What next? Has everything gone nuts these days?
This is from Ron Paul -
Dear Friend of Liberty,Trillions of dollars are being stolen from the U.S. taxpayer. Right now, you and I are seeing the worst plundering of a country’s wealth in the history of civilization, led by an out of control Federal Reserve. But together you and I CAN put a stop to it all.
With your help (including submitting the petition linked below to your Congressman and Senators) today, Representative Ron Paul, Senator Jim DeMint and Campaign for Liberty are ready to fight back, by taking the battle straight to the heart of the problem – the Federal Reserve itself. Just think about the scope of the problem for a minute: The massive, outrageous amount of dollars committed to the economic bailouts in recent months totals: More than the socialist New Deal ... More than the entire Iraq debacle ... More than the 1980’s savings and loan mess ... More than the Korean War ... COMBINED.
When will it all end? It’s time you and I put a stop to a renegade Federal Reserve by exposing the Fed's out of control actions to the American people. And Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Jim DeMint have a bill before Congress to do just that, known as the "Audit the Fed" Bill (HR 1207 and S 604).
That’s why it’s vital you click here to submit your “Audit the Fed” petition in support of Congressman Paul’s bill.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Liberals See Free Speech As Hateful Right Wing Criticsim
Liberty and our basic American freedoms are under attack by the Marxist Left Democrats.
Obama just signed the new Hate Crimes bill that will be used as a 'hate speech' platform to attack anyone that has an opinion that is contrary to the liberal left.
The Marxist liberals will use this new bill to equate free speech as a crime.
Is this a stretch? I don't believe it is as the "New Progressive Liberal Socialist Party", formerly liberal Democrats, will use anything, no matter how off base or unconstitutional it is, to stop any criticism of their power grab.
Michelle Malkin is on top of this. Now we have to follow her lead by staying alert in our own communities. We are being attacked from all sides.
Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob<http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/28/obamas-fcc-liberal-churches-and-the-media-justice-mob/>By Michelle Malkin • October 28, 2009 04:59 AM
My syndicated column today (reprinted below) probes the FCC/left-wing church alliance to silence conservative critics of illegal immigration through “hate speech” regulation.
Tip of the iceberg.
criticism
Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator first broke <http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print> the story of how United Church of Christ officials met <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/20/open-a-notice-of-inquiry-into-hate-speech-in-the-media/> with kindred spirit/FCC Commissioner Michael Copps earlier this month before launching a nationwide campaign to pressure the FCC to crack down on cable TV and talk radio figures.
The motto of the “So We Might See” anti-”hate speech” campaign is: “Without media justice, there will be no social justice!” <http://media.gfem.org/node/10437> The same Marx-loving “social justice” crowd is behind the “media justice” <http://centerformediajustice.org/> mob — including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Media Democracy Fund, and Media Matters; the Ford Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; etc., etc., etc. Their goal: government redistribution of media wealth. <http://mediajusticehistoryproject.org/wordpress/archives/category/resource-list#I>
As “The Media Justice Fund” <http://www.fex.org/content/index.php?pid=51>put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” And there’s that phrase “transformative change” <again" target=_blank>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22transformative+change%22+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>again:
* Media change of all kinds must expose and directly confront the mechanics of structural racism and systemic oppression.
* Leaders from historically marginalized communities must be developed as effective media activists and strategic movement communicators.
* Media policy advocacy and strategic communications are more effective when clearly relevant to the primary justice issues of the movement for racial justice, economic and gender equity, and youth rights.
* Compelling communications and media activism campaigns must be both rooted in critical issues and coordinated across issue, sector, and region for national impact.
* When justice sectors strengthen communications strategies, center the use of culture as a communications tool, employ winning frames and messages, and strengthen their influence over media rules and rights, the possibilities for transformative change skyrocket. <http://centerformediajustice.org/home/about/our-framework/>
“Transformative change” = a media landscape purged of the Right’s most powerful voices.
The White House communications shop <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/14/whos-behind-the-white-house-war-on-fox-news/> gives two thumbs up, no doubt.***How the FCC and liberal churches are scheming to shut you upby Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate <http://www.creators.com/>Copyright 2009
The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on “hate speech” over cable TV and right-leaning talk radio airwaves. President Obama’s speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.
Over the past week, an outfit called “So We Might See” <http://www.uccfiles.com/swms/>has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” – specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.” Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions on illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?
The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. <http://www.ucc.org/> Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright <http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/17/jeremiah-wrights-greatest-hits/>.
Other members <http://www.uccfiles.com/swms/> include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the National Council of Churches. (The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has denied <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17495> being a part of the campaign, despite being listed as a coalition member. So has the Methodist <http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/27/methodists-rebuke-soros-on-hat> church.)
These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/>, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment, and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.
Open-borders groups <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/support.html> have sought to marginalize, criminalize, and demonize <http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/04/john-mccain-la-razas-voice-in-washington/> those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement — and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/10/la-raza-lobbyist-gets-ethics-waiver/> on illegal alien amnesty opponents.
During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” <http://www.wecanstopthehate.org/> project to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” La Raza president Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to the NYTimes <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/a-call-to-end-hate-speech/>.
Now, the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House – and they won’t let him forget it. Their FCC petition <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/news/1_30_09.html>calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling the airwaves.” <http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/media_justice/hispanic_media_coalition_wants0105>
Unsurprisingly, far Left billionaire George Soros’s money <http://media.gfem.org/node/10437> is backing <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/support.html> the “So We Might See”/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd. <http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15219>
Last week, United Church of Christ officials met privately with Obama FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in advance of the “So We Might See” campaign. Copps then delivered a lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church <http://www.ucc.org/media-justice/parker-lecture/> in New York City, expressing solidarity with the liberal church leaders’ goals and egging <http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/speeches2009.html> the congregants to take action on “media reform: ”We are taking huge risks with our democracy. We need to change that and we need to do it now. We need to get a grip on what’s happening and we need to fix it.”
Jeffrey Lord, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, reported <http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print> in the American Spectator that not long after that speech, the UCC sent out a mass e-mail to its millions of members urging them to join the nationwide fast and regulatory drive. The church-state alliance missive directed its followers: “As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.”No word on when they’ll be launching an inquiry into the fear-based, fact-free “hate speech” from the mouth of Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/27/alan-grayson-obamas-paragon-of-congressional-virtue/>, who accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly,” likened health care problems to the “Holocaust,” and attacked an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.”
Or when they’ll be going after MSNBC and Air America radio hate-mongers who have openly wished on their airwaves for the deaths of George W. Bush <http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/27/air-americas-assassination-chic/>, Rush Limbaugh <http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-violent-rhetoric-from-libtalker.html>, and Glenn Beck. <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/06/liberal-talker-mike-malloy-hopes-glenn-beck-commits-suicide>
But I digress. In the age of Obama, the targets of /left-wing/ hate speech don’t have a prayer.
Posted in: Fairness Doctrine <http://michellemalkin.com/category/fairness-doctrine/>
Obama just signed the new Hate Crimes bill that will be used as a 'hate speech' platform to attack anyone that has an opinion that is contrary to the liberal left.
The Marxist liberals will use this new bill to equate free speech as a crime.
Is this a stretch? I don't believe it is as the "New Progressive Liberal Socialist Party", formerly liberal Democrats, will use anything, no matter how off base or unconstitutional it is, to stop any criticism of their power grab.
Michelle Malkin is on top of this. Now we have to follow her lead by staying alert in our own communities. We are being attacked from all sides.
Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob<http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/28/obamas-fcc-liberal-churches-and-the-media-justice-mob/>By Michelle Malkin • October 28, 2009 04:59 AM
My syndicated column today (reprinted below) probes the FCC/left-wing church alliance to silence conservative critics of illegal immigration through “hate speech” regulation.
Tip of the iceberg.
criticism
Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator first broke <http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print> the story of how United Church of Christ officials met <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/20/open-a-notice-of-inquiry-into-hate-speech-in-the-media/> with kindred spirit/FCC Commissioner Michael Copps earlier this month before launching a nationwide campaign to pressure the FCC to crack down on cable TV and talk radio figures.
The motto of the “So We Might See” anti-”hate speech” campaign is: “Without media justice, there will be no social justice!” <http://media.gfem.org/node/10437> The same Marx-loving “social justice” crowd is behind the “media justice” <http://centerformediajustice.org/> mob — including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Media Democracy Fund, and Media Matters; the Ford Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; etc., etc., etc. Their goal: government redistribution of media wealth. <http://mediajusticehistoryproject.org/wordpress/archives/category/resource-list#I>
As “The Media Justice Fund” <http://www.fex.org/content/index.php?pid=51>put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” And there’s that phrase “transformative change” <again" target=_blank>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22transformative+change%22+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>again:
* Media change of all kinds must expose and directly confront the mechanics of structural racism and systemic oppression.
* Leaders from historically marginalized communities must be developed as effective media activists and strategic movement communicators.
* Media policy advocacy and strategic communications are more effective when clearly relevant to the primary justice issues of the movement for racial justice, economic and gender equity, and youth rights.
* Compelling communications and media activism campaigns must be both rooted in critical issues and coordinated across issue, sector, and region for national impact.
* When justice sectors strengthen communications strategies, center the use of culture as a communications tool, employ winning frames and messages, and strengthen their influence over media rules and rights, the possibilities for transformative change skyrocket. <http://centerformediajustice.org/home/about/our-framework/>
“Transformative change” = a media landscape purged of the Right’s most powerful voices.
The White House communications shop <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/14/whos-behind-the-white-house-war-on-fox-news/> gives two thumbs up, no doubt.***How the FCC and liberal churches are scheming to shut you upby Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate <http://www.creators.com/>Copyright 2009
The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on “hate speech” over cable TV and right-leaning talk radio airwaves. President Obama’s speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.
Over the past week, an outfit called “So We Might See” <http://www.uccfiles.com/swms/>has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” – specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.” Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions on illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?
The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. <http://www.ucc.org/> Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright <http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/17/jeremiah-wrights-greatest-hits/>.
Other members <http://www.uccfiles.com/swms/> include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the National Council of Churches. (The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has denied <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17495> being a part of the campaign, despite being listed as a coalition member. So has the Methodist <http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/27/methodists-rebuke-soros-on-hat> church.)
These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/>, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment, and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.
Open-borders groups <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/support.html> have sought to marginalize, criminalize, and demonize <http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/04/john-mccain-la-razas-voice-in-washington/> those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement — and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/10/la-raza-lobbyist-gets-ethics-waiver/> on illegal alien amnesty opponents.
During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” <http://www.wecanstopthehate.org/> project to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” La Raza president Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to the NYTimes <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/a-call-to-end-hate-speech/>.
Now, the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House – and they won’t let him forget it. Their FCC petition <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/news/1_30_09.html>calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling the airwaves.” <http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/media_justice/hispanic_media_coalition_wants0105>
Unsurprisingly, far Left billionaire George Soros’s money <http://media.gfem.org/node/10437> is backing <http://www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org/support.html> the “So We Might See”/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd. <http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15219>
Last week, United Church of Christ officials met privately with Obama FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in advance of the “So We Might See” campaign. Copps then delivered a lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church <http://www.ucc.org/media-justice/parker-lecture/> in New York City, expressing solidarity with the liberal church leaders’ goals and egging <http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/speeches2009.html> the congregants to take action on “media reform: ”We are taking huge risks with our democracy. We need to change that and we need to do it now. We need to get a grip on what’s happening and we need to fix it.”
Jeffrey Lord, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, reported <http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print> in the American Spectator that not long after that speech, the UCC sent out a mass e-mail to its millions of members urging them to join the nationwide fast and regulatory drive. The church-state alliance missive directed its followers: “As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.”No word on when they’ll be launching an inquiry into the fear-based, fact-free “hate speech” from the mouth of Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson <http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/27/alan-grayson-obamas-paragon-of-congressional-virtue/>, who accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly,” likened health care problems to the “Holocaust,” and attacked an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.”
Or when they’ll be going after MSNBC and Air America radio hate-mongers who have openly wished on their airwaves for the deaths of George W. Bush <http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/27/air-americas-assassination-chic/>, Rush Limbaugh <http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-violent-rhetoric-from-libtalker.html>, and Glenn Beck. <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/06/liberal-talker-mike-malloy-hopes-glenn-beck-commits-suicide>
But I digress. In the age of Obama, the targets of /left-wing/ hate speech don’t have a prayer.
Posted in: Fairness Doctrine <http://michellemalkin.com/category/fairness-doctrine/>
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Global Warming IS a Religion : New Green Religious Fanatics
Most all people that can think on their own know that if the liberal Democrats are pushing something and have to lie to get their point across, it's not good for us and in fact it will be a disaster by all accounts. The new, or no so new, Greens are a Fascist religious cult that sees all things that make this country great as a detriment to the environment.
Their vision is to destroy all things American, new or expansive so they, as leaders of the Fascist Green cult, can remake the country as it was 150 years ago. Obama is just waiting the wings to see how this will play out so when the time is right, he can make his move to step in to implement his agenda along with the Greens.
Make no mistake, the liberals will do what ever it takes to get what they want to get and keep power - we just have to make sure they don't succeed.
The Heritage Foundation is doing their part with this article. Now we must follow through as well by staying alert to all of the moves by those that want to do us harm.
Keep the faith
Debunking the Left on global warming
More than 6,000 groups in 27 different countries tuned in Sunday to watch The Heritage Foundation's premiere of Not Evil, Just Wrong, a feature-length documentary countering global warming hysteria and explaining the dangerous consequences of the Left's environmental policies.
» Learn more about the film and watch the two-minute trailer.
Not Evil, Just Wrong illustrates on film what Heritage experts have been telling lawmakers, the media and the American people about global warming legislation: these new regulations will impose a huge burden on the economy.
New Heritage research drives the point home. Writing on Heritage's blog, the Foundry, Heritage expert Nick Lorris details important new studies finding that "far more jobs would be destroyed than green jobs created, households will lose income, and the economy as a whole will be operating $9.4 trillion under its potential from 2012-2035 -- all because of cap and trade."
The documentary puts a human face on the widespread job losses resulting from climate change legislation, which would pummel critical American industries that depend on traditional energy sources. And it sheds light on the harmful policies that burden people and industry in exchange for little or no environmental benefit.
Joining the expert panel at the Heritage premiere, director Ann McElhinney explained why she sought to counter the Left with Not Evil, Just Wrong:
They don't allow us to teach religion in the public schools of America . . . but there is a religion being taught and it's not based on anything factual. It's a green religion . . . This is not good. It's a religion that hates America . . . and anyone who ignores it is ignoring it at their own peril.
The panel discussion, moderated by journalist Andrew Breitbart, also included MIT meteorology researcher Richard Lindzen; medical researcher Donald Roberts; and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.
» Watch a video of the panel discussion on MyHeritage.org.
While each panelist offered a different perspective, each defended the same, sound conclusion: "There's a right way and a wrong way to protect the environment. Americans are completely capable of being good stewards of the environment without the government telling us how or why."
Instead of undermining American prosperity and free enterprise by enacting radical environmental regulations, Congress should work to diversify our energy sources. These new sources include expanded domestic oil production, nuclear energy, coal and renewable fuels.
Heritage experts argue that lawmakers should craft "policies that will lower gas and electricity prices rather than raise them. When government impediments are lifted, America's energy entrepreneurs can develop innovative and market-driven solutions to our energy needs."
Their vision is to destroy all things American, new or expansive so they, as leaders of the Fascist Green cult, can remake the country as it was 150 years ago. Obama is just waiting the wings to see how this will play out so when the time is right, he can make his move to step in to implement his agenda along with the Greens.
Make no mistake, the liberals will do what ever it takes to get what they want to get and keep power - we just have to make sure they don't succeed.
The Heritage Foundation is doing their part with this article. Now we must follow through as well by staying alert to all of the moves by those that want to do us harm.
Keep the faith
Debunking the Left on global warming
More than 6,000 groups in 27 different countries tuned in Sunday to watch The Heritage Foundation's premiere of Not Evil, Just Wrong, a feature-length documentary countering global warming hysteria and explaining the dangerous consequences of the Left's environmental policies.
» Learn more about the film and watch the two-minute trailer.
Not Evil, Just Wrong illustrates on film what Heritage experts have been telling lawmakers, the media and the American people about global warming legislation: these new regulations will impose a huge burden on the economy.
New Heritage research drives the point home. Writing on Heritage's blog, the Foundry, Heritage expert Nick Lorris details important new studies finding that "far more jobs would be destroyed than green jobs created, households will lose income, and the economy as a whole will be operating $9.4 trillion under its potential from 2012-2035 -- all because of cap and trade."
The documentary puts a human face on the widespread job losses resulting from climate change legislation, which would pummel critical American industries that depend on traditional energy sources. And it sheds light on the harmful policies that burden people and industry in exchange for little or no environmental benefit.
Joining the expert panel at the Heritage premiere, director Ann McElhinney explained why she sought to counter the Left with Not Evil, Just Wrong:
They don't allow us to teach religion in the public schools of America . . . but there is a religion being taught and it's not based on anything factual. It's a green religion . . . This is not good. It's a religion that hates America . . . and anyone who ignores it is ignoring it at their own peril.
The panel discussion, moderated by journalist Andrew Breitbart, also included MIT meteorology researcher Richard Lindzen; medical researcher Donald Roberts; and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.
» Watch a video of the panel discussion on MyHeritage.org.
While each panelist offered a different perspective, each defended the same, sound conclusion: "There's a right way and a wrong way to protect the environment. Americans are completely capable of being good stewards of the environment without the government telling us how or why."
Instead of undermining American prosperity and free enterprise by enacting radical environmental regulations, Congress should work to diversify our energy sources. These new sources include expanded domestic oil production, nuclear energy, coal and renewable fuels.
Heritage experts argue that lawmakers should craft "policies that will lower gas and electricity prices rather than raise them. When government impediments are lifted, America's energy entrepreneurs can develop innovative and market-driven solutions to our energy needs."
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Democrat Energy Policy : Close 200 Coal Fired Power Plants
Just when you thought it was safe to breath again - the liberal Democrats want you destitute and will do anything to accomplish this including destroying our sources of energy.
Staying warm in the winter is not a problem for them, but it will be for you - what a good reason to vote Democrat.
TIME FOR INACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING
The new Boxer-Kerry Senate bill would require a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. As a practical matter, what would such a reduction mean to us and our economy, asks Pete du Pont, Chairman of the Board for the National Center for Policy Analysis and a former governor of Delaware?
According to Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: A 20 percent reduction would mean cutting America's greenhouse gas emissions to our 1977 levels, and that would radically change both the U.S. economy and our personal lives.
We had 220 million people in America then; today we have 305 million.
In 1977 our economy produced $7.2 trillion (in 2008 dollars); today it is twice as large, at $14.2 trillion.
Back then we had 145 million vehicles on the road; today we have 251 million.
America has substantially grown, and our energy needs have grown as well, says du Pont. So what would we have to do get back to 1977 emission levels and meet the Boxer-Kerry requirement?
First, car and truck miles traveled would have to be reduced by one-third (or fuel efficiency improved by one-third, hard to do in 10 years), which would seriously reduce travel and transportation, and likely force changes in automobile design that consumers would not like.
Next, the amount of coal burned to generate electricity would have to be cut in half:
So we would close more than 200 of our coal-fired power plants, and as Hayward says that would reduce our electricity supply by some 800 million megawatts.
To replace those millions of megawatts with non-hydro renewable power sources like wind, solar and geothermal power would be virtually impossible.
We have about 130,000 megawatts generated by them now, and the growth rate of these power sources over the last five years suggests it would take 97 years to make up for the shutdown of 200 coal-fired plants.
Boxer-Kerry would expand the control the government has over the American economy, businesses and individuals. It would have little impact on reducing global warming but would significantly depress our economy, says du Pont.
Source: Pete du Pont, "Time for Inaction on Global Warming," Online Journal, October 20, 2009.
Staying warm in the winter is not a problem for them, but it will be for you - what a good reason to vote Democrat.
TIME FOR INACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING
The new Boxer-Kerry Senate bill would require a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. As a practical matter, what would such a reduction mean to us and our economy, asks Pete du Pont, Chairman of the Board for the National Center for Policy Analysis and a former governor of Delaware?
According to Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: A 20 percent reduction would mean cutting America's greenhouse gas emissions to our 1977 levels, and that would radically change both the U.S. economy and our personal lives.
We had 220 million people in America then; today we have 305 million.
In 1977 our economy produced $7.2 trillion (in 2008 dollars); today it is twice as large, at $14.2 trillion.
Back then we had 145 million vehicles on the road; today we have 251 million.
America has substantially grown, and our energy needs have grown as well, says du Pont. So what would we have to do get back to 1977 emission levels and meet the Boxer-Kerry requirement?
First, car and truck miles traveled would have to be reduced by one-third (or fuel efficiency improved by one-third, hard to do in 10 years), which would seriously reduce travel and transportation, and likely force changes in automobile design that consumers would not like.
Next, the amount of coal burned to generate electricity would have to be cut in half:
So we would close more than 200 of our coal-fired power plants, and as Hayward says that would reduce our electricity supply by some 800 million megawatts.
To replace those millions of megawatts with non-hydro renewable power sources like wind, solar and geothermal power would be virtually impossible.
We have about 130,000 megawatts generated by them now, and the growth rate of these power sources over the last five years suggests it would take 97 years to make up for the shutdown of 200 coal-fired plants.
Boxer-Kerry would expand the control the government has over the American economy, businesses and individuals. It would have little impact on reducing global warming but would significantly depress our economy, says du Pont.
Source: Pete du Pont, "Time for Inaction on Global Warming," Online Journal, October 20, 2009.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
One Trillion Dollars FOR 5% of The Population
I believe this is the very essence of the problem with Obamacare or any health care plan for that matter, that seeks to enroll the entire population. Most Americans have health care plans now that fits their needs - why take that away from them to cover less than 5% of the population? Where's the common sense?
The Obama administration has no comprehensive plan of it's own and has no intention to supply one that we, in the general public, can read and debate. Why would they? It's not about providing health care to the country. It's about taking power away from the people and cementing it in a huge government that cannot be stopped from destroying our way of life. And you can believe that Obamacare is only the beginning of the power grab. Next is Cap and Tax, Immigration and Card Check as starters.
Stay alert to these people as they are out to subvert the law and change the Constitution to fit their agenda. This may sound alarmist but it is a fact as this is playing out on the national stage as we speak. Don't be fooled by smooth talk and misinformation that is a daily gusher from the main stream media. They are part of the "change" that Obama promised during the campaign and he has delivered on that promise.
Nealy everything in the major media is misinformation to protect and divert attention from the real agenda of the Obama administration and that is to completely destroy the American way of life and rebuild it into a socialist state with him in charge.
Never believe that Obama has our best interests at heart. He wants total power and nothing else will do. Another question remains, how can something like this happen in our country? Where did we go wrong?
$1T reform for 5%
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Last Updated: 4:01 AM, October 19, 2009
Posted: 3:21 AM, October 19, 2009
THE health-care-reform debate is plagued by different numbers on how many Ameri cans lack health insurance, but we actually have excellent data on the question: Ninety percent of Americans are insured, according to the Census -- and even the president more or less concurs.The Census is the source for the much-cited figure of 46 million uninsured. Yet the very same table plainly indicates that 9 million of those are not US citizens. That leaves 37 million uninsured who are Americans.
But there's more. In the same document, the Census also plainly states that "health-insurance coverage is underreported" in its survey. When it cross-checked its survey results with the official Medicaid rolls, it found that 16.9 percent of those on Medicaid had claimed on their Census forms that they were uninsured. That 16.9 percent amounts to 9 million people. So the actual tally, according to the most authoritative source we have, is just 28 million uninsured citizens (46 million minus 9 million non-citizens, minus 9 million on Medicaid who were falsely recorded as uninsured).
To be more exact, it leaves 28,157,000 uninsured out of a total of 280,209,000. That leaves us with 90 percent of American citizens covered by insurance, according to the Census.
President Obama effectively agrees. In his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, he cited "more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage." In a nation of almost 300 million people, that leaves something on the order of 90 percent who can get coverage.
So, who are the 28 million uninsured? The president suggests they're all people "who cannot get coverage." But the Census tallies suggest otherwise.
Many of the uninsured are young. People between the ages of 18 and 34 account for only 10 percent of the population, but 18 percent of the uninsured. They are generally healthy. Except in states like New York that have made it illegal for insurance companies to offer lower rates to younger, healthier people, these Americans can get insurance cheaply -- but many choose not to. That may be problematic, but it doesn't suggest that they "cannot get coverage."
Then, too, the Census tells us that 47 percent of the uninsured (citizens or not) make over $50,000 a year. Since the median American family income is $50,740, this means that nearly half of those who are uninsured make more than most American families. Indeed, more than a quarter of the uninsured (26 percent) make more than $75,000 a year -- at least $24,000 more than most Americans. With a few exceptions, these folks plainly aren't among those who "cannot get coverage."
None of this is to deny the high costs of health care -- which are often a serious burden for American families, and a key reason federal health programs are already by far the biggest contributor to the deficit. But it brings us to a simple but largely ignored truth: Only 5 percent of Americans are uninsured and making less than the median income. (And many among that 5 percent are already eligible for government programs).
For comparison, the Congressional Budget Office says that 6 percent of Americans would remain uninsured after 10 years under the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which would spend nearly a trillion dollars, impose new taxes and fines of more than half a trillion and cut $400 billion-plus from Medicare and related programs *--* while raising taxes and spending by more than three times as much in its second decade*.*
Whatever course we choose, it should be based on facts, not fears. And the costs associated with health reform must be weighed against the simple fact, reported by the Census, that 90 percent of Americans are already insured -- and well over half the rest can get insurance if they so choose./
Jeffrey H. Anderson, a Pacific Research Institute senior fellow, is the director of the Benjamin Rush Society./
The Obama administration has no comprehensive plan of it's own and has no intention to supply one that we, in the general public, can read and debate. Why would they? It's not about providing health care to the country. It's about taking power away from the people and cementing it in a huge government that cannot be stopped from destroying our way of life. And you can believe that Obamacare is only the beginning of the power grab. Next is Cap and Tax, Immigration and Card Check as starters.
Stay alert to these people as they are out to subvert the law and change the Constitution to fit their agenda. This may sound alarmist but it is a fact as this is playing out on the national stage as we speak. Don't be fooled by smooth talk and misinformation that is a daily gusher from the main stream media. They are part of the "change" that Obama promised during the campaign and he has delivered on that promise.
Nealy everything in the major media is misinformation to protect and divert attention from the real agenda of the Obama administration and that is to completely destroy the American way of life and rebuild it into a socialist state with him in charge.
Never believe that Obama has our best interests at heart. He wants total power and nothing else will do. Another question remains, how can something like this happen in our country? Where did we go wrong?
$1T reform for 5%
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Last Updated: 4:01 AM, October 19, 2009
Posted: 3:21 AM, October 19, 2009
THE health-care-reform debate is plagued by different numbers on how many Ameri cans lack health insurance, but we actually have excellent data on the question: Ninety percent of Americans are insured, according to the Census -- and even the president more or less concurs.The Census is the source for the much-cited figure of 46 million uninsured. Yet the very same table plainly indicates that 9 million of those are not US citizens. That leaves 37 million uninsured who are Americans.
But there's more. In the same document, the Census also plainly states that "health-insurance coverage is underreported" in its survey. When it cross-checked its survey results with the official Medicaid rolls, it found that 16.9 percent of those on Medicaid had claimed on their Census forms that they were uninsured. That 16.9 percent amounts to 9 million people. So the actual tally, according to the most authoritative source we have, is just 28 million uninsured citizens (46 million minus 9 million non-citizens, minus 9 million on Medicaid who were falsely recorded as uninsured).
To be more exact, it leaves 28,157,000 uninsured out of a total of 280,209,000. That leaves us with 90 percent of American citizens covered by insurance, according to the Census.
President Obama effectively agrees. In his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, he cited "more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage." In a nation of almost 300 million people, that leaves something on the order of 90 percent who can get coverage.
So, who are the 28 million uninsured? The president suggests they're all people "who cannot get coverage." But the Census tallies suggest otherwise.
Many of the uninsured are young. People between the ages of 18 and 34 account for only 10 percent of the population, but 18 percent of the uninsured. They are generally healthy. Except in states like New York that have made it illegal for insurance companies to offer lower rates to younger, healthier people, these Americans can get insurance cheaply -- but many choose not to. That may be problematic, but it doesn't suggest that they "cannot get coverage."
Then, too, the Census tells us that 47 percent of the uninsured (citizens or not) make over $50,000 a year. Since the median American family income is $50,740, this means that nearly half of those who are uninsured make more than most American families. Indeed, more than a quarter of the uninsured (26 percent) make more than $75,000 a year -- at least $24,000 more than most Americans. With a few exceptions, these folks plainly aren't among those who "cannot get coverage."
None of this is to deny the high costs of health care -- which are often a serious burden for American families, and a key reason federal health programs are already by far the biggest contributor to the deficit. But it brings us to a simple but largely ignored truth: Only 5 percent of Americans are uninsured and making less than the median income. (And many among that 5 percent are already eligible for government programs).
For comparison, the Congressional Budget Office says that 6 percent of Americans would remain uninsured after 10 years under the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which would spend nearly a trillion dollars, impose new taxes and fines of more than half a trillion and cut $400 billion-plus from Medicare and related programs *--* while raising taxes and spending by more than three times as much in its second decade*.*
Whatever course we choose, it should be based on facts, not fears. And the costs associated with health reform must be weighed against the simple fact, reported by the Census, that 90 percent of Americans are already insured -- and well over half the rest can get insurance if they so choose./
Jeffrey H. Anderson, a Pacific Research Institute senior fellow, is the director of the Benjamin Rush Society./
Monday, October 19, 2009
Michelle Obama : The Cost of New Royalty
Can this be true? What have got here? This sounds like we have a king and queen and we are all just here to serve their needs. And of course it takes the Canadians to find this out - it would never appear in our media - goodness no!
This is just more insanity of the 'New Marxist Left' in our country - their agenda is to enslave the population while they live high off the hog as our supreme leaders. Sound familiar? The old Soviet Union?
Make no mistake here - this is who these people are and if we allow this to happen, we all will indeed become subservient to these tyrants of freedom.
Canadian Free Press published this list of names and salaries of Michelle Obama's retinue:
The benefit package for these servants of the first lady are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted assistants is paid by US taxpayers.
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A.. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Comcanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
This is just more insanity of the 'New Marxist Left' in our country - their agenda is to enslave the population while they live high off the hog as our supreme leaders. Sound familiar? The old Soviet Union?
Make no mistake here - this is who these people are and if we allow this to happen, we all will indeed become subservient to these tyrants of freedom.
Canadian Free Press published this list of names and salaries of Michelle Obama's retinue:
The benefit package for these servants of the first lady are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted assistants is paid by US taxpayers.
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A.. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Comcanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
Nobel Peace Prize : Left Wing Wish List
Why would anyone think after the Nobel Prize has gone to a monster like Arafat, a mass killer and renowned terrorist, that the committee would change their tactics to actually award it to someone that stands for freedom like Ronald Reagan or George Bush - they freed millions of people from tyranny.
Not going to happen. As a result of these totally worthless individuals receiving this award, Gore, Carter and now Obama, being awarded the prize would be an embarrassment.
Nobel Peace Prize Called 'Left-wing Charade'
The Nobel Peace Prize has become "worthless" and should be overshadowed by an award named for a man who truly did achieve peace — Ronald Reagan, according to former White House official Jeffrey Lord.
Writing in The American Spectator after Barack Obama became the latest recipient of the Nobel, Lord observes: "The decision to give the award to Obama was made by a group of Norwegian parliamentarians dominated by socialists." The prize "has become essentially worthless, a charade for left-wing Norwegian politicians to award like-minded liberals and liberalism under the guise that the award in some objective fashion determines an individual's contributions to peace," writes Lord, who was a political director in the Reagan administration.
"It's easy to cite the current story. Obama today, Al Gore yesterday, Jimmy Carter the day before that. . . Reagan? Thatcher? Pope John Paul II? George W. Bush? Of course not.
"It's time for the Reagan Peace Prize. Actually, it's past time."
Lord cites a number of Nobel recipients whose efforts at promoting peace ultimately resulted in failure, beginning in 1919 with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. He was honored for his work on the disastrous Treaty of Versailles ending World War I and the League of Nations, which Lord described as "an embarrassing failure."
"The hard cold facts of history illustrate that the peace through strength policies initiated by President Reagan were a success," says Lord, now a journalist and author whose works have appeared in publications including The Wall Street Journal and National Review. "His belief in the importance of human freedom, in directly opposing tyranny and protecting liberty, combined with the maintenance and, when needed, projection of a strong military, ended the Cold War and the 'evil empire' that was the Soviet Union.
"Reagan's strategy freed millions of East Europeans enslaved since the end of the Second World War, which in turn was brought on by the inexcusably wrong-headed, naive if well-intentioned policies of one Nobel Peace Prize winner after another."
Recipients of the Reagan Prize would be chosen by a panel of conservative Americans drawn from the worlds of politics, journalism, entrepreneurship and entertainment. And it would be presented in Berlin, a "symbol of Reagan's successes: the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Union that built it, and the Cold War that made that Wall and all it stood for possible," Lord writes.
As for who might win the award, Lord suggests likely candidates would be "the three Iranian dissidents known only by their initials in current news reports, all identified as being sentenced to death for protesting Iran's rigged elections."
Lord concludes: "It's time to award real prestige to those who achieve real peace. It's time for the Reagan Prize."
Not going to happen. As a result of these totally worthless individuals receiving this award, Gore, Carter and now Obama, being awarded the prize would be an embarrassment.
Nobel Peace Prize Called 'Left-wing Charade'
The Nobel Peace Prize has become "worthless" and should be overshadowed by an award named for a man who truly did achieve peace — Ronald Reagan, according to former White House official Jeffrey Lord.
Writing in The American Spectator after Barack Obama became the latest recipient of the Nobel, Lord observes: "The decision to give the award to Obama was made by a group of Norwegian parliamentarians dominated by socialists." The prize "has become essentially worthless, a charade for left-wing Norwegian politicians to award like-minded liberals and liberalism under the guise that the award in some objective fashion determines an individual's contributions to peace," writes Lord, who was a political director in the Reagan administration.
"It's easy to cite the current story. Obama today, Al Gore yesterday, Jimmy Carter the day before that. . . Reagan? Thatcher? Pope John Paul II? George W. Bush? Of course not.
"It's time for the Reagan Peace Prize. Actually, it's past time."
Lord cites a number of Nobel recipients whose efforts at promoting peace ultimately resulted in failure, beginning in 1919 with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. He was honored for his work on the disastrous Treaty of Versailles ending World War I and the League of Nations, which Lord described as "an embarrassing failure."
"The hard cold facts of history illustrate that the peace through strength policies initiated by President Reagan were a success," says Lord, now a journalist and author whose works have appeared in publications including The Wall Street Journal and National Review. "His belief in the importance of human freedom, in directly opposing tyranny and protecting liberty, combined with the maintenance and, when needed, projection of a strong military, ended the Cold War and the 'evil empire' that was the Soviet Union.
"Reagan's strategy freed millions of East Europeans enslaved since the end of the Second World War, which in turn was brought on by the inexcusably wrong-headed, naive if well-intentioned policies of one Nobel Peace Prize winner after another."
Recipients of the Reagan Prize would be chosen by a panel of conservative Americans drawn from the worlds of politics, journalism, entrepreneurship and entertainment. And it would be presented in Berlin, a "symbol of Reagan's successes: the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Union that built it, and the Cold War that made that Wall and all it stood for possible," Lord writes.
As for who might win the award, Lord suggests likely candidates would be "the three Iranian dissidents known only by their initials in current news reports, all identified as being sentenced to death for protesting Iran's rigged elections."
Lord concludes: "It's time to award real prestige to those who achieve real peace. It's time for the Reagan Prize."
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Card Check Name Change : Employee Free Choice Act
Changing the name of a pig won't change the pig.
More great stuff from the Heritage Foundation - New government regulations that will crush our economy will be forced down our throats and result in huge new costs for everything. And of course, more loss of personal freedoms. But then this is what the liberal Democrats have wanted along.
Who are these people? Really, they can't be Americans and do this to our country, right?
Lawmakers should practice what they preach
Many members of Congress are urging passage of the RESPECT Act and the Employee Free Choice Act. These misnamed proposals would impose greater restrictions on the private sector by pushing workers to join labor unions.
The RESPECT Act would stifle private enterprise by reviving strict hierarchical management divisions.
EFCA would abolish secret-ballot elections for union formation, allowing Big Labor to intimidate workers into joining. And the government would assume the authority to dictate contracts and business decisions at firms with newly formed unions.
» Read The Heritage Foundations's research on these harmful proposals
Heritage experts James Sherk and Ryan O'Donnell point out Congress' hypocrisy in supporting these ideas. Lawmakers "argue that unions benefit workers and the economy," they write. "Yet Congress' own employees do not have the right to form a union -- making Congress exempt from the consequences of the very union laws it might pass."
Union membership has sharply declined over the last 25 years -- less than eight percent of private sector workers belong to unions today. This is because of advancements in employment laws and an increased focus on individual and specialized skills.
Non-union workers are evaluated on the basis of individual merit and performance. "Employees can get ahead by working hard." Union members' pay, however, is dictated through strict, one-size-fits-all contracts. There is little incentive to work hard or to outperform peers, which ultimately hinders productivity.
Yet Congress continues to claim that unionization does not burden the private sector. If this is true, then they should apply these labor laws to their own staffs. "Congress should stop forcing private-sector employers to swallow a pill that Congress refuses to swallow itself," write Sherk and O'Donnell.
More great stuff from the Heritage Foundation - New government regulations that will crush our economy will be forced down our throats and result in huge new costs for everything. And of course, more loss of personal freedoms. But then this is what the liberal Democrats have wanted along.
Who are these people? Really, they can't be Americans and do this to our country, right?
Lawmakers should practice what they preach
Many members of Congress are urging passage of the RESPECT Act and the Employee Free Choice Act. These misnamed proposals would impose greater restrictions on the private sector by pushing workers to join labor unions.
The RESPECT Act would stifle private enterprise by reviving strict hierarchical management divisions.
EFCA would abolish secret-ballot elections for union formation, allowing Big Labor to intimidate workers into joining. And the government would assume the authority to dictate contracts and business decisions at firms with newly formed unions.
» Read The Heritage Foundations's research on these harmful proposals
Heritage experts James Sherk and Ryan O'Donnell point out Congress' hypocrisy in supporting these ideas. Lawmakers "argue that unions benefit workers and the economy," they write. "Yet Congress' own employees do not have the right to form a union -- making Congress exempt from the consequences of the very union laws it might pass."
Union membership has sharply declined over the last 25 years -- less than eight percent of private sector workers belong to unions today. This is because of advancements in employment laws and an increased focus on individual and specialized skills.
Non-union workers are evaluated on the basis of individual merit and performance. "Employees can get ahead by working hard." Union members' pay, however, is dictated through strict, one-size-fits-all contracts. There is little incentive to work hard or to outperform peers, which ultimately hinders productivity.
Yet Congress continues to claim that unionization does not burden the private sector. If this is true, then they should apply these labor laws to their own staffs. "Congress should stop forcing private-sector employers to swallow a pill that Congress refuses to swallow itself," write Sherk and O'Donnell.
Baucus Bill : A Partisan Liberal Democrat Nightmare
I can't add anything to this as the Heritage Foundation does a great job of explaining how we will be stuck with crushing new taxes and the loss of real health care. We will be at the mercy of government which translates as a loss of personal freedom.
Sadly, a lot of the American citizens are ready to give up freedom for promised security. It won't happen and as a result we will all suffer the consequences.
The 'bipartisan' big-government health plan
Earlier this week, the Senate Finance Committee passed the health care proposal championed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT). The 14-9 vote reflects a strong partisan split: Maine's Olympia Snowe was the only Republican to vote for the measure. Nonetheless, the Left now claims the vote as a "high water mark for 'bipartisanship' in health care reform."
The nine dissenting Republicans on the committee argued, correctly, that the Baucus bill raises taxes and paves the way for a Washington takeover of the health care industry.
"Now all of the bills will be merged together behind closed doors," writes The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll in The Morning Bell. "All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details," he explains.
These "details" will likely include elements common to the Left's various proposals:
A hefty price tag that will sharply increase federal spending -- meaning more taxes -- and add to the already ballooning deficit, while still leaving millions uninsured; A government-run health care "public option" or "co-op" that millions of Americans will be forced to choose over their private health care plans;
An employer mandate ordering all employers to provide government-approved coverage for all of their employees or else face a harsh penalty tax. This will "result in lower wages, fewer jobs and slower economic growth";
An individual mandate that will, for the first time in U.S. history, force Americans to purchase federally-designed health care packages, whether they want them or not; An expansion of Medicaid, increasing the number of people dependent on this poorly performing entitlement program; and
A steep cut to Medicare spending to pay for it all -- a cut that will likely never come to fruition once special-interest lobbying groups step in to oppose them. Heritage's Bob Moffit points out that "Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare."
Each of the health care reform proposals Congress is considering, including the supposedly bipartisan Baucus bill, contain these "details." And the cost of these programs is staggering -- and the Congressional Budget Office "estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."
However, one certainty is that the Baucus bill's estimates will likely increase once it is merged with the other, much costlier proposals. Though proponents of the Baucus bill may tout bipartisanship and "continue to insist that they are not attempting a Washington takeover of health care," write Heritage's Kathryn Nix and Greg D'angelo, "their claims fly in the face of the facts."
It is still a partisan mess -- and bad policy to boot.
Sadly, a lot of the American citizens are ready to give up freedom for promised security. It won't happen and as a result we will all suffer the consequences.
The 'bipartisan' big-government health plan
Earlier this week, the Senate Finance Committee passed the health care proposal championed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT). The 14-9 vote reflects a strong partisan split: Maine's Olympia Snowe was the only Republican to vote for the measure. Nonetheless, the Left now claims the vote as a "high water mark for 'bipartisanship' in health care reform."
The nine dissenting Republicans on the committee argued, correctly, that the Baucus bill raises taxes and paves the way for a Washington takeover of the health care industry.
"Now all of the bills will be merged together behind closed doors," writes The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll in The Morning Bell. "All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details," he explains.
These "details" will likely include elements common to the Left's various proposals:
A hefty price tag that will sharply increase federal spending -- meaning more taxes -- and add to the already ballooning deficit, while still leaving millions uninsured; A government-run health care "public option" or "co-op" that millions of Americans will be forced to choose over their private health care plans;
An employer mandate ordering all employers to provide government-approved coverage for all of their employees or else face a harsh penalty tax. This will "result in lower wages, fewer jobs and slower economic growth";
An individual mandate that will, for the first time in U.S. history, force Americans to purchase federally-designed health care packages, whether they want them or not; An expansion of Medicaid, increasing the number of people dependent on this poorly performing entitlement program; and
A steep cut to Medicare spending to pay for it all -- a cut that will likely never come to fruition once special-interest lobbying groups step in to oppose them. Heritage's Bob Moffit points out that "Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare."
Each of the health care reform proposals Congress is considering, including the supposedly bipartisan Baucus bill, contain these "details." And the cost of these programs is staggering -- and the Congressional Budget Office "estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."
However, one certainty is that the Baucus bill's estimates will likely increase once it is merged with the other, much costlier proposals. Though proponents of the Baucus bill may tout bipartisanship and "continue to insist that they are not attempting a Washington takeover of health care," write Heritage's Kathryn Nix and Greg D'angelo, "their claims fly in the face of the facts."
It is still a partisan mess -- and bad policy to boot.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Video : Where Obamacare IS Taking Us
Not everyone is on board with the insanity of Obamacare. There are those of us that can see where this new thinking is going they don't like it. What's good is that millions of us that didn't care what was happening to health care in this country in the past are now taking an interest.
Thousands more every day are coming to see just what the liberal Democrats are doing to America. This video is just one example and a good one.
Keep the faith -
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Thousands more every day are coming to see just what the liberal Democrats are doing to America. This video is just one example and a good one.
Keep the faith -
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Obamacare : Tax the Sick AND the Poor!!
Please let me know how this can get any worse - this administration is bound and determined to destroy America. The question remains, why would our government do this to us if they really cared about our country? Easy, it not about what's best for our country, it's what's best for the liberal Democrats.
What's really scary about this is a lot of people can't comprehend this happening in this country. So the easiest way to cope with such a concept where our leaders willingly want to do us harm, is to do nothing or just rely on what others, in their frame of understanding, to tell them what to think and what to do.
Just take a few minutes and give this some thought - it should scare the hell out of you. We are truly headed into a dark abyss. We can not allow this to happen to our country. We all need to take a stand in support of our Constitution.
Next year - vote everyone of these people that are making this happen out of office.
ADDING INSULT TO INJURY: THE BAUCUS HEALTH PLAN IMPOSES NEW TAXES ON THE SICK
Public support for health care reform is based on a desire to help the sick or, at the very least, to protect the non-wealthy from the financial impact of illness, chronic disease, and accidents. Unfortunately, the reform proposals under active consideration in Congress do precisely the opposite, say Heritage Foundation researchers Robert A. Book, Guinevere L. Nell and Paul L. Winfree.
In particular, the Baucus health reform proposal, recently passed by the Senate Finance Committee, imposes new taxes on those who need health care the most and on lower-income people with the least ability to pay -- in some cases to fund coverage subsidies that will primarily go to young, healthy people with moderate incomes.
The proposal would impose:
Higher taxes on taxpayers at all income levels who face high out-of-pocket medical expenses or have high-cost health plans, including patients living in poverty.
"Annual fees" (i.e., taxes) on the medical device and pharmaceutical industries, which would have to be passed on in the form of higher prices to patients who pay out of pocket, and to insurance plans, which will have to raise their premiums.
An "annual fee" on insurance companies that will be passed on to patients directly in the form of higher premiums.
Despite President Obama's promise not to raise taxes "one dime" for those earning below $250,000, this proposal would increase taxes on households with incomes substantially below that level -- and especially on households facing the worst health problems, say Book, Nell and Winfree.
The revenue from these taxes is intended to offset premium subsidies for households with incomes below four times the federal poverty level (FPL), but these taxes would be imposed on Americans who need medical devices or prescription drugs, have high out-of-pocket costs, or pay their own health insurance premiums -- including many households with incomes below four times the federal poverty level (FPL).
Source: Robert A. Book, Guinevere L. Nell and Paul L. Winfree, "Adding Insult to Injury: The Baucus Health Plan Imposes New Taxes on the Sick," Heritage Foundation, WebMemo No. 2651, October 15, 2009.
What's really scary about this is a lot of people can't comprehend this happening in this country. So the easiest way to cope with such a concept where our leaders willingly want to do us harm, is to do nothing or just rely on what others, in their frame of understanding, to tell them what to think and what to do.
Just take a few minutes and give this some thought - it should scare the hell out of you. We are truly headed into a dark abyss. We can not allow this to happen to our country. We all need to take a stand in support of our Constitution.
Next year - vote everyone of these people that are making this happen out of office.
ADDING INSULT TO INJURY: THE BAUCUS HEALTH PLAN IMPOSES NEW TAXES ON THE SICK
Public support for health care reform is based on a desire to help the sick or, at the very least, to protect the non-wealthy from the financial impact of illness, chronic disease, and accidents. Unfortunately, the reform proposals under active consideration in Congress do precisely the opposite, say Heritage Foundation researchers Robert A. Book, Guinevere L. Nell and Paul L. Winfree.
In particular, the Baucus health reform proposal, recently passed by the Senate Finance Committee, imposes new taxes on those who need health care the most and on lower-income people with the least ability to pay -- in some cases to fund coverage subsidies that will primarily go to young, healthy people with moderate incomes.
The proposal would impose:
Higher taxes on taxpayers at all income levels who face high out-of-pocket medical expenses or have high-cost health plans, including patients living in poverty.
"Annual fees" (i.e., taxes) on the medical device and pharmaceutical industries, which would have to be passed on in the form of higher prices to patients who pay out of pocket, and to insurance plans, which will have to raise their premiums.
An "annual fee" on insurance companies that will be passed on to patients directly in the form of higher premiums.
Despite President Obama's promise not to raise taxes "one dime" for those earning below $250,000, this proposal would increase taxes on households with incomes substantially below that level -- and especially on households facing the worst health problems, say Book, Nell and Winfree.
The revenue from these taxes is intended to offset premium subsidies for households with incomes below four times the federal poverty level (FPL), but these taxes would be imposed on Americans who need medical devices or prescription drugs, have high out-of-pocket costs, or pay their own health insurance premiums -- including many households with incomes below four times the federal poverty level (FPL).
Source: Robert A. Book, Guinevere L. Nell and Paul L. Winfree, "Adding Insult to Injury: The Baucus Health Plan Imposes New Taxes on the Sick," Heritage Foundation, WebMemo No. 2651, October 15, 2009.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Obama Monetary Policy : Who Cares About Tomorrow!
This is a good article on how the Obama monetary policy will destroy the economic stability of America. When one continues to spend more than you take in and accelerate spending each year until the country can not even pay the interest on the debt, let alone the principle, our creditors will demand payment of the loan and consequently we will go into bankruptcy.
Everyone, even those that voted for Obama, will ask how did this happen? Many people will never understand the simple concept of spending less that you make.
Again, I have asked this many times, how can so many in our government willing decide that total destruction of our country is not a bad thing. Our debt to exceed 100% next year? Next Year!!!
Who are these people? Where is the common sense? What about national pride?
The Message of Dollar Disdain
With U.S. debt set to exceed 100% of GDP in 2011, it's no wonderpeople are looking for alternative ways to preserve wealth.
By JUDY SHELTON<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=JUDY+SHELTON&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
Unprecedented spending, unending fiscal deficits, unconscionable accumulations of government debt: These are the trends that are shaping America's financial future. And since loose monetary policy and a weak U.S. dollar are part of the mix, apparently, it's no wonder people around the world are searching for an alternative form of money in which to calculate and preserve their own wealth.
It may be too soon to dismiss the dollar as an utterly debauched currency. It still is the most used for international transactions and constitutes over 60% of other countries' official foreign-exchange reserves. But the reputation of our nation's money is being severely compromised. Funny how words normally used to address issues of morality come to the fore when judging the qualities of the dollar. Perhaps it's because the U.S. has long represented the virtues of democratic capitalism.
To be "sound as a dollar" is to be deemed trustworthy, dependable, and in good working condition. It used to mean all that, anyway. But as the dollar is increasingly perceived as the default mechanism for out-of-control government spending, its role as a reliable standard of value is destined to fade. Who wants to accumulate assets denominated in a shrinking unit of account? Excess government spending leads to inflation, and inflation plays dollar savers for patsies—both at home and abroad.
A return to sound financial principles in Washington, D.C., would signal that America still believes it can restore the integrity of the dollar and provide leadership for the global economy. But for all the talk from the Obama administration about the need to exert fiscal discipline—the president's 10-year federal budget is subtitled "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise"—the projected budget numbers anticipate a permanent pattern of deficit spending and vastly higher levels of outstanding federal debt. Even with the optimistic economic assumptions implicit in the Obama administration's budget, it's a mathematical impossibility to reduce debt if you continue to spend more than you take in.
Mr. Obama promises to lower the deficit from its current 9.9% of gross domestic product to an average 4.8% of GDP for the years 2010-2014, and an average 4% of GDP for the years 2015-2019. All of this presupposes no unforeseen expenditures such as a second "stimulus" package or additional costs related to health-care reform. But even if the deficit shrinks as a percentage of GDP, it's still a deficit. It adds to the amount of our nation's outstanding indebtedness, which reflects the cumulative total of annual budget deficits.
By the end of 2019, according to the administration's budget numbers, our federal debt will reach $23.3 trillion—as compared to $11.9 trillion today. To put it in perspective: U.S. federal debt was equal to 61.4% of GDP in 1999; it grew to 70.2% of GDP in 2008 (under the Bush administration); it will climb to an estimated 90.4% this year and touch the 100% mark in 2011, after which the projected federal debt will continue to equal or exceed our nation's entire annual economic output through 2019.
The U.S. is thus slated to enter the ranks of those countries—Zimbabwe, Japan, Lebanon, Singapore, Jamaica, Italy—with the highest government debt-to-GDP ratio (which measures the debt burden against a nation's capacity to generate sufficient wealth to repay its creditors). In 2008, the U.S. ranked 23rd on the list—crossing the 100% threshold vaults our nation into seventh place.
If you were a foreign government, would you want to increase your holdings of Treasury securities knowing the U.S. government has no plans to balance its budget during the next decade, let alone achieve a surplus?
In the European Union, countries wishing to adopt the euro must first limit government debt to 60% of GDP. It's the reference criterion for demonstrating "soundness and sustainability of public finances." Politicians find it all too tempting to print money—something the Europeans have understood since the days of the Weimar Republic—and excessive government borrowing poses a threat to monetary stability.
Valuable lessons can also be drawn from Japan's unsuccessful experiment with quantitative easing in the aftermath of its ruptured 1980s bubble economy. The Bank of Japan's desperate efforts to fight deflation through a zero-interest rate policy aimed at bailing out zombie companies, along with massive budget deficit spending, only contributed to a lost decade of stagnant growth. Japan's government debt-to-GDP ratio escalated to more than 170% now from 65% in 1990. Over the same period, the yen's use as an international reserve currency—it clings to fourth place behind the dollar, euro and pound sterling—declined from comprising 10.2% of official foreign-exchange reserves to 3.3% today.
The U.S. has long served as the world's "indispensable nation" and the dollar's primary role in the global economy has likewise seemed to testify to American exceptionalism. But the passivity in Washington toward our dismal fiscal future, and its inevitable toll on U.S. economic influence, suggests that American global leadership is no longer a priority and that America's money cannot be trusted.
If money is a moral contract between government and its citizens, we are being violated. The rest of the world, meanwhile, simply wants to avoid being duped. That is why China and Russia—large holders of dollars—are angling to invent some new kind of global currency for denominating reserve assets. It's why oil-producing Gulf States are fretting over whether to continue pricing energy exports in depreciated dollars. It's why central banks around the world are dumping dollars in favor of alternative currencies, even as reduced global demand exacerbates the dollar's decline.
Until the U.S. sends convincing signals that it believes in a strong dollar—mere rhetorical assertions ring hollow—the world has little reason to hold dollar-denominated securities.
Sadly, due to our fiscal quagmire, the Federal Reserve may be forced to raise interest rates as a sop to attract foreign capital even if it hurts our domestic economy. Unfortunately, that's the price of having already succumbed to symbiotic fiscal and monetary policy. If we could forge a genuine commitment to private-sector economic growth by reducing taxes, and at the same time significantly cut future spending, it might be possible to turn things around.
Under President Reagan in the 1980s, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker slashed inflation and strengthened the dollar by dramatically tightening credit. Though it was a painful process, the economy ultimately boomed.
Whether the U.S. can once more summon the resolve to address its problems is an open question. But the world's growing dollar disdain conveys a message: Issuing more promissory notes is not the way to renew America's promise.
*Ms. Shelton, an economist, is author of "Money Meltdown: Restoring Order to the Global Currency System" (Free Press, 1994). *
Everyone, even those that voted for Obama, will ask how did this happen? Many people will never understand the simple concept of spending less that you make.
Again, I have asked this many times, how can so many in our government willing decide that total destruction of our country is not a bad thing. Our debt to exceed 100% next year? Next Year!!!
Who are these people? Where is the common sense? What about national pride?
The Message of Dollar Disdain
With U.S. debt set to exceed 100% of GDP in 2011, it's no wonderpeople are looking for alternative ways to preserve wealth.
By JUDY SHELTON<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=JUDY+SHELTON&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
Unprecedented spending, unending fiscal deficits, unconscionable accumulations of government debt: These are the trends that are shaping America's financial future. And since loose monetary policy and a weak U.S. dollar are part of the mix, apparently, it's no wonder people around the world are searching for an alternative form of money in which to calculate and preserve their own wealth.
It may be too soon to dismiss the dollar as an utterly debauched currency. It still is the most used for international transactions and constitutes over 60% of other countries' official foreign-exchange reserves. But the reputation of our nation's money is being severely compromised. Funny how words normally used to address issues of morality come to the fore when judging the qualities of the dollar. Perhaps it's because the U.S. has long represented the virtues of democratic capitalism.
To be "sound as a dollar" is to be deemed trustworthy, dependable, and in good working condition. It used to mean all that, anyway. But as the dollar is increasingly perceived as the default mechanism for out-of-control government spending, its role as a reliable standard of value is destined to fade. Who wants to accumulate assets denominated in a shrinking unit of account? Excess government spending leads to inflation, and inflation plays dollar savers for patsies—both at home and abroad.
A return to sound financial principles in Washington, D.C., would signal that America still believes it can restore the integrity of the dollar and provide leadership for the global economy. But for all the talk from the Obama administration about the need to exert fiscal discipline—the president's 10-year federal budget is subtitled "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise"—the projected budget numbers anticipate a permanent pattern of deficit spending and vastly higher levels of outstanding federal debt. Even with the optimistic economic assumptions implicit in the Obama administration's budget, it's a mathematical impossibility to reduce debt if you continue to spend more than you take in.
Mr. Obama promises to lower the deficit from its current 9.9% of gross domestic product to an average 4.8% of GDP for the years 2010-2014, and an average 4% of GDP for the years 2015-2019. All of this presupposes no unforeseen expenditures such as a second "stimulus" package or additional costs related to health-care reform. But even if the deficit shrinks as a percentage of GDP, it's still a deficit. It adds to the amount of our nation's outstanding indebtedness, which reflects the cumulative total of annual budget deficits.
By the end of 2019, according to the administration's budget numbers, our federal debt will reach $23.3 trillion—as compared to $11.9 trillion today. To put it in perspective: U.S. federal debt was equal to 61.4% of GDP in 1999; it grew to 70.2% of GDP in 2008 (under the Bush administration); it will climb to an estimated 90.4% this year and touch the 100% mark in 2011, after which the projected federal debt will continue to equal or exceed our nation's entire annual economic output through 2019.
The U.S. is thus slated to enter the ranks of those countries—Zimbabwe, Japan, Lebanon, Singapore, Jamaica, Italy—with the highest government debt-to-GDP ratio (which measures the debt burden against a nation's capacity to generate sufficient wealth to repay its creditors). In 2008, the U.S. ranked 23rd on the list—crossing the 100% threshold vaults our nation into seventh place.
If you were a foreign government, would you want to increase your holdings of Treasury securities knowing the U.S. government has no plans to balance its budget during the next decade, let alone achieve a surplus?
In the European Union, countries wishing to adopt the euro must first limit government debt to 60% of GDP. It's the reference criterion for demonstrating "soundness and sustainability of public finances." Politicians find it all too tempting to print money—something the Europeans have understood since the days of the Weimar Republic—and excessive government borrowing poses a threat to monetary stability.
Valuable lessons can also be drawn from Japan's unsuccessful experiment with quantitative easing in the aftermath of its ruptured 1980s bubble economy. The Bank of Japan's desperate efforts to fight deflation through a zero-interest rate policy aimed at bailing out zombie companies, along with massive budget deficit spending, only contributed to a lost decade of stagnant growth. Japan's government debt-to-GDP ratio escalated to more than 170% now from 65% in 1990. Over the same period, the yen's use as an international reserve currency—it clings to fourth place behind the dollar, euro and pound sterling—declined from comprising 10.2% of official foreign-exchange reserves to 3.3% today.
The U.S. has long served as the world's "indispensable nation" and the dollar's primary role in the global economy has likewise seemed to testify to American exceptionalism. But the passivity in Washington toward our dismal fiscal future, and its inevitable toll on U.S. economic influence, suggests that American global leadership is no longer a priority and that America's money cannot be trusted.
If money is a moral contract between government and its citizens, we are being violated. The rest of the world, meanwhile, simply wants to avoid being duped. That is why China and Russia—large holders of dollars—are angling to invent some new kind of global currency for denominating reserve assets. It's why oil-producing Gulf States are fretting over whether to continue pricing energy exports in depreciated dollars. It's why central banks around the world are dumping dollars in favor of alternative currencies, even as reduced global demand exacerbates the dollar's decline.
Until the U.S. sends convincing signals that it believes in a strong dollar—mere rhetorical assertions ring hollow—the world has little reason to hold dollar-denominated securities.
Sadly, due to our fiscal quagmire, the Federal Reserve may be forced to raise interest rates as a sop to attract foreign capital even if it hurts our domestic economy. Unfortunately, that's the price of having already succumbed to symbiotic fiscal and monetary policy. If we could forge a genuine commitment to private-sector economic growth by reducing taxes, and at the same time significantly cut future spending, it might be possible to turn things around.
Under President Reagan in the 1980s, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker slashed inflation and strengthened the dollar by dramatically tightening credit. Though it was a painful process, the economy ultimately boomed.
Whether the U.S. can once more summon the resolve to address its problems is an open question. But the world's growing dollar disdain conveys a message: Issuing more promissory notes is not the way to renew America's promise.
*Ms. Shelton, an economist, is author of "Money Meltdown: Restoring Order to the Global Currency System" (Free Press, 1994). *
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Ram It Down Our Throats in '09 - Up Yours In '10
A sign of the times - the people rise up to smite the giant.
Who would have ever thought that our government would become the enemy of the people. Go figure.
Islamic Terrorists Insist On Political Correctness
Terrorists all over the world insist on the West following strict rules when referring to them as "towel heads". It's not fare and it doesn't show proper respect.Given that they have insisted on killing all of us that refuse to believe they are right, and pay tribute to them for not killing us, it is only right that we should not use inflammatory terms for their personal dressing habits which will only make things worse.
You ask how can things get worse if we are dead? Not important - what is important is that we do the right thing so it will be possible for all us to get along. After all, what we really need is for us to sit down and talk this thing out, explain how we just want to get along with everyone.
There is different thinking now in this new administration , not like the war mongers in the last administration that wanted only to kill people that have a different view of the world. We are not like that. We love you. Please, let's hold hands while we talk about our differences.
Yeah, Right!!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Doctors FORCED Into Public Option by Democrats
Who knew? If Obama has anything to do with out freedoms, you can know for sure that he will take them away. Doctors are now ready to be thrown under the bus, just like the rest of us.
Hey, "change we can believe in"! Obama taking us from a prosperous Republic to a third world swamp. Will we stand up now and stop this or just fade away as powerless?
Now is the time for all freedom loving citizens to defend America.
Keep the faith.
Doctors Will be 'Drafted' Under Public Option
Monday, October 12, 2009 6:47 PM
By: Jim Meyers
A respected medical specialist has carefully reviewed the healthcare reform bill in the U.S. House, and he declares that it would amount to a virtual "draft" of doctors into the government's "public option" health insurance program.
Dr. Russell Blaylock, a renowned neurosurgeon, book author and editor of the Blaylock Wellness Report published by Newsmax, also warns that "death panels" could lead to the rationing of medical care to the elderly and a "violation of the Hippocratic Oath."
See Video: Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the threats to quality medical care under Obamacare - Click Here Now
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Dr. Blaylock points to other ominous provisions in the bill, HR 3200, which he says would: Severely discourage the readmission of patients to a hospital after they have been treated, and punish doctors and hospitals if they do readmit them.
Require medical practitioners to document their dealings to the extent that they won't have enough time to adequately treat their patients.
Jeopardize the confidentiality of patients' medical records, including psychiatric reports.
The Senate's version of healthcare reform is slated to be voted on by the Finance Committee on Tuesday. But the House bill has already been approved by several committees and is sure to play a major role in any conference by the House and Senate to reconcile the bills those bodies pass.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella noted that under the House bill, physicians would be drafted into the public option, a provision Dr. Blaylock has earlier called "conscription."
This bill "is virtually a draft because it says all physicians are automatically in the public option unless they opt out, and the opt out mechanism will be later determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services," Dr. Blaylock said. "Well, we don't know how difficult it will be for physicians to opt out. Will there be penalties, fines, taxes, etc.? Because that's all left up to the Secretary."
He added on that score: "One of the things that concerns the legal minds of this country is that any bill that contains arbitrary language can be interpreted after it's passed any way they want to. And in this bill, virtually every page gives arbitrary powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services."
Blaylock warned that under the House bill, hospital readmissions will be very restricted.
"One of the things they targeted to save money was to punish hospitals and physicians if they readmit a patient within a month of them being treated in an emergency room," he said.
"The effect of that is going to be that doctors are not going to want to treat these patients, hospitals are not going to want to treat these patients. It's going to cost hospitals a considerable amount of money as well as the physicians in fines if a patient comes back readmitted.
"Now the people who are going to be readmitted are people with chronic illnesses, the elderly, the disabled. Those are the people who are going to have complications occur within that month period. And why should hospitals and physicians be punished for that?
"They're not going to want to treat these patients. They're going to want to refer them quickly to another facility. And that's one of the biggest problems we have, patients being bounced around."
Martella asked about a controversial provision in the bill for so-called end of life counseling, which critics have charged would set up "death panels."
"This caused a lot of controversy, on so-called death panels and whether this advanced healthcare planning was actually required," Dr. Blaylock said.
"But it says very specifically on pages 424 through 428 that these sessions will be part of the normal medical practice. Therefore it's not voluntary.
"So every patient of a certain age will have to undergo this counseling. And further, in really frightening language, this bill [stipulates] that the people doing the counseling will be specially trained and approved by the federal government. They'll supply films, brochures, pamphlets — the data the patients are being exposed to.
"If you look at a lot of this literature now, what it says is that these patients will be encouraged to end their life early rather than take extraordinary medical treatments.
"For instance, if you're 65, 70 years old and you have congestive heart failure, in their view you really should make the decision that you don't want any further treatment, that it would be best for you and your family.
"And if you couch it that way you can convince a lot of patients through guilt that they really shouldn't be spending the money that it's going to cost their family as well as the country at large. So this is a very dangerous precedent. This is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath...
"But then the health czar, Ezekiel Emanuel, has said that physicians are too obsessed with this Hippocratic Oath. And if you read his papers on this subject, he clearly states that the elderly should just make the decision that they don't want any further treatment and go ahead and meet their end.
"The Hastings Center that he writes for, and that he's on the advisory panel for, clearly [states] that patients need to just reject any kind of extraordinary healthcare, or just ordinary healthcare, and accept that they're going to die. To me that is under the definition of a death panel. "If you look at the socialist countries, for instance National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, they had very similar policies. They just didn't treat these people."
Dr. Blaylock is also concerned about the huge amount of paperwork the bill would require from medical practitioners.
"Those of us who have practiced medicine for a lot of years know that in the last 15 years, progressively, there's been so many requirements for the reporting of virtually everything," he said.
"This bill expands it enormously, so that physicians are not going to have time to do patient care to the extent that they should. They're not going to be able to follow up on their post-graduation education or attend seminars, because they're going to spend time documenting everything.
"They have to document any interaction with any federal bureaucracy or any other entity that they contract with. They have to determine whether there's a fraud risk. They're fined if fraud is found later, even though they're just referring a patient to an outpatient facility. They have to do quality assessments continuously.
"Now that's going to cause doctors to spend enormous amounts of time documenting all this and I don't see how they can even do it. The paperwork is absolutely enormous."
Martella asked if that record-keeping would encroach on doctor-patient confidentiality.
"Certainly. Whether you use patient code, patient names, all that is to be determined later. None of that is spelled out in this bill. So it has the potential, particularly in regard to the financial records that have to be supplied, of putting at risk your financial data, your medical data, if you've seen a psychiatrist, if you've had any kind of infectious disease that you don't want anyone to know about."
Under the bill, "all this information is available to a lot of eyes at every level and all sorts of bureaucracies, and it can leak out."
Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer -- Click Here Now.
See Video: Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the threats to quality medical care under Obamacare - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Hey, "change we can believe in"! Obama taking us from a prosperous Republic to a third world swamp. Will we stand up now and stop this or just fade away as powerless?
Now is the time for all freedom loving citizens to defend America.
Keep the faith.
Doctors Will be 'Drafted' Under Public Option
Monday, October 12, 2009 6:47 PM
By: Jim Meyers
A respected medical specialist has carefully reviewed the healthcare reform bill in the U.S. House, and he declares that it would amount to a virtual "draft" of doctors into the government's "public option" health insurance program.
Dr. Russell Blaylock, a renowned neurosurgeon, book author and editor of the Blaylock Wellness Report published by Newsmax, also warns that "death panels" could lead to the rationing of medical care to the elderly and a "violation of the Hippocratic Oath."
See Video: Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the threats to quality medical care under Obamacare - Click Here Now
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Dr. Blaylock points to other ominous provisions in the bill, HR 3200, which he says would: Severely discourage the readmission of patients to a hospital after they have been treated, and punish doctors and hospitals if they do readmit them.
Require medical practitioners to document their dealings to the extent that they won't have enough time to adequately treat their patients.
Jeopardize the confidentiality of patients' medical records, including psychiatric reports.
The Senate's version of healthcare reform is slated to be voted on by the Finance Committee on Tuesday. But the House bill has already been approved by several committees and is sure to play a major role in any conference by the House and Senate to reconcile the bills those bodies pass.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella noted that under the House bill, physicians would be drafted into the public option, a provision Dr. Blaylock has earlier called "conscription."
This bill "is virtually a draft because it says all physicians are automatically in the public option unless they opt out, and the opt out mechanism will be later determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services," Dr. Blaylock said. "Well, we don't know how difficult it will be for physicians to opt out. Will there be penalties, fines, taxes, etc.? Because that's all left up to the Secretary."
He added on that score: "One of the things that concerns the legal minds of this country is that any bill that contains arbitrary language can be interpreted after it's passed any way they want to. And in this bill, virtually every page gives arbitrary powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services."
Blaylock warned that under the House bill, hospital readmissions will be very restricted.
"One of the things they targeted to save money was to punish hospitals and physicians if they readmit a patient within a month of them being treated in an emergency room," he said.
"The effect of that is going to be that doctors are not going to want to treat these patients, hospitals are not going to want to treat these patients. It's going to cost hospitals a considerable amount of money as well as the physicians in fines if a patient comes back readmitted.
"Now the people who are going to be readmitted are people with chronic illnesses, the elderly, the disabled. Those are the people who are going to have complications occur within that month period. And why should hospitals and physicians be punished for that?
"They're not going to want to treat these patients. They're going to want to refer them quickly to another facility. And that's one of the biggest problems we have, patients being bounced around."
Martella asked about a controversial provision in the bill for so-called end of life counseling, which critics have charged would set up "death panels."
"This caused a lot of controversy, on so-called death panels and whether this advanced healthcare planning was actually required," Dr. Blaylock said.
"But it says very specifically on pages 424 through 428 that these sessions will be part of the normal medical practice. Therefore it's not voluntary.
"So every patient of a certain age will have to undergo this counseling. And further, in really frightening language, this bill [stipulates] that the people doing the counseling will be specially trained and approved by the federal government. They'll supply films, brochures, pamphlets — the data the patients are being exposed to.
"If you look at a lot of this literature now, what it says is that these patients will be encouraged to end their life early rather than take extraordinary medical treatments.
"For instance, if you're 65, 70 years old and you have congestive heart failure, in their view you really should make the decision that you don't want any further treatment, that it would be best for you and your family.
"And if you couch it that way you can convince a lot of patients through guilt that they really shouldn't be spending the money that it's going to cost their family as well as the country at large. So this is a very dangerous precedent. This is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath...
"But then the health czar, Ezekiel Emanuel, has said that physicians are too obsessed with this Hippocratic Oath. And if you read his papers on this subject, he clearly states that the elderly should just make the decision that they don't want any further treatment and go ahead and meet their end.
"The Hastings Center that he writes for, and that he's on the advisory panel for, clearly [states] that patients need to just reject any kind of extraordinary healthcare, or just ordinary healthcare, and accept that they're going to die. To me that is under the definition of a death panel. "If you look at the socialist countries, for instance National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, they had very similar policies. They just didn't treat these people."
Dr. Blaylock is also concerned about the huge amount of paperwork the bill would require from medical practitioners.
"Those of us who have practiced medicine for a lot of years know that in the last 15 years, progressively, there's been so many requirements for the reporting of virtually everything," he said.
"This bill expands it enormously, so that physicians are not going to have time to do patient care to the extent that they should. They're not going to be able to follow up on their post-graduation education or attend seminars, because they're going to spend time documenting everything.
"They have to document any interaction with any federal bureaucracy or any other entity that they contract with. They have to determine whether there's a fraud risk. They're fined if fraud is found later, even though they're just referring a patient to an outpatient facility. They have to do quality assessments continuously.
"Now that's going to cause doctors to spend enormous amounts of time documenting all this and I don't see how they can even do it. The paperwork is absolutely enormous."
Martella asked if that record-keeping would encroach on doctor-patient confidentiality.
"Certainly. Whether you use patient code, patient names, all that is to be determined later. None of that is spelled out in this bill. So it has the potential, particularly in regard to the financial records that have to be supplied, of putting at risk your financial data, your medical data, if you've seen a psychiatrist, if you've had any kind of infectious disease that you don't want anyone to know about."
Under the bill, "all this information is available to a lot of eyes at every level and all sorts of bureaucracies, and it can leak out."
Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer -- Click Here Now.
See Video: Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the threats to quality medical care under Obamacare - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Congress Weak on Control of 'Czars' Power
The Heritage Foundation points out the disaster that is the growth of 'Czars' and their power.
Congress partly to blame for 'czars'
When faced with controversial issues, Congress often turns to The Heritage Foundation for advice. Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding, for example, testified this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the constitutionality of the President's "czars" and their implications for Congressional oversight.
In his testimony, which was covered widely in the media, Spalding says it's unclear whether the "czars" are simple advisers or whether they're de facto department heads. This lack of clarity, he argues, raises serious concerns about their role and whether they are protected from Congressional oversight by executive privilege.
The proliferation of "czars" stems in large part from Congress' own bad decisions, argues Spalding, director of Heritage's B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies:
President Obama's attempt to centralize control over administrative agencies is therefore nothing new, nor is it peculiar to one of the two major parties in America. It is a symptom of a much more serious sickness -- the fact that Congress has transferred a great deal of its authority to administrative agencies, and neglected to put anyone in charge of the whole structure.
This entire framework is in tension with the original Constitution, but the Constitution nevertheless can give us some basic principles for thinking about the question of "czars" in the White House.
Spalding singles out last year's TARP bailout program as "a perfect example" of Congress giving away large amounts of authority to the executive branch: Unbounded delegations allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion at will to purchase "troubled" assets of any financial institution. Lo and behold, the United States is now a majority owner of General Motors and there is a Car Czar.
In an interview with the Washington Times, Spalding again points the finger at lawmakers, warning that Congress "needs to be more careful in the types of legislative discretion it gives, which in many cases gave rise to the creation of these czars in the first place."
Congress partly to blame for 'czars'
When faced with controversial issues, Congress often turns to The Heritage Foundation for advice. Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding, for example, testified this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the constitutionality of the President's "czars" and their implications for Congressional oversight.
In his testimony, which was covered widely in the media, Spalding says it's unclear whether the "czars" are simple advisers or whether they're de facto department heads. This lack of clarity, he argues, raises serious concerns about their role and whether they are protected from Congressional oversight by executive privilege.
The proliferation of "czars" stems in large part from Congress' own bad decisions, argues Spalding, director of Heritage's B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies:
President Obama's attempt to centralize control over administrative agencies is therefore nothing new, nor is it peculiar to one of the two major parties in America. It is a symptom of a much more serious sickness -- the fact that Congress has transferred a great deal of its authority to administrative agencies, and neglected to put anyone in charge of the whole structure.
This entire framework is in tension with the original Constitution, but the Constitution nevertheless can give us some basic principles for thinking about the question of "czars" in the White House.
Spalding singles out last year's TARP bailout program as "a perfect example" of Congress giving away large amounts of authority to the executive branch: Unbounded delegations allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion at will to purchase "troubled" assets of any financial institution. Lo and behold, the United States is now a majority owner of General Motors and there is a Car Czar.
In an interview with the Washington Times, Spalding again points the finger at lawmakers, warning that Congress "needs to be more careful in the types of legislative discretion it gives, which in many cases gave rise to the creation of these czars in the first place."
Liberal Democrats Plan Secret Passage Route of Obamacare
As one might expect from the Marxist liberals, they plan to pass the Obamacare health care disaster in secret, the public be damned!
After all, this IS about power to control the population, so why include them in this decision?
(This from the Heritage Foundation.)
The secret plan to pass Obamacare
The CBO's appealing estimates help smooth the way for the sneaky and complex legislative procedures the Left plans to use to pass Obamacare.
Heritage Senate Relations expert Brian Darling unveils the Left's "secret plan," warning that it would "railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people."
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has offered one way to ensure the proposal sees the light of day. He's proposed legislation requiring a 72-hour waiting period and an official cost estimate before the Senate considers any legislation.
"If Obama's promises to the American people about ethics and transparency mean anything," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll, "then he should insist on a full CBO scoring of health care" prior to any decision. Anything else would be unfair to the American people, especially when such a decision so directly affects each of us.
After all, this IS about power to control the population, so why include them in this decision?
(This from the Heritage Foundation.)
The secret plan to pass Obamacare
The CBO's appealing estimates help smooth the way for the sneaky and complex legislative procedures the Left plans to use to pass Obamacare.
Heritage Senate Relations expert Brian Darling unveils the Left's "secret plan," warning that it would "railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people."
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has offered one way to ensure the proposal sees the light of day. He's proposed legislation requiring a 72-hour waiting period and an official cost estimate before the Senate considers any legislation.
"If Obama's promises to the American people about ethics and transparency mean anything," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll, "then he should insist on a full CBO scoring of health care" prior to any decision. Anything else would be unfair to the American people, especially when such a decision so directly affects each of us.
CBO Report Bad News for Taxpayers AND America
This from the Heritage Foundation - WOW like we didn't know that a new government program, entitlement, would come in over budget. Remember Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? All are broke but we still have money to start another one that will cost 10 more than 829 Billion?
Who will pay for this? Does anyone care right now? You bet they do!
The tax-and-spend health care plan
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary cost estimate for the health plan put forward by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). The plan would cost $829 billion over ten years but still reduce the deficit by $81 billion.
The White House and liberals in Congress say the report confirms President Obama's promise that big-government reforms "will help bring our deficits under control in the long term." The leftist media jumped on board, heralding the CBO's numbers as a "green light" for Obamacare.
Does it sound too good to be true? There's a good reason why: Heritage health policy expert Nina Owcharenko points out that the report is far from rosy.
Just a preliminary analysis.
The CBO makes very clear that its analysis is based on Sen. Baucus' plain-English draft proposal. It is not based on final legislative language, so the cost estimates are subject to drastic change.
Real cost may be far higher. The $829 billion ten-year cost could easily underestimate the real burden. "Virtually all cost estimates of government programs underestimate the true cost," she argues. Just look at programs like Medicare, which came in about eight times more expensive than early projections.
'Paid for' with new taxes.
How do you turn $829 billion in spending into an $81 billion deficit reduction? In part by raising taxes. Individuals who choose not to purchase government-approved health coverage and employers who opt not to provide coverage to their employees will face heavy taxes. And new taxes on insurance companies will simply be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
'Paid for' with unlikely cuts.
The other way the Left would pay for this bill is by cutting Medicare. How likely are these cuts? Not very, Owcharenko says: "Traditionally, such cuts rarely come to fruition. Special interests lobby to stop any real cuts from occurring after the bill is passed."
Leaves millions uninsured.
Despite spending $829 billion or more specifically to provide insurance to those without it, 26 million people will still lack coverage. Of those who do receive government coverage, approximately half of them will be dumped into Medicaid -- "a program sorely in need of reform itself."
"In short, the news from CBO is not good news for the American taxpayers," writes Heritage health policy analyst Dennis Smith.
Who will pay for this? Does anyone care right now? You bet they do!
The tax-and-spend health care plan
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary cost estimate for the health plan put forward by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). The plan would cost $829 billion over ten years but still reduce the deficit by $81 billion.
The White House and liberals in Congress say the report confirms President Obama's promise that big-government reforms "will help bring our deficits under control in the long term." The leftist media jumped on board, heralding the CBO's numbers as a "green light" for Obamacare.
Does it sound too good to be true? There's a good reason why: Heritage health policy expert Nina Owcharenko points out that the report is far from rosy.
Just a preliminary analysis.
The CBO makes very clear that its analysis is based on Sen. Baucus' plain-English draft proposal. It is not based on final legislative language, so the cost estimates are subject to drastic change.
Real cost may be far higher. The $829 billion ten-year cost could easily underestimate the real burden. "Virtually all cost estimates of government programs underestimate the true cost," she argues. Just look at programs like Medicare, which came in about eight times more expensive than early projections.
'Paid for' with new taxes.
How do you turn $829 billion in spending into an $81 billion deficit reduction? In part by raising taxes. Individuals who choose not to purchase government-approved health coverage and employers who opt not to provide coverage to their employees will face heavy taxes. And new taxes on insurance companies will simply be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
'Paid for' with unlikely cuts.
The other way the Left would pay for this bill is by cutting Medicare. How likely are these cuts? Not very, Owcharenko says: "Traditionally, such cuts rarely come to fruition. Special interests lobby to stop any real cuts from occurring after the bill is passed."
Leaves millions uninsured.
Despite spending $829 billion or more specifically to provide insurance to those without it, 26 million people will still lack coverage. Of those who do receive government coverage, approximately half of them will be dumped into Medicaid -- "a program sorely in need of reform itself."
"In short, the news from CBO is not good news for the American taxpayers," writes Heritage health policy analyst Dennis Smith.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Toyota Closes Last Factory In California
Little wonder socialism doesn't work - taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is, ah, unproductive. Unions, for the most part, are a hindrance to productivity and will, in the end, destroy the very thing that they want more than anything else, a total worker base that is subservient to them. Why, you ask? Easy.
The unions will destroy not only the worker base through wages and benefit demands, but they will destroy the environment that they exist in at the same time. State governments are going broke under the strain of union contracts and other socialist agendas.
Sweetheart deals that the politicians and union bosses thought would always keep them in power have come full circle. Now there is no money left to line each others pockets. And guess who looses the most? da!
But wait, maybe there is hope yet - the conservative base was a sleeping giant but now is starting to waken to this insanity. Just maybe the people will find they have had enough and throw the bums out. I sure hope so -
Keep the faith
Toyota commits a rare and brave act — it decides to close an auto plant.·
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Toyota has done a strange thing. It has decided to close an auto factory, the last auto factory in California. Local politicians pleaded. They wept. They offered payola from their depleted state and local coffers. But not even the Terminator could change Toyota's mind.
Hooray for Toyota. However sad for workers, the company's decision is a brave one, and a rare one. Autos are an industry that, for decades, has not been able to rationally restructure itself to provide a competitive return to investors. Politicians won't allow it. They wouldn't permit the necessary short-term job loss. The result, finally, is what we see today: a global auto sector increasingly dependent on taxpayer subsides.
More notable still, Toyota is not doing away with just any auto factory, but with a landmark joint venture between Toyota and GM until GM bailed this year amid its bankruptcy ordeal.
Nummi, short for New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. and born in 1984, was heralded as a way to introduce GM to Japanese-style "lean production" while introducing Toyota to the doughty U.S. auto worker.
Never mind that it never made much money, Nummi starred in countless business school studies as an example of "transformation," "collaboration" and "win-win." In fact, Nummi was a political operation from day one. Toyota at the time had no U.S. production and had just been slammed by a protectionist "voluntary" quota on cars imported from Japan. The plant also helped it end-run Washington's 25% duty in imported pickups.
In return, the joint-venture was designed to help GM off the wicket of its unwise promise to pay wages and benefits to workers even when it had no jobs for them. As this newspaper reported in 1992: "By agreeing to provide jobs for laid-off GM workers, Toyota could help insulate itself from political attacks. To this end, Toyota already has stepped up purchases of GM-made vehicle parts." Even in recent years, Nummi employed twice as many workers as it really needed. Toyota chief executive Akio Toyoda, a grandson of the company's founder, cut his own teeth at Nummi in the 1990s.
Yet, in his decision to close the plant, he was signaling something more than just a hard-headed unwillingness to keep playing sugar daddy to the UAW. The world had changed. Toyota suddenly finds itself rushing to cut costs and make other market-minded adjustments while many of its competitors are being propped up by government handouts.
Take another property cast loose in the GM bankruptcy, its European affiliate Opel-Vauxhall. It will be "sold" to a Canadian-Russian joint venture, but the German taxpayer will be taking all the risk.
Opel, all agree, is too small to have a future, because it won't be able to afford the necessary technology to compete in the highly advanced European Union marketplace. Of two bidders, one acknowledged as much and told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he frankly was interested only because the government was shouldering the potential losses. She chose the other bidder, for whom the same is also true, but who was polite enough to blow smoke about believing in the future of the Opel "brand."
Opel might have remained useful to GM, were GM allowed to slash costs and employment. But that was not Ms. Merkel's agenda. She reportedly strongly pressured the Obama administration to pressure GM to go through with the sale in advance of last week's German elections. There you have the still-unfolding disaster of the developed world's auto market writ small.
Protectionism is never about "saving jobs," but about saving specific jobs of politically useful groups. Ms. Merkel's steps may well cause a blow-up in the EU, given her insistence that Opel's German plants be protected at the expense of plants in Belgium and Spain. Likewise, California is not up for grabs politically, unlike other states where the UAW is powerful. So the union, having already received countless favors from the Obama administration, chooses to spend its ammunition elsewhere, partly because it never liked the Nummi idea of "lean manufacturing" in the first place.
Mr. Obama himself continues to whistle past the irreconcilability of his vast investment of government money to make GM and Chrysler "self sustaining" while simultaneously laying heavy mandates on them to build "green cars." It will be a miracle if the contradiction does not manifest itself in overt or covert protectionist interventions in the years ahead.
And here's why it matters to you: Bankers will get the blame, but behavior like this is becoming the bigger drag as the world economy tries to climb out of a hole.
The unions will destroy not only the worker base through wages and benefit demands, but they will destroy the environment that they exist in at the same time. State governments are going broke under the strain of union contracts and other socialist agendas.
Sweetheart deals that the politicians and union bosses thought would always keep them in power have come full circle. Now there is no money left to line each others pockets. And guess who looses the most? da!
But wait, maybe there is hope yet - the conservative base was a sleeping giant but now is starting to waken to this insanity. Just maybe the people will find they have had enough and throw the bums out. I sure hope so -
Keep the faith
Toyota commits a rare and brave act — it decides to close an auto plant.·
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Toyota has done a strange thing. It has decided to close an auto factory, the last auto factory in California. Local politicians pleaded. They wept. They offered payola from their depleted state and local coffers. But not even the Terminator could change Toyota's mind.
Hooray for Toyota. However sad for workers, the company's decision is a brave one, and a rare one. Autos are an industry that, for decades, has not been able to rationally restructure itself to provide a competitive return to investors. Politicians won't allow it. They wouldn't permit the necessary short-term job loss. The result, finally, is what we see today: a global auto sector increasingly dependent on taxpayer subsides.
More notable still, Toyota is not doing away with just any auto factory, but with a landmark joint venture between Toyota and GM until GM bailed this year amid its bankruptcy ordeal.
Nummi, short for New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. and born in 1984, was heralded as a way to introduce GM to Japanese-style "lean production" while introducing Toyota to the doughty U.S. auto worker.
Never mind that it never made much money, Nummi starred in countless business school studies as an example of "transformation," "collaboration" and "win-win." In fact, Nummi was a political operation from day one. Toyota at the time had no U.S. production and had just been slammed by a protectionist "voluntary" quota on cars imported from Japan. The plant also helped it end-run Washington's 25% duty in imported pickups.
In return, the joint-venture was designed to help GM off the wicket of its unwise promise to pay wages and benefits to workers even when it had no jobs for them. As this newspaper reported in 1992: "By agreeing to provide jobs for laid-off GM workers, Toyota could help insulate itself from political attacks. To this end, Toyota already has stepped up purchases of GM-made vehicle parts." Even in recent years, Nummi employed twice as many workers as it really needed. Toyota chief executive Akio Toyoda, a grandson of the company's founder, cut his own teeth at Nummi in the 1990s.
Yet, in his decision to close the plant, he was signaling something more than just a hard-headed unwillingness to keep playing sugar daddy to the UAW. The world had changed. Toyota suddenly finds itself rushing to cut costs and make other market-minded adjustments while many of its competitors are being propped up by government handouts.
Take another property cast loose in the GM bankruptcy, its European affiliate Opel-Vauxhall. It will be "sold" to a Canadian-Russian joint venture, but the German taxpayer will be taking all the risk.
Opel, all agree, is too small to have a future, because it won't be able to afford the necessary technology to compete in the highly advanced European Union marketplace. Of two bidders, one acknowledged as much and told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he frankly was interested only because the government was shouldering the potential losses. She chose the other bidder, for whom the same is also true, but who was polite enough to blow smoke about believing in the future of the Opel "brand."
Opel might have remained useful to GM, were GM allowed to slash costs and employment. But that was not Ms. Merkel's agenda. She reportedly strongly pressured the Obama administration to pressure GM to go through with the sale in advance of last week's German elections. There you have the still-unfolding disaster of the developed world's auto market writ small.
Protectionism is never about "saving jobs," but about saving specific jobs of politically useful groups. Ms. Merkel's steps may well cause a blow-up in the EU, given her insistence that Opel's German plants be protected at the expense of plants in Belgium and Spain. Likewise, California is not up for grabs politically, unlike other states where the UAW is powerful. So the union, having already received countless favors from the Obama administration, chooses to spend its ammunition elsewhere, partly because it never liked the Nummi idea of "lean manufacturing" in the first place.
Mr. Obama himself continues to whistle past the irreconcilability of his vast investment of government money to make GM and Chrysler "self sustaining" while simultaneously laying heavy mandates on them to build "green cars." It will be a miracle if the contradiction does not manifest itself in overt or covert protectionist interventions in the years ahead.
And here's why it matters to you: Bankers will get the blame, but behavior like this is becoming the bigger drag as the world economy tries to climb out of a hole.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Politicans: YouLie! - Who Isn't?
This is good question to ask these days in light of what Obama is doing to our country. And remember Joe Wilson during Obama's speech to the congress - Joe was right, of course, but it was bad manners for a Conservative to say such things -
Conservatives Believe : Liberals Twist
This observation of the differences between liberals and Conservatives speaks volumes. Who knew we were so different - who knew liberals could be so wrong and so dangerous to our way of life in America.
Conservatives believe what they say and then follow through - where as liberals just want to feel good about what they say but have no intention of following through - the intent is enough. Smoke but no fire.
Keep the faith -
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
Conservatives believe what they say and then follow through - where as liberals just want to feel good about what they say but have no intention of following through - the intent is enough. Smoke but no fire.
Keep the faith -
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
Friday, October 09, 2009
GM and Saturn Fall Victim To Big Union AND Big Government
This does not come as any surprise to anyone - whether it's big government or big union, everyone, but the unions and government, knows corruption and greed are soon to follow and they did.
And guess what will happen to GM, of course Saturn already gone, and now our country sliding into chaos. Hurray for Marxist socialism and the liberal Democrats.
How Saturn Couldn't Escape GM's Dysfunctional Orbit
Union leaders hated the flexible work rules and eventually got rid of them.
By PAUL INGRASSIA
<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=PAUL+INGRASSIA&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
General Motors and the United Auto Workers union have waged war against each other—sometimes hot, sometimes cold—for most of the past 80 years. One of the few things on which they collaborated, sadly, was undermining Saturn, which began as the boldest effort to reform the dysfunctional dynamics of their relationship.
On Wednesday, what appears to be Saturn's death knell sounded when Roger Penske, the legendary automotive entrepreneur, abandoned his plan to buy Saturn from GM and run it as an independent car company. Mr. Penske's plan was a long shot anyway. He had intended to make Saturn a distributor and retailer only, procuring the vehicles from auto makers—initially GM and then France's Renault—on a contract basis.
One inherent problem was that the companies making cars for Saturn also would be its competitors, if only indirectly in Renault's case. (Renault controls Nissan, which competes head-to-head with Saturn in the U.S.) So it was little surprise when Mr. Penske couldn't reach acceptable terms with Renault and pulled out of the deal. Barring a miracle, GM now will "move quickly to wind down Saturn," as GM Treasurer Walter Borst said Thursday at an analysts' conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., and many dealers likely will shut their doors soon.
But make no mistake: The failure here isn't Mr. Penske's. Saturn was killed by its creators, GM and the UAW.
The company starved Saturn for new products, and the union waged war against Saturn's labor reforms to keep them from spreading to other GM factories. The story began on Jan. 8, 1985, when GM announced Saturn at a press conference in Detroit. It would be GM's first new brand in 70 years and operate as a separate subsidiary, with its own labor contract, to develop a small car fully competitive with the imports. Chairman Roger B. Smith assigned Saturn a historic mission: to "affirm that American ingenuity, American technology and American productivity can once again be the model and the inspiration for the rest of the world."Those stirring words were echoed seven months later in a Memorandum of Understanding between GM and the UAW: "We believe that all people want to be involved in decisions that affect them, care about their jobs . . . and want to share in the success of their efforts."
Saturn became not just a company but a cause. Its factory would be in Spring Hill, Tenn., a bucolic town 45 miles south of Nashville and hundreds of miles from the hidebound headquarters of GM and the UAW in Detroit. Saturn's chief UAW apostle was Donald Ephlin, the visionary head of the union's GM department who passed away in 2000. Ephlin strongly believed that Detroit's auto makers and the UAW had to change from confrontation to collaboration. Thus the Saturn contract, built on the Memorandum of Understanding, eliminated most of the work rules that strictly limit the tasks UAW members can perform.
Workers would be called "technicians" and get just 80% of standard UAW wages but would share in Saturn's profits, allowing them to earn more if Saturn succeeded. Most Saturn executives and managers would be assigned a UAW counterpart, and the two would share in key decisions.The latter provision was overly idealistic, but certainly an improvement over constant and costly combat.
Nonetheless, Saturn's labor innovations were attacked by UAW traditionalists, who coined the term "Ephlinism" to describe Saturn's heresies. Ephlin retired, on the defensive, in 1989. Mr. Smith retired a year later, his reputation besmirched by GM's chronic underperformance, just before Saturn built its first cars.The cars were pretty ordinary, causing Honda engineers to scoff when they disassembled one. But the engineers couldn't see Saturn's emotional appeal, reinforced with advertising about labor-management cooperation amid the down-home values of Spring Hill.
One ad featured a technician kneeling next to his Irish setter and saying: "What's happened here is something I'd like my grandchildren to know about."Saturn dealers were awarded broad area franchises, freeing them to focus on customers instead of competing with dealers down the block. Customers loved the no-haggle pricing and being cheered by employees when they drove their new car off the lot. More than 40,000 Saturn owners attended the June 1994 Saturn Homecoming in Spring Hill, where they were treated to factory tours, country-music concerts, and picnics with the workers who built their cars.
In June 1993, Vice President Al Gore visited Spring Hill and said he wanted to "Saturnize" the federal government, whatever that meant. The Age of Aquarius was meeting the automotive assembly line. Saturn sales peaked at 286,000 cars in 1995. But that year saw another, more menacing development. The UAW elected as its new president Stephen P. Yokich, a militant firebrand with an explosive temper who hated Saturn. Before his death in 2002, he opposed profit-sharing, the elimination of work rules, and the flexible factory shifts that improved Saturn's efficiency.
Yokich convinced GM to assign a new Saturn model to a factory in Delaware instead of Spring Hill. He worked to unseat Mike Bennett, an Ephlin protégé, as president of UAW Local 1853 at Saturn. Mr. Bennett was defeated for re-election in 1999.
Meanwhile, Saturn wasn't faring much better at the hands of management. After GM almost went bankrupt in 1992, the cash-strapped company didn't give Saturn money to update its cars. The decision was understandable but unfortunate. By the time new models finally arrived, Saturn's sales had fallen dramatically and Saturn didn't seem so special any more.
In 2003 the Spring Hill technicians—now workers again—voted to scrap Saturn's special agreement and return to the UAW's standard contract with GM. Spring Hill became a regular GM factory after the last Saturn was built there two years ago. Ironically, the town of Spring Hill still has a street called Stephen P. Yokich Parkway.
GM is cagey about whether Saturn ever was profitable; the answer likely depends on accounting allocations for corporate overhead and the like. But in recent years Saturn, like the rest of GM, clearly was losing money. Without a special labor contract or any unique vehicles, Saturn was a clear candidate for closure when President Barack Obama's automotive team forced GM to downsize in the government bailout.
Mr. Penske then attempted to save Saturn by buying the brand and creating an automotive Costco that would procure cars from various manufacturers. Saturn always had portrayed itself as "a different kind of company," but this was too different to succeed.
Last week I went to Tennessee to speak to the Republican Women's Club of Williamson County, home of the former Saturn factory. Some of the attendees were former Saturn workers, good people who really tried to create something different at Spring Hill but were let down by their company and their union. Perhaps the new GM and the UAW will forge a different relationship in the future.
Meanwhile, the Saturn workers' sense of loss is expressed poignantly by Mike Bennett, their former union leader, who says, "I wake up at night sick, thinking about all the things that might have been."
*Mr. Ingrassia is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Detroit bureau chief of this newspaper. His book "Crash Course: the American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster," will be published by Random House in January.*Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
And guess what will happen to GM, of course Saturn already gone, and now our country sliding into chaos. Hurray for Marxist socialism and the liberal Democrats.
How Saturn Couldn't Escape GM's Dysfunctional Orbit
Union leaders hated the flexible work rules and eventually got rid of them.
By PAUL INGRASSIA
<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=PAUL+INGRASSIA&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
General Motors and the United Auto Workers union have waged war against each other—sometimes hot, sometimes cold—for most of the past 80 years. One of the few things on which they collaborated, sadly, was undermining Saturn, which began as the boldest effort to reform the dysfunctional dynamics of their relationship.
On Wednesday, what appears to be Saturn's death knell sounded when Roger Penske, the legendary automotive entrepreneur, abandoned his plan to buy Saturn from GM and run it as an independent car company. Mr. Penske's plan was a long shot anyway. He had intended to make Saturn a distributor and retailer only, procuring the vehicles from auto makers—initially GM and then France's Renault—on a contract basis.
One inherent problem was that the companies making cars for Saturn also would be its competitors, if only indirectly in Renault's case. (Renault controls Nissan, which competes head-to-head with Saturn in the U.S.) So it was little surprise when Mr. Penske couldn't reach acceptable terms with Renault and pulled out of the deal. Barring a miracle, GM now will "move quickly to wind down Saturn," as GM Treasurer Walter Borst said Thursday at an analysts' conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., and many dealers likely will shut their doors soon.
But make no mistake: The failure here isn't Mr. Penske's. Saturn was killed by its creators, GM and the UAW.
The company starved Saturn for new products, and the union waged war against Saturn's labor reforms to keep them from spreading to other GM factories. The story began on Jan. 8, 1985, when GM announced Saturn at a press conference in Detroit. It would be GM's first new brand in 70 years and operate as a separate subsidiary, with its own labor contract, to develop a small car fully competitive with the imports. Chairman Roger B. Smith assigned Saturn a historic mission: to "affirm that American ingenuity, American technology and American productivity can once again be the model and the inspiration for the rest of the world."Those stirring words were echoed seven months later in a Memorandum of Understanding between GM and the UAW: "We believe that all people want to be involved in decisions that affect them, care about their jobs . . . and want to share in the success of their efforts."
Saturn became not just a company but a cause. Its factory would be in Spring Hill, Tenn., a bucolic town 45 miles south of Nashville and hundreds of miles from the hidebound headquarters of GM and the UAW in Detroit. Saturn's chief UAW apostle was Donald Ephlin, the visionary head of the union's GM department who passed away in 2000. Ephlin strongly believed that Detroit's auto makers and the UAW had to change from confrontation to collaboration. Thus the Saturn contract, built on the Memorandum of Understanding, eliminated most of the work rules that strictly limit the tasks UAW members can perform.
Workers would be called "technicians" and get just 80% of standard UAW wages but would share in Saturn's profits, allowing them to earn more if Saturn succeeded. Most Saturn executives and managers would be assigned a UAW counterpart, and the two would share in key decisions.The latter provision was overly idealistic, but certainly an improvement over constant and costly combat.
Nonetheless, Saturn's labor innovations were attacked by UAW traditionalists, who coined the term "Ephlinism" to describe Saturn's heresies. Ephlin retired, on the defensive, in 1989. Mr. Smith retired a year later, his reputation besmirched by GM's chronic underperformance, just before Saturn built its first cars.The cars were pretty ordinary, causing Honda engineers to scoff when they disassembled one. But the engineers couldn't see Saturn's emotional appeal, reinforced with advertising about labor-management cooperation amid the down-home values of Spring Hill.
One ad featured a technician kneeling next to his Irish setter and saying: "What's happened here is something I'd like my grandchildren to know about."Saturn dealers were awarded broad area franchises, freeing them to focus on customers instead of competing with dealers down the block. Customers loved the no-haggle pricing and being cheered by employees when they drove their new car off the lot. More than 40,000 Saturn owners attended the June 1994 Saturn Homecoming in Spring Hill, where they were treated to factory tours, country-music concerts, and picnics with the workers who built their cars.
In June 1993, Vice President Al Gore visited Spring Hill and said he wanted to "Saturnize" the federal government, whatever that meant. The Age of Aquarius was meeting the automotive assembly line. Saturn sales peaked at 286,000 cars in 1995. But that year saw another, more menacing development. The UAW elected as its new president Stephen P. Yokich, a militant firebrand with an explosive temper who hated Saturn. Before his death in 2002, he opposed profit-sharing, the elimination of work rules, and the flexible factory shifts that improved Saturn's efficiency.
Yokich convinced GM to assign a new Saturn model to a factory in Delaware instead of Spring Hill. He worked to unseat Mike Bennett, an Ephlin protégé, as president of UAW Local 1853 at Saturn. Mr. Bennett was defeated for re-election in 1999.
Meanwhile, Saturn wasn't faring much better at the hands of management. After GM almost went bankrupt in 1992, the cash-strapped company didn't give Saturn money to update its cars. The decision was understandable but unfortunate. By the time new models finally arrived, Saturn's sales had fallen dramatically and Saturn didn't seem so special any more.
In 2003 the Spring Hill technicians—now workers again—voted to scrap Saturn's special agreement and return to the UAW's standard contract with GM. Spring Hill became a regular GM factory after the last Saturn was built there two years ago. Ironically, the town of Spring Hill still has a street called Stephen P. Yokich Parkway.
GM is cagey about whether Saturn ever was profitable; the answer likely depends on accounting allocations for corporate overhead and the like. But in recent years Saturn, like the rest of GM, clearly was losing money. Without a special labor contract or any unique vehicles, Saturn was a clear candidate for closure when President Barack Obama's automotive team forced GM to downsize in the government bailout.
Mr. Penske then attempted to save Saturn by buying the brand and creating an automotive Costco that would procure cars from various manufacturers. Saturn always had portrayed itself as "a different kind of company," but this was too different to succeed.
Last week I went to Tennessee to speak to the Republican Women's Club of Williamson County, home of the former Saturn factory. Some of the attendees were former Saturn workers, good people who really tried to create something different at Spring Hill but were let down by their company and their union. Perhaps the new GM and the UAW will forge a different relationship in the future.
Meanwhile, the Saturn workers' sense of loss is expressed poignantly by Mike Bennett, their former union leader, who says, "I wake up at night sick, thinking about all the things that might have been."
*Mr. Ingrassia is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Detroit bureau chief of this newspaper. His book "Crash Course: the American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster," will be published by Random House in January.*Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Congressional Bill HR 45 - Disarming America
This is from the National Association of Gun Rights explaining how Obama will disarm the country, if we allow it to happen.
Read on.
October 7, 2009
Dear Concerned American, The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.
Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama’s gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he’s supported over the years.It's only the first step......but it's a HUGE step.
H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner -- for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that’s only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place! And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find youself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.
And it gets worse too.The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:
Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.
Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database. It gets worse though. Sarah Brady and her allies in Congress want to force you to take a written exam to prove that you are "fit" to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. I'm outraged by this, and I know you are too.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.
Taken right out of Sarah Brady's Christmas wish list, H.R. 45 includes a laundry list of new restrictions on firearms purchases. In addition to the outrageous national gun registration requirement, H.R. 45 also requires you to:
Pass a written examination to purchase a firearm.
Release your medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the government to get your "fitness" to own a firearm approved.
Observe a two-day waiting period before all firearms purchases.
Pay a gun tax of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.
Moreover, H.R. 45 bans all private firearms sales and maximizes penalties for minor clerical errors in dealing with the national gun registry. The list goes on and on. It's enough to turn your stomach. I know I don't have to tell you, but these restrictions make a mockery of the Constitution. "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" might as well say: "You have no rights." If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren't infringing our rights, I don't know what is!
Even the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision guaranteeing an individual’s right to own a firearm doesn’t hamper Barack Obama’s agenda one bit. In fact, it emboldens gun grabbers to pass legislation taxing ammunition, increasing registration requirements, and drastically limiting when, how and where you can use your firearm.
That’s why I’ve decided to stand with the National Association for Gun Rights fight back against this radical scheme.They're fully committed to stopping the efforts of the gun grabbers, but they need the help of grassroots gun owners like you. With liberals calling the shots in Washington, all supporters of the Second Amendment must join together, draw a line in the sand, and fight this battle to the end. We must make this gun-grab expensive and politically painful for the enemies of freedom. If we do, they'll flinch ... and LOSE. By mobilizing hundreds of thousands of grassroots gun owners across the country, the National Association for Gun Rights can put anti-gun politicians on the hot seat.
Are you opposed to national gun registration?Are you opposed to a written examination to buy a gun?Are you opposed to a new $25 gun tax?Are you opposed to a total ban on private firearm sales?
If you said "Yes" to these questions, click here to fill out a special survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.
Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST Barack Obama’s gun control package.Stopping un-Constitutional gun control bills like H.R. 45 may be NAGR’s top priority, but they need your help. Along with your signed survey, please send the National Association for Gun Rights a generous contribution to help finance this battle. You will have the opportunity to donate right after you fill out the survey.
The truth is, H.R. 45 is just the tip of the iceberg. Sarah Brady and her cohorts in Congress now have the support of a willing White House and won't stop until they've reached their ultimate goal: A virtual ban on private, individual firearm ownership. That is why NAGR simply must hear from you immediately. Please take a moment to fill out NAGR's H.R. 45 survey, and, if at all possible, send a contribution of $200, $150, $100 or maybe just $25 to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight H.R. 45 and Sarah Brady's gun control wish list. I know this is a lot to ask, but inaction could very well lead to defeat and the loss of our right to keep and bear arms. Whether you can afford $200 or a lesser amount of $50 or $25, please contribute what you can.
It's critical we do all we can.Thank you in advance for contributing your time and money towards defending our Second Amendment rights. For Freedom and Liberty,Paul BrounU.S. Congressman (R-GA)National Association for Gun Rights P.S. The anti-gun extremists who helped put Obama in power are itching for pay-back -- and here it comes.H.R. 45 is the most sweeping gun control proposal ever offered in America. And under this administration, it might just pass -- so please act today!
The National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. is approved as a non-profit tax-exempt advocacy organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions or gifts to NAGR are not tax deductible for IRS purposes.
Read on.
October 7, 2009
Dear Concerned American, The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.
Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama’s gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he’s supported over the years.It's only the first step......but it's a HUGE step.
H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner -- for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that’s only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place! And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find youself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.
And it gets worse too.The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:
Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.
Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database. It gets worse though. Sarah Brady and her allies in Congress want to force you to take a written exam to prove that you are "fit" to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. I'm outraged by this, and I know you are too.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.
Taken right out of Sarah Brady's Christmas wish list, H.R. 45 includes a laundry list of new restrictions on firearms purchases. In addition to the outrageous national gun registration requirement, H.R. 45 also requires you to:
Pass a written examination to purchase a firearm.
Release your medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the government to get your "fitness" to own a firearm approved.
Observe a two-day waiting period before all firearms purchases.
Pay a gun tax of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.
Moreover, H.R. 45 bans all private firearms sales and maximizes penalties for minor clerical errors in dealing with the national gun registry. The list goes on and on. It's enough to turn your stomach. I know I don't have to tell you, but these restrictions make a mockery of the Constitution. "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" might as well say: "You have no rights." If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren't infringing our rights, I don't know what is!
Even the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision guaranteeing an individual’s right to own a firearm doesn’t hamper Barack Obama’s agenda one bit. In fact, it emboldens gun grabbers to pass legislation taxing ammunition, increasing registration requirements, and drastically limiting when, how and where you can use your firearm.
That’s why I’ve decided to stand with the National Association for Gun Rights fight back against this radical scheme.They're fully committed to stopping the efforts of the gun grabbers, but they need the help of grassroots gun owners like you. With liberals calling the shots in Washington, all supporters of the Second Amendment must join together, draw a line in the sand, and fight this battle to the end. We must make this gun-grab expensive and politically painful for the enemies of freedom. If we do, they'll flinch ... and LOSE. By mobilizing hundreds of thousands of grassroots gun owners across the country, the National Association for Gun Rights can put anti-gun politicians on the hot seat.
Are you opposed to national gun registration?Are you opposed to a written examination to buy a gun?Are you opposed to a new $25 gun tax?Are you opposed to a total ban on private firearm sales?
If you said "Yes" to these questions, click here to fill out a special survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.
Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST Barack Obama’s gun control package.Stopping un-Constitutional gun control bills like H.R. 45 may be NAGR’s top priority, but they need your help. Along with your signed survey, please send the National Association for Gun Rights a generous contribution to help finance this battle. You will have the opportunity to donate right after you fill out the survey.
The truth is, H.R. 45 is just the tip of the iceberg. Sarah Brady and her cohorts in Congress now have the support of a willing White House and won't stop until they've reached their ultimate goal: A virtual ban on private, individual firearm ownership. That is why NAGR simply must hear from you immediately. Please take a moment to fill out NAGR's H.R. 45 survey, and, if at all possible, send a contribution of $200, $150, $100 or maybe just $25 to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight H.R. 45 and Sarah Brady's gun control wish list. I know this is a lot to ask, but inaction could very well lead to defeat and the loss of our right to keep and bear arms. Whether you can afford $200 or a lesser amount of $50 or $25, please contribute what you can.
It's critical we do all we can.Thank you in advance for contributing your time and money towards defending our Second Amendment rights. For Freedom and Liberty,Paul BrounU.S. Congressman (R-GA)National Association for Gun Rights P.S. The anti-gun extremists who helped put Obama in power are itching for pay-back -- and here it comes.H.R. 45 is the most sweeping gun control proposal ever offered in America. And under this administration, it might just pass -- so please act today!
The National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. is approved as a non-profit tax-exempt advocacy organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions or gifts to NAGR are not tax deductible for IRS purposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
