A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) said this afternoon that Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democratic health care reform bill is approved by the U.S. Congress.
Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is "still being worked out."
Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.
We are also expecting to receive a letter shortly that Cuccinelli is sending to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning her that using the so-called "deem and pass" procedure to pass the Senate health reform bill in the House would open the measure to additional constitutional challenges from the states.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
VIDEO: How Modern Liberals Think by Evan Sayet
The modern liberal looks back in history and says none of the religions, ideas, philosophies, ideologies, or forms of government have created a society devoid of war, crime, poverty nor injustice. Therefore, the real cause of these must be caused by the attempt to be right.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Video: God doesn’t listen to Joe Biden
Or maybe God just figured that Joe Biden wasn’t terribly serious about this 2005 prayer, unearthed by Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News today. He was not the only Democrat bemoaning “majoritarian, absolute power,” either, or complaining about unilateral rules changes at that time. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton join Biden as current administration officials who have suddenly seen the light of majoritarian power:
It smells like desperation from a political party groaning under the heavy burden … of an eighteen-seat majority.
“I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”Dianne Feinstein said on the Senate floor that “it begins with judicial nominations, next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.” Now, Democrats want to skip over the first two — which never happened — and leap right to legislation. Chuck Schumer called the 2005 suggestion to exempt judicial nominations from the filibuster as “almost a temper tantrum”; if that was the case in 2005, what does 2010 represent? A psychotic break from reality? Strauitjacket time?
It smells like desperation from a political party groaning under the heavy burden … of an eighteen-seat majority.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Bill Bennett, Leave #Beck Alone and Can Keep Your Old and Dumb RINO Republican Party
Dear Bill,
Keep your TeaParty criticisms to yourself. We have seen how well your "old decrepit" Republican guard politics have worked. The TeaParty has advanced the conservative cause way more over the last year than your whole political career all together.
_rd1776
Read the rest here...
Keep your TeaParty criticisms to yourself. We have seen how well your "old decrepit" Republican guard politics have worked. The TeaParty has advanced the conservative cause way more over the last year than your whole political career all together.
_rd1776
|
There’s a lot to say about CPAC. This morning the major papers are highlighting Glenn Beck’s speech. I like Glenn a lot and I think he has something to teach us. But not what he offered last night.
Analogizing his own struggles with alcohol to the problems of our polity and in our politics, he said, “Hello, my name is the Republican party, and I have a problem!” “I’m addicted to spending and big government.” ”It is still morning in America.” ”It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting-for-four-hours kind of morning in America. And it’s shaping up to be kind of a nasty day. But it is still morning in America.” And, again, “I believe in redemption, but the first step to getting redemption is you’ve got to admit that you’ve got a problem. I have not heard people in the Republican party yet admit that they have a problem.”
Read the rest here...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Austin IRS Bomber inspired by progressive ideology #joestack
Suicide Bomber of Austin IRS Building uses progressive/Marxist beliefs to justify 9/11 style attack
While Joe Stack, the suicide bomber who flew his plane into the Austin, TX IRS office, owed money to the IRS and had experienced hardships through IRS rule changes and bad tax advice, his underlying motivation was tied to progressive/marxist ideology.
What enabled Joe Stack to climb into his plane and fly into the IRS building was rooted in his Left Wing ideology, which be revealed through the now famous suicide note left at
http://embeddedart.com/
Plane crash pilot left anti-IRS Web note #joestack
AUSTIN, Texas — A software engineer furious with the Internal Revenue Service plowed his small plane into an office building housing nearly 200 federal tax employees today, officials said, setting off a raging fire that sent workers fleeing as thick plumes of black smoke poured into the air.
A US law official identified the pilot as Joseph Stack — whose home was set on fire just before the crash — and said investigators were looking at an anti-government message on the Web linked to him.
The Web site outlines problems with the IRS and says violence “is the only answer.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/plane_hits_building_in_austin_tx_RtOlnluhjKozyjw2m2D3IL#ixzz0fwfRB1Ln
A US law official identified the pilot as Joseph Stack — whose home was set on fire just before the crash — and said investigators were looking at an anti-government message on the Web linked to him.
The Web site outlines problems with the IRS and says violence “is the only answer.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/plane_hits_building_in_austin_tx_RtOlnluhjKozyjw2m2D3IL#ixzz0fwfRB1Ln
Monday, February 15, 2010
Why America Sucks to Democrats
Democrats are convinced that Americans keep electing Republicans either because they are stupid, or because the DNC message just isn’t reaching the electorate. How could their message not reach the electorate when the lamestream press covers their message daily on every front page?
Their message is out there, we hear it, we get it - it isn’t that complicated. Even my second grader gets it. Today’s DNC campaign platform can be summed up in two words… “AMERICA SUCKS!”
In short, nothing about America is right or good in the eyes of Democrats and their campaign message is, nothing short of a complete DNC victory can change that. This is their message… Everything sucks and only Democrats can fix it… We get it… We hear you loud and clear – like a broken record actually.
The war on terror SUCKS! Bush lied, people died, terrorists did nothing to us, we caused it all, we can’t win, Islamic terrorists are “freedom fighters” and American soldiers are “Nazis”. We hear you! We suck!
Our economy SUCKS! Matter of fact, capitalism and our free market system SUCKS! Capitalism only rewards those who earn, leaving those who don’t behind and that SUCKS! We get it! Socialism is better – we hear you!
Read more...
Their message is out there, we hear it, we get it - it isn’t that complicated. Even my second grader gets it. Today’s DNC campaign platform can be summed up in two words… “AMERICA SUCKS!”
In short, nothing about America is right or good in the eyes of Democrats and their campaign message is, nothing short of a complete DNC victory can change that. This is their message… Everything sucks and only Democrats can fix it… We get it… We hear you loud and clear – like a broken record actually.
The war on terror SUCKS! Bush lied, people died, terrorists did nothing to us, we caused it all, we can’t win, Islamic terrorists are “freedom fighters” and American soldiers are “Nazis”. We hear you! We suck!
Our economy SUCKS! Matter of fact, capitalism and our free market system SUCKS! Capitalism only rewards those who earn, leaving those who don’t behind and that SUCKS! We get it! Socialism is better – we hear you!
Read more...
Friday, February 12, 2010
How Obama’s Tax Attack Will Hurt Everyone (Whether You’re a Rich Business Owner Or Not!)
Earn $75,000 a Year? Obama’s Coming After You Too!
Oh and by the way, if you make as much as $75,000 a year…Obama’s coming after you too through the Alternative Minimum Tax.This will tax families earning between $75,000 and $500,000 a year more than they had in the past. So the AMT which was only originally designed to affect millionaires will now affect those earning $75,000 a year!
Any time the tax burden increases, job creation is much slower. Also, the expansion of corporate profits slows down.
This horrendous combo will cause stocks to tank once again!
Any time the government zaps this much of corporate earnings through extra taxation, it weighs upon earnings growth. That in turn will weigh upon stock prices have to be ratcheted down to match the lower earnings growth rates.
However, when stocks start to fall, they will not only fall to match those lower earnings levels but they will fall much further. Why? A stock market downtrend causes more fear and more panic and feeds off of itself. It causes stocks to overshoot to the downside
Millions in Stimulus Spending Being Doled Out for Questionable Jobs
Federal agencies are spending stimulus money at the rate of $196 million an hour. And they will do so every hour for the next eight months until a September 30, 2010, deadline.
Government Adopts Religion: U.S. proposes new climate service #gorehoax #obamafail
The Obama administration proposed a new climate service on Monday that would provide Americans with predictions on how global warming will affect everything from drought to sea levels.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Iran delivers stunning punch to West by attacking its own people
The far right, convinced that Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were planning to destroy the world today with its massive, unchecked nuclear arsenal, can rest easy thus far, as Iran seems only intent on showing the world it’s military might by making life Hell for its own people.
In his address, Mr. Ahmadinejad praised the achievements of the Iranian people and railed against the West.Many in the U.S. had been prepared for the worst after Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a “punch” that will stun world powers. Top conservative thinkers like Michael Leeden were telling Israel to be prepared for the worst.
Meantime, opposition Web sites say security forces fired tear gas to disperse opposition supporters gathered in central Tehran.
There are also reports that leading reformist politicians Mehdi Karroubi and former President Mohammad Khatami were attacked. …
An Iranian security official, Police Chief Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, told Iranian media Wednesday that authorities are prepared to deal with anyone trying to disrupt state-run rallies. He said several people have already been detained for organizing protests
“What might he have in mind? I don’t know; they say a lot of things just for effect, but threats/promises from the supreme leader have a certain standing. If I were an Israeli official, I’d recheck my information on Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.”Luckily, for the 10,000th consecutive time, it now appears that Iran was sabre-rattling ahead of a celebration, and Iran won’t be attempting a national suicide mission into Israel. They’ll just be teaching their own people who’s boss.
It Happened. The moron left has claimed the DC snow is DUE to global warming #green #eco
NYT: THE BLIZZARDS ARE FROM THE WARMING...
Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.
Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.
As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”
The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.
Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.
Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.
As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”
The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.
Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.
About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad #green #eco #algorefail
About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad
Some of you think Audi’s “Green Police” ad that ran during the Super Bowl last night was brilliant satire. Others were creeped out. Count me in the creeped-out camp.
If you missed it, here it is:
Now, here is the context you need to judge which side Audi is on — from the company’s “Audi Green Police” website:
The Second American Revolution: Defund and Disobey the Fascists
The left's anti-American coup d'etat on America, made possible by the first radical Marxist in the White House, calls for distinctly American counter measures.
Dr. Jack Wheeler has "a strategy for any Republican wanting to get elected or re-elected to Congress in 2010, and for any Tea Partyer wanting to take individual action now against a government that ignores the Constitution -- Defund and Disobey."
Here's an excerpt of "The Double -D Strategy for rescuing America":
Let's talk about the Defund D first. The Founders in their usual brilliance place the power of the purse in the House, whose members must face election every two years - for if they become profligate with this power the voters can throw them out within months (24 max) rather than wait years (6) like the Senate.
All Appropriation bills authorizing any branch of the federal government (legislative, judicial, executive) to spend any money for any program must be initiated in and passed by a majority of the House. The Senate can only agree or disagree, and the same with the President.
The obverse of this appropriation authority is that if the House doesn't authorize money for something, then no money can be spent on that something by anyone in the federal government.
This was Senator Jim Inhofe's point when he announced (12/13) that "Obama has no power to make a deal in Copenhagen." Unless the House appropriates the money for any deal he makes, there's no deal at all.
[...]
Currently, this is the best that can be done at the federal legislative level. That is, the key goal of House & Senate Republicans is to block the passage of Dem legislation that will expand government and make our economy so much worse than it already is. There is no way for the Pubs to pass legislation that will make things better - and this is true even if the Republicans gain majority in the House in 2010 due to Zero's veto power.
There is another way. One key solution to solving our problems, economic and social, is to get the federal government out of the way. To the extent that this requires positive legislative remedies - such as eliminating capital gains taxes, the depreciation schedule for capital expenses, and Sarbox - these will have to wait until we get a pro-capitalist president instead of a pro-socialist in 2012.
This means we must focus on negative legislative remedies that the Pubs can effect with a House majority right after 2010 and not wait until 2012. They can simply refuse to fund Zero's programs. The Zero Administration is adding some 10,000 new federal employees to government payrolls every month? Eliminate the funding to pay them, requiring that their jobs be terminated.
ObamaCare is passed by the House & Senate and is made law, providing for a government seizure of one-sixth of the economy? Refuse to appropriate the money to fund the administrative apparatus required.
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) wants to conduct a carbon jihad and seize control over the economy by regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant? Gut the EPA's budget and thus its ability to do so.
NASA and other government agencies continue to conduct climate fraud? Zero out all funding for global warming research.
Thus, in order to gain the support of TeaPartyers and plain normal voters for their candidacy, Republicans wishing to get elected or re-elected to the House should be required to sign The Defund Pledge:
"Should I be elected, I solemnly pledge to my constituents that I will consistently vote to defund, or vote against appropriating any money for, any federal program or activity not specifically authorized by an enumerated power in the United States Constitution. For any federal program or activity I do vote to fund, I will provide the specific enumerated power constitutionally permitting it."
It's the only "purity test" conservatives need.
Just as the "Contract with America" enabled Republicans to gain a House majority in 1994, so the Defund Pledge will ensure they do so in 2010. The voting public is increasingly fed up with the Dems. But they are still wary of the Pubs who refused to shut off the spending spigots during the Bush years.
The Defund Pledge can reassure voters that the GOP will in fact dismantle Democrat fascism by committing to a concrete and simple way to do so: defund the Dem programs and on a Constitutional basis.
It provides the starkest contrast to the insufferably outlaw arrogance of Dems, epitomized by Nancy Pelosi, who when asked where in the Constitution was it allowed for the federal government to force people to buy something (e.g., health insurance), angrily responded, "Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?"
And it gives the TeaPartyers the single uniting electoral message they are searching for. Right now, the TeaParty movement is inchoate, more emotion than focus. As this article points out, "the biggest challenge facing the movement is how to organize hundreds of local groups, and dozens of Tea Party leaders nationwide with divergent interests, into a force that can influence elections."
The Defund Pledge solves the challenge.
And yet... the 2010 elections are next November and the new Congress, presumably with a Republican majority, won't take office until the end of January 2011. The amount of damage Zero and the Dems can do until then is monumental - on top of the damage they have already done this year. How can that be prevented and undone? What can be done now?
The answer is the second D: Disobey. Disobey the Ghandi Way. Peaceful civil disobedience. No violence. Just the refusal to obey fascist and unconstitutional laws.
Dr. Jack Wheeler has "a strategy for any Republican wanting to get elected or re-elected to Congress in 2010, and for any Tea Partyer wanting to take individual action now against a government that ignores the Constitution -- Defund and Disobey."
Here's an excerpt of "The Double -D Strategy for rescuing America":
Let's talk about the Defund D first. The Founders in their usual brilliance place the power of the purse in the House, whose members must face election every two years - for if they become profligate with this power the voters can throw them out within months (24 max) rather than wait years (6) like the Senate.
All Appropriation bills authorizing any branch of the federal government (legislative, judicial, executive) to spend any money for any program must be initiated in and passed by a majority of the House. The Senate can only agree or disagree, and the same with the President.
The obverse of this appropriation authority is that if the House doesn't authorize money for something, then no money can be spent on that something by anyone in the federal government.
This was Senator Jim Inhofe's point when he announced (12/13) that "Obama has no power to make a deal in Copenhagen." Unless the House appropriates the money for any deal he makes, there's no deal at all.
[...]
Currently, this is the best that can be done at the federal legislative level. That is, the key goal of House & Senate Republicans is to block the passage of Dem legislation that will expand government and make our economy so much worse than it already is. There is no way for the Pubs to pass legislation that will make things better - and this is true even if the Republicans gain majority in the House in 2010 due to Zero's veto power.
There is another way. One key solution to solving our problems, economic and social, is to get the federal government out of the way. To the extent that this requires positive legislative remedies - such as eliminating capital gains taxes, the depreciation schedule for capital expenses, and Sarbox - these will have to wait until we get a pro-capitalist president instead of a pro-socialist in 2012.
This means we must focus on negative legislative remedies that the Pubs can effect with a House majority right after 2010 and not wait until 2012. They can simply refuse to fund Zero's programs. The Zero Administration is adding some 10,000 new federal employees to government payrolls every month? Eliminate the funding to pay them, requiring that their jobs be terminated.
ObamaCare is passed by the House & Senate and is made law, providing for a government seizure of one-sixth of the economy? Refuse to appropriate the money to fund the administrative apparatus required.
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) wants to conduct a carbon jihad and seize control over the economy by regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant? Gut the EPA's budget and thus its ability to do so.
NASA and other government agencies continue to conduct climate fraud? Zero out all funding for global warming research.
Thus, in order to gain the support of TeaPartyers and plain normal voters for their candidacy, Republicans wishing to get elected or re-elected to the House should be required to sign The Defund Pledge:
"Should I be elected, I solemnly pledge to my constituents that I will consistently vote to defund, or vote against appropriating any money for, any federal program or activity not specifically authorized by an enumerated power in the United States Constitution. For any federal program or activity I do vote to fund, I will provide the specific enumerated power constitutionally permitting it."
It's the only "purity test" conservatives need.
Just as the "Contract with America" enabled Republicans to gain a House majority in 1994, so the Defund Pledge will ensure they do so in 2010. The voting public is increasingly fed up with the Dems. But they are still wary of the Pubs who refused to shut off the spending spigots during the Bush years.
The Defund Pledge can reassure voters that the GOP will in fact dismantle Democrat fascism by committing to a concrete and simple way to do so: defund the Dem programs and on a Constitutional basis.
It provides the starkest contrast to the insufferably outlaw arrogance of Dems, epitomized by Nancy Pelosi, who when asked where in the Constitution was it allowed for the federal government to force people to buy something (e.g., health insurance), angrily responded, "Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?"
And it gives the TeaPartyers the single uniting electoral message they are searching for. Right now, the TeaParty movement is inchoate, more emotion than focus. As this article points out, "the biggest challenge facing the movement is how to organize hundreds of local groups, and dozens of Tea Party leaders nationwide with divergent interests, into a force that can influence elections."
The Defund Pledge solves the challenge.
And yet... the 2010 elections are next November and the new Congress, presumably with a Republican majority, won't take office until the end of January 2011. The amount of damage Zero and the Dems can do until then is monumental - on top of the damage they have already done this year. How can that be prevented and undone? What can be done now?
The answer is the second D: Disobey. Disobey the Ghandi Way. Peaceful civil disobedience. No violence. Just the refusal to obey fascist and unconstitutional laws.
Feds push for tracking cell phones
Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.
FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
Friday, February 5, 2010
REPEAL THE 17TH TO REVIVE THE 10TH! #teaparty
by Tony Blankley – Columnist, author
Posted: January 27, 2010 12:03 PM
Repeal the 17th Amendment
As I was preparing to write a column on the ludicrous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week, instead), I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people — the strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”).
As an early 1960s vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.
But just as the Tea Party movement in so many ways seems to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th amendment anew. After about 10 seconds’ thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment…
Read the rest here
Posted: January 27, 2010 12:03 PM
Repeal the 17th Amendment
As I was preparing to write a column on the ludicrous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week, instead), I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people — the strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”).
As an early 1960s vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.
But just as the Tea Party movement in so many ways seems to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th amendment anew. After about 10 seconds’ thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment…
Read the rest here
Thursday, February 4, 2010
An Inside Look at #ofa Obama’s Organizing for America Part I
Obama's "permanent campaign" Organizing for America has managed to skirt campaign finance laws while continually providing the unprecedented "opportunity to help the president." Countless emails fill boxes across America with the sender name President Barack Obama.
Organizing for America has kept a high profile and played a key role in the healthcare debate. Obama's managed to turn his extraordinary campaign model into a post-election campaign/organizing website where OFA honed their method of using the internet to reach progressives to push through his increasingly unpopular agenda.
During Barack Obama's campaign he used a similar tool and website called "Obama for America." Utilizing the skills he learned at ACORN as a community organizer, Obama was able to acquire the "highest office in the land". In an election night quote from November of 2008, Obama addresses a crowd who voted for "Hope" and "Change."
Organizing for America has kept a high profile and played a key role in the healthcare debate. Obama's managed to turn his extraordinary campaign model into a post-election campaign/organizing website where OFA honed their method of using the internet to reach progressives to push through his increasingly unpopular agenda.
During Barack Obama's campaign he used a similar tool and website called "Obama for America." Utilizing the skills he learned at ACORN as a community organizer, Obama was able to acquire the "highest office in the land". In an election night quote from November of 2008, Obama addresses a crowd who voted for "Hope" and "Change."
In Texas, 31% Say State Has Right to Secede From U.S., But 75% Opt To Stay
Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.
However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they’d choose.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, in response to a reporter’s question about secession at a protest “tea party,” said Wednesday, “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.” The comment was widely reported in the media.
Read entire article
However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they’d choose.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, in response to a reporter’s question about secession at a protest “tea party,” said Wednesday, “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.” The comment was widely reported in the media.
Read entire article
Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty
At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
Read entire article
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
Read entire article
The True State of the Union: We Have No Rights Whatsoever
Campaign for Liberty
February 4, 2010
It has been almost a week since President Obama gave his first State of the Union address, and it has been analyzed from the left, right, center, front, and back. Of course, the speech is really about the performance of the federal government, particularly its wonderful accomplishments under the leadership of the sitting president. This is not peculiar to the Obama presidency. As far back as Jefferson, presidents have used the Constitutionally-mandated stump speech to do a little self-promotion, although what they promote has certainly changed quite dramatically.
However, if the speech is supposed to reflect the accomplishments of the federal government, then we should expect that it will contain specifics about how that government has fulfilled its purpose, which is, as we all know, to secure our rights. At least that’s what our founding document tells us. Therefore, if a president is going to do a little bragging about what a great job he has done, it would be logical to assume that we would hear particulars about the way in which he has secured our rights. Logic, however, has little to do with the machinations of leviathan.
In fairness, President Obama did begin his speech with a few remarks about the actual state of our country – a state of economic devastation and unending war. The fact that both of these afflictions have been caused wholly by our federal government is something that seems to have gone right by him, although he is not unique in that respect, either. Having reminded us about how bad things are, he dutifully lays as much blame as possible on the president that preceded him (another time-honored tradition when succeeding a president of the opposing party). He then moves right into trumpeting his accomplishments.
Read entire article
February 4, 2010
 | |
 | |
| Obama delivers the State of the Union. | |
However, if the speech is supposed to reflect the accomplishments of the federal government, then we should expect that it will contain specifics about how that government has fulfilled its purpose, which is, as we all know, to secure our rights. At least that’s what our founding document tells us. Therefore, if a president is going to do a little bragging about what a great job he has done, it would be logical to assume that we would hear particulars about the way in which he has secured our rights. Logic, however, has little to do with the machinations of leviathan.
In fairness, President Obama did begin his speech with a few remarks about the actual state of our country – a state of economic devastation and unending war. The fact that both of these afflictions have been caused wholly by our federal government is something that seems to have gone right by him, although he is not unique in that respect, either. Having reminded us about how bad things are, he dutifully lays as much blame as possible on the president that preceded him (another time-honored tradition when succeeding a president of the opposing party). He then moves right into trumpeting his accomplishments.
Read entire article
Mark Dice on TV again: Boycott the Super Bowl and read a book instead
Only days after making news on a Florida TV station, Mark Dice makes broadcast TV a second time in Los Angeles in a bid to convince people– some people at least– to boycott the SuperBowl and focus instead our excitement, anger and energy on the political looting of our country. Instead of a competition with no real impact on our lives, people should educate themselves on the things that really matter.
Mark Dice calls the SuperBowl, and TV in general, the opiate of the masses. That is perhaps too much to swallow the anchors.
Dice stirs up the pro-sports anchors with his iconoclastic suggestion to ignore the annual installment of the world’s most televised competition, and manages to plug Alex Jones’ Fall of the Republic and The Obama Deception to the masses as well.
Mark Dice calls the SuperBowl, and TV in general, the opiate of the masses. That is perhaps too much to swallow the anchors.
Dice stirs up the pro-sports anchors with his iconoclastic suggestion to ignore the annual installment of the world’s most televised competition, and manages to plug Alex Jones’ Fall of the Republic and The Obama Deception to the masses as well.
Obama Blasted for Revealing Christmas Bomber Details
The White House strongly rejected assertions by Sen. Kit Bond on Thursday that administration officials defied an FBI request for secrecy when it held a briefing with reporters Tuesday about Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities.
In a letter to President Obama, Bond, R-Mo., scolded the White House for revealing the details of the interrogations, saying the administration is undermining national security by providing details the FBI specifically asked not be revealed.
In a letter to President Obama, Bond, R-Mo., scolded the White House for revealing the details of the interrogations, saying the administration is undermining national security by providing details the FBI specifically asked not be revealed.
Intel Boss Blair: Government Plans to Kill Citizens
Patsies take heed. The U.S. government will kill you. That’s what the Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told a House intelligence committee yesterday. The Department of Defense will “follow a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed” in the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens who make the mistake of joining organizations created by the CIA and the Mossad.
The CIA created al-Qaeda from scratch in Afghanistan. Hamas was created by Mossad in order to undermine the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Both countries have long and sordid histories of creating terrorist organizations for political purposes.
CIA Director Leon Panetta, appearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the groups threatening the homeland include al-Qaeda and Hamas.
“As the United States steps up its campaign against suspected terrorists overseas, it has become more apparent that some extremists may be U.S. citizens,” reports the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post.
The CIA created al-Qaeda from scratch in Afghanistan. Hamas was created by Mossad in order to undermine the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Both countries have long and sordid histories of creating terrorist organizations for political purposes.
CIA Director Leon Panetta, appearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the groups threatening the homeland include al-Qaeda and Hamas.
“As the United States steps up its campaign against suspected terrorists overseas, it has become more apparent that some extremists may be U.S. citizens,” reports the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Obama is an arrogant, un-Presidential so and so….
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)