Health Care Whoah!

The following paragraph by Robert J. Samuelson in his December 7, 2009 Washington Post Op-Ed got me thinking:

"Health care is taking over government. Consider: In 1980, the federal government spent $65 billion on health care; that was 11 percent of all its spending. By 2008, health outlays had grown to $752 billion -- 25 percent of the total, one dollar in four."

Let's do some quick math. Using the numbers provided, the 1980 budget would have been $590 billion; the 2008 budget would have been $3.01 trillion. Considering the 1980 and 2008 health outlay sums, the growth rate would be 8.81% over that 29 year period. Using this figure, one could predict a government health outlay in 2020 (12 years from 2008) of $2.07 trillion.

However, the budget only grew by 5.78% per year over the same 1980 to 2008 time period. Using this figure, the 2020 budget would be $5.91 trillion, increasing health outlays to 35% of the budget.

What can we glean from all this information in correlation with the historical growth of the US GDP? Using 2000 dollars, the Q1 1980 GDP was $5.221 trillion, the Q1 2008 GDP was $13.367 trillion. That gives a growth rate of 3.29%. So the projected GDP in 2020 would be $19.7 trillion.

Hmm... $5.91 of $19.7 is 30%. The 2008 budget was approximately 22.5% of GDP. So the tax revenue burden will have to increase 33% by 2020. This begs the all important question, where will the Federal Government get the tax revenues to pay for everything? At some point the incentive to create wealth will disappear. What disaster will befall our country at that point?

In order to prevent this disaster, one should question how the Federal Government could be put in check in order to prevent it. Another more prudent question is what has changed in the past 100 years to put us into this current circumstance. I believe that the 16th and 17th Amendments are to blame. If taxes were apportioned by State, with State Representation restored to the US Senate as was originally devised by our Founding Fathers, a runaway Federal budget would be all but eliminated . No longer would Federal mandates on States be created without a means to pay for them, nor would any populace readily open their wallet to pay 40-50% Income Taxes; 50% Estate Taxes; 15-25% Capital Gains Taxes; 12.5% Social Security Taxes; 9-10% Sales Taxes; 2.5% Medicare Taxes; and 1.25% Property Taxes and all the other miscellaneous taxes burdened by productive Citizens.

There would be an absolute rejection of this confiscation of wealth, and most assuredly a rejection of the welfare state and the economic redistribution that occurs under it. Do either the Democrats or Republicans advocate restoring our Federal Republic? Do either the Democrats or Republicans warn us of the Economic tyranny that will occur in the not too distant future? The answer to both questions is no. The solution is to reject the current Political Party structure and elect Representatives that fundamentally understand both the premise of Liberty and why our Federal Republic was conceived the way it was in order to protect that Liberty.

Proposed Theft [i.e. Tax]

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a 'global' tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending."

When they passed the Stimulus bill in early 2009, we were promised unemployment would not go above 8%. As of December 2009, we're at 10%, a 25% increase. We were promised this bill would create jobs. Supposedly it has, at a cost near $250,000 each according to this Reuters' article. Additionally, the average payroll is approximately $60,000. So... sounds like four times as many jobs should have been created with what was spent so far. The math simply doesn't add up and that's because of the inherent corruption that exists when government meddles in the free market.

This SF twit also stated that, "I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity.”

WE ALREADY PITCH IN!!! The top 1% of income earners dole out over 1/3 of their income in Federal Income Taxes alone [soon to be 40%]. In CA they pay out an additional 9% in State Income Taxes. We also pay out a Capital Gains Tax between 15-25% depending on how long the stock, house, etc. was held onto. In CA we pay a sales tax anywhere between 8.75-9.75% depending on which county one lives in. This is ridiculous. What services does the government provide to those people that pay anywhere up to 60% of their income in taxes? What has the government done in order to deserve 3/5 of what one makes?

This is the inherent problem with redistribution of wealth. One class of people pay for the benefits of another class of people. Those on the receiving end will continually vote for the Political Party that promises the greatest benefits, currently the Democratic Party. As the benefits increase, so does the burden placed on the tax paying class, to the point the incentive to produce wealth is diminished. "To each according to his need" anyone? We witnessed the collapse of the Soviet system due to this philosophy, and we've witnessed the unleash of wealth creation in China when they disbanded this principle and adopted free market capitalism.

The only way to spur Economic growth will be for our burden to be reduced. You want a capital infusion into our Economy to spur job creation? Temporarily suspend Capital Gains Taxes. You'll collect a percentage of the wealth created anyways via Federal Income Taxes and State Income Taxes and Sales Taxes and if people use that capital to purchase property to construct new warehouses, new office space, etc., you'll collect property taxes too. Unfortunately Progressive dimwits like Pelosi, Reid and Obama don't understand this principle.

The only way our country will recover from these asinine tax policies and proposals will be if we change the leadership in the House and Senate and elect Politicians that fundamentally understand capitalism and its inherent superiority to every other economic model in existence. Until then, we'll continue to suffer as a Nation under these economic stifling conditions making us less competitive, and thus, less prosperous. Pelosi does care about our prosperity afterall, she stated so.

How about them govt. apples a day

An apple a day, keeps the Doctor away. I digress.

So Dick Morris published an article stating the death rate of cancer in the United States is 0.18% while the death rate in the United Kingdom is 0.25% while in Canada it's 0.21%. So in numbers, that means in the US, approximately 552,982 [using CIA Factbook 2009 numbers] people died from cancer last year. If we were to have the death rates of the UK or Canada, respectively 215,048 or 88,477 MORE people would have died last year. Anyone for that system of health care? Anyone want to volunteer a relative or perhaps yourself to fulfill those INCREASED numbers? I think the few percent more of GDP we pay for SUPERIOR health care is worth it. Any cancer survivor or relative of one disagree?

Our inherently corrupt politic

This Wall Street Journal article, specifically the race in the NY 23rd Congressional District says it all.

"In New York, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has surged into the lead in the 23rd Congressional District, according to two polls, following the abrupt withdrawal Saturday of Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava. "

"Vice President Joe Biden traveled Monday to Watertown to exhort voters to support Mr. Owens in the House race there. 'We're not asking you to switch your party,' Mr. Biden said in a pitch aimed at supporters of Ms. Scozzafava. 'We're just saying, join us in teaching a lesson to absolutists who come and tell us that no dissent is permitted within their own party.'"

So to clarify, Dough Hoffman is a Conservative running as an Independent. The Republican Candidate, Ms. Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race last Saturday. Glenn Beck reported that Ms. Scozzafava is pro-Choice, pro-TARP, undecided on the Democrat created "Health Care Reform" and was also endorsed by ACORN, same as her Democrat "rival." ACORN is the Community Organization that gave advice, in several instances, to a pimp and prostitute that wanted to buy a home to use as a brothel; and import illegal immigrant 13 year old girls from El Salvador to use as prostitutes in that brothel. Vice President Joe Biden flies to NY and gives a speech presumably to a Republican audience asking them to vote for the Democrat Candidate, Bill Owens. All of this of course is to "teach a lesson" to people who do not want a Democrat-lite Republican Candidate.

What's ludicrous about this whole scenario is the fact Joe Biden, himself a Progressive-Socialist Absolutist, is protesting other ideologues. It really is a fear that Progressives in both the Democrat party and the Republican party are under attack. Americans have finally caught on that both parties push an agenda that believes solutions lie within the government. Whereas Americans have seen under eight years of Bush, and one year under Obama, that your choices are Progressive growth under Republicans or abhorrent Progressive growth under Democrats. That's not a choice.

We get $400 billion deficits under Bush and $1.4 trillion deficits under Obama? Either way our purchasing power decreases. We've seen our dollar lose more than 27% of its value since 2000, six percent of that since Obama took office. Where are Politicians that don't believe in deficit expenditures? Where are Politicians that don't believe in bailing out unscrupulous corporations? Where are Politicians that want to actually focus on reforming our health care system starting with creating interstate competition between insurance companies; limiting monetary damages from medical malpractice; preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage of insured; creating a system that allows doctors to override insurance denials; etc.

How about allowing employers and employees set aside $10,000 per year into a medical savings account that could be drawn against when an employee requires a health care procedure? Say for example once that account reaches $100,000 for an individual, or $250,000 for a family of four, neither the employer or employee would be required to contribute further. What would this do to insurance companies? You would now have people shopping around for the most affordable prescription drugs, the most affordable doctor's visits, the most affordable surgeries and cancer treatments. This would create something called responsibility.

Do I care about how much morphine costs when I only pay a $20 co-pay for it? No. But if I had to pay for it out of pocket, and it was $1,000, I would settle for extra strength IBUProfen or maybe pay a little more and get Vicaden. What drives up our health care costs is abuse. How many men not suffering from erectile dysfunction take Cialis or Viagra for recreational use in order to heighten their sexual experience? It only cost them a $20 co-pay and everyone else under their health insurance plan subsidizes the cost. How about someone that doesn't use psychological counseling, should they subsidize someone else's therapy sessions? End the ridiculousness that is our health care system by reforming it, not creating a new Federal bureaucracy. That's choice.

Joe Biden imploring Republicans to vote for the Democrat Party Candidate begs the question why. Americans need to wake up and start asking questions about our current politic. When Democrats are endorsing Republicans and vice versa, there's a lack of real choice. As soon as we recognize Democrats and Republicans are a distinction without a difference, real choices can be made. Liberate our Republic from Progressive Tyranny!

This isn't change

This political cartoon sums it up. The Democrats under Obama talked about Change, "Change we can believe in," however this 1934 cartoon shows there is nothing new under the sun. The Democrats tried in the 1930's to spend our way into prosperity; the only thing their Keynesian Economics did was prolong the Great Depression. The Democrats are at it again. It wasn't enough to give unscrupulous banks $750 billion in TARP funds; it wasn't enough to give away $787 billion in "Stimulus funding"; it wasn't enough to give away $410 billion in the Omnibus Bill; it's not going to be enough to give away $800 billion to over $1.2 trillion in the next ten years under the guise of Health Care Reform; no, it will never be enough because it DOESN'T work.

It's not just Democrats or Liberals that don't understand how an economy functions, it's this notion that solutions lie within government; a Progressive ideal supported by Democrats AND Republicans alike, that's the root of all economic failure in this country and any other country that believes solutions lie within government. There is an absolute failure to understand that all forms of government are inherently corrupt; some forms less corrupt than others. When you couple this corruption with a nefarious agenda, you get evil in its purest form; you get your Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis, Mao ZeDongs, Ho Chi Minhs, Pol Pots, Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong Ils and that's just the last 100 years. Those figures supported communism, national socialism (Nazis), fascism and despotic rule.

Our Declaration of Independence states we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a politician or body politic begins to declare exactly how we can live life, exercise liberty and pursue happiness, he has replaced our Creator with himself, he has become a tyrant. When we accept the premise of this tyranny; we subject ourselves to the aforementioned types of nefarious leaders. These leaders promised change for the better, and the people believed them. The rest, they say, is history.

Discombobulated Democrats

In this Mercury News article, "White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said of Republican lawmakers, 'Only a handful seem interested in the type of comprehensive reform that so many people believe is necessary to ensure the principles and the goals that the president has laid out.'"

Two things: 1) In this Rasmussen Poll, 35% of American voters want the current health care bill that Congress is proposing while 54% of American voters DO NOT. 2) Republicans are not the Party of Obama, Democrats are. Democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate, and a 40 seat advantage in the US House of Representatives, in other words there is nothing stopping the Democrats from passing their Legislation other than themselves.

Ironic because the article goes on to state, "The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more progressive lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers."

Which brings me to this Politico article, "Parties deal blame as White House goes solo on health reform." White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stated, "The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."

Two things on Rahm's statement: 1) If it's detrimental for Republicans to not work with the White House on this health care proposal, then let Republicans suffer the consequences in the next Election Cycle, why worry Rahm? 2) If this health care proposal was such a treasure trove of political brownie points for Democrats, why haven't they passed this proposal already in order to claim 100% credit for solving America's Health Care ailments?

When tinkering with 17% of our GDP, I can't help but think that Democrats are afraid to own this issue and make it theirs because politically they need straw men to setup and knock down when their version of reform causes more problems than it solves or when costs exceed their glorious optimistic predictions. It just makes the following statement by a White House Official all the more hilarious, "We were forced into this by Republicans." Those damn Republicans, preventing you from bettering our lives, what jerks.

-----

In other Health Care News, the National Health Services (NHS) [Health Care Provider in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales)] employs 1.4 million people out of a work force population of 41 million, or 3.4%. Over 45,000 staff call out sick every day, costing the NHS £1.7 billion per year.

For laughs, the United States has a work force of approximately 154 million, and if the same proportion of people one day worked for a single payer system, the US would have 168,000 employees calling out sick on a daily basis. In this CBS article, the average Federal employee will make $75,419 in 2010. Therefore it would cost approximately $48.7 million per day or $17.8 billion per year in sick time wages alone. The article goes on to state, "Annual NHS sickness levels are 10.7 days a year per employee - 67% higher than the private sector average of 6.4 days." Doing the math, we would spend $7.1 billion more per year for sick time wages with a single payer system. How's that for improved efficiency?

If it makes you feel any better, Bloomberg News reported that President Obama believes "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems." Err... great example Mr. President of why we need National Health Insurance (NHI). Oh wait, do we want USPS and DMV type employees telling us to "Get a number and wait your turn" when we're at the hospital? So just when are Democrats going to finally come up with a fact that shows the NHI will be more efficient than say Kaiser Permanente, Blue Shield, Blue Cross, etc.

Maybe it helps explain why Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was for National Health Insurance before she was against it after which Robbert Gibbs clarified her statement by blaming the media for misunderstanding and she chimed in to state, "All I can tell you is that Sunday must have been a very slow news day, because here's the bottom line: Absolutely nothing has changed." But let's not forget, that President Obama on Saturday stated, "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health-care reform."

-----

To sum it all up, it's the Republicans fault the Democrats are forced to solve our Nation's Health Care ailments alone while Democrats disagree on how involved the government should be (not whether it should or shouldn't) and the Obama Administration Joe Bidens itself with statements that later have to be clarified in order to reassure skittish supporters the Administration still intends to get involved in our Health Care System; nonetheless we're still waiting for evidence that shows government involving itself with 17% of our GDP will improve efficiency despite mathematical calculations that show otherwise and despite the plethora of evidence that exists regarding the inefficiency of existing bureaucracies like USPS and DMV; let's not even discuss Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration and other Federal boondoggles.

Stifled Debate

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/08/video-worlds-worst-tv-interview/

Lawrence O’Donnell filled in for Ed Schultz on The Ed Show and interviewed Peter Schiff, chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. and author of 2007's Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse, which predicted the current economic crises and the failed solutions government would implement.

There's not much to say other than watch the video and see how O'Donnell repeatedly interrupts Schiff and essentially prevents him from answering any questions; let alone allow him to explain his position on the issues raised such as National Health Insurance.

From Herr Charles "Joseph Göbbels" Gibson's "Prescription for America" propaganda piece, to Chris Matthews' "shiver up my leg" to O'Donnell's squelching of Schiff, the Brown Shirts are back with vengeance. Though this time, I speculate the victims of the next Holocaust will be Conservatives, Libertarians, Christians, Jews and other newly named deviants.

Über Ridiculous News Articles

In this NY Post article, details come to light about the return of Bill Clinton and DPRK's former hostages, Euna Lee and Laura Ling. Entertainment mogul Steve Bing, notable for 'Get Carter,' 'The Polar Express' and 'Beowulf,' lent his Boeing 737 for the journey, costing him $200,000 in fuel alone; he also enlisted the help of his Hollywood PR firm, Rogers & Cowan, to setup "Hangar 25 at Bob Hope International Airport in Burbank" with "three press risers to accommodate more than 100 media and TV crews, and contracted an in-house photographer to capture the event."

Now, the event itself, the return of two captured American hostages, was remarkable and noteworthy, however something is rotten in the State of Denmark. I can't help but think that the Democrats need some sort of grand distraction from their failing foreign and domestic policies, and this "Wag the Dog" sort of Hollywood PR / Hollywood Entertainment Mogul orchestrating the grandiose return, complete with weeping family members and former President Clinton and Vice President Gore hugging each other, is just the sort of thing that distracts most Americans. It was completely an orchestrated Kodak moment.
-----
In this video, courtesy of Real Clear Politics, one can hear Nancy Pelosi talking about Protesters "carrying Swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." Now, if it were true that these Protesters were carrying Swastikas and the like, does she have any corroborative witnesses? Otherwise, I believe this is another bold faced lie, an outright farcical assertion meant to detract from legitimate debate about an issue that will affect every American. Let's not forget that 5/6 of America has health insurance, and if we're worried that this Obamacare is going to screw up our health insurance, you better be sure we're going to voice our concerns; and when taken in light with previous comments from Obama about Universal / Single Payer Health Care, we have a legitimate grievance that this road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Nancy Pelosi is a twit, and when this National Health Insurance boondoggle collapses, so should her speakership. Americans are finally speaking loud and clear, we don't like Socialism! Will the Democrats listen??
-----
In this Washington Post article, author Philip Kennicott discusses the recent poster found in Los Angeles depicting Obama in a Joker-esque comparison to the recent Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger, with the word "socialism" beneath its depiction. Now, most people would understand this to be a mockery of the "Hope" poster that permeated any and all coverage of Obama during the Presidential Primary. Unfortunately for douche bag author Philip Kennicott, the only thing he's able to see is his self-projected racist ideals.

He actually stated, "By using the 'urban' makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can't openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates." In addition to being a racist, this douche bag author has a short term memory problem too. In case he didn't recall, Obama is half-white. Obama was partly raised in Indonesia. Obama was afterwards raised by both his white grandparents in Hawaii. [enter sarcasm] Of course when Americans think of ghetto urban black men, we think of Honolulu... not. This country won't recover from Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. until people stop finding racism in everything; and we most definitely will not recover as long as others are projecting outward their inner racist ideals.
-----
In this Dallas News article, "Texas Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an 'enemies list,' has asked President Barack Obama to stop an effort to collect 'fishy' information Americans see about a health care overhaul." This was in response to the White House official website http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ which asked that "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

In the former DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik), aka East Germany, the most effective means of gathering information via the Stasi, was the use of 2.5% of its civilian population. Does anyone see any parallels here? The informants in the DDR were used to root out the 'class enemy.' Those who didn't agree with the benevolent State were arrested, falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit, imprisoned, re-educated, etc. President Obama is on the record advocating a Civilian Force equal to or greater than our military. The path we're walking down is a dangerous one. Fascism, or as defined by Mussolini who wrote Facismo Manifesto, corporatism, is already alive in this country. Think about red light cameras, speed cameras, etc. Any time a corporation merges with the State to enforce State Law, it's part of a fascist regime. I'm not saying that Obama is a Fascist, but...
-----
In this Columbus Dispatch article, ambivalence of the law has run amok again, in this case, involving a police officer. A "Gahanna police officer pleaded guilty this morning to speeding charges after he was ticketed last month for traveling almost 150 miles per hour on a motorcycle." Not only was he caught eight days previously, he was also warned via phone call to his superiors. Granted there are good cops, but there are bad cops too.

This brings up this morning when I was on the train. Now most people probably won't agree with my conclusion regarding this story, but nonetheless, I was taking the Metrolink Gold Line from Union Station to Pasadena for work. The LA County Sheriffs routinely get on the train and ask for proof of fare. This morning the cop got on, did his routine, then talked to a nearby passenger. The man asked why the cops were on, and the cop said to check proof of fare but also to provide safety. Fair enough, however he elaborated and stated that they're responsible for making the trains safe. Now, I don't disagree that police presence provides safety, but the police aren't around 100% of the time. No person is going to commit a crime either if they know the police are on board. The reason crime is committed is because a person believes chance is on their side and they therefore won't get caught.

Robert A. Heinlein is famous for the phrase, "An armed society is a polite society." If we stopped to think about our Constitution, it was written to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Liberty is really freedom, and the freedom we fought the British for was the fact that we were "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When we read the Bill of Rights, the first talks about Speech, Assembly, Petition, Religion, Press, etc. The Second talks about the Right to keep and bear Arms, and that Right shall not be infringed.

We fought the British because of the transgressions of King George against our Life, Liberty and Happiness. We were not afforded the right to have a standing Army for protection, therefore we hand no means to secure our Life. We paid taxes, and taxes are a confiscation of our wealth by a government body for some other purpose. Our wealth is an accumulation of our blood, sweat and tears; we earned it and therefore have the freedom to spend it. We were not afforded representation in his Legislature, therefore we had no input regarding how our taxes were spent which was an usurpation of our Happiness.

Now back to the cop in the train. This man's job is paid for by our tax dollars. This man believes it's his job to make us safe. Who I ask, secures our Right to Life in this instance? The cop does. Who should secure our Right to Life period? We the People should. The quickest deterrent to a crime in progress is the brandishing of a weapon, in this day and age, it's the gun. Would criminals rob if 90% of society were armed? They would have better odds in Vegas than robbing an unarmed Citizen if true. Ask yourself the next time a crime occurs if it could have been prevented by an involved party had they exercised their 2nd Amendment Right. Ask yourself how necessary is it to pay cops six figures a year (with overtime and 100% pension at 50) to secure any of our Rights. Or does it make more sense that they change the focus of police to solving crimes. If a criminal's two thoughts are they can get away with the crime and they won't be caught, making either one more difficult eliminates the possibility of crime taking place.

Now back to the first cop, just think of him next time you get a speeding ticket. Then think about the rest of these paragraphs when you think about whether his job is that necessary when he's encroaching on your Life, Liberty and Happiness.

I'm open minded, I just don't want to hear what you have to say

In this article by Beth Shayne, a "Conservative kiosk " selling bumper stickers in Concord Mills mall in Concord, North Carolina, will have its lease expire at the end of July without an option to renew because of a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.

In the letter to the editor, the author hypocritically stated, "It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end." I love the display of ignorance and hypocrisy in this entire statement. First, one has to try and stay open-minded? Really, I thought being open minded was a permanent mindset, one either is or isn't. Second, is the author of the letter open minded when they're driven to write an attack in their newspaper because the ideas were contrary to the ones s/he believes in? The author has a right to disagree by not buying the bumper stickers, or even better, opening a kiosk that supports their ideas and let the free market dictate the outcome.

Let's take this a step further. In the second sentence from the referenced quote, the adjective "bigotry" was used. In this case, it was used a pejorative, a word meant to have a belittling effect. I've talked about this before, but when Liberals don't agree with you, they revert to using pejoratives when they run out of arguments. So if they don't agree with you on illegal immigration for example, they'll revert to calling you a racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. in order to belittle you and your stance on the issue. In this case, the author of the letter to the editor didn't agree with the bumper stickers, so s/he threw out the pejorative bigotry. By definition, bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." So really, the kiosk owner is a bigot but the author of the letter isn't?

It's really a financial loss for Concord Mills mall in this entire debacle. Based on the fact that the kiosk owner was able to pay rent for six months since opening, he must have been at least breaking even if not making a profit. Though it doesn't surprise me when I read the owner of the mall was an Obama / Democrat supporter, it does surprise me when Liberals talk about how "open minded" or "tolerant" they are. After all, they are the authors of Laws that ban speech they deem offensive, or as they deceitfully call it, "Hate Speech," contrary of course to our First Amendment Right to speech without government reprisal.

Exploiting Race

In this Breitbart video, CA Sen. Barbara Boxer disputes the views of Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford on the issue of Clean Energy (specifically the "American Clean Energy and Security Act") by citing an NAACP resolution on Clean Energy.

The CEO is offended by this and Barbara Boxer displays repeatedly why she doesn't get it. The best analogy I can think of is citing the NAACP during a discussion on theism with the CEO of a black Christian group. Is it really a minority advocacy group's area of expertise in either case? No. When it comes to jobs and job creation, the Chamber of Commerce is the group whose testimony should carry weight during a discussion. When it comes to Civil Rights, fighting discrimination based on ethnicity, race, National origin, etc., the group whose testimony should carry weight would be the NAACP.

The whole idea we should even advocate for our race/ethnicity to begin with is sickening. No one in America would tolerate a White Congressional Caucus or National Association for the Advancement of Whites (NAAW) or a White Chamber of Commerce. In fact, I think the real acronym for NAAW is KKK. This idea that we need advocacy groups, or ethnic/racial Congressional Caucuses, only serves the interests of those groups against the interests of the excluded. When one advocates for whites, they advocate against non-whites.

This is a problem perpetrated by Progressives like Barbara Boxer. They don't see the harm in these organizations, so long as they're minority organizations. This supporting and advocating of ethnic/racial based politics stems from Leftists having been on the wrong side of history, beginning with the fight against Slavery (Republican Party platform under Lincoln) and through Affirmative Action, which promotes one not for the content of their character but for the color of their skin (antithesis of MLK Jr.). Boxer is up for re-election in November 2010. I think it's about time she gets the boot and the beginning of the end for Progressives begins. American Exceptionalism will never return so long as Progressives like Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama control American Policy.

For the Common Good

In AP News, Reuters and Bloomberg: it's come to light that House Democrats plan on partially paying for National Health Insurance by imposing a 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge on households making $1 million (read Individuals making $500,000); but the progressive Tax begins at households making $280,000 (read Individuals making $140,000).

So how many households will be affected by this Tax Surcharge? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Top 10% of Income Earners, or 11.4 million families, earned $259,000 based on 2001 data. Adjusting for inflation, assuming 3%, these families will earn over $328,000 in 2009 which guarantees that at least 11.4 million families will pay this progressive 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge.

So how many people will be helped by these 11.4 million families? According to the aforementioned Bloomberg article, by 2019, 37 million uninsured will have insurance, and 17 million will still not have insurance (half of which are estimated to be illegal immigrants).

There are other caveats to this plan including: 2.5% Income Tax penalty on workers who decline having insurance, "up to the average cost of a health insurance plan" and 8% Employer penalty for not providing health insurance.

In this Bloomberg article, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel state that this Legislation will pass on a partisan basis if need be however Pres. Obama would like the Legislation to be bipartisan. The rest of us know that it doesn't matter if Republicans sign on to this Legislation or not; it's going to pass, just like the $787 billion Stimulus bill and just like the $410 billion Omnibus bill.

Of course, National Health Insurance is predicated on the Progressive ideal that government should tax us for the common good. Your right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness does not give you the right to accumulate wealth if you can sacrifice just a little bit to help others. Let's make no mistake about this, the right to pursue Happiness means the right to work hard and accumulate wealth, and to have the Liberty to spend your money how you see fit; whether that's being a Scrooge or being Mother Theresa. If our Rights come from God, then only God can take them away. If our Rights come from benevolent Political elitists (Progressives like Pelosi, Reid and Obama), then our Rights will be dictated to us. If you disagree, what's your argument against this usurpation of our right to Life, Liberty and Happiness?

You can read in the Denver Post how, "Thousands of low-income Coloradans reliant on public assistance could get a free cellphone under a plan before the state Public Utilities Commission." "The money — more than $800 million in subsidies were paid last year for low-income phone service across the country — comes from the Universal Service Fund, a tax on all telephone lines. Of that amount, Coloradans received nearly $3.2 million in low-income subsidies."

How about this Reuters article, "Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners." "U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead." "Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty."

Since when was it our obligation to provide for other's happiness? Since when was it responsible, hard working Americans responsibility to provide poor people with cell phones or to pay their neighbor's mortgage or subsidize their rent? This redistribution of wealth is not only in most cases petty, it's immoral. Where do we draw the line?

Obama Health Care-Not

So, Obama wants to spend $1 Trillion over the next ten years to provide Health Care for 16 million uninsured Americans. Nevermind that this number isn't set in stone, and is a fraction of what the actual cost will be, but for argument's sake, we'll use it. Here are the numbers broken down, $1 Trillion divided by 16 million is $62,500 per person over a ten year period. Hmm... I have Kaiser, and I pay about $350 a month, which is a total of $4,200 per year. Using 4% (average projected growth rate for Health Care Costs), after ten years, the total cost of Health Insurance for me will be $50,426. If the Federal Government paid for these people to have my Health Insurance plan, after ten years the cost would be $807 Billion. For some reason, can't put my finger on it, I almost believe it would be better if the Federal Government just bought these people a Health Insurance plan.

This does not even take into account that family plans cost less per person than individual plans. This does not take into account that if the Federal Government just purchased Health Insurance for the uninsured, 3.8 million more uninsured would get coverage than the proposed 16 million. Knowing that the insured burden the cost of the uninsured, this does not take into account the realized savings that would occur for people that pay for their own insurance. Hence, making Health Care more affordable. These are just a few of the financial considerations that come to mind.

We all know how efficient the DMV, AmTrak, Social Security Administration, Post Office, etc. are. Oh wait, they're not. It's okay though, 60% of Americans pay Federal Income Taxes; the other 40% are too poor to, but they'll be the ones receiving this benefit at public largesse and won't trouble themselves with whatever future price tag that comes with it. I ponder the thought that the Democrat Party is buying the Public. Hmm... at least 40% of them, and there are enough useful idiots in the other 60% to help ensure Democrat dominance in future elections. If only the milquetoast Republicans could make the argument that this is a theft of Liberty. Oh, forgot, under Bush they created Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Shall we say cheers to the proposed Obama Health Care-Not Plan?

Enough is enough

In this Bloomberg article, "California Democrats Seek Tax Boost as Battle Looms," the title says it all. California Voters rejected the May Ballot initiatives seeking to raise taxes to close the $24 Billion deficit. What were Obama's words, oh yeah, 'I won, so I'm gonna trump you on that." Well, California Voters won and we're going to trump you on that. No new taxes. No raising taxes. Now cut the damn budget. We understand the consequences.

However, I have a proposal. Let's not go through the budget and cut program's budgets in order to keep all current programs. Let's ask ourselves, what do we really need from our State. We pay gas taxes for infrastructure projects. We pay CA State Disability Insurance (Income Tax) in case we get injured on the job. We pay Sales Taxes, soon to be 9.75% in LA County. Some of the money is retained by the State, the other portion is distributed to local and county municipalities for their general budgets. We pay property taxes to pay for public education. What do students need most in order to be educated? Books and teachers. Special, expensive programs or technology should be put on the back burner until revenues increase enough in order to provide for these non-essential expenditures. On and on the process goes.

When the revenues are spent on these essential services, and there's no funding left for projects such as paying five years of welfare benefits to single mothers taking education classes, that's too bad. When our prison system has to cut theatre classes, stop maintaining tennis courts, lose cable TV, that's too damn bad. Our State Legislatures need to provide us with a list of essential priorities and continue to fund those priorities as usual. The non-essential programs have to go until the Economic situation improves to the point we can begin to fund them again. Will our State be worse off without these non-essential programs, absolutely not. It's inexcusable as well to withhold county and local municipality revenues when the State isn't mature enough to control its spending.

One last thing, if our State made itself more competitive by lowering Income Taxes and Sales Taxes; businesses and rich individuals (aka people with disposable income) will move here and help create jobs, thus boost our sagging economy. As long as Politicians' focus is to hose the productive segment of Society for the benefit of the not-so-productive segment of Society; the productive segment will vanish.

Herr Charles "Joseph Göbbels" Gibson

I wrote my two US Senators and my US House of Representative the following:

"'Prescription for America' by Charlie Gibson will be hosted on June 24, 2009 in the Blue Room of the White House. It's my understanding that this will be a one-sided debate about National Health Care in America. As a Capitalist, I'm opposed to any Socialist remedy that taxes one segment of our Society to provide a benefit for another segment of Society. It's becoming blatantly apparent that Network News and most Cable News Networks are Propaganda Organs for the Obama Administration. I encourage you to stand up for a debate on ideas and end this ridiculous media circus; or is it that Charlie Gibson is the Joseph Goebbels of this Administration?"

Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (wikipedia). Though Charlie Gibson is not a Cabinet Member or Politician, he serves the Administration by promoting its cause. In this case, National Health Care. It's not just unfair that this is a propaganda piece for the Administration, it's disingenuous on the issue of rectifying our Health Care system. The Obama Administration has not only defined the problem, it's proposed the only acceptable cure. The solution isn't a ghastly new Federal Bureaucracy such as what Obama proposes either. However, how are we going to have a genuine debate over this issue when a major Network News channel is acting like the mouthpiece for this Administration? Goebbels and Hitler believed that if you told a big enough lie, the public would believe it through public credulity. National Health Care is that lie.

It has begun

In this Wall Street Journal article by Deborah Solomon and Damian Paletta, they stated, "The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money" while at the same time "House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government's ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company's viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy."

"This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation." In February, President Obama "said executive pay helped lead to a 'reckless culture and a quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn helped to wreak havoc in our financial system.'"

Free market principles in banking allow bankers, investors and borrowers to take risk in order to create wealth. The borrower needs money for a business idea, the investor gives the bank the money needed to make loans, and the bank charges interest to the borrower in order to make a profit and pay interest back to the investor. In order for this system to work, incentives need to exist for people to choose this career.

If Doctors were paid one billion a year, everyone would clamor to be a doctor, however the limited school facilities that provide the education one needs to become a doctor would create a system where many compete for the few seats available. Conversely, if doctors were capped at $50,000 a year, we could accurately predict the demise of our health care industry as doctors would leave it and individuals not suited to practice medicine would become doctors.

Now analogize this to our financial industry. The best and brightest seize advantage of the few best business schools we have in this country in order to get the best advantage to work for a financial firm or other business in order to make a ton of money. That's their reward. However, this Administration is taking away the incentive people will have to choose this career. This Administration has an absolute failure of understanding how the free market works.

This is also clear in their ad nauseum arguments that this financial crises was somehow created solely by Wall Street greed. In a previous paragraph, three people are needed; borrowers, investors and creditors (banks). The Administration is currently blaming the creditors for the financial disaster without looking at the other two legs in this three legged stool. This entire event was precipitated by one group of people, the borrowers. There would have been no collateral debt obligations (CDO's) to be had if there were no loans to back them up. The unscrupulous lending of money to sub-prime borrowers was made possible only because of socially engineered policies like the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 (Carter Administration) and Bill Clinton directing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to incur more sub-prime debt.

The solution to this financial debacle is not salary caps on bankers. The solution is to ensure that only financially sound individuals are able to take out home mortgage loans. That their incomes be verified. That they be required to put up 10% of the purchase price in order that they have a vested interest in not walking away from their home. When CDO's are collapsing because the sub-prime borrowers are defaulting, that tells you something, and that something has nothing to do with a banker's salary. The free market should be allowed to take its course and the banks that invested heavily in sub-prime mortgages, like Countrywide and IndyMac, should rightly collapse because of their unscrupulous lending practices. The banks should learn the lesson the government is not there to bail them out of their misdeeds; in order that there be an incentive to keep them from making bad loan decisions.

Lastly, it's a laughable statement when Administration officials are making pronouncements they will not be micro-managing banking institutions. Did they not fire the CEO of AIG? Did they not fire the CEO of GM? Did they not cut in half the advertising budget of Chrysler? Did they not force Chrysler into bankruptcy because the Administration did not want to negotiate five cents on the dollar for the hedge funds that were invested in Chrysler? This Administration is acting like that tin pot dictator in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. I shudder to think how this Administration is going to treat Ford Motor Co. when Ford turns out better products and is more profitable without having nefarious government regulations controlling them. I shudder to think what's going to happen to America's Economic prowess as these nefarious government salary compensation regulations come to fruition. Good Bye America, it was great while you lasted.

Time to leave Reagan behind???

The Washington Times has a great article why the Republican Party is doomed. Jeb Bush said, "So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging." He then added, "From the conservative side, it's time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because, you know, things do ebb and flow." Mitt Romney added, "Let's not underestimate the people of America; let's make sure and listen to the people of America ... listen to what they're feeling and get their ideas."

So, here we have a "Listening Tour" hosted by John McCain, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. These four believe the Republican Party, based on their comments, need to redefine its message and create a forward looking platform, as well as listen to the American people. Really? Is that really what the Republicans need to do? I disagree. We had a Republican Party that properly opposed the Clinton Agenda in the 1990's. Americans rewarded the minority leadership with majority status under Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America.' The Republicans kept that majority until 2006. Further losing seats in 2008. Obama did not win by a landslide victory; he received slightly more votes than George Bush did in 2004.

What Republicans are are disenchanted. For six years, Republicans never passed a balanced budget. For six years, Republicans never made permanent the tax cuts that let us keep more of our paycheck. For six years, Republicans let Democrats, the minority, control the agenda in Washington. We allowed Liberals to create airport security protocols which culminated with 80-year old white grandmas being patted down. We watched Republicans in Washington create Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors [I didn't know we were for a massive new spending program that gives Seniors even more of an incentive to vote for government programs]. We watched as the President failed to never come up with a solution to winning in Iraq. We listened to ad nauseum Liberal arguments about how every policy decision would result in failure or some imagined horror and the Bush Administration did nothing to counter those arguments. When Republicans start acting like Democrats, they lose. Ask George H.W. Bush what happened to him when he raised taxes.

It's not that the Republicans need a new message, the proper message is that Conservatism works. However, what Republicans do need is Republican leadership with fortitude and ideological conviction. The problem with the Republican Party is that it's fractured. You have pseudo-Republicans like John McCain who won the Party nomination, and the guy never once challenged Obama on ideological grounds. Being the "Maverick" he "is," he didn't have ideological ground to stand on. How do you challenge a Marxist when you don't have ideological convictions? Let the Republicans move left; let them switch Parties and betray their true convictions like Arlen Spector. Let the Republican Party continue to destroy itself because they lack political conviction and fortitude.

However, let We the People form a new Political Party. A Party whose foundation and ideological conviction is liberty. We don't have liberty when we're tied down with ever increasing taxes and a hand of government that grows heavier by the year. We don't have liberty when we don't have secure borders and our laws are not enforced; that's anarchy. We don't have liberty when Liberals are charging us with hate speech. First Amendment anyone? We don't have liberty when McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Laws prevent us from speaking our minds within 30 or 60 days from an Election. Again, First Amendment anyone? We don't have liberty when government gives criminals the upper hand and law abiding Citizens suffer because of draconian "Assault Weapon Bans" and magazine limitations and bullet restrictions. We don't have freedom of religion when Liberal atheists and secularists strip our public squares of religious displays during Holidays. We need as radical an ideological mindset to counter the radical ideological mindset of this President and his regime. Vote for actual change. Vote for Liberation.

Let this be a Lesson for ya'

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91afc63abb93d5e6768f1eb67b4c5022.a91&show_article=1

"Govt hikes top income tax rate to 50%" in England that is. We already know that European Socialist regimes have high taxes, one needs it when half the population works to support the other half. But I digress. Originally, Chancellor Alistair Darling stated "In November [2008], I announced a new rate of income tax of 45 percent on incomes above 150,000 pounds -- the top one percent of taxpayers" however "In order to help pay for additional support for people now, I have decided that the new rate will be 50 percent and will come in from next April -- a year earlier."

This is hilarious. Not only did he originally propose raising the tax burden by 12.5%, he changed his mind and decided to raise the tax burden by 25% from 40% to 50%. The lesson one can learn is that when Politicians promise a tax increase, be prepared once you've accepted the original rationale, for justification for an even bigger raise. I know Obambi proposed raising our Federal Income Tax burden, but perhaps him and Alistair Darling, two Socialists, think alike? One might recall the greatest threat to Obambi's Candidacy for President was a guy named Joe the Plumber who questioned Obambi's Tax Policy. I think I see a correlation.

Losing our Moral Bearings over...

"harsh methods—waterboarding, face slapping, sleep deprivation and other techniques." My goodness, how immoral of us, simulating drowning, face slapping, sleep deprivation, all in the name of National Security and we're losing our moral bearings because of it. Why, we need to smile more, self-flagellate and tell others how we're sorry for having rescued them from tyranny like we did for Europe during WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Obama said, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." How much more ignorance and naivete can we tolerate? We need change we can believe in; we need a man for a President, not a pussy.

Don't assimilate, Legislate

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/english-only.html

"The state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use."

Another example of a loss of Liberty. Anyone who has traveled to a country that doesn't speak their language, makes do. I wonder how long before a business is sued under this new new law for a violation of a non-Civil Right? We need to change our mentality about laws. I cannot think of the last time Politicians increased our Liberties, rather I see constant usurpation.

Nuclear Disarmament part 2

In this New York Post article by Rich Lowry, he states, "The meme in the press was how the test launch made Obama's disarmament speech all the more "urgent." It really makes it all the more childish and dangerous. In setting the goal of "Global Zero", Obama hitched himself to a project as utopian as President George W. Bush's ambition to end tyranny in the world." He goes on to state, "In fact, they're essentially the same goal. The bipartisan congressional Strategic Posture Review concluded in an interim report that to achieve Global Zero would require a "fundamental transformation of the world political order." All significant geopolitical conflicts would have to end, and all untrustworthy governments disappear. The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government."

This is exactly what I was getting at in my entry from yesterday. Obama's entire plan is predicated on the notion you can force various regimes to comply, and that "immediate consequences" would facilitate the desired aim, nuclear disarmament. It's Obama's naivete that allows him to believe such a plan could be successful. Yes, the United States could disarm itself, however the consequence would be that any Nation with a nuclear weapon would be in a position to blackmail other countries, including the United States. It does beg the question however, when a "fundamental transformation of the world political order" is needed to achieve nuclear disarmament, if that perhaps is not Obama's goal. "The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government." Is this the white horse leading up to the red horse or what comes after all four horses of the Apocalypse? I haven't figured it out yet.

Nuclear Disarmament

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20903.html

Pres. Obama's naivete is at it again. He now wants a nuclear weapon free world. Who doesn't. However, he said in his speech in Prague the United States is going to implement "concrete steps" towards nuclear arms reduction. That's great and all if ALL other countries go along with reduction treaties and disarmament, however this dork stated "we'll seek an agreement by the end of this year that's legally binding." Binding by who? How do you enforce that? We could not even enforce U.N. Resolutions, six of them, when going after Iraq for possession of chemical and biological weapon programs and the their refusal to allow weapons inspectors to have unfettered access to weapon sites. Does this idiot honestly believe he could force Russia or China to acquiesce their sovereignty to a "legally binding" "agreement"?! This is naive.

He goes on to state that "the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in State nuclear weapons." My God, is that not what Iran is currently doing and what Pres. Bush failed to stop and what Pres. Obama is currently failing to stop? What happens if they build the bomb by the time this treaty is signed? This is reminiscent of the same failure of foresight that occurred in the not too distant past when Pres. Clinton gave North Korea materials that were later used to make a nuclear weapon. History is repeating itself and this megalomaniac thinks he has the power to make the same mistakes and expect a different result. Not only is this naive, he arrogantly believes he'll know what their intention is for the fissile material. Isn't Iran making the argument that enriched uranium is needed for their nuclear power plants? Isn't enriched uranium also a source for nuclear weapons when enriched to a higher grade? What naivete.

His second step is to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by preventing non-nuclear armed Nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, and current nuclear armed nations will "move towards disarmament." "We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections." Again, six UN resolutions did not force Iraq to grant unfettered access to weapon sites. How does he plan on inspecting China and Russia? More importantly, will he grant international inspectors unfettered access to American weapon production sites? It's simply naive. "We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules." Oh, countries like North Korea which recently tested an ICBM. What type of consequence will prevent the insane from insane decisions? Nothing has prevented Iran from further development of its nuclear weapons program. Obama never specifies any consequence, knowing that any consequence will be inconsequential to a country determined to not play by the rules. This is mere international campaign rhetoric. The Demagogue in Chief is at it again and his sheeple are loving it. This man is a jackass.

TARP money Part 2

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

In follow up to last week's blog entry, more information has come to light regarding Pres. Obama's refusal to accept repayment of TARP loans. In the above article by Stuart Varney, he posits that "If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree." He further states, "Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists."

We've already seen this will effected on GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner, AIG's former CEO Martin Sullivan, and because of the precedent set, there's no reason to doubt otherwise we'll see this occur again. Not only that, but we've heard from members of Congress and the President himself that financiers should not make more than $500,000. Don't believe me, the language is contained in "Pay for Performance Act" passed by the House of Representatives. What we're witnessing is the destruction of our financial institutions. Competition is what makes America great. We do NOT believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" How else could one classify the actions of the Obama Administration and his rubber stamp Congress. Number five of the Communist Manifesto states: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." Our National Bank is called the Federal Reserve. By nationalizing our privately held banks, by gaining vested interest in them through purchasing preferred stock options, the centralization of credit in the hands of the Federal Government is under a current ongoing process. Take into account the Obama Administration's actions, and threat of consequences to those banks which want out, it's obvious Obama doesn't want the Government to lose its vested interest. It makes it difficult to conclude otherwise that this Administration wants to control credit lending institutions, in other words to "centralize credit in the hands of the state [government]."

Wake up America. Our God given Liberties are being usurped by a megalomaniac.

TARP money

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html

In this politico article, the second page reveals that some Bank CEO's want to give back their TARP money however the President of the United States, an ignoramus who never had a real job, prescribes the TARP money for the banks like this; "This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle." I didn't know Obama was a banking expert, much like how a Doctor is a health expert. Where does this ignorant arrogance come from? Having a J.D. from Harvard doesn't make one an expert on bank financing. If the actual experts, the CEO's that run these companies, don't want the TARP money anymore, then that's the end of the discussion. When are we going to start the impeachment of this Joke?

If this doesn't make you sick...

This Weekly Standard article by Thomas Joscelyn details an interview with the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, regarding the releasing of Guantanamo Detainees. Not only is the Obama Administration closing down our Detention Facility in Cuba, they're releasing the Prisoners. Not only are they releasing them, they're releasing them here in the United States! Not only here in the United States, but they're paying them a stipend! THIS IS MY MONEY! YOU'RE TAXING ME LEFT AND RIGHT, UP AND DOWN, IN AND OUT, UPSIDE DOWN AND RIGHTSIDE UP AND YOU'RE GIVING MY MONEY TO AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!?! YOU'RE A TRAITOR! A DAMNED JUDAS ISCARIOT! YOU'RE GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO A SWORN ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY!!! THIS IS TREASON!!!

The Second American Revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk

If YouTube takes this one off their site, just search the subject to view the video. It should feature Thomas Paine, the man who wrote Common Sense. Liberate our Republic!

Thank God for 2nd Amendment

In this Miami Herald article, an armed Robber is shot and killed by an armed customer at a Burger King in Miami. Thankfully, the armed customer had a concealed weapon permit allowing him to exercise his Right to Bear Arms, otherwise who knows how quickly he would have been viciously attacked by a Liberal, verbally that is, because we know Liberals are pacifists.

More seriously, this goes to show why we have a Right to Bear Arms to begin with. The Founders were prescient enough to know that if a Citizen does not have access to a legitimate form of self-defense, the criminal will, and thus have an advantage. We love European anti-gun policies, but even they have gun crimes. Germany, Canada and Switzerland have gun-murder rates of .005 per 1,000 compared to the US rate of .03 per 1,000 [source]. We have six times as many gun-murders committed than those three countries. Without getting into the details of how the FBI defines gun-murders [whether a gun was used or not, if one was present it's defined as such], let's go with the facts:

• Germany limits gun-ownership to members of shooting clubs.
• Canada limits gun ownership to hunters, collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives.
• Switzerland however has one of the highest gun-ownership rates in the world [46 guns per 100] due to the fact every male is a member of the militia [Switzerland has no standing Army].

So one can logically conclude from these three countries that restricting gun ownership like Canada and Germany will have the same effect on gun-murder rates as one of the highest gun ownership countries in the world like Switzerland. I call that an impasse. However, it's been shown in Florida, when it adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987, that between 1987 and 1996:

• homicide rate declined by 36%
• homicide rate [with a firearm] declined 37%
• homicide rate [with handgun] declined 41%

I would postulate that if Right-to-Carry laws were implemented in all 50 states, we would see a further decline in homicide rates and homicde rates with firearms. "An Armed Society, is a Polite Society." -Robert A. Heinlein

The second benefit of owning firearms, is that owning a firearm guarantees your other Liberties. Benjamin Franklin said those that would give up a little Liberty for a little Security deserve neither. Our check against a despot is grounded on the fact we have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. It's such a naive argument to state that in the United States we would never have to worry about a despot coming to power or to worry about a coup d'etat, it's not worth my time to argue against it, so long as we have the Right to Bear Arms.

James Madison thought it prudent as well in Federalist Paper 46, "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Free Speech???

In this Breitbart article, the "Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether government regulation of a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton might also be used to ban books critical of political hopefuls during election season."

So John McCain, twice Presidential Candidate, a so-called Republican, proposed legislation titled McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Part of that legislation limits individual contributions to $2,000 for a political candidate; and "regulates" communication "60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention."

I question OUT LOUD the usurpation of "Congress shall make no law [] abridging the freedom of speech." Abridge defined by Random House Dictionary means to shorten; diminish; or curtail. So, McCain-Feingold was a piece of Federal Legislation, that curtailed your ability, my ability, every American's ability, to publicly "communicate" "60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention."

My anger at even having the Supreme Court hear this case stems from James Madison's warning to us, in Federalist Paper 84 "go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

It's absurd to even have this discussion about the exact power the Federal Government has to abridge our Freedom of Speech when they have no power to regulate it to begin with! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It's quintessential to understand where our Rights come and then to logically conclude that the only Being capable of curtailing any Right is the Being that bestowed it. If our Rights are from our Creator, then what man is capable of taking one away? Answer that question. Then ask yourself, why is it that we continually allow Republicans and Democrats to infringe upon our Rights?

President Obama's Treasury Secretary is already asking for an unfettered Right to seize any financial institution based on consent from the President and 2/3 of the Federal Reserve Board. Read this Washington Post article. Where did that Right come from? Government seizures of private assets for public control is nothing short of fascism. Soon, President Obama will launch an attack on our other Rights, such as the Right to Bear Arms. Telling us to give up a little Liberty for a little Security. Will the People will acquiesce? I won't. Liberate our Republic!

This illegal immigrant boasts how his hands built someone's home. Did it ever occur to him, or his sympathizers, that an American could have done it just as well if he didn't undercut American wages? After all, who would hire me and pay Social Security taxes at 6.2%, Medicare taxes at 1.2%, CA SDI insurance at 0.5%, etc. when they can hire an immigrant and pay him $10 an hour cash? I wouldn't hire an American either if my business was construction and I was looking to maximize my profits. I bring this up because it was in the news today that Obama met with Congressional Hispanic Caucus members, I guess being an American isn't on their agenda, and I can only guess what "reforms" we're going to experience in the near future.

I have an idea though. I'm not one to just complain. In fact I have a few ideas. The first is to seal the border with National Guard Troops, and put the US Army there as well. I've read too many articles lately describing the chaos occurring in Mexico because of the drug cartels murdering each other and bystanders and the officials that get in their way. Second, build a permanent barrier, with access roads, watch towers, seismic sensors, etc. that will help facilitate physical control over the border situation as well as delineate the border between the US and Mexico so as an additional benefit the Mexican military can stop violating our sovereignty. Third, institute first time offense penalties of $100,000 per illegal immigrant found employed by a business, with second offense penalties of $250,000 per illegal immigrant found employed by a business, and a third offense being the seizure of the company's assets which would then be liquidated and the proceeds given to the United States Department of Treasury. Fourth, grant a six-month grace period for all illegal immigrants to have an opportunity to extricate themselves from the United States and return to their home country without prosecution, after which point, any illegal immigrant found in this country will be automatically deported without habeaus corpus and will be barred from re-entry for five years, and permanently barred from ever being eligible for work or student visas, and most especially never be qualified for naturalization. I know it sounds tough, but our laws are our laws and choosing to reward these illegal immigrants is to state we're for lawlessness.

Fed continues to devalue Dollar

I wrote in my blog last week that the Federal Reserve had probably put $2 Trillion into the Economy, well here is the first article I've read, other than mere speculation, that states exactly that. This is from the International Herald Tribune, and unfortunately the Federal Reserve doesn't plan to stop at $2 Trillion, because it's also announced in the beginning of the article that the Federal Reserve will dump another Trillion dollars into the Economy by purchasing mortgage backed securities. So the destruction of our currency continues, with $3 Trillion in Federal Reserve created inflation, $2,467 Billion in deficit expenditure by Obama and 750 Billion TARP dollars by Bush. So what happens when $6.2 TRILLION is put into a $13.5 Trillion Economy? This is an artificial increase of 46%. Chaos is my speculation, because the Lower and Middle Classes will be able to afford NOTHING when these inflationary expenditures enter our economy.

Violation of Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

This CNS News article states that 22 soldiers from Ft. Rucker, Alabama were sent to Samson, Alabama to help with traffic control. Posse Comitatus specifically forbids US Military Personnel from operating on non-Federal land (aka anything other than a Military Base). Ignorance permeates our society and allows these abrogations of our laws to go on without even simple recognition. It's no wonder Democrats and Republicans can continue their unscrupulous behavior.

ONE TRILLION DOLLARS

The picture is of one trillion dollars. See the man to the bottom left? See the double stacked pallets of $100 bills? Now imagine what 11x that amount is, and that's getting an idea how much the US Govt. owes because of our National Debt.

Bush created TARP at a cost of $750 billion, Obama created an Economic Stimulus Plan at $787 billion, Omnibus at $41o billion with approximately 9,000 earmarks, a proposed budget of $3.6 trillion, with deficit expenditures approximated at $1.2 trillion, don't forget the $275 billion for attempting to fix the housing market, $240 billion in bailout money for AIG alone, and who knows how many hundreds of billions the Federal Reserve has given banks since late last year (some say $2 trillion even). With what we do know however, Obama has helped rack up $3.7 trillion in debt and that f'er has been in office not even two months

Our Economy is being destroyed by debt. Our liberties are being usurped as a result. Had we maintained fiscal responsibility, there wouldn't be a National Debt. Had we maintained a Federal Republic like the Founders created, the Federal Govt. would have been incapable of extracting this wealth from us. The socialism that exists in this country wouldn't exist if the original tax structure remained in place, appropriating taxes, because the States would have had a voice in preventing such a burdensome inequality via their representation in the US Senate. In Federalist Paper No. 63. James Madison wrote:

"Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?"

How perfect what James Madison wrote over 221 years ago describing our current situation. WHAT PRESCIENCE!!! The people demand taxes to take money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the lower classes. Logic would have prevailed when the lower classes realized this meant lower wages and higher unemployment. The bankers demand bailouts to prevent the banking system from collapsing. Logic would have prevailed when people realized their hard earned money would go to banks with unscrupulous lending practices. The people facing foreclosure demand to be saved from foreclosure when they bought homes they couldn't afford. Logic would have prevailed when the prudent realized their greedy neighbor would stay in the home he couldn't afford courtesy of their paycheck. The Federal Reserve, the creator of inflation in this country, would never have been created when logic prevailed and the States realized more taxes would be collected to pay interest to print our own money!

The Federal Reserve, a non-government entity created by the banking establishment in 1913 at Jekyll Island, prints our money and charges us interest. I reported in a previous blog we currently owe nearly $1 trillion in interest to the Federal Reserve. We owe a remainder of $10 trillion plus interest to possessors of US Treasury Debt Bonds (China, Japan, Europe, etc.). Continuing to rack up debt, plus the interest, will very soon make us insolvent (incapable of repaying debt). With the current policy of dumping credit into the market to stimulate economic growth, thus increasing our debt burden, we're delaying the inevitable market correction that must take place and will take place. As Ludwig von Mises stated, "The alternative is only whether the crises should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

With Democrats in charge that only know how to take income from one set of society and distribute it to another undeserving set of society, their incompetence thus prevents them from solving this situation or even having the capability to do so. We're witnessing the effects of their stupidity with $3 trillion in new debt since Obama took office. Republicans lost their right to manage this country after six years of deficit expenditure under Bush, doubling our National Debt to $10 trillion, and the socialist Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Neither Party has thus shown an ability to correct our current credit fueled Economy.

The Founders in their wisdom created a Federal Govt. with appropriated taxes and State Representation in the Senate in order to keep the Federal Government financially in check. Is it any wonder then that after abandoning that setup in 1912, with the advent of the 17th Amendment, that America has since suffered Economically via inflation. Before FDR, the only time there was debt was during the Civil War when Lincoln took the dollar off the gold standard, creating the "greenback." From 1800 to after 1900, there was 0% inflation in this country. Since the Federal Reserve was created, our dollar has lost 99% of its value because of inflation. Since the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the Federal Govt. has managed to rack up a debt burden equating 82% of our GDP from a debt burden of 0%.

If you think putting your money into a Savings Account is going to keep you above inflation, you're ignorant. Not only will a bank never pay you more than 'true' inflation [true because the Govt. picks and chooses what goes into the inflation calculation], whatever interest you make on your deposit will be taxed with Federal and State Income Taxes thus indirectly and directly taking away your wealth year after year. There was a point in time in this country when Benjamin Franklin's adage, "A penny saved, is a penny earned" meant something, but with inflation and taxes that penny isn't worth a penny next year.

It's time to end the ignorance. It's time to stop the apathy. Things are the way they are because of apathy, and when you tell yourself there's nothing you can do, you're contributing to the apathy. We need a government that respects our contract with it, that doesn't infringe on our liberties, that doesn't usurp our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's time to Liberate our Republic!!! It's time to throw out the Republicans and Democrats! It's no longer a debate about how big or how small, it's about how much government is needed. It's time to vote for Liberation!!!

If I made $500,000...

How much would I be liable for in taxes for 2008 if I were self-employed and single?

$ 153,597 Federal Income Taxes
$ 44,305 CA State Income Taxes
$ 12,648 Social Security Taxes 12.4% on $102,000
$ 2,958 Medicare Taxes 2.9% on 102,000
$ 997 CA SDI Taxes

Total taxes so far are $214,505.

Let's say I buy a house, and keep my mortgage to 1/3 of my monthly take-home income, I could afford a house that costs $1.2 million. However, I would have to pay 1% property tax, which is another $12,000 a year in taxes.

So effectively on just those six taxes, the Government has gobbled up 45.3% of my income. If I spent every dime I had buying items that had sales taxes, the Government would get their paws on another 8.25% of my money for a total Government taking of 53.55%. This is a Government that does nothing for me as a taxpayer other than provide a military. The rest of the Government is about socialist redistribution of my wealth to individuals that don't work for it. 60% of all people in this country that work pay Federal Income Taxes, the other 40% that work don't pay Federal Income Taxes. Is it any wonder the Democrats continue to win elections and make themselves relevant by promising at least 40% of Americans more socialist handouts?

It makes me sick that people expect the Government to take care of them because they never stop for one second to consider the Government doesn't do a damn thing for them except take money from someone else and give it to them. This is the epitome of selfishness. If charity is a virtue, then allow me to be charitable with MY MONEY, and allow me the decision to where MY MONEY is going. The Government has no business whatsoever taking MY MONEY and giving it someone else. This is another usurpation of my Liberty by this Government.

An argument oft heard by me from Liberals is that you can afford it. Is that really the point? If it is, then my question to Liberals is what amount should each of us be given then to live off then because the rest of the money should just be given to the Government to be determined how it should be spent. I think I've heard of this concept before, and in fact if I'm not mistaken, it's called Communism. Now does Communism work? Is there any evidence in history of it having worked? It's rather remarkable that the only self-admitted Communist country in this world that has outstanding Economic growth indices is China, and what did China do to achieve the robust growth it's experiencing? It deregulated it's market, adopted free-market principles, etc. Isn't it curious then that a Communist country has accepted the notion that when people are given even just a little bit of incentive to work harder and the reward being they can keep the wealth they help create, that even a Communist country like China can succeed and experience robust Economic growth.

My question then is, why has this bastard President of ours, Barack Hussein Obama, declared Capitalism dead? We need to Liberate our Republic from this oppressive tyranny starting by creating a Party which cherishes the Liberty of the Individual. The Republicans had their chance under Bush to show us what a Republican President with a Republican controlled Legislature could accomplish, and they could only create more socialism calling it Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors and double the National Debt saddling us and future generations with an even weaker Dollar. We know from history the only thing Democrats can do best is destroy our Liberties and saddle us with even more debt and fandangle anything their unscrupulous paws touch. Liberate the Republic!

Assault Weapon Ban to return

In his line of logic, the new US Attorney General, Eric Holder, stated that one of the aims of reinstituting the AWB is to cut the illicit flow of firearms into Mexico. So let me get this straight. Mexico won't curtail its own citizens from entering the US, but we should curtail the flow of weapons into Mexico by banning 'assault weapons,' in other words, our Rights as Citizens of this country will be infringed so that the drug cartels in Mexico will have less access to semi-automatic rifles. This is stupid. The law of supply vs. demand states that the price of an assault weapon will only increase, and for a drug cartel which sells hundreds of millions of dollars a year in drugs, will it even matter if the price of an AR-15 doubles to $2,000 each? No, it doesn't matter to them. But to the American citizen that wants that rifle, it will be illegal for him to buy one. I want that Tea Party.

Tax and Spend Liberal

So Obama signed off on a $787 BILLION spending bill, and Democrats are proposing another $410 BILLION to make up for Bush "cuts" in Federal funding, and now Obama proposes $989 BILLION, $11 billion shy of $1 TRILLION in TAX INCREASES! What was it that Conservatives said about Obama during the Campaign, oh yeah, that he would raise taxes and spend money he doesn't have. I guess they were right but the Proletariat masses and Bourgeoisie Liberals were too enamoured to allow facts to matter. When is that Tea Party anyways? We need to Liberate our Republic from the Liberal usurpation of our Liberties.

Bye Bye 2nd Amendment

Go to the link and check this House Resolution out. Our Liberties are being taken away. Wake up people! Liberate our Republic from the tyranny that is about to be set upon us!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45&tab=summary

House Resolution 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

"Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act..."


The 2nd Amendment is very clear on this issue, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no restricting this right, that would be an infringement. This act is a gross infringement on our basic Liberty, an usurpation, and even worse is Unconstitutional. There should be nothing but outrage over this Bill, any Congressperson that supports this is a Traitor and should suffer a Traitor's fate. There is no compromise when it comes to Liberty. Any person that would trade a little Liberty for a little safety, deserves neither. Our Founding Fathers commanded use to overthrow the government when its usurpation of our Liberties are too great to bear. Liberate our Republic!

Democrat Cronyism

In this New York Post article, NY Gov. Patterson raised some personal assistants salaries by as much as 46%, and other friends in his Administration with a minimum of 5%. This is after he cut the salaries of 130,000 State workers by 3%. In all, he gave approximately $250,000 to personal assistants and friends in his Administration. Corruption much anyone? Liberate our Republic, just another example of why it should be done.

US to give $900 million to Gaza

So the Israelis bombed the Gaza strip because the Palestinians for years launched mortar rounds and rockets into Israel sometimes killing innocent Israeli civilians. In the process of Israel retaliating against the Palestinian bombardment, hordes of weapon caches were destroyed along with some worthless Palestinian terrorists and of course the buildings and such that Palestinians stored their weapon caches in. Apparently Pres. Obama wants to give $900 million of my money, your money and other taxpayers money to Gaza residents to help rebuild Gaza. I can see how charity is a great thing, but I'm the one that should make the decision where my money goes and I oppose being taxed so that my money can be given to someone else that some Politician in Washington thinks is more deserving of my money than me. What irritates me even more is that I know this money is going to go into the hands of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc. just like when it went straight into Yasser Arafat's pockets when he was in charge. This is just another reason why I don't believe in foreign aid. Democrats and Republicans both don't mind taxing me to give my money to others, a distinction without a difference if you will, and it's another reason why we need to Liberate our Republic from the Democrats and Republicans.