Re-Elect Nick Fahs!

The unsuccessful attempt of IAFF Local 1889's president Nick Fahs (In coordination with Dennis "Jaw Breaker" Skelton, Mike Heins (SCP) and the union's executive board) to stir up a ruckus in the State Auditor's office against the MFPD Board should be a teachable moment for all.

Once again Nick Fahs and his band of stooges tried to unleash the dogs of law on the Board of the Mehlville FPD. Once again they were defeated. (Read today's Call articles below)

Late last year, Mr. Fahs phoned one of our contributors (who was subsequently called in for a deposition in the Strinni vs. MFPD case) that volunteered to mediate a settlement of the union's lawsuit concerning the pension plan. Mr. Fahs was told that it was the intention of the Board to not only settle on the case at hand, but to work more amicably with Local 1889 in the future on many issues of interest to both parties.

Mr Fahs agreed to work in a new direction and bury the hostilities of the past if he became union president. Our contributor also informed Fahs that Dennis (JB) Skelton had to go if he wished to turn down the volume on the acrimony between Local 1889 and the BOD. Mr. Fahs agreed and stated that if he was elected union president he would move in a positive direction on this issue. Fahs also disclosed his distaste with Skelton's methods and underworld connections. The rapprochement between Fahs and the Board lasted about three weeks before the union fired up the crap machine once more. Nick Fahs gets the "Eddie Haskell" award of 2009!

Mr. Fahs was less than truthful with our contributor since he has continued Local 1889's close working relationship with the mafia-connected Mr. Jaw Breaker as well as adding the Mehlville National Education Association (our beloved and progressive teachers union kommanded by Kommissar Komrade Kay Kappos) and South County's insidious hate blogger, Mike Heins to Local 1889's "camp". According to a source in Jefferson City, Heins and JB tormented the State Auditor and Attorney General's offices with constant and neurotic telephone calls to convince state officials that MFPD's Propositions 1 & 2 were in violation of state tax law.

Unnamed sources also inform us that Nick Fahs and Local 1889's executive board traveled to Jeff City to lobby Susan Montee's staff 's in support of JB and Heins' latest legal conspiracy theory. It is obvious to us the these individuals wish nothing well for the Mehlville FPD so long as it is governed by Hilmer, Stegman and Ryan. The South County Truth Spot sincerely believes that is the the goal of these obsessed negativists to destroy the fire district.

We urge the fine professional fire and medical personnel of MFPD to stand up for your own best interest and career. Your union does nothing for you, takes your hard-earned money then pays your ex-union president's salary while destroying your image with the taxpayers by your bosses' idiotic, ill-advised legal antics and embittered pursuit of their self-described "enemies". Local 1889 has been whining for years and frankly, neither we or the public buy it. We're all sick of it.

The firefighters and paramedics of the MFPD are professionals. It's time that bosses of Local 1889 acted as professionally as the shop they represent. The MFPD Board is the boss. Live it, learn it, love it. That's the way it is here in the real world where we can't walk in our employer's office, give him the finger everyday and expect to remain employed. Firefighting and EMS are the greatest jobs in the world. Enjoy it and Happy Thanksgiving!

Auditor Treats Fire District, School District Differently

By Mike Anthony

Executive Editor - Call Newspapers

November 25, 2009 - It's certainly unusual to have two local governmental entities whose tax rates have not been certified by the State Auditor's Office.

But that's the case this year with both the Mehlville Fire Protection District and the Mehlville School District. Residents need not worry, though, as the county collector of revenue has agreed to collect the tax rates approved by the boards of both districts.

Though both districts have a similar problem, we couldn't help but notice that the State Auditor's Office treated them differently. While the auditor's office seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate school district officials with their situation, it couldn't move fast enough to refer the fire district's issue to the Attorney General's Office for possible injunctive relief.

That certainly was evident to MFPD Board of Directors Chairman Aaron Hilmer, who told the Call, "The differences in the treatment of the two largest taxing entities in south county that share the same name is absolutely blatant. I think it was a total charade, really lending credence to the fact the state auditor clearly had a political ax to grind.''

"The Mehlville School District was treated with white gloves. They treated the fire district with boxing gloves. But it didn't matter because we're still standing and we're going to collect the taxes we levied.''

Mr. Hilmer also reported the Attorney General's Office will not pursue any legal action to prohibit the fire district from collecting the tax rate approved by the Board of Directors.

While Superintendent Terry Noble believes "a legislative fix'' will solve the school district's problem, the fire district's tax-rate situation centered around the state auditor's interpretation of Senate Bill 711 and how to apply a historic tax-rate-ceiling decrease — Prop 1 and Prop 2 — approved by MFPD voters last April.

In interpreting Senate Bill 711, the auditor's office contended the 40-cent-tax-rate-ceiling reduction approved by voters should be applied to the tax rate approved by the fire board in 2008, reducing the district's tax-rate-ceiling to 16.3 cents.

Mr. Hilmer disputed that interpretation, contending the 40-cent-tax-rate-ceiling reduction should be applied to the 2008 tax-rate-ceiling of $1.052, reducing the tax-rate ceiling to 65.2 cents. After carefully studying Senate Bill 711, it's obvious its provisions support Mr. Hilmer's contention that "... the State Auditor's Office is either politically motivated or incompetent or probably both ...''

Attorney General Won't Pursue Legal Action Over MFPD Tax Rate

Fire board chairman happy with 'outstanding outcome'

MIKE ANTHONY

Executive Editor - Call Newspapers

November 25, 2009 - The Missouri Attorney General's Office will not pursue legal action to prohibit the Mehlville Fire Protection District from levying the fiscal 2010 tax rate approved by the district's Board of Directors, according to board Chairman Aaron Hilmer.

Missouri Auditor Susan Montee's Office last month referred the fire district to Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster's Office, contending the tax rate approved by the district's Board of Directors was higher than permitted under state law.

In an Oct. 27 letter to Administrative Chief Fire Officer Tim White, Ronald Holliger, general counsel for the Attorney General's Office, wrote, "... It appears that the levy you seek to impose is in violation of the certified rate provided by law ... It is our intention to file a petition for an injunction barring your attempt to levy a higher-than-authorized rate within 15 days of this letter. If you voluntarily come into compliance, we will not seek the assessment of costs against the district.''

After the fire district received the letter, Hilmer told the Call he looked forward to meeting with representatives of the Attorney General's Office and was optimistic the situation would be resolved in the district's favor. Hilmer and Mathew Hoffman, the fire district's legal counsel, met last week in Jefferson City with representatives of the Attorney General's Office, including Holliger and Chief of Staff Matthew Dameron.

During the brief meeting on Nov. 17, Hilmer and Hoffman were informed the Attorney General's Office had no plans to pursue any legal action against the district.

Hilmer told the Call he expected to receive a formal letter from the Attorney General's Office regarding its decision sometime after Thanksgiving. He also noted the county collector of revenue is levying the tax rate approved by the Board of Directors.

"... It was an outstanding outcome,'' the board chairman said. "The Attorney General's Office was excellent to deal with. I'd like to say thank you very much to the Attorney General's Office, notably their chief of staff and their general counsel for taking the time to review the relevant material. I'd also like to thank Sen. Jim Lembke, Rep. Mike Leara and Rep. Walt Bivins, all who contacted us wanting to help bring this farce to a close.''

The Board of Directors voted Aug. 27 to set the fire district's tax rate at 59.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, 3 cents more than the previous year's tax rate of 56.3 cents. Board members voted to roll up the tax rate to collect the same amount of revenue as the previous year under the provisions of the Hancock Amendment.

But the State Auditor's Office would not certify the fire district's tax rate, contending that because the Board of Directors voted in August 2008 to levy a tax rate less than the district's tax-rate ceiling of $1.052, Mehlville's ceiling was reduced to 56.3 cents under the provisions of Senate Bill 711. Montee's office further contended Mehlville's tax-rate ceiling was 16.3 cents because of voter approval in April of two measures reducing the district's tax-rate ceiling by an additional 40 cents.

Allison Bruns, public affairs coordinator for the Missouri Auditor's Office, told the Call earlier this month the board-approved tax rate of 59.3 cents was higher than permitted.

"They are above the taxing rate that's allowed,'' she said, citing Senate Bill 711. "It changed what your ceiling could be and because they took a voluntary reduction and then the voters passed an additional reduction, what that would create is the (tax) rate last year is now the ceiling under Senate Bill 711.''

But in correspondence to both the State Auditor's Office and the Attorney General's Office, Hoffman wrote the ballot language for the two tax-rate-ceiling-reduction measures — Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 — specifically stated they were not subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback.

Proposition 1 asked whether the district's general-fund tax-rate ceiling should be permanently reduced by 36 cents per $100 of assessed valuation while Proposition 2 asked whether the district's pension-fund tax-rate ceiling would be permanently reduced by 4 cents per $100.

Both measures were overwhelmingly approved by voters in April.

In a Nov. 4 letter to the Attorney General's Office, Hoffman wrote, "... It is the position of the district that the tax-rate ceiling available is higher than the tax-rate ceiling determined by the Office of the Missouri Auditor. Further, both Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, which were approved by the voters of the district, state the following: 'This proposition is based upon the 2008 assessed valuation of the district. The foregoing shall not be subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback.'''

Regarding the Nov. 17 meeting, Hilmer said, "Quite honestly, the thing that we really pointed to the most was the ballot language ... Two of the three sentences addressed this very issue that we were very cognizant of. This very issue arose in Senate Bill 711, ironically the same Senate bill that gave us the power to put this on the ballot. Two of the three sentences ad-dressed this very issue and the auditor's office wouldn't even acknowledge that they were there.''

Besides the ballot language, Hilmer disputed the state auditor's interpretation of Senate Bill 711, particularly that the 2008 board-established tax rate became the district's new tax-rate ceiling.

That provision only comes into play during a reassessment year and 2008 was not a reassessment year, he said.

Therefore, when Mehlville voters considered Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 in April, the district's tax-rate ceiling was $1.052. Voter approval of those measures reduced the ceiling to 65.2 cents.

But that tax-rate ceiling dropped to 59.3 cents when the board set that amount as its fiscal 2010 tax rate this year — a reassessment year.

However, Senate Bill 711 also states that during a non-reassessment year such as next year, a taxing entity can levy the maximum ceiling — in this case up to 65.2 cents — provided it conducts a public hearing and adopts "an ordinance, resolution or policy statement justifying its action prior to setting and certifying its tax rate.''

The board chairman also said he was disappointed with the treatment the district received from the auditor's office.

"I'd like to contrast the AG's professionalism to the state auditor's behavior and there is no comparison. The State Auditor's Office never even gave us the chance to sit down with them to discuss this,'' Hilmer said. "They could only give us a terse phone conversation in which they readily admitted they did not understand our ballot language nor have they ever applied a voter-approved tax-rate decrease to their formula.

"And for them to go from that to asking the AG's Office for possible injunctive relief, it's outrageous. It shows that the State Auditor's Office is either politically motivated or incompetent or probably both. I think the State Auditor's Office needs to be audited for wasting tax dollars on this failed circus stunt.''

Global Warming With the Lid Off

The emails that reveal an effort to

hide the truth about climate science.

NOVEMBER 24, 2009

WALL STREET JOURNAL

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

The Trifecta of Losers Storm Jeff City

Last Tuesday, Mehlville FPD Chairman Aaron Hilmer and Board Secretary Bonnie Stegman accompanied the the District's General Counsel, Mathew Hoffman to Jefferson City to meet with the Attorney General's office. The purpose of this meeting was to respond to charges instigated by the Mehlville firefighter's union to Democrat State Auditor, Susan Montee alleging an error in setting the MFPD's tax rate.

The citizens of South County voted last April for the first TAX DECREASE in Missouri history. The MFPD Board was immediately challenged by a stooge for the firefighters union - failed Local 1889 candidate, Dennis "Jaw Breaker" Skelton. The Jaw Breaker's lawsuit was financed by a union front group, Missouri State Council of Fire Fighters. Their case failed in court.

The interesting point about last Tuesday's meeting was the appearance of South County's trifecta of losers, Local 1889 President Nick Fahs, Dennis "Jaw Breaker" Skelton and former Mehlville Board of Education member, Mike Heins (TruthDetector:Heins was defeated in his reelection bid by a strip club owner). The trifecta was also supported by two of the least effective Democrat state representatives in South County, Sue Schoemehl (D-100) and Pat Yaeger (D-96). (TruthDetector: Schoemehl and Yaeger are complete tools of the unions who contributed more than 90% of the contributions to their campaigns. Neither representative has introduced and passed ANY significant legislation in their soon to be term-limited tenure. Yaeger is viewed by her fellow state reps as "the dumbest member in the House" and can seldom speak without breaking into uncontrollable tears. Pat Yaeger is an outspoken supporter of Mehlville firefighter's union Local 1889. Local 1889 is also a regular contributor's to Yaeger's reelection campaigns. Along with other prominent local Democrats, she attended a fundraiser in support of two Mehlville employees who were fired for harassing a fellow union member. She also SLEEPS during important House debates)

The citizens of the Mehlville FPD now realize that this coterie of failures has only one goal: the destruction of the Mehlville Fire Protection District. Nick Fahs has shown his hand in Local 1889's ongoing effort to get rid of Aaron Hilmer, Bonnie Stegman, Ed Ryan, Chief Jim Silvernail and Chief Tim White. Fahs and his cronies have lost EVERY BATTLE!

The South County Truth Spot expects the Board to prevail in the latest legal provocation by the trifecta of losers. But we must ask: Why are the professional firefighters and paramedics of the MFPD allowing Fahs (and the losers he associates with) to damage the very fire district where they have chosen to build their careers? When this current issue is settled (in the Board's favor) are they prepared to defend Fahs' failure to the public who pays their salary?

We think that when the Sunshine Law request to the State Auditor (who has now violated the time limit for production of records) reveals Fahs and Local 1889's attempt to use their Democrat connections to harass the Board of Directors and bankrupt the district, the public relations disaster for this union will be of biblical proportions. Continuing.....

Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

Tuesday , November 10, 2009

FOX NEWS

The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."

According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."

The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.

A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.

And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.

"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.

"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.

"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."

Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.

Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."

He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"

Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"

"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."

But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.

There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:

— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.

— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.

— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."

On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."

"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.

Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.

This time, he said, "They listened."

Fox News' Jonathan Passantino and Jana Winter contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC.

All rights reserved.

Canada's Healthcare Disaster

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on November 3, 2009

After more than a decade of public healthcare with mandatory coverage, so many Canadian doctors have left the practice and so many young people have entered other fields that Canada ranks 26th of 28 developed nations in its ratio of physicians to population. Once, Canada ranked among the leaders in the number of physicians, but that was before government healthcare drove doctors out of the practice in droves.

The fundamental fact is that we cannot cover 36 million new patients without more doctors and nurses, much less with the declining census of medical professionals the Canadian experience points to. A recent survey of doctors by the Pew Institute found that 45 percent of all practicing doctors would consider retiring or closing their practices if the Obama healthcare bill passes. This scarcity of medical personnel heightens the likelihood of draconian rationing, lengthy waiting lists and lower-quality medical care for all of us, particularly for the elderly.

This physician shortage leads to massive and never-ending waiting lists. In 1993, for example, there was an average wait of 9.3 weeks from the time a patient got a referral from a general practitioner to the time he could see a specialist. By 1997, the wait was up to 11.7 weeks. Now it's 17.3 weeks -- over four months just to see a specialist!

In Canada, unions control the entire healthcare process. In Manitoba, for example, there is an eight-month wait for colonoscopies, yet the unions do not permit weekend or evening procedures, thereby extending the waiting lists. The unions are doing to healthcare in Canada what they have done to education in America: stifling creativity, reinforcing bureaucracy and extending waiting times.

Because of these long waits for colonoscopies, there is now a 25 percent higher incidence of colon cancer in Canada than in the United States. And because the leading drugs that we routinely use to treat the malady in the U.S. are banned in Canada because of their high cost, 41 percent of Canadians who get the cancer die of it, compared with only 32 percent in the United States. Overall, the cancer death rate in Canada runs 16 percent higher than in the United States. Cancer does not wait for waiting lists to clear.

The potential of healthcare changes to shrink the doctor population, exacerbating scarcity and extending waits, is even worse now that it is apparent we have overestimated the number of doctors in the U.S. Where we once thought there were 840,000 doctors, the total is now estimated to be only 760,000.

The proposed $400 billion cut in Medicare raises the probability that more and more of those doctors who do practice will refuse to accept Medicare patients, aggravating the doctor shortage among the elderly, the population that needs them the most.

As Obama's program moves through Congress, despite the fierce opposition of a majority of American voters in virtually all the polls, it becomes clear that those moderates who vote for it will face harsh retribution at the polls from their outraged constituents. A kind of suicide-pact mentality is gripping the Democratic majorities in Congress, akin to that which came over it when Congress passed President Bill Clinton's tax package in 1993. This disregard for the will of the marginal voter may make sense for those who come from safe districts, but it makes none for those who come from swing districts. For them, suicidal conduct leads to political demise.

Legal Action Looms Over Tax Rate OK'd by MFPD Directors

MIKE ANTHONY

Executive Editor - Call Newspapers

November 04, 2009 - The Missouri Attorney General's Office has notified the Mehlville Fire Protection District it intends to take legal action to prohibit the district from collecting the fiscal 2010 tax rate approved by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors voted Aug. 27 to set the fire district's tax rate at 59.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, an amount it contends is the legal maximum it can levy as a result of the passage earlier this year of two propositions reducing Mehlville's tax-rate ceiling by 40 cents.

The fiscal 2010 tax rate is 3 cents more than the previous year's tax rate of 56.3 cents, and board members voted to roll up the tax rate to collect the same amount of revenue as the previous year under the provisions of the Hancock Amendment.

However, Missouri Auditor Susan Montee's Office contends that because the Board of Directors voted in August 2008 to levy a tax rate less than the district's tax-rate ceiling of $1.052, Mehlville's ceiling was reduced to 56.3 cents under the provisions of Senate Bill 711. As a result, the tax-rate-ceiling reduction of 40 cents approved by voters sets the district's new tax-rate ceiling at 16.3 cents.

"They are above the taxing rate that's allowed,'' Allison Bruns, public affairs coordinator for the Missouri Auditor's Office, told the Call.

Citing SB 711, she said, "It changed what your ceiling could be and because they took a voluntary reduction and then the voters passed an additional reduction, what that would create is the (tax) rate last year is now the ceiling under Senate Bill 711.''

Because the board voted to levy 59.3 cents for fiscal 2010, Montee's office deemed the fire district's tax rate to be non-compliant with state law and has referred the issue to Attorney General Chris Koster's Office, Bruns said.

In an Oct. 27 letter to Administrative Chief Fire Officer Tim White, Ronald Holier, general counsel for the Attorney General's Office, wrote, "... It appears that the levy you seek to impose is in violation of the certified rate provided by law. You have previously been given an opportunity to correct or explain this discrepancy by the auditor.

"It is our intention to file a petition for an injunction barring your attempt to levy a higher-than-authorized rate within 15 days of this letter. If you voluntarily come into compliance, we will not seek the assessment of costs against the district.''

But Mathew Hoffman, legal counsel for the fire district, told the Call the county collector of revenue will levy the tax rate approved by the Board of Directors. Furthermore, Hoffman contended the ballot language for the two tax-rate-ceiling-reduction measures — Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 — specifically stated they are not subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback.

Proposition 1 asked whether the district's general-fund tax-rate ceiling should be permanently reduced by 36 cents per $100 of assessed valuation while Proposition 2 asked whether the district's pension-fund tax-rate ceiling would be permanently reduced by 4 cents per $100. Both measures were overwhelmingly approved by voters in April.

In an Oct. 21 letter to Montee's office, Hoffman wrote, "... It is the position of the district that the tax-rate ceiling available is higher than the tax-rate ceiling determined by your office. Further, both Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, which were approved by the voters of the district, state the following: 'This proposition is based upon the 2008 assessed valuation of the district. The foregoing shall not be subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback' ...

"As such, the Mehlville Fire Protection District does not accept the tax-rate ceiling certified by the office of the Missouri state auditor ...,'' Hoffman wrote.

His letter also included a copy of the district's tax-rate resolution and the ballot language for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2.

In an Oct. 26 letter to Koster's office, Montee wrote, "... If a taxing authority rejects a rate change certified by the SAO (State Auditor's Office) and the SAO does not receive supporting information which justifies the taxing authority's original or any subsequent tax rate, the SAO shall refer the perceived violation to the attorney general ...''

Besides citing the ballot language for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, Hoffman noted the Mehlville Fire Protection District is the first taxing entity in the state in which voters have approved a tax-rate-ceiling reduction. Therefore, it's his understanding the auditor's office has never dealt with such a situation, he said.

"The language included in both Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 states that they are not subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback,'' Hoffman told the Call." The auditor's office did not address the roll-back language. It is my understanding that they have never dealt with a tax-rate-ceiling decrease prior to the legislation passed by Mehlville Fire Protection District voters in April 2009.

"At this point, we are in the process of discussing this issue in further detail with the office of the attorney general."

Board of Directors Chairman Aaron Hilmer told the Call he believes the ballot language of the two propositions is clear.

"... What the auditor's office is saying is you have to take the 40 cents from Prop 1 and 2 out of the 56 cents ...,'' he said. "Why would we put something on there that would take away from what we already took away? None of this makes any sense and what's really frustrating is that's why we drafted that last sentence the way we did. Because we realized the situation and that's why we put it in there. Everything that residents received, giving them information on this, made it clear that this was coming off the ceiling and not last year's tax rate.''

Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 were put before district voters after withstanding a legal challenge from Concord resident Dennis Skelton, who filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the measures from the April 7 ballot. But St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Sandra Hemphill ruled the fire district had the legal authority to place the measures on the ballot, citing provisions enacted as part of SB 711.

The judge also denied a motion for a new trial by Skelton's attorney, John Goffstein, who had contended, "The ballot measure is unconstitutionally vague because it states it is not a rollback measure, when in fact, that is the effect of the proposition."

But Hemphill disagreed, writing, "The critical test for the sufficiency of a ballot measure is 'whether the language fairly and impartially summarizes the purposes of the measure so the voters will not be deceived or misled' ... None of the provisions of 321.244.1, RSMo. mandate specific language for the type of ballot measures at issue here. The court has reviewed the language of the propositions and finds them to be in substantial compliance with the ballot form set out in section 321.244.1, RSMo."

Hilmer said he looked forward to meeting with representatives of the Attorney General's Office and was optimistic the situation would be resolved in the district's favor.

"I expect that to be the end of the story,'' he said. "Certainly the ballot language is very clear. Our intent was clear. What voters voted on was clear and here's what I think is really interesting: The ballot language was verified by a judge as to how clear it was. I am shocked that it got this far, but the auditor's office was not ... not that they weren't even helpful, but they wouldn't listen to us.''

Webmaster's Note: The South County Truth Spot has discovered that Local 1889 president, Nick Fahs visited Jefferson City several times in relation to the below actions of the State Auditor and Attorney General. We also have information that points to the involvement of the State Council of Firefighters, who along with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF - the firefighters' AFL-CIO union) have also been involved.

State Auditor Montee and Attorney General Koster both officials received large political contributions to their campaigns from the State Council and the IAFF. Also, the State Council of Firefighters PAID for Dennis "Jaw Breaker" Skelton's unsuccessful lawsuits to stop Propositions 1 & 2 from appearing on the April 2009 ballot. We have been told that requests will be made under the Sunshine Law to identify the individuals who met with officials in Montee and Koster's offices to hatch this plot against the taxpayers of the Mehlville FPD.

Since it is the intention of the state & local firefighters' unions to destroy the MFPD and deprive it of the funding required to operate, we have a suggestion for the Board of Directors: Open a call for volunteer firefighters to replace the paid union firefighters who will have to be laid off due to lack of funding if the Attorney General prevails in court.

In Missouri, volunteer firefighters comprise the vast majority of personnel staffing fire districts across the state. Volunteers are professional and highly motivated for the simple reason that they WANT TO BE FIREFIGHTERS. Since Nick Fahs and his union cronies are starting up ANOTHER WAR that they will lose, perhaps it is time to consider a largely volunteer fire department who actually wants to SERVE instead of SUE the taxpayers who pay the princely salary and benefits to these ungrateful and malcontented public employees.

The Worst Bill Ever

NOVEMBER 1, 2009

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today.

One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

All Rights Reserved