B. Hussein Obama is gearing up to sell out America. The "Climate Change" shindig in Copenhagen, Denmark, is set to open on a day that is remembered in America. The unprovoked attack, a part of naked, international aggression on the part of Imperial Japan, attacked what were considered the most important components of the US Navy's fleet in the Pacific Ocean - the battleships and cruisers anchored, at peace, in the harbor at Pearl Harbor. All battleships present were sunk, the USS Arizona remains today as a memorial to the thousands of Navy people killed.
President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed December 7, 1941, "A day that will live in infamy."
B. Hussein, acting in his office as defined by the Constitution of the United States, a document, a concept, an institution he swore to serve and defend, is widely expected to sign the proposed treaty offered at Copenhagen. The proposed treaty would institute an international authority to tax and penalize America for "Climate Debt" - redistribute the wealth of America to countries that want more money - and the Cap and Tax plan that failed in Congress.
Evidently, Obama's oath of office means less to him, aside from what it buys him, than his campaign promises. I have to wonder whether there has been any turnover in the Secret Service. Secret Service agents serve in a Constitutionally defined office, filling a vital role in defense of the United States and the Constitution. So how must it feel, to be tasked to defend a President that cares what is in the Constitution only so he can disable it?
The premise of Copenhagen is the observation that the climate has been disturbed in recent decades. Funny, that seemed to have been the predictions about chopping down the Amazon rain forest, and it happened. But the people in the affected region don't have much money (that goes to the well-lawyered rich in Sao Paulo and Rio), so the "green" community focused on CO2 and methane as being to blame. So, following the money - and easier targets than poor farmers - the attack is on America, and on fossil fuels. I mean, the greeners can't make any money without working, mining coal or delivering fuels, so they fund-raise to play politics.
You know about politics, right? You "discover" a problem, you invent an enemy, and entice people to let you lead the opposition.
The Peak Oil argument, that the remaining, unmined and unpumped coal and oil can never be produced again at the rate the world is hungry to consume them, is more compelling, and easy to observe in operation. The prediction that the tailing off of availability vs. demand will be erratic, with fits and starts, has been borne out. Last year's $150 oil triggered a world-wide recession - which choked off demand back to a level at or below the world's ability to produce oil and coal. Prices are easing up again, as the world resumes an economic recovery - and demands more energy. Each excursion of prices and demand is expected to ratchet, gradually, higher and higher. One expectation is that by 2012 (yes, that year again), the average American family will be unable to afford their utility bill.
So what does this mean to our precious Kenyan, B. Hussein Obama? Hey, don't blame me for being skeptical about Obama's birth - Kenya believes he is their native son, now ruling over America. One nation or the other has been deceived. And I like the way Obama is "black", but is son of a white woman. Curious, that.
Back to energy. What Cap and Tax (some call it Cap and Trade) does is to tax the life out of American industry, utilities, and citizens. That money, the part that doesn't stick to pockets for Obama supporters and labor unions, goes to reward other countries, with other sticky pockets, for not being America. Those other countries receive a free pass to burn oil and coal, since they were too poor to afford it before.
Cap and Tax, the heart of what Climate Change scam artists want to do in Copenhagen, is nothing less than a corruption magnet, creating untold opportunities for graft around the world. It also intends to destroy the economy of the industries and nations that provide actual jobs, and pay checks, to much of the working world.
If we cannot keep B. Hussein Obama and his representatives home for the Copenhagen conference, our only hope to avoid the policy laundering, Chicago thug style, is to hope the US Senate refuses to ratify the treaty.
Seems like slim hope left for America. December 7, once again. I wonder if this one will claim more lives, and ruin more nations?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Slanted news
This is a general issue. Blame Tam for mentioning the problem. I just emailed Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor for the evening MSNBC news program, and the Daily Nightly blog.
Thanks for the impetus, Tam.
Sirs,
Tam, blogging at ViewFromThePorch, seems pretty level-headed. She does own and shoots, for recreation, several firearms. In some matters, including history of shooting and firearms, she is fairly well respected.
So, I have to wonder how you respond to her comment on the blatant bias of the Today show, and NBC in general?
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/11/monday-morning-potpourri.html
"What is up with the Democrat Party [..] at NBC? The peacock is green all week to celebrate Al Gore's guest spot on 30 Rock, and half the Today Show this morning was dedicated to reminding us that [..] Sarah Palin eats her young and is known to sacrifice kittens to Cthulhu. It's getting to the point that I wouldn't believe these %&*$ers if they told me Palin woke up in the morning."
[Editing marks are my own.]
There are several issues that seriously divide communities today. Guns is one - where blind "get rid of guns" gun control says if there weren't any guns, no one would get shot. Didn't happen in England, Canda. On the other side is the observation that mass shootings only take place in gun free, excuse me, *disarmed victim*, zones. And then there is the embarrassing statistic that communities that have mandated every head of household own and possess a firearm - violent crime has gone down.
Sarah Palin might be as naive and inept as she appears. That holds nothing to the background Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to politics. Need I mention Al Franken, or that guy that played Gopher on the Love Boat TV show - and governed very successfully in Iowa [Fred Grandy].
Whatever Palin's views and capability, she has stirred a lot of attention in some circles. Al Gore, for all his winning ways with the Nobel Peace Prize, garners less respect for the *content* of his message each day. As I recall, by hook or by crook, he *lost* his bid for the Presidency. As a bare minimum, he did *not* command overwhelming respect and support. That hasn't changed that much.
President Obama's administration looks shabbier, ethically, each week. The mainstream media is *not* calling the administration on faked numbers of jobs "saved" - including practices of counting pay raises, for whatever reason, as a job "saved", as well as requiring people, like shoe store owner Bud Moore [You Can Officially Ignore All Future Administration Jobs Numbers] to *invent* a number, to avoid "assistance" in arriving at a number, for an order for 9 pairs of shoes["nine pairs of work boots"] for the Army Corps of Engineers. ["sent in her answer: nine jobs, because her father helped nine members of the Corps to work"]
There is too little notice being given to the impact on job losses due to proposed legislation - such as the oncoming ObamaCare and the Food Safety Enhancement Act, S.521. In addition, as the jobless rate remains high, the ballast effect of reduced productivity has to be exerting greater and greater pressure on the economy, creating more inertia to turn the story around.
There has been too little attention paid to the number of new, permanent Federal jobs, from border patrol officers to the proposed Food Safety Administration (intended to audit and receive reports from everyone producing or handling food for people or animals, and to enforce reporting and process control regulations), and administrators and staff for whatever ObamaCare and other regulations like Cap And Tax will require.
Washington News Observer tends to acquire interesting, short interviews that address issues that NBC seems to not want ignore away.
KGB Analyst Igor Panarin's forecast of the demise of the US - beginning with rebellion against punitive federal taxes by cash-strapped California and New York - in June/July 2010 continue to seem more likely, as President Obama continues to alienate those that don't adore him, and alienate those that won't overlook his actions. President Obama's reliance on unlimited government handouts is appallingly naive, even compared to Sarah Palin.
I fear the time is now, to heal the breech between those relying on the Constitution, and those favoring President Obama. Will MSNBC polarize the contending elements, join the President in calling (and causing to become true) loyals citizens of the United States "potential terrorists"? Or will MSNBC examine the issues, and *convince* their audience, including me, about what is true and lawful?
So, how does Daily Nightly, MSNBC, and NBC respond to the bias that Tam, and I, see in what news is presented and what is not? And the wording and editorial bias as to what is respected and what is disparaged?
Thanks for the impetus, Tam.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Electric Carbon Labeling Proposal
Climate Change vs. Global Warming
Advocates of the Kyoto protocol - which was supposed to fight Global Warming by shutting off, and robbing, rich countries - prepare now for The Treaty at Copenhagen, where the plan to rob rich countries, and launder money to other countries.
Unfortunately the concept that the earth will moderate it's own climate very well, thank you, seems to have reared it's ugly head. So now the watch-word is "Climate Change", instead of "Global Warming". Different problem, but the tree huggers are still monitoring cows eking out that methane, and gasping at coal fumes.
President of the United States B. Hussein Obama is expected to laud the efforts. His own Cap and Tax plan is straight from the One World Government plan of the tree huggers heading to Copenhagen. The Treaty intends to tax our Cap and Tax plan, tax the US as a bonus, and take responsibility for enforcing the environmental provisions of The Treaty, and of the One World Government that treaty creates.
(Hint to B. Hussein Obama: They will pick someone *else* to be the world leader. You couldn't buy that ticket any more than you could buy getting the Olympic committee to pick Chicago. It won't happen. And odds are that they won't pick any of your buddies in Iran or Venezuela, either.)
My Proposal
Let's require the EPA, appliance and car makers, ISP's and hosting services, utility companies, and all others - to label the amount of carbon that a coal fired plant uses to generate that electricity.
How much carbon?
Let's survey all coal-fired plants. For each, determine how many kilowatt hours of electricity are produced in the course of a year, and how many tons of coal were burned. A year makes a nice, round, seasonally adjusted total. It doesn't take into account the variations from year to year as the earth warms . . or cools . . or other factors, but it gives us a starting figure. Only count electricity consumed or provided for use by customers of the power station.
Figure out how much electricity and fossil fuel, from diesel to natural gas to propane, to mine and transport all that coal to that power plant.
Compute the tons of coal burned, plus the carbon burden to get that ton of coal to that plant, for each kilowatt hour *delivered* from the transmission lines leading from that plant. The utility companies know and work with "line losses" all the time - they *know* what percentage of power placed on the power line is lost (heat and electromagnetic losses) in getting a kilowatt hour of energy to a customer.
Multiply the largest amount of carbon per kilowatt hour by 0.707106781187, or sqrt(2)/2. This ratio is commonly used to find the Root Mean Square, the power factor of alternating current electricity. It is the difference between peak power and RMS power - a useful distinction.
The Goal - end coal fired plants.
Let's assume, for a moment, that climate change and burning coal in power plants have anything in common. Stop laughing. Now, if we thought that burning coal in power plants was the single most reprehensible thing that humankind is doing to destroy the environment. I am looking at you and your deforestation disasters, Asia, Bolivia, Africa. And I am counting all those plane trips to Copenhagen, tree huggers.
Anyway, then obviously the goal has to be to stop using the last kilowatt hour of electricity that requires that last coal fired power plant to keep operating. I mean, if we drop our usage below that threshhold, we can stop using that power plant, right?
So, until that happy day, we label everything that uses electricity. That car charger, that electric water heater, that electric pencil sharpener. We post how many kilowatt hours that gizmo uses in a year of average use. Because if that DVD player uses one kilowatt hour per year, then that might be the very last kilowatt hour that prevents turning off that last coal fired power plant. So every kilowatt hour is identical, and each might be the last. So label each and every use as to how many pounds or tons of carbon using that electricity is responsible for.
What about stuff that doesn't use electricity - AA cell batteries, and garden broad forks, UPS delivery and Earthlink.net, GoDaddy.com and AT&T, The US Congress and the jail in Newkirk, OK? Any organization with an electric light, a computer, an electric pencil sharpener, an electric jail cell lock - they use electricity. Utility companies should include the pounds of carbon each user is responsible for, with total kilowatt hours, on each monthly bill. Each organization and individual should have to report their total kilowatt hours on their income tax return, to keep the US government apprised of who is responsible for consuming coal, and emitting carbon dioxide from electricity generation. And so the government would know when to turn off that last coal fired power plant.
All services, from fast foods to web hosting, would have to label prominently how much carbon they expended, as a function of kilowatt hours and as reported on their electric bill, the preceding month.
Electric vehicles aren't carbon free.
The point, is that electric-only cars, and plug in hybrids, still cause carbon to be consumed. Just not directly, as fossil fuels. That electricity used to charge up that car *might* have come from Hoover Dam. But that kilowatt hour is *usage*, and is no more carbon neutral than that last kilowatt hour needed to justify keeping that last coal-fired power plant on line.
And new cars, of whatever fuel, should have a sticker that lists how much carbon, in direct fossil fuels and electric-equivalents, was consumed to mine and process the metals and other components of that car, of transporting materials from origin, processing, to assembly, then transported to the point of sale.
And no fair only including carbon expended within the US, for materials and goods imported from other countries. If you can't audit the carbon trail, you can't sell it in America. Ha! We could all be California boys and girls!
Advocates of the Kyoto protocol - which was supposed to fight Global Warming by shutting off, and robbing, rich countries - prepare now for The Treaty at Copenhagen, where the plan to rob rich countries, and launder money to other countries.
Unfortunately the concept that the earth will moderate it's own climate very well, thank you, seems to have reared it's ugly head. So now the watch-word is "Climate Change", instead of "Global Warming". Different problem, but the tree huggers are still monitoring cows eking out that methane, and gasping at coal fumes.
President of the United States B. Hussein Obama is expected to laud the efforts. His own Cap and Tax plan is straight from the One World Government plan of the tree huggers heading to Copenhagen. The Treaty intends to tax our Cap and Tax plan, tax the US as a bonus, and take responsibility for enforcing the environmental provisions of The Treaty, and of the One World Government that treaty creates.
(Hint to B. Hussein Obama: They will pick someone *else* to be the world leader. You couldn't buy that ticket any more than you could buy getting the Olympic committee to pick Chicago. It won't happen. And odds are that they won't pick any of your buddies in Iran or Venezuela, either.)
My Proposal
Let's require the EPA, appliance and car makers, ISP's and hosting services, utility companies, and all others - to label the amount of carbon that a coal fired plant uses to generate that electricity.
How much carbon?
Let's survey all coal-fired plants. For each, determine how many kilowatt hours of electricity are produced in the course of a year, and how many tons of coal were burned. A year makes a nice, round, seasonally adjusted total. It doesn't take into account the variations from year to year as the earth warms . . or cools . . or other factors, but it gives us a starting figure. Only count electricity consumed or provided for use by customers of the power station.
Figure out how much electricity and fossil fuel, from diesel to natural gas to propane, to mine and transport all that coal to that power plant.
Compute the tons of coal burned, plus the carbon burden to get that ton of coal to that plant, for each kilowatt hour *delivered* from the transmission lines leading from that plant. The utility companies know and work with "line losses" all the time - they *know* what percentage of power placed on the power line is lost (heat and electromagnetic losses) in getting a kilowatt hour of energy to a customer.
Multiply the largest amount of carbon per kilowatt hour by 0.707106781187, or sqrt(2)/2. This ratio is commonly used to find the Root Mean Square, the power factor of alternating current electricity. It is the difference between peak power and RMS power - a useful distinction.
The Goal - end coal fired plants.
Let's assume, for a moment, that climate change and burning coal in power plants have anything in common. Stop laughing. Now, if we thought that burning coal in power plants was the single most reprehensible thing that humankind is doing to destroy the environment. I am looking at you and your deforestation disasters, Asia, Bolivia, Africa. And I am counting all those plane trips to Copenhagen, tree huggers.
Anyway, then obviously the goal has to be to stop using the last kilowatt hour of electricity that requires that last coal fired power plant to keep operating. I mean, if we drop our usage below that threshhold, we can stop using that power plant, right?
So, until that happy day, we label everything that uses electricity. That car charger, that electric water heater, that electric pencil sharpener. We post how many kilowatt hours that gizmo uses in a year of average use. Because if that DVD player uses one kilowatt hour per year, then that might be the very last kilowatt hour that prevents turning off that last coal fired power plant. So every kilowatt hour is identical, and each might be the last. So label each and every use as to how many pounds or tons of carbon using that electricity is responsible for.
What about stuff that doesn't use electricity - AA cell batteries, and garden broad forks, UPS delivery and Earthlink.net, GoDaddy.com and AT&T, The US Congress and the jail in Newkirk, OK? Any organization with an electric light, a computer, an electric pencil sharpener, an electric jail cell lock - they use electricity. Utility companies should include the pounds of carbon each user is responsible for, with total kilowatt hours, on each monthly bill. Each organization and individual should have to report their total kilowatt hours on their income tax return, to keep the US government apprised of who is responsible for consuming coal, and emitting carbon dioxide from electricity generation. And so the government would know when to turn off that last coal fired power plant.
All services, from fast foods to web hosting, would have to label prominently how much carbon they expended, as a function of kilowatt hours and as reported on their electric bill, the preceding month.
Electric vehicles aren't carbon free.
The point, is that electric-only cars, and plug in hybrids, still cause carbon to be consumed. Just not directly, as fossil fuels. That electricity used to charge up that car *might* have come from Hoover Dam. But that kilowatt hour is *usage*, and is no more carbon neutral than that last kilowatt hour needed to justify keeping that last coal-fired power plant on line.
And new cars, of whatever fuel, should have a sticker that lists how much carbon, in direct fossil fuels and electric-equivalents, was consumed to mine and process the metals and other components of that car, of transporting materials from origin, processing, to assembly, then transported to the point of sale.
And no fair only including carbon expended within the US, for materials and goods imported from other countries. If you can't audit the carbon trail, you can't sell it in America. Ha! We could all be California boys and girls!
Socialism v. Capitalism
This isn't a new question. Barracuda Babes picked up the Donahue TV show segment discussing socialism and capitalism with Milton Friedman.
Take that, Copenhagen/Kyoto tree huggers, and your concepts of "climate debt".
History is clear, no system holds a candle to capitalism, for improving the lot of the common people.
Take that, Copenhagen/Kyoto tree huggers, and your concepts of "climate debt".
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Do it for the family
I just got an email. I was surprised at the sly twist to the message, a bit of propaganda disguised as being patriotic and family-friendly.
Unfortunately, this looks like a clandestine union bit of propaganda.
Yes, America needs jobs. But Fiat bought Chrysler, Ford and GM cars and trucks are assembled in Canada and Mexico, your local Ace Hardware store is a local franchise - of an out of state chain, not that unlike Wal-Mart. Unions commonly portray Wal-Mart as the common, un-American villain, because Wal-Mart employees have refused, time after time, to organize and join labor unions. I note that Toyota, Hyundai, and other manufacturers build lots of cars in America, with Americans filling their jobs, but are disparaged because the unions don't get to collect union dues in most plants.
That means labor unions don't collect dues from Wal-Mart employees. Or car plants hiring Americans that aren't union.
I have a neighbor that adamantly states that belonging to a labor union got him benefits he wouldn't have had if not for the union. I say that unions have prevented employers from providing common employment benefits, to maintain union leverage, union dues, and union membership.
I have never seen a labor union act, or form, in order to preserve and improve profits at a business. There used to be, at one time, craft based unions that established and maintained training and skill standards. Much more common today is reliance on the union to prevent firing employees that cost their employer productivity and expenses. Union work also tends to isolate work from management, interjecting rigid rules and additional paperwork and record keeping, restrictive rules about work, about hiring and firing, etc. Unions often create an adversarial relationship between employer and union labor, which might or might not have existed without the unions.
Buying "American" doesn't do a danged thing to influence the economy or preserve jobs. Protectionism, avoiding or penalizing products from various and sundry countries hurts America and Americans. The only change is who gets richer here in America - the propagandist or the importer. If someone in the world can make a product useful to an American, and ship it to America at such a price and availability to compete in our marketplace - great. Americans bought that item, they sell it to their neighbors for a good markup, often more profit that stuff made in America. Instead of paying Americans to make it, we pay Americans to warehouse, transport, and invest in it. If it is so great, and so cheap to make elsewhere - and Americans are that good at making things - we should be able to compete, if we care to. And if the labor unions and state, federal, and local governments don't legislate and regulate away the ability to make the item and sell it at a profit.
One instance - the hemp plant. Yes, I know some folk get hung up on smoking the flowers. I recall one single argument from my time in California that struck me as compelling. When Marijuana was banned in the 1930s there were 10,000 industrial uses for the hemp plant. Those uses, and those jobs, were pushed overseas. Did you know that some farms around central Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest were licensed to grow hemp during WWII, to provide fiber for ropes and hawsers for military use?
Raising the minimum wage in the last couple of years sounds good, right? Who doesn't want more money. Yet raising the minimum wage increases the cost of the products people making minimum wage work on, without improving productivity. This increases the cost of burgers and movie popcorn and grocery store produce, among many, many other things - and that raises the price that is charged for those things. Raising the minimum wage has always forced some businesses to cut back on the number of jobs they can pay for, costing people employment.
Now ObamaCare and the upcoming Food Safety Enhancement Act 2009 threaten to dramatically increase regulation and reporting costs, taxes, and especially for anyone producing or transporting food (Farmers markets, gardners, as well as farms and industrial processing plants) increase the cost of food. This all acts against American business, and the ability of the American economy to support jobs.
When the seed Monsanto offers is too expensive for farmers to make a profit off of any field they might plant (some $300 a bag for seed corn next spring), when fuel costs rise another 20%, when costs of servicing and repairing tractors and ag equipment rise another 5% - when banks raise their interest rates 2 or 3% - why would farmers plant crops they *have* to lose money in raising? Who would loan them money they wouldn't be able to repay? What if our supplies of food are dramatically reduced next year, for economic reasons not even counting the likelihood of increasing shortfalls of oil for the currently rising demand, and the much ballyhooed worry about climate change causing droughts and disrupting harvests and growing seasons?
What if countries that we buy cheap clothes and cars and trucks and computers from - are expecting to buy grains and other food from us to feed themselves next year, and we don't have that food?
Unions and governments need to deregulate, drop taxes, reign in unfunded spending. So, yes, return power and authority, independence back to ourselves. But be wary, protectionism and unions have always hurt the economy, and put folks out of work.
But that is just my thought.
Brad Kruse
Ponca City, OK
A politician said this not too long ago;
"We don't need government intervention to save ourselves as a country.
We need a movement. A unified movement for the people, by the people.
As a member of the greatest nation, we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to protect and strengthen our economy.
With the greatest "buying power" of any nation, all that is needed for a national resurrection is for us to give our power back to ourselves.
Support Made In the U.S.A. Support yourself. Support US, so that we may continue supporting others. "
I can't remember his name or where I read it, but it is simple and makes sense. I copied and pasted and it and now use it as my signature for all of my emails. PLEASE do the same!!! If we could spread this message around the country, imagine what we could accomplish!!
Unfortunately, this looks like a clandestine union bit of propaganda.
Yes, America needs jobs. But Fiat bought Chrysler, Ford and GM cars and trucks are assembled in Canada and Mexico, your local Ace Hardware store is a local franchise - of an out of state chain, not that unlike Wal-Mart. Unions commonly portray Wal-Mart as the common, un-American villain, because Wal-Mart employees have refused, time after time, to organize and join labor unions. I note that Toyota, Hyundai, and other manufacturers build lots of cars in America, with Americans filling their jobs, but are disparaged because the unions don't get to collect union dues in most plants.
That means labor unions don't collect dues from Wal-Mart employees. Or car plants hiring Americans that aren't union.
I have a neighbor that adamantly states that belonging to a labor union got him benefits he wouldn't have had if not for the union. I say that unions have prevented employers from providing common employment benefits, to maintain union leverage, union dues, and union membership.
I have never seen a labor union act, or form, in order to preserve and improve profits at a business. There used to be, at one time, craft based unions that established and maintained training and skill standards. Much more common today is reliance on the union to prevent firing employees that cost their employer productivity and expenses. Union work also tends to isolate work from management, interjecting rigid rules and additional paperwork and record keeping, restrictive rules about work, about hiring and firing, etc. Unions often create an adversarial relationship between employer and union labor, which might or might not have existed without the unions.
Buying "American" doesn't do a danged thing to influence the economy or preserve jobs. Protectionism, avoiding or penalizing products from various and sundry countries hurts America and Americans. The only change is who gets richer here in America - the propagandist or the importer. If someone in the world can make a product useful to an American, and ship it to America at such a price and availability to compete in our marketplace - great. Americans bought that item, they sell it to their neighbors for a good markup, often more profit that stuff made in America. Instead of paying Americans to make it, we pay Americans to warehouse, transport, and invest in it. If it is so great, and so cheap to make elsewhere - and Americans are that good at making things - we should be able to compete, if we care to. And if the labor unions and state, federal, and local governments don't legislate and regulate away the ability to make the item and sell it at a profit.
One instance - the hemp plant. Yes, I know some folk get hung up on smoking the flowers. I recall one single argument from my time in California that struck me as compelling. When Marijuana was banned in the 1930s there were 10,000 industrial uses for the hemp plant. Those uses, and those jobs, were pushed overseas. Did you know that some farms around central Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest were licensed to grow hemp during WWII, to provide fiber for ropes and hawsers for military use?
Raising the minimum wage in the last couple of years sounds good, right? Who doesn't want more money. Yet raising the minimum wage increases the cost of the products people making minimum wage work on, without improving productivity. This increases the cost of burgers and movie popcorn and grocery store produce, among many, many other things - and that raises the price that is charged for those things. Raising the minimum wage has always forced some businesses to cut back on the number of jobs they can pay for, costing people employment.
Now ObamaCare and the upcoming Food Safety Enhancement Act 2009 threaten to dramatically increase regulation and reporting costs, taxes, and especially for anyone producing or transporting food (Farmers markets, gardners, as well as farms and industrial processing plants) increase the cost of food. This all acts against American business, and the ability of the American economy to support jobs.
When the seed Monsanto offers is too expensive for farmers to make a profit off of any field they might plant (some $300 a bag for seed corn next spring), when fuel costs rise another 20%, when costs of servicing and repairing tractors and ag equipment rise another 5% - when banks raise their interest rates 2 or 3% - why would farmers plant crops they *have* to lose money in raising? Who would loan them money they wouldn't be able to repay? What if our supplies of food are dramatically reduced next year, for economic reasons not even counting the likelihood of increasing shortfalls of oil for the currently rising demand, and the much ballyhooed worry about climate change causing droughts and disrupting harvests and growing seasons?
What if countries that we buy cheap clothes and cars and trucks and computers from - are expecting to buy grains and other food from us to feed themselves next year, and we don't have that food?
Unions and governments need to deregulate, drop taxes, reign in unfunded spending. So, yes, return power and authority, independence back to ourselves. But be wary, protectionism and unions have always hurt the economy, and put folks out of work.
But that is just my thought.
Brad Kruse
Ponca City, OK
Saturday, November 7, 2009
I wrote my Congressman. Please vote "No" on ObamaCare
I sent the following email to my representative, Congressman Frank Lucas, today.
---
Congressman Lucas,
President Obama, and the Democrat Congressional leadership, cannot - *cannot* - overhaul health care or health care insurance, until they *own* health care and health care insurance.
Please oppose all attempts to involve the US government in industry, in health care, in private lives, and in retail and other small business. Government is already too intrusive. Individual rights, including property rights are being trampled. President Obama uses the power of the Executive Office to intrude into the relationship between employer and employee - at every level.
If we were to suppose that the unholy alliance of big government and big union bosses were not corrupt today - this sets the stage for wholesale, rampant corruption tomorrow.
The price of freedom is vigilance. Please oppose all actions of President Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership to hamper, to obscure, and to denigrate vigilance on the part of each and every US citizen.
Please return the United States to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and not a fascist regime of big government, big unions, and powerful (often corrupt) big money interests.
Please, as a first step, show President Obama just how angry his proposals have made so very many Americans.
Please oppose President Obama and the Democrat Congressional Leadership's version of health care seizure or reform, or whatever it should be called. Vote *NO* on ObamaCare.
Instead, support and defend the Constitution - the same Constitution that President Obama swore to serve. I am appalled that President B. Hussein Obama considers his oath of office a mere campaign comment, rather that the basis, and limitation, of the power and duties of the office of President of the United States. Please help remind the President that his duties come before his whims and dreams and wild-eyed social engineering schemes.
Thank you,
Brad Kuse
Ponca City, OK
---
Have you weighed in, yet, on ObamaCare?
---
Congressman Lucas,
President Obama, and the Democrat Congressional leadership, cannot - *cannot* - overhaul health care or health care insurance, until they *own* health care and health care insurance.
Please oppose all attempts to involve the US government in industry, in health care, in private lives, and in retail and other small business. Government is already too intrusive. Individual rights, including property rights are being trampled. President Obama uses the power of the Executive Office to intrude into the relationship between employer and employee - at every level.
If we were to suppose that the unholy alliance of big government and big union bosses were not corrupt today - this sets the stage for wholesale, rampant corruption tomorrow.
The price of freedom is vigilance. Please oppose all actions of President Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership to hamper, to obscure, and to denigrate vigilance on the part of each and every US citizen.
Please return the United States to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and not a fascist regime of big government, big unions, and powerful (often corrupt) big money interests.
Please, as a first step, show President Obama just how angry his proposals have made so very many Americans.
Please oppose President Obama and the Democrat Congressional Leadership's version of health care seizure or reform, or whatever it should be called. Vote *NO* on ObamaCare.
Instead, support and defend the Constitution - the same Constitution that President Obama swore to serve. I am appalled that President B. Hussein Obama considers his oath of office a mere campaign comment, rather that the basis, and limitation, of the power and duties of the office of President of the United States. Please help remind the President that his duties come before his whims and dreams and wild-eyed social engineering schemes.
Thank you,
Brad Kuse
Ponca City, OK
---
Have you weighed in, yet, on ObamaCare?
Friday, October 30, 2009
How to Save America . . or at least American Money
I tried to leave this comment on the Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest blog. *sigh*, it got longer than the allotted 4k (4096 characters) max length. 6713, by Microsoft Word count. 21 paragraphs, 1383 words, 8141 characters with spaces. And so many great . . uh, well . . so many ideas!
So theotherryan, here is my response to your hat tip to Onion News Network's "Nations Girlfriends Unveil New Economic Plan: "lets move in together""
---
I have a better notion.
Live with one or the other in-laws, until the first child at least completes first grade.
Next best is the polygyny method. Have the wife invite two to five additional women for an . . intimate . . sharing. Combine energies for child care, shopping, reduce the number of home decorations and remodelings by three (3) to six (6) times. Of course, this likely increases the amount of time the husband gets to be . . supervised . . by a similar margin. Three coins, and all that.
One approach that I personally favor, is to limit Congress to two staff members each, and require that all proposed laws be typed/entered by the sponsoring Representative of Senator, personally, on pain of dismissal from office. With no replacement until the following regular election. Eliminate the Department of Education, dismiss all domestic enforcement agencies except the Coast Guard, Customs inspections, and FBI; limit each of these to 75% of JFK administration staffing levels. Dismiss the ATF; limit the Secret Service to 25 total officers and 12 support. Give the IRS thirty days to confer with Congress - to arrive at a new regulation to replace all current forms, regulations, and guidelines - limited to 12 letter sized pages, 1.5 inch margins, 14 point Georgia font with 2 point leading and no kerning, no referenced documents, no appendixes, unless they fall within the 12 page total. Headings and subheadings must be 16 point Arial font, with 3 point leading. Start with taxing only voting citizens of the US - companies and businesses collect taxes, they don't pay them. All future changes and amendments, when incorporated, shall be disregarded unless the resulting amended regulations with guidelines all combined still meet the required 12 page total. I take that back - tax all corporations and businesses and other organizations at 1% gross income less business expenses, rate to be frozen forever. We want the IRS to keep their books honest.
Invite the northern tier of Mexican states, individually, to apply to enter to become part of the United States. If so many of their people are living here and sending money home - let's make it official. It would make our southern border much shorter. And we could make sure their schools teach English.
Legalize drugs; tax substances on today's controlled substance list at 20% VAT at each transaction, and turn enforcement over to the IRS.
Limit jail sentences to seven (7) years. The only term more severe would be the death penalty. Add exile as a punishment. Exile the miscreant by one to three states away from home for one to twenty years; separate the bozo from the bad influence of the home turf. Punish exile violators in the time honored fashion, with summary execution.
Convicted felons can't own guns. Why should their marriage be preserved? Impose mandatory dissolution of marriage, with forfeit of all assets by the convicted felon, on initial conviction. Let him/her make amends, if they can, if they get released, pardoned, or conviction is overturned. At least the family won't be pining and depending on the state for handouts.
Let the biggest farms with the biggest debts go broke. Then divide the property into 16 acre patches for homesteading by dismissed Federal employees and long term unemployed, on a voluntary basis. Provide a minimal prebuilt home and well/water, septic/sewer, a bag of seed beans and a hoe, a subscription to Mother Earth News, Internet connection, a goat, three chickens, and an 18 month termination date for subsidies and support; title of property to be held by the state until the patch has been occupied, with taxes paid, for 10 years. Then title would revert to the homesteader. Or let Sheriff Joe kick the idea around with Sharon Astyk; they could probably have the inhabitants weave their own tent or yurt instead of building a place for them.
You remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio, don't you? The one that showed that bologna has to get really green before you get too sick?
The military has quotas; 70% of inductees must be high school graduates, or the equivalent. Colleges and Universities should be required to have a bond of tuition, board, and books posted for 70% of all newly enrolled students. Let's cut the crap of borrowing lives away to send kids to college. And teach democracy in political science, for crying out loud. The Obama administration seems to have studied everything *but* democracy. Or the Constitution.
Require all males age 18 and over to register with the selective service board. Wait - that is already the law. So take that list, in each community, and introduce five (5) of the guys that are unmarried, chosen at random or by the local selection board, to a given unwed mother. She chooses one, and they are married, on the spot. Select guys within four (4) years of the lady's age when possible. Guys would remain vulnerable for selection until they hit 26 years, enter the military for at least three years active service, or get married. Allow deferments for missing limbs or running away to Canada.
Unwed mothers unwilling to "select" would be deemed wards of their parents, their grand parents, uncles or aunts, or their neighbors, whichever the courts deem most suitable, until age 35 or youngest kid completes high school, or equivalent.
An alternative to selective marriage, would be to hold an act of birth is an act of marriage; on giving birth, the mother is married to the biological father. Such "act of marriage" nuptials could only be ended by dissolution by reason of abandonment - leaving all assets of any parent to the remaining parent. Note that this would cross and absorb any existing marriages, partnerships, or alliances - they would all be married with merged assets and group responsibility for each. Take that, adulterer!
Decree that driving a motorized vehicle on public roads is unsafe, risky, and take at the risk of driver and passengers, joint and severally. Your car gets wrecked, you have a bill - you can make no claim on anyone else, there is no fault, just as a fallen rock climber has no claim on a friable cliff face. Car insurance then covers only what losses you might experience. Don't want someone drunk to run over you? Stay off the road. As a side issue, remove all speed limits; thin the gene pool by letting those with no judgment remove themselves from the propagation pipeline. States can sell salvage rights to wrecked cars. If you take a motor vehicle onto a public road, and can't drive it off - the state confiscates it.
Water power. Get back to the old mill stream kind of thing - creekside craft shops, creek-level power generation. How many times could you put a water turbine on a mountain stream, if you only needed 2 feet of water head? How many creeks and streams could provide a 2 foot water head for a new, low-head type turbine (or paddle wheel?) generator.
Tax commutes. For each company with three or more employees, evaluate the daily commute of each on a weekly basis. Each week, tax the employer $1 per commute mile per employee, with a deduction of 5 commute miles per employee. Think of Houston, Phoenix, and LA. If employers hired local people only, neighborhoods would change, and rush hour commute would dribble to something manageable.
Outlaw public contributions, or state or community involvement, in mass transit. If it makes sense, let the community address the issue through private interests. Keep taxi rates minimal.
Impose a $0.01 tax per 10 miles over the first 120 miles per pound on produce, fruits, vegetables, etc., that competes with produce available, at any quantity, within 100 miles. Let's go green - develop local resources for improved food security.
If I think of something else, I'll let you know.
Oh - one last thought. Engines. Replacement engines. Engines that run well, for a long time, cheaply, cheap to maintain. Engines to replace faulty, or just high-emission or low miles per gallon engines. It takes a *lot* of energy - fossil fuel - to build a new car. Tax the carbon out of new cars, and encourage the development of robust, low-priced or endowed or subsidized replacement motors. The cost of a "green" engine should be lower than the cost to rebuild a "clunker" engine. Teach auto paint, Bondo and glass repair in Junior High shop.
---
Another thought. Any employer paying less than minimum wage plus $1, has to offer minimal room and board. Chambers of Commerce can help re-establish the inexpensive boarding house. Minimal room and board would *not* include child care, Internet, TV, or all-you-can-eat.
So theotherryan, here is my response to your hat tip to Onion News Network's "Nations Girlfriends Unveil New Economic Plan: "lets move in together""
---
I have a better notion.
Live with one or the other in-laws, until the first child at least completes first grade.
Next best is the polygyny method. Have the wife invite two to five additional women for an . . intimate . . sharing. Combine energies for child care, shopping, reduce the number of home decorations and remodelings by three (3) to six (6) times. Of course, this likely increases the amount of time the husband gets to be . . supervised . . by a similar margin. Three coins, and all that.
One approach that I personally favor, is to limit Congress to two staff members each, and require that all proposed laws be typed/entered by the sponsoring Representative of Senator, personally, on pain of dismissal from office. With no replacement until the following regular election. Eliminate the Department of Education, dismiss all domestic enforcement agencies except the Coast Guard, Customs inspections, and FBI; limit each of these to 75% of JFK administration staffing levels. Dismiss the ATF; limit the Secret Service to 25 total officers and 12 support. Give the IRS thirty days to confer with Congress - to arrive at a new regulation to replace all current forms, regulations, and guidelines - limited to 12 letter sized pages, 1.5 inch margins, 14 point Georgia font with 2 point leading and no kerning, no referenced documents, no appendixes, unless they fall within the 12 page total. Headings and subheadings must be 16 point Arial font, with 3 point leading. Start with taxing only voting citizens of the US - companies and businesses collect taxes, they don't pay them. All future changes and amendments, when incorporated, shall be disregarded unless the resulting amended regulations with guidelines all combined still meet the required 12 page total. I take that back - tax all corporations and businesses and other organizations at 1% gross income less business expenses, rate to be frozen forever. We want the IRS to keep their books honest.
Invite the northern tier of Mexican states, individually, to apply to enter to become part of the United States. If so many of their people are living here and sending money home - let's make it official. It would make our southern border much shorter. And we could make sure their schools teach English.
Legalize drugs; tax substances on today's controlled substance list at 20% VAT at each transaction, and turn enforcement over to the IRS.
Limit jail sentences to seven (7) years. The only term more severe would be the death penalty. Add exile as a punishment. Exile the miscreant by one to three states away from home for one to twenty years; separate the bozo from the bad influence of the home turf. Punish exile violators in the time honored fashion, with summary execution.
Convicted felons can't own guns. Why should their marriage be preserved? Impose mandatory dissolution of marriage, with forfeit of all assets by the convicted felon, on initial conviction. Let him/her make amends, if they can, if they get released, pardoned, or conviction is overturned. At least the family won't be pining and depending on the state for handouts.
Let the biggest farms with the biggest debts go broke. Then divide the property into 16 acre patches for homesteading by dismissed Federal employees and long term unemployed, on a voluntary basis. Provide a minimal prebuilt home and well/water, septic/sewer, a bag of seed beans and a hoe, a subscription to Mother Earth News, Internet connection, a goat, three chickens, and an 18 month termination date for subsidies and support; title of property to be held by the state until the patch has been occupied, with taxes paid, for 10 years. Then title would revert to the homesteader. Or let Sheriff Joe kick the idea around with Sharon Astyk; they could probably have the inhabitants weave their own tent or yurt instead of building a place for them.
You remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio, don't you? The one that showed that bologna has to get really green before you get too sick?
The military has quotas; 70% of inductees must be high school graduates, or the equivalent. Colleges and Universities should be required to have a bond of tuition, board, and books posted for 70% of all newly enrolled students. Let's cut the crap of borrowing lives away to send kids to college. And teach democracy in political science, for crying out loud. The Obama administration seems to have studied everything *but* democracy. Or the Constitution.
Require all males age 18 and over to register with the selective service board. Wait - that is already the law. So take that list, in each community, and introduce five (5) of the guys that are unmarried, chosen at random or by the local selection board, to a given unwed mother. She chooses one, and they are married, on the spot. Select guys within four (4) years of the lady's age when possible. Guys would remain vulnerable for selection until they hit 26 years, enter the military for at least three years active service, or get married. Allow deferments for missing limbs or running away to Canada.
Unwed mothers unwilling to "select" would be deemed wards of their parents, their grand parents, uncles or aunts, or their neighbors, whichever the courts deem most suitable, until age 35 or youngest kid completes high school, or equivalent.
An alternative to selective marriage, would be to hold an act of birth is an act of marriage; on giving birth, the mother is married to the biological father. Such "act of marriage" nuptials could only be ended by dissolution by reason of abandonment - leaving all assets of any parent to the remaining parent. Note that this would cross and absorb any existing marriages, partnerships, or alliances - they would all be married with merged assets and group responsibility for each. Take that, adulterer!
Decree that driving a motorized vehicle on public roads is unsafe, risky, and take at the risk of driver and passengers, joint and severally. Your car gets wrecked, you have a bill - you can make no claim on anyone else, there is no fault, just as a fallen rock climber has no claim on a friable cliff face. Car insurance then covers only what losses you might experience. Don't want someone drunk to run over you? Stay off the road. As a side issue, remove all speed limits; thin the gene pool by letting those with no judgment remove themselves from the propagation pipeline. States can sell salvage rights to wrecked cars. If you take a motor vehicle onto a public road, and can't drive it off - the state confiscates it.
Water power. Get back to the old mill stream kind of thing - creekside craft shops, creek-level power generation. How many times could you put a water turbine on a mountain stream, if you only needed 2 feet of water head? How many creeks and streams could provide a 2 foot water head for a new, low-head type turbine (or paddle wheel?) generator.
Tax commutes. For each company with three or more employees, evaluate the daily commute of each on a weekly basis. Each week, tax the employer $1 per commute mile per employee, with a deduction of 5 commute miles per employee. Think of Houston, Phoenix, and LA. If employers hired local people only, neighborhoods would change, and rush hour commute would dribble to something manageable.
Outlaw public contributions, or state or community involvement, in mass transit. If it makes sense, let the community address the issue through private interests. Keep taxi rates minimal.
Impose a $0.01 tax per 10 miles over the first 120 miles per pound on produce, fruits, vegetables, etc., that competes with produce available, at any quantity, within 100 miles. Let's go green - develop local resources for improved food security.
If I think of something else, I'll let you know.
Oh - one last thought. Engines. Replacement engines. Engines that run well, for a long time, cheaply, cheap to maintain. Engines to replace faulty, or just high-emission or low miles per gallon engines. It takes a *lot* of energy - fossil fuel - to build a new car. Tax the carbon out of new cars, and encourage the development of robust, low-priced or endowed or subsidized replacement motors. The cost of a "green" engine should be lower than the cost to rebuild a "clunker" engine. Teach auto paint, Bondo and glass repair in Junior High shop.
---
Another thought. Any employer paying less than minimum wage plus $1, has to offer minimal room and board. Chambers of Commerce can help re-establish the inexpensive boarding house. Minimal room and board would *not* include child care, Internet, TV, or all-you-can-eat.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Is Obama jealous of Afghanistan?
It seems that the Obama administration can't decide what to do with Afghanistan. On the one hand, they decry the corruption, how bloated the national government and weak the local governments are (MSNBC news story).
Hmm.
Mr. Obama - do you hear what was just said?
I would like to see the national laws limited to what can be printed on one side of 1500 pages, 14 point font size, 8 1/2 by 11 paper, with 1 inch margins, and 16 point line height. I would like to see government limited by strict interpretation of the US Constitution as written and amended, to those roles requited by that constitution. I would like to see powers and authorities vested in the local governments denied in all shapes and forms to the national government. I would like to see elections freely held, without illegal distortions, or undue influence exerted by monied internal and external interests.
And I want this for the United States of America. Then worry about showing the rest of the world what an honest election, what limited government and empowered local government looks like.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Hmm.
Mr. Obama - do you hear what was just said?
I would like to see the national laws limited to what can be printed on one side of 1500 pages, 14 point font size, 8 1/2 by 11 paper, with 1 inch margins, and 16 point line height. I would like to see government limited by strict interpretation of the US Constitution as written and amended, to those roles requited by that constitution. I would like to see powers and authorities vested in the local governments denied in all shapes and forms to the national government. I would like to see elections freely held, without illegal distortions, or undue influence exerted by monied internal and external interests.
And I want this for the United States of America. Then worry about showing the rest of the world what an honest election, what limited government and empowered local government looks like.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Senior activist or realist?
I got an email. A copy of a letter, sent by Walt and Cindy, to A. Barry Rand, Chief Executive Officer of AARP, a commercial product promotion company that happens to also pursue certain issues and agendas relating to seniors, people 50 and older.
50 might seem young to call one a "senior", but remember the purpose of the company is to push products, and 50 is a number they can use to widen the customer base. Under certain circumstances, an IRS rule lets you retire early, at age 50, so the number isn't wholly made up.
Back to Walt and Cindy. Their letter to AARP is an answer to a (another!) promotional letter, reminding them they didn't renew their membership. That turns out to have been deliberate. Part of the letter follows. Please read the entire letter at Snopes.com - which also posts trusted authentication, showing that the letter was indeed written by Walt and Cindy, and was sent to AARP.
Interestingly, Barry Rand responds to the loss of members that disagree with AARP's positions. The August blog post date is either about the time of Walt and Cindy's letter, or a month prior (August 2009).
Earlier in his post, Mr. Rand mentions the 40 million members of AARP. 50,000 would be something like 0.13% (.0013 of 40,000,000) of the members. Not a lot, really. Just a wiggle in the membership rolls, really. But how many organizations dare watch 50,000 to 60,000 people seemingly individually act in concert - and against the organization?
AARP did *nothing* to dispel the hate-mongering used during the Bush years, to besmirch and disrespect our then-President. I recall my mother, and the bitter hatred she expressed over trivia, and without cause. Someone made a *bunch* of money energizing seniors and other population segments to that level of passion.
To my mind most of the excesses and wrongs of the Bush years, including refusal to audit and correct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were the doings of the Democrat-led Congress who tied our President's hands. To be sure, President Bush was not without his faults. I do not believe that much of the enmity waged against President Bush was politically, and especially money, driven, and not criticism over legality of his actions - such as should be leveled against his predecessor and increasingly against his successor.
My sympathy to Walt and Cindy. And my thanks for getting their statement of opposition to supporters of Socialist B. Hussein Obama published.
50 might seem young to call one a "senior", but remember the purpose of the company is to push products, and 50 is a number they can use to widen the customer base. Under certain circumstances, an IRS rule lets you retire early, at age 50, so the number isn't wholly made up.
Back to Walt and Cindy. Their letter to AARP is an answer to a (another!) promotional letter, reminding them they didn't renew their membership. That turns out to have been deliberate. Part of the letter follows. Please read the entire letter at Snopes.com - which also posts trusted authentication, showing that the letter was indeed written by Walt and Cindy, and was sent to AARP.
Dear Mr. Rand,
Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. . . Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.
While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years . . ., we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. . .
Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP [emphasis added] serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!
We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed . . . and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore [emphasis added] by renewing our membership. . .
This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage,but even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. . . . Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck . . ., but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.
. . .
We travel for a living... Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration.. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.
. . . I am disappointed as hell.
I am scared as hell.
I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it
anymore!
Walt & Cyndy
Interestingly, Barry Rand responds to the loss of members that disagree with AARP's positions. The August blog post date is either about the time of Walt and Cindy's letter, or a month prior (August 2009).
Since July 1st, when we started seeing a rise in phone calls and emails here at AARP as a result of the health care debate, we have lost approximately 50,000-60,000 members. While we are encouraged that almost 1.8 million people have either joined AARP or renewed their memberships over that same time span, we take the loss of any member seriously. We don't want to see you, our members, leave for any reason, and understand that even when we all have the facts reasonable people may agree to disagree on the proposals being put forth by Congress.
Earlier in his post, Mr. Rand mentions the 40 million members of AARP. 50,000 would be something like 0.13% (.0013 of 40,000,000) of the members. Not a lot, really. Just a wiggle in the membership rolls, really. But how many organizations dare watch 50,000 to 60,000 people seemingly individually act in concert - and against the organization?
AARP did *nothing* to dispel the hate-mongering used during the Bush years, to besmirch and disrespect our then-President. I recall my mother, and the bitter hatred she expressed over trivia, and without cause. Someone made a *bunch* of money energizing seniors and other population segments to that level of passion.
To my mind most of the excesses and wrongs of the Bush years, including refusal to audit and correct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were the doings of the Democrat-led Congress who tied our President's hands. To be sure, President Bush was not without his faults. I do not believe that much of the enmity waged against President Bush was politically, and especially money, driven, and not criticism over legality of his actions - such as should be leveled against his predecessor and increasingly against his successor.
My sympathy to Walt and Cindy. And my thanks for getting their statement of opposition to supporters of Socialist B. Hussein Obama published.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
nyt: Refusing to ask the pertinent question
Thomas L. Friedman wrote a New York Times opinion-editorial piece, Where Did ‘We’ Go?
Mr. Friedman's point that death threats and discussions about B. Hussein Obama are wrong - cannot be disputed. The America promised in the US Constitution is a nation of rule by law - extra-legal acts are against those laws. That should be simple enough for everyone to understand.
But Mr. Friedman takes a surface view only. He looks at who badmouths and belittles - and threatens - who.
I personally find that B. Hussein Obama has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Constitutionally provided checks and balances - the Congress and the Supreme Court have not addressed those abuses of office. Congress persistantly aids and abets, in some cases, as in the hounding and badgering - for public consumption and political gain - AIG bonuses, an issue that should have been beneath the notice of Congress, in the larger issues facing America.
The Supreme Court, with it's newly appointed racially bigoted political hack justice, Sotomayor (and what did Obama do to get Souter to resign?), has yet to address Obama interfering in the restructure - and firing a CEO - of GM and Chrysler.
Pelosi/Reid/Obama have chosen to wield their power for political gain, for corrupt enrichment of hangers-on, and to punish those with wealth they covet. This is a dangerous, dangerous action, taken in such a way that they create a scenario where the safeguards of the Constitution are thwarted. In effect, by acting as tyrants, by enacting whatever they want in the face of popular opposition, they create a sense of desperation in their opponents. Desperate opponents need to see formal safeguards in action - or desperate responses may be tried.
Since taking office, President B. Hussein Obama has taken frequent steps to curtain and interfere with gun ownership, and frequently denied plans and actions taken. This pattern of bald-faced deceit has raised the hackles, paranoia, desperation, and anger of his opponents. No one doubts that Obama still intends further attacks on gun ownership - in flat defiance and disregard of the Bill of Rights - but is biding his time, planning his next moves.
This is not the way I believe a President governs in a constitutional government. In fact, I believe President Obama has violated his oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution, and thus should be impeached. I am firmly convinced that for now, the US House of Representatives is flatly incapable of honoring it's duty to consider and serve a bill of impeachment if warranted. I am convinced that the Pelosi-led House would block consideration of a bill of impeachment of the President, and would, on party lines, neglect to consider the merits of holding the President to the contents of the US Constitution, and to his oath of office. That is, the Pelosi-led House is acting in a tyrannical manner.
Reid has less of a political plurality to work with, but seems even less likely to follow the path of honor than political expedience. His Senate confirmed Sotomayor, after all. And continues to confirm fringe, radical, bigoted, and anti-American Obama appointees.
Are we to the point where the Declaration of Independence states, "When in the course of human events . . ."? I am offended at the Obama administration, and the Democrat-led Congress that this question occurs to me.
Mr. Friedman, you lament the "dangerous" atmosphere endangering our President. I do as well. But from my chair in Oklahoma, it seems that organized labor and radical elements of the Democratic party are largely to blame for making villains of opposing candidates.
As for the birth certificate - three supposed facts keep the issue alive for me. Kenya, as a nation, believes Obama to be their native son. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is incomplete as a birth certificate of a natural born citizen of the United States, not requiring that the birth took place at the facility cited. B. Hussein Obama has spent time, energy, and effort to conceal the original of his birth certificate. In addition, there are so many questions about Obama's background, including who financed his Ivy League college education, what his participation was in the Chicago politics that sold his Senate seat - did those same factors buy it for him in the first place? Obama claims to be Christian, with a 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's racially polarized congretion. Yet, within days of publication about that congregation, Obama no longer belongs - was it faith that kept him going to church, political expediency, or a cover for the Muslim beliefs of his early schooling and childhood?
It seems incredible to me that a closet-raised, inept, unschooled person could make as many foreign affairs blunders by accident. If President Obama isn't deliberately trying to dismantle America's place in world stability - by giving away our honor, our promises, our friendships - he sure makes himself look stupid. And this from a background of world travel, Ivy League education, and a sitting US Senator.
I think the right place to start is an intense review of the most polarizing efforts by Congress and the President. Let supporters and opponents hear the arguments, and ask their questions. Let bills and actions be submitted for public comment and review. Act as representatives of the nation, rather than autocrats ruling with an iron fist and no concern about nay-sayers.
I actually think that the atmosphere of antagonism can be returned to a hashing of issues quite readily. It just takes all parties allowing their pet agendas to be legal, shaped by all interested parties, and a dedication to rule of law and the Constitution. There are laws and procedures and best practices in place for all of this. Let the leaders show that the Constitutional protections against tyranny are in place and that they work. That would be a really worthwhile change.
Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.
Mr. Friedman's point that death threats and discussions about B. Hussein Obama are wrong - cannot be disputed. The America promised in the US Constitution is a nation of rule by law - extra-legal acts are against those laws. That should be simple enough for everyone to understand.
But Mr. Friedman takes a surface view only. He looks at who badmouths and belittles - and threatens - who.
I personally find that B. Hussein Obama has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Constitutionally provided checks and balances - the Congress and the Supreme Court have not addressed those abuses of office. Congress persistantly aids and abets, in some cases, as in the hounding and badgering - for public consumption and political gain - AIG bonuses, an issue that should have been beneath the notice of Congress, in the larger issues facing America.
The Supreme Court, with it's newly appointed racially bigoted political hack justice, Sotomayor (and what did Obama do to get Souter to resign?), has yet to address Obama interfering in the restructure - and firing a CEO - of GM and Chrysler.
Pelosi/Reid/Obama have chosen to wield their power for political gain, for corrupt enrichment of hangers-on, and to punish those with wealth they covet. This is a dangerous, dangerous action, taken in such a way that they create a scenario where the safeguards of the Constitution are thwarted. In effect, by acting as tyrants, by enacting whatever they want in the face of popular opposition, they create a sense of desperation in their opponents. Desperate opponents need to see formal safeguards in action - or desperate responses may be tried.
Since taking office, President B. Hussein Obama has taken frequent steps to curtain and interfere with gun ownership, and frequently denied plans and actions taken. This pattern of bald-faced deceit has raised the hackles, paranoia, desperation, and anger of his opponents. No one doubts that Obama still intends further attacks on gun ownership - in flat defiance and disregard of the Bill of Rights - but is biding his time, planning his next moves.
This is not the way I believe a President governs in a constitutional government. In fact, I believe President Obama has violated his oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution, and thus should be impeached. I am firmly convinced that for now, the US House of Representatives is flatly incapable of honoring it's duty to consider and serve a bill of impeachment if warranted. I am convinced that the Pelosi-led House would block consideration of a bill of impeachment of the President, and would, on party lines, neglect to consider the merits of holding the President to the contents of the US Constitution, and to his oath of office. That is, the Pelosi-led House is acting in a tyrannical manner.
Reid has less of a political plurality to work with, but seems even less likely to follow the path of honor than political expedience. His Senate confirmed Sotomayor, after all. And continues to confirm fringe, radical, bigoted, and anti-American Obama appointees.
Are we to the point where the Declaration of Independence states, "When in the course of human events . . ."? I am offended at the Obama administration, and the Democrat-led Congress that this question occurs to me.
Mr. Friedman, you lament the "dangerous" atmosphere endangering our President. I do as well. But from my chair in Oklahoma, it seems that organized labor and radical elements of the Democratic party are largely to blame for making villains of opposing candidates.
As for the birth certificate - three supposed facts keep the issue alive for me. Kenya, as a nation, believes Obama to be their native son. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is incomplete as a birth certificate of a natural born citizen of the United States, not requiring that the birth took place at the facility cited. B. Hussein Obama has spent time, energy, and effort to conceal the original of his birth certificate. In addition, there are so many questions about Obama's background, including who financed his Ivy League college education, what his participation was in the Chicago politics that sold his Senate seat - did those same factors buy it for him in the first place? Obama claims to be Christian, with a 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's racially polarized congretion. Yet, within days of publication about that congregation, Obama no longer belongs - was it faith that kept him going to church, political expediency, or a cover for the Muslim beliefs of his early schooling and childhood?
It seems incredible to me that a closet-raised, inept, unschooled person could make as many foreign affairs blunders by accident. If President Obama isn't deliberately trying to dismantle America's place in world stability - by giving away our honor, our promises, our friendships - he sure makes himself look stupid. And this from a background of world travel, Ivy League education, and a sitting US Senator.
I think the right place to start is an intense review of the most polarizing efforts by Congress and the President. Let supporters and opponents hear the arguments, and ask their questions. Let bills and actions be submitted for public comment and review. Act as representatives of the nation, rather than autocrats ruling with an iron fist and no concern about nay-sayers.
I actually think that the atmosphere of antagonism can be returned to a hashing of issues quite readily. It just takes all parties allowing their pet agendas to be legal, shaped by all interested parties, and a dedication to rule of law and the Constitution. There are laws and procedures and best practices in place for all of this. Let the leaders show that the Constitutional protections against tyranny are in place and that they work. That would be a really worthwhile change.
The coup that went away.
Where to start.
1) Newsmax.com contributor John Perry wrote a piece, an opinion, expressing concern that at least one scenario might be more likely now than in the past - the military intervening in the President's affairs - a coup.
2) Newsmax.com took the page down, the article is not listed, now, on John L. Perry's author page where his other articles are listed.
3) Little Green Footballs reports that the Perry piece was written - and pulled (This article contains the full text of the initial post).
Beltway Blips mentions the piece. TPM LiveWire includes the NewsMax announcement about removing the piece. MediaMatters reports Newsmax columnist: Military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem' " is not "unrealistic"
4) TimesOnLine.com relates Gore Vidal's opinion - not related to the Perry piece - that America is facing a dictator soon.
Note that the Times, (known the world over as The London Times paper), is published outside the US, and outside White House influence - the Vidal article has not been removed.
5) Comments mostly range between calling the article sedition and treason, to goofy.
What is disturbing is the apparent censorship and chilling effect on free speech.
I doubt that Mr. Perry's piece is complete. I believe there though the military might conclude - maybe, in some hypothetical space and time - that President Obama had abandoned devotion and obedience to the US Constitution - that they would not act, unless the Congress and Supreme Court also abandoned the Constitution. So I don't believe military intervention is any closer today than it has been since (General) George Washington was first sworn in as the first President of the United States. Intervention - a coup - could happen, it could always have happened. But the military, at least during my service in the US Navy, teaches and lives the premise that the military must be governed by civilian authority to maintain a rule of law and order - and that the military exists to provide security for that rule of law and order, as defined in the US Constitution.
As well imagine a general officer of the military walking into a meeting with B. Hussein Obama and intervening, as a fund raiser from Chicago walking into the White House and telling B. Hussein Obama, "Get the Olympics into Chicago, now, or else." Actually, I have less experience with fund raisers from Chicago, so that might not be a fair comparison.
No, what I find disturbing is how the original piece was seditious and treasonous - though it warned of an existing threat, not create or advocate a threat - and was so contrary to the good of the nation that it had to be removed. And yet those that agree with the gravity of the situation, or especially those that ridicule the notion, are free to copy and comment on the content of that dangerous piece.
There have been rumors of other blogs and online content that have been affected, when they rose to the notice of the White House. Did B. Hussein Obama, the Secret Service, or other staff or representatives - or other government agencies or marshals - intervene at NewsMax or directly to John L. Perry? We may have to wait for the next Presidential administration - or impeachment hearings for B. Hussein Obama, if that should happen - to find out.
1) Newsmax.com contributor John Perry wrote a piece, an opinion, expressing concern that at least one scenario might be more likely now than in the past - the military intervening in the President's affairs - a coup.
2) Newsmax.com took the page down, the article is not listed, now, on John L. Perry's author page where his other articles are listed.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.And others pick it up.
3) Little Green Footballs reports that the Perry piece was written - and pulled (This article contains the full text of the initial post).
Bad Craziness at Newsmax: Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
Weird | Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:03:51 am PDT
Newsmax columnist John L. Perry published this article at the site yesterday, and it’s apparently been tossed down the memory hole.
For obvious reasons.
Beltway Blips mentions the piece. TPM LiveWire includes the NewsMax announcement about removing the piece. MediaMatters reports Newsmax columnist: Military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem' " is not "unrealistic"
4) TimesOnLine.com relates Gore Vidal's opinion - not related to the Perry piece - that America is facing a dictator soon.
Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’
The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is ‘rotting away’ — and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it
Note that the Times, (known the world over as The London Times paper), is published outside the US, and outside White House influence - the Vidal article has not been removed.
5) Comments mostly range between calling the article sedition and treason, to goofy.
What is disturbing is the apparent censorship and chilling effect on free speech.
I doubt that Mr. Perry's piece is complete. I believe there though the military might conclude - maybe, in some hypothetical space and time - that President Obama had abandoned devotion and obedience to the US Constitution - that they would not act, unless the Congress and Supreme Court also abandoned the Constitution. So I don't believe military intervention is any closer today than it has been since (General) George Washington was first sworn in as the first President of the United States. Intervention - a coup - could happen, it could always have happened. But the military, at least during my service in the US Navy, teaches and lives the premise that the military must be governed by civilian authority to maintain a rule of law and order - and that the military exists to provide security for that rule of law and order, as defined in the US Constitution.
As well imagine a general officer of the military walking into a meeting with B. Hussein Obama and intervening, as a fund raiser from Chicago walking into the White House and telling B. Hussein Obama, "Get the Olympics into Chicago, now, or else." Actually, I have less experience with fund raisers from Chicago, so that might not be a fair comparison.
No, what I find disturbing is how the original piece was seditious and treasonous - though it warned of an existing threat, not create or advocate a threat - and was so contrary to the good of the nation that it had to be removed. And yet those that agree with the gravity of the situation, or especially those that ridicule the notion, are free to copy and comment on the content of that dangerous piece.
There have been rumors of other blogs and online content that have been affected, when they rose to the notice of the White House. Did B. Hussein Obama, the Secret Service, or other staff or representatives - or other government agencies or marshals - intervene at NewsMax or directly to John L. Perry? We may have to wait for the next Presidential administration - or impeachment hearings for B. Hussein Obama, if that should happen - to find out.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Personnel is policy: With appointees like these, how can we *not* fear ObamaCare?
ALG Research, writing for NetRightNation, presents in Appointment Watch: Jarrett and Holdren:
Holdren was confirmed March 19, 2009, with not one single Senator voting against.
When Obama keeps appointing people that advocate "abortions" until two years after birth and right to sue for animals, and people like Holdren, who can wonder what kind of social leverage Obama intends to inflict with his so-called Health Care package?
John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Science Czar)
* Holdren has been a big proponent of population control.
* Holdren has suggested adding a sterilant to drinking water in order to control the population.
* Holdren advocated a “de-development” of the United States.
Holdren was confirmed March 19, 2009, with not one single Senator voting against.
When Obama keeps appointing people that advocate "abortions" until two years after birth and right to sue for animals, and people like Holdren, who can wonder what kind of social leverage Obama intends to inflict with his so-called Health Care package?
After reviewing Holdren’s views one would hope that his appointment as a Czar was an anomaly. Unfortunately Holdren’s appointment follows Obama’s pattern of appointing people with views to the left of almost everyone on Earth.
-Don Todd, Director of Research,
Americans for Limited Government
Monday, September 28, 2009
bim: ObamaCare starting to look like a horror movie
Billll at Billll's Idle Mind writes about Cast for Codgers.
Movie fans may recall a couple of old-time, science fiction horror movies: Logan's Run and Soylent Green.
Soylent Green invited people to step into the vat, to be surprised to emerge as canned food headed for the nearest grocery. Logan's Run sounds eerily like Cash for Codgers - at age 35 people are deemed "too old", and participate in a major media event - a "run" with the promise of being let to live if they escape the many dangers and traps. Until Logan, of course, none are permitted to survive. Logan manages to escape.
I wonder if people have thought through this rationed health care. For one popular instance, suppose B. Hussein Obama sets himself as a national icon of health.
- Want to see a doctor, but weigh more than The One? Wait until you lose the weight.
- Want to see a doctor, but don't run like a top Marine Sargeant? Get practicing - the doctor is on the other side of the obstacle course.
- Want your kid to see the doctor, but the little tyke is throwing a tantrum? Come back when the toddler shows discipline and courtesy, and reverance for Big Foot and B. Hussein Obama.
- Want to see the doctor but didn't vote for Obama? Maybe after the next election Alderman Obama will have time for the doctor to see you.
- Want to see the doctor but smoke/take drugs? Have to pass the pee-in-the-bottle test and pass the 60-days without exposure to smokers sniff test.
- Want to see a doctor but aren't married and sexually active? Well, the doctor will be available as soon as you have been "fixed".
- Want to see a doctor, you are pregnant with more than one kid at home? The doctor will see you right after the abortion and after you get "fixed".
- Make more money, or have more assets, than a retired grocery store clerk? Tough. Hire an illegal Mexican to be your family doctor. Just don't expect to have access to legal pharmacies and diagnostic equipment.
This may answer Frank W. James' "I've Got A few Questions" post, on why Obama gives a rip. Oh! Bummer! wants control of average Americans.
Back in the Reagan Presidency, one conservative quote angered Liberals: The more you spend on health care, the more expensive health care becomes. If someone survives cancer, a car crash, or anaphylactic shock, the odds are great that the person will be using, at some time, additional medical services. Invent a new drug or machine that helps critically ill patients - and it will get used on those that *might* benefit. Look at how frequently viagra happens to be used for recreation rather than medical necessity. Or how often Tylenol gets used when drinking less alcohol, or more water, the night before would have sufficed. Back 100 to 200 years ago, you got the flu or dysentery, and you died or got over it, with few people seeing a doctor. The advent of health insurance now insures lots and lots of people see the doctor for a few palliative prescriptions and instructions to get plenty of rest in bed, drink fluids, and take tylenol/aspirin. Doctors get the income, insurance companies make out, pharmaceutical companies make out big time.
The answer has to lie somewhere in between. There has to be a way to improve health care for those that cannot afford the elite prices and elite services and elite pharmaceuticals that the American Medical Association, big hospitals, and big drug companies have established as "minimum". There has to be a way to reduce costs, improve availability and reduce waste (fraud happens in Medicare and Medicaid; other providers and insurers don't put up with it).
Reducing cost and waste has to include reducing difficulty in getting care.
I propose an underlayer to the layers of medical care in America: Healers. A medical practitioner with credentials to practice overseas, or a BS with apprenticeship, capable of treating minor scrapes and breaks and viruses, and charging about what a movie ticket costs. And able to screen patients to identify those that need traditional or advanced medical care. Healers with immunity to mere negligence law suits; it would take active assault and intent to inflict harm for a healer, or doctor, to lose in court.
Under the Cash For Codgers program, if someone came in seeking health care services that were judged “excessive” by a locally appointed appraisal board, then their nearest relative will be granted power of attorney to make the decision, and will be offered $3500 to $4500 for such organs as are usable, and the patient would then be humanely parted out[emphasis added]. Unusable portions will be disposed of in an ecologically approved manner, with preferences given to demands of the agriculture industry.
Movie fans may recall a couple of old-time, science fiction horror movies: Logan's Run and Soylent Green.
Soylent Green invited people to step into the vat, to be surprised to emerge as canned food headed for the nearest grocery. Logan's Run sounds eerily like Cash for Codgers - at age 35 people are deemed "too old", and participate in a major media event - a "run" with the promise of being let to live if they escape the many dangers and traps. Until Logan, of course, none are permitted to survive. Logan manages to escape.
I wonder if people have thought through this rationed health care. For one popular instance, suppose B. Hussein Obama sets himself as a national icon of health.
- Want to see a doctor, but weigh more than The One? Wait until you lose the weight.
- Want to see a doctor, but don't run like a top Marine Sargeant? Get practicing - the doctor is on the other side of the obstacle course.
- Want your kid to see the doctor, but the little tyke is throwing a tantrum? Come back when the toddler shows discipline and courtesy, and reverance for Big Foot and B. Hussein Obama.
- Want to see the doctor but didn't vote for Obama? Maybe after the next election Alderman Obama will have time for the doctor to see you.
- Want to see the doctor but smoke/take drugs? Have to pass the pee-in-the-bottle test and pass the 60-days without exposure to smokers sniff test.
- Want to see a doctor but aren't married and sexually active? Well, the doctor will be available as soon as you have been "fixed".
- Want to see a doctor, you are pregnant with more than one kid at home? The doctor will see you right after the abortion and after you get "fixed".
- Make more money, or have more assets, than a retired grocery store clerk? Tough. Hire an illegal Mexican to be your family doctor. Just don't expect to have access to legal pharmacies and diagnostic equipment.
This may answer Frank W. James' "I've Got A few Questions" post, on why Obama gives a rip. Oh! Bummer! wants control of average Americans.
Back in the Reagan Presidency, one conservative quote angered Liberals: The more you spend on health care, the more expensive health care becomes. If someone survives cancer, a car crash, or anaphylactic shock, the odds are great that the person will be using, at some time, additional medical services. Invent a new drug or machine that helps critically ill patients - and it will get used on those that *might* benefit. Look at how frequently viagra happens to be used for recreation rather than medical necessity. Or how often Tylenol gets used when drinking less alcohol, or more water, the night before would have sufficed. Back 100 to 200 years ago, you got the flu or dysentery, and you died or got over it, with few people seeing a doctor. The advent of health insurance now insures lots and lots of people see the doctor for a few palliative prescriptions and instructions to get plenty of rest in bed, drink fluids, and take tylenol/aspirin. Doctors get the income, insurance companies make out, pharmaceutical companies make out big time.
The answer has to lie somewhere in between. There has to be a way to improve health care for those that cannot afford the elite prices and elite services and elite pharmaceuticals that the American Medical Association, big hospitals, and big drug companies have established as "minimum". There has to be a way to reduce costs, improve availability and reduce waste (fraud happens in Medicare and Medicaid; other providers and insurers don't put up with it).
Reducing cost and waste has to include reducing difficulty in getting care.
I propose an underlayer to the layers of medical care in America: Healers. A medical practitioner with credentials to practice overseas, or a BS with apprenticeship, capable of treating minor scrapes and breaks and viruses, and charging about what a movie ticket costs. And able to screen patients to identify those that need traditional or advanced medical care. Healers with immunity to mere negligence law suits; it would take active assault and intent to inflict harm for a healer, or doctor, to lose in court.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
fwj: Where does the Constitution permit ObamaCare??!?
Frank W. James writes on Corn, Beans, Spent Brass, an empty page and a deadline about disturbing questions regarding ObamaCare: I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS????...
I am afraid there is a fallacy in leaning on the interpretation that the founding fathers had for the Constitution.
That is, the Constitution has always been a living document. It wasn't ratified, or wouldn't have been, without the Bill of Rights - the first 10 substantive changes or Amendments.
I fear and hate the agenda pursued by the deceitful, dishonorable President B. Hussein Obama. There may come a day that the world will naturally and rightfully fall under a single world government. We aren't there by a long ways, not when Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Venezuela entertain so many military interests and factions from so very many nations. We aren't ready when Muslim's can be found that hate anyone not of their belief, or Christians or anyone else. It is suicide of family, community, and nation to proceed as if we can accommodate or appease hostile forces in the world.
The unfortunate truth is that many Americans share the vision and what they have been told is the agenda of B. Hussein Obama; I fear there is still much deception hiding the truth from most of them. In the past, it has been the compromises between left and right, between those wanting change and those wanting stability, that has been the major source of the strength of the United States.
What I see happening is a lack of compromise, that the liberal and socialist agenda is proceeding unchecked. And proceeding unchecked is a clear and real invitation to tyranny - which does violate the Constitution.
I am appalled at the White House interfering in GM and Chrysler far beyond the authority of the White House. I am horrified that Congress participated in the "overpay and bonus" witch hunt at AIG. But what really gets my goat is that there has been no motion to censure the President for exceeding his authority, no move to impeach him for interference and intimidation in private business. If a court were to find that B. Hussein Obama had violated the Constitutional bounds of his office, does that violate his oath of office - and thereby unseat the President? The question hasn't been asked. And that bothers me, a lot.
Regardless of how one views the intent of the Constitution at the founding of the country, I contend that the current wording and interpretation in the courts holds true. As a nation of laws, I am disappointed that the President is permitted to ignore the Constitution, rather than wait out the process to amend it or whatever would be required to support his extralegal shenanigans.
I still want to know what Obama did to get Souter to quit the Supreme Court; it is obvious he needed a bought judge, Sotomayor, to cover his butt when ObamaCare lands before the Supreme Court - it cannot help but start out there.
There have been no publicized moves to recall any of the privileged players treating the President's proposals as if they were simply another proposed law - one that they don't need to worry about what it contains.
What I fear is a breakdown of civil authority, unless the Constitutionally mandated checks and balances start exerting a dampening influence on the outrages coming from the Obama White House.
I have heard anecdotes that President Obama appears to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That there is a psychological explanation for why he considers anyone thwarting him to be evil and deranged, why his every whim seems to him to be the Truth Before God. I dunno. I figure his tenacious pursuit of ObamaCare is either deranged obsession that he knows better than most Americans, or that he keeps ObamaCare on the media fire to prevent us looking at H.R. 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act or gun control efforts or other underhanded misuses he is making of the US Government. I suppose it could be both.
I consider Obama's conduct outside the authority of the Presidency and against the limits of the Constitution to be illegal. But the same House majority that helps assure passage of Demcrat-sponsored legislation means that a move to impeach cannot be voted out of the House of Representatives, either. Obama's butt is covered against being prosecuted, at least for now. Which amounts to another invitation to tyranny - freedom from prosecution for illegal acts.
Frank, your worded your piece in a fallacious manner, implying you were unsure if the Constitution either required or even permits what ObamaCare is attempting to do. I think most of the argument was lost when LBJ launched his War on Poverty. Right or wrong, I think ObamaCare could well end up being implemented if passed. My Representative and Senators have been told how I feel about the program - that it is unconstitutional, devised to destroy incomes of physicians and hospitals in favor of government operated services, that it is another step in implementing government management of wages at all levels from part time custodial on up. ObamaCare rewards certain of Obama's secret backers, and destroys additional American infrastructure, as a means to dismantle America.
Because the America Obama is headed for has nothing to do with the US Constitution. Just wait until he irritates enough people he has reason to invoke martial law, and see what gets set aside and what doesn't.
But that is just my thought tonight.
I am afraid there is a fallacy in leaning on the interpretation that the founding fathers had for the Constitution.
That is, the Constitution has always been a living document. It wasn't ratified, or wouldn't have been, without the Bill of Rights - the first 10 substantive changes or Amendments.
I fear and hate the agenda pursued by the deceitful, dishonorable President B. Hussein Obama. There may come a day that the world will naturally and rightfully fall under a single world government. We aren't there by a long ways, not when Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Venezuela entertain so many military interests and factions from so very many nations. We aren't ready when Muslim's can be found that hate anyone not of their belief, or Christians or anyone else. It is suicide of family, community, and nation to proceed as if we can accommodate or appease hostile forces in the world.
The unfortunate truth is that many Americans share the vision and what they have been told is the agenda of B. Hussein Obama; I fear there is still much deception hiding the truth from most of them. In the past, it has been the compromises between left and right, between those wanting change and those wanting stability, that has been the major source of the strength of the United States.
What I see happening is a lack of compromise, that the liberal and socialist agenda is proceeding unchecked. And proceeding unchecked is a clear and real invitation to tyranny - which does violate the Constitution.
I am appalled at the White House interfering in GM and Chrysler far beyond the authority of the White House. I am horrified that Congress participated in the "overpay and bonus" witch hunt at AIG. But what really gets my goat is that there has been no motion to censure the President for exceeding his authority, no move to impeach him for interference and intimidation in private business. If a court were to find that B. Hussein Obama had violated the Constitutional bounds of his office, does that violate his oath of office - and thereby unseat the President? The question hasn't been asked. And that bothers me, a lot.
Regardless of how one views the intent of the Constitution at the founding of the country, I contend that the current wording and interpretation in the courts holds true. As a nation of laws, I am disappointed that the President is permitted to ignore the Constitution, rather than wait out the process to amend it or whatever would be required to support his extralegal shenanigans.
I still want to know what Obama did to get Souter to quit the Supreme Court; it is obvious he needed a bought judge, Sotomayor, to cover his butt when ObamaCare lands before the Supreme Court - it cannot help but start out there.
There have been no publicized moves to recall any of the privileged players treating the President's proposals as if they were simply another proposed law - one that they don't need to worry about what it contains.
What I fear is a breakdown of civil authority, unless the Constitutionally mandated checks and balances start exerting a dampening influence on the outrages coming from the Obama White House.
I have heard anecdotes that President Obama appears to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That there is a psychological explanation for why he considers anyone thwarting him to be evil and deranged, why his every whim seems to him to be the Truth Before God. I dunno. I figure his tenacious pursuit of ObamaCare is either deranged obsession that he knows better than most Americans, or that he keeps ObamaCare on the media fire to prevent us looking at H.R. 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act or gun control efforts or other underhanded misuses he is making of the US Government. I suppose it could be both.
I consider Obama's conduct outside the authority of the Presidency and against the limits of the Constitution to be illegal. But the same House majority that helps assure passage of Demcrat-sponsored legislation means that a move to impeach cannot be voted out of the House of Representatives, either. Obama's butt is covered against being prosecuted, at least for now. Which amounts to another invitation to tyranny - freedom from prosecution for illegal acts.
Frank, your worded your piece in a fallacious manner, implying you were unsure if the Constitution either required or even permits what ObamaCare is attempting to do. I think most of the argument was lost when LBJ launched his War on Poverty. Right or wrong, I think ObamaCare could well end up being implemented if passed. My Representative and Senators have been told how I feel about the program - that it is unconstitutional, devised to destroy incomes of physicians and hospitals in favor of government operated services, that it is another step in implementing government management of wages at all levels from part time custodial on up. ObamaCare rewards certain of Obama's secret backers, and destroys additional American infrastructure, as a means to dismantle America.
Because the America Obama is headed for has nothing to do with the US Constitution. Just wait until he irritates enough people he has reason to invoke martial law, and see what gets set aside and what doesn't.
But that is just my thought tonight.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Obama's school address
Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post writes about President B. Hussein Obama's speech to America's school children.
Kathleen writes - Why all the fuss? An A in Overreaction.
Actually, I see a lot of difference. John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address - not even a speech publicized as directed to school students - quotes George Bernard Shaw's line - to serve your country. That is way different, to my mind, than how to serve B. Hussein Obama, who at best will be President four or eight years. We need students and communities and states to serve, support, and protect the institutions that keep America strong and safe for her citizens.
Administrations come and go. As a nation, the founding fathers determined that a king, an individual representing the sanctified spirit and soul of the nation, was inappropriate. Thus we have had a Pledge of Allegiance - to a flag, and a republic. Thus we swear on entering public office or military service, to serve - the constitution. Having the President inspire school children to consider how they might server B. Hussein Obama is a spit in the eye to Americans that honor the Constitution of the United States.
I cannot understand that the venerable pledge of allegiance (to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.) could be challenged in court - and Obama's call for allegiance to President Obama to go unchallenged. It amazes me. President Obama is not a fitting repository of devotion and reverence. The office of the President of the United States is, the Constitution is, the Congress is, but the individual holding office deserves respect only insofar as he or she fulfills the requirements of that office.
Ultimately Kathleen Parker's piece covers the criticisms and the resulting speech. But she fails to acknowledge the way criticism before hand shaped the speech that was ultimately delivered, to avoid the most egregious abuses.
I think President Obama should thank those that pointed out the dangers to a democracy of some parts of his original message. I think the change in the speech, from first concept to delivery, is entirely to the benefit of America.
As for your article, Kathleen Parker, Ma'am, I think you completely missed the point. Your article chronicles the education of a President, and the strength of the right to free speech in criticizing the President. Calling this process overreaction is disrespectful and disingenuous.
Kathleen writes - Why all the fuss? An A in Overreaction.
Granting a super-sized benefit of the doubt to protesters, Obama's speech originally included classroom instructional materials from the Education Department that asked students to express how they were inspired by the president and how they might help him.
. . .
Okay, benefit-of-the-doubt rescinded. Even asking kids to help the president improve the nation doesn't justify charges of socialist indoctrination. John F. Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" is hardly considered a bugle call to summer camp in the Urals.
Actually, I see a lot of difference. John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address - not even a speech publicized as directed to school students - quotes George Bernard Shaw's line - to serve your country. That is way different, to my mind, than how to serve B. Hussein Obama, who at best will be President four or eight years. We need students and communities and states to serve, support, and protect the institutions that keep America strong and safe for her citizens.
Administrations come and go. As a nation, the founding fathers determined that a king, an individual representing the sanctified spirit and soul of the nation, was inappropriate. Thus we have had a Pledge of Allegiance - to a flag, and a republic. Thus we swear on entering public office or military service, to serve - the constitution. Having the President inspire school children to consider how they might server B. Hussein Obama is a spit in the eye to Americans that honor the Constitution of the United States.
I cannot understand that the venerable pledge of allegiance (to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.) could be challenged in court - and Obama's call for allegiance to President Obama to go unchallenged. It amazes me. President Obama is not a fitting repository of devotion and reverence. The office of the President of the United States is, the Constitution is, the Congress is, but the individual holding office deserves respect only insofar as he or she fulfills the requirements of that office.
Ultimately Kathleen Parker's piece covers the criticisms and the resulting speech. But she fails to acknowledge the way criticism before hand shaped the speech that was ultimately delivered, to avoid the most egregious abuses.
I think President Obama should thank those that pointed out the dangers to a democracy of some parts of his original message. I think the change in the speech, from first concept to delivery, is entirely to the benefit of America.
As for your article, Kathleen Parker, Ma'am, I think you completely missed the point. Your article chronicles the education of a President, and the strength of the right to free speech in criticizing the President. Calling this process overreaction is disrespectful and disingenuous.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Stimulus fever running high in Oklahoma
According to the AP, Oklahoma is late to the storm. State unemployment for August 2009 was up 2.9% since August 2008, and up .9% since July, according to the Associated Press out of Oklahoma City, OK.
It turns out the state gained some 1700 jobs in government last month. 1700 - that is a lot of stimulus money, and a lot of ongoing payroll. Now, remind me. What is it that government produces, what value does government add to the economy?
Because the state lost 1900 manufacturing and related jobs last month, and another 1100 in the service sector of the workforce.
Trading two jobs for one, while losing the ability of 3000 employees to increase value and serve the state and the nation.
Well, at least President B. Hussein Obama's union-owned car makers are doing better than they were. I sure wish Oh! Bummer had fewer political debts to pay off at the cost of the nation.
It turns out the state gained some 1700 jobs in government last month. 1700 - that is a lot of stimulus money, and a lot of ongoing payroll. Now, remind me. What is it that government produces, what value does government add to the economy?
Because the state lost 1900 manufacturing and related jobs last month, and another 1100 in the service sector of the workforce.
Trading two jobs for one, while losing the ability of 3000 employees to increase value and serve the state and the nation.
Well, at least President B. Hussein Obama's union-owned car makers are doing better than they were. I sure wish Oh! Bummer had fewer political debts to pay off at the cost of the nation.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Quack, quack, Mr. President.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck - maybe, just maybe, it is a duck.
Racism
I consider racism to be someone that permits stereotypes of racial actions and qualities to overcome their perceptions of people as people. A racist is one that prejudges people because of racial characteristics.
Is Glenn Beck racist? Beck calls B. Hussein Obama racist, with deep seated hatred of white people or white culture. Does that make the President racist? The Ed Show, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls Glenn Beck racist - does that make these people or networks racist?
Is there a fundamental difference between attributing qualifications and character to a race - or an ideological label, and acting in hate-filled and dismissive manner toward all that identify them selves with the opposition on a spectrum of liberal / conservative?
So why is it that hating Glenn Beck is great, and worthy "news" and opinion fodder, yet expressing concern (as Glenn Beck did) that B. Hussein Obama is racist is hate speech?
The Ed Show takes off on bashing Glenn Beck. Starting with charges that Beck is "hiding behind his plastic Jesus", Ed paints Beck in an awful light.
Glenn Beck's quoted words are that B. Hussein Obama appears to have a deep hatred for white people or the white culture, Beck isn't sure which. This is a very long ways from declaring that Obama is acting in a racist manner, which is illegal.
In part two video, the Ed show gets a guest that disputes Ed's continued assertion that Beck doesn't cite any reason for the accusation, when Beck clearly cites Obama's 20 year membership in the Rev. Wright's church, with Wright's repeated white-bashing rhetoric. Personally I find the number of radical and violent and criminal figures of racial militants that keep showing up surrounding President B. Hussein Obama to be significant - of a deep opposition to the rule of law, if not hatred of the established structure or white culture or white race.
Chris "tingle down my leg" Matthews discusses the issue.
Matthew's guests, if not Chris himself, champion the extremist interpretation that the nation hates Obama because of his race, and pays no respect to those that oppose Obama's abuses of office. And Matthews and guests overlook completely the number of avowed racial hatred-centric people B. Hussein Obama has brought to Washington, D.C.
And that is what makes this look like official, sanctioned, orchestrated by the White House - Spin Control.
Spin Control
Those towing the Obama line seem to be reading from the same play book. Instead of looking at the opposition as helping to identify weaknesses and problems, they instead make the excuse that the opposition is hateful, is destruction-minded, and motivated by unthinking hatred.
Divide and conquer, isn't that how strategy is supposed to work?
When Glenn Beck states what many loyal and true American citizens observe, that our President appears to harbor hatred for whites and the America that is the result of 230 years of history, I believe Beck is correct. I do not hear Beck, or any conservative, challenge Obama's right to feel and think as he does. What I hear is an expression of concern, an erosion of the "hope and change" that was promised, that seems to be hope for some, change for the rest.
For the Tea Party tax protesters, for the gun rights advocates, for those wanting to keep America at work, watching B. Hussein Obama has been a necessary and arduous burden since before the inauguration. Fears that Obama and the rabid gun-control phobics he surrounds himself will attempt trickery, extra-legal tricks, legislation proposals, regulation changes, and any other means available to pursue their agenda - regardless of whether the legal means of proceeding indicate that the nation's consensus is that the proposals are wrong and harmful to America.
I find Fox and Friends' interview with Glenn Beck, when he made his "Obama has a deep hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know", merely places the concerns about underhanded and harmful and obnoxious dealings many have already experience from the Obama administration, into perspective.
Should we call the President racist, if we believe his actions and words are consistent with a deeply defining identity with one race in opposition to one or more other races? Yep. If I believe that the President's prejudices and history are pertinent, and racially motivated, then keeping that aspect pertinent and prominent may benefit those trying to understand those actions - and defend their own interests and / or the best interests of the United States.
Should someone stop us from calling the President a racist? Yes, if we advocate others hating him for that reason. Yes, if we advocate acting based on hatreds.
But we cannot identify and address hatred-based issues, if we are not permitted to discuss them. Obama supporters must admit to the racist actions, words, and companions of the President. Obama detractors must be clear that opposition is based on healthy disagreement with policy, or with disagreement of values, and not based on perceived or imaginary issues related to race.
Racism
I consider racism to be someone that permits stereotypes of racial actions and qualities to overcome their perceptions of people as people. A racist is one that prejudges people because of racial characteristics.
Is Glenn Beck racist? Beck calls B. Hussein Obama racist, with deep seated hatred of white people or white culture. Does that make the President racist? The Ed Show, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls Glenn Beck racist - does that make these people or networks racist?
Is there a fundamental difference between attributing qualifications and character to a race - or an ideological label, and acting in hate-filled and dismissive manner toward all that identify them selves with the opposition on a spectrum of liberal / conservative?
So why is it that hating Glenn Beck is great, and worthy "news" and opinion fodder, yet expressing concern (as Glenn Beck did) that B. Hussein Obama is racist is hate speech?
The Ed Show takes off on bashing Glenn Beck. Starting with charges that Beck is "hiding behind his plastic Jesus", Ed paints Beck in an awful light.
Glenn Beck's quoted words are that B. Hussein Obama appears to have a deep hatred for white people or the white culture, Beck isn't sure which. This is a very long ways from declaring that Obama is acting in a racist manner, which is illegal.
In part two video, the Ed show gets a guest that disputes Ed's continued assertion that Beck doesn't cite any reason for the accusation, when Beck clearly cites Obama's 20 year membership in the Rev. Wright's church, with Wright's repeated white-bashing rhetoric. Personally I find the number of radical and violent and criminal figures of racial militants that keep showing up surrounding President B. Hussein Obama to be significant - of a deep opposition to the rule of law, if not hatred of the established structure or white culture or white race.
Chris "tingle down my leg" Matthews discusses the issue.
Matthew's guests, if not Chris himself, champion the extremist interpretation that the nation hates Obama because of his race, and pays no respect to those that oppose Obama's abuses of office. And Matthews and guests overlook completely the number of avowed racial hatred-centric people B. Hussein Obama has brought to Washington, D.C.
And that is what makes this look like official, sanctioned, orchestrated by the White House - Spin Control.
Spin Control
Those towing the Obama line seem to be reading from the same play book. Instead of looking at the opposition as helping to identify weaknesses and problems, they instead make the excuse that the opposition is hateful, is destruction-minded, and motivated by unthinking hatred.
Divide and conquer, isn't that how strategy is supposed to work?
When Glenn Beck states what many loyal and true American citizens observe, that our President appears to harbor hatred for whites and the America that is the result of 230 years of history, I believe Beck is correct. I do not hear Beck, or any conservative, challenge Obama's right to feel and think as he does. What I hear is an expression of concern, an erosion of the "hope and change" that was promised, that seems to be hope for some, change for the rest.
For the Tea Party tax protesters, for the gun rights advocates, for those wanting to keep America at work, watching B. Hussein Obama has been a necessary and arduous burden since before the inauguration. Fears that Obama and the rabid gun-control phobics he surrounds himself will attempt trickery, extra-legal tricks, legislation proposals, regulation changes, and any other means available to pursue their agenda - regardless of whether the legal means of proceeding indicate that the nation's consensus is that the proposals are wrong and harmful to America.
I find Fox and Friends' interview with Glenn Beck, when he made his "Obama has a deep hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know", merely places the concerns about underhanded and harmful and obnoxious dealings many have already experience from the Obama administration, into perspective.
Should we call the President racist, if we believe his actions and words are consistent with a deeply defining identity with one race in opposition to one or more other races? Yep. If I believe that the President's prejudices and history are pertinent, and racially motivated, then keeping that aspect pertinent and prominent may benefit those trying to understand those actions - and defend their own interests and / or the best interests of the United States.
Should someone stop us from calling the President a racist? Yes, if we advocate others hating him for that reason. Yes, if we advocate acting based on hatreds.
But we cannot identify and address hatred-based issues, if we are not permitted to discuss them. Obama supporters must admit to the racist actions, words, and companions of the President. Obama detractors must be clear that opposition is based on healthy disagreement with policy, or with disagreement of values, and not based on perceived or imaginary issues related to race.
Friday, September 4, 2009
bim: Irrational assumptions - gun control and term limits
Bill at Billll's Idle Mind raises the issue of term limits. Bill laments the wasted opportunity, that the tea party movement might have made short work of getting term limits instituted.
Gun Control assumption
I watched The American President again last night. Same old Michael Douglas, Annette Bening story. Same rich tapestry of majesty of the Presidency, the White House, and the offices of the Government, reverently presented by Rob Reiner.
Michael J. Fox, White House Chief of Staff, comments after being told that handgun restriction measures were being left out of a proposed anti-crime bill. "Can we return to the subject for just one moment? It would be easier to fight crime if we weren't arming the drug dealers."
This far into the Obama administration, after their clandestine as well as public moves to thwart, limit, and abolish ownership of all guns, not just handguns - well, this assumption of the movie and Mr. Reiner caught me pretty clearly.
Those proposing eliminating or limiting handguns assume that 1) the benefit of removing handguns from criminals is worth the inconvenience of taking guns from law abiding citizens; and 2) implementing laws limiting or eliminating handguns will remove handguns from criminals.
Term limit assumptions
I have come across proposals for term limits many time.
I think the assumptions proponents make about term limits is similar to the anti-gun assumptions. 1) The benefit of removing powerful legislators that no longer serve their constituents is worth the loss of good men that might have served longer; and 2) implementing term limits will remove the very powerful and unresponsive legislators.
I don't see the connection.
If a legislator were not representing the interests of the people of the district that elects them - surely we can count on an opponent to woo enough votes next election to unseat the incumbent. And nothing I have seen establishes to my satisfaction the supposition that the cost of losing a good legislator too soon, due to term limits, is in any way worth tossing out other people that hit the term limit.
And I don't see that term limits will necessarily end the influence of powerful people.
Sorry, Bill. I just don't see that your assumptions are valid.
Gun Control assumption
I watched The American President again last night. Same old Michael Douglas, Annette Bening story. Same rich tapestry of majesty of the Presidency, the White House, and the offices of the Government, reverently presented by Rob Reiner.
Michael J. Fox, White House Chief of Staff, comments after being told that handgun restriction measures were being left out of a proposed anti-crime bill. "Can we return to the subject for just one moment? It would be easier to fight crime if we weren't arming the drug dealers."
This far into the Obama administration, after their clandestine as well as public moves to thwart, limit, and abolish ownership of all guns, not just handguns - well, this assumption of the movie and Mr. Reiner caught me pretty clearly.
Those proposing eliminating or limiting handguns assume that 1) the benefit of removing handguns from criminals is worth the inconvenience of taking guns from law abiding citizens; and 2) implementing laws limiting or eliminating handguns will remove handguns from criminals.
Term limit assumptions
I have come across proposals for term limits many time.
I think the assumptions proponents make about term limits is similar to the anti-gun assumptions. 1) The benefit of removing powerful legislators that no longer serve their constituents is worth the loss of good men that might have served longer; and 2) implementing term limits will remove the very powerful and unresponsive legislators.
I don't see the connection.
If a legislator were not representing the interests of the people of the district that elects them - surely we can count on an opponent to woo enough votes next election to unseat the incumbent. And nothing I have seen establishes to my satisfaction the supposition that the cost of losing a good legislator too soon, due to term limits, is in any way worth tossing out other people that hit the term limit.
And I don't see that term limits will necessarily end the influence of powerful people.
Sorry, Bill. I just don't see that your assumptions are valid.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Brain drain a'coming
So, lets assume that the wreck is on it's way, that ObamaCare is coming in some way, shape, or form.
How does the President hire enough paper pushers to fill all the offices that haven't been built yet?
Where do all the people come that will pursue a career in government service - and be unavailable to participate in the national economy?
One estimate has that 45 million, plus or minus, are uninsured. That ObamaCare disrupts everyone's health insurance while leaving 35 million still uninsured.
Are those 35 million uninsured to be drafted, to work civil service jobs and thus fall under civil service health insurance?
Remember, the government claims that unemployment is what, 9 or 10%? That is, not counting the additional 10% that aren't collecting unemployment because there aren't any jobs, but Washington, DC didn't like the numbers so they stopped counting them.
Unemployed and underemployed people are a problem for the economy - but they are also a vast and rich resource. Many are people that have educated and skilled backgrounds. As the economy improves, hiring should increase - will there be any left, after staffing Big Government, that will be ready to hire, ready to produce products and wealth that will feed families and pay taxes?
Will the managers and specialists needed to run the government's health care plan, by their absence, cripple companies wanting to increase production, to provide new services, to meet increased regulations?
Or is B. Hussein Obama planning to pull a gangster style packing operation, putting all his patronage chips in the hopper, putting all his cronies and ACORN and illegals and others into slots they aren't - and won't be for years - qualified to fill?
How does the President hire enough paper pushers to fill all the offices that haven't been built yet?
Where do all the people come that will pursue a career in government service - and be unavailable to participate in the national economy?
One estimate has that 45 million, plus or minus, are uninsured. That ObamaCare disrupts everyone's health insurance while leaving 35 million still uninsured.
Are those 35 million uninsured to be drafted, to work civil service jobs and thus fall under civil service health insurance?
Remember, the government claims that unemployment is what, 9 or 10%? That is, not counting the additional 10% that aren't collecting unemployment because there aren't any jobs, but Washington, DC didn't like the numbers so they stopped counting them.
Unemployed and underemployed people are a problem for the economy - but they are also a vast and rich resource. Many are people that have educated and skilled backgrounds. As the economy improves, hiring should increase - will there be any left, after staffing Big Government, that will be ready to hire, ready to produce products and wealth that will feed families and pay taxes?
Will the managers and specialists needed to run the government's health care plan, by their absence, cripple companies wanting to increase production, to provide new services, to meet increased regulations?
Or is B. Hussein Obama planning to pull a gangster style packing operation, putting all his patronage chips in the hopper, putting all his cronies and ACORN and illegals and others into slots they aren't - and won't be for years - qualified to fill?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Oath or convictions - choose, Mr. President
So, ok. We saw or read about or heard about the inauguration when B. Hussein Obama took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and execute the office of President.
That is, he took an oath. A pledge, a promise. He gave his word. This was a big-deal ceremony - remember the tons of trash afterwards? Lots of trash to pick up - because he wasn't President until he finished with the oath.
So, now we have B. Hussein Obama doing what he thinks he should, acting as if he were President of the United States. As long as those in authority act like he is President, he has a certain cache in claiming the title, privileges, and responsibilities.
But what happens if there is dissent about whether he has failed his duties - or flat out broken his promise to uphold the Constitution?
I could point to the ex-CEO of General Motors, and claim that no President is allowed to step outside the prescribed authority of his office to do that. B. Hussein Obama has taken public and legislative steps to ban or restrict gun ownership, and also a few clandestine and underhanded moves. Recall the snafu a few months ago, when the Department of Defense told the ammunition manufacturers buying back the millions of pieces of brass - the leftovers after firing weapons in training - that they changed their procedures, and instead of being useful for reloading and selling at moderate expense to civilian shooters, the brass would now be shredded first.
The DoD shredded cartridge brass decision was changed, almost overnight. It turns out that that civilian market for less expensive brass - also supplied most training ammunition for many police and sheriff organizations. This clear intent to crater the market for ammunition was deliberately intended to drive the availability of ammo down, and inflate the price of ammo for shooters wanting to train or keep a quantity on hand.
When the President sets out to deliberately interfere with the amount of ammunition available to gun owners in America - is he in fact violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Arguably, preventing gun owners from obtaining ammunition pretty much blocks their ability to bear those arms. As they guy in Arizona said, if your gun isn't loaded, it isn't much good.
I still want to know what B. Hussein Obama did to cause Supreme Justice Souter to leave the bench. We know why - Obama wanted the cache of putting a chosen pick on the Supreme Court, and squandered that by selecting Sotomayor. Now-Justice Sotomayor has the advantage of being a liberal Democrat; her detractions include disparagement for the wording and history of the Court and the Constitution. There is likely room to be concerned about her competence in her chosen profession. Getting Sotomayor named and sworn in to the Supreme Court makes her a Supreme Court Justice. It does not answer questions about her competence, or whether she is an example of affirmative action, and not a symbol of the rise of someone based on overwhelming merit.
So, at what point is it imperative the question be asked - is B. Hussein Obama still true to his oath of office, and if not, does he actually hold that office?
That is, he took an oath. A pledge, a promise. He gave his word. This was a big-deal ceremony - remember the tons of trash afterwards? Lots of trash to pick up - because he wasn't President until he finished with the oath.
So, now we have B. Hussein Obama doing what he thinks he should, acting as if he were President of the United States. As long as those in authority act like he is President, he has a certain cache in claiming the title, privileges, and responsibilities.
But what happens if there is dissent about whether he has failed his duties - or flat out broken his promise to uphold the Constitution?
I could point to the ex-CEO of General Motors, and claim that no President is allowed to step outside the prescribed authority of his office to do that. B. Hussein Obama has taken public and legislative steps to ban or restrict gun ownership, and also a few clandestine and underhanded moves. Recall the snafu a few months ago, when the Department of Defense told the ammunition manufacturers buying back the millions of pieces of brass - the leftovers after firing weapons in training - that they changed their procedures, and instead of being useful for reloading and selling at moderate expense to civilian shooters, the brass would now be shredded first.
The DoD shredded cartridge brass decision was changed, almost overnight. It turns out that that civilian market for less expensive brass - also supplied most training ammunition for many police and sheriff organizations. This clear intent to crater the market for ammunition was deliberately intended to drive the availability of ammo down, and inflate the price of ammo for shooters wanting to train or keep a quantity on hand.
When the President sets out to deliberately interfere with the amount of ammunition available to gun owners in America - is he in fact violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Arguably, preventing gun owners from obtaining ammunition pretty much blocks their ability to bear those arms. As they guy in Arizona said, if your gun isn't loaded, it isn't much good.
I still want to know what B. Hussein Obama did to cause Supreme Justice Souter to leave the bench. We know why - Obama wanted the cache of putting a chosen pick on the Supreme Court, and squandered that by selecting Sotomayor. Now-Justice Sotomayor has the advantage of being a liberal Democrat; her detractions include disparagement for the wording and history of the Court and the Constitution. There is likely room to be concerned about her competence in her chosen profession. Getting Sotomayor named and sworn in to the Supreme Court makes her a Supreme Court Justice. It does not answer questions about her competence, or whether she is an example of affirmative action, and not a symbol of the rise of someone based on overwhelming merit.
So, at what point is it imperative the question be asked - is B. Hussein Obama still true to his oath of office, and if not, does he actually hold that office?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Reducing traffic accident health care costs
I got an email this morning, complaining about how fragile the new Smart Car looks in heavy traffic.
I didn't get the date, but the ambulance is from the West Jefferson Medical Center Ambulance Service in Marrero, Louisiana.
I suppose this is another concept, like abortion and end of life counseling, that B. Hussein Obama expects to use to keep health care costs down.
I didn't get the date, but the ambulance is from the West Jefferson Medical Center Ambulance Service in Marrero, Louisiana.
I suppose this is another concept, like abortion and end of life counseling, that B. Hussein Obama expects to use to keep health care costs down.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
ObamaCare end of life counseling
First - the gross mis-statement. What I am calling ObamaCare is not health care, and does nothing to care for anyone but insurance companies and B. Hussein Obama's good buddies.
But - end of life counseling, that has been touted as euthanasia and an excuse to withhold care for the elderly or grievously injured or ill, this is supposed to be an implementation of living wills.
Living wills go by several names, my mother has one, my father did before he died. This is where you make a legal, binding request that hospitals not make any "heroic" intervention or effort to resuscitate or revive you, if you are close to death.
People do choose this kind of restriction on their doctor. Often the ventilator, the vegetable coma, the impairment and pain of partial successes seem so daunting, that one chooses not to. For many, they struggle for all the breaths available, and wish for every chance for another day. That is, they choose, or refuse to consider or choose the matter, which is another kind of choice.
What some families have faced, though, is hospitals, nurses, and doctors that refuse to follow clear and legal instructions. Instead they impose their particular morality - without accepting the legal, moral, human, and financial consequences.
One summary of end of life counseling as expressed in the House-passed version of the bill today, is that this means the physician discusses wishes and options, about every five (5) years for the elderly or infirm. I would compare this to counseling women before performing an abortion - bring care giver and patient together for a review of options and to confirm the patient's choice.
In either case, abortion or end of life, it would be immeasurably sad to overlook an alternative that would have been reasonable, beforehand, to the patient.
In both cases, though, government participation raises a spectre, a shadow of grave concern. Just as liberal forces have played our elementary schools to inflict their social engineering on our nation's children, there is the real likelihood that someone at some level - local, regional, national - will use the counseling provision to slant the message. To recommend, refuse to discuss, or demand one choice or another. That federal programs will introduce intimidation, denial of services, or harassment to bias "choices" in a preferred direction.
It is guaranteed that the "counseling", when implemented by the government, will expand the scope to include additional provisions, etc. Governments hire bureaucrats that only advance within government circles, and most often by expanding the scope and range of their organization.
If end of life counseling and abortion counseling were recommendations of the American Medical Association - and every American visited a family physician regularly - I would be much happier about this topic.
I am much happier that Mom talked to (the late) Dr. Frink about resuscitation, about heroic interventions, than to the IRS agent at my last audit. Dr. Frink never, to my knowledge, lied to a patient, or made up problems.
For one thing, doctors make money prescribing medicines and caring for patients. Government agents advance by keeping costs down. I know which influence I trust to waste less life and cultural experience.
Would a young doctor tomorrow, briefed on the legal requirement for end of life counseling, be affected by how the government presents the program? I cannot imagine otherwise. Would that doctor's patients then be influenced by the government procedures and representations? Yep.
The concept, or possibly even the intent of the ObamaCare end of life counseling provision might be well intentioned. Stuff happens. But I do not trust a government intervening into the discussion between doctor and patient. There is already too much intrusion.
But - end of life counseling, that has been touted as euthanasia and an excuse to withhold care for the elderly or grievously injured or ill, this is supposed to be an implementation of living wills.
Living wills go by several names, my mother has one, my father did before he died. This is where you make a legal, binding request that hospitals not make any "heroic" intervention or effort to resuscitate or revive you, if you are close to death.
People do choose this kind of restriction on their doctor. Often the ventilator, the vegetable coma, the impairment and pain of partial successes seem so daunting, that one chooses not to. For many, they struggle for all the breaths available, and wish for every chance for another day. That is, they choose, or refuse to consider or choose the matter, which is another kind of choice.
What some families have faced, though, is hospitals, nurses, and doctors that refuse to follow clear and legal instructions. Instead they impose their particular morality - without accepting the legal, moral, human, and financial consequences.
One summary of end of life counseling as expressed in the House-passed version of the bill today, is that this means the physician discusses wishes and options, about every five (5) years for the elderly or infirm. I would compare this to counseling women before performing an abortion - bring care giver and patient together for a review of options and to confirm the patient's choice.
In either case, abortion or end of life, it would be immeasurably sad to overlook an alternative that would have been reasonable, beforehand, to the patient.
In both cases, though, government participation raises a spectre, a shadow of grave concern. Just as liberal forces have played our elementary schools to inflict their social engineering on our nation's children, there is the real likelihood that someone at some level - local, regional, national - will use the counseling provision to slant the message. To recommend, refuse to discuss, or demand one choice or another. That federal programs will introduce intimidation, denial of services, or harassment to bias "choices" in a preferred direction.
It is guaranteed that the "counseling", when implemented by the government, will expand the scope to include additional provisions, etc. Governments hire bureaucrats that only advance within government circles, and most often by expanding the scope and range of their organization.
If end of life counseling and abortion counseling were recommendations of the American Medical Association - and every American visited a family physician regularly - I would be much happier about this topic.
I am much happier that Mom talked to (the late) Dr. Frink about resuscitation, about heroic interventions, than to the IRS agent at my last audit. Dr. Frink never, to my knowledge, lied to a patient, or made up problems.
For one thing, doctors make money prescribing medicines and caring for patients. Government agents advance by keeping costs down. I know which influence I trust to waste less life and cultural experience.
Would a young doctor tomorrow, briefed on the legal requirement for end of life counseling, be affected by how the government presents the program? I cannot imagine otherwise. Would that doctor's patients then be influenced by the government procedures and representations? Yep.
The concept, or possibly even the intent of the ObamaCare end of life counseling provision might be well intentioned. Stuff happens. But I do not trust a government intervening into the discussion between doctor and patient. There is already too much intrusion.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Obama's lustre fades
Lissa at Looking For Lissa ponders, I wonder what moderate Obama supporters think now?
Lissa then lists a few errors B. Hussein Obama has made, some campaign stands ignored, and broken promises. And wonders how those that supported Obama because his campaign made sense to them feel now.
Bill of Billlls Idle Mind has been watching this turnaround, the way the national average consensus has shifted.
For instance, the car window written "You don't see Obama Stickers on cars driving to work" - one very bitter sentiment.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/working-for-living.html
Bill notes that although the recent jobless rate is reported as "encouraging", in June the Labor Department dropped some 796,000 jobless from the reported number, as being "discouraged". This made the July jobless rate look better - but doesn't reflect the way the number of jobless continue to shrink the ability of America to produce, or the increased burden they represent to America.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/job-market.html
Back about July 9, I saw a chart that showed the proportion of people strongly supporting B. Hussein Obama had fallen below those that strongly opposed him by 8 points - reversing the sway supporters had held until shortly after June 6, 2009.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5148.html
That trend continued, now about -7 (support minus oppose percentage)
Note on the chart, that this measures the intensity of the support and opposition - letting the intensity of support dwindle is more important than general support numbers.
Lissa then lists a few errors B. Hussein Obama has made, some campaign stands ignored, and broken promises. And wonders how those that supported Obama because his campaign made sense to them feel now.
Bill of Billlls Idle Mind has been watching this turnaround, the way the national average consensus has shifted.
For instance, the car window written "You don't see Obama Stickers on cars driving to work" - one very bitter sentiment.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/working-for-living.html
Bill notes that although the recent jobless rate is reported as "encouraging", in June the Labor Department dropped some 796,000 jobless from the reported number, as being "discouraged". This made the July jobless rate look better - but doesn't reflect the way the number of jobless continue to shrink the ability of America to produce, or the increased burden they represent to America.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/job-market.html
Back about July 9, I saw a chart that showed the proportion of people strongly supporting B. Hussein Obama had fallen below those that strongly opposed him by 8 points - reversing the sway supporters had held until shortly after June 6, 2009.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5148.html
That trend continued, now about -7 (support minus oppose percentage)
Note on the chart, that this measures the intensity of the support and opposition - letting the intensity of support dwindle is more important than general support numbers.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Who owns the history of Nazi Germany?
ABC News' Political Punch tells the story of criticism by a Jewish group, that denies Congress, commentators, and concerned people the right to pull images and similarities to historical events in explaining and warning about current events. From the story:
I see two flaws in Rabbi Foxman's argument. First, that though the Jewish people were horribly targeted by Hitler's Germany, that other groups - the mentally handicapped, the Polish, other religions, etc. - also have cause to consider Naziism as a particularly personal cultural bogeyman. The atrocities committed under the Nazi flag do not cede that era and those events to the custody of the Jewish peoples alone.
Nazi Germany fouled and affected the civilized world.
The other flaw I see is that we, as a nation, do not benefit if we ignore the lessons of history, when we see the mistakes of the past being repeated today, and do not heed the historical and inevitable consequences.
Mr. Foxman assumes that all of the accusations and comparisons of B. Hussein Obama, his ruthless ride on the backs of the sycophantic Congress over the will of the people of the United States, and in disregard of the Constitution of the United States - Mr. Foxman assumes that all criticisms comparing today's turmoil to the events leading to the juggernaut of Nazi Germany to be mere hyperbole, mere rabble rousing speech - and not honest fear and trepidations.
The Obama administration shares another characteristic of Adolf Hitler in his rise to power - a fragile ego, a narcissistic taste for adoration, and an eagerness to identify and punish opponents.
Does B. Hussein Obama deserve being called another Hitler? Has he moved to make himself dictator, to dismiss constitutional bounds on his authority? Arguably he has already overstepped the authority of his office, and has yet to be called to account for those misdeeds. This particular slippery slope above an abyss of anarchy and despotism is troubling, as Congress repeatedly violates strictures to honor states' rights.
I understand that some have taken the names of the past, and identified individuals with them, that in some sense the atrocities of the past may be treated lightly in today's discourse. It is that very horror of the past, that degree of atrocity, that speaks to the fears of speakers against B. Hussein Obama and Congressional leaders. I may not comprehend, personally, the consequences of the socialist agendas of the past, but I can and do fear they are being brought to renewed life in specific detail in today's Washington, D.C.
Rabbi Foxman, please do not lightly dismiss the fears of honest citizens, when you criticize comparisons of a United States President taking actions that I can not distinguish from those of a socialist reformer. The very Constitution that protects your right to criticize, to defend your beliefs, is the same Constitution threatened by today's Congress and President.
---
In writing this piece, I have no criticism of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, other than the specific topic above, criticizing the comparison of certain political statements and actions with the historical Nazi period.
I was interested to find that visiting the ADL web site, www.adl.org, was difficult. Four times out of five, the site timed out rather than allow me to visit. I never did get the contacts page to load. Perhaps access is blocked from North Central Oklahoma, United States. I hope Rabbi Foxman's apparent trust in the administration is well placed.
“Regardless of the political differences and the substantive differences in the debate over health care, the use of Nazi symbolism is outrageous, offensive and inappropriate,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor.
I see two flaws in Rabbi Foxman's argument. First, that though the Jewish people were horribly targeted by Hitler's Germany, that other groups - the mentally handicapped, the Polish, other religions, etc. - also have cause to consider Naziism as a particularly personal cultural bogeyman. The atrocities committed under the Nazi flag do not cede that era and those events to the custody of the Jewish peoples alone.
Nazi Germany fouled and affected the civilized world.
The other flaw I see is that we, as a nation, do not benefit if we ignore the lessons of history, when we see the mistakes of the past being repeated today, and do not heed the historical and inevitable consequences.
Mr. Foxman assumes that all of the accusations and comparisons of B. Hussein Obama, his ruthless ride on the backs of the sycophantic Congress over the will of the people of the United States, and in disregard of the Constitution of the United States - Mr. Foxman assumes that all criticisms comparing today's turmoil to the events leading to the juggernaut of Nazi Germany to be mere hyperbole, mere rabble rousing speech - and not honest fear and trepidations.
The Obama administration shares another characteristic of Adolf Hitler in his rise to power - a fragile ego, a narcissistic taste for adoration, and an eagerness to identify and punish opponents.
Does B. Hussein Obama deserve being called another Hitler? Has he moved to make himself dictator, to dismiss constitutional bounds on his authority? Arguably he has already overstepped the authority of his office, and has yet to be called to account for those misdeeds. This particular slippery slope above an abyss of anarchy and despotism is troubling, as Congress repeatedly violates strictures to honor states' rights.
I understand that some have taken the names of the past, and identified individuals with them, that in some sense the atrocities of the past may be treated lightly in today's discourse. It is that very horror of the past, that degree of atrocity, that speaks to the fears of speakers against B. Hussein Obama and Congressional leaders. I may not comprehend, personally, the consequences of the socialist agendas of the past, but I can and do fear they are being brought to renewed life in specific detail in today's Washington, D.C.
Rabbi Foxman, please do not lightly dismiss the fears of honest citizens, when you criticize comparisons of a United States President taking actions that I can not distinguish from those of a socialist reformer. The very Constitution that protects your right to criticize, to defend your beliefs, is the same Constitution threatened by today's Congress and President.
---
In writing this piece, I have no criticism of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, other than the specific topic above, criticizing the comparison of certain political statements and actions with the historical Nazi period.
I was interested to find that visiting the ADL web site, www.adl.org, was difficult. Four times out of five, the site timed out rather than allow me to visit. I never did get the contacts page to load. Perhaps access is blocked from North Central Oklahoma, United States. I hope Rabbi Foxman's apparent trust in the administration is well placed.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Where have all the doctors gone . . .
I have heard Congress, B. Hussein Obama, Breda's Fallacy, Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest, Victoria Jackson of SNL fame, and others decry the $1000 fine for not buying health insurance, making it illegal for health insurers to write new policies after Obamacare starts, etc.
So - what does the AMA have to say? Where are all the doctors, the ones with dependents, families, friends and communities? The doctors with careers invested in various communities and organizations?
What about the local and city hospitals, the medical schools and teaching hospitals?
What happens to research when medical care is doled out?
And why does anyone think that doctors won't retire en masse, migrate to a real country, or go black market?
Yes, I expect that B. Hussein Obama, retired Senators, and captains of industry and churches will continue to receive premium health care, and not through Obamacare. Just look at the amount of money that is made trafficing in drugs. Now consider what socialized medicine will do - reduce the practice of medicine to the midwife and physician's assistant. With all the real money to be made in medicine "off the books". Sounds like a Chicago gangland recipe for personal aggrandizement.
Victoria Jackson's post is being touted as absurd and wacko. But she does have a point. I disagree - vehemently - on the social and personal impact, and underlying assumptions, about abortion. But her assertion that the point of Obamacare is to euthanize (legally cause people to die, in a health care setting) undesirables makes sense. From one perspective, killing sick people costs less than treating them. Especially if they are feeble, or deformed, or maimed, or . . . there are just too many caucasians, or whatever. And B. Hussein Obama has already, in the Hate Crimes bill, defined that heterosexual caucasians cannot be victims of a hate crime, because they may not be considered a "protected class". That is in the process of becoming law, and anyone that doesn't think that will affect Obamacare is deluded.
What gets me, is creating a health care plan without statements of support from the people involved - the emergency and ambulance services, the doctors, the hospitals, the clinics. We stand to gain a government bureaucracy and *drafted* doctors. Or maybe just civil servants that want to transfer and work as doctors for a couple months.
So - what does the AMA have to say? Where are all the doctors, the ones with dependents, families, friends and communities? The doctors with careers invested in various communities and organizations?
What about the local and city hospitals, the medical schools and teaching hospitals?
What happens to research when medical care is doled out?
And why does anyone think that doctors won't retire en masse, migrate to a real country, or go black market?
Yes, I expect that B. Hussein Obama, retired Senators, and captains of industry and churches will continue to receive premium health care, and not through Obamacare. Just look at the amount of money that is made trafficing in drugs. Now consider what socialized medicine will do - reduce the practice of medicine to the midwife and physician's assistant. With all the real money to be made in medicine "off the books". Sounds like a Chicago gangland recipe for personal aggrandizement.
Victoria Jackson's post is being touted as absurd and wacko. But she does have a point. I disagree - vehemently - on the social and personal impact, and underlying assumptions, about abortion. But her assertion that the point of Obamacare is to euthanize (legally cause people to die, in a health care setting) undesirables makes sense. From one perspective, killing sick people costs less than treating them. Especially if they are feeble, or deformed, or maimed, or . . . there are just too many caucasians, or whatever. And B. Hussein Obama has already, in the Hate Crimes bill, defined that heterosexual caucasians cannot be victims of a hate crime, because they may not be considered a "protected class". That is in the process of becoming law, and anyone that doesn't think that will affect Obamacare is deluded.
What gets me, is creating a health care plan without statements of support from the people involved - the emergency and ambulance services, the doctors, the hospitals, the clinics. We stand to gain a government bureaucracy and *drafted* doctors. Or maybe just civil servants that want to transfer and work as doctors for a couple months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)