Bloom County has the Answer!

Bloom County has the Answer!
Only time I smile about Socialized Medicine!

Monday, August 31, 2009

Robert Gibbs: International Man of Mystery!?!



Our favorite punching bag from the Obama administration (since we can't get hold of the big O-man himself, who's either handing out bailouts to his friends, on vacation, or walking on water) - enjoy the videos of Sgt. Schultz, we mean Sgt. Gibbs - not doctored, actual presentations by Gibbs (or silly G as we like to call him)




And this is just classic Gibbs B.S. vs. Rick Santelli
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ9xb4CBeI

From politico.com:



"The United States is facing its biggest financial crisis in ages. North Korea is blowing up nukes. Dick Cheney warns us of the "dangers that have not gone away." And there are still wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But over in the White House press briefing room, it’s a veritable laugh riot.
Whenever there’s laughter in the James S. Brady Briefing Room — by either the briefer or the briefed — the official White House stenographer indicates as much by inserting “(Laughter.)” into the transcript.
And in Robert Gibbs’ first four months as President Barack Obama’s press secretary, there have been more than 600 instances of “(Laughter.)” during his regular press briefings — an average of more than 10 laughs per day.
It’s a gaudy statistic — and one that puts his predecessors to shame.
Dana Perino, George W. Bush’s last press secretary, got all of 57 laughs in her first four months. Scott McClellan, another Bush press secretary, got just 66 laughs in his first four months.
Gibbs even bests the late Tony Snow, whose jocular performances — dubbed “The Tony Snow Show” by some — drew a relatively paltry 217 laughs during his first four months on the job.
Tim Graham, who watches for liberal press bias at the Media Research Center, says all the high times may be a sign of reporters’ political affinity with the Obama administration.





Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23015.html#ixzz0PmmDVxOs"





Obviously, most of this is unintentional, though who knows with the entire Obama administration demonstrating they're nothing but a joke, what else could it be? And did you catch that last sentence above "may be a sign of reporters' political affinity with the Obama administration." YOU THINK??? The media bias has been achieving catastrophic levels with warm fuzzies everytime Obama enters the room with his teleprompter, as this administration can do no wrong, from increase in bailouts, increase in deficits, socialized medicine, interrogation in the white house, possible defeat in Afghanistan, 33 CZARS and counting, creation of a National Service army, and overall government malfeasance - but hey, it's your ride - I just shouldn't have to pay for it!!!

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Health Care: State Control Bad, Federal Control Good - My Union Tells Me So!!!




In the State of Michigan (or the State of Confusion, or when it comes to the Obama supporters - the State of Denial) according to some of the drivel presented by the MEA, and it's conduit, the TCEA (Union thugs to you and me), it's okay for the Federal Government to control your health care as Obama has the unions in his hip pocket, but when it comes to the state of Michigan, and proposed by someone who doesn't bend over for the union, then it's not so good. Read the message sent to me by one of the drones and worker bees:


"This is a “first look” analysis to Speaker Dillon’s Draft Bill creating the “ Michigan Health Benefits Program Act”. We will be doing a more extensive analysis of the bill over the weekend and into the first part of the week for more specific points on which we can base recommendations for reaction and activities. Also, keep in mind that the Bill currently is labeled Draft “A” which leads one to believe that it may be modified even before it goes before the committee.

The bill clearly creates a mandatory government-run state health plan for all public employees and retirees. Eliminates collective bargaining rights. Creates a public health plan option for individuals and private organizations. Puts state government between doctors and patients. Doesn't address what really matters -- the real drivers of health care costs. This is not a legislative process to do good public policy: it is a tightly scripted roll-out of a gubernatorial campaign.
The Speaker's legislation (Michigan Health Benefits Program Act):
creates a mandatory state government-run health plan housed in the Department of Management and Budget, governed by a state Health Benefits Board and administered by the Office of State Employer
mandates participation of all state, local, city, college, township, and county governments, agencies, school districts, public school academies, ISDs, community colleges, and public universities as well as all public retirement systems, obtain employee health plans from the state benefits plan Sec. 21(2), page 13
eliminates collective bargaining (public employers and employees would be limited in choosing from the menu of plans and plan designs approved by the Health Benefits Board) Sec. 7(a), Page 4 and Sec. 11(c), Page 6
mandates that all local governments participate in the state government-run health plan -- and requires that all local governments are also financially liable for any budget shortfalls in the state-run fund Sec. 20, Page 12
creates a state health benefits fund in the Department of Treasury Sec. 18(1), Page 10
creates a public health plan by allowing individuals and organizations in the private sector to purchase coverage from the state Health Benefits plan Sec. 7(h), Page 7
creates a new level of bureaucracy in state government within the Office of State Employer. Sec 10, Page 5
puts state government between doctors and their patients and gives government a major role in patient health care decisions by mandating "use of clinical advocates to review diagnoses and care for correct treatment." Sec. 12(e), Page 7
gives the Office of State Employer authority to create a new bureaucracy, and hire an executive director and staff to administer the program Sec. 13(c), Page 8
allows local governments to opt-out of the program if they pay for an actuarial study proving that the plan they offer is more than five percent less expensive than the state-run plan. Sec. 19(2), Page 11"


Now, my response:


"Make sure you read all the information, not just what is presented by one side:

From the Detroit Free Press - disputes several points in the post from the Union mouthpiece


Here's the copy of the actual bill - (and located at this website )which is not what the Union mouthpiece says - don't let anyone disseminate the information, you need to read it and make your own decision

I don't want to see breakdowns or bulleted talking points to make the decisions for us - we're smart - send us the bill itself, and let us make our own informed decisions without bias or pressure - if you like or dislike the plan voice your opinion, but don't let any group tell you what to do. I'll be honest, I haven't decided but I will research it myself, and I know I'm not going to let any group supposedly make my informed decisions for me."

So what have we learned today - trust no one, how can you tell a politician is lying - their lips move, and always check out the facts yourself without being pressured by those who are in the know (or in the tank, or in the pocket).

My New Favorite Idiot: Kurt Anderson!!!



Obama supporter - while trying not to show any bias on CNN Reliable Sources (and failing miserably), Kurt Anderson from NPR, New York Times and Time magazine - in partnership with CNN - a conflict of interest which wasn't reported in this piece - do I smell a Pulitzer? Maybe a Nobel Prize - Paul Krugman received one without any discernible talent or trait except that he's an unapologetic liberal who believes government is the only solution (of course no bias from any of those "reliable sources" - NPR, New York Times, or Time - throw in NBC/MSNBC, and you'd have the four horsemen of the political and economic apocalypse) - who tries to act like he knows more than everyone else and deigns to bloviate to us from on high, having finished written the latest rag, RESET (pointless drivel that only your cat, or his mom would love) explaining how our society will no longer be involved in a name calling process in just a couple years with our new administration, while he complained about the "nuttiness of idiots" (his words) like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - amazing - with a straight face. Even the Moderator kept trying to give him some extra rope, which he kept creating a hangman's noose. [Sidenote - Later the moderator criticized Glenn Beck for not disclosing information about a person he was reporting on (Mark LLoyd the new FCC Diversity Czar from the Color of Change organization that started the boycott on Beck's show - these liberals are so tolerant, unless you disagree with them) - which Beck had, but we digress - while not disclosing this conflict of using a Time magazine-CNN reporter on his own program in Reliable Sources]
So we did a little research on this supposedly unbiased reporter - first from his twitter page -

"On Twitter: Kurt Andersen
@wodekszemberg Yes -- my word-loathing party already includes impact as a verb, and many, many more. It's a big-tent party. - 14 hours ago
I'm disappointed in Obama for the first time: in his EMK eulogy today he used the unnaceptable "penned" as a synonym for "wrote." - 16 hours ago
Just drove eldest kid back to Vassar. Surprised & oddly pleased to see Reagan portrait taped on a dorm room window facing out. Diversity! - 16 hours ago "

The first "tweet," reminds me of 1984 with the goal of removing as many "wasteful" words as possible, perhaps Anderson is auditioning for a job in the current administration?
The second "tweet," definitely shows no bias (and actually no honest reporting) in his bro-mance with Obama - good objective coverage - that's what we like to see!
The third "tweet," is actually stunning - a Reagan portrait at Vassar (public school education, this is not) - must be a result from one of their "diversity - get in touch with your feelings, since you've offended everyone" training seminars!

These comments from one medium, demonstrating no bias (?) or a person above it all (?) or even super rich (?), needs to be compared to his own comments (written? penned? how about drawn with crayons, or scratched on a cave wall - I like those ones) from his RESET blog on Time.com:



"In ">Reset, I range pretty widely over politics, economics, pop culture and more. And as I finish my blogging for Time.com this week (thanks, Time.com!), I'm struck by the hopeful reset signs I continue to see all over the place.
In the book, I write about Hollywood's imminent reality check, how $20-million-a-picture movie stars' dull autopilot films may be about to be a thing of the past. Well, sure enough, here's today's New York Times, with a front–page story about how the summer's movie-star-fronted ">movies bombed.
Also in today's Times is a long piece confirming my central, hopeful Reset argument that that the quarter-century party's finally, really over for the super-rich. Meanwhile, the Fed chairman today “offered his most hopeful assessment in more than a year,” declaring that “the prospects for a return to growth in the near term ">appear good.”
And in the current New Yorker, Rick Hertzberg explains how California's profound political dysfunction may be about to reset radically, producing a state constitutional convention whose re-founders would be chosen randomly. Awesome.
It's the end of the world as we've known it. Sanity and common sense are returning. The new age is dawning."



Now, to be fair, I'm sure he was the kid who was always picked last in any event, and probably got tired of being stuffed in lockers in school (must have had plenty of time to write about his utopia, but maybe the airholes weren't big enough) - though those flashbacks must be tough, with the kinds of "oppressed people" (don't believe me, just ask them) who hang out at NPR (another public assistance program), though they can all feel empathy for one another, since they've all faced the shame - and with a face for radio, he has risen high in the ranks on the backs of the downtrodden - I'm surprised the whole crew at NPR hasn't pushed for the banning of lockers, though we do see the push for free and reduced lunches (probably because they all got tired of having their lunch money taken), but don't worry, Obama still has 1200 days of America's occupation to do so.

Humor for the Humorless (Coming to a Socialized Country near You)

"An old guy's wife tells him to go to the butcher shop and get some meat. He goes to the butcher shop and stands in line for hours. Finally the butcher says, "We're out of meat." The old guy blows his top. He yells, "I am a worker! I am a proletarian! I am a veteran of the Great Patriotic War! I have fought for socialism all my life, and now you tell me you're out of meat! What kind of a system is this?! You are fools! You are thieves! . . . " A big man in a trench coat comes up to the old guy and says, "Comrade, Comrade, not so loud. In the old days you know what they would do if you said such things." The big man in the trench coat makes a pistol motion with his hand. He says to the old guy, "Calm down and go home." The old guy shrugs and leaves. He comes back empty-handed, and his wife says, "What's the matter, are they out of meat?" "Worse than that," says the old guy, "they're out of bullets."

An old Russian joke, as told by the one and only PJ O'Rourke.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Post-American World?


I see our President is preparing for a post-American world - the only way this would be possible is with the current-Obama world with constant government intervention keeping us from growing to our fullest potential - I guess his nightstand is too full of Alinsky, Marx, Ayers, Wright, and Zakaria to read Lewis, Orwell, Rand, and Paul which he should, since they are written about him and what this government is doing to us! You think the bailouts and health care plans are something - wait until you see the Cyber Security bill S. 773 coming up next that will give control of the internet to the President when he declares a state of emergency (which could be anytime someone disagrees with him - so be prepared). The complete bill is listed with our friends from opencongress.org


Thursday, August 27, 2009

Ron Paul: We Need Sunlight to Disinfect the Legislative Process!

Excellent post from Dr. Paul from the Campaign for Liberty site - we need to contact our congressmen and women and get them to pass H.Res. 216 - the Sunlight Rule today:

We Need Sunlight to Disinfect the Legislative Process!
By Ron Paul
Published 08/25/09

During August recess, many legislators have heard an unexpected amount of discontent from their constituents about what is happening on Capitol Hill, particularly regarding healthcare. Some people are justifiably terrified at what the government could do to healthcare, should it get its claws even further into it. Others demand a public option for health insurance and are adamant that healthcare be treated as yet another absolute entitlement. One thing everyone agrees on is that the final bill needs to be read and understood by all legislators before a vote is taken. To any American, this is common sense. In Washington, that is unlikely to happen. There is much confusion and debate over what is and is not in the reform plan being considered. Are there or are there not so-called death panels? What are the end-of-life consultations really for? How will private insurance be affected? Can you keep your current plan or will you eventually be forced into a government plan? Will it pay for elective abortions or not? What are the implications for medical privacy? The truth is no one knows what will be in the final bill until it is on the House floor, and provisions could be added in and taken out in the wee hours of the morning before. In February, the House was forced to vote on an over 1,000 page "stimulus" bill that had first been posted on the internet just after midnight the morning of the vote. It passed. Then in June, House leaders rushed a vote on the cap-and-trade bill, even though an over 300 page "manager’s amendment" making substantive changes to the bill, was introduced shortly after 3:00 a.m. the morning of the vote. Washington thrives on crisis. If enough people can be convinced that we are in an emergency, they will more likely tolerate rushing legislation to the floor like this. Last minute changes will be slipped in, benefitting who knows what special interests and at what expense to the taxpayer. But the mantra is repeated over and over: We are in a crisis. We must act immediately. It should be unconscionable for legislators to vote in favor of legislation they have not had the opportunity to read. This is why I have re-introduced the Sunlight Rule, H.Res 216. The Sunlight Rule prohibits any piece of legislation from being brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to read for at least 10 days. The Sunlight Rule allows citizens to move for censure of any House Member who votes for a bill in violation of this act. Because the Sunlight Rule could never be waived, any Member could raise a point of order requiring any bill in violation to be immediately pulled from the House calendar until it can be brought to the floor in a manner consistent with this rule. This rule does not require that Members read the bills. It merely guarantees the opportunity to do so. It has 4 cosponsors. Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." The Sunlight Rule would do much towards negating the cycle of pseudo-crises and cleaning up the legislative process here in Washington. I sincerely hope this is the year Congress remembers its deliberative duties and passes it.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Obama's New World Order


From the Tribune Media Services, this is the speech given by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, January 20th, 2009, with my highlights - draw you're own conclusions - I'll be taking the main points in future posts, and showing many examples as to how this is coming about through this administration (Glen Beck may be right, as he states that the current government seems to be creating a shadow government that will shed it's parts, showing it's exoskeleton with it's Czars and government power grabs, and free market destruction - welcome to the machine):

"As the new US administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.
That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.

So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.

America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterised too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernisation of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasising infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programmes with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

The author was National Security Adviser, 1969-75 and US Secretary of State, 1973-77. "
- Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

CZAR Wars - Truly biCZAR - Where is the Outrage?



Just another example of why this may be one of the most dangerous times of our, and our country's, lives - as government is in the middle of the one of the greatest power grabs in U.S. (and possibly the World's) history - did even the Obama supporters really believe they voted for THIS????:

First, as Obama the candidate promised so much, with so much transparency, Obama the President is not delivering (truly an understatement) - from the Concord Monitor:

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States.”
- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of “czars” - each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House - the president has made an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions…. Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances."

From our friends at American Daughter (they seem to have the most complete list of CZARs - which will keep multiplying as we speak - I will update from time to time)



"Bypassing the authority of Congress, Barack Obama rules through czars — the beginnings of dictatorship.

Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley [openly gay white man]
Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
Border czar, Alan Bersin
Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
Climate change czar, Todd Stern
Copyright czar, not appointed yet
Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass [This is a new media buzz since our earlier list, a response by pundits to the White House request for informants: see Glenn Beck and Lew Rockwell]
Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
Economic czar, Larry Summers
Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
Education czar, Arne Duncan
Energy czar, Carol Browner
Food czar, Michael Taylor [a former Monsanto executive, or, the fox in charge of the henhouse]
Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
Green jobs czar, Van Jones [who has a communist background]
Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source). His last day in DC government was March 4 but on March 12 the FBI raided his office and arrested two staffers.]
Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominatied to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation. Voting on his confirmation was delayed to clarify his position on Honduras. Watch WaPo’s Head Count to track status of confirmation.]
Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings [appointed to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a newly created post (that does not require Senate confirmation); openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
Science czar, John Holdren
Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren [chair of the [Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is frequently called the TARP czar]
Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
Trade czar, Ron Kirk
Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
War czar, Douglas Lute [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
Water czar, David J. Hayes [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
Weapons czar, Ashton Carter [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore
Diversity czar: Mark Lloyd



Positions being planned:
Income redistribution czar
Land-use czar
Mortgage czar, formally “consumer financial protection czar” (source)
Radio-internet fairness czar
Student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
Voter list czar
Zoning czar


Obama has moved swiftly to concentrate power in the White House, bypassing the review of our elected representatives in Congress in most of the posts listed above. Even though cabinet positions are part of the executive branch, the cabinet secretaries must be approved by Congress, they are funded by Congress, and they can be called before Congress to testify. Most of these czars, on the other hand, are appointed by Obama at his sole discretion, and are answerable only to him. If subpoenaed by Congress, they can claim executive privilege.
On July 15, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) introduced H.R.3226, the Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009, with 34 co-sponsors. There is some comfort in knowing that there are still a few folk in the House of Representatives who are fighting for constitutional government.

This new list is alphabetized by the czar positions, to facilitate comparison with the excellent research on the duties of each office done by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at Noisy Room. "



Each Czar has avoided congressional oversight, receives $179,000 annual salary, and a staff of 10 people - and no outrage???

Ted Kennedy RIP



"Everyone will come, everyone will come, to my funeral to make sure that I stay dead" - Four Rusted Horses, Marilyn Manson

The "liberal lion" passed away (who truly believed that there exists no problem that couldn't be solved by government intervention and lots of money thrown at it), and while conservative passings like Jack Kemp and Strom Thurmond received only passing glances from the media, the Kennedy passing and service will be treated like a royal procession, complete with obligatory sainthood considerations. The real facts about the Honorable(?) Senator, that will never be mentioned in the mainstream media, from our friends at NNDB:


"Ted Kennedy held his Senate seat for more than four decades. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors. His other successes include reducing the voting age from 21 to 18, and Title IX, which gave women's athletics much better funding. Widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism", his legacy is that his era has been dominated by conservatives (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush) and moderates (Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton).
Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy" -- his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.
While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. He passed the bar exam in 1959, and two years later was appointed an Assistant to the District Attorney in Massachusetts' Suffolk County.
In 1962, at age 30 (constitutionally, the minimum age to hold a Senate seat) he ran for the Senate. His timing was perfect -- his brother John had given up the seat to become President, and Kennedy easily won the office. He was re-elected eight times to the office.
In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. His sister Kathleen and nephew "John John" were killed in separate plane crashes.
On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.
Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. In versions not so kind, it is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, that he was having an affair with Kopechne, and/or that he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.
Since the accident, Kennedy's political enemies have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, or worse. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a suspended sentence of two months. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.
In 1973, at the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"
In 1980, Kennedy challenged Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy's bid was hampered by questions of Chappaquiddick and by an interview with CBS Newsman Roger Mudd, who asked the straightforward question, "Why do you want to be President?" Kennedy couldn't come up with a straightforward answer. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions contributed to the victory won by Reagan.
In a late-1980s media profile, Kennedy was succinctly described as someone who "grew to manhood without learning to be an adult". He is rumored to have had several affairs while married to his first wife, and had often been seen in public while thoroughly tanked and/or behaving obnoxiously. In 1987 he was caught in flagrante delicto with an unidentified woman on the floor of a restaurant. His public image since the early 1990s and during his second marriage has been more conservative and restrained.
In 2001, Kennedy worked with President Bush to enact the No Child Left Behind Act. He later complained publicly that he had been hoodwinked, because the legislation did not include funding to pay for its requirements.
Kennedy voted against the Iraq war, and in 2003, Kennedy said of it: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." - NNDB
If you want to know what Ted Kennedy was really like, in a nutshell, look at the comments he made during the Robert Bork (who could run legal circles around any of the members of the Senate) Supreme Court hearing:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy...." ....
"President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of American. No justice would be better than this injustice". Absolutely disgusting - this from a man who's supposedly a people's champion, denegrating a defender of the Constitution - unreal!

And finally, when endorsing Barack Obama with the entire liberal political machine in Mass., Barack still lost to Hillary Clinton in the primaries. And more recently, he tried to have the rules changed for succession of office of Senator, so a democrat could be appointed immediately, after being one of the leaders to set up the first change (during Senator Kerry's run for President), so a governor Mitt Romney could not choose a republican, if Kerry had won the Presidency and vacated the Senate post. And of course, now the other Senators and Representatives are trying to rally around him "Do it for Ted," as they try to ram the health care plan down our throats - not even a moment out of respect for the deceased, he's used politically in the same breadth - though that makes sense, since everything he did had a political calculation - almost makes you wonder if this was timed, while he was receiving every possible treatment, that wouldn't be afforded to anyone else in this country, while the plan looked like it was on it's last legs.
Truly, he carries the title of "Liberal Lion," (never seeing a law he couldn't change to his, and his party's benefit) to the very end.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Dumb and Dumber

This just in - Obama is not letting the rats jump ship off the U.S. Titanic, as he's re-appointed Bernanke to another term - during his long-deserved vacation (after all, he's been in office a whole seven months - lots of heavy lifting, spending Trillions placed on the backs of our children and grandchildren). If Greenspan and Bernanke aren't two excellent examples as to why we need to end the Federal Reserve now!

Playing God in Washington

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite thinkers and writers, so I give my post to his latest article from www.realclearpolitics.com :

"August 24, 2009
A New Push to Play God from WashingtonBy Thomas Sowell

The serious, and sometimes chilling, provisions of the medical care legislation that President Obama has been trying to rush through Congress are important enough for all of us to stop and think, even though his political strategy from the outset has been to prevent us from having time to stop and think about it.
What we also should stop to think about is the mindset behind this legislation, which is very consistent with the mindset behind other policies of this administration, whether the particular issue is bailing out General Motors, telling banks who to lend to or appointing "czars" to tell all sorts of people in many walks of life what they can and cannot do.
The idea that government officials can play God from Washington is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is being pushed with new audacity.
What they are trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries-- the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
This is the America for which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.
It is the America that Reverend Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons during the 20 years when Barack Obama was a parishioner, before political expediency required Obama to withdraw and distance himself.
The thing most associated with America-- freedom-- is precisely what must be destroyed if this is to be turned into a fundamentally different country to suit Obama's vision of the country and of himself. But do not expect a savvy politician like Barack Obama to express what he is doing in terms of limiting our freedom.
He may not even think of it in those terms. He may think of it in terms of promoting "social justice" or making better decisions than ordinary people are capable of making for themselves, whether about medical care or housing or many other things. Throughout history, egalitarians have been among the most arrogant people.
Obama has surrounded himself with people who also think it is their job to make other people's decisions for them. Not just Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, his health care advisor who complains of Americans' "over-utilization" of medical care, but also Professor Cass Sunstein, who has written a whole book on how third parties should use government power to "nudge" people into making better decisions in general.
Then there are a whole array of Obama administration officials who take it as their job to pick winners and losers in the economy and tell companies how much they can and cannot pay their executives.
Just as magicians know that the secret of some of their tricks is to distract the audience, so politicians know that the secret of many political tricks is to distract the public with scapegoats.
No one is more of a political magician than Barack Obama. At the beginning of 2008, no one expected a shrewd and experienced politician like Hillary Clinton to be beaten for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States by someone completely new to the national political scene. But Obama worked his political magic, with the help of the media, which he still has.
Barack Obama's escapes from his own past words, deeds and associations have been escapes worthy of Houdini.
Like other magicians, Obama has chosen his distractions well. The insurance industry is currently his favorite distraction as scapegoats, after he has tried to demonize doctors without much success.
Saints are no more common in the insurance industry than in politics or even among paragons of virtue like economists. So there will always be horror stories, even if these are less numerous or less horrible than what is likely to happen if Obamacare gets passed into law.
Obama even gets away with saying things like having a system to "keep insurance companies honest"-- and many people may not see the painful irony in politicians trying to keep other people honest. Certainly most of the media are unlikely to point out this irony.
Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

E-Mail Gate Solved!

With the battle for Health Care reform continuing, the White House has full-pressed the process, after they failed to get it through in two weeks, so they wouldn't have to actually answer for any of this - from another front the White House denied the existence of unsolicited e-mails, so let's take a look at the chronology (again, imagine how the past administration would have been vilified by the media if they had done any of this) - and of course, during all of this, at the height of the health care battle, Obama is on another vacation (again, insert Bush, and watch the media all over this - but now, not a word) - while he still declares that this plan with be deficit neutral, which as an economist, I'll be happy to demonstrate this will be impossible without rationing, which he claims will not happen - come on people, stop drinking the Kool-Aid:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/14/white-house-expected-explain-creation-health-care-e-mail-list/
"FOX News has offered the White House examples of what hundreds of people say were unsolicited e-mails on health care, Barack Obama's presidential campaign or his political organization, Organizing for America, but spokesman Robert Gibbs has declined to respond.
The offer comes after a testy exchange on Thursday between correspondent Major Garrett and Gibbs over the e-mail list.
Gibbs told Garrett on Thursday that he couldn't respond until he saw who received the e-mail because he doesn't have "omnipotent clarity."
Asked whether the White House seeks other pieces of information to identify those who might be curious about health care even though they have never signed up for e-mails or visited the Web site, Gibbs said he would have to see the e-mails to know."

Then of course, the White House again, blames "sinister" outside forces:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/white-house-blames-e-mail-controversy-sinister-conspiracy-theories/

"The White House is blaming the controversy over its Web site and mass e-mails on viral rumors, "fear-mongering" and "sinister conspiracy theories" even as it acknowledges problems with its online practices.
After confirming to FOX News over the weekend that third-party groups could be responsible for official White House e-mails that have been sent to people who never signed up for them, President Obama's new media director took to the official White House blog to "clear up" the confusion.
In a posting Monday night, Macon Phillips again pointed the finger at "outside groups of all political stripes" but downplayed the backlash over the unwanted e-mails."

And now, the While House realizes that they did contract with a firm to send out these e-mails - again, amazing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/white-house-reveals-identity-firm-sent-unsolicited-e-mails-health-reform/

"The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama's health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.
The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world's leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public communication system.
It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.
Click here to view Govdelivery's Web site.
The revelation comes after the White House acknowledged this week that people were receiving unsolicited e-mails from the administration about health care reform and suggested the problem was with third-party groups that placed the recipients' names on the distribution list."

Daschle to the Rescue (From the New York Times, believe it or not!)

Truly amazing - after Daschle was "disgraced" into removing his name for consideration in one of the choicest crony positions with Our Furious leader (but only with Republicans and anyone who disagrees with him - coming up on 55% at last count - luckily the man who is swept into office with majorities in the House and Senate stands up for his convictions(?) and says a Republican conspiracy has caused health care to stall - is he kidding? - back to Daschle) - of course Daschle has been making a bundle of money -make sure you file your taxes this time - try that Turbo Tax idea that Geithner ignored as well - and the main stream media looks the other way - and he gets an audience in the Whitehouse, but says there is no conflict speaking to the man who promised this wouldn't be business as usual, though as we can see, it is politics as usual - I have to quote the New York Times in it's entirety, highlighting the amazing parts, knowing the American public is a lot brighter than Bill Maher gives them credit for (though most who voted did vote for Obama, so who knows) - and luckily the mainstream media continues covering the 2004 election, or issues off the grid, while Rome burns - again, amazing - could you have imagined if Bush had tried to get away with any of this, the media would have screamed from the rooftops, including Obama's disgusting deals with AARP, big Pharma and AMA - Don't know about you, but I'm ashamed at how this entire Executive branch and their lackies in the congress as well as their lobbyists are destroying our system - while blaming the other side, since they seem to be too inept to automatically get every governmental control through - sorry Comrades:

"August 23, 2009
Daschle Has Ear of White House and Industry
By
DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON — Six months have passed since the morning when Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, under fire for not paying certain taxes, called President Obama in his study off the Oval Office to withdraw his nomination as health secretary and reform czar.
But these days it often seems as if Mr. Daschle never left the picture. With unrivaled ties on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, he talks constantly with top White House advisers, many of whom previously worked for him.
He still speaks frequently to the president, who met with him as recently as Friday morning in the Oval Office. And he remains a highly paid policy adviser to hospital, drug, pharmaceutical and other health care industry clients of Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm.
Now the White House and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward a blueprint for overhauling the health system, centered on nonprofit insurance cooperatives, that Mr. Daschle began promoting two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan.
It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association. And it is drawing angry cries of accommodation from more liberal House Democrats bent on including a public insurance plan.
Friends and associates of Mr. Daschle say the interests of Alston & Bird’s clients have no influence on his views. They say he sees no conflict in advising private clients on the one hand and advising the White House on the other, because he offers the same assessment to everyone: Though he has often said that he favors a government-run insurance option, the Senate will not pass it.
“The message I deliver to labor unions and business leaders is the same one I share with doctors, hospitals and insurance companies,” Mr. Daschle wrote in a brief e-mailed statement. “I do not tailor my views to any specific group or client.”
Mr. Daschle is not registered as a lobbyist and recently told U.S. News and World Report that he preferred to describe himself as a “resource” to those in government and industry.
“I’d like to be a resource to my former colleagues, to the extent that I can, to the administration, to the stakeholders and to people interested in just kind of knowing how this is all going to play out,” he said. “I am most comfortable with the word resource.”
White House officials say they appreciate his help. “He is one of a number of people that provides outside advice to the White House, and the president greatly appreciates that advice and Tom’s friendship,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the White House who previously worked for Mr. Daschle. Mr. Pfeiffer added that the former senator was “a recognized expert on health reform who knows more about the legislative process than just about anyone.”
Critics, though, say his ex officio role gives Alston & Bird’s health care clients privileged insights into the policy process. They say Mr. Daschle’s multiple advisory roles illustrate the kind of coziness with the lobbying world that Mr. Obama vowed to end. If he had been confirmed as health secretary, Mr. Daschle would have been subject to strict transparency and ethics rules.
His position, some liberals say, raises at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. “I hope the president can make a decision based on what the country wants, not what a handful of Daschle’s clients want,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the progressive caucus.
Clients of Alston & Bird say Mr. Daschle advises them, sometimes indirectly through the firm’s registered lobbyists, about the personalities of his former colleagues, as well as strategies to achieve their policy goals.
“He would tell us, ‘Make sure you present the value proposition of home care with as great detail as you can, so Congress understands that home care is part of the solution rather than a cost to be cut,’ ” said William A. Dombi, a lawyer at the National Association for Home Care and Hospice.
Some of the health overhaul bills would make deep cuts in Medicare payments for home health services, but Mr. Daschle has instead argued for an increase. And though he does not lobby, he took that message to Capitol Hill last month, giving a paid speech at a meeting for Congressional staff convened by a group of home health care equipment concerns.
“My mother’s quality of life is a hundred times better given the fact that she can live at home rather than be institutionalized at 86,” Mr. Daschle told the audience, according to industry newsletters.
Representative Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat who spoke alongside Mr. Daschle, praised the former senator but said it was inevitable that his dual roles would draw criticism, especially “given the high profile this president has given to trying to show some distance from the lobbying business.”
Mr. Altmire added, “That makes it even more difficult for him to be involved.”
Mr. Daschle does not shrink from his leading role in the debate. Speaking at a hospital industry conference last week, for example, he accepted billing as “the architect of President Obama’s health care plan.”
Before such industry groups, Mr. Daschle can sometimes cheer on their lobbying efforts, as he did at a meeting on Aug. 8 of chain drugstore executives when he urged them to push lawmakers to raise certain Medicaid reimbursements.
“This is a message that I hope each and every one of you will take to your member of Congress,” he said. “There is no more critical time to do that.”
He both recommends and predicts an incremental approach.
“We are not going to see this happen overnight,” Mr. Daschle told a biotechnology trade group in May. “It can’t. It is too big a shift in the economy.” If the legislation can begin to “ramp up” coverage for all, health information technology and some cost controls, he said, “we will have succeeded.”
He often enumerates what he considers areas of political momentum as well as points of disagreement, including the government insurance plan. “There is no consensus on whether there ought to be a public option,” he told the drugstore executives.
Last week he told the hospital executives, “There is virtually no support among Republican members for a public option, and that remains an unresolved element of this debate.”
Senate Democratic leaders have recently said they concur it is unlikely to pass.
Mr. Daschle’s friendship with the president goes back to Mr. Obama’s first days in the Senate. An early and important backer of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, Mr. Daschle also sent a steady stream of former aides to Mr. Obama’s Senate office and White House staff. Mr. Obama’s senior adviser Pete Rouse was Mr. Daschle’s chief of staff. Jeanne Lambrew, a top White House adviser on health care reform, was a co-author of Mr. Daschle’s 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Healthcare Crisis.”
Mr. Daschle’s cabinet nomination was done in by the disclosure that he had failed to pay taxes on the use of a friend’s car and driver while making millions advising Alston & Bird’s clients. After he withdrew his nomination, he threw himself into preparing a bipartisan proposal for health care overhaul with two former Republican Senate leaders: Bob Dole, a colleague at Alston & Bird, and Howard H. Baker Jr., now at another law and lobbying firm. Their proposal, released in June, was among the first to spell out the idea of helping states establish health insurance “co-op plans with consumer boards.”
Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of Mr. Daschle’s closest friends, began pitching the idea at about the same time and has become its champion. Mr. Conrad is among six members of the Senate Finance Committee working on their own compromise proposal that aides say looks increasingly like the Daschle-Dole-Baker report.
As a backstop, their plan provided that if state co-ops or other programs failed to meet certain cost and coverage goals in five years, the president could create a public plan on a fast track without threat of a Senate filibuster.
That feature, known as a trigger, was briefly acknowledged as another possible compromise by the White House chief of staff,
Rahm Emanuel. Though it was little discussed, Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine and one of the Finance Committee’s group of six, has recently expressed support for the concept, and committee aides say the idea is under consideration.
To address doctors’ fears of lawsuits, Mr. Daschle and his collaborators proposed a “safe harbor” from legal liability for doctors who follow certain rules. Mr. Obama took up the idea in a mid-June speech to the American Medical Association.
After Mr. Daschle left the Oval Office on Friday, a White House spokesman described their meeting as a “quick check-in” on the overhaul process. The spokesman said the two “agreed to stay in touch over the coming weeks and months.”

Friday, August 21, 2009

From Ron Paul: The Free Market as Regulator, Not the Government

From Campaign for Liberty's Dr. Ron Paul (U.S. Representative - Texas and Presidential Candidate - Libertarian and Republican) - I recommend joining the organization to get the latest updates, though I'll try to post the latest news each Friday:

"Since the bailouts last fall, lawmakers have been behaving as quasi-owners of the bailed-out banks and businesses, leading to calls for increased regulation of executive compensation and other wasteful expenditures. We have heard much about bonuses and executive pay packages that sound more like lottery winnings than an honest salary. Many lawmakers voted in favor of these unconstitutional bailouts, believing that these corporations were too big to fail, and allowing them to go under would precipitate widespread economic disaster. This second wave of citizen outrage at the bailouts has left these lawmakers with a bit of egg on their face, and once again, they feel the need to "do something" to "fix" it. Shouldn't there be a regulatory structure in place governing executive compensation? Politically, it seems quite feasible. People are outraged that the system has once again gutted the many to make a few at the top fantastically wealthy. But they are incorrectly demonizing the free market. What we need to realize is that there WAS a regulatory structure in place that was attempting to stop bad management, including overpaying executives. That regulatory structure is the free market, and when poor management brought these companies to the point of bankruptcy, Congress circumvented the wisdom of the free market, and inserted its own judgment at our expense. And now because of that intervention, we will burdened with massive new regulations. We can be certain this effort will fail. The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave. The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft -- these are creatures of government. We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lie in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution."

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Another Reason Against Health Care Reform: Look at Social Security

Had this passed on by a fellow patriot...

Does this surprise you? The Truth About Social Security (and we have Health Care Reform to look forward to, by the same group)

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 32nd. President, Democrat - Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945

Introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to be 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

Dwight D Eisenhower - 34th. President, Republican, - Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961.

1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend - a democratically controlled Congress. Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out/be used up for the purpose it was intended/set aside for.

Lyndon B Johnson - 36th. President, Democrat - Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter) - 39th. President, Democrat - Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981

Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants? ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (JIMMY CARTER) AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVETHESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM ! ! !

Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? - Answer: The Democratic Party.

William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) - 42nd. President - Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) - 45th. Vice President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 - Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? - Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

It's probably said best by Thomas Jefferson - 3rd. President, Democrat (but truly our first Libertarian in office) - Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781 - "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

When was the Death of Capitalism?






Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November̢۪s Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, ignore this post. If you are not, then pass this post, and website along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Newt and Nugent? - Has a Nice Ring to It!

Reading a posting from our favorite Libertarian madman, Ted Nugent in Human Events, August 4, who laments over Michigan's demise (while the democratic Governor Granholm plays the violin):

"My beloved home state of Michigan is snagged in an ugly and self-imposed economic and social snare.
Michigan is on economic life support. With unemployment already hovering at fifteen percent and with the automotive industry going the way of the Dodo bird, the bad times for Michigan may have just begun. Michiganiacs beware: things could get much uglier for the Wolverine state before it gets better.
The automotive industry, the foundation of Michigan, and dare I say America, is bankrupt and dying. Taxpayer bailouts, loans to the poorly managed and union controlled car companies, and even a $4,500.00 taxpayer subsidy for people who trade in their older cars for fuel efficient cars may only be postponing the inevitable. Death may be on the doorstep of my old hunting grounds in Dearborn.
According to a July 6 University of Michigan economic article, Michigan will lose over 300,000 jobs from end of 2008 to the end of 2009. The Detroit Free Press reported on July 21 the average sale price for a home in Detroit is a paltry $6,500.00.
If that news isn’t bad enough, I read an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Detroit’s poorly run and union-controlled public schools are expected to file for bankruptcy protection any day now. According to that op-ed, only one out of four children who enter the ninth grade graduate on time, the proficiency scores of kids in the Detroit public school system are dismal compared to other Michigan school systems while the Detroit school system spends $1,700 more per student than other Michigan school systems. The Detroit public school system is not just the worst in Michigan, but the worst in the nation. Nice going NEA. " - Ted Nugent

Say what you want about Ted, but he always stands up for what he believes with such a common sense approach, a true rarity these days. It truly is a shame that a once and vital state like Michigan will soon be reduced to (even more) federal government handouts, with the possibility of IOUs a la California coming down the pike - but soon we'll have the terrorists that nobody wants - and Obama will fulfill another questionable promise technically - I can see it now "Well, they're out of Gitmo, aren't they?" - maybe they could stay at his home in Illinois that he was able to purchase in that sweetheart real estate deal that you and I would never have been able to do (we're too honest - not community organizers with connections - work too hard to try to work all the angles - your choice) - though Obama does have experience working close up with terrorists (you have to belive Bill Ayres will be appointed to something here - he's getting enough money from the government as it is)

Terrible Ted then mentions Newt Gingrich's plan from the American Solutions site:

"Newt Gingrich and his America Solutions organization have it right if we truly want to jump start the economy and set forth the conditions to create good, permanent jobs.
1. Cut taxes 50% for individuals and businesses. Putting this extra cash in the hands of people and small businesses would ignite the American economy like pouring gas on a fire. Barry O and crew are doing everything they can to pour gallons of water on already dwindling embers of capitalism.
2. Eliminate the Capital Gains tax. Newt argues this will provide the capital to build new factories, enable entrepreneurs to start new businesses, create new technologies, etc. History shows that his arguments are bullet proof.
3. Drastically slim down the corporate tax rate, which is among the highest in the world. Reducing our corporate tax rate to that of Ireland (12.5%) would make America a magnet for new companies which would hire American workers.
4. Kill the Death Tax. Taxing the after tax savings of Americans is immoral, mob-like behavior. Killing the death tax would unleash hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans could use to start new businesses and hire Americans.
Newt and his American Solutions ideas to get Michigan and America moving again are spot-on. Barry O and his hyperliberal school boy crew are dead wrong. Americans are paying the price for Barry O’s anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, and very anti-American economic policies. " - Ted Nugent, c/o Newt Gingrich

All sound economic ideas (and you can say what you want about Newt - but he gets the job done, look at Contract with America - what was impressive was not just the proposal in a very simple format for all to understand, but to actually complete the contract as well - so very rare in politics), which means they haven't got a chance as long as the current group is in office - but we have to believe that the American people will rise, released from their chains, if they haven't already been placed around the neck of the free market system - we have to believe there's time, but it's running out. Get involved, and look carefully at the Libertarian ideas, which each of these points made, will get us out of this mess (would have kept us from this mess in the first place) - it's so simple, and perhaps that's where people have trouble understanding the premise, as they have been ingrained to believe that programs are not what they say they are (especially when delivered by politicians in Washington DC, or each of the state houses) and they are starting to look to see who's behind the curtain pulling the strings - read "1984" - George Orwell, "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand, "It can't Happen Here" - Sinclair Lewis, and "Revolution" - Ron Paul and stand up - and speak up (articulate and loud - the other side seems to hate that).

An excellent video with Ted discussing Freedom(and actually having to defend his rights - amazing that he has to do that in this country, still???):

The Death of Obama Care?

Is it possible? Obama Care in it's current form, is truly faltering? Yes, I know something will have to be passed for Obama to save face - though "talking out of both sides of his...." could make that challenging. Three basic pieces of evidence, as possible microcosms of a much bigger picture that will not be completed in Obama's image (just had a flashback to the great book and movie "The Picture of Dorian Gray" but in this case, Obama will still be idolized and still represent that "ideal" to his loyal subjects, while the overall picture is becoming something rather ugly indeed):

1. The liberal columnists and bloggers are starting to look at this plan, and ignoring the Whitehouse's suggestion, to look "at the big picture," they are finding much fault with the plan, even to the point of, "gasp," believing that the critics "may be right."

Examples such as some of the dirt being dug up by those "conservative - re: just kidding, really leftest websites" such as the Daily Kos and Huffington Post - excellent examples of how some species do eat their young. Case in point, from the Daily Beast, an interesting post by Lee Siegel, titled "Obama's Euthanasia Mistake," which takes to task Obama's nearly non-emotional tenor of bill and tack of campaigning over areas that could be quite emotional to the participants who actually have to make the decisions over life-and-death, particularly that all life is precious and cannot be rationalized... a couple key sections in the piece to consider - the "life-sustaining committees," though the term "death panels," seems to be getting more mileage in the press:

"...One of the key ideas under consideration—which can be read as expressing sympathy for limitations on end-of-life care—is morally revolting. And it’s helping to kill the plan itself.

Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.

This is the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Obama told Diane Sawyer in June that government should “study and figure out what works and what doesn’t. And let’s encourage doctors and patients to get what works. Let’s discourage what doesn’t.”

Sawyer then asked him: “Will it just be encouragement? Or will there be a board making Solomonic decisions?”

Obama replied, “What I’ve suggested is—is that we have a—a commission that helps—made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best—best practices.”

When Sawyer pressed him to say whether those practices would be enforced by law, he evaded the question.

This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Leave aside the argument for ending life when its prospects for continuing seem too painful or too hopeless. Leave it aside because this is one case where Kant’s beautiful categorical imperative—act as though your particular deeds should be a universal law—will never apply. We know that theft and murder are wrong because if they were universally committed, the world would explode in chaos. But the decision to end your life before nature wrenches it away is as rational and humane as the decision to prolong your life by whatever means necessary. Life is too specifically precious to turn its final phase into any type of universal practice, whether it’s enforced by custom or by law.

As for the argument that fruitless tests and “senseless” procedures are bankrupting the health-care system, that is an insult to the intelligence. No one knows which tests and procedures will be effective beforehand. No amount of “study” and research is going to address the particular case and the particular condition, let alone the particular, desperate, irrational will to live—which, in animal terms, is pragmatic and rational...."

Unfortunately, Obama is not getting it, though I believe while he considers himself pragmatic and rational, with such an emotional issue of life-and-death (and many others listed in the plan), that just doesn't cut it.

2. The polls are in the tank

Is it possible that the reason Obama and the Democratic leadership wanted to push this program through, without even reading it, while attacking anyone who had any questions on it at all, is that they knew once people started reading the bill, they wouldn't like what they see??? (Health Care? sounds good, wait a minute, this isn't health care, it's....screams fill the air, the screen turns black, film credits roll - left to your imagination, like a dream, though it's a nightmare, that you will not soon wake up from)... and so the numbers continue to drop, particularly independents...

"The Marist Poll found 45% of registered voters nationwide disapprove of how Obama is handling health care, while 43% approve and 12% are unsure.

A full 52% of independent voters, the critical voting bloc that propelled Obama to the White House last fall, gave the President’s handling of health care the thumbs down, while just 34% approve." (From the New York Daily News, August 14th)

3. Ah, and finally, cable news, what would we do without you?

Though sometimes, I'll admit it, I like to turn the TV and computer off to find out. Amazing how shrill some of these liberal experts are - by shouting down the opponent, seems to give them the impression that they've won [i.e., Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and the entire MSNBC crew - it must be like NASCAR (though they wouldn't lower themselves to watch), where all the participants are constantly turning to the left] - such as the following exchange on MSNBC (again, from Daily Beast) - it's pure poetry:

Socialism: The Game (Funny if It Weren't so True!)

Reagan vs. Obama: No Contest!!!

This is John Galt Speaking...

Obama to the Rescue???

Latest News for Liberty!

Powered by WebRing.

Stop the Nanny State Matrix - Vote Libertarian!

The Fountainhead vs. Today's Socialist Government!

Proud Member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists