Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity

____________________________________

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Chris Muir's Day by Day

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

How We'll Get The VAT

Here's an as good a prediction on how we'll get a Value Added Tax in the very near future.  After all, this will be just about the only way to pay for the hugely expensive takeover of our health care system by the government.  I found this in the comments in the Newsweek column by Howard Fineman...

Posted By: Ghostmaker (March 30, 2010 at 8:21 PM)


 
Basically the Democrats wish for the press to continue trying to sell this dog. While the Republicans can't wait for November. A poll is a poll and this reform was not supported by a simple majority of the American people for 6 months or longer. I was under the impression that elected representatives were supposed to represent voters. So what happens in November will reflect the majority of Americans that feel there elected officials did not reflect there wishes.

 
My Swedish friend told me there National Tax rate is 48.3% this pays for there great health care and they also receive 2 months if needed payed sick time at 100% of pay. If they need more time off it falls to 80%. What a fantastic health program. He also mentioned that he carries private health insurance because his family is not willing to wait for treatment.

 
From a pay of "100", the Employer first pays "32" in Income tax (direct - 32%), on top of that the Employer also pays an additional "31.42" in Employers social fees (indirect - 31.42%).

 
Thus, from a pay check of "100", 63.42/131.42 (i.e. 48.3%) is paid as income taxes. This effective rate may be lowered by for example earned income tax credits and private retirement savings contributions.

 
Now I realize that what was passed in the USA so far is not nationalized health care but I feel that the long range goal of this current presidency is to set up the medical system we do have for a big fail. Premiums are expected to rise and this will cause a huge hatred toward the private sector. It may take 10 years, Obama's words by the way. But the Democrats will be clambering to nationalize health care at that time. By then the average American sheep will be begging for it.

 
The one thing most Democrats seem to forget is all these wonderful social programs cost big dollars. So they scream tax corporations tax the rich. In reality any tax on any business is directly passed down to the end consumer in the form of higher prices. For example My business now charges 100 dollars a billable hour and pays no tax. Lets say we decide to tax my business at 50% to pay for social programs. Some would think I would need 200 dollars a billable hour to make up for that. But in all honesty I will probably need to charge 250 dollars a billable hour to make the same amount of money I made prior to the tax because of some potential lost business.So in the end the consumer will see a 150% increase in what they pay.

 
Now as for tax the rich depending on ones view a truly poor person might feel that a persons who is making 30 grand a year is rich. A person making 80 grand a year surely feels that 200 grand is rich so it really depends on your income level But what the heck lets go and tax anyone over 200 grand a year at 75% of there income sounds great huh. If I was a rich person I sure as all get out can afford one of those real slick willy tax lawyers. So my income now falls to 50 grand a year.... So in the end that will not pay for the social programs. Now we just can't keep printing new money to pay now what does the government do?

 
They will raise everyones tax because the lower income cannot afford them high priced attorneys and they will have to pay it or else. It might not be an income tax but there will be some form of tax coming maybe VAT.

 
An Example With a 10% VAT:
  • The manufacturer pays $1.10 ($1 + $1x10%) for the raw materials, and the seller of the raw materials pays the government $0.10.
  • The manufacturer charges the retailer $1.32 ($1.20 + $1.20x10%) and pays the government $0.02 ($0.12 minus $0.10), leaving the same gross margin of $0.20.
  • The retailer charges the consumer $1.65 ($1.50 + $1.50x10%) and pays the government $0.03 ($0.15 minus $0.12), leaving the gross margin of $0.30 (1.65-1.32-.03).

 With VAT, the consumer has paid, and the government received, the same as with sales tax. The businesses have not incurred any tax themselves. Their obligation is limited to assuming the necessary paperwork in order to pass on to the government the difference between what they collect in VAT (output tax, an 11th of their sales) and what they spend in VAT (input VAT, an 11th of their expenditure on goods and services subject to VAT). However the are freed from any obligation to to request certifications from purchasers who are not end users, and of providing such certifications to their suppliers.

 
Note that in each case the VAT paid is equal to 10% of the gross margin, or 'value added'.

 
The advantage of the VAT system over the sales tax system is that under sales tax, the seller has no incentive to disbelieve a purchaser who says it is not a final user. That is to say the payer of the tax has no incentive to collect the tax. Under VAT, all sellers collect tax and pay it to the government. A purchaser has an incentive to deduct input VAT, but must prove it has the right to do so, which is usually achieved by holding an invoice quoting the VAT paid on the purchase, and indicating the VAT registration number of the supplier.

 
This is what I expect to happen by next year.

 
So all income levels will lose but heck the politicians can honestly say they didn't raise your income tax, they just invented a new one.

Poll Numbers Don't Lie, Politicians Do...

If Howard Fineman of Newsweek is saying this...then the Democrats may very well be in deep  trouble come November: 
A Democratic senator I can't name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.


Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.

On the day the president signed into law the "fix-it" addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it's not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.
It's becoming clear that my prediction that the Democratic party may have committed political suicide by ramming this historically unpopular bill through against the wishes of a majority of voters will cost them at least control of the House of Representatives.  I've been saying all along that it's quite possible for them to lose as many as 100 seats in November as voters anger rises like their insurance premiums are going to...

Journalistic Hypocrisy

None of the non-cable news networks gave more than cursory coverage to the arrest of the Philadephia man, and Democratic supporter, who issued death threats to Eric Cantor, the GOP House Whip.  This is after leading the news nightt after night with illusory threats to Democratic politicians who supported the government seizure our health care industry. 
NBC on Monday night squeezed in a few seconds for the arrest of “a Philadelphia man for threatening the life of the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor of Virginia.”

Yet after the networks led last week with less-immediate threats against Democrats, they weren’t so interested in a real case of a death threat against a Republican as neither CBS nor ABC aired a word about the arrest and NBC’s Brian Williams gave it short-shrift after leading last Wednesday with Democrats as the victims: “It's getting ugly as anger over health care reform erupts into some over-the-top rhetoric, including threats now against members of Congress.”
CBS:
last week started with “threats of violence against Democrats who voted for health care reform” as Nancy Cordes relayed how “Democrats complain Sarah Palin is also using violent words and imagery.” On Monday, the CBS Evening News devoted a full story to fretting over a “loophole” which insurance companies may use to delay providing coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions and Katie Couric spent half a minute on how the New York Yankees are “the best-paid team in all of sports,” with the NBA “the highest-paid league” followed by cricket’s Indian Premier League.
Oddly enough the ABC, Washington DC affiliate reported the arrest, their nightly news reported
Diane Sawyer began with “homegrown hate, extremists from a Midwestern, Christian militia under arrest.” Five days earlier, a dire Sawyer warned “opposition to health care turns menacing,” asserting “angry opponents of the [health] bill unleashed threatening phone calls, scathing words, even bricks thrown through windows.”
My guess is that this doesn't fit the narrative that is being constructed.  Last summer, Democrats labels the Tea Party movement as being violent, racists, Nazi's...so of course that is what they are trying to do again.

So We've Passed ObamaCare

Don't know who wrote this...

So we've passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress who hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What the heck could go wrong?

An Analysis on Repealing the Health Care Bill

Heres a link to an excellent analysis of how and why the government's seizure of the health care industry will likely be repealed next year.  It's by Sean Trende and posted  in Real Clear Politics.  I agree, because of the broad opposition to this bill, I believe that it will be repealed next year after the Democratic party loses control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Monday, March 29, 2010

ObamaCare...What Can I Do...?

I've had  a lot of emails about what you can do to stop ObamaCare to from being implemented...here are some excellent suggestions vis Instapundit...
SO LAST WEEK READER RYAN BLEEK WROTE, asking what he could do to fight big government plans, given that he lives in an uncompetitive Congressional district. Various readers chimed in. Here’s some advice:

From a reader who asks anonymity:I
would say to Ryan (yesterday, 10:18am) that he needs to volunteer to go door-to-door on a close House campaign during the final weekend before the election, and preferably through election day. Knock on 500 doors a day, be willing to face opponents with good cheer and a smile, get great exercise. Putting feet on the ground en masse is the best way to show that we’re serious about changing our political leadership. I’ve done it four times and it’s often hard but definitely worth it.
It worked for Scott Brown, who got thousands of volunteers coming in this way. Reader Eric Cowperthwaite emails:
I sent email to my two senators in Washington State. This is a fairly blue state and those seats are probably considered “safe” for the Democrats. I think that’s no longer true, but it’s time to make sure they know that. So, I told them that I will be donating money to their opponents, volunteering for their opponents and voting for their opponents. I told them it is because of healthcare reform specifically. And I reminded them that democrats lost in Massachussetts before this bill was passed.
If everyone reading your page who is in “blue” or “purple” territory writes their democratic senator or representative that will send a big message. If half of us follow through, that’s an even bigger message.

Reader George Bednekoff emails: “I would lobby for term limits. Even fairly loose term limits of 12 years for the House and 18 years for the Senate would insure that congressmen in uncompetitive districts would get replaced periodically.”



Lynne Hulbert writes: “
Scott Brown had a system where you could make phone calls for him from anywhere in the U.S. using your cell phone, most likely, since most people have free long-distance calling on their cell phones. I did it, and the system worked very well. Judging by the results, that might be one way to help in districts outside your own. I live in Arizona and called for a guy in Massachusetts, so there is no limit.”
And Lynwood Wilson emails:
“Campaign against your local Congress critter regardless. Donate to his opponents. Even if he wins in spite of your efforts the strength of the opposition may worry him and affect his votes. And you might beat him. Who expected us to win Kennedy’s seat (sic) in Mass.?”
Another reader emails
: “I live within 100 miles of a Dem congressman’s district in my state. He voted against the bill. BUT…before the vote I called his office and informed them I will contribute to his opponent if the Democrats pass this. AND I told them I will drive the 1 1/2 hours to help his opponent knock on doors, stuff envelopes, answer phones, get out the vote….whatever it takes to defeat him. As a clincher, I told them I am unemployed thanks to his party’s policies. I’ll have plenty of time to devote to his opponent.”
I think the most important lesson is to stay engaged, and don’t be silenced.

Latest Gallup Presidential Poll

Gallups latest poll of Mr. Obama's approval rating has him dropping and additional 2 points  to an overall approval rating of 46%.  In other words more people disapprove of his performance than approve of him.  Here is what Bill Clinton had to say last summer,
Last year, former President Clinton told Political Wire that "the minute health care reform passed, President Obama's approval ratings would go up 10 points.
I think Mr. Clinton mispoke...

Friday, March 26, 2010

Stupak Allies Request 4.7 Billion in Earmarks

The Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan organization that reports on Congressional corruption (aka earmarks) is reporting that Stupak and his minions have requested over $4.7 billion dollars in earmarks.  I guess that this will be their pay off for passing the government's seizure of health care. 
A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the "Stupak 11" released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion--an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.


Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
It's just the usual payoffs and corruption that's become common place in the "most ethical Congress ever" under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi.  Yet again, the Democratic party has outdone the GOP in showering money on Congressmen who vote correctly.  The only way to end this vile practice will be to pass an amendment to the Constitution that fobids any such extra-legislative bribery.

Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It

Here's an interesting read.  I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but regardless, he does present some very interesting arguments.

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.
I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis
Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

.........to finish this article hit this link

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Cantor Fires Back

Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

1938 Austria - The author of this article lives in South Dakota and appears to be very active in attempting to maintain our freedom. I encourage everybody to read this article and pass it along. I see so many parallels in this country-are we going to sit by and watch it happen? Spread the word; also contact your congressional reps; vote them out if they don't do what they should. If you don't want to be bothered, then you're part of the problem. Google Kitty Werthmann and you will see articles and videos.






Truly is the Greatest Country in the World.
Don't Let Freedom Slip Away
By: Kitty Werthmann



What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls: Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna .. After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

"Mercy Killing" Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps - Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration.. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria .. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

Wookiepedia

You really have to check out wookiepedia.  It's great and highly informative!  Make sure you hit the links as well.

New Medical Symbol


To prepare for the new healthcare reform package, the White House felt it necessary to develop a new medical symbol that truly depicts the Health Care Plan you will be getting

55% Support Repealing Obamacare

Here's the latest Rasmussen poll...
Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.


 
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

 
In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.
With Mr. Obama's poll numbers already falling after the 2% upward "bounce" after passage...this is a rather telling figure.  I expect to see this number climb steadily over the next few months to peak in the 65% range by November.  Call your Congressman and register your complaint over his vote.  Call his opponents and offer to volunteer on their campaign...get off your ass and WORK!  That's the only way we're going to be able to do anything about this.  Repeal it and pass a real reform.  
  • Break the monopoly. Allow competing health care organizations. If doctors can't lose their licenses, they are free to provide solutions they know work, but that the AMA won't allow.  For example, in California just 6 health insurance providers are permitted to provide health insurance within that state. This barrier exists in my own state of Maryland as well. Additionally, by permitting small businesses, as well as individuals to band together and pool their seperate and thus limited resources, so that more companies can provide affordable insurance. Better yet, sever the link between employment and health insurance. Allow individuals to purchase their own insurance directly from health insurance companies.
  • Tort reform. Most of the tort lawyers are parasites, and oddly enough, like John Edwards many are Democrats. They add no value, except to keep some doctors honest, but their role should be far more limited. Limit damages to actual loss, and only with gross negligence. Loser pays the winner's legal bills.
  • Make health costs 100% tax-free. Better, eliminate the 16th amendment (the income tax system). Then establish a national sales tax system. Additionally, allow portability between states and permit ALL of the health insurance organizations to provide insurance regardless of state lines. The moment you do this, people go out and join co-ops and get great rates.
  • Pharmaceutical Costs. Force the Pharmaceutical companies to sell to other countries at the same rate as they charge their biggest customers here. They will then pay more, and we'll pay less, as we will no longer subsidizing them.
  • Fix SS/Medicare. Decree that those now under the age of 50 will no longer be eligible for benefits upon early retirement. Move the retirement age back a couple years, since people are living far longer (I would move the age to 65 as a minimum for eligibility for Medicare). Prosecute all the fraudulent disability claims vigorously.

 
 

 

MY TWO CENTS - HEALTH BILL


Why is it that in the last year or so that the people of the United States that have voiced their opinion that the "health bill" that was put to the floor for a vote said, that we don't want it, and it passed anyway?

To the people of Congress:

You did not listen to the people.

You listened to those who more than likely made promises to you that you couldn't refuse. ( WOW!! something like a line from a movie)

You are to represent "We the people" and as I can see it you did not.

I am sure that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Enabling Act Anniversary

Today, in 1933, the German Reichstag voted itself out of existense...much as our Congress is taking away our liberties, after today, in 1933, Germany was ruled by decree. 
Debate within the Centre Party continued until the day of the vote, March 23, 1933, with Kaas advocating voting in favour of the act, referring to an upcoming written guarantee from Hitler, while former Chancellor Heinrich Brüning called for a rejection of the Act. The majority sided with Kaas, and Brüning agreed to maintain party discipline by voting for the Act.


Just as Bart Stupak agreed to vote for the government's seizure of health care with a worthless peice of paper, the German Centre Party, voted itself out of existence.  Neo-Neocon has a rather penetrating observation on following legislative rules...
Oh, that party discipline! So important for the proper functioning of a democracy. And then there are those pesky rules:


Fortunately for America, the Democrats...barely avoided doing much the same thing with their "Slaughter Rule."  Had they done so, I believe that they would have lept into the abyss that we dare not venture into...Most of all you have to keep in mind that the Nazi's weren't a conservative movement.  They were first and foremost socialists.  Here's a link to an excellent monograph on Hitler and the Nazis by John J. Ray.

Not So Mad About Obama

I found this stuff via Instapundit on Transterrestrial Musings.  I would have to say that when Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party have lost Mad Magazine...then they have genuinely screwed up in a huge way.  I laughed so hard at these...

I loved Obama? 


Hopeless

but I have to say that this one is by far the funniest!

Tampons Now Taxable

Under ObamaCare, tampons are now a taxable medical device.
(b) TAXABLE MEDICAL DEVICE.—For purposes of this section— (1) IN GENERAL.—The term "taxable medical device" means any device (as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) intended for humans. (2) EXEMPTIONS.—Such term shall not include— (A) eyeglasses, (B) contact lenses, (C) hearing aids, and (D) any other medical device determined by the Secretary to be of a type which is generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use.
From the CampaignSpot, National Review Online
Brad Ellsworth: Because the Senate needs the architect of the National Tampon Tax.
Baron Hill: Because your breast pump will help manage our spending crisis.
Scott Murphy: Every time you use a suppository, think of his health-care vote.
HatTip:  Instapundit 
Reader Clare Toohey emails: “How is being a woman ‘no longer a pre-existing condition’ if our monthlies need treatment with a ‘medical device?’” You’ll have to address those questions to the White House. But maybe this explains why the Tea Party is majority-female. . . .
But, when it's all said and done...Democrats now OWN government's control of health care.  Everytime you have to wait a long time to get an appointment of any kind, anytime you have to wait longer in ER's...it will be Obama's fault.
Are ObamaCare supporters arguing for the plan's merits on better footing now than before the bill was passed? They sure seem to think so. But when reality starts to sink in on the health care bill—reality that's likely to include an endless onslaught of court challenges and tough campaign rhetoric as well as the eventual imposition of a health insurance mandate and significantly higher taxes for millions of Americans—how long will any post-vote opinion bump last?
UPDATE:  Is it just me, or does the concept of satire escape certain people?

Institute for Legal Reform survey: Lawsuit Climate in Louisiana,2nd Worst in the Nation

New Orleans is the location of the following juridic systems: the Louisiana 4th Circuit Appeal Court; the 'supreme court' for the State of Louisiana; the Eastern District Federal Court (criminal, bankruptcy, and civil cases); the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (which encompasses Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana); and a division of the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ). Mr. Jim Letten oversees the Eastern Louisiana DOJ region (but a Texas judge wrote about Letten's deceptive involvement beyond Letten's territory); and Letten's office is wholly responsible for masking horrific Civil Rights injustices by New Orleans federal judges, and likely other federal judges throughout Louisiana. Also, scores of civil cases that become filed in the New Orleans Parish Civil District State Court become unlawfully / unstatutorily "removed" to Federal Court judges for manifest purposes of denial of justice. (*SEE: http://www.lawgrace.org/.)
New Orleans' dishonest Clerk of Court, Dale N. Atkins (who is an avid ally of the convicted former congressman William Jefferson, Mose, and Betty Jefferson clan), works to ensure people's cases become railroaded into federal court even those cases are neither federal question subject matter, nor diversity --specifically, those illegally "removed" cases should never be ruled on by any federal judge, when the controversy is tort law subject matter. Further revealing why justice is unlikely to be obtained in New Orleans' court systems --as well as grossly unfortunate, is the fact that an incredible amount of pleadings and documents turn up missing from case files at Orleans Parish Civil District Court, for which Court Clerk, Atkins oversees. (Just peruse the enormous amount of appellate rulings which say something like: "nothing in the records to support appellant's argument", and it will be obvious how and why irretrievable pleadings and documents result in protracted litigation and unfair loss of justice!)*Also, see:  http://www.lawgrace.org/2006/08/19/dangerous-clerk-of-court-dale-atkins-killing-us-softly/

Likewise, is the fact of falsified Sheriff "service returns" (La.Code Civ.P. art. 1292). For years, deputies at Orleans Parish Civil Court Sheriff Paul Valteau's office have been falsifying "sheriff's returns" which have facilitated things such as fraudulent auctions of moveable and immoveable properties, fraudulent Family Court as well as Probate proceedings, unjust default judgments, and various rulings against people who have never been lawfully served with notice of judicial proceedings filed against them, prior to judgments being rendered in favor of opposing parties! In fact, some judgments have been rendered in New Orleans courts despite the actual fact that those lawsuits were intentionally filed in the names of plaintiffs which did not exist, or had no real party interest.

Emphatically, the facts and evidence show that New Orleans (and surrounding area) violence, theft, poverty, disintegrated households, unemployment, under-education are all linked to JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.  Most definitely, to begin addressing Louisiana's deplorable legal conditions, the Clerk of Court and Sheriff Valteau should not escape serious investigation! However, since such actions facilitate the bigger picture of elitism, cronyism, perks and pork barrel, it is not likely for the people who are feeding at the public trough to rock their own (Titanic) boat.

Also see: ". . . doctored information (prior to Letten's forwarding those so-called findings to Washington) prevented disgraced federal Judge Thomas Porteous from a similar fate as judges, sheriffs, and others entangled in "Gretna Court" wrongdoings who went to jail and lost their jobs in that scandal. (Porteous' impeachment hearing is currently before the U.S. Congress.) However, the shielded New Orleans court system is far more corrupt than Gretna; even New Orleans Court of Clerk, DALE ATKINS, admitted in a federal affidavit that she steers newly-filed lawsuits to the judge of her choice, rather than randomly allot cases as civil procedure requires. . .."  http://newsblaze.com/story/20100306185232lawg.nb/topstory.html

Barbara Ann Jackson (Katrina-displaced from New Orleans)
Law & Grace, Inc

*Feel free to publish / distribute / quote my statement;
ABUNDANT substantianting PROOF is found on my www.lawgrace.org website.

SOUTHERN EXPOSURE DOCUMENTARY TRAILER

Reason TV: 3 Reasons Why Health Care Reform Won't Save Money

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Stupak’s Painful Lesson for Abortion Foes

I received the following email just a bit ago from a guy named Kipp Lanham of Pajamas Media. 
In a message dated 3/23/2010 2:27:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kipp.lanham@XXXX.com writes:

Hello Rich,
I am reaching out to you on behalf of Pajamas Media. From reading your blog, I thought you might be concerned that ObamaCare has revealed that the Republicans can expect zero support from "moderate Democrats" like Bart Stupak, the congressman who sold out. Read more:


Do you think you could post this to your blog or refer it to your friends and fellow readers?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stupaks-painful-lesson-for-abortion-foes/

Please let me know if you would like to receive more information or media from Pajamas Media as it first appears.

Sincerely,
Kipp Lanham

__________________________________


Over the past 2 days, I've come to the conclusion that no matter what the "adjective" placed before their party affiliation, they are still, first and foremost, Democrats. Stupak showed that this past Sunday when he actually took Mr. Obama's word that an Executive Order could over-ride a law passed by Congress (in no way can an Executive Order do so). That would be throwing away the Constitution completely.

I think that when it's all said and done, the Democratic Party is going to rue the day that they decided to pass this government seizure of the health care industry along strict party lines.  I also believe that those 34 Democrats who voted against the bill, were permitted to do so in order to try and save their seats in this November's election.  Nancy Pelosi would never have allowed a vote if she knew she didn't have the votes to win.  She allowed those "blue dogs" an out...but that won't save them from the wrath of the American people...Barack, Nancy and Harry have awakened a slumbering giant and will come to regret kicking aside the will of the people on this.

Over the past 48 hours, I have in my  neck of the woods, seen a great deal of anger directed at first the Democratic party and Congress in general.  I don't believe that the federal government has any business in health care.  That is a matter for states, via the powers delineated in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution.  No where in that document does it state that we have a "right" to nationalized health care. 

The only state to enact a statewide mandate is drowning it debt because of it.  Massachusetts elected Scott Brown the the US Senate specifically to block the passage of this legislation.  Think about that...a Republican elected to fill the seat that was held by Ted and John F. Kennedy for most of 58 years!  But, this bill has been passed and now we have four years of taxes, fees and fines to pay before anyone will benefit from this bankrupting legislation.  We can't afford it....

Dana Loesh Pasting Bill O'Reilley



And Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute,
The symbolism of the Democratic left’s hostility to the “tea baggers” should not go unnoticed. The tea party movement’s roots are in the American Revolution. These ordinary Americans are protesting the Washington ”Establishment” — which presently is the Democratic juggernaut – much as American Patriots were protesting the oppressive British Establishment that was “eating out their substance” with “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” The Democratic left should think long and hard about those parallels. The times they are a-changin’
.That's exactly the point.  The Tea Party movement are the ideological descendants of the men and women who fought against the usurpations of the British Paliament.  The Democratic party has taken on the onus of the the Redcoats.  Fortunately, we now have more than three dozen states preparing to file legal action in regards to this bill.  What  very few have noted is that if 37 states either send formal requests to the US Congress for a Constitutional Convention, or pass an amendment to the US Constitution, there is not one thing that this Congress can do.  That would become the law of the land, no ifs, ands or buts.

Barack Hussein Obama and Indonesia: there's no place like home

From the London Daily Mail is a excellent opinion piece that analyzes the relationship of Mr. Obama and Britain and Europe in general.
Now that President Obama has done enough back-room deals to get the Democrats' health care legislation through the House of Representatives, he can resume making plans for a visit to his childhood home, Indonesia. The trip was on for this week, but the White House cancelled it so Obama could stay in Washington to push through the Bill.


Once he lands at Jakarta, capital of the world's largest Muslim state, he probably won't make the same mistake he made a few years ago in Kenya, when he let himself be photographed wearing a turban. Still, he may find it hard to resist the urge to go native.

One of the reasons a lot of Americans find Obama oddly foreign is that he had an oddly foreign childhood: his formative years were spent in Indonesia. His half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, was born there. The rest of Obama's childhood was spent in Honolulu, a Pacific Ocean capital soaked in East Asian culture.

What's this got to do with Britain, or indeed with Europe? Plenty. Obama is the first US president who was raised without cultural or emotional or intellectual ties to either Britain or Europe. The British and the Europeans have been so enchanted with 'America's first black president' that they haven't been able to see what he really is: America's first Third World president.

If you doubt it, remember the kick in the teeth he gave Britain over the Falklands just a few weeks ago. Obama had his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, fly to Buenos Aires to give American support to President Kirchner's call for international negotiations over the Falklands. Amazing. What was more amazing is that all we've heard out of Number 10 and the Foreign Office since then is that it doesn't mean anything.

Oh, yes it does, and Washington insiders know it does.

I've just been in touch with Dr James Lucier, a former US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff Director, about all this. He tells me: 'Culturally, Obama detests Great Britain. He sent the bust of Churchill back without a fig leaf of an excuse. He insulted the Queen and the Prime Minister, giving them ridiculous gifts.' At one point, 'he refused to meet the prime minister.'

Here is what is happening, though the British Government seems oblivious of it. The Obama administration is ready to dump the Old World in pursuit of the One World.

Britain is being dumped. The special relationship, whatever is left of it, is over. Britain losing control of the Falklands to Argentina would just be collateral damage.

But France is being dumped, too. Obama's ostentatious refusal to have dinner with President Sarkozy during his visit to France last year was no accident. Rather than meet the French president, Obama went off to a restaurant with his wife Michelle.

Germany is being dumped. Obama has been little more than dismissive of Chancellor Merkel. Russia in turn will be waved aside.

Most spectacularly of all, the European Union has now been comprehensively dumped. The American president has refused to attend what is supposed to be a US-EU Madrid summit in May.

What we have shaping up, but what the British Government doesn't yet grasp, is that Obama has a conscious policy of down-grading America's relationship with, first, Britain and then with the rest of Europe.

He believes that the US -- yes, his own country -- and Britain, and the leading European countries, too, for that matter, are imperial powers who ruthlessly exploited the Third World for their own profit.

And Obama is America's first Third World president.

Forget Obama's Chicago black cadence. It is a fake. He copied from the kind of black preachers that were unknown to him until he was a grown man and inventing his political image.

What the Obama administration has near-wiped from the president's personal history is that his only childhood links with America were as a schoolboy in a fashionable private school in Asia-dominated Hawaii, where he was raised by his white, bank executive grandmother.

Chicago is not Obama's homeland. It never was his formative influence. The president's world view is more aligned with that of Indonesia.

You can be sure the gift Obama gives the President of Indonesia will be something more than the dvd box-set of old Hollywood movies he gave to Gordon Brown. The US president's manner on the trip to Indonesia will be more the manner he showed to the King of Saudi Arabia last year. The king received a deep bow, something never done by any US president before. Obama also kow-towed to the Emperor of Japan and to the Chinese premier.

What's going on? According to Dr Lucier, Obama's policy is to disestablish the United States, Great Britain and Europe from the hegemony of world power, and elevate in their place the hegemony of the Third World under international governance.

Remember, Obama is a deracinated individual. He has no roots. He is a man from an Asian-Pacific background bred to no admiration for the ancient constitutional history which, until now, has reached across the Atlantic to bind America and Britain.

The president actually feels that the US Constitution, which grew out of Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights, is 'inadequate.'

Indeed, Obama has stated that, because the US Constitution guarantees only 'negative rights' -- that is, establishes what the US Government may not do to individuals or to the sovereign states -- instead of giving people guarantees of food, shelter education and health care and the rest, it is 'inadequate.'

That is one reason he has worked so hard to get the health care legislation through Congress. It is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Already, the attorneys-general of Florida and South Carolina are poised to challenge its constitutionality in court. At least another dozen state attorneys-general may join in the suit.

Obama has made it clear he despises both the US Constitution and the British tradition from which it springs.

His decision to send his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to Argentina to give support to President Kirchner is part of this anti-British atttitude. Mrs Clinton has supported President Kirchner's demands that the fate of the Falklands be decided by the United Nations decolonisation committee.

It is all part of the same Obama world-view. This interference in South American affairs is not part of the old yankee -- yanqui -- imperialism. The important thing to note is that the Obama administration is not stepping in to decide the fate of the Falklands itself.

No, it wants to turn the dispute over to a Third World-dominated instrument of international governance, the UN.

One might imagine that Obama is willing to back Argentina over the Falklands because he thinks America has something to gain from it. That is not the reason. There is no profit for the US in cultivating the Latino presidents, and there is no particular policy to do so.

Rather, US support for Kirchner's demand that the Falklands question be turned over to the UN is just another opportunity for Obama to strengthen the ideological world system which he hopes will one day overwhelm the old Anglo-Saxon Common Law America.

His vision is for the US to abandon its Constitution and its laws, which are tied to Britain, the country for which he has shown such disdain.
I think that the citizens on the United States need to watch this trip very closely with an eye to the above and see  how Mr. Obama acts. 

H/T from the comments of Michael Ledeen's PJ blog.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Obama's Borodino

Bill Krystol of the Weekly Standard has an excellent analogy of just what transpired yesterday...
Napoleon invaded Russia in June of 1812. On September 7 of that year, the Grande Armée under Napoleon’s command attacked the Russian army near the village of Borodino. Napoleon won the battle, the greatest of the Russian campaign, but at a terrible cost--about a third of his soldiers were killed or wounded. The Russian army was not destroyed, and while Napoleon occupied an abandoned Moscow a week later, the French army was never the same. It soon had to begin its disastrous winter retreat from Russia, and Napoleon finally did meet his Waterloo almost three years later.

Last night’s victory was the culmination of Obama’s health care effort, which has been his version of Napoleon’s Russia campaign. He won a short-term victory, but one that will turn out to mark an inflection point on the road to defeat, and the beginning of the end of the Democratic party’s dominance over American politics. Last night was Obama’s Borodino. Obama’s Waterloo will be November 6, 2012.

And then comes repeal, and the opportunity for renewed and revitalized conservative governance.
That's the best way to describe the genuine anger that I've been seeing all day here in blue/blue Baltimore, at the heart of the "People's Republic of Maryland."

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

IBD's David Hogberg has itemized 20 ways our freedom will be taken from us by ObamaCare...
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
Welcome to the brave new world...

HT Powerline

Reason.tv: Why The Stimulus Isn't Working—Q&A with economist Richard McKenzie

CNN Poll: 58% Oppose ObamaCare

Here's an analysis of ObamaCare via Fire Dog Lake,  aboutt as hard left as you can get...
A middle class family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible. Many families who are already struggling to get by would be better off saving the $5,243 in insurance costs and paying their medical expenses directly, rather than being forced to by coverage they can’t


Their take is that this isn't the "reform" they were looking for and that it will in fact hurt far more people than it will help.  CNN's weekend poll has 58% opposing this piece of legislation.

20. As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?
Mar 19-21 2010
Favor 39%
Oppose 59%
No opinion 2%


21. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED
Mar 19-21 2010
Favor (from Question 20) 39%
Oppose, too liberal 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 5%
As many of you know, CNN regularly over samples Democrats in its polls.  For the first time in our history, a very large marjority oppose a bill that the Congress passes over those objections.  Ann Althouse thinks this will all blow over by November, but I don't think so.  The anger I saw both on the Metro on the way into the city and out in Baltimore today was surprising as this area has been solidly Democratic for decades.


HT Below The Beltway

Gerald Celente: US-China financial relations in turmoil

An Email...On Political Parties

A good friend of mine emailed me this:  
In my humble opinion... before I am accused of being party biased, the only difference between the two parties is how they waste your hard earned dollars and what part of the constitution they don't mind treading on. They both stink.

Sadly, I had to agree.  For the most part, the GOP, at least for the past 10 years has been "DemLite"...and for 20 years before that, utterly blinded by social issues...instead of keeping their eye on what is important.  In my humble opinion, that would be keeping a lid on the size of government and government spending.

Recently, we hit rock bottom.  But, in the course of it all...not once have we taken a penny of government money.  Non one red cent.  Every avenue of assistance that we have used, has come from private sources.  It took a little work, and putting aside any shred of pride we had left...but we were able to NOT suck off of Uncle Sam's hind tit.  Now if I can't do this...why can't others?

Government isn't the source of all assistance.  For the first 300 years that there have been "Americans", per se, we didn't look to the government for hand outs.  We did what we had to do, and depended upon ourselves and our neighbors if we needed help.  What happened to America that we lost that standard of self reliance...?  What happened to America that we've come to see the government as being the source of help?  When did we lose sight of that vision?

Government does nothing efficiently.  Nothing at all...except waste money by the bucket full.  How in the hell did we become dependent upon a government that takes from those who do...and gives to those who won't?  Once upon a time, it was said that our "republican experiment" would last only as long as "We The People" didn't vote ourselves priviledges...has that day come to pass?

ObamaCare

....and here's what we're gonna get for it all...

I Was Told: Moe Lane

Here is a great list of things that we have been told that the GOP cannot possibly do.  Moe Lane put it together and it's a compendium of what convensional wisdom has said is impossible to do since...2008.
  • I was told that there was no way that we could win a runoff Senate election in Georgia, in the immediate wake of the President’s historic victory nationwide.
  • I was told that there was no way that any Republican could win in William Jefferson’s* district. Ever. In a million years.
  • I was told that expecting the GOP House caucus to Hold The Line on the President’s ’stimulus’ package was a fool’s errand.
  • I was told that it would be a generation before liberal dominance of politics would be effectively challenged.
  • I was told that it was even money that the GOP would lose more seats in 2010.
  • I was told that conservatives don’t go to protests.
  • I was told that the protests over the ’stimulus’ bill would splutter away.
  • I was told that the Tea Party movement would never become more than an annoyance to the ruling party. Which would be running the show for a generation, remember.
  • I was told that it was absurd to think that the GOP would gain seats in the Senate in 2010.
  • I was told that it was absurd to think that the GOP would gain more than a dozen seats in the House in 2010.
  • I was told that the House GOP would only Hold The Line once, then cave.
  • I was told that cap and trade was inevitable.
  • I was told that card check was inevitable, and looming.
  • I was told that the GOP couldn’t hope to win the Virginia Governorship
  • I was told that nobody was going to really care about the health care monstrosity, besides a few cranks in the Tea Party movement.
  • I was told that it was absurd to think that the GOP would gain more than thirty seats in the House in 2010.
  • I was told that the GOP couldn’t hope to win the New Jersey Governorship.
  • I was told that the inevitable result of the massive protests over the health care monstrosity would be to create a popular backlash against the GOP, against conservatism, and ensure the speedy passage of the Democrats’ health care bill. As in, within a month.
  • I was told that the GOP couldn’t hope to win both the NJ and VA governorships.
  • I was told that the President would never drop in popularity – even to a level commensurate with a man, rather than a God.
  • I was told that it was impossible for the GOP to retake the Senate.
  • I was told that the GOP couldn’t hope to run the tables in the Virginia election.
  • I was told that the new Republican governor of New Jersey wouldn’t govern as a conservative.
  • I was told that it was absurd to think that the GOP could retake the House in 2010.
  • I was told that it was absurd to think that the GOP could get more than four seats in the Senate in 2010.
  • I was told that the President’s numbers would never go underwater.
  • I was told – over, and over, and over, and over, and over again – that God Himself could not win a Massachusetts Senatorial election if He ran on the Republican ticket.
As Glenn Reynolds says...read the whole thing.  The comments are great.

Democrats Now Own ObamaCare

The Democratic Party has now tied itself to ownership of the health care system in this country.  When costs begin to rise, as the CBO has predicted they will then that party will really begin to see angry voters.  But most of all, people will expect this bill to begin affecting things right now...even though NONE of it's services will begin for 4 years.  Higher taxes will kick in immediately, while none of the "perceived" benefits do...this will cause unrest immediately.  Pete Suderman of Commentary points out that,
The coverage figure is the best argument for the bill; all indications are that it's likely to result in health coverage for 30 million or more individuals. But the evidence that it will do so in an affordable manner is thin. The CBO estimates that the average premium cost will rise 10-13 percent (with a little more than half of folks receiving subsidies). And despite claims that the bill will put a stop to big rate increases, the evidence of the Massachusetts plan, which is very similar to Obamacare, suggests otherwise: Since the start of its plan, that state has seen double digit rate hikes, and expects more to come. And its average premium price is the highest in the nation. How can anyone possibly define this as "affordable"? [emphasis is mine, ed.]


In the end, then, we're left with a highly expensive, fiscally dangerous expansion of health insurance that locks even more people into a broken system. That's an achievement, all right, but not a particularly good one.
Already, more than three dozen states have begun preparing legal challenges on this bill.  Those challenges are based on the Commerce Clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution.  My belief is that it's unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment's claim that those powers not delineated are reserved to the states or the people.  From Victor Davis Hansen
Do Democrats realize that we really have crossed the Rubicon? In the future when the Republicans gain majorities (and they will), the liberal modus operandi will be the model—bare 51% majorities, reconciliation, the nuclear option, talk of deem and pass, not a single Democrat vote—all ends justifying the means in order to radically restructure vast swaths of American economic and social life. Is someone unhinged at the DNC? They just blew up any shred of bipartisan consensus when their President polls below 50%, the Democratically-controlled Congress below 20%, and health care reform less than 50%. Usually unpopular leaders and their unpopular ideas seek the shelter of minority rights and prerogatives. What will they do when they are in the minority—since they’ve entered the arena, boasted “let the games begin” and shouted “by any means necessary”?

I'll be contacting my local GOP county office to see who is going to run against John Sarbanes this year and work on their behalf to unseat one of the most knee-jerk solid Democratic votes in Congress.

Obama Care

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Democrats Have Passed Unconstitutional Bill

The Democratic Party has passed this single largest tax hike in history.  Their passage of this bill has also tossed out the Constitution that mandates under the 10th Amendment, that all powers that are not specifically enshrined in the are reserved to the states and to the people.  From Fox News...
After a harrowing day that saw a bloc of pro-life Democrats agree to compromise on abortion language, House Democrats cemented a victory for President Obama with a 219-212 vote for the Senate's massive health insurance overhaul.

Now, 37 states (enough to pass an amendment to the US Constitution) have either passed or are in the process of passing nulifications laws that will abrogate the ability of the Federal government to enforce this act upon their citizens.  Additionally, all those same states have prepared legal challenges to this bill.

This will make this years election rather lively.  I believe that the Democratic party has just committed political suicide...

Ron Paul On Government Seizure of Health Care

Ron Paul, MD, on CNN blasting what the Democrats want to do with the government seizure of health care industry.

Democrats Jonestown Moment

MSM's Tea Party Narrative.

The political narrative of the MSM on ObamaCare has begun firming up already.  If this hugely unpopular bill does pass today, then the MSM will begin to hammer home that the Tea Party was utterly ineffective.  On the other hand, this picture seems to sum up the Tea Party's narrative:


And that is what many of these people have to say.  I don't think that over the next 8 months, if this bill passes these people will go quietly home and just take what this Congress has rammed down our throats.  I believe that not only will they continue to be politically active, but that even more will begin to turn out and actively work against those politicians who voted for this bill.

It's my belief that we'll see record numbers of Democrats turned out of office this November.  Instead of the projected 40 seat loss, I think that we'll see more than 100 seats lost by the Democrats in the House and I think that 10-15 will turn over in the Senate.  We're going to see, not a wave of losses but a tsunami of losses turning against them.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Here's To You Mr. Jefferson

From Conservative Firestorm

Top 10 Low Level Flyby's

Via Tigerhawk, here are the top 10 low level fly by's...awesome video:





As a wannabe birdman and former aircrew on a CH-46 Seaknight helicopter there is a hell of a lot of skill necessary to fly this low and this fast. This is an awesome display of skill. Especially the 4 engine tanker aircraft @ #2! Those planes just aren't designed to be all that manueverable!

Here's a great also ran...

A Democrat Opposed To Obama Care

I think that the entire problem of the opposition to the Health Care Debate has been to allow the label "reform" to be successfully applied to what is occuring. The government's seizure of yet ever larger portions of the economy has nothing to do with health care reform. What it has to do with is government power, and direct control over the citizens of this country. Those on the left here in the United States have been attempting for decades to take direct control over the economy. This is merely the most recent attempt to do so. A good friend was sent a copy of a constituent's letter.  The letter I'm posting here is to Ron Klein, Congressman from the 22nd District in Florida.

My Dear Mr. Congressman:

I have been a Democrat for more than half a century, and I am thoroughly disgusted with the behavior of the party leadership and many of the sheep Democrats.

I am thoroughly and unalterably opposed to the Obama health care bill, although no one in the leadership of my party seems to care.

You apparently support this bill, without even knowing in advance what is in it, and seemingly without concern for the cost.

I am going to make you a promise: If you vote for this bill, and even if it fails, I will support your opponent in a primary challenge. If you are the Democrat candidate, I will support, campaign for, and vote for the Republican.

Moreover, I will bring along a lot of my friends and neighbors in this endeavor.

If you like Obamacare, then kiss your job goodbye.

M. Ross Shulmister
One Disgusted Democrat
M. Ross Shulmister is a highly respected trial attorney in Pompano Beach.  You'll recall that trial attornies are an important constituency of the Democratic party.  He is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, and a retired career Air Force officer (as was my father).  Additionally, Mr. Shulmister is decorated combat veteran seeing service in Vietnam as well as many direct confrontations with Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War, intercepting Soviet Bears (long range bombers and reconnaissance aircraft) when they violated US Air space in Alaska and Canada for NORAD.

Here is a video response to Mr. Klein by a retired physician.  Mr. Klein's constituents just don't support this bill, which makes it evident that he just doesn't represent his constituents on this issue.

Obama Confronted by Unemployed Worker



HT: gatewaypundit

Friday, March 19, 2010

No New Promises: by Keither Hennessey

This column is by Keither Hennessey...if you wish to read the entire thing, please click on the title.

This comment is addressed to those fiscally conservative Members of the House of Representatives thinking of voting for pending health care legislation.


America is on an unsustainable fiscal path. If we do nothing to address this, within 25 years the U.S. government will default on its debt, with devastating consequences for the U.S. economy and society.

We are on this path because past elected officials made unsustainable benefit promises and enshrined them in law. In some cases they paid for those promises in the short run. In all cases they created programs that would grow more generous over time.

Those past elected officials enjoyed the political benefits of creating a new promise, and they shifted the burden of paying for these promises onto their successors and onto future generations of citizens.

You are their successor, and we are those future generations. The bill is coming due. The gap between future spending and taxes is the most important economic problem America faces. If we don’t fix it, we’re screwed.

To fix this problem we need to slow the growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending. You may think we also need to raise taxes, either for reasons of policy or of political compromise.

The long-term fiscal gap is enormous. It’s not measured in billions or even tens of billions of dollars. It’s measured in percentage points of GDP. One percent of GDP this year is $146 billion, and our fiscal gap is many times that. We need to make huge fiscal policy changes to avoid economic disaster.

Big changes are easier to make if we phase them in gradually, so people have time to plan and adjust. The longer we wait to start, the bigger the necessary changes, and the more wrenching they are to American society.

Good policy is to start these changes immediately, so that they’re in place and it’s hard to repeal them. Set the changes up so they grow steadily over time. Turn the aircraft carrier by an enormous amount, begin immediately and do it gradually, but lock the full course and ultimate direction in now. American society can then incrementally adjust to the changing conditions, and elected officials will not be confronted with sudden, disruptive, painful policy spikes they will be tempted to postpone or repeal.
Slowing the growth of popular entitlement programs is politically painful. So is raising taxes. Elected officials get punished for both.

This problem may seem politically intractable because of serious policy disagreements about the relative mix of spending changes and tax increases. Each party sees electoral advantage in attacking the other’s possible proposed solutions, so it’s hard to cooperate across the aisle.

As the pain of a government default approaches, markets will punish the U.S. economy to the point where elected officials will be forced to negotiate a solution. The danger is that you and your colleagues wait until this time, when the changes needed will be bigger and even more painful. If you can fix this before the markets force you to, America will be better off...
Read the whole thing