Does Obama’s arrogance and condescension know no bounds?
He says: “Republicans….they just do as their told”
It is like experiencing fingernails on a chalkboard to watch, but just experience ”un-presidentialness” (is that a word?) of your President!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Support the Valour IT Project
We've supported Soldiers' Angels Project Valour ITproject in the past, but haven't posted on it yet this year. It's a wonderful cause, described succinctly by Soldiers' Angels:
Project Valour-IT helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Items supplied include: Voice-controlled Laptops, Wii Video Game Systems and Personal GPS.
The campaign goes through November 11; so far, over $50,000 has been raised. It features friendly competition among the military services.
Cassandra of Villainous Company asked us to support the Marine team this year. It was a hard request to turn down, given that her husband is a Marine currently serving in Afghanistan. So, to help an eminently worthwhile cause, just click on the graphic below:
Project Valour-IT helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Items supplied include: Voice-controlled Laptops, Wii Video Game Systems and Personal GPS.
The campaign goes through November 11; so far, over $50,000 has been raised. It features friendly competition among the military services.
Cassandra of Villainous Company asked us to support the Marine team this year. It was a hard request to turn down, given that her husband is a Marine currently serving in Afghanistan. So, to help an eminently worthwhile cause, just click on the graphic below:
'Principled' GOP candidate would have won #ny23
A pro-life group that backed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman says the Democratic special election victory in New York's 23rd Congressional District is actually a win for motivated conservative activists.
The Top Ten Reasons the Baucus Healthcare Plan is Bad for America
1. No bill and no transparency. The Baucus “bill” is no bill at all but a 300 page outline and summary of what a bill would look like. The actual bill will contain over 1,000 pages and is yet to be completed. Democrats have voted down an amendment to make it available for 72 hours before a vote, so when it is brought to the Senate floor for a vote, no senator will have read it.
2. Higher spending. The Baucus “summary” is a big spending bill rather than health care legislation. The cost has been estimated at $829 billion over ten years (and will surely go much higher), and the legislation would raise taxes on everybody, including the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office says it would leave 25 million people uninsured.
3. Higher taxes. The Baucus summary includes at least $327 billion in new taxes -- a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion), and “indirect offsets” (whatever they are -- $83 billion). State taxes will surely rise as costs are fobbed off on state governments in the form of more Medicaid spending.
4. Higher health insurance premiums. According to an independent study done by an actuary and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: Health insurance rates will almost double for most American families who buy their own policies if Congress passes universal coverage, guaranteed issue and modified community rating! These are all main features in both versions of the Senate bill. On top of this families will be fined $759-$1,500 if they do not buy insurance, even if they cannot afford it.
5. Hidden Employer Mandate. The Baucus summary includes an employer mandate -- watered-down, but still there. There is no specific requirement for employers to provide insurance, but any employer who fails to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his workers to help them pay for insurance on their own, up to $400 per worker. Since it will ultimately be the employee who pays the cost of the mandate, through reduced compensation or reduced employment, the government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand and taking it back with the other.
6. Tax Dollars for Abortion. Current federal law protects American taxpayers from paying for abortions as part of the health benefits given to federal employees -- not one of the insurance plans offered includes abortion coverage. To maintain the “status quo” on abortion any health care bill would have to explicitly prevent federal dollars from being used for elective abortions. Provisions that would have done that were defeated by all five committees that have handled health care reform bills this year.
7. Big cuts in Medicare Advantage. The Baucus summary cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program. In response, many insurers may stop participating in the program while others could increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors (the bulk will be lower-income elderly and minorities) will be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.
8. No more Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The bills that each committee has approved in the Senate and House would eliminate HSAs as an affordable health insurance option for Americans. The government would determine what each health insurance plan looks like, and after all the requirements, mandates, and regulations, the high-deductible health plans that accompany tax-free HSAs would not qualify as an acceptable health insurance product.
9. Invades Patients’ Privacy. The Baucus summary would eliminate patients’ rights to health privacy and a patient’s right to control sensitive health information in electronic systems. Every American would be required to have an electronic health record by 2014 and all electronic health records will be data mined without legal and ethical informed consent.
10. Ignores Tort Reform. Despite the fact that medical malpractice litigation adds billions of dollars to health care bills and results in billions (some estimate as much as $100 billion) being spent on defensive medicine, the Baucus summary makes no attempt to fix this curse on our system.
2. Higher spending. The Baucus “summary” is a big spending bill rather than health care legislation. The cost has been estimated at $829 billion over ten years (and will surely go much higher), and the legislation would raise taxes on everybody, including the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office says it would leave 25 million people uninsured.
3. Higher taxes. The Baucus summary includes at least $327 billion in new taxes -- a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion), and “indirect offsets” (whatever they are -- $83 billion). State taxes will surely rise as costs are fobbed off on state governments in the form of more Medicaid spending.
4. Higher health insurance premiums. According to an independent study done by an actuary and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: Health insurance rates will almost double for most American families who buy their own policies if Congress passes universal coverage, guaranteed issue and modified community rating! These are all main features in both versions of the Senate bill. On top of this families will be fined $759-$1,500 if they do not buy insurance, even if they cannot afford it.
5. Hidden Employer Mandate. The Baucus summary includes an employer mandate -- watered-down, but still there. There is no specific requirement for employers to provide insurance, but any employer who fails to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his workers to help them pay for insurance on their own, up to $400 per worker. Since it will ultimately be the employee who pays the cost of the mandate, through reduced compensation or reduced employment, the government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand and taking it back with the other.
6. Tax Dollars for Abortion. Current federal law protects American taxpayers from paying for abortions as part of the health benefits given to federal employees -- not one of the insurance plans offered includes abortion coverage. To maintain the “status quo” on abortion any health care bill would have to explicitly prevent federal dollars from being used for elective abortions. Provisions that would have done that were defeated by all five committees that have handled health care reform bills this year.
7. Big cuts in Medicare Advantage. The Baucus summary cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program. In response, many insurers may stop participating in the program while others could increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors (the bulk will be lower-income elderly and minorities) will be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.
8. No more Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The bills that each committee has approved in the Senate and House would eliminate HSAs as an affordable health insurance option for Americans. The government would determine what each health insurance plan looks like, and after all the requirements, mandates, and regulations, the high-deductible health plans that accompany tax-free HSAs would not qualify as an acceptable health insurance product.
9. Invades Patients’ Privacy. The Baucus summary would eliminate patients’ rights to health privacy and a patient’s right to control sensitive health information in electronic systems. Every American would be required to have an electronic health record by 2014 and all electronic health records will be data mined without legal and ethical informed consent.
10. Ignores Tort Reform. Despite the fact that medical malpractice litigation adds billions of dollars to health care bills and results in billions (some estimate as much as $100 billion) being spent on defensive medicine, the Baucus summary makes no attempt to fix this curse on our system.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose – through their elected representatives – to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?
You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!
Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.
I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!
One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible – the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.
Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.
by Ron Paul
You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!
Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.
I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!
One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible – the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.
Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.
by Ron Paul
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Example of The Bullshit a Liberal Believes #p2 #rebelleft
Thank you, President Obama for restoring respectability to the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Former President Bush and his administration were TOTALLY responsible for our unpreparedness for the attack which led to the tragedy of 9/11 in 2001. The Bush-Cheney Administration caused most of the civilized world to turn against America because of imperialistic policies. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the total lack of Christian values by the money-grubbing Bush-Cheney administration. The illegal invasion of Iraq means America will continue to pay a price in the Eyes of God. Millions of Iraqis have been displaced, killed or injured. God will punish America for this sin…caused by greedy American businessmen who only wanted to take oil from underground Iraq. These sham organizations like the Family Research Council are going to be judged harshly for supporting evil men in evil regimes.
The Mainstream Smearing of Ayn Rand
More famous words from one of our wannabe Platonic guardians:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi looked like a deer caught in the blinding headlight of an oncoming freight train, her expression frozen in either ignorance or fear. It has always been difficult to distinguish between the two in her. But the malice in her words was palpable.
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes, I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
His iterating mockery of the reporter is indeed on the record. Elshami, deputy communications director and senior adviser to Pelosi, later issued a press release stating that Congress was empowered by the commerce clause in the Constitution to mandate individual health insurance. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), however, differed from that dubious specificity, instead likening the power to compel all Americans to buy health insurance to federal authority to impose speed limits on interstate highways (???), adding that “nobody questions” Congress’s authority to impose controls of any kind. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) linked the power to the general welfare clause.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi looked like a deer caught in the blinding headlight of an oncoming freight train, her expression frozen in either ignorance or fear. It has always been difficult to distinguish between the two in her. But the malice in her words was palpable.
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes, I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
His iterating mockery of the reporter is indeed on the record. Elshami, deputy communications director and senior adviser to Pelosi, later issued a press release stating that Congress was empowered by the commerce clause in the Constitution to mandate individual health insurance. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), however, differed from that dubious specificity, instead likening the power to compel all Americans to buy health insurance to federal authority to impose speed limits on interstate highways (???), adding that “nobody questions” Congress’s authority to impose controls of any kind. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) linked the power to the general welfare clause.
Health Alert | The Baucus Bill Explained
Under the 1,502-page Baucus bill, everyone will be required to have health insurance and, for most people, the insurance will be very expensive. In 2016, for example, the minimum coverage is projected to cost:
Individual: $5,000 plus $1,700 of potential deductibles and copayments
Family: $14,700 plus $5,100 of potential deductibles and copayments
If you do not get insurance from an employer, you will be required to buy this insurance in an “exchange,” where there will be government subsidies for those who earn between 100% and 400% of the government poverty level. These subsidies can be quite large. For a family earning $30,000 the (premium plus out-of-pocket) subsidy is $17,300 — an amount equal to more than half of the family’s income! At $42,000 income, the subsidy is $14,000. (See the tables below.)
Now here’s the rub. There are 127 million nonelderly Americans living between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Yet the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that only about 17 million will be in the exchange getting these subsidies.
So what happens to everyone else? They will have to bear this cost on their own (through out-of-pocket premiums and reduced wages) without any new help from government.
And what if people don’t buy the insurance they are required to buy? They will pay a (2016) fine of $600 — a tempting alternative considering that if they get sick and really need insurance, insurers will not be allowed to deny them coverage or charge them a higher premium.
Individual: $5,000 plus $1,700 of potential deductibles and copayments
Family: $14,700 plus $5,100 of potential deductibles and copayments
If you do not get insurance from an employer, you will be required to buy this insurance in an “exchange,” where there will be government subsidies for those who earn between 100% and 400% of the government poverty level. These subsidies can be quite large. For a family earning $30,000 the (premium plus out-of-pocket) subsidy is $17,300 — an amount equal to more than half of the family’s income! At $42,000 income, the subsidy is $14,000. (See the tables below.)
Now here’s the rub. There are 127 million nonelderly Americans living between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Yet the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that only about 17 million will be in the exchange getting these subsidies.
So what happens to everyone else? They will have to bear this cost on their own (through out-of-pocket premiums and reduced wages) without any new help from government.
And what if people don’t buy the insurance they are required to buy? They will pay a (2016) fine of $600 — a tempting alternative considering that if they get sick and really need insurance, insurers will not be allowed to deny them coverage or charge them a higher premium.
Obama revives military trials at Gitmo
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama brought back Bush-era military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay on Wednesday by signing into law new rules that will give detainees stronger legal rights in court.
Obama approved the rules, most of which he proposed in May, as part of a $680 billion defense policy bill that cut some pricey and overlapping military weapons programs.
ONE YEAR LATER: 1-year poll shows changed views on Obama
Obama did not mention Guantanamo during the short White House ceremony.
Obama approved the rules, most of which he proposed in May, as part of a $680 billion defense policy bill that cut some pricey and overlapping military weapons programs.
ONE YEAR LATER: 1-year poll shows changed views on Obama
Obama did not mention Guantanamo during the short White House ceremony.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
Liberal Logic Says You Should Go Un-Insured
Interesting breaking story, the reporter has a clandestine math sense to equate dying numbers in the health care / insurance debate. If 2.3 million Americans die out of 284 million Americans (2004 numbers), and we assume 47 million Americans don?t have health insurance and 45,000 a year die. That would mean that you are 10 times more likely to die if you have health insurance. This is great news!!! It could save the country trillions of dollars. I?m going to drop my coverage to extend my life.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
White Guilt Ruining America
The above is from The End of the Game of Guilt by Bill Siegel and is a fabulous article you should read in it's entirety. He clearly understands the situation. It is understandable why we are frustrated. Everything we say or object to, seems to be met with the cry of "racist"... when we know full well we do not have a racist bone in our bodies.And, as it becomes apparent to many Americans, it causes them to so quickly conclude Obama is not only inappropriate for this country but is a failure who must be confronted and stopped quickly before he can do irreversible damage.
But in that statement I just made, have I not confirmed what Mr. Siegel writes? Of course I have. By acknowledging that I am not a racist I have tried to prove a negative, which as he says is impossible.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
If Max Baucus had his way, a Mommy Tax would be imposed.
Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an estimate on Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)’s health care bill. The problem is that there has been no sign of a bill, rather there has been proposed concepts of what this bill might or might not contain. How might Max Baucus propose to pay for this “so-called” health care bill?
According to Amanda Carpenter of the Washington Times, Baucus proposed taxing feminine products, powered breast pumps (to bottle milk for babies), and other devices, such as pacemakers. Naturally, the committee realized that there would be some contention to this decision, so they stripped the tax on the feminine products.
Meanwhile, there could be a potential backlash on this bill as the powered breast pumps, pacemakers, ventilators, etc. will be taxed. I don’t know about you, but one would think that there are better solutions than taxing essentials or medical equipment.
According to Amanda Carpenter of the Washington Times, Baucus proposed taxing feminine products, powered breast pumps (to bottle milk for babies), and other devices, such as pacemakers. Naturally, the committee realized that there would be some contention to this decision, so they stripped the tax on the feminine products.
Meanwhile, there could be a potential backlash on this bill as the powered breast pumps, pacemakers, ventilators, etc. will be taxed. I don’t know about you, but one would think that there are better solutions than taxing essentials or medical equipment.
Look who hasn't won the Nobel
For starters: Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, the greatest triumph for peace in world history. Pope John Paul II boldly reached out to end the historic distrust between the Catholic Church and Jews.
Scaredy Cat Dems hesitant to send more troops to Afghanistan
Vulnerable Democrats who rode into Congress on the argument that Afghanistan is home to the real war on terror are now hesitant to support a call for more troops.
The White House and military leaders are in the course of determining how best to proceed in Afghanistan. Those deliberations include whether to send up to 40,000 more troops there.
The White House and military leaders are in the course of determining how best to proceed in Afghanistan. Those deliberations include whether to send up to 40,000 more troops there.
Stimulating Debt
With unemployment rising and strong growth nowhere on the horizon, perhaps it's inevitable that Democrats are pondering a second stimulus package. But why make the same mistake twice?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Barack Obama angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.
GOP To Draft Resolution Designed To Oust Rangel
Congressional Republicans are again demanding that Congressman Charles Rangel step down as chairman of the House tax writing committee, saying his ethics problems make him the poster boy for institutional arrogance.
Democratic support for embattled Rangel will get another test this week. Republicans will introduce a resolution calling for the Harlem Democrat to step down as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee until ethics probes -- which keep on growing -- are complete.
"These are all violations of the rules of the House," Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) told CBS 2 HD. "Some of them seem to be violations of the rules of the IRS and I don't think the top tax guy ought to be having those kinds of problems."
Democratic support for embattled Rangel will get another test this week. Republicans will introduce a resolution calling for the Harlem Democrat to step down as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee until ethics probes -- which keep on growing -- are complete.
"These are all violations of the rules of the House," Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) told CBS 2 HD. "Some of them seem to be violations of the rules of the IRS and I don't think the top tax guy ought to be having those kinds of problems."
Government report questions bail-out rescue claims
WASHINGTON (AP) - The credibility of the government's $700 billion financial rescue program was damaged by claims a year ago that all of the initial banks receiving support were healthy, a new report contends.
Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky generally found that the government had acted properly in October 2008 as it scrambled to implement the Troubled Asset Relief Program to avert the collapse of the U.S. financial system.
But the report said that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other officials were wrong to contend at an Oct. 14 press conference that all nine institutions receiving the first round of support - $125 billion - were sound.
Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky generally found that the government had acted properly in October 2008 as it scrambled to implement the Troubled Asset Relief Program to avert the collapse of the U.S. financial system.
But the report said that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other officials were wrong to contend at an Oct. 14 press conference that all nine institutions receiving the first round of support - $125 billion - were sound.
Celebrities face endorsement crackdown
Advertisers, celebrity endorsers and even some internet bloggers will be held liable for false statements they make about products as part of a crackdown by US regulators on deceptive advertising practices.
The new rules on the use of testimonials in advertising, released by the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, also say that anyone who endorses a product, including celebrities and bloggers, must make explicit the compensation received from companies.
The new rules on the use of testimonials in advertising, released by the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, also say that anyone who endorses a product, including celebrities and bloggers, must make explicit the compensation received from companies.
FTC: Bloggers must disclose any freebies or payments they get for writing product reviews
The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.
The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.
Study: Bernanke, Paulson misled public on bailouts
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. misled the public about the financial weakness of Bank of America and other early recipients of the government's $700 billion Wall Street bailout, creating "unrealistic expectations" about the companies and damaging the program's credibility, according to a report by the program's independent watchdog.
The federal government last October loaned Bank of America and eight other "healthy" financial institutions a total of $125 billion - the initial payout from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - in an attempt to avoid a series of major bank collapses that would push the sputtering economy into a free fall or depression.
The rationale for giving money to stable banks and not failing ones, regulators said, was that such institutions would be better able to lend money and thus unfreeze tight credit markets - a major factor in last year's Wall Street losses.
But an audit released Monday by TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky says senior government officials and Wall Street regulators, including Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson, had "affirmative concerns" that several of the nine institutions were financially shaky.
The federal government last October loaned Bank of America and eight other "healthy" financial institutions a total of $125 billion - the initial payout from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - in an attempt to avoid a series of major bank collapses that would push the sputtering economy into a free fall or depression.
The rationale for giving money to stable banks and not failing ones, regulators said, was that such institutions would be better able to lend money and thus unfreeze tight credit markets - a major factor in last year's Wall Street losses.
But an audit released Monday by TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky says senior government officials and Wall Street regulators, including Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson, had "affirmative concerns" that several of the nine institutions were financially shaky.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
OBAMA’S HEALTH INSURANCE TAX: COMING SOON TO ALL POLICIES
The Baucus healthcare bill provides for a tax on “gold-plated” health insurance policies. But, as with the Alternative Minimum Tax, once slated to be imposed only on the wealthy, inflation will make most Americans liable to pay the 40 percent tax in a few years.
The tax applies to all individual policies with premiums above $8,750 and families of four whose premiums exceed $23,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average health insurance premium for families of four will reach $25,000 by 2018. The average premium should pass the thresholds in Baucus’s bill by 2016.
So, a few years after the bill takes effect in 2013, the health insurance premium tax will become virtually universal. And this tax is to be a 40 percent levy. So, in six years, the average family health insurance policy, now projected to cost $25,000, will, in fact, cost $35,000 due to the Obama-Baucus tax!
The tax applies to all individual policies with premiums above $8,750 and families of four whose premiums exceed $23,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average health insurance premium for families of four will reach $25,000 by 2018. The average premium should pass the thresholds in Baucus’s bill by 2016.
So, a few years after the bill takes effect in 2013, the health insurance premium tax will become virtually universal. And this tax is to be a 40 percent levy. So, in six years, the average family health insurance policy, now projected to cost $25,000, will, in fact, cost $35,000 due to the Obama-Baucus tax!
It’s the Constitution’s 222nd Birthday: Are Obama’s “Czars” Invited?
The greatest danger to liberty lies in those who would change the Constitution by “usurpation”: exercising jurisdiction where no legitimate jurisdiction exists, giving the Constitution a Darwinist evolutionary interpretation and calling it a “living” Constitution rather than an “enduring” Constitution, recognizing “rights” that have no foundation in the Constitution, ignoring or watering down rights that are explicitly protected in the Constitution, ignoring constitutional the limits on government power or the checks and balances among the branches and levels of government that the Founding Fathers so wisely provided. We at the Foundation for Moral Law take seriously our duty to defend the Constitution as the Framers wrote it and intended it, against all forms of usurpation or misinterpretation.
Healthcare Reform Unraveling - Widening Gap of Disapproval
Tyranny: What kind of country would imprison citizens who felt it was in their best interest not to purchase health care insurance? We may soon find out.
Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, got an interesting handwritten note last week from the chief of staff of Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. Tom Barthold told Ensign that an American who did not buy health care insurance or pay the fee — up to $1,900 — that is required from those who opt out would find themselves in deep trouble with the government.
"Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead," Politico reported
Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, got an interesting handwritten note last week from the chief of staff of Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. Tom Barthold told Ensign that an American who did not buy health care insurance or pay the fee — up to $1,900 — that is required from those who opt out would find themselves in deep trouble with the government.
"Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead," Politico reported
Pay for Obamacare or go to jail!
Baucus' proposal contains 'hidden consequences'
A healthcare expert says the healthcare bill drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) creates new taxes and cuts to the Medicare program to reduce the cost to the federal government, but does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in the family budget.
The Wall Street Journal says the Baucus bill would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The bill would for the first time make Medicaid available to childless adults and also extend healthcare insurance subsidies to people up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
Under the senator's plan -- known as "America's Healthy Future Act" -- individuals who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance could be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.
A healthcare expert says the healthcare bill drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) creates new taxes and cuts to the Medicare program to reduce the cost to the federal government, but does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in the family budget.
The Wall Street Journal says the Baucus bill would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The bill would for the first time make Medicaid available to childless adults and also extend healthcare insurance subsidies to people up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
Under the senator's plan -- known as "America's Healthy Future Act" -- individuals who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance could be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The race bullies
...For Democrats there are no "racists" on the Left, just revered old Ku Klux Klanners like Senator Robert Byrd. So the real demagogues have risen to public notoriety and power...
The Left hates its domestic enemies -- we, the people -- with exactly the same blind hatred that Dixiecrat lynch mobs used to feel against blacks while on the rampage. The logic of the lynch mob is alive in the land, and it all comes from the ranting Left. Since that is the explicitly stated method of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the manual of the Left since the 1960s, this should come as no surprise. These are not decent people. They are thugs and bullies, and their sociopathy is designed to intimidate and seize power for themselves. They are old-style Stalinists.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Health Care Is Not a Right
Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Lest we forget: Barack Obama is ACORN
We cannot forget to remind folks, now that the Senate has voted 83-7 to strip ACORN of millions of taxpayer funds and the white-hot klieg lights have been turned on this bunch of goons, that President Obama was completely and utterly in bed with them throughout his entire adult life. These are his people. He was a commmunity organizer and they are the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. He trained them, he defended them as an attorney, and he paid them a pile of cash last year to help him get elected and then had to 'amend' the FEC filing to comply with the law.
IRS The New Health Care Enforcer
These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.
Some blacks now have doubts about Obama
The black conservative is not that rare freak of nature that so many think.
According to a Pew Research Center report, almost a third of blacks consider themselves conservative.
However, these folks have always been inclined to be quiet because of the social pressures and intimidation.
But this is changing.
According to a Pew Research Center report, almost a third of blacks consider themselves conservative.
However, these folks have always been inclined to be quiet because of the social pressures and intimidation.
But this is changing.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
President Obama Brazenly Lies to Congress, American People
So, after having been lied to repeatedly in so many ways, it should probably come as no surprise that President Obama would walk onto the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and lie to congress’ face and to the face of the American people.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Listening to a liar
The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.
No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.
One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess -- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!
The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.
No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.
One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess -- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Here Is the Most Offensive Ad for Saving the Planet Ever
Sure, 9/11 was pretty bad I guess, but if Mother Nature had been running 9/11 instead of Al Qaeda, it would have been a lot worse! In conclusion, please save the majestic snow tiger. That is basically what this ad is saying.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school
Spending on Lobbying Doubled From 2000 to 2008
In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. We've got totals spent on lobbying, beginning in 1998, for everyone from AAI Corp. to Zurich Financial.
You can use the options below to search through our database in several ways: search by name for a company, lobbying firm or individual lobbyist; search for the total spending by a particular industry; view the interests that lobbied a particular government agency; or search for lobbying on a general issue or specific piece of legislation.| Total Lobbying Spending | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Number of Lobbyists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Kennedy leaves 'sad legacy' on traditional values
A Massachusetts pro-family leader says Senator Ted Kennedy was a "remarkable individual," but has left a "sad legacy" of opposition to traditional values. (View news video)
"He was a champion for abortion, later on a champion for same-sex 'marriage' and the pushing of the homosexual agenda in our public schools," he points out. "That's a very sad legacy."
"He was a champion for abortion, later on a champion for same-sex 'marriage' and the pushing of the homosexual agenda in our public schools," he points out. "That's a very sad legacy."
Feds: Stimulus money sent to 4,000 cons
“President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill has done more to help convicted criminals than it has to actually boost our economy and create jobs,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Sara Sendek.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Whole Foods Boycott Picks Up Steam
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey shot his company in the face the other day with an anti-health care op-ed screed in the Wall Street Journal. He’s managed to piss off his company’s core demographic: liberals and progressives, and in the process, enabled a boycott that could actually work.
Commentary By: Richard Blair
Commentary By: Richard Blair
There is no doubt that boycotting Whole Foods would be a difficult proposition for many latte-sipping, Volvo-driving libruls. After all, where else are we going to spend hard earned grocery money for a $25 steak or a $10 pound of fair trade coffee?
The thing is, when Rupuert Murdoch published an anti-health care security op-ed from Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, a few progressive latte drinkers decided they didn’t need to buy their arugula at Whole Foods anymore, and called for a boycott. After all, the big marketing gimmick for Whole Foods is that they’re a socially responsible company which sells food that is actually good for you (even if the products are very over priced).
As of today, the boycott is really picking up some steam.
While I don’t normally support boycotts (for the most part, I don’t think they’re terribly well organized or impactful), this one is different, and I do believe it can be very effective. Here’s why:
Whole Foods has always marketed itself to a fairly educated and financially secure customer base. This is why they can successfully sell healthy (and primarily organic) foods, at a higher cost. The company has also fostered the image that it has an altruistic streak in supporting progressive causes.
With a single op-ed in an uber conservative national newspaper, this wholesome image has been blown to bits. In the course of writing 1,165 words, CEO Mackey has caused more potential damage to the Whole Foods corporate image than an e-coli outbreak in the meat room.
In calling for support of the boycott of Whole Foods, I’m making an educated guess that their average customer is very politically progressive in nature. And that is why, if liberals and progressives quit shopping at Whole Foods, the impact would be quickly apparent to the company’s Board of Directors. By quickly, I mean by this coming Monday morning when the weekend receipts are tallied.
I am all for freedom of speech. Mr. Mackey had every right to express his views on health care in the WSJ, even as anathema as those views might be to progressives. Similarly, we progressives have every right to decide whether or not we want to spend our food dollars in a store whose CEO clearly doesn’t support the most important progressive cause of the moment.
So, if you are a Whole Foods shopper, please consider honoring the boycott, at least for a short period of time. The impact will be very evident, and almost immediate.
On a lighter note, take a few minutes and read the Whole Foods website forums on this topic. The forums have been invaded by freepers and redstaters, with predictably resultant hilarity. If one was to believe the freepers, Whole Foods is going to have an entirely new demographic shopping in their stores. The only problem is: last I checked, Whole Foods doesn’t stock Coke, Cheetos, Armor hotdogs, or 365-brand Instant Grits.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Community rallies support for accused 'pray-ers'
FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FL ACLU!
A Florida community is voicing its support of three individuals who are facing criminal charges for prayer at school-related events.
Robert Smith is a businessman in the Florida Panhandle and creator of LayFreemanDefense.com. He says he started the website with help from an area dentist and a history teacher after he heard his personal friends had been charged. "This is terrible -- and it's time we stand up against this type of situation," he urges.
A Florida community is voicing its support of three individuals who are facing criminal charges for prayer at school-related events.
The ACLU recently threatened to sue Pace High School in Santa Rosa County, Florida, claiming that school officials were endorsing religion during school time. The school decided to settle out of court and, according to settlement agreements, school employees and officials were banned from engaging in religious activities before, during, and after school hours on campus.
The ACLU is now claiming that Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman violated the agreement when they offered a lunchtime prayer at a recent school building dedication ceremony. Criminal contempt charges have since been filed. Lay and Freeman are being represented by Liberty Counsel. (See earlier article)
Robert Smith is a businessman in the Florida Panhandle and creator of LayFreemanDefense.com. He says he started the website with help from an area dentist and a history teacher after he heard his personal friends had been charged. "This is terrible -- and it's time we stand up against this type of situation," he urges.
School officials face jail time for meal-time prayers
FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FL ACLU!
A principal and an athletic director are facing criminal charges for a lunch-time prayer.
A principal and an athletic director are facing criminal charges for a lunch-time prayer.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Pace High School in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The ACLU claimed some teachers and administrators were endorsing religion, but the school chose to give in to the ACLU's demands rather than fight them in court.
Links:
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A Public Option That Destroys All Options: Government Health Care Tyranny
Government intervention requires tyranny, because the government cannot give anyone health care unless it takes it from someone else or forces someone to supply it.
Obama's healthcare horror
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Dem Ploy: Fortunes of F-22 now linked to hate crimes measure
The fortunes of the F-22 have now been formally linked to hate crimes legislation, a pairing that’s giving heartburn to all kinds of U.S. senators, especially two from Georgia.
Late last night, the Senate voted to attach the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the $680 million defense bill. The hate crimes measure would extend greater federal protection to people attacked because of their gender or sexual orientation.
This from the Associated Press:
“The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes have no place in America,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said….
The House in April approved a similar bill and President Barack Obama has urged Congress to send him hate crimes legislation, presenting the best scenario for the measure to become law since Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., first introduced it more than a decade ago.
And yet, President Barack Obama has promised — again and again — to veto the bill because, as of now, it contains increased funding for the Marietta-built F-22 Raptor.
The pairing has gay and lesbians worried. Obama has sent the message that, in a contest, he will choose to veto the extra F-22 spending — even at the costs of the hate crimes legislation. The Advocate, a national news site aimed at gay readers, includes this quote from Shin Inouye, the White House director of specialty media:
Late last night, the Senate voted to attach the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the $680 million defense bill. The hate crimes measure would extend greater federal protection to people attacked because of their gender or sexual orientation.
This from the Associated Press:
“The Senate made a strong statement this evening that hate crimes have no place in America,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said….
The House in April approved a similar bill and President Barack Obama has urged Congress to send him hate crimes legislation, presenting the best scenario for the measure to become law since Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., first introduced it more than a decade ago.
And yet, President Barack Obama has promised — again and again — to veto the bill because, as of now, it contains increased funding for the Marietta-built F-22 Raptor.
The pairing has gay and lesbians worried. Obama has sent the message that, in a contest, he will choose to veto the extra F-22 spending — even at the costs of the hate crimes legislation. The Advocate, a national news site aimed at gay readers, includes this quote from Shin Inouye, the White House director of specialty media:
Reviewing Climate Change and Cap and Trade Programs to Insure Investor Protection
We all know that the artificial construct known as "cap and trade" is nothing more than a fraud to get companies to pay more taxes. It will have very little, to no, impact on CO2 levels, much less global warming.
Even if anthropogenic global warming existed there are much more effective and less costly ways of dealing with it. But those would not be income producers for our greedy governments thus they receive little attention (see Bjorn Lomborg 's Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming). At last someone is doing something about it, the Space and Science Research Center is calling for a SEC review of Cap and Trade. Especially now that global "warming" is over Cap and Trade needs to be investigated as possibly being illegal as “worthless securities”.
Even if anthropogenic global warming existed there are much more effective and less costly ways of dealing with it. But those would not be income producers for our greedy governments thus they receive little attention (see Bjorn Lomborg 's Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming). At last someone is doing something about it, the Space and Science Research Center is calling for a SEC review of Cap and Trade. Especially now that global "warming" is over Cap and Trade needs to be investigated as possibly being illegal as “worthless securities”.
Little for Liberals in Confirmation Hearings
Early on the third day of last week's confirmation hearings, one of the Senate Judiciary Committee's leading liberals leaned forward in his leather chair toward Sonia Sotomayor to explain his hopes for the next member of the nation's highest court.
"I want a justice," said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), a veteran politician taking part in his first Supreme Court confirmation, "who will continue to move the court forward in protecting . . . important civil rights. I want a justice who will fight for people like Lawrence King who, at the age of 15, was shot in a school because he was openly gay. I want a justice who will fight for women like a 28-year-old Californian who was gang-raped by four people because she was a lesbian. And I want a justice who will fight for people like James Byrd, who was beaten and dragged by a truck for two miles because he was black."
So, Cardin asked the nominee: Don't courts have to take such factors as race into account?
Sotomayor paused. "Well," she replied, "it depends on the context of the case that you're looking at."
"I want a justice," said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), a veteran politician taking part in his first Supreme Court confirmation, "who will continue to move the court forward in protecting . . . important civil rights. I want a justice who will fight for people like Lawrence King who, at the age of 15, was shot in a school because he was openly gay. I want a justice who will fight for women like a 28-year-old Californian who was gang-raped by four people because she was a lesbian. And I want a justice who will fight for people like James Byrd, who was beaten and dragged by a truck for two miles because he was black."
So, Cardin asked the nominee: Don't courts have to take such factors as race into account?
Sotomayor paused. "Well," she replied, "it depends on the context of the case that you're looking at."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Real Healthcare Reform: Competition and Choice
The choice facing us now is not between Obama's plan for healthcare micromanaged by the government or doing nothing. Rather, it is a choice between government control, regulation and rationing on one hand, and free markets, choice and competition on the other. That is the real healthcare debate.
So what exactly would a free-market approach to reform look like? Quite simply, it relies on those time-tested building blocks of marketplace efficiency: competition and choice.
1. We need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer. Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive.
2. Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed.
3. The other part of effective healthcare reform involves increasing competition among both insurers and health providers. Current regulations establish monopolies and cartels in both industries. Today, for example, people can't purchase health insurance across state lines. And because different states have very different regulations and mandates, costs can vary widely depending on where you live.
4. We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. We also should be encouraging such innovations in delivery as medical clinics in retail outlets.
So what exactly would a free-market approach to reform look like? Quite simply, it relies on those time-tested building blocks of marketplace efficiency: competition and choice.
1. We need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer. Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive.
2. Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed.
3. The other part of effective healthcare reform involves increasing competition among both insurers and health providers. Current regulations establish monopolies and cartels in both industries. Today, for example, people can't purchase health insurance across state lines. And because different states have very different regulations and mandates, costs can vary widely depending on where you live.
4. We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. We also should be encouraging such innovations in delivery as medical clinics in retail outlets.
The bureaucratic nightmare of Dem government-run health care... Developing...
This is the Democrat’s healthcare plan flow chart.
In this picture you are the consumer (pictured as consumers) on the left and need to get healthcare goods and services from the provider (pictured as a nurse on the right). The flows in the middle are all the steps you must go through to get the goods the services under their plan.
Download PDF at:
http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
In this picture you are the consumer (pictured as consumers) on the left and need to get healthcare goods and services from the provider (pictured as a nurse on the right). The flows in the middle are all the steps you must go through to get the goods the services under their plan.
Download PDF at:
http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tobacco control and thought control
The great judge Learned Hand once said, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." If so, the tobacco regulation bill recently passed by Congress indicates that the spirit of liberty is even scarcer than usual in the halls of government.
What motivates advocates of stricter tobacco regulation is the unassailable assurance that they are not only completely right but that their opponents are a) wrong and b) evil. This invigorating certitude makes it possible to justify almost anything that punishes cigarette companies, even if it does no actual good -- or does actual harm.One of the main purposes of the new law is to reduce the number of smokers in the name of improving "public health." This is a skillful use of language to confuse rather than enlighten.
What motivates advocates of stricter tobacco regulation is the unassailable assurance that they are not only completely right but that their opponents are a) wrong and b) evil. This invigorating certitude makes it possible to justify almost anything that punishes cigarette companies, even if it does no actual good -- or does actual harm.One of the main purposes of the new law is to reduce the number of smokers in the name of improving "public health." This is a skillful use of language to confuse rather than enlighten.
How to Cure Health Care By Milton Friedman
Conclusion: Medical Savings Accounts and Beyond
The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes.
The ideal way to do that would be to reverse past actions: repeal the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminate Medicare and Medicaid; deregulate most insurance; and restrict the role of the government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases. However, the vested interests that have grown up around the existing system, and the tyranny of the status quo, clearly make that solution not feasible politically. Yet it is worth stating the ideal as a guide to judging whether proposed incremental changes are in the right direction.
Most changes made in the final decade of the twentieth century were in the wrong direction. Despite rejection of the sweeping socialization of medicine proposed by Hillary Clinton, subsequent incremental changes have expanded the role of government, increased regulation of medical practice, and further constrained the terms of medical insurance, thereby raising its cost and increasing the fraction of individuals who choose or are forced to go without insurance.
There is one exception, which, though minor in current scope, is pregnant of future possibilities. The Kassebaum-Kennedy Bill, passed in 1996 after lengthy and acrimonious debate, included a narrowly limited four-year pilot program authorizing medical savings accounts. A medical savings account enables individuals to deposit tax-free funds in an account usable only for medical expense, provided they have a high-deductible insurance policy that limits the maximum out-of-pocket expense. As noted earlier, it eliminates third-party payment except for major medical expenses and is thus a movement very much in the right direction. By extending tax exemption to all medical expenses whether paid by the employer or not, it eliminates the present bias in favor of employer-provided medical care. That too is a move in the right direction. However, the extension of tax exemption increases the bias in favor of medical care compared to other household expenditures. This effect would tend to increase the implicit government subsidy for medical care, which would be a step in the wrong direction.
Before this pilot project, a number of large companies (e.g., Quaker Oats, Forbes, Golden Rule Insurance Company) had offered their employees the choice of a medical savings account instead of the usual low-deductible employer-provided insurance policy. In each case, the employer purchased a high-deductible major medical insurance policy for the employee and deposited a stated sum, generally about half of the deductible, in a medical savings account for the employee. That sum could be used by the employee for medical care. Any part not used during the year was the property of the employee and had to be included in taxable income. Despite the loss of the tax exemption, this alternative has generally been very popular with both employers and employees. It has reduced costs for the employer and empowered the employee, eliminating much third-party payment.
Medical savings accounts offer one way to resolve the growing financial and administrative problems of Medicare and Medicaid. It seems clear from private experience that a program along these lines would be less expensive and bureaucratic than the current system and more satisfactory to the participants. In effect, it would be a way to voucherize Medicare and Medicaid. It would enable participants to spend their own money on themselves for routine medical care and medical problems, rather than having to go through HMOs and insurance companies, while at the same time providing protection against medical catastrophes.
A more radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.
This reform would solve the problem of the currently medically uninsured, eliminate most of the bureaucratic structure, free medical practitioners from an increasingly heavy burden of paperwork and regulation, and lead many employers and employees to convert employer-provided medical care into a higher cash wage. The taxpayer would save money because total government costs would plummet. The family would be relieved of one of its major concerns—the possibility of being impoverished by a major medical catastrophe—and most could readily finance the remaining medical costs. Families would once again have an incentive to monitor the providers of medical care and to establish the kind of personal relations with them that were once customary. The demonstrated efficiency of private enterprise would have a chance to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical care. The first question asked of a patient entering a hospital might once again become "What’s wrong?" not "What’s your insurance?"
The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes.
The ideal way to do that would be to reverse past actions: repeal the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminate Medicare and Medicaid; deregulate most insurance; and restrict the role of the government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases. However, the vested interests that have grown up around the existing system, and the tyranny of the status quo, clearly make that solution not feasible politically. Yet it is worth stating the ideal as a guide to judging whether proposed incremental changes are in the right direction.
Most changes made in the final decade of the twentieth century were in the wrong direction. Despite rejection of the sweeping socialization of medicine proposed by Hillary Clinton, subsequent incremental changes have expanded the role of government, increased regulation of medical practice, and further constrained the terms of medical insurance, thereby raising its cost and increasing the fraction of individuals who choose or are forced to go without insurance.
There is one exception, which, though minor in current scope, is pregnant of future possibilities. The Kassebaum-Kennedy Bill, passed in 1996 after lengthy and acrimonious debate, included a narrowly limited four-year pilot program authorizing medical savings accounts. A medical savings account enables individuals to deposit tax-free funds in an account usable only for medical expense, provided they have a high-deductible insurance policy that limits the maximum out-of-pocket expense. As noted earlier, it eliminates third-party payment except for major medical expenses and is thus a movement very much in the right direction. By extending tax exemption to all medical expenses whether paid by the employer or not, it eliminates the present bias in favor of employer-provided medical care. That too is a move in the right direction. However, the extension of tax exemption increases the bias in favor of medical care compared to other household expenditures. This effect would tend to increase the implicit government subsidy for medical care, which would be a step in the wrong direction.
Before this pilot project, a number of large companies (e.g., Quaker Oats, Forbes, Golden Rule Insurance Company) had offered their employees the choice of a medical savings account instead of the usual low-deductible employer-provided insurance policy. In each case, the employer purchased a high-deductible major medical insurance policy for the employee and deposited a stated sum, generally about half of the deductible, in a medical savings account for the employee. That sum could be used by the employee for medical care. Any part not used during the year was the property of the employee and had to be included in taxable income. Despite the loss of the tax exemption, this alternative has generally been very popular with both employers and employees. It has reduced costs for the employer and empowered the employee, eliminating much third-party payment.
Medical savings accounts offer one way to resolve the growing financial and administrative problems of Medicare and Medicaid. It seems clear from private experience that a program along these lines would be less expensive and bureaucratic than the current system and more satisfactory to the participants. In effect, it would be a way to voucherize Medicare and Medicaid. It would enable participants to spend their own money on themselves for routine medical care and medical problems, rather than having to go through HMOs and insurance companies, while at the same time providing protection against medical catastrophes.
A more radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.
This reform would solve the problem of the currently medically uninsured, eliminate most of the bureaucratic structure, free medical practitioners from an increasingly heavy burden of paperwork and regulation, and lead many employers and employees to convert employer-provided medical care into a higher cash wage. The taxpayer would save money because total government costs would plummet. The family would be relieved of one of its major concerns—the possibility of being impoverished by a major medical catastrophe—and most could readily finance the remaining medical costs. Families would once again have an incentive to monitor the providers of medical care and to establish the kind of personal relations with them that were once customary. The demonstrated efficiency of private enterprise would have a chance to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical care. The first question asked of a patient entering a hospital might once again become "What’s wrong?" not "What’s your insurance?"
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
How Safeway Is Cutting Health-Care Costs
Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A Call to Action for all Republicans
“The great difference between Reagan’s rhetorical skills and President Obama’s rhetorical skills are that Reagan used his rhetorical skills to shine light on truths and fundamental facts. Obama uses his rhetorical skills to hide from fundamental facts.” Newt Gingrich
TRANSCRIPT - Newt's Speech to 2009 House/Senate GOP Fundraising Dinner
"First, we must strengthen our unique American civilization. Let me be clear, I am not a citizen of the world. I think that the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous. There is no world sovereignty, there is no world system of law - there is in fact no circumstance under which I would like to be a citizen of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, or Russia. I am a citizen – I am a citizen of the United States of America. And, the rest of this speech is about the United States of America."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor: "Affirmative Action Baby"
No one is seriously arguing that Sotomayor was the most impressive intellect of those rumored to have made Obama's short list. The fact that she graduated summa cum laude argues in favor of her competence, as does her long career on the bench, but by Sotomayor's own account she would not be where she is had she had not benefited from race-based preferences. As a matter of official policy, these schools lowered the bar for Sotomayor, so why do her supporters -- who tend also to be supporters of affirmative action -- not celebrate her nomination, and her career, as proof that affirmative action works? The former president of Princeton University specifically denied that Sotomayor had needed the help of affirmative action in order to gain admission to Princeton. Conservatives who suggested otherwise were called racists or worse. There's only one possible explanation for this -- liberals are embarrassed that their nominee wasn't smart enough to get here on her own.
VOTING IN GEORGIA
Last year, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel put together a program whereby election officials would use state driver's license databases and match them against voter databases to determine if any illegal aliens participated in the voting process. The process would apply special scrutiny to any person registering to vote who said that they were not a citizen when they got their driver's license. Seems fair, doesn't it? The Justice Department thought so, and the process did indeed find illegal voters.
Naturally, Karen Handel is more than peeved that the DOJ has rejected her program for voter verification. So she decided to respond to the DOJ about its rejection:
The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia's already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections.
With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ's decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election.
The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.
DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia's elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant's citizenship status or whether the individual even exists.... Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.
Wrong-Way Health Care 'Reform' Could Actually Increase Spending
Too Much Medicine
Employer-paid insurance premiums for family coverage, which grew 85% in inflation-adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040 (all figures in "constant 2008 dollars"). The huge costs would force employers to reduce take-home pay.
The message in these dismal figures is that uncontrolled health spending is almost single-handedly determining national priorities. It's reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs.
Worse, much medical spending is wasted, the CEA report says. It doesn't improve Americans' health; some care is unneeded or ineffective.
The Obama administration's response is to talk endlessly about restraining health spending — "bending the curve" is the buzz — as if talk would suffice. The president summoned the heads of major health care trade groups representing doctors, hospitals, drug companies and medical device firms to the White House. All pledged to bend the curve.
This is mostly public relations. Does anyone believe that the American Medical Association can control the nation's 800,000 doctors or that the American Hospital Association can command the 5,700 hospitals?
The central cause of runaway health spending is clear. Hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, either private or governmental.
The open-ended payment system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services — and patients to expect them. It also favors new medical technologies, which are made profitable by heavy use.
Unfortunately, what pleases providers and patients individually hurts the nation as a whole.
That's the crux of the health care dilemma, and Obama hasn't confronted it. His emphasis on controlling costs is cosmetic. The main aim of health care "reform" now being fashioned in Congress is to provide insurance to most of the 46 million uncovered Americans.
Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart Liebowitz, you are as clueless as that president you worship. Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg have had hangnails with more intelligence and class than you will ever have. You are also ignorant, hateful, and intolerant of anybody who doesn’t think exactly the same as you and your not very enlightened audience.
Just like a liberal.
Look in the mirror, Liebowitz. There you’ll discover the real extremist in this scenario.
Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: David Letterman Jokes About Statutory Rape of Willow Palin
You’d think after the deletion of last week’s Playboy article fantasizing about raping ten conservative women, liberals in the entertainment world would get the message.
Yoy thought wrong. On Monday, David Letterman joked about fourteen year-old Willow Palin being “knocked up by NY Yankee Alex Rodriguez.” And his audience laughed.
Why? Just … why?
The righto-sphere is all over this one like flies on a rib roast. Jim Treacher at Hot Air comments:
I realize I’m just an inbred backwoods moron who can’t abide by any criticism of Sarah Palin whatsoever, but is this really the precedent we want to set for our politicians and their families?
After all, Samson Obama, one of the president’s many half-brothers, isn’t allowed in the UK because he tried to assault a 13-year-old girl. Are we to impose the Letterman standard there? Is it okay to make a joke like this?
“How come the First Family never invites Uncle Samson to visit? Because whenever Sasha and Malia sit on his knee, it takes six Secret Service guys to pry them off!”
Or how about this?
“Joe Biden keeps saying he’s not really sure where all that stimulus money is going. In other news, Ashley Biden’s coke dealer just bought Luxembourg.”
Hey, I didn’t say they were good jokes. But are they really worse than what Letterman just got away with on national TV? If so, why?
We Waged a War Against Drugs, And Drugs Won
Here in the United States, four decades of drug war have had three consequences:
1. We have vastly increased the proportion of our population in prisons. The United States now incarcerates people at a rate nearly five times the world average. In part, that’s because the number of people in prison for drug offenses rose roughly from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. Until the war on drugs, our incarceration rate was roughly the same as that of other countries.
2. We have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban. Former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia this year jointly implored the United States to adopt a new approach to narcotics, based on the public health campaign against tobacco.
3. We have squandered resources. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, found that federal, state and local governments spend $44.1 billion annually enforcing drug prohibitions. We spend seven times as much on drug interdiction, policing and imprisonment as on treatment.
It’s now broadly acknowledged that the drug war approach has failed.
1. We have vastly increased the proportion of our population in prisons. The United States now incarcerates people at a rate nearly five times the world average. In part, that’s because the number of people in prison for drug offenses rose roughly from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. Until the war on drugs, our incarceration rate was roughly the same as that of other countries.
2. We have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban. Former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia this year jointly implored the United States to adopt a new approach to narcotics, based on the public health campaign against tobacco.
3. We have squandered resources. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, found that federal, state and local governments spend $44.1 billion annually enforcing drug prohibitions. We spend seven times as much on drug interdiction, policing and imprisonment as on treatment.
It’s now broadly acknowledged that the drug war approach has failed.
America At A Crossroads
Today's political mix includes liberal and conservative Republicans, and liberal and conservative Democrats. The Republican and Democrat tags no longer accurately identify political doctrine. The designations liberal and conservative have also changed from their original meaning.
Today's liberalism is a perversion of Classical Liberalism, which stressed the essential goodness and rationality of man and his ability to recognize and solve problems, all of which led to systematic improvement in man's life, exemplified by the Enlightenment.
The corruption began in 1848. Karl Marx and Friedich Engels, ignoring the vast improvements the Enlightenment made possible, argued that the state should advance the welfare of individuals. Since the state has no income except by taxing those who produce, those who produce were sentenced to provide for those who did not, violating the rights of producers.
The corruption spread in the 1930s when Roosevelt signed into law the minimum wage, progressive taxation, Social Security and established Fannie Mae to provide low-interest mortgages. Classical Liberalism was dead. Liberalism and the welfare state became one: socialism.
Conservatism originally supported limited government and free enterprise. But it also held that political, social and religious institutions represented ageless wisdom and that the source of individual rights were "gifts from God," not man's nature. Rights, therefore, were considered privileges meted out in obedience to God.
Today's liberalism is a perversion of Classical Liberalism, which stressed the essential goodness and rationality of man and his ability to recognize and solve problems, all of which led to systematic improvement in man's life, exemplified by the Enlightenment.
The corruption began in 1848. Karl Marx and Friedich Engels, ignoring the vast improvements the Enlightenment made possible, argued that the state should advance the welfare of individuals. Since the state has no income except by taxing those who produce, those who produce were sentenced to provide for those who did not, violating the rights of producers.
The corruption spread in the 1930s when Roosevelt signed into law the minimum wage, progressive taxation, Social Security and established Fannie Mae to provide low-interest mortgages. Classical Liberalism was dead. Liberalism and the welfare state became one: socialism.
Conservatism originally supported limited government and free enterprise. But it also held that political, social and religious institutions represented ageless wisdom and that the source of individual rights were "gifts from God," not man's nature. Rights, therefore, were considered privileges meted out in obedience to God.
Friday, May 15, 2009
CIA documents say Speaker Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques
"We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 in a news conference.
In an April 23, 2009 press conference, Pelosi was asked if, during the fall of 2002, she and other key members of the Intelligence Committee, were briefed on interrogation methods, including waterboarding.
Pelosi said that only on one occasion had she received a CIA briefing on interrogation techniques, but that "We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel -- the Office of Legislative Counsel opinions that they could be used, but not that they would.
"Further," she said, "the point was that if and when they would be used, they could brief Congress at that time...My experience was they did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any contention to the contrary is simply not true."
But her comments are directly contradicted by a CIA timeline prepared by the Director of National Intelligence that indicates Pelosi and Porter Goss, R-Florida, then-Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.
Specifically, the CIA timeline states that on Sept. 4, 2002, Pelosi and Goss received a "Briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) including use of EITs on (alleged al-Qaeda operative) Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."
That briefing came a month after the CIA began using Justice Department-approved enhanced interrogation techniques - including the drowning simulation technique known as waterboarding - on Abu Zubaydah, according to a Justice Department memo released last month.
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’
May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Gingrich: Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial'
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich today offered a blistering critique of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handling of oversight on harsh interrogation tactics, in a major escalation of partisan attacks being aimed at Pelosi.
In an interview with ABC News Radio’s Marcus Wilson, Gingrich, R-Ga., said Pelosi, D-Calif., “has lied to the House” in claiming that she was never briefed by the CIA about the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics.
"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.
He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."
"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."
"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,” Gingrich said. “The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”
In an interview with ABC News Radio’s Marcus Wilson, Gingrich, R-Ga., said Pelosi, D-Calif., “has lied to the House” in claiming that she was never briefed by the CIA about the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics.
"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.
He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."
"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."
"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,” Gingrich said. “The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”
U.S. Attorney's office tells employees not to log on to Drudge Report
Asked why the conservative-leaning news aggregator and President Barack Obama critic was flagged by Internet security officials, Tracy Schmaler, a Department of Justice spokeswoman, said it was because “a malicious code was found contained in a Web ad on Drudge.”
Schmaler also said the request to stay off Drudge wasn’t politically motivated and said it was sent only to the office in Massachusetts. She also said other popular sites were later found to have potential viruses, including ESPN.com.
Read more: "U.S. Attorney's office tells employees not to log on to Drudge Report - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22574.html#ixzz0FdbFcaTc&A
Schmaler also said the request to stay off Drudge wasn’t politically motivated and said it was sent only to the office in Massachusetts. She also said other popular sites were later found to have potential viruses, including ESPN.com.
Read more: "U.S. Attorney's office tells employees not to log on to Drudge Report - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22574.html#ixzz0FdbFcaTc&A
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Golf Analyst Feherty Joke in Dallas Magazine
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. -- CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.
Feherty, one of the most popular golf analysts for his sharp wit and self-deprecating humor, was among five Dallas residents who wrote for "D Magazine" on former President George W. Bush moving to Dallas.
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.
"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."
Feherty, one of the most popular golf analysts for his sharp wit and self-deprecating humor, was among five Dallas residents who wrote for "D Magazine" on former President George W. Bush moving to Dallas.
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.
"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."
Saturday, May 9, 2009
A great explanation of why socialism doesn't work
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."
Now, socialism can't be made any clearer than this! (And, remember, we have many congressmen, and now a president, who hold to socialistic ideals. If they are allowed to succeed, the United States, the last bastion of democracy, will eventually cease to exist. This is frightening, but a simple truth! Take a look how people are forced to live under socialism in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. - the people have no initiative!)
"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."
Now, socialism can't be made any clearer than this! (And, remember, we have many congressmen, and now a president, who hold to socialistic ideals. If they are allowed to succeed, the United States, the last bastion of democracy, will eventually cease to exist. This is frightening, but a simple truth! Take a look how people are forced to live under socialism in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. - the people have no initiative!)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A ChangeWatch 100 Day Edition: Change You Can Bereave In
April 14th, 2009 President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security releases a report on domestic terrorism that targets, among others, veterans and pro-life advocates.
April 17th, 2009 The National Institutes of Health issue draft guidelines for taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research, creating an incentive for human embryo destruction for experiments
April 20th, 2009 President Obama nominates Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Dr. Sunstein has stated regarding rationing health care: “A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”
April 22nd, 2009 President Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, testifies in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Obama Administration believes that “reproductive health” includes a right to abortion and that the policy of the Obama Administration is to work to overturn pro-life laws in other countries.
President Obama’s Food and Drug Administration issues an order that the sometimes abortifacient, Plan B (also known as the “morning after pill,” should be given to 17-year-old girls without a prescription or their parents’ consent.
April 27th, 2009 President Obama nominates Dr. Eric Goosby for Ambassador at Large and Global AIDS Coordinator at the Department of State. Dr. Goosby has been a critic of abortion funding restrictions and abstinence education requirements in international efforts to combat AIDS/HIV
Monday, April 27, 2009
President Proposes 0.0025% Spending Cut
At his first Cabinet meeting last week, President Obama asked his cabinet officers to cut a combined total of $100 million in spending over the next 90 days. That is about 0.0025% of the $4 trillion that the federal government will spend this year.
As a symbolic gesture, the President’s request is appreciated. In reality, it compares to a household with an income of $50,000 cutting out $1.25 in spending, the price of a cup of coffee.
Halting and reversing the coming spending tsunami will require a much greater effort. To bring the administration closer to real restraint, last week I formally called on the President to take his cuts further and find and eliminate $100 million in waste from each of his 15 cabinet departments.
Then, how about a 1% decrease in each department? A penny on the dollar - aren't Americans doing more than that? Our government should too!
As a symbolic gesture, the President’s request is appreciated. In reality, it compares to a household with an income of $50,000 cutting out $1.25 in spending, the price of a cup of coffee.
Halting and reversing the coming spending tsunami will require a much greater effort. To bring the administration closer to real restraint, last week I formally called on the President to take his cuts further and find and eliminate $100 million in waste from each of his 15 cabinet departments.
Then, how about a 1% decrease in each department? A penny on the dollar - aren't Americans doing more than that? Our government should too!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Gender-confused Fagtard
Why wouldn't someone choose to be gay in today's world? Look at all the support and benefit you get from Hollywood.
Perez Hilton is exposing many celebrities like Eminem and will smith. He seems to be insulting the poor defenseless celebrities. Well it's time to expose Perez Hilton Himself or Herself well what ever gender IT is.
If you go on it's site and view all the info on each celebrities. You can tell me what your comments are after you read this:
Do you want to read what is written by a crazy stalker? This so called "Stalker" is supposedly a male who has Rainbow hair (must be gender-confused). Well if you want to read it go ahead but truth be told nobody wants to hear what a gender-confused transvestite wants to hear!
Link.
Perez Hilton is exposing many celebrities like Eminem and will smith. He seems to be insulting the poor defenseless celebrities. Well it's time to expose Perez Hilton Himself or Herself well what ever gender IT is.
If you go on it's site and view all the info on each celebrities. You can tell me what your comments are after you read this:
Do you want to read what is written by a crazy stalker? This so called "Stalker" is supposedly a male who has Rainbow hair (must be gender-confused). Well if you want to read it go ahead but truth be told nobody wants to hear what a gender-confused transvestite wants to hear!
Link.
Forget Earth Day - What About Capitalism Day?
From evidence "that tropical rain forests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down" to the improving health of U.S. ocean fisheries to better outdoor air quality in American cities with the worst air pollution, Hayward shows there's more to be optimistic about than there is to be troubled about.
The Environmental Protection Agency has also published its own Report on the environment. Last year's report, the most recent, indicates outdoor air quality has improved, there's been a net gain in wetland acreage, public-source drinking-water problems are uncommon and forest land is expanding after declining for a century.
Americans are actually generating no more trash per-capita than they were in 1990, our production of hazardous waste has fallen from 36 million tons in 1999 to 28 million tons in 2005, and lead levels in our blood have shown "a steady decline since the 1980s."
And then there's carbon dioxide. We are pumping out more than ever. But there's no evidence, only speculation, that this weak greenhouse gas is having any effect on the environment.
Monday, April 20, 2009
SPIN METER: Saving federal money the easy way
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.
The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Danger of Environmentalism
Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.
The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)