Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Playing the Race Card: militia groups on the rise

August 15, 2009

As reported here earlier militia groups never went away. They just started playing the game a little smarter.

“Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends,” the Associated Press reports. The story is headlined, “Officials see rise in militia groups across US,” but the “officials” turn out to be just those researchers for the far-left race-baiting Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.” Oh, and there’s the one guy from the ATF, whose lone quote about the growing movement is, “All it’s lacking is a spark.” Like the one at Waco?

The CBS Early Show joined in the fun, as co-host Russ Mitchell also cited the SPLC. “A report out this morning says anti-government and white racist militias are regrouping around the country. The Southern Poverty Law Center says it is in part a reaction to the election of America’s first black president.” Early Show correspondent Bob Orr expounded: “The report says 50 new militia training groups have popped up in just the last two years. Gun and ammunition sales are skyrocketing, and right-wing extremists, historically motivated by a distrust of government, are now especially angry about the election of America’s first black president.” Granted, conservatives are angry about a lot of things Obama is doing, but his race has nothing to do with it.

And as columnist Ann Coulter notes, “Throughout the presidential campaign last year, liberals were champing at the bit to accuse Americans of racism for not supporting Barack Obama. That was a tough argument on account of the obvious facts that: (1) for every vote he lost because he’s black, Obama picked up another 20 votes for being black; (2) Obama won the election in (3) a country that’s 87 percent non-black. So the accusations of racism had to be put on hold until … the first note of dissent from his agenda was sounded.”

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.

Militia Groups and others on the rise, oh my!

August 13, 2009

Supposedly various militia groups are on the rise according to the hate mongers at the Southern Poverty Law center. Be that as it may, why, I ask, would the American people feel the need to form such groups? Which, by the way, are allowed by the Constitution. Could it be a result of the oppression that many view as the de facto mission of the current administration? Or could there be more? This excerpt is from The Liberty Alerts Newsletter; H/T to Texas Fred

U.S. Preparing a Military Response
to Coming Social Chaos

As the shocking confidential information contained in this briefing shows, the threat of social meltdown and chaos is so large a domestic law-enforcement arm of the U.S. military (referred to by The Army Times as the “Consequence Management Response Force”) has been created to deal with what U.S. officials believe to be a coming, unprecedented wave of massive social chaos.

Later I’ll show you why many Washington insiders (including officials directly involved in homeland security) are personally making emergency preparations for social chaos. In addition, outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Brad Sherman that so much financial mayhem lies ahead U.S. troops may have to impose martial law to deal with social unrest.

Yes, U.S. Officials Are Quietly Preparing
for BIG Trouble Ahead

A new report by the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute states flatly the U.S. military must prepare for “a violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States” that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.”

Late last year, The Washington Post noted the incoming Obama Administration is going to “earmark” at least 20,000 troops returning from Iraq to deal with “domestic emergencies.” Since then, the Army Times has broken the story that the domestic emergency army unit has been increased to 80,000 troops, who are being trained right now in Georgia.

In short, U.S. officials expect big trouble ahead — but they are not warning the general public about the danger (much less urge the unsuspecting masses to make basic preparations).

A rare critic of the government’s keep-the-public-in-the-dark mentality is former head of the U.S. Commission on National Security, Stephen Flynn.  He noted in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: “Too many officials believe telling the truth to Americans about the risk would set off a nationwide panic. Thus, they keep us sheep in the dark for our own good.”

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

Insight from the ObamaCare bill

August 12, 2009

I’m flat out stealing this from my good friend and fellow blogger Texas Fred. It’s only a comment, but rates being a stand alone post!

  1. Insight from the ObamaCare bill.

    • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
    • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
    • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
    • Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
    • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
    • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
    • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
    • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
    • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
    • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
    • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
    • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
    • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
    • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
    • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages thereby reducing competition and quality of providers.
    • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
    • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
    • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
    • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
    • Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
    • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
    • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
    • Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.
    • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”
    • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same.
    • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
    • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
    • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
    • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
    • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
    • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
    • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
    • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input.
    • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
    • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
    • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
    • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
    • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
    • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
    • Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
    • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
    • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patients health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
    • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
    • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
    • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
    • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
    • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

    And the bastards in the Senate can’t understand why Americans are pissed off?

States Rights: 10th Amendment Primer

August 10, 2009

Not since the rebellion in America was quashed in 1865 with the surrender of Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant has so much attention been paid to state sovereignty as is being paid today.

More than 35 states have passed or are considering state sovereignty amendments, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Just before leaving office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed a bill declaring that state’s sovereignty, joining Tennessee Gov. Phil Bresdesen in that regard.

States are finally becoming fed up with the increasingly dangerous non-Constitutional overreach of the Federal Government, and State Legislatures are working to stop it.

Unfortunately, many of today’s voting-age Americans have never even read the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, most civics classes in public schools today dwell on other things. So far too many people have no clue how far their government has overreached and taken away their liberty.

But here’s the truth: the Constitution gives the three branches of government certain enumerated powers. Those not enumerated are reserved to the states, and to the people.

The 10th Amendment describes it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Yet despite that, since the Southern states were prohibited from removing themselves from an alliance that no longer worked in their favor—an alliance they entered into voluntarily—the U.S. government has grown increasingly more powerful. It could do so because the last remaining restraints on its power—the option that states had to leave the union—had been eliminated.

Here’s what has transpired since: During reconstruction the Republican Party centralized government, subsidized railroads, raised taxes on Southern property and businesses—then confiscated the property when taxes couldn’t be paid—and established an education system that taught a revisionist history of the run-up to and causes of the war (and the government-run education system continues this today). Congress also continued the first income tax—an unconstitutional act—that had been implemented by Pres. Abraham Lincoln.

In 1917 Congress established the Federal Reserve, a non-Constitutional entity with the power to control the U.S. money supply. In the 1930s, in response to The Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt pushed through New Deal provisions that further empowered the Federal Government while enriching certain constituencies. And now, in response to the global financial crisis, first President George W. Bush then President Barack Obama pushed through extra-constitutional spending bills. Obama then compounded the problems by nationalizing the financial and automobile markets; an action, again, that benefitted certain constituencies.

And now the Federal Government is proposing an even further overreach by attempting to enact legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions and tax energy companies that exceed arbitrarily set limits of the element, and to restrict your access to adequate healthcare.

It seems from the mood of many in our country we may have reached a tipping point as a result of these latest actions. Radio talk shows are alive with voices proposing—demanding even—that America return to the Constitutional roots. Protests denouncing the growing government are increasing in frequency and support.

Unfortunately, many in America still don’t understand what all the hubbub is about. So, to help them understand, here are 10 talking points from the Tenth Amendment Center:

  1. The People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
  2. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the Federal Government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the State Governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
  3. The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
  4. If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the “general welfare,” what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would’ve already been covered?
  5. James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
  6. The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the Federal Government. With this in mind, any Federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a(n) usurpation of state sovereignty—and unconstitutional.
  7. Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront. Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states—not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything—including local colonies from across an ocean.
  8. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.
  9. A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
  10. We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

If you want to first halt then reverse the tide of government overreach, pass these points around to your friends and send them to your state and U.S. representatives.

SOURCE

Mack Daddy’s fan club…

August 7, 2009

So many times people on the web are branded racist’s, or misogynist, or whatever because of political correctness by those that are ruled by their politics rather than any sort of rational logic.

Never mind that they speak the words that so many are afraid to say. Tracy at No Compromise, Texas Fred, and Romantic Poet come to mind, not to mention Pamela at Atlas shrugs, and Anthony at The Liberty Sphere.

What these good people attempt to communicate is not a thing of hatred, as they are so often portrayed to be doing. But one of love; for this nation, it’s traditions, and yes, it’s people.

Guess what? They are not alone, and not all of their supporters are white. Today while surfing around the web I came across an allied site and one heck of an inspirational speaker, and no, he is not at all white.

Check out this man here.

A FINAL FAREWELL LETTER FROM THE GUNNY TO HIS AUDIENCE

August 6, 2009

This denotes the end of an era folks. Semper Fi Gunny, and Godspeed in your new endeavors.

A FINAL FAREWELL LETTER FROM THE GUNNY TO HIS AUDIENCE

Gang:

Yes, this is the end of an era. But it also the beginning of a new one.

It is hard to know where to start, but I figure I had first better thank you for making the Gunny Bob Show the top-rated evening news-talk program in the Denver Metro region. Without you, my show’s ratings would never have been strong enough over all these years to always be the #1 show in that slot, even handily beating the fat cat syndicated hosts with ease. I owe all that to you. Your loyalty means more to me than I can describe.

I must also thank Clear Channel’s Lee Larsen, Robin Bertolucci and Kris Olinger for all of their support, as well as Dominic Bond and Matt Larsen, my producers, for their excellent work.

So why am I doing this? Why am I marching back into the mouth of the tiger?

There’s no single reason, but rather a combination. However, one outweighs the others.

The Marine Corps spent a lot of money, time and effort training me over 20 years to understand and defeat terrorists. After I retired, I became a counterterrorism consultant for the media (FOX News, the BBC, CBS, etc.) and eventually founded my own counterterrorism company, after working for two other companies in the role of counterterrorism instructor, analyst and advisor. From October 2001 to last week, I issued nearly 200 accurate predictions, warnings and assessments (as well as stories broken) in the war on terror, all documented. I have made several predictions so accurate that I even named the exact facilities to be attacked, how they would be attacked, and by what terrorist group in what timeframe, and when you can do that, you get people’s attention. I traveled to many countries in the performance of my counterterrorism duties (UAE, China, Hong Kong, Philippines, UK, Brazil, India and so on) and my reputation grew in this time to the point that people started asking me to help them in more and more ways.

About a month ago, an organization (don’t make any assumptions) approached me and asked that I relocate to their location and be their counterterrorism and security advisor. This organization has people and assets in a country that is infested with terrorists in a huge region of the planet that is infested with terrorists. They need me to keep their people alive and their assets intact, and that is what I intend to do. If things collapse in this country and region, we here in America will absolutely, beyond any doubt, be targeted far more often. I can’t allow that to happen, so I resigned from Clear Channel (my bosses were a bit surprised and none too pleased), accepted the new position and do the seabag drag to my new gig this Saturday.

Gang, if what I will do in my new position will help keep Americans alive back home and abroad, how can I say no when it is my duty to say yes?

So, adios gang. I will think of you often, as I hope you do me.

Semper Fidelis,

Gunny, out


THE CITIZENS OF THE “DEVELOPING” COUNTRY I AM MOVING TO HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN WHAT OBAMA ENVISIONS FOR AMERICANS UNDER HIS SOCIALIST UTOPIAN STATE

Think About It

Obamacare Redux:

August 1, 2009

Being a free market supporter it not hard for people to believe that I am totally against taking health care out of the hands of the people and placing it under governments control. It’s just bad medicine, pun intendedI also believe it to be unlawful, as in un-Constitutional to the hilt. Nor, am I alone in these beliefs. This latest from The Patriot Post sums it all up pretty well.

Friday Digest
31 July 2009
Vol. 09 No. 30

THE FOUNDATION

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” –James Madison

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Red October Looms for ObamaCare

Americans can breathe a sigh of relief, however briefly, because Congress will not pass health care legislation before lawmakers depart for recess on August 7. “This bill, even in the best-case scenario, will not be signed — we won’t even vote on it probably until the end of September or the middle of October,” said President Barack Obama.

In a sense, Obama is admitting the unpopularity of the major proposals being bantered about in Congress. “This has been the most difficult test for me so far in public life,” he complained, “trying to describe in clear, simple terms how important it is that we reform this system. The case is so clear to me.” And the case is equally clear to us that Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress are acting unconstitutionally. Look it up — health care ain’t there. Economist Walter E. Williams points to the Founders’ own words on the lack of constitutional authority for such actions, adding, “What we’re witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery.”

That said, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) asked rhetorically, “Is health care a constitutional right?” He answered, “Well, we believe that people do and we’re introducing a constitutional amendment just to make it real clear so that you don’t have to infer or assume that that’s a given and all that.”

What Conyers and other Democrats don’t understand is that, as columnist Rich Hrebic explains, “A right is not a guarantee that the government (i.e., other people) will provide you something for free. We have the right to engage in religious expression, but that doesn’t mean that the government pays for the construction of the church. We have the right to peacefully assemble, but the government doesn’t promise to supply your transportation. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but don’t expect the government to provide you with a free firearm and bullets. You have the right to free speech, but the government won’t grant you free radio or TV air time. What makes something a right is not whether the government can force somebody else to pay for it.”

But back to the proposal. House and Senate negotiators are working to cut the cost of the bill by $100 billion — cuts that have suddenly allayed the concerns of so-called fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. The compromise still includes major tax increases and a public option health entitlement, which were supposed to be deal killers for these “principled” Blue Dogs.

The Senate Finance Committee claims that its package now comes with a price tag of $900 billion over 10 years. Such projections are laughable for several reasons: The unpredictability of how many will switch to the “public option,” how that plan will affect other plans on the market, and the cost of actual medical care in general. Beyond that, the Congressional Budget Office said that Obama’s plan to cut medical costs by shortchanging providers in order to offset the cost of the bill is a hoax. “In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized.” No savings. So what’s the point, Mr. President?

Democrats have proposed one way to raise money for the bill — tax payroll. The Wall Street Journal writes that the tax could reach 10 percent. So much for “no tax increases for those making less than $250,000 a year.”

Democrats have also proposed yet another creative way to raise money for the bill — tax soda (known simply as Coke down here in the South). The CBO estimates that a three-cent tax on soda, including Gatorade and other sugary or energy drinks, would generate $24 billion in the next four years, all while fighting obesity. We have been through this before. If Congress taxes something expecting people to stop using that something for their health, the revenue source dries up. Brilliant. We say, “No taxation on carbonation!”

All in all, if the public option is so good, why don’t Democrats in Congress want it to be their health plan? Amendments requiring them to be covered by the plan have been defeated in both the House and Senate. One reason for the defeat might be the example of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who, if his case went before a review board, could be denied his current level of cancer treatment. One might say he’d be left to sink or swim.

The BIG Lie

“We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on earth — $6,000 more than the people do in Denmark, or France, or Germany, or — every one of these other countries spend at least 50 percent less than we do, and you know what, they’re just as healthy.” –Barack Obama

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein explains why this is a lie: “Obama is correct that all of those countries spend less per person on health care, but it isn’t anywhere near $6,000 less. The widest gap among the countries mentioned, between the U.S. and Denmark, is $3,778 per person. Of course, other systems don’t keep costs down with magic wands, but with rationing care to the sick — something Obama denies he wants to do in the U.S.” Indeed, there’s no question that our system needs some treatment, but ObamaCare is not the right prescription.

This Week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ Award

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” –Rep. John Conyers

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund responds, “Perhaps Mr. Conyers has a point. A bill that seeks to reorder one-seventh of the nation’s economy is probably too complex and convoluted for any single human being to fully comprehend and can’t possibly capture all the unintended consequences of such sweeping changes. Maybe Mr. Conyers has latched on to the main reason why big government can’t work and why less sweeping health care reform is in order.”

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A wake up call?

July 12, 2009

For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.

Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.

Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…

Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”

Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

By Carey Roberts
web posted July 6, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright  prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications.  So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper  of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report.  As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention. ESR

Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

SOURCE