Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Independence Institute: Newsletter

September 18, 2009

From the bastion of freedom and free markets in Golden, Colorado!

Save The Date: Can you believe it, the Independence Institute turns 25 years young this year!! So save the date and book your seats now for our 25th Annual Founders’ Night Dinner with keynote speaker P.J. O’Rourke…it’s going to be huge! That’s Thursday, November 19th at the Infinity Park International Ballroom in Glendale, CO. Details and RSVP info here. Or you can call Mary at (303) 279-6536, or email her at mary@i2i.org. Hurry, this event is filling up fast.

He’s Not My Doctor! Remember those anti-Bush bumper stickers that read, “He’s not my President”? Well, I am pleased to announce that we at the Independence Institute recently debuted our new awesomely awesome “He’s Not My Doctor” bumper stickers. If you’d like to show the world that Obama is not your doctor, email Mary MacFarlane at mary@i2i.org and send her your name, address, and primary email account, and we’ll send you a brand spanking new bumper sticker – free of charge! PS – Due to the overwhelming demand, please limit your requests to just 2 per household. Thanks!

Free Our Health Care: Our brilliant Health Care Policy Center director Linda Gorman alerted me to a couple great health care links. First, we have the Free Our Health Care Now online petition, that some 732,000-plus people have already signed. Let’s help spread the word to our elected officials that we do not want a government takeover of our health care. As much as some may want to see doctor’s offices resembling the DMV, I prefer that didn’t happen.

Second, we’ve got the Conservatives for Patient’s Rights website, which has a large amount of important links and resources.

And of course don’t forget our Patient Power Now blog, written mostly by health care policy analyst Brian Schwartz, with special guest appearances by Linda Gorman herself. Be sure to check out the John Goodman Health Policy Blog, where Linda is a featured writer.

Must Hear Podcast: Over at ivoices.org Jon Caldara sits down with Dave Kopel to discuss free speechand some of the historical limiters to speech, leading all the way to McCain-Feingold of present day. There is a new challenge to McCain-Feingold headed to the courts. How does Dave think it will turn out? Give a listen here.

Must See TV: Want to know who’s up and who’s down in Colorado’s political races? How about the ongoing efforts to close a state budget gap? Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover join host Jon Caldara for an end of summer wrap up of state polics and the budget debate. Tune in this Friday night at 8:30 pm to KBDI Channel 12; repeated the following Monday afternoon at 1:30 p.m..

Perspective: Ben DeGrow from the Education Policy Center thinks northeast Denver’s demand for more schools deserves some outside the box solutions. Check out his latest, “Stapleton School Shortage Needs Creative Thinking.”

Until next week…

Straight on

Jon Caldara

www.independenceinstitute.org

San Fran Nan is worried again?

September 17, 2009

Seems that Madame Speaker is concerned. Concerned about what? Losing her job perhaps? I seriously doubt that, but the Golden State of my birth has a notoriously fickle electorate. Even in the Bay Area at times. However, as I stated, I doubt it. What she probably does have valid fear about is quite simply what she, and those like her have done that could provoke some to resort to violence as a means of secession. Her astounding support of anti liberty legislation may only be topped by Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, and the late Ted Kennedy. I would speculate that the only reason for that would be her relative newness to Washington.

Nancy apparently wants to blame all these troubles on race and “astro turf.” Why not be honest Nancy? Why not point out your horrible record when it comes to sexism via legislated mysandry, your taxation policy votes, and yes, your rabid hate for the Bill of Rights? Then after you realize that you have been one of the most detrimental people ever to serve in office at any level we can give voice to all those that never had a chance to live because of you and your support for mass murdering profiteers…

Read on…

Pelosi worried about angry health care rhetoric

By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.

Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk. Gay rights activists and some others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.

During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.

Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.

On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.

The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.

SOURCE

More on obamacare: Questions from a wise man…

September 15, 2009

In various places around the Internet and in the Main Stream Media anyone that questions the impostor in chiefs plan to destroy health care in America as we know it are called anything but intelligent. What follows are questions presented from one of the brightest bulbs out there.

“One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation’s medical care before the August recess — for a program that would not take effect until 2013! Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years — more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election? If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don’t we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to ‘hurry up and wait’ on something that is literally a matter of life and death? If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be. Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.” –economist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Cass Sunstein: Liberal Nutcase in a position of power!

September 14, 2009

Something tells me that this elitist known as Cass Sunstein is going to become an ongoing theme here. Time will tell, but it sure looks that way. He stands for just about everything everyday Americans dislike, and he appears to hate the things that those same Americans love. Maybe I should add a new category? Czar Wars?

Sales of firearms in the United States have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008.   It’s no secret the election of Barrack Obama to the highest office in the free world caused grave concern among gun owners.

Liberals scoff at the notion that Obama would attempt to disarm the United States population.   However, this is the man who can be heard in an address to a group in San Francisco on a clandestine recording say, in reference to rural America, “…they cling to their guns and their religion.”

Perhaps Obama isn’t making any speeches about disrupting the lifestyle of rural America these days, but he’s certainly putting people in place to do it for him.    The number one candidate for that kind of hit work on sportsmen in the United States is Cass Sunstein.   Sunstein is a professor from Harvard University, who formerly worked with Obama at the University of Chicago.  He’s now tapped to become head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein’s nomination raises the hackles of sportsmen’s groups nationwide.    He’s widely known for a blatant disdain for the Second Amendment.   He’s even more passionate about animal rights, so much so, he advocates the rights of animals to be granted protected status in the nation’s courts.   More to the point, he believes animals should have the right to sue people.   He’s on the record in favor of an end to all hunting.

A few short years ago, people like Sunstein existed, but rarely were in positions of power.  They were people who took such amazingly over the top positions, but were generally regarded as freakish and weird.  Such is the danger of the Obama appointment.  If confirmed as “Regulatory Czar” to the White House, Sunstein would become the gatekeeper for White House policy for the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.   A man who’s an avowed hater of hunting and guns would be writing the fine print in the Obama Administration’s policies for how those federal agencies would create rules and restrictions.

Wondering how that affects you?

The FBI and ATF are the key agencies who deal with albeit limited regulation of firearms ownership.  There is still the Second Amendment.  However, they conduct the instant background checks and make the decision on whether you are of legal status to buy a gun—or not.

Moreover, the oversight with Department of the Interior is vast.  The agency controls millions of acres of public lands now open for hunting.  How long it will last under such leadership is a mystery.   The National Park Service falls under Interior’s purview.  Already, the Obama Administration has moved toward removing all lead bullets and fishing tackle from Park Service property.   Presently regulation covers Park Service employees only, but there’s a clear desire by higher ups to extend such restrictions to public users.

Where does this end?    Coalitions of sportsmen and conservation groups have teamed to battle Sunstein’s confirmation in the Senate.  The US Sportsman’s Alliance and National Wild Turkey Federation are leading the charge and lobbying heavily on the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to close ranks and oppose the nomination.  Those two groups are backed by a host of other organizations who convinced one Senator, Republican Johnny Isackson of Georgia, to push for a “hold” on the nomination.

The Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus is a coalition of Congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, who align themselves in defense of issues threatening hunting, fishing, trapping, shooting, and other such activities.  Sadly, the CSC’s clout appears to be withering.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a vote, over the objections of those constituency groups, to end debate of Sunstein’s nomination.    Twenty-two of the 63 Senators who voted in favor of cutting off debate were members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, including U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.   Senator Robert Byrd is not a member of the CSC, but also voted in favor of ending debate and moving the nomination forward.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of tonight’s vote, especially that so many members of the Senate claiming to be pro-sportsman voted in favor of a nominee who has expressed that recreational hunting could be banned,” stated USSA President and CEO Bud Pidgeon through a press release.  “Nonetheless, the USSA and our partners had an obligation to fight this appointment. Sportsmen all across America will clearly be able to see which senators, along with Sen. Isakson, were willing to stand up for them.”

Sunstein doesn’t have the job yet, but this week’s vote was a strong indication he’s looking more and more likely to be the man wielding power over rules governing hunting, fishing, and firearms ownership in the near future.  If confirmed, he would answer only to his boss, President Obama and not to the millions of sportsmen and women across the United States.

Still wondering why the firearms industry has been thriving while the rest of nation’s industries have been stalled amid the recession?

source

update to the story; I believe that this whack job was in fact confirmed.

Clearing up a misconception

September 14, 2009

Quote of the Day: “There are some bills we don’t need to read, we already know how we’re going to vote.” – Rep. Henry Brown

Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .

Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act

The partisans on both sides are using “reading the bill” as a sign of moral superiority. They’re jabbing each other over who’s read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.

As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!

But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?

We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don’t think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.

No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don’t have to prove they know every clause and subsection.

One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.

The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.

This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .

Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org’s RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn’t. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.

Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren’t asked to sweat the details.

The RTBA’s purpose is to force a bill’s supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they’re passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .

* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote — they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they “didn’t know that was in the bill”
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won’t have unintended consequences

We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above — at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he’s going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won’t require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.

Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell your Congressional employees to pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army grew by 22 net new members since our last report. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,802. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,148, nearly 15% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

SOURCE

How to deal with Bankers and Big Government Types

September 9, 2009

This was just to good not to share. It addresses banks, but could easily be applied to Senators and such. In fact, I’m going to be sending it to all my representatives… Enjoy!

Shown below, is an actual letter that was sent to
A bank by an 86 year old woman. The bank manager thought it
Amusing enough to have it published in the New York Times.

Dear Sir:

I am writing to thank you for bouncing my check with
Which I endeavored to pay my plumber last month.

By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have
Elapsed between his presenting the check and the arrival in
My account of the funds needed to honor it.
I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly
Deposit of my entire pension, an arrangement which, I admit,
Has been in place for only eight years. You are to be
Commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and
Also for debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the
Inconvenience caused to your bank. My thankfulness springs
From the manner in which this incident has caused me to
Rethink my errant financial ways.
I noticed that whereas I personally answer your
Telephone calls and letters, — when I try to contact you,
I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging,
Pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has
Become.

From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with
A flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan
Repayments will therefore and hereafter no longer be
Automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed
Personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank
Whom you must nominate.

Be aware that it is an offense under the Postal Act
For any other person to open such an envelope. Please find
Attached an Application Contact which I require your chosen
Employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but
In order that I know as much about him or her as your bank
Knows about me, there is no alternative. Please note that
All copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a Notary Public,
And the Mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income,
Debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by
Documented proof. In due course, at MY convenience, I will
Issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must
quote in dealings with me

I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits
But, again, I have modeled it on the number of button
Presses required of me to access my account balance on your
Phone bank service. As they say, imitation is the sincerest
Form of flattery

Let me level the playing field even further

When you call me, press buttons as
Follows:
IMMEDIATELY AFTER DIALING, PRESS THE STAR (*)
BUTTON FOR ENGLISH
#1. To make an appointment to see me
#2. To query a missing payment.
#3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there
#4. To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping
#5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
#6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home
#7. To leave a message on my computer, a password
To access my computer is required. Password will be
Communicated to you at a later date to that Authorized
Contact mentioned earlier
#8. To return to the main menu and to listen to
Options 1 through 7
#9. To make a general complaint or inquiry. The
Contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of
My automated answering service.
#10. This is a second reminder to press* for
English. While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy
Wait, uplifting music will play for the duration of the Call

Regrettably, but again following your example, I
Must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up
Of this new arrangement. May I wish you a happy, if ever so
Slightly less prosperous New Year

Your Humble Client

(Remember: This was written by an 86 year old
Woman) ‘YA JUST GOTTA LOVE ‘ US SENIORS’ !!!!!

And remember: Don’t make old ladies mad. They
Don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to set them off



Yet another Czar: obamakooks

September 9, 2009

The impostor in chief is poised to yet again place an unelected ruler to laird it over us all. True to form, this new Czar is absolutely off the wall. Here’s a new twist; to go along with all the other “write your Congressperson / Senator letter campaigns.” No more Czars, period. Got it Senator? Is that simple and clear enough to be understood?  Where the hell is the NRA on this? Nothing in my live feed on it. Sold out again..? Read on…

Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for ‘Regulatory Czar’
— Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn’t get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.

This time it’s the proposed “Regulatory Czar” who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.

His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.

For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence.  He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that “we ought to ban hunting.” And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:

I think we should go further … the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering.  It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.  (Italics are his emphasis.)

If that’s all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky.  Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.

In Sunstein’s world, animals should have just as many rights as people … and they should be able to sue humans in court!

“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property,” Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).

Well, that’s a relief … he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons!  But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.

Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip … only to find out that you’ve been subpoenaed for killing your prize.  Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!

By the way, if you’re wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won’t be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.

In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:

Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine…. [O]n the Constitution’s text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.

Hmm, what part of “shall not be infringed” does Sunstein not understand?

Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar — the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.

As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming.  In short, he could make your life hell.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.

That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.

No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks.  First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright … then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar … now, there’s an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.

It’s time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this “Regulatory Czar” would have upon firearms and hunting.

Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that “we ought to ban hunting.”  If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky.  Unfortunately, in Sunstein’s world, animals should have just as many rights as people … and they should be able to sue humans in court!

Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control.  In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says that, “Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority — 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O’Leary poll in August — who opposes licensed concealed carry.

I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein’s views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.

Sincerely,


The Larry Pratt News Hour (formerly Live Fire) is carried by the Information Radio Network on Saturdays (rebroadcasts Sundays). The show is simulcast on the web at http://irnusaradio.com/ and previous episodes are archived at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/live-fire with a number of listening formats, including podcasts, supported.

Recent guests and topics, among many others, have included:

* Jim Kouri — Police Against Socialized Medicine
* Aaron Zellman — No Guns for Negroes
* Hilmar von Campe — Former Hitler Youth on the Totalitarian Lie

obamaccomplishments

September 8, 2009

Hat tip to TexasFred for this, plus I added in some of the comments. Enjoy!

1. Offended the Queen of England. Actually, that one doesn’t bother me, the Queen is not on MY personal list of priorities. But the stupidity exhibited BY Obama was incredible.

2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. But in ALL fairness, Bush kissed the bastard.

3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega.

4. Kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek.

5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.

6. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras.

7. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no preconditions while they’re building their nuclear weapons.

8. Gave away billions to AIG also without preconditions.

9. Expanded the bailouts.

10. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian.

11. Nearly tripled our national debt.

12. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM.

13. Released information on U.S. intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors.

14. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they couldn’t take the heat.

15. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as “dangers to the nation.”

16. Ordered that the word “terrorism” no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as “man made disasters.”

17. Circled the globe to publicly apologize for America ’s world leadership.

18. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us.

19. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce.

20. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the United States.

21. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS that took down three terrorists that threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for “torturing” three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses.

22. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers. Obama *claims* he knew nothing of this and was, supposedly, outraged.

23. Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims.

24. Praised Jimmy Carter’s trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel. (Obama and Carter, closely related perhaps?)

25. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process.

26. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners thousands per year.

27. Announced nationalized health care “reform” that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t.

28. Is trying to push his socialist agenda on our school children by making direct addresses to ALL American school children. The beginning of The Obama Youth perhaps?

29. Posted the biggest nosedive in popularity since Ford (post-Nixon-pardon).

30. By-passed the constitution by appointing dozens of Czars without senate confirmation, etc.

31. He was the first President, since it’s inception during the Eisenhower admin, to snub (not attend) the MOH Inaugural Ball on on his Inauguration night.

32. The first President on Veteran’s Day to require sending families of fallen military personnel buried at Arlington away, making the yearly trek many families make in vain, all because the President was making a speech at the Tomb of the Unknowns!!!!

33. First executive order made in February… allocate close to 3 million in stimulus to help the “poor Palestinian Refugees” relocate HERE in the USA. The same Palestinians who partied in the streets celebrating 9/11 !!!!

34. Has broken the record for giving speeches to the public in the last eight months than any other POTUS before him.

35. After admitting he didn’t have the facts, implied that the Cambridge Police Department “acted stupidly” proving he was as biased as the people his campaign pointed fingers at, and that he can’t engage his brain before opening his mouth without a teleprompter.

Sotomayor takes her place on high court bench

September 8, 2009

Like this is something we should be proud of..? All the lipstick in the world will not pretty up this pig. A sexist racist that refuses to follow the Constitution that she swore to uphold ?

Read this trash puff  piece here.

Fines proposed?

September 8, 2009

So? The Democrats are not fascist? Yet, they are going to fine you for not goose stepping along their road to disaster, and helping them to destroy your own liberty?

Read on…

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 divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama‘s effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party’s liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat 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 public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional 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 ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan 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.

He said Tuesday he’s trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama’s speech. “Time is running out very quickly,” he said. “I made that very clear to the group.”

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag 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 nearly all 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.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

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.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

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.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

SOURCE