By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 36 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.

In advance of what Obama hopes will be a game-changing speech to lawmakers, the one idea that most appeals to the Democrats' liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a government insurance plan.

Democratic leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker.

Baucus, meeting with a small group of fellow senators, promoted a plan that would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans at a cost to taxpayers of under $900 billion over 10 years.

Some experts consider that a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in most states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

He's called a public plan an important tool to help check the excesses of private industry. But his aides suggested on the weekend that he could sign legislation even if it does not include a public option.

In the Senate, the public plan is not part of Baucus' proposal. He's calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

It would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Chuck Baldwin

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was

necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all

over America. See the original column at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.html

I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach

the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more

interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military

Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I

included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was

this a coincidence?

Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting

recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it at

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292

Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this

story out of Fort Leavenworth:

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/04/16/news/news1.txt

Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who

expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions

such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often.

Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently,

the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho

Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if

true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé"

published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole

notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss

the idea.) See the report at

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4312850.html

Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses

from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more

convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large

numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large

number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even

more compelling.

One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still

active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was

especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there

are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I

was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in

the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country

was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of

nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and

animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government

infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc.

THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep

order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed

to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which

would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency

can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of

where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things

military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.

We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this

country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its

faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis

added.)

To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the

good colonel referred, start with these web sites:

http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the

existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA,

with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel

brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with

me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several

military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed

concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional

government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential

encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have

upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that,

regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who

wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.

Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman

Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was

intending to do just that. See his comments at

http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law

And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major

story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the

Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently

introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National

Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland

Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military

installations"? See the report at

http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps

Is all of this information simply to be discarded as

hysteria?

On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late"

to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a

bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the

subject.

For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material

to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout

the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided

below and draw their own conclusions:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps

http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires

JavaScript to be enabled.)

Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of

resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their

own research.

Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly

acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil.

As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing

sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers

part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.

Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp

conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I

finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the

rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and

precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."

See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145

As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered

reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted

Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to

Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong

historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the

sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of

the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the

way.

In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what

FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"

Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is

probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people

could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great

percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You

only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great

agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."

Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry

Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention

camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have

these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the

name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put

them in detention camps.' They DO exist."

Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of

internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose

for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that

our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German

Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.

America's founders believed that a central government could

not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S.

Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal

government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it

is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a

fearful master."

The TV set is my shepherd. My spiritual growth shall want.

It makes me to sit down and do nothing for His name’s sake, because it requireth all my spare time. It keepeth me from doing my duty as a Christian because it presenteth so many shows that I must see.

It restoreth my knowledge of the things of the world, and keepeth me from the study of God’s Word. It leadeth me in paths of failing to attend the evening services, and doing nothing in the Kingdom of God.

Yea, though I live to be a hundred, I shall keep on viewing my TV as long as it will work, for it is my closest companion. Its sound and its picture, they comfort me.

It presenteth entertainment before me, and keepeth me from doing important things with my family. It fills my head with ideas which differ from those set forth in the Word of God.

Surely, no good thing will come of my life, because my TV offereth no good time to do the will of God thus I will dwell in the place of the Devil and his angels forever.

The 12-year-old is preparing for surgery that could make him the world's

youngest sex-swap patient and arrived at school this week sporting pigtails and

wearing a long dress.

His transformation sparked an emergency meeting at the school, with teachers

gathering up students and ordering them to treat the boy as a girl.

Angry parents told The Sun their children were in tears and

confused by news of the boy's transformation, and said they should have been

warned so they could discuss the issues with their children before school

resumed. The boy's parents have changed his name by deed poll and are

helping him prepare for hormone treatment.

They hoped his disguise would protect him from being bullied by his fellow

students, but he was recognised immediately, according to reports.

He had been telling his friends "for years" that he yearned to be a girl,

The Sun reported.Teachers also helped to blow his cover, telling students at the assembly:

"You may notice one pupil is not present in this assembly - that is because the

pupil is now a girl."

Be sure to check out http://remnantway.com/