Archive for October 3rd, 2009

To Arms! To Arms! The Canucks are coming!

October 3, 2009

At least that sure appears to a major concern of the impostor in chief. Granted, in this day and age we need secure borders more then ever. Will there ever be a President with the balls to actually do it though..?

The U.S. Border Patrol, part of the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border and some sectors of coastline. Each year, the Border Patrol sets a goal for “border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors),” defined as an area in which the Border Patrol detects an illegal border crosser and can be expected to succeed in apprehending that person.

In its May performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border — less than 10 percent — under “effective control.” The goal remains the same for fiscal 2010, meaning DHS does not plan to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year. On Aug. 31, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Border Patrol. Its findings were not exactly encouraging.

For example, the Border Patrol established three performance measures to report the results of checkpoint operations, and while they provide some insight into checkpoint activity, they do not indicate if checkpoints are operating efficiently and effectively. Second, GAO found that a lack of management oversight and unclear checkpoint data-collection guidance resulted in the overstatement of checkpoint performance results in recent reports, as well as inconsistent data collection practices at checkpoints. Furthermore, individuals GAO contacted who live near checkpoints generally supported their operations but expressed concerns regarding property damage that occurs when illegal aliens and smugglers circumvent checkpoints to avoid apprehension.

Here’s the kicker: The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, with only 697 miles under “effective control,” but the Border Patrol plans to decrease the 17,399 Border Patrol agents on that border by 384 agents in Fiscal 2009. Some 414 will be added to the Canadian border for a total of 2,212. Maybe BO is concerned about the Canucks crossing the border for U.S. health care — at least until ObamaCare ruins that option.

SOURCE

Growth, Taxes, and the Economy

October 3, 2009

What follows is nothing more than what anyone learns in Economics 101. What does that tell you about the so-called leaders that we have around the nation..?

What should young adults be thinking about who they support politically?

A report just released by the Tax Foundation has given the unwelcome title of least “business-friendly” states to — no surprises here — New Jersey, New York and California. On the other end of the spectrum is South Dakota, which has the most business-friendly tax system, followed by Wyoming and Alaska. Evaluating states based on taxes that matter most to businesses — corporate income, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes — the foundation found that the blue state trio boasts “the most inhospitable [tax structures] to economic growth.” The foundation noted, “The ideal tax system … is simple, transparent, stable, neutral to business activity, and pro-growth.”

Interestingly, a study released earlier this year by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranked the same bottom three states among the five least free states in the country in terms of economic and personal freedom as measured by “state and local government intervention across a wide range of public policies.” New Hampshire, which tied for first in freedom, also came in as one of the Tax Foundation’s most business-friendly states.

Unfortunately, the most anti-business states have yet to fully grasp the connection. For example, it appeared to be news to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office when it announced this week that small business regulations have cost the state $492 billion and a whopping 3.8 million jobs, amounting to $134,122 and one job loss per small business in 2007.

So, freedom = economic growth, while burdensome government regulations = economic contraction. Coincidence? We think not.

Young voters went for Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin but they seem to be the generation hardest hit on the job front, with an unemployment rate significantly above the national 9.8 percent mark. Economists and other experts blame the increase in the minimum wage for part of the problem, yet layoffs and decreased hours among older workers have also backed up the job market. Entry-level jobs once performed by youths are being filled by adults who are punctual, polite, professional and simply grateful to have a job, even at minimum wage.

The consequences of this trend may turn out to be severe. Youths who can’t get that first opportunity may be held back economically for up to 15 years, according to a government study. This translates into slower economic growth down the road as a generation handicapped by high unemployment and jobs farther down the economic scale than their parents enjoyed at the same age attempts to scrape together funding to buy a house, a new car, or other needs and desires. Then again, as a demographic group, these young people are reaping exactly what they voted for.

“We’re putting Americans back to work doing the work that America needs done: Rebuilding roads, bridges and new schools, and all manner of construction projects across all 50 states. I’m not going to rest. I know the governors and candidates here are not going to rest, and I know that the American people are not going to rest until everybody who’s looking for work can find a job.” –The One, BO, just before the Labor Department announced another 263,000 lost jobs in September, which raised unemployment to 9.8 percent

SOURCE

Green Weenies;Climate Change This Week: World to Get Really Hot, We Swear!

October 3, 2009

It’s laughable. Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (and perhaps in an effort to remain relevant on the world scene), the UN continues to outdo itself in perpetuating global warming hysteria. According to The Washington Post, a recent report released by the UN’s Environmental Program claims Earth’s temperature will climb 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, even if nations adopt the most aggressive programs. This is even direr than the UN’s 2007 Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change. That group took home a Nobel Prize, but then again, so did Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev.

One thing about the envirofascist movement is that it’s becoming more and more transparent in its push for a “new world order,” and this latest report is just another scare tactic ahead of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen. As former Enron adviser and current New York Times “economist” Paul Krugman frets, “[C]limate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action.”

The United States has already pledged to cut emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels and the European Union by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Yet even this is not enough for the green weenies.

SOURCE

Obamacare: A Public Service Announcement

October 3, 2009

When Hollywood celebrities weren’t busy defending director Roman Polanski for raping a 13-year-old girl 30 years ago (“It wasn’t rape-rape,” Whoopi Goldberg helpfully explained), they were fighting for the government takeover of health care. Funded by MoveOn.org, comedian Will Ferrell and other wealthy Hollywood celebrities recently put together a satirical public service announcement (PSA) in which the shtick was to feign sympathy for insurance executives in order to gain support for the so-called “public option.” Of course, the celebs claim the public option already has the support of “80 percent of Americans.” Such a claim is obvious horse pucky, as we non-celebrity types say down here in Tennessee. And the actors may not have noticed, but many, if not most, insurance executives are lobbying for ObamaCare. Ferrell, who makes about $20 million per film but can’t seem to find it in his heart to buy insurance for a single family, wants you to do it by government coercion.

The PSA contained such over-the-top garbage that it was ripe for parody. A group of conservatives did just that in a spectacular frame-by-frame mocking of these Hollywonks. Examples include, “Celebrities keep us informed so we don’t have to ask silly questions,” and, “If I had a kid and he had a bike and he broke his leg, my neighbor’s kid should have to pay for it” because “how else will our children learn that they’re entitled to other people’s money?” Finally, they conclude, “Join overpaid celebrities in fighting for legislation they don’t understand. They may not be real doctors, but they play one on TV.”

SOURCE

How stupid does Max Baucus think you are..?

October 3, 2009

Siege Warfare & Health Care Reform

Smelling what they rightly sense is their own blood in the water from the public backlash against the so-called “public option,” congressional Bolsheviks (i.e., Democrats) have retreated to lick their wounds from the loss of their erstwhile health care reform centerpiece. Or have they?

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) certainly doesn’t think so. Using a tried-and-true leftist tactic — two steps forward, one step back, gaining position under the guise of “losing” ground — Baucus re-grouped by championing his health care bill, the core of which rests on mandatory health insurance and massive Medicaid spending. How massive? Weighing in at $1 trillion, the bill is threefold the total cost of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs of the ’60s.

Democrats want to cover everyone up to 33 percent above the federal poverty level (about $30,000 for a family of four), adding more than 11 million new bodies to Medicaid rosters by 2019. The total covered would be 70 million people, or roughly one-quarter of America’s population. Oh yeah: “Everyone” includes illegal aliens, or so say at least 21 House Democrats who signed a statement from the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus affirming the same. The Congressional Anglo Saxon Caucus has yet to weigh in.

As an added bonus, those not covered under Medicaid must purchase health insurance (the so-called “individual mandate”) or face fines up to $25,000 and/or one year in prison for tax evasion. You may recall the “individual mandate” as the “not-really-a-tax” tax (an IRS “excise tax,” to be precise), which President Barack Obama lamely defended last week when confronted by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos with his promise not to raise taxes on middle class families “by a single penny.” At $1,900 per person for the tax-that’s-not-a-tax, and not withstanding his creative wordsmithing, Obama would be into most Americans for a couple hundred thousand pennies’ worth of broken promises.

However, since entitlements are leading the charge toward national bankruptcy with the lion’s share of the nation’s $12 trillion debt and $100 plus trillion in existing un-funded liabilities, isn’t it required of citizens to ask whether more entitlement spending is warranted when we can’t even fund existing programs? This question is even more relevant at the state level, where all but two states face either substantial or severe shortfalls. Notably, Medicaid is on average the second largest element of state budgets, trailing only slightly behind K-12 education.

Let’s also not miss the salient lesson from this sordid vignette: The fight for freedom is a constant struggle against siege warfare. In this case, under the guise of health care “reform,” statists would redistribute wealth while accruing power to the government, and if they can’t accomplish their goal one way (the “public option”), they will do it another (Medicaid with the “individual mandate”). The only way to counter this constant siege against liberty is to remain vigilant and vocal against these Trojan horse ruses.

As if to punctuate this lesson, Sens. John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both promised to raise amendments to the Baucus bill adding — you guessed it — the “public option.”

SOURCE

How Much Will The Anti-gun ObamaCare Bill Cost?‏

October 3, 2009

Senator Baucus Thinks You’re Too Dumb to Understand Legislation
— Don’t let your two U.S. Senators go along with his arrogance

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org


Friday, October 2, 2009

It didn’t seem like such an unreasonable request.  Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest anti-gun ObamaCare bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a “quickie guesstimate” of the cost — a “guesstimate” which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That’s right.  The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill — the most important in our lifetime — AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn’t we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill?  Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks — and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don’t you realize that “legislative language is very complex” and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well?  And what about the CBO?  Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It’s time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.

ACTION:  Call your two U.S. Senators.  Ask them to oppose any ObamaCare legislation — at least until we have two things:

1. The actual legislative language.

2. A definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on what’s in the bill.

You can call your two Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

You can also use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to resist considering any health care bill from the Senate Finance Committee until we have at least two things:

* First, the actual legislative language.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the legislation, based on legislative language.

It has been reported that, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a “quickie guesstimate” of the cost — a “guesstimate” which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

It is unfathomable to me that the committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill — the most important in our lifetime — AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Contrary to Senator Baucus’ assumptions, the American people are not too stupid to understand legislation which will affect whether they live or die.

Neither are the members of the committee nor the CBO.

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

Please vote against the legislation under these circumstances.

Sincerely,


—————————–

Olofson Update

You may recall that Gun Owners Foundation is taking David Olofson’s case to the Supreme Court.  Olofson was railroaded by the federal government.  The feds claim that when David loaned a friend a semi-auto AR-15 that malfunctioned at the range, he was guilty of illegally transfering a machine gun.  A major step on the road to the Supreme Court has now been taken, as GOF has filed its Petition for Certiorari.  You can read that document at: http://gunowners.com/Olofson-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf