coast.

In the past month, Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has reasserted their claim and has objected to the British oil exploration.

Recently she asked for the US to intervene in the row.

The Argentine government has also tabled a UN resolution condemning Britain for allowing oil exploration off the Falklands.

Last month President Kirchner issued a decree forcing ships sailing to the Falklands from Argentine to seek a permit.

9 News

DENVER (AP) – Federal prosecutors are accusing a Colorado company of exporting technology used by the U.S. military to South Korea, China, Russia and Turkey.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Denver announced the charge Wednesday against Rocky Mountain Instrument Co., and said the company will be forced to forfeit $1 million if convicted.

U.S. District Attorney Spokesman Jeff Dorschner declined to comment on whether the alleged crime compromised national security.

The company, which manufactures optics components, says it is working toward a plea agreement with prosecutors.

Prosecutors say RMI exported prisms and technical data for optics used in military applications to the four countries from April 1, 2005 to Oct. 11, 2007.

The Lafayette, Colo.-based company says it has been cooperating with investigators.

WaPo

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico—The gangland-style murders of three people with ties to the U.S. consulate in this border city have confirmed for many people what residents here already knew: President Felipe Calderón’s strategy of sending in the troops to corral drug gangs has failed.

The gritty working-class city of 1.5 million has become a litmus test for Mr. Calderón’s antidrug strategy and, by extension, his presidency. The conservative leader took power vowing to bring cartels to heel, and chose Mexico’s army rather than local police to do the job, sending 45,000 troops to various hot spots, including 7,000 to Juárez.

But violence has skyrocketed in Juárez, an assembly center for export goods that never escaped its roots as a border playground for Americans. It has suffered a disproportionate amount of the mayhem, accounting for 5,349 out of more than 18,000 drug-related murders across Mexico since Mr. Calderón took power in December 2006.

“It’s a complete failure,” Oscar Cantú, publisher of local newspaper El Norte, says of Mr. Calderón’s enforcement strategy.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, while praising Mr. Calderón’s antidrug efforts, said this week the military deployment “hasn’t helped.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Calderón visited the city, just days after an American couple, including a woman who was four months pregnant and worked at the U.S. consulate, were killed in broad daylight. Separately, another man married to a consulate worker was killed.

The president told residents he regretted the “cowardly” murders and that the fight for Juárez was crucial to Mexico’s future. Mr. Calderón resisted calls by some protesters to pull out the army, saying “I don’t think that’s going to help Juárez’s security problem.”

The president’s top aides tacitly acknowledge that the army strategy hasn’t worked. Officials say they will try two new approaches: a greater focus on intelligence work, and an effort to create jobs, build schools, open parks and counsel drug addicts.

On March 23, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead a top-level delegation to Mexico, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, to discuss efforts against drug cartels, Reuters reported State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley as saying Wednesday.

Juárez, considered the world’s murder capital, is caught in a turf war between two Mexican drug gangs fighting to control smuggling rights to the giant U.S. market. The violence scares away investment needed to reduce poverty and undercut drug gangs. The local manufacturers’ trade group estimates nearly $1 billion in potential investment has been lost over the past two years due to the insecurity.

Amid a wave of extortions, many city businesses have shut their doors. Many families with the means have fled across the border to El Paso, Texas.

On the day the Americans were murdered, six other people were killed here in drug-related hits, according to local newspaper reports. A typical incident: A man identified only as Nicolas was riding a bicycle on a boulevard at 8 p.m. when he was chased by gunmen in a car. He tried to hide but was gunned down. The car drove off.

Part of the problem is that the military doesn’t have the training for intelligence work or counterinsurgency operations that could help turn the tide in Juárez, experts say. Until now, the troops’ main function has been to patrol Juárez and other cities. Most troops rotate out after two-month assignments.

“This was an improvised strategy that wasn’t thought through,” says Arturo Yañez, a former federal antidrug official. Mr. Calderón hasn’t wanted to use Mexico’s local cops, which are widely perceived as corrupt. The army serves as a stopgap while new federal police forces are trained. Mr. Yañez says that money and training should flow not to the army but toward local prosecutors and cops. Local police still aren’t allowed to investigate organized crime. “We aren’t doing enough to support the guys on the ground who can get the best intelligence,” he says.

Other experts say Mexico’s army of conscripts could develop intelligence capacity if it got more direct training from the U.S. military. The U.S. has pledged about $400 million a year in antidrug aid to Mexico, though much of the money is for hardware such as helicopters and hasn’t yet been disbursed.

“A related lesson from Colombia’s experience is that if government forces have the technology and training, they can get ahead of these violent organizations,” says Jay Cope, a fellow at the National Defense University and a retired U.S. Army Colonel.

Mexico, however, is reluctant to ask for increased training. Soon after the U.S. government said the FBI would help Mexico investigate the recent killings of the Americans, several Mexican senators complained about a violation of “sovereignty.”

——————————————————

Mexico has no problem sending millions of its parasitic people to invade the U.S. thereby financially and physically destroying the infrastructure of every place they settle. Mexico has no problem taking billions in aid and illegal remittances from the U.S., yet Mexico has the fucking nerve to worry about the U.S. messing with their sovereignty?  What arrogant sons of whores. Gawd I despise arrogant Mexicans, and I despise the U.S. government for allowing this shit to happen.

Timur Dykes

By Aimee Green–The Oregonian

A civil trial that opened Wednesday in Portland will show that the Boy Scouts of America knew it had child molesters in its leadership for decades but kept the problem quiet, according to an attorney for one of the victims.

The case, expected to attract national attention, centers on a Portland man who confessed to Scout leaders that he had molested 17 Scouts but was allowed to continue joining boys in Scouting activities.

On a broader scale, the case is one of the first to bring into open court hundreds of confidential files that the 100-year-old organization kept on Scout leaders and others suspected of sexually abusing boys. Though the Scouts, based in Texas, have been sued dozens of times over allegations of sexual abuse, most cases have been settled out of court, keeping files from becoming public.

Patrick Boyle, the Washington, D.C.-based author of “Scout’s Honor: Sexual Abuse in America’s Most Trusted Institution,” said Wednesday that this case may be only the second time such files have been used in a trial.

“It’s very embarrassing to them,” Boyle said.

The case that opened Wednesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court was brought by Kelly Clark, a Portland attorney who specializes in child sex abuse cases, and involves a former assistant Scoutmaster named Timur Dykes. The lawsuit, brought by a victim of Dykes listed in court documents by the pseudonym Jack Doe, seeks at least $14 million from the Boy Scouts of America and the Cascade Pacific Council in Oregon.

The Scouts, Clark said in opening statements, knew it had  pedophiles in its organization yet allowed Dykes and others to continue to associate with its members. He held up file folder after file folder from Boy Scout headquarters that he said proves the organization knew of at least 1,000 suspected child molesters from 1965 to 1985.

“Those decisions led naturally, predictably and foreseeably to the abuse of boys like” my client, he said.

Attorneys for the two Scouting organizations said in their opening statements that their clients weren’t at fault.

Boy Scouts of America attorney Charles T. Smith said he would call experts who would testify that sexual abuse of children wasn’t a problem specific to the Scouts but one that occurs throughout society. He also told jurors that child molesters are difficult to track and that the organization kept confidential files on them in an effort to protect children.

“These people move,” Smith said. “They go from state to state. And they change their names or their birth dates or they do something to try to slip back in.”

The trial, expected to last four weeks, focuses on Doe, who was a Boy Scout when he was abused by Dykes in the 1980s. The Oregonian is not naming Doe, now 37, because he is a victim of sex abuse.

According to Clark, Dykes was 25 when he met a 9-year-old Doe in 1981. Later, Doe joined a Southeast Portland Scout troop where Dykes was an assistant Scoutmaster. The troop met at a building, in the 9900 block of Southeast Caruthers Street, owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The boys also often went to Dykes’ apartment to work on merit badges or spend the night, with their parents’ approval, Clark told jurors.

“All of the parents trusted Timur Dykes because he was a Scout leader,” Clark said.

The apartment, Clark said, was like a playground for boys.

“He had ferrets,” Clark said. “He had snakes, including a boa constrictor. … He had a knife collection. He gave (Doe) french fries for breakfast on a regular basis.”

In January 1983, the mother of a Scout who said he had been molested by Dykes went to Gordon McEwen, a Mormon bishop who headed the local Scouting program, Clark said. McEwen confronted Dykes, who confessed to abusing 17 Scouts.

Nonetheless, Dykes was allowed to continue to spend time with the boys in the program, Clark said. McEwen contacted the parents of the 17 Scouts but “did nothing to warn the other parents of boys within Timur Dykes’ reach and grasp,” Clark said.

Dykes was arrested that year on accusations of molesting boys. He pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree sexual abuse, received probation and was ordered to stay away from children. Yet, Clark said, he continued Scouting activities.

After his confession, Dykes molested Doe at least six times, Clark said. Four times, Doe awoke to discover he was on top of Dykes, who was aroused. Another time, Dykes pulled Doe’s hand into his shorts. During a recent deposition, Dykes admitted abusing Doe.

In July 1984, police pulled over Dykes while he was driving a van full of Scouts on a camping trip. Police discovered his 1983 conviction and arrested him. Doe’s parents learned of Dyke’s history and, alarmed, asked their son if he had been a victim.

“To protect his parents, he said, ‘No, Timur never touched me,’” Clark said. But the abuse deeply disturbed Doe, who started getting bad grades, using drugs and getting in trouble with the law, Clark said. Today, he suffers from depression, nightmares and flashbacks, Clark said.

Clark is also representing seven other victims of Dykes in lawsuits against the Boy Scouts. Those plaintiffs also sought damages from the Mormon church, and the church settled.

Paul Xochihua, an attorney for the Cascade Pacific Council, painted a much different picture. He disagreed with how Clark characterized McEwen’s response to Dykes’ confession, saying McEwen cooperated with a police investigation. Police also knew of McEwen’s plan to contact the parents of the abused children, he said.

“He will say he acted immediately,” Xochihua said.

Smith, the attorney for the Boy Scouts of America, said neither the local nor national organization was directly involved in the operation of Doe’s troop. That fell to the Mormon church. But, Smith told jurors, “Boy Scouts of America is not here to blame this on the church. Those decisions will be up to you.”

Boyle, the author, said Smith’s argument is one he’s heard before.

“‘We don’t run the local troop. We don’t choose the leaders,’” Boyle said. That argument has been successful in the past, he said. What’s more, Boyle said, the public has a lot of good will toward the Scouts.

“People are unwilling to punish the Boy Scouts,” Boyle said. “I draw a distinction with the Catholic Church, because a lot of people don’t like the Catholic Church.”

Arizona Daily Star

Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX – College professors may soon be allowed to have more than pens and pencils in their pockets.

Legislation approved Wednesday by the House Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety would permit any faculty member who has a state concealed-weapon permit to bring it on campus. SB 1014 now goes to the full House.

The measure is being pushed by Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise. He said the problem with keeping weapons off campus is it creates what he calls defense-free zones.

“Obviously, where criminals believe there’s not somebody who can defend innocent life, they’re not going to care there’s a law against firearms,” he said.

“They’re going to come on the campus or in the facility and try and harm people,” Harper continued. “I think it’s important to have law-abiding citizens with the ability to defend themselves.”

Harper said shootings on campuses, like the 2007 incident at Virginia Tech, prove his point. A gunman there killed 32 before killing himself.

But John Pickens, police chief at Arizona State University, said it would be a mistake to say the problem is confined to college campuses, where state law now prohibits weapons except for police officers.

“These tragic incidents can and have occurred at shopping malls, government facilities, fast-food restaurants, churches and housing complexes,” he told lawmakers. And Pickens said while campus police across the nation have updated their plans, there is nothing anyone can do to absolutely keep such shootings from occurring.

“If an individual is determined to commit this type of act, he or she will do it,” he said. And Pickens said they have no respect for human life – including their own, as shown by the fact that many of the shooters end up taking their own lives.

When something does occur, Pickens said his officers don’t want to go into a classroom, confront multiple people carrying guns, and try to figure out who is the criminal.

But Dave Kopp, lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, said all the objections presume police can get there fast enough to make a difference.

“Police are not going to be there in 1.5 seconds,” he said, which is all the time a gunman might need.

“You are not going to be able to take a phone out and call them in 1.5 seconds,” Kopp continued. “If you’re talking about a 30-second response time, you’d better be able to do something other than call police.”

The Washington Times

The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America’s vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

Drilling is also wildly popular with the public. A Pew Research Center poll from February showed 63 percent support for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Americans understand the fundamental points: The oil is there, and we need it. If we don’t drill it out, we have to buy it from other countries. Last year, the U.S. government even helped Brazil underwrite offshore drilling in the Tupi oil field near Rio de Janeiro. The current price of oil makes drilling economically feasible, so why not let the private sector go ahead and get our oil?

The Obama administration, however, views energy policy through green eyeshades. Every aspect of its approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental concerns. This unprecedented lack of balance is placing offshore oil resources off-limits. The O Force would prefer the country shift its energy production to alternative sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind power. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that, in the long run, assuming technology can catch up to demand. But we have not yet reached the green utopia, we won’t get there anytime soon, and America needs more oil now.

Russia more sensibly views energy primarily as a strategic resource. Energy is critical to Russia’s economy, as fuel and as a source of profit through export. Russia also has used energy as a coercive diplomatic tool, shutting off natural gas piped to Eastern Europe in the middle of winter to make a point about how dependent the countries are that do business with the Russians.

Now Russia is using oil exploration to establish a new presence in the Western Hemisphere. It recently concluded four contracts securing oil-exploration rights in Cuba’s economic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. A Russian-Cuban joint partnership will exploit oil found in the deep waters of the Gulf.

Cuba has rights to the area in which drilling will be conducted under an agreement the Carter administration recognized. From Russia’s perspective, this is another way to gain leverage inside what traditionally has been America’s sphere of influence. It may not be as dramatic as the Soviet Union attempting to use Cuba as a missile platform, but in the energy wars, the message is the same. Russia is projecting power into the Western Hemisphere while the United States retreats. The world will not tolerate a superpower that acts like a sidekick much longer.

By Chelsea Schilling

If you were President Obama, how would you feel if someone wanted to impeach you?

That’s the question Microsoft Xbox LIVE asked WND after it banned a teenager from using “mpeach obama21″ as his gamertag, or online username.”This name is actually, it’s not likeable,” a Microsoft Xbox LIVE spokesman identifying himself as Jordan said. “If you were Obama, what would you feel if you saw this?”

Father Chad Willis told WND his 15-year-old son tried to log into his Xbox game console to play online, but the screen alerted him to the following message: “In accordance with Xbox LIVE policy, the gamertag mpeach obama21 is no longer allowed. Please change your gamertag before playing on Xbox LIVE.”

Xbox LIVE bans ‘mpeach obama21′ gamertag

Willis said creating a new gamertag costs Xbox LIVE points and, therefore, money.

Jordan referenced the following Xbox LIVE policy as reason for the ban:

• Don’t create a gamertag, profile content, or in-game content that other users may be offended by, this includes comments that look, sound like, stand for, hint at, abbreviate, or insinuate any of the following: profane words/phrases, topics or content of a sexual nature, hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, or religious slurs), illegal drugs/controlled substances, or illegal activities.

• Don’t create a gamertag, profile content, or in-game content that references controversial religious topics, notorious people, organizations, or sensitive current or historical events that may also be considered inappropriate.

“(mpeach obama21) could fall under sensitive current or historical events,” Jordan explained. “Obama being president of the U.S. is a historical event for most of the people there. Microsoft doesn’t tolerate such things. Microsoft Xbox wants to be a fun place for everyone.”

Asked whether Xbox policy prohibits political speech, he replied, “Well, it doesn’t actually say anything about politics, but it could pertain to historical events.”

Jordan insisted the policy would apply to “mpeach Bush” gamertags as well.

By Peter Ferrara

When Ben Franklin first emerged from the Constitutional Convention, he was asked by a passerby, “What government have you given us?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

For 220 years, until last year, we did keep it. America was a democratic constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law, a beacon of liberty to the entire world. But no more. After just one year of Barack Obama’s fundamental change, aided by the far left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, and the easily confused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, America has been transformed from a Constitutional Republic into a Banana Republic.

We Will Deem It Not Passed

Exhibit A is President Obama’s frenzied government takeover of health care, which fevered Democrats insist they will “pass” by any means necessary, even illegal, unconstitutional means. The economy continues to flounder, unemployment still hovers at nearly 10%, and Iran persists in building nuclear weapons, which they vow to use against our allies and even against us. But Barack Obama is focused like a laser on bringing to America outdated socialized medicine concepts from deep into the last century, all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, as he said in a recent speech.

The latest Banana Republic style abuse is the so-called Slaughter Strategy, named not for the impending political slaughter of Congressional Democrats it will help engender this fall, but after temporary House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Under that scam, House Democrats will pass a “rule” that “deems” the Senate health care takeover bill to have passed the House. House Democrats will then pass a “reconciliation” bill amending that Senate bill, on a strict party line vote. Whatever you want to call whatever the House and Senate passed will then go to El Presidente for his signature.

The Senate will then be expected to pass the House reconciliation bill, again on a strict party line vote, without a conference committee on the amendments and without the 60 votes required to end debate in the Senate under the filibuster rule. This under the leadership of the President who campaigned starting in 2004 on bringing to America a new era of “post-partisanship.” No one has given any thought to what happens if the Senate is not able to pass the House reconciliation bill. Are the House reconciliation amendments then part of the final law or not?

In any event, Newt Gingrich got it right in saying that last year Democrats were passing bills without reading them. This year, they are passing bills without voting on them.

As constitutional law scholar Michael McConnell explained in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, “passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.” In other words, passing a reconciliation bill different from the Senate health bill cannot be deemed passage of the Senate health bill. McConnell continued,

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

Moreover, the rules of the House and the Senate provide for reconciliation for “legislation that makes adjustments to spending or revenues to reconcile current law to a budget resolution that has passed Congress,” as McConnell also writes. Republicans have never used reconciliation for legislation that has not met this definition. But this is manifestly not what is involved in the Obamacare health takeover bill, which adopts massive new entitlements, expands existing ones, and enacts sweeping regulation of insurance and health care, with close to 100 new bureaucracies, boards, commissions and programs.

If Democrats claim to have passed Obamacare through this Banana Republic methodology, the new Republican Congressional majorities elected this fall can and will “deem” Obamacare not to have passed. For no actual legislation with identical texts will then have passed both the House and the Senate, as the Constitution requires. The new Speaker of the House and the new Senate Majority Leader can and will instruct Congressional officers to remove the Obamacare provisions from the U.S. Code. The new House and Senate majorities can and will also refuse to fund any of the provisions of Obamacare, including the 100 new bureaucracies, boards, commissions and programs. Naturally, this will leave the state of the law unclear, and disputed, just like in a typical Banana Republic.

Rest assured, Republican members of Congress and state Attorneys General will also sue for declaratory judgments that Obamacare is unconstitutional because it was not passed in accordance with law (and for other reasons). And the new majorities will also move to repeal whatever you want to call whatever the Democrats will claim that they have passed. But even before any of that, next year the new Congress will deem Obamacare not to have passed.

Obamacare and Banana Republic Deficits

Another indicator that America has sunk into Banana Republic status is the runaway deficits and national debt under the Obama budgets. As discussed in this column last week, the federal deficit this year is projected to hit a world record $1.6 trillion, with deficits totaling nearly $10 trillion over the next 10 years. The national debt held by the public will quadruple to $20.3 trillion by 2020, with the total gross federal debt soaring to $27.5 trillion, rivaling Greece.

Contrary to the claims of President Obama, his socialized medicine health care takeover will increase rather than reduce the deficits and debt. The claim that it will reduce the deficit is based on the assumption that the already below market Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals will be reduced by 21% in the first year, falling farther and farther behind market rates in the following years. This would create havoc and chaos in health care for America’s seniors. But if Congress does not allow those cuts to go into effect, Obamacare will further explode the deficit.

Overall, CBO documents reveal that the claim that President Obama’s socialized medicine plan will reduce deficits is based on the assumption of $2.5 trillion in Medicare cuts over the next 20 years. Medicare already suffers an unfunded liability of $38 trillion, according to Medicare’s own government actuaries. What Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing is to loot $2.5 trillion from Medicare to spend on new entitlements under Obamacare, and leave Medicare with that intractable unfunded liability.

Unnoticed is that Obamacare also contains hundreds of billions in additional cuts for Medicaid as well. But Medicaid already so badly underpays doctors and hospitals that 40% of them won’t even take Medicaid patients. Cutting those reimbursements under Medicaid even more will wreak havoc and chaos on the poor on Medicaid as well. If the resulting public outcry also prevents those cuts from going into effect, the deficit will balloon further.

Almost $300 billion in additional deficit reductions allegedly result because many employers will supposedly terminate their employee health insurance under Obamacare and pay workers higher wages instead, resulting in higher payroll tax revenues. So much for Obama’s claim, which he is still making, that if you like your health insurance you will be able to keep it. But those payroll tax revenues are devoted to financing Social Security benefits, and so are not available to offset the costs of Obamacare.

A similar trick is adopted for the CLASS Act, which is a new federal insurance program for long-term nursing home benefits also included in the Obamacare legislation. Over $100 billion in additional deficit reductions are assumed from counting the premium payments coming in under this program in the early years as reducing the deficit, even though those funds are devoted to paying future benefits under that program. Such double counting is a staple of Banana Republic budget practices.

Removing all these budget tricks exposes Obamacare as increasing federal deficits by almost $500 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the following 10 years. But there is still another budget trick that no one has accounted for yet. CBO assumes that only 30 million workers will receive the new health insurance subsidies under Obamacare for families earning as much as $88,000 per year, with 162 million still receiving employer provided insurance and consequently not eligible for the subsidies. But if employers drop coverage for their workers and pay the much lower penalty for non-coverage instead, this cost will soar, further increasing federal deficits and debt under Obamacare.

Banana Republic Corruption

Still another indicator of America’s new Banana Republic status is the political corruption and vote buying surrounding Obamacare. Well-known is the Cornhusker Kickback, the special deal involving increased Medicaid funding for Nebraska in return for Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote for the Senate health bill. Also well-known is the Louisiana Purchase, which added $300 million in special federal funds for Louisiana to the Senate bill in return for Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vote. Obama’s union cronies are also exempted from the Cadillac health insurance tax that would apply to others.

Another special deal in the Senate bill is for seniors in the state of Florida. Almost one-fourth of seniors nationally have chosen private sector Medicare Advantage plans for their coverage under Medicare, because they believe they get a better deal from that private coverage. But President Obama is ideologically opposed to that private option under Medicare, so Obamacare includes steep cuts to Medicare Advantage that Medicare’s own actuary estimates will cause most seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage. But the Senate bill includes a special deal for seniors in Florida, exempting their Medicare Advantage coverage .

The Senate bill with these special deals is what President Obama is now trying so desperately to get through the House, by hook or crook as described above. Undoubtedly, additional such vote buying corruption is going on now to sway critical House votes. President Obama just appointed the brother of Utah Congressman Jim Matheson (D) to a federal judgeship to sway his vote. More such deals will be exposed in coming weeks. Such political corruption is common, accepted practice in a Banana Republic.

Banana Republic Demagoguery

President Obama is now barnstorming the country trying to sell his government takeover of health care with crass demagoguery also typical of Banana Republics. He bewails insurance company profits, yet the profit rate for the health insurance industry is a meager 2.2%, leaving many health insurers on the edge of bankruptcy. Such profits are a negligible proportion of total health costs.

President Obama assails health insurers for raising premium rates. At his socialized medicine pep rally at Arcadia University on March 8, Obama complained, “Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40 — 40 percent. Anybody’s paycheck gone up 40 percent?” “Nooo,” the audience proletariat chimed back.

But the Anthem Blue Cross rate increases are just a foretaste of what will happen under Obamacare. For those increases resulted from state government regulation imposing new benefit requirements on health insurers, just as Obamacare will do, in spades. Obamacare will require health insurers to provide all the costly, politically correct benefits the government mandates. At his Arcadia University rally, President Obama wowed the proles proclaiming, “If this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year — free check-ups,” just a few paragraphs after he blistered insurance companies for raising rates to pay for other mandated benefits.

Most costly, Obamacare will mandate guaranteed issue, requiring insurers to accept all applicants no matter how sick with expensive illnesses such as cancer or heart disease, and community rating, requiring insurers to charge the same to all, within narrow confines, again regardless of how sick when they first applied. That has proven to cause rates to soar when adopted by states in the past. Careful, mathematically transparent studies from WellPoint and others have demonstrated that under the Obamacare requirements, insurance premiums will soar, doubling and tripling for some young families and workers.

The states already have plenty of authority to regulate health insurance premiums. The issue is really just a matter of math, not ideology or profiteering. State regulators know they must ensure that the insurance companies have enough income to pay their promised benefits, as well as mandate reasonable rates. But the Obamacare demagogues are heedless of that basic math, and would just as soon drive all the insurers out of business, leaving the government with a complete takeover.

But President Obama persisted in his Arcadia University demagoguery, proclaiming that under Obamacare, “This year, insurance companies…will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. And they will no longer be able to arbitrarily and massively hike your premiums.”

Here is how regulation is supposed to work under current law, so conservatives will know they do not have to defend the indefensible. Insurance companies are not allowed to drop coverage for people after they become sick, unless the insured misled the company about his true medical condition when applying. For such cases, conservatives have advocated subsidized, uninsurable risk pools providing full safety net coverage so the uninsured who contract costly illnesses such as cancer or heart disease will still have somewhere to go to get essential coverage and care.

Moreover, insurers are supposed to be prohibited from arbitrarily raising rates for those who become sick after coverage as well. Rate increases must apply to everyone in the same original rate class reflecting their health condition when they originally applied, regardless of how sick they subsequently become.

Such regulation is required for health insurance to be real insurance protecting consumers from high health costs when they become sick. To the extent loopholes have developed in this regulation over time, or the regulation is not working, these regulatory requirements can and should be updated and enforced.

Obama’s Legacy

President Obama and his lefty Democrat allies expect their new socialized medicine entitlement, once passed, to be permanent, untouchable, and beloved by the public, just like Social Security and Medicare. That is why they are so crazed to get it passed by any means and at any cost. But not living in the real world, they fail to understand that Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt under the government’s own numbers, and are about to be fundamentally reformed themselves. It is beyond the power of even the authoritarian government to which the current ruling Democrats aspire to repeal the laws of arithmetic, even though that is the root of their ideology. The Tea Party movement, by contrast, understands all this perfectly well.

As a result, President Obama’s legacy will not be permanent socialized medicine as he fancies, but the Tea Party free market reforms his misgovernment and misrule will politically enable.

Enlarge