Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

The Next Bailout

September 5, 2009

The Wall Street Journal reports on yet another government bailout at taxpayer expense. It seems that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is burning through its reserves. In the last year the FDIC has paid out in excess of $34.8 billion. Additionally, the FDIC’s list of troubled banks has increased from 305 to 416, even as it has closed 84 since the beginning of this year. The true scope of the problem is unfathomable. Now the FDIC is letting Congress and the nation’s bankers know that they may need more cash from either increased insurance premiums, special assessments or perhaps even the Treasury itself.

Deposit insurance premiums are (supposed to be) risk based. The CAMEL ratings (for risk factors Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management competence, Earnings and Liquidity) are between one (best) and five (worst) and averaged for a composite value. But don’t ask your local banker his CAMEL rating because he can’t tell you — it’s a secret. That is one component of the moral hazard that accompanies deposit insurance. With a bank’s level of safety and soundness concealed, depositors must base their decisions only upon expected rate of return.

In a supposed attempt to keep the insurance fund solvent, FDIC hit the nation’s banks with a special assessment in the fourth quarter of 2008, causing a further depletion of capital from the banking system as a whole and forcing even more marginal banks into the red. Banking trade associations have been advising their members to expect a similar special assessment in 4Q2009. These increased expenses reduce the net income of individual banks, thus further straining their ability to retain earnings to improve their capital adequacy. To control cost and preserve earnings, bankers are giving deposit rates hard scrutiny. Couple this with FDIC’s quiet request to Congress for the authority to borrow up to $500 billion from the U.S. Treasury (five times its regular borrowing limit,) and one can see taxpayers squeezed, on the one hand, by lower interest rates on savings and, on the other hand, higher taxes to service increased federal debt.

Bottom line is that deposit insurance is not free, and as with all insurance, there are inherent risks. After a 15-year expansion in the U.S. economy (1992-2007) with banks being encouraged (or, perhaps more accurately, extorted) to engage in increasingly risky loans, (sub-prime mortgages, community re-development and re-investment) the current economic contraction has exposed bankers to increased risk, which may ultimately be borne by the taxpayer.

SOURCE

I2I newsletter

August 27, 2009

Jon Caldara at the Independence Institute brings us this newsletter. Commie’s cry, go ahead, it’s alright to whine…

Benefits of the H1N1 “swine” flu scare – Dave Kopel is wearing one of those surgical masks around the office.  The women here are saying the place never looked better.

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.

Does Obama care violate the constitution? That’s the question posed by Independence Institute Senior Fellow and constitutional law expert Rob Natelson (and the answer appears to be a big, fat yes). Guest blogging over at The Cauldron, Rob lays out what he calls “profound” constitutional difficulties with “empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.”

Not only does Rob find constitutional issues with a federal takeover of health care from an “Originalist” perspective but also points out several glaring issues in the context of modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Meet the “Second most hated woman in America” (or so says Sean Hannity): Come to our personal legislative briefing with Minnessota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Join us for an update on all the latest national issues — health care, cap and trade, stimulus and more — on Monday, August 31. RSVP online here.

Sexism run amok: Can you believe September 9th will be our 10th Independent Women’s Lunch?! I can’t believe I’ve let the women have this much fun without us. This time the keynote speaker is Lisa Schomp, CEO/President of Ralph Schomp Automotive. RSVP required!

Light rail losing its luster with the media? I recently saw a pig fly by my window and I think it had something to do with this Denver Post piece by editorial board member Chuck Plunkett. In an op-ed titled “Prius effect: Energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail,” Chuck cites, and even agrees with some of the work of the Independence Institute’s own Randal O’Toole from the Center for the American Dream.

Money quote from the piece, “Light rail–useful from the gritty aired 1970s to not so long ago, when cars drank gasoline like frat boys drink beer–is now obsolete, and a transportation option that our environment can no longer afford.”

R.I.P. Rose Friedman: The wife of one of the greatest economists the world has ever known died last Tuesday of heart failure. Rose Friedman, who happens to be a damn good economist in her own right, was believed to have been 98 years young. I’ll never forget the day that I met both Rose and Milton Friedman. I was walking into an elevator as they were walking out. The elevator doors opened and I couldn’t help but blurt out, “Has anyone ever told you that you guys look just like Rose and Milton Friedman?!” To which they replied, “Well, that’s because we are!” And so we went an ate breakfast together. It was one of the best experiences of my life. I mean, it’s on the same level for me as getting to hang out Pete Townshend. It doesn’t get much better than that. Rest in peace, Rose, you and Milton will truly be missed.

In honor of both Rose and Milton, I urge you to watch the series Free to Choose, available in its entirety here.

Must See TV: What’s the state of property rights in Boulder County? Land use attorney Bob Hoban and Gary Zimmermand of the No Trail Alliance join guest host Jessica Corry on Independent Thinking to discuss the taking of private property in Boulder County to build a nature trail. Tune in this Friday night at 8:30 pm to KBDI Channel 12; repeated the following Tuesday evening at 5 p.m.

Perspective: Ex-Independence Institute mintern (minion/intern) Todd Hollenbeck reminds us all of the desperate and shrill tactics opponents of TABOR used to try and scare Colorado voters into saying no to TABOR in 1992. You will probably be hearing some of the same half-truths and outright lies about TABOR soon enough, so check out Todd’s piece, “Your tax dollars: Will they say anything to get them?”

Until next week…

Straight on

Jon Caldara

Legal Tender: IRS Thuggery

August 27, 2009

Seems that the good folks that brought you the thuggery at the BATFE are onto another method of suppressing liberty and freedom. They cannot follow their own rule of law so they go after American’s to vent their anger and frustration. Downsize D.C. exposes this latest outrage from the people that brought you Ruby Ridge, and the Waco holocaust. Read on…

Quote of the Day: The government called three accountants to testify. The defense asked each one, “What is the proper way to calculate income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code if you are paid in a gold coin that has a $50 face value on it?” All three of them responded, “I do not know; I’ll have to research that.” — Mike Zigler, reporting on the 2007 case against Robert Kahre that ended in a hung jury

Subject: How can legal tender be illegal?

Robert Kahre is facing up to 296 years in prison. His crime? He hired workers on mutually-agreed terms, and paid them in gold and silver dollars rather than in Federal Reserve dollars.

First, some background . . .

* The face value of the U.S. Mint’s gold and silver coins are legal tender, meaning they must be accepted in payment of debt
* But a Gold Eagle coin that has “$50” printed on it is legal tender only up to $50, while its gold content is worth about $1,000 in Federal Reserve notes
* No law or IRS regulation requires that receivers of Gold Eagles and other U.S. Mint coins must report the market value of the coins instead of the legal tender value

After extensively researching the issue, Kahre . . .

* hired workers as independent contractors, so he would not pay the payroll tax for their labor
* paid them in gold and silver coins, whose face value – that is, legal tender value – was so low that the workers legally didn’t have to report it as income to the IRS

For instance, if a worker was annually paid in gold coins with a legal tender face value of $2,000, the market value of the gold content in those coins could be $40,000, but only the legal tender face value of $2,000 would theoretically count as taxable income. That face value of $2,000 is low enough to be non-reportable to the IRS. But . . .

Even though the coins Kahre used were legal tender, the Justice Department alleged that Kahre’s system was a fraudulent, tax-evading scam.

We agree with Jacob Hornberger who asserts that the federal government’s prosecution of Kahre is self-contradictory . . .

* if you owe $100 in taxes and pay with gold coins with face values totalling $100, the IRS will accept the payment as $100; it could then sell the coins on the market for twenty times that amount and keep the difference. The government will accept your payment as “legal tender.”
* but if YOU receive gold coins from someone else in a private transaction, the IRS says you must report the market value of the coins, not the face value. That is, YOU CANNOT TREAT THE COINS AS LEGAL TENDER.

The government fears that if more people took the law at its word and behaved like Kahre . . .

* people would demand payment in the Mint’s gold and silver coins and have far fewer reportable “dollars” in income, meaning fewer people would pay income taxes
* the market would soon prefer the coins produced by the Treasury Department’s Mint that are regulated by law – not the inflated dollars created by order of the independent Federal Reserve Board
* good money (gold and silver) would drive out the bad (paper Federal Reserve Notes and electronic keyboard strokes), whereas the federal government needs inflated, deficit-driven money to pay for its endless wars, failed welfare schemes, and expanding police state

No wonder the government views Kahre as a threat, and is willing to made a mockery of its own legal tender laws to destroy him!

DownsizeDC.org, however, believes Kahre was on to something. That’s why we endorse the “Honest Money Act,” which would repeal the legal tender law that gives the Federal Reserve a monopoly over the money supply. This bill, along with the “Tax-Free Gold Act” and the “Free Competition in Currency Act,” is a plank in our End the Inflation Tax Campaign.

Repealing the legal tender law would foster the creation of HONEST free market money, and protect people from the Federal Reserve’s endless onslaught of legalized counterfeiting, which constantly reduces the value of your money.

Tell Congress to pass the bills in our End the Inflation Tax Campaign.

Use your personal comments to mention the hypocrisy involved in the Kahre case. If the feds are going to make it a crime to FOLLOW the legal tender law, then that’s just one more argument for repealing it. You can send your message here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
Normally published 3 – 6 times per week.

CONTRIBUTE in support of the “Educate the Powerful System”

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.  Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200

Incorporation: Beast or Blessing?

August 25, 2009

Incorporation used in this context will apply to legal terminology.

First, I suppose that I will need to go pee in the various swelled headed Lawyers morning bowl of oatmeal. I believe that you simply do not have to be a Lawyer in order to understand the difference between what is right and wrong. Moral, or immoral. Lawyers write really neat briefs and such. However, as I pointed out to a Jury once. They are disconnected all to often with reality.

Now, on to the point that I intend to make. The Supreme Court, and in all the downstream Courts there is a hierarchy. The Supreme Court of the United States is above, or has authority over the Courts of Appeals, which have authority over United State District Courts, which can over rule State Courts, and so on down the line. My terminology may be a bit off here, but, after all I’m not in the business of Law. I am a retired Paramedic, and the son of a dead Marine. So, if any corrections are needed as to the chain of command I will accept them.

The point here is that within the legal community there are big dogs, and then there are bigger dogs, and so on. I was taught that Law operates in the same manner. As in, there is the highest Law in the land the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. All this is pretty logical so far. There is indeed a clear cut chain of command. Not to tough for a kid that attended High Schools in Southern California to understand. Or anywhere else as far as that goes.

However, it seems that some people just can’t figure out that simple principle. Those people are called Lawyers, or at least that is how it appears. No, not all Lawyers. Some actually can think like normal people do. Others though, simply can’t understand normal thinking as an old Scot saying goes…

So now, as a result of illogical and quite possibly immoral action we the American people are about to be Lorded over yet again by a bunch of blithering nincompoops that probably should be tarred and feathered! Oh, I forgot, that they had that made “illegal” so that they can’t be held accountable…

Read on folks, and warm up some tar as you send you children off to the barn for Great grandma’s old feather bed.

A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that’s a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms” restricts only the federal government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as “incorporation.” If the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County’s fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but “a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.

A few other items:

California Update: I wrote an article three months ago about a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation saying routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Oral arguments on a preliminary motion in that case are scheduled for the same day — September 24 — at 2 p.m. in Sacramento.

In a brief filed on Monday, Sacramento (one of the counties sued) says it wants more time to question the gun owners who filed the case to verify that they’re in a position to sue. “Defendants seek to depose the individual plaintiffs on these issues to determine the basis of their alleged ‘undisputed facts,’ what process each plaintiff has engaged in to the end of obtaining a carry concealed permit in Sacramento County,” it says.

Some Guns Are More Equal Than Others: Nobody has been hurt by the protesters who have legally carried guns to events where the president has been speaking, and I know of no evidence that they were even close enough to see the man.

Nevertheless, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting Democratic rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, wants mandatory “gun-free zones around the president, his cabinet and other top federal officials,” according to a report by the local Fox affiliate. Similarly, the Brady Campaign told CBS News that guns have no place at such an event.

It’s Official: Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation for being awarded non-profit status by the IRS. Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, told me on Monday evening that the group is now officially a 501(c)(3) non-profit; previously, the non-profit status had been pending.

Montana Update: You may remember that a Montana state law seeks to challenge the federal government on the manufacture and sale of guns made entirely within the state. It takes effect on October 1. As soon that happens, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association president Gary Marbut, gun-rights types will have a lawsuit ready to file to prevent federal prosecution of local would-be gunsmiths.

“We have some strong arguments to make, including some that have never been argued before about the (U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, as far as I know,” Marbut told me on Monday.

Paging The Ninth Circuit: I just noticed yet another case in which a judge has declined to extend the Second Amendment to state or local laws. The case is called Slough v. Telb and arose out of a gun seizure in Ohio.

U.S. District Judge David Katz ruled on August 14: “The United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states by incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in other circuits have held that Second Amendment rights are not enforceable against the states under (civil rights laws). As the weight of authority holds that the individual right to bear arms may not be enforceable against the states, the constitutional right to do so is anything but clearly established.”


Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Glade Park Deer and Elk Meetings‏

August 18, 2009

Obama isn’t the only thing going on in Grand Junction!

GLADE PARK DEER AND ELK MEETINGS


GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. – The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) is interested in hearing from the public about management of big game herds in and around Glade Park. Public input is critical in helping revise herd management plans, called Data Analysis Unit or DAU plans. DAU plans establish herd population objectives and set goals for male-female ratios within populations.

Interested members of the public are invited to attend a DAU planning meeting for deer and elk in Game Management Unit 40. In order to maximize the public’s opportunity to comment, these meetings will be held at the following times and locations:

Wednesday, Aug. 19, Mesa County Fairgrounds, Sagebrush Room, 6:30 p.m.
Thursday, Aug. 20, Glade Park Community Bldg., 6:30 p.m.

Deer DAU D-18 and Elk DAU E-19 cover the Glade Park herds, which occupy the area east of the Utah state line, south of the Colorado River and north and west of Highway 141. The area includes Glade Park, the McInnis Canyons NCA, the Colorado National Monument and the west side of Unaweep Canyon. The DAU plans will guide management in Game Management Unit 40, which is known for producing quality buck and bull hunting opportunities.

“Herd size is a function of biology, but it is also a function of what the public desires for a population,” added Ron Velarde, regional manager for northwest Colorado. “While the DOW is well-suited to make biological decisions, we need public input to determine if larger or smaller herds would be acceptable.”

Sportsmen, outfitters, business owners and landowners all have a vested interest in the big game populations in an area. Sportsmen may want larger herds for increased hunting opportunity or male-female ratios that create bigger bucks but less hunting opportunity. Outfitters and hunting-tourism dependent businesses like hotels and restaurants may want increased hunting opportunity that brings more hunters to an area. Landowners may want decreased herd sizes to limit damage to crops and fences. Large landowners may also want herd gender ratios that promote bigger bucks and result in more desirable private land licenses.

DAU plans are based on wildlife management principles and public input and are revised approximately every 10 years. To aid the public in discussion, several management alternatives will be presented at the public meetings. The alternatives cover increasing or decreasing overall herd size and male-female ratios or leaving the populations and gender ratios at their current levels. The benefits and drawbacks to each alternative will be presented.

###

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

‘I’m as Mad as Hell, and I’m Not Gonna Take This Anymore!’

August 15, 2009

The issues of the day,as usual, just refuse to go away…

‘I’m as Mad as Hell, and I’m Not Gonna Take This Anymore!’

That famous line from the 1976 movie “Network” sums up the sentiment of many Americans as the health care debate continued to roar across the fruited plain. More town hall meetings featured citizens angry over proposed government expansion, leaving many congressmen not knowing quite how to handle the reaction. It’s clear that many Americans have simply had enough.

That doesn’t mean that Democrats were convinced to abandon their nefarious scheme. Instead, when their own constituents dared to question the infinite wisdom of the carriers of Potomac Fever, Democrat regulars put into practice the words of Obama administration lackey Jim Messina: “If [we] get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.” In other words, don’t worry about winning the debate; just try to discredit the opposition.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her left-hand man, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), started with an op-ed in USA Today declaring, “These [town hall meeting] disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.” This type of “thinking” — the transfer of one’s own emotions or practices onto others — is called projection. The Left has long since perfected the art of “drowning out” both opposing views and the facts, while blaming Republicans for doing the same thing.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) put out a call to action: “Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at … several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.” The SEIU has since removed the words “drown out,” but the message is clear — silence the opposition.

Last week, the administration encouraged Americans who support “reform” to rat on those who are spreading “fishy misinformation,” while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) denounced the administration’s opponents as shills of the insurance companies. This week, the Left is painting town hall protestors as racists. “I think 45 to 65 percent of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president,” said Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. MSNBC’s Carlos Watson worried that “the word socialist … is becoming the new N-word.” And Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein called them “political terrorists” who are “poisoning the political well” and “willing to say or do anything to prevent” ObamaCare.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) added, “[T]he last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.” How convenient, then, that one of his supporters showed up at a meeting with an Obama-as-Hitler sign to “illustrate” the opposition’s “hate.”

Similar signs were made by LaRouche PAC, an organization run by long-time Socialist Workers Party member and seven-time Democrat presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Rep. David Scott (D-GA) had a swastika painted on his office sign after a heated exchange at a meeting. Talk about “fishy.” What are the odds that the swastika wasn’t painted by an opponent? Pretty good, given the Left’s history of perpetrating similar hoaxes. Not that comparisons with the National Socialists of Germany aren’t appropriate — we made one last week — and the Left certainly has done its best to invite the unflattering comparison. After all, it was Pelosi herself who first introduced the word “swastika” to the debate.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so confident in the health care bill that he will conduct town hall meetings only by phone. And Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) had such esteem for her constituents that she talked to someone else on her cell phone while questions were being asked by meeting participants.

In the end, while Sen. Benedict Arlen Specter dismisses protestors as not “representative of America,” here in our humble shop, we suspect that this horde of hysterical hypocrites is in fact not representative of America.

OBAMA LIED!!!

“I have not said that I was a ‘single-payer’ supporter.” –President Barack Obama at a town hall meeting this week

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.” –Obama in 2003

OBAMA LIED!!! Part II

“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. … AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?” –Barack Obama

Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

This Week’s ‘Braying Jackass’ Award

“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” –Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won’t force private insurance out of business

So let’s see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

The ‘Death Panel’

Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, the health care bill, would give financial incentives to doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years. Yet federal law prohibits Medicare from reimbursing for services “the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing,” suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. So why the ruckus over the section? Washington Post columnist Charles Lane explains, “Section 1233 … addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they’re just trying to facilitate choice — even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”

The consultations are not mandatory, but the financial incentive for doctors makes them not entirely voluntary, either. To some extent, Section 1233 also prescribes the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss such things as “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to,” “living wills and durable powers of attorney,” and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” Asks Lane, “Who belongs on ‘a list’ of helpful ‘resources’? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?”

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin warned of a “death panel” and she may be on to something. As Barack Obama himself enlightened, toward the end of life, tough decisions have to be made, and the government can help: “At least we can let doctors know and [the patient] know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.” Somehow, that’s not comforting. When Obama says “we,” he almost always means “the government.” The government telling the doctor and patient that the painkiller is better than the surgery sure sounds like a death panel to us.

Rush Limbaugh relayed the story of an Oregon woman who was denied a lifesaving medication for her cancer by OregonCare. The state did, however, in the same communication, assure her that it would pay to facilitate her death.

Furthermore, Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wrote, “When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.” Perhaps decided by a panel?

Due to the negative publicity, the Senate Finance Committee announced Thursday that the end-of-life consultation provision will be removed from its version of the bill, but if there is any doubt as to liberals’ intention to introduce socialized medicine to America with all of its ugly consequences, Ronald Reagan put those doubts to rest in one particular radio broadcast.

“The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for ‘death panels’ that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. (Laughter.)” —New York Times transcript, including the crowd’s reaction, of Barack Obama yukking it up about the “death panels”

“President Obama is attempting to transmogrify America’s entire medical system. It is literally a matter of life and death. If Obama and his supporters find mirth in the thought of ‘pulling the plug on grandma,’ do you trust them anywhere near your health care?” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

SOURCE

The Rage continues: obamacare, it’s only the beginning

August 15, 2009

Outrage continues over the various pogroms being instituted by the current administration. The claim that these people that just are not going to put up with the seemingly never ending destruction of life as we know it are mere puppets with strings being pulled by nefarious others just refuses to cease. Nor does the rhetoric centered around so called “dialogue” have any effect. The simple truth being that talking to the various Lairds already failed, and now that those same people are being forced to listen it is somehow un-American not to allow them to continue controlling the “debate.”

I hate to tell these elected representatives, but they work for us. They are there to give voice to our wants not for the purpose of political correctness or to gain the acceptance of those that are entrenched in the halls of power. Are there those that have other ideas about how the nation should proceed? Certainly, and the war of ideas is alive and well. However, when only one side is listened to or acted on? There will be trouble. All the charismatic leaders in the world will not change that simple fact, and it doesn’t matter whether it is in America or wherever.

Figure it out. It’s really not all that difficult. Stay away from our guns; stay away from our sons and daughters birthrights, and for the love of God, figure out that we are Taxed Enough Already. It’s called philosophical libertarianism. Remember that? Personal responsibility, accountability, and dealing with others as you would yourself be dealt with? Where governments only duty is that of protecting the rights of the individuals that it presides over? Oh, and don’t forget about that pesky thing called The Bill of Rights. It was placed there for the sole purpose of protecting minorities from the mob rule known as democracy.

Town Halls and Obamacare

August 13, 2009

From The Patriot Post, of course!

Wednesday Chronicle
August 12, 2009
Vol. 09 No. 32

THE FOUNDATION

“Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.” –Thomas Jefferson

The pinkos are coming — with health “care”

EDITORIAL EXEGESIS

“Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care ‘reform’ on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn’t healthy for the republic. Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he ‘fixes’ health care. ‘I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking,’ the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. ‘I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.’ So much for the promises of bipartisan lawmaking. So much for open discussion. So much for understanding who really caused the ‘mess’ in the first place. Like Al Gore claiming the debate about global warming is over, the White House simply wants to shut down dialogue over who controls more than one-seventh of the economy. … Truth is, there’s nothing more American than revolting against heavy-handed authority, be it a long train of abuses from a king or the lawmaking of elected officials with strong authoritarian urges. This is a nation founded on independence, and there is a large portion of it that wants to retain that priceless heritage. This seems to confuse some lawmakers. … Voters’ deep anger is justifiable. They have every right to disrupt and shout down public figures who, as the protesters can be heard chanting, work for them. At dispute is not a mere difference of opinion that can and should be discussed in a civil manner, but a fundamental question of who is in charge of peoples’ lives. We are not advocating violence, though coercive government is at its core violent as the state is required to resort to force to ensure that its directives aren’t violated. But we do support our fellow citizens’ right to express their rage at an injustice, particularly if it makes lawmakers uncomfortable. Shouldn’t Americans bristle when their independence is threatened, when a federal official, in this case White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, says party leaders ‘will punch back twice as hard’ when voters merely show their displeasure? The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care.” —Investors’ Business Daily

UPRIGHT

“The health debate, which now has moved beyond the Beltway and into raucous town halls across the land, is so intense in part because it’s not really about health care at all. On a deeper level, it’s about the role of government in America’s economy. And that is a raw and unresolved topic, only made more so by months of exceptional government intervention amid a deep recession.” –columnist Gerald Seib

“Today’s ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity — employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions — with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs. This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That’s why the administration can’t sell Obamacare.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

“Ever since Congress created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health politics has followed a simple logic: Expand benefits and talk about controlling costs. That’s the status quo, and Obama faithfully adheres to it. While denouncing skyrocketing health spending, he would increase it by extending government health insurance to millions more Americans.” –columnist Robert Samuelson

“[Barack] Obama seems to think the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind enough to agree to be our president.” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

INSIGHT

“The history of the race, and each individual’s experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.” –American author and humorist Mark Twain (1835-1910)

“If falsehood, like truth, had but one face, we would be more on equal terms. For we would consider the contrary of what the liar said to be certain. But the opposite of truth has a hundred thousand faces and an infinite field.” –French writer Michel Eyquem De Montaigne (1533-1592)

“Men hate those to whom they have to lie.” –French author Victor Hugo (1802-1885)

DEZINFORMATSIA

When right-wing extremists attack: “If you thought the health care debate was heated in Washington, outside the Beltway it’s gotten downright hostile. From Tampa, Florida, to Austin, Texas, to Romulus, Michigan, town hall meetings over health care have turned chaotic; death threats against members of Congress, taunting and shouting, even fistfights. Democrats claim it’s all political theater organized by reform opponents.” –NBC’s David Gregory

Nothing like hyperbole: “The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.” –Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein

Race bait: “I think 45 to 65 percent of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.” –Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker

“[W]hat concerns me is when in some of those town hall meetings including the one that we saw in Missouri recently where there were jokes made about lynching, etc., you start to wonder whether in fact the word socialist is becoming a code word, whether or not ‘socialist’ is becoming the new N-word.” –MSNBC’s Carlos Watson

Stupid white people: “Angry old white folks are storming into town halls all across the country spewing lies about health care reform. Let me set the record straight early on: These folks [are] dumber than Joe the Plumber.” –MSNBC’s Ed Schultz

Democrats are usually so innocent: “The nation’s drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall…. The White House and allies in Congress are well aware of the effort by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the industry’s recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats’ disdain for special interests.” –Associated Press writer David Espo (Democrats are the Party of special interests — unions, trial lawyers, homosexual activists, environmentalists, etc., ad nauseum.)

ObamaCare in Action?: “Thousands of Clunkers Line Up to Be Poisoned and Killed” –Detroit News

Aren’t There Cheaper Ways to Hurt a Region?: “Obama Ventures Back to Hurting Region — With Money” –Associated Press

Who Ya Gonna Call? Ghostbusters!: “Specter Holds Lebanon Town Meeting” –WGAL-TV Web site (Lancaster, PA)

Talk About Packing the Court!: “Sotomayor Sworn In as 111th Justice” –National Law Journal

What Kind of Sicko Hates Ice Cream?: “3 Charged With Hate Crime in Ice Cream Truck Attack” –Houston Chronicle

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: “Senator Franken, at Center Stage, Presides Over Sotomayor Vote” –FoxNews.com

News You Can Use: “Whisky: A Cure for Swine Flu, and So Much More” –Daily Telegraph (London)

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Obama May Abandon Bipartisanship on Health-Care Plan” –Bloomberg

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

SOURCE

Rosen: No “right” to health care

August 13, 2009

More discussion on the health care debate. Well reasoned, and logical. Unlike most of what I have read across wordpress, and other blog websites.

SOURCE

No, 47 million Americans are not permanently unable to obtain health insurance. This oft-cited, sensationalized statistic is a snapshot at any point in time, something akin to saying 50 million Americans may have a head cold at any point in time but soon get over it.

The Census Bureau reports that in 2007, more than 250 million Americans (85 percent of the population) had either private insurance or were enrolled in a government health program such as Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP. The uninsured include those between jobs, students just out of school and millions of foreign-born, many of whom are here illegally. The average family that loses its health insurance is reinsured within six months; 75 percent are reinsured within a year. The largest group of longer-term uninsured is younger people who are healthy and can afford insurance but choose to gamble.

The serious problems are confined to about 15 million people, less than 5 percent of the population, who can’t afford insurance or are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. These problems are manageable within our existing health care system rather than spending trillions on Obamacare to create a bureaucratic nightmare.

Health care is not a fundamental “right” in our society. The unalienable rights cited in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty and the “pursuit” (not the delivery) of happiness. The Preamble to the Constitution speaks of “promoting” the general welfare, not providing it. The Bill of Rights delineates a series of fundamental rights that individuals possess, by nature, and that government shall not infringe. Free health care is not one of them. If it were, it could only be delivered to one person by forcing another to provide it. And that would be a violation of the provider’s individual rights. When you exercise your right of free speech, religious worship or assembly, it imposes no obligation on anyone else.

If someone is indigent, we don’t let him die on the sidewalk outside a hospital. We treat that person, as we should. We’ll even send an ambulance to get him. But whether the money to pay for this comes from taxpayers, private benefactors or by shifting the cost to other patients, it’s still charity. Health care isn’t a right. Neither are food stamps, housing subsidies or welfare. They’re all charity. When the government refers to these benefits as “entitlements,” it’s because the recipients are granted them by statute, not as rights.

Food, clothing, shelter and health care are essential to maintain life, but individual Americans enjoy different levels in the quality of all those things in our market economy based on their ability to purchase them. This strikes some people as unfair, by the socialist definition of that term. Is it fair that people with more money can afford better homes, better cars, buy more expensive clothes and eat at more expensive restaurants? Is it fair that a rich man can afford the best lawyers in the country while an indigent defendant gets only a court-appointed public defender?

Of course it is, because individuals have earned those benefits, and because there’s no practical alternative. Distributing homes, cars, lawyers or health care via a random lottery isn’t practical; it’s socialism. And socialism is doomed to failure because it lacks incentives and rewards for individual productivity and excellence. In the absence of that, it ultimately collapses when it runs out of the means to spend other people’s money.

The same reasoning applies to health care. “Universal care,” as President Barack Obama envisions it, would throw everyone in the same pit. We’d all become charity cases. Demand for medical care would soar, and supply would unavoidably be rationed. We’d sacrifice the world’s highest quality health care system for the great majority of Americans to a socialist model that will improve the lot of a few at the expense of the many. Very bad idea.

Mike Rosen’s radio show airs week- days from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.

New anti-gun strategy: Demonize CCW holders

August 12, 2009

The Examiners are turning out to be a very decent group. Even the ones that I don’t agree with. Now, if they would just let me have a general outdoors column… In any case, this reminds me a lot of a blogger that used to hang out at The Liberty News Forum. He is well stated, and backs up what he says.

SOURCE

Bigotry assumes many forms, hides behind many facades, but always it is the same; the social demonization of entire groups, classes or races of people in an effort to make them appear inferior and detrimental by their very existence.

In the wake of a nasty multiple shooting at a Pittsburgh, PA-area fitness club by a not-so-clearly psychotic man identified as George Sodini, America’s gun prohibitionists – led by the Violence Policy Center and Freedom States Alliance – are clamoring for restrictions or repeal of concealed carry statutes.
In the case against legally-armed citizens, the VPC has even manufactured an innuendo-riddled “study” to support their prejudices. My colleague, Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White, writes about the shooting here.
Their hardly subliminal argument appears to be that citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns for personal protection are a threat to the community. This contention is based on six shooting incidents over the past couple of years in which the gunman had, or apparently had, a carry permit.

A 39-year-old Ypsilanti man used his concealed weapon and his experience in the Lebanese army to stop an alleged bank robber.

Meanwhile, proponents of public disarmament haven’t said a thing about the estimated five million other citizens who are licensed to carry, and haven’t harmed anybody. There hasn’t been a peep from the gun prohibition lobby about the armed citizen who shot a convenience store robber in Virginia recently, heading off a bloodbath.
Nor have the gun grabbers mentioned the incident a week ago in Topeka, KS in which a legally-armed store clerk fended off two robbers at closing time. Self-defense Examiner Eric Puryear wrote about that incident here.
And you never heard applause from the hoplophobes – about whom I wrote the other day – after an Ypsilanti, MI man named Nabil Fawzi last year intervened in a bank robbery, did you?
An employee with a concealed carry license used his handgun to defend himself and stop a pair of criminals who tried to rob his shop.
Instead, what we get from the gun prohibitionists is a steady diet of fear mongering with but one purpose: The stripping of a fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms so that we lose our ability to exercise that most basic of human rights, that of self-preservation.
Nowadays, about the only form of acceptable overt social bigotry is against gun owners. The gun bigots argue that when one person with a gun does something heinous, all gun owners are expected to bear responsibility, and surrender their rights as though it would undo the crime.
Before the armed citizen, it was the owners of .50-caliber rifles who were likened to terrorists and cop-killers. Next week or next month, who will the prohibitionists smear in their effort to promote public hatred of fellow citizens whose only “crime” is that they exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right?
The VPC and Freedom States crowd would have us all believe that every armed citizen is just like George Sodini, and that he is like all of us; a killer waiting to strike.
While they are loathe to admit it, there is really no difference between gun bigots and racial or religious bigots. One form of class hatred is no less divisive than another.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
David Codrea
Ed Stone
Paul Valone
Howard Nemerov
Dan Bidstrup
Daniel White
Don Gwinn
Kurt Hofmann
John Longenecker
Ron Bokleman
John Pierce
Candace Dainty
Gene German
Mike Stollenwerk
And don’t forget to visit these forums:
GunVoter.org
TheHighRoad.us
OpenCarry.org
More About: gunrights · Crime · Gun Control · Second Amendment · Self-Defense · Supreme Court · Personal Protection · D.C. · Constitution · Liberty · Gun safety · Open Carry · National concealed carry · Gun bans · Homicide data · Hoplophobia
ShareThis