Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category

RLC: About obamacare

August 8, 2009

From the Republican Liberty Caucus of Colorado:
I have not read the Health Care bill, but it appears that the doctor who wrote this letter below, DID!  What he found is cause for extreme concern, and I would hope that you choose to tell your U.S. Senator or Representative that if they vote FOR this bill, you will not only vote AGAINST them, you will campaign FOR whoever is looking to take their place!

PLEASE!  Educate everyone you know, and send this to them so that all of us can flood our elected officers offices with letters, emails and faxes that we as AMERICANS want to take care of our own medical needs, for the govenment botches everything they stick their nasty little fingers into!  They are on break now from D.C., so going in to see them in thier home state office is even more powerful!

Yours in Liberty!
B
http://www.campaignforlibe rty.com

July 23, 2009

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient/physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your banks accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example – Translation: illegal aliens.

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – your Health care WILL be rationed.

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill:  Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business’s with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that!

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same!

Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, profession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.

Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investmen t. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy – Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.

Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!

Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, If you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E Fraser MD

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

90% Myth: Where Are All Those Guns Coming From?

August 8, 2009

Where Are All Those Guns Coming From?

by Larry Pratt

The government of Colombia has been fighting the Marxist-oriented drug traffickers known by their Spanish acronym FARC for decades.  They have been trying to trace guns and other weapons coming from some twenty-seven different countries.

The guns turned up in various FARC encampments that have been busted by an increasingly successful counterattack by the Colombian military.

In an August 2 article in the Panamanian newspaper, Panamá América, it was reported that Columbia has made numerous inquiries to Interpol to find out where all the weapons are coming from.

In view of the Obama administration’s claims that privately owned guns in our country are migrating into Mexico and fueling violence down there, one might think that American gun owners are the cause of all foreign violence.  However, the truth is quite the opposite, it turns out.

The article summarizes the Colombian queries to Interpol as follows: rifles from Russia, Bulgaria, Communist China and Korea; pistols and revolvers from Central Europe and Brazil; explosives from Ecuador; munitions (a term that includes machine guns and other weapons such as grenades, mortars, cannons, rockets, etc.) from Brazil, Russia and Venezuela and anti-tank rockets from Russia, Rumania, Communist China, Sweden and the U.S.

Did you just hear the dog that did not bark?  In the above list, did you see any weapons that could be obtained at a U.S. gun store or show?  The only mention of the U.S. in the list is as a supplier of anti-tank rockets.  If anybody can tell me where us average citizens can buy rockets at a store or show, please let me know right away.

Where would anti-tank rockets enter the world market?  How about theft from domestic or foreign military arsenals?  By the way, the article reports that some of the weaponry mentioned above has been traced to Colombia’s own military industry.

The article also pointed out that the FARC are known to fly guns into Colombia on return flights that take drugs out.

You don’t suppose those same planes could sneak into Mexico, too, do you?

SOURCE

Southern Neighbor Goes Right

August 8, 2009

While we head toward fascism and internal imperialism…

Southern Neighbor Goes Right

By Larry Pratt
July 22, 2009

For at least two years, Panamanian gun owners had to live with the threat that the socialist government of Martin Torrijos (son of the late dictator) was going to impose a George Soros-inspired backdoor gun ban.

The Soros gun ban comes advertised as a licensing scheme which means that gun ownership is illegal unless you get special permission from the government.  Getting that permission is the problem.  By simply delaying processing of applications and renewals, the clock runs out and before long, nobody has a legal gun.

This kind of law can be very effective at disarming the public.  I first saw a law like this on the books and in use in South Africa.

Panamanian shooters actively opposed the measure.  At one point I addressed a forum they organized to dramatize the problems with the bill and the threat to safety that it presented.  Happily, the Chavez-backed candidate (to succeed Torrijos) in the elections last May got her clock cleaned, and the threat of the bill ended with the socialist government.

The winner, Ricardo Martinelli, is a wealthy businessman — as is his vice president Juan Carlos Varela.  To set the anti-graft tone of their administration, Martinelli announced at his inauguration that they would be donating their salary to a charity that would be building a medical clinic in the interior of the country.  “We might stick our foot in our mouth in my administration,” he said, “but we will not be sticking our hand in the till.”

The two official inaugural celebrations that feted some 10,000 people combined were paid completely from private funds, starting with those from Martinelli’s own pocket.

Martinelli also announced a truly transformational reform.  As in a great deal of the world, many rural landholdings have no clear titles, hence loans are unavailable for the owners.  I have seen this reform carried out in Guatemala and in El Salvador, and the result is a fiercely anti-socialist group of rural voters.  Memo to Chavez: in Panama, many of those voters already own guns.

During the administration’s first day, the education minister announced that she would not allow an association of professors to be recognized as a union.  The same day, Martinelli announced that a bankrupt banana-workers’ cooperative that had been getting subsidies from the socialist government would now be on their own.  Sink or swim — in the private sector.

At an inaugural mass specially called for by Martinelli, the sermon was preached by the Bishop of Panama.  It sounded like one of our colonial election sermons.  The bishop urged the people to pray for their new leaders that there might be peace in the land.  He then challenged the politicians who were present to never separate their Christian values from their politics lest the country lose its culture of respect for life and protection of the family.

With the legally deposed thug from Honduras (former President Mel Zelaya, a Chavez ally) sitting some twenty feet from him on the stage, Martinelli announced that his election represented a challenge to the far left wing in Latin America.  He added that he intends to make Panama the best place in Latin America to do business.

That is change that I can believe in.

SOURCE

New rules for radicals

August 8, 2009

Saul Alinsky must be rolling over in his grave! Adding insult to injury, what follows is from the far left lapdog known as The Denver Post.

If you’re a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag@whitehouse.gov.)

As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading “fishy disinformation” regarding Washington’s proposed takeover . . . oops, I mean “reform” . . . of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.

Now, don’t get overly paranoid, you freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration’s track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.

The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko “mob” of “thugs” who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.

We are talking about a moral imperative here. As one senator asserted this week, passing government-run health care is the “sacred duty” of Congress. (Boy, it’s a good thing we banished all that moral preening from Washington.)

When your mission is the same as that of the Lord himself, well, you can imagine the kind of scandalous characters populating the opposition camp. It is the type of individual that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi astutely points out has the tendency to carry “swastikas and symbols like that” to local town hall meetings on health care.

You might be curious to find out what symbols Pelosi believes are “like” swastikas. Maybe she’s referring to the Gadsden flag.

In any event, it’s true that people who believe in health-care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well dressed to contemplate serious issues independently — and thank you, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, for pointing this out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul.

Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and free-thinking groups like unions.

And, really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising are the rumors that protesters are actually organized. Can you imagine?

The question now becomes: How can we, thinking people, stop this horde of well-heeled, Nazi-loving, insurance-industry funded (and possibly organized) robots? What can we do to destroy our health care?

Well, as always, the president has crafted a glorious plan forward. In an e-mail to the nation, President Barack Obama begins by telling Americans, “This is the moment our movement was built for.”

“That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month,” the president goes on, his words stirring even in pixel form, “where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.”

Who knew? “Organizing” for America? Movements? Sounds familiar.

For those of you who will gleefully point out the hypocrisy of Democrats grousing about organized grassroots activism — whether well-funded or organic — you just don’t get it. It is imperative that we start thinking about the world in a counterintuitive way.

In today’s world, the “radicals” are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can’t even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works — though certainly not perfectly.

In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You’ve seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution.

So here is a plan. Instead of making the case for health care “reform,” let’s launch an offensive against citizens. Nazis. Fanatics. Mobs. Thugs. Whatever you call them.

And if you’re really patriotic, you can even report them.

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

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.

Senate Confirms Radical Anti-gunner to the U.S. Supreme Court

August 6, 2009

We knew this was coming. Now, we need to see to it that anyone that voted for her is out of a job.

Senate Confirms Radical Anti-gunner to the U.S. Supreme Court
— But Obama nomination suffers a higher than normal number of opposition votes

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

Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Senate easily confirmed the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Only 31 Senators took seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution and voted against this radical anti-gun nominee, with 68 voting for confirmation.

All the Democrats in attendance voted for Sotomayor, while nine Republicans joined their ranks.

The Republican Senators who voted for Sotomayor were:  Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Christopher Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Mel Martinez of Florida, George Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

Many Democrat Senators campaigned on a pro-Second Amendment platform, yet voted to confirm a nominee who does not believe you have a fundamental right to self defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

Placing the prerogatives of President Obama over their constitutional “Advice and Consent” duty, many so-called pro-gun Senators reneged on their promises to voters that they would support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The common refrain heard in the Senate before the vote was:  “The President deserves his pick.”

Of course, Senator Barrack Obama did not hold that view in 2006, when he opposed President Bush’s pick of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  Then-Senator Obama said:

There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.

Thankfully, we are seeing more and more Senators stand up to Obama’s radical agenda.  You will remember that GOA encouraged you to lobby other gun groups so that gun owners across the country could speak with a unified voice in opposition to Judge Sotomayor.

We were hugely successful in this endeavor!  News reports credit the gun lobby’s strong and unified opposition to Sotomayor as resulting in at least three NO votes from Senators who were previously undecided or in favor of the nominee. Even that figure is probably low, considering that 31 NO votes is a lot better than three NO votes (in the case of Justice Ginsburg) and nine NO votes (in the case of Justice Breyer).

One of the fence-sitting Senators who voted right today was Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.  For the first time in his 33 year Senate career, Hatch voted against a Supreme Court nomination.  You may remember that Hatch even supported Obama’s pick for Attorney General and voted to end the filibuster on Harold Koh, the radical choice for the State Department counsel.

But faced with mounting pressure from grassroots in his state, Sen. Hatch broke with long-standing tradition regarding his support for Supreme Court nominations.  Today, he voted against Judge Sotomayor.

“I feel very badly that I have to vote negatively — it’s not what I wanted to do when this process started — but I believe that I’m doing the honorable and right thing,” Sen. Hatch was quoted as saying in Newsday.

Thank you, everyone, for putting the heat on your Senators.  President Obama would do well to interpret 31 NO votes as a “shot across the bow.”  With his approval ratings plummeting, the president’s next Supreme Court pick may have to be far more in the mainstream.

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.”

Hell hath no fury like a…

July 31, 2009

Some years ago there was a movement afoot that would force lawmakers to repeal a law any time that a new one was passed. The purpose being to keep incremental invasion of personal liberty from completely overwhelming the people of this nation. It went nowhere, and things such as what follow are the direct result.

In 2007, reported Idaho’s KIDK, Channel 3, Krister Evertson was “convicted of illegally transporting and storing hazardous waste. … Evertson failed to properly dispose of sodium metal, and the EPA was called in to clean up the mess.” In a press release trumpeting the case, the Environmental Protection Agency was more specific, saying, Evertson was found guilty of “violating the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Act and illegally storing and disposing of hazardous waste, violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” But wait! Just last week, Evertson testified before a bipartisan congressional hearing on how federal law has crept into every nook and cranny of life and overcriminalized conduct. What’s going on here?

As it turns out, Evertson’s conviction was the federal government’s second try against him in an effort that has all the appearances of a vendetta based on over-vigorous application of a spiderweb of petty rules. It all began when the inventor and fuel cell entrepreneur was run off the road in Alaska on May 27, 2004, by armed federal agents. As he says in his testimony (PDF) to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security:

The charge against me was that I hadn’t put the right label on the box when I shipped some raw sodium that I had sold on eBay. Stored improperly, sodium can be hazardous, so it usually has to be shipped by ground. I carefully packaged the sodium that I sold and even checked “ground transportation” on the bill when I went to ship the packages. But what I didn’t know was that, in Alaska, UPS actually ships its “ground” packages by air. And that was against the law.

Rather than charge me with a violation and collect a fine, the government decided to bring the full weight of the law down upon me. I refused to plead guilty, because I was not, and so the prosecution pushed for years in prison. It took two years, but finally the jury acquitted me of every charge.

That’s right, acquitted.

But Hell hath no fury like a government official frustrated — and the feds weren’t out of tricks. You see, while Evertson was detained and tried in Alaska, his chemical supplies were stored in a facility back home in Idaho. And since he was behind bars and unable to visit the storage facility, he could be charged with … abandoning hazardous waste? Really?

Really.

As the Washington Examiner reported earlier this year:

Despite his acquittal in Alaska, federal authorities filed new charges against Evertson in  Idaho for allegedly illegally transporting his materials the half mile from his home to the storage facility and improperly disposing of “hazardous” waste, all based on strained readings of EPA regulations.

Evertson claimed he had stored the materials properly and they were perfectly secure.

“My expert witness said the stainless steel container could safely contain the intermediate process stream indefinitely, that means forever. The stainless steel was 3/8 of an inch thick. I bought it from the Long Beach, California, Naval Yard. It was completely enclosed…. I could have neutralized all of it for $200,” Evertson said. …

Never mind that Evertson had clearly saved the material for future use rather than abandoning it. Never mind that it would be potentially dangerous only if taken out of the storage materials Evertson had so carefully constructed.

And never mind, finally, that, in the words of Evertson’s appellate brief, none of the materials were “discharged into the air, land or sea,” and the government failed to produce any evidence “that the defendant intended this to happen.”

Indeed, the brief notes, “the EPA witness, Marc Callaghan, testified that the materials became hazardous waste [only] when the EPA disposed of them.”

Note that Evertson was researching fuel cells with an eye to developing cleaner energy. His violation of environmental law in the first case was technical and inadvertent, and in the second case could be charitably described as — oh Hell, forget charity — it was BS.

But the feds got their way the second time around. With a law that required no criminal intent on the part of Evertson, the violation of which was entirely because Evertson had been detained by the people now charging him with criminal activity, the man was convicted. Off to prison he went.

The reason we’re hearing about Krister Evertson is not because his case is atypical, but because he is lucky enough to have strong allies. His case has been taken by the Washington Legal Foundation, which is appealing his conviction. The effort of which the appeal is part is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Federalist Society, the American Bar Association, the Cato Institute and the Constitution Project. Out of public view, many many other people have suffered arrest, trial and imprisonment based on a host of regulations both too numerous and too obscure to be knowable.

Testifying before the same subcommittee, Professor James Strazzella, President of the Temple University Beasley School of Law, said (PDF):

The amount of individual citizen conduct that is now potentially subject to federal
criminal control has increased in startling proportions in the last several decades, beyond any understandable interest in dealing with federal programs, truly interstate issues, or international crime.  …

Strazzella knows of what he speaks. In 1998, he authored a report on the metastasizing mass of federal crimes for the American Bar Association. The Federalization of Criminal Law (PDF) found, in part:

So large is the present body of federal criminal law that there is no conveniently accessible, complete list of federal crimes. Criminal sanctions are dispersed in places other than the statutory codes (for example, rules of court) and therefore can not be located simply by reading statutes. A large number of sanctions are dispersed throughout the thousands of administrative “regulations” promulgated by various governmental agencies under Congressional statutory authorization. Nearly 10,000 regulations mention some sort of sanction, many clearly criminal in nature, while many others are designated “civil.”

The federal government’s excuses for arresting you and locking you behind bars have only increased since the publication of that report.

So the next time you see a brief news blurb about some “evil” offender who ran afoul of the law with seeming disregard for public safety, and who is publicly vilified in government press releases, keep in mind that there may be more to the story. You could well be looking at another Krister Evertson, who hurt nobody, intended no legal violation, and was tripped up by a maze of laws of the sort that you yourself may unknowingly violate every day.

email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com

SOURCE

Patriot Post Round Up

July 31, 2009

Here’s a round up from the Patriot Post for this week. (see sidebar)

The Right Opinion at PatriotPost.US

Editor’s Note: Mark Alexander is traveling with his family in Alaska for the next two weeks. In his absence, we invite you to read this week’s best columns on The Patriot’s opinion page.

But first, on Monday, Alexander provided this analysis in response to Obama’s accusations about police “acting stupidly” when they arrested his old friend, Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Watcha Gonna Do…?

Don’t miss more on Obama and Gates:

How About a National Conversation on Race Hoaxes? by Ann Coulter

Obama, Gates, and the Problem of Black Guilt by Ben Shapiro

And a contrary view:

Liberty and Lippiness by Jacob Sullum

On health care, the economy and the lack of constitutional authority to interfere:

Why Obamacare is Sinking by Charles Krauthammer

Are Republicans the Economic Pessimists? by Lawrence Kudlow

A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs by John Stossel

Exploiting Public Ignorance by Walter E. Williams

On foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan:

The Obama Doctrine on Its Deathbed by Michael Gerson

Sacrifice in Afghanistan by Oliver North

On the Obama cult:

All-Access Obama by Brent Bozell