…Will the time come when Al Gore is formally asked by the powers-that-be at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to return the Oscar he won for An Inconvenient Truth? It’s becoming more and more apparent that his “documentary” is based on incorrect data. I also find it ominous that Gore refuses to answer any tough questions on the subject and has even refused John Stossel’s request for a debate. Mr. Vice President, if you’re right and they’re wrong, what’s the problem? Why not accept Stossel’s request and “own” him and show the world that what you’ve been saying about man-made global warming is true?

I’d also like to see Mr. Gore answer questions about whether or not his house really goes through something like $20,000 monthly in energy costs…

…I understand Elin Nordegren told Tiger Woods he’d have to indefinitely quit golf for the sake of their marriage. If she indeed divorces him, does that mean he’ll be hitting the links again?

I suspect that if someone tries to scream “YOU THE MAN!” while Tiger attempts a short putt, that person will get to wear Tiger’s putter as a new necklace…

…Does DNC chair Howard Dean’s refusal to support this health care bill of President Barack Obama’s and Dean’s statement he won’t “vigorously” support Obama’s re-election mean that the honeymoon of America and the president is over?

Man, I am sooooooo thankful we elected an inexperienced president instead of an inexperienced vice president. That was a close one!

Richard Zowie has several blogs, including three more on WordPress and one on www.bleacherreport.com. Post comments below or e-mail richardzowie@gmail.com.

This weekend the president is in Copenhagen, Denmark for the Global Warming Summit.   I think summit is a bit of a misnomer because it is basically a big ra-ra meeting for global warming policies and theories.  There is no discussion- no substantive debate.  Listening to the President and other liberal leaders you would think that everyone but total wackos agreed with the concept of climate change.  I have done some studying on both sides and the issue is by no means a set-in-stone theory.  While the globe has been shown to have warmed over the last 100 years the debate on what that really means and what should be done about it is still in the air- or at least it should be.   I’ve seen an Inconvenient Truth and to be honest I was surprised that it won an Oscar.  It is basically Al Gore in front of a power point for 2 hours- not my definition of exciting. Nevertheless, the content was interesting and disturbing; however, it was framed without any realistic opposing points of view.   Al Gore’s ideas are stated as a matter of fact- as if explaining a recipe, or like a how-to-guide for fixing the earth!

You may find it radical for me to be asking such questions but isn’t that a sign of the effectiveness of climate change/global warming smear machine?  What is wrong with asking a few questions.  I believe in recycling, carpooling, and every sensible act we can do to take care of the environment.  There is little debate that car fumes, factory emissions, and other pollutants are not good for the planet; however global warming activists go far beyond taking action to reduce pollutants- they want a fundamental lifestyle and policy change world-wide.   It makes me nervous that such sweeping, global decisions are made without any quantitative discussions.  Is that too much to ask?

Here is a video that explains well what I am trying to say.

Originally posted on RedGreenandBlue.org on 9/26/08
CNN recently came out with a chilling report titled; Polar Bears Resort to Cannibalism as Arctic Ice Shrinks. I can only imagine how Bill O’Reilly spins this on The O’Reilly Factor (see below). Considering about a year ago O’Reilly had environmental knucklehead John Stossel on his show–offering Stossel another venue from which to prove his knuckleheadery–where he stated “polar bear populations are increasing…”

If you say so John. That mustache apparently filters the truth.

More from the Conservative Right Wrong: Governor Palin sued to fight the listing of polar bears as endangered.

Good choice Sarah, just because the land that they walk on is melting doesn’t mean they are endangered. I’m sure they’ll leap frog millions of years of evolution and grow gills.

In the meantime…

Related Articles

Alaska Sues to End the Polar Bear

Mean Joe Green #7: The Polar Bears are Finding out the Hard Way.

Polar Bears, Mountain Gorillas Under Continued and Increased Threat

When John Stossel was O’Reilly’s guest the other night, the conversation centered on medical marijuana and then the legalization of drugs in general.  Stossel told O’Reilly that all drugs should be legalized, pointing out that adults should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies.

O’Reilly’s objection was as follows.  There are deadbeat, drug-addicted parents out there, and their kids are suffering because of it.  If you legalize drugs, the parents will be able to obtain them more easily, and the kids will suffer more.  So, legalized drugs = bad for the kids.

First, I think O’Reilly and those like him (this argument has a very common theme) should define what it means to make drugs “easier” to obtain.  I could be wrong, but I think this is based on false premise.  Even illegal, drugs are extremely easy to obtain.  I’m incarcerated, and you can get them in here if you really want.  I doubt O’Reilly could cite one instance in which a free person out there could desire drugs and be unable to obtain them.

No, the only roadblock to obtaining drugs is the cost.  And legalizing them would certainly bring the cost down.  Perhaps this could indeed make it “easier” for drug-addict parents to get stoned all the time.  They’ll be able to afford more dope, so they’ll be stoned more often, and their kids will suffer more.

Then again, perhaps if the cost of their drug habit plunges from two hundred dollars a day to a cost comparable to a nicotine or alcohol habit, it won’t make things worse at all; it could make them better.  After all, plenty of parents drink and smoke and still provide adequate care for their kids.  Note that this is not an argument that because alcohol has negative effects and is nonetheless legal, harder drugs should be legal as well.  I don’t accept that argument and in fact find it absurd on its face.  The only thing I’m saying is that drinking and smoking don’t necessarily make a deadbeat parent, and perhaps the situation would be analogous if with legalized drugs.

That aside, what I contend is that the benefits of legalizing drugs outweigh any possible negative effects.  Practically no one asserts that these benefits wouldn’t occur – in fact most opponents of drug legalization (like O’Reilly) never even address the benefits (drastically reduced violence, fewer overdose deaths, the virtual end of drug gangs, billions of dollars freed up for other issues, etc.).  That’s the issue that needs to be discussed: The interplay between both the positive and negative effects of legalizing drugs.

If you warm these links up, they’re just as delicious tomorrow

11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month

Pelosi wants to jail uninsured

John Stossel on Ft. Hood

14th Ft. Hood Victim

More on Ft. Hood

Stewart catches Fox News

Badass beer pong tables

Aaron Rodgers sack tracker

MU signs new Recruits

Text from last night of the day Runner Up

Emma Thompson Becoming an annoying politically active college girl

Gossip Girl 3 some? with Lizzie McGuire Yawn

Ambiguous Film Endings Resolved -I’m going back to grad school

Ten Weirdest Children’s Toy Commercials

Who will survive the apocalypse?

Modern Warfare 2 Characters

Modern Warfare’s Easter Egg (NSFW optional)

The Toad: Nature’s Sex Toy (NSFW, this can’t be unseen)

25 shopped Mona Lisa paintings

5 people not to friend on facebook

Dakota Fanning’s aging timeline

Or, in one 40 min video.  http://www.guba.com/watch/3000089057

Yesterday was like no other Saturday.  It was flipping the channels between C-SPAN and college football.  Despite the Badgers won on Saturday, the people of Wisconsin on Saturday knew who in Congress listened to them in August and to those who ignored them.

First and foremost, kudos to three Wisconsin people in Congress who listened to the people and voted against the bill.  That is Paul Ryan, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Tom Petri who stood on principle to vote against HR 3962.  However, as a native of the Wisconsin-8 congressional district, I am very outraged over Congressman Kagen’s vote for the health care reform bill.  Congressman Kagen slapped his constituents in the face who came in droves to listening sessions to voice their opposition to the bill as an action of his yes vote.

Also, Dave Obey is a serious disgrace to the people of Wisconsin by refusing to hold face to face listening sessions with constituents in August on the issue of health care and to vote for the bill.  Ron Kind also voted against the interests of his people too.  The votes of Kagen, Kind, and Obey have shown that they have become unresponsive and unaccountable to their constituents.  There are strong GOP candidates in Wisconsin including Sean Duffy in WI-7 and Dan Kapanke in WI-3.   Despite it is yet to be know who will be the party’s nominee in WI-8, the GOP has a strong shot to win next year in these districts.

When I was on the road with Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin for the health care town hall series with John Stossel this summer, there were packed crowds everywhere in Madison, LaCrosse, and Wausau.  AFP held the town halls for the people of these districts because Tammy Baldwin, Dave Obey, and Ron Kind meddled around with the people’s business by trying to duck and in some cases refuse to hold nose to nose listening sessions.

Also to the 30 plus Democrats across the nation who stood up to Nancy Pelosi, thank you for listening to your constituents and putting principle over ideology.   Despite the battle is not over, people in Wisconsin need to pour the heat on Senators Kohl and Feingold to Vote NO on the bill.    Despite the Senate does not have 60 votes, people need to call their senators to make sure it still stays this way.

Lastly, shame on Joseph Cao of Louisiana-2 for voting for the health care bill as the only Republican.  Cao should not call himself a Republican for voting for the bill and should be booted out of the party no questions asked.  If there was one thing of the vote, real people made it hard for Nancy Pelosi to squeak by last night.  This was the same with the Cap and Trade bill.  Cap and Trade got killed in the Senate this year and the health care bill will be given a slow death in the Senate.  As long as Joe Lieberman threatens to filibuster, there is a fighting chance it will be stopped.

Reposted from: http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | November 4th, 2009

The Double Standard About Journos’ Bias

By John Stossel

I made The New York Times last week.  It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud.

Unfortunately, the story was critical.  It said, “Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel’s speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox.”

Which “critics” had “leaped”?  The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow.  I wouldn’t think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life.  He also quoted an “associate professor of journalism” who said my speeches were “‘pretty shameful’ by traditional journalistic standards.”  All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a “conservative advocacy group.”

It is odd that this is a news story.  In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity.  The Times didn’t call that “shameful.”

But in August, I worked for ABC News.  Now, I work for Fox.  Hmmm.

It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.

I was one of America’s first TV consumer reporters.  I approached the job with an attitude.  If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV — and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter — the former was a good thing.)

I clearly had a point of view:  I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies.  My colleagues liked it.  I got job offers.  I won 19 Emmys.  I was invited to speak at journalism conferences.

Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well.  The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more.

As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks.  But once I got to the national stage — “20/20″ and “Good Morning America” — it was hard to find comparable national scams.  There were some:  Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.  But they are rare.  In a $14 trillion economy, you’d think there’d be more.  But there aren’t.

I figured out why:  Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check.  Reputation matters.  Word gets out.  Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy.  Regulation barely deters the cheaters, but competition does.

It made me want to learn more about free markets.  I subscribed to Reason magazine and read Cato Institute research papers.  Then Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Aaron Wildavsky.

My reporting changed.  I started taking skeptical looks at government — especially regulation.  I did an ABC TV special, “Are We Scaring You to Death?” that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about chemicals, pollution and other relatively minor risks.  Its good ratings — 16 million viewers — surprised my colleagues.

Suddenly, I wasn’t so popular with them.

I stopped winning Emmys.

I was invited on CNN’s media program, “Reliable Sources,” to be interviewed by The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz and an indignant Bernard Kalb.  They titled the segment, “Objectivity and Journalism:  Does John Stossel Practice Either?”  It was in big letters over my head.

Apparently, I had broken the rules.

On the air they told me that I was no longer objective.  I was too stunned to defend myself effectively.  I said something like:  ”I’ve always had a point of view.  How come you had no trouble with that when I criticized business?”

In hindsight, I wish I’d said:  ”Look at the title on the wall, you hypocrites!  It shows you have a point of view, too.  Many reporters do.  You just don’t like my arguments now that I no longer hew to your statist line.  So you want to shut me up.”

But I didn’t.

So I’ll say it now:  Reporters who think coercive government control is generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally better, both have a point of view.

So why am I the one called biased?

I like what “Americans for Prosperity” defends.  I’m an American, and I’m for prosperity.  What creates prosperity is free and competitive markets.  That means limited government.

And I will speak about that every chance I get.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

]]> http://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/new-york-times-illustrating-the-definition-of-media-bias/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:44:29 +0000 texan2driver http://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/new-york-times-illustrating-the-definition-of-media-bias/

It’s funny how the New York Times (and other left leaning “news” outlets just like them) suddenly finds a conscience about reporters speaking at politically oriented functions.  I guess it’s only OK for liberals to do it.  Even more so if it’s speaking out against George W. Bush.

Hypocrites.

Times Suddenly Concerned About Journalists at Partisan Political Events

Media reporter Brian Stelter’s Metro section story on Wednesday, “Newsman to Speak at Events of Group Opposed to Health Care Plan,” tackled the apparent journalistic no-no of John Stossel, the libertarian journalist who recently moved to Fox Business from ABC News.

Stelter suggested that Stossel’s scheduled appearance in front of a conservative group is a rare foray of a journalist into a partisan political event that vindicates the White House’s attacks on Fox News.

John Stossel, the newest star of the Fox Business Network, is also starring this week at a series of events orchestrated by opponents of a Democratic health care overhaul.

On Thursday Mr. Stossel is expected to speak at three forums hosted by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, in three cities. The group’s Web site says Mr. Stossel and others will “debate solutions and discuss the dangers of government-forced health care” at the forums.

The unusual appearances come at a time when the sister network to Fox Business, the Fox News Channel, is facing fierce criticism from the White House and its allies. In recent days critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel’s speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox, a unit of the News Corporation. The Obama administration has cast the network as a part of the political opposition.

Most news organizations discourage participation at partisan political events. In its publicity material for the forums, Americans for Prosperity identifies Mr. Stossel a “veteran journalist.” But Fox says Mr. Stossel is not a part of its hard news division; rather, he is an analyst and host.

In its responses to the White House and other critics, Fox has said there are differences between its journalists and its opinion program hosts. But the Obama administration and others have asserted that those lines are regularly blurred.

Stelter put the burden on Fox News to justify not being attacked by the full force of the White House:

Greg Sargent, a blogger for the Web site whorunsgov.com, a Washington Post Company Web site, wrote last week that Mr. Stossel would be effectively working “as a political activist” by attending the forums, and said it “doesn’t seem like great timing” given Fox’s feud with the White House.

Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of journalism at the George Washington University, said the relationship between Mr. Stossel and a partisan group was “pretty shameful” by traditional journalistic standards. “But I guess we’re no longer in an age of tradition,” he said.

One journalist not mentioned: Former Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who marched in a pro-choice rally in April 1989. According to a contemporaneous story in the Washington Post, Greenhouse was unaware Times policy states that “staff members avoid employment or any undertakings, obligations, relationships or investments that create or appear to create a conflict of interest with their professional work for the Times.”  (Unaware?  Yeah, right.  If this was the first she had heard of the policy, then why did she repeat her “mistake” at the rally below?  Hypocrite.)

And, in June 2006, Greenhouse ripped the Bush administration to shreds at a Harvard address, claiming “our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world. And let’s not forget the sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism.”

Yet Greenhouse continued to cover abortion issues for the Times until her retirement in 2008.

Torgny Jansson has made two very good comments on my posts ‘Dismantling America‘ and ‘Capitalism: A Love Story.’
(Torgny’s website: Esoteric Astrology )

I therefore decided to bring them front and center, to make them a part of the main post on my blog.

Torgny said regarding “Dismantling America”:

This tactic reminds me of the strategy developed by Lee Atwater. What matters is to win, ‘the end justifies the means.’ What is true does not matter, it is about destroying your political opponent. Ethics is not important, only winning. The aim is not to serve the nation, it is to destroy the character of the political opponent. It is by spreading the message of fear and hate, and by negative campaigning also make the followers of the political opponent lose faith. This tactic may win the election, but what kind of society will it create? A society of fear, mistrust and where truth does not matter.

In the end of his life Atwater apologized for what he had done, but it was a little bit too late. Shortly before his death he wrote; ‘I was wrong to follow the meanness of Conservatism. I should have been trying to help people instead of take advantage of them. I don’t hate anyone anymore.’

As Torgny pointed out, in a February 1991 article for Life Magazine, Lee Atwater wrote:

My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The ’80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn’t I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn’t I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don’t know who will lead us through the ’90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.

And regarding ‘Capitalism: A Love Story,’ Torgny wrote:

I think that the idea of a small government that will not interfere with the world of business is an illusion. If the decisions are no longer made by the people who are choosen by democratic elections, who will then make the important decisions? We will instead have a strong government run by big business, with secret meetings and who owns and controls media.

‘The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group,’ Franklin D. Roosevelt

Torgny’s two comments are at the essence of those two blog posts.

The FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education just celebrated its tenth anniversary with a black tie dinner in New York on October 22, 2009.  I worked for FIRE this past summer as an intern.  Perhaps my bias will show in how much I enjoyed this video, because I have personally met almost everyone featured in it!  With that said, it chronicles some of the most ridiculous cases where FIRE has defended students against unconstitutional, unethical, and absolutely deplorable actions by college administrators to limit the students’ freedom of speech, expression, religion, association, and conscience.

I hope everyone enjoys the video.  Thank you, FIRE, for all the hard work you have done on behalf of students everywhere in America.  With your help, we can restore freedom of speech on our nation’s campuses.

I have not viewed Michael Morse’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, in its entirety, but I have viewed its trailers. I have read the reviews, I have seen Larry King’s interview on CNN, and have read other online interviews. I am familiar with Michael Moore’s previous work. His trailers now nor in the past have ever motivated me to purchase a ticket or a CD.

Completely in the style of Michael Moore, the movie seems to be too much spectacle for my taste, and it certainly would not add anything to my understanding of the problem that I have with capitalism. I agree with his message, but there is nothing new regarding capitalism in the film that has not been already incessantly hashed over in print or the electronic media. And as Luke Buckmaster describes the film in Capitalism: A Love Story film review: Moore American antiestablishmentarism it is loud, ballsy, instantly palatable and designed for the masses. Again, it does make me wonder whether or not Mr. Moore is in fact at heart a capitalist, since these films are clearly made for profit.

I agree with John Stossel in his townhall.com post, What’s Michael Moore Talking About?, where he says he’s never clear about what capitalism means. In interviews, Michael Moore provides his own definition of capitalism as a legalized system of greed. But, of course, that is too simplistic and does not sufficiently describe capitalism. Again, it does make me wonder, because if he thinks that capitalism is all about greed, and since in his mind he is not producing film out of avarice, then he maybe under the impression that he is not a free market capitalist. But, in the film, Moore does make some salient points, and he is absolutely correct when he says capitalism has failed.

John Stossel is also correct when he says the real answer is a separation of state and economy — stripping away Wall Street’s privileges. In other words: Limit government’s power. But Stossel is wrong when he says Let the free market work.

The problem is that a free market cannot be free from regulation, no more than our streets and highways can be free from traffic lights and speed limits, or that society can be free of laws and regulation. Free market capitalists cannot be left to their own devices. That’s exactly why we are in our current economic quagmire. Free market capitalist need to be regulated. When politicians, pundits, and others use the word freedom in their rhetoric, which is as American as apple pie, do they really understand that since the founding of our nation, America has never been free, in the authentic, essential sense of that word.

The real answer, for now, is to take profit out of all essential social needs, such as healthcare, education, safety, security, and also housing, for it does not live-up to America’s principles and is immoral to be standing-by and accept homeless Americans to exist, sleep and some even to die as a result of exposure, out-of-doors. The long-term solution to our problems is to evolve over time to a moneyless society.

One of the moneyless society criticisms I have heard is the claim that it is socialism, wherein all societal needs will be satisfied in an egalitarian way. However, they are wrong. One can use socialism, capitalism, or any other currently known economic system, only in reference to money-based systems, or some other value-based exchange system. In a moneyless society, those words have no meaning.

Wikipedia has a good overview: Capitalism: A Love Story
A review from RollingStone; Los Angeles Times

I found a great new freedom-loving, conservative site this week and I’m all a-tither…

The Patriot Post – The Voice of Constitutional Conservatism [as the 1812 Overture plays in the background] is marvelous.  I’m thrilled because this site is completely tether-free (meaning it’s supported only by  the voluntary financial support of American Patriots and not by any govt. sources!!!). 

America’s most widely read Internet-based publication, The Patriot Post, is a highly acclaimed journal advocating individual liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

The Patriot Post is crafted by a national editorial team headed by Mark Alexander and serves as a hard-hitting rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media protagonists on the Left. The Patriot is written for those who seek a brief, informative and entertaining analysis of the week’s most significant news, policy and opinion. Its comprehensive synopsis of reliable information is drawn from reputable media, research and advocacy organizations. Each edition of this highly acclaimed e-journal published in three parts each week: Monday’s Brief, Wednesday’s Chronicle and Friday’s Digest, which features Alexander’s weekly column.

Learn more about them here.

The Three Envelopes

By Charles Krauthammer · Friday, October 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — Old Soviet joke: Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev. “Niki, I’m dying. Don’t have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble.” A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: “Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe.” A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: “Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe.” Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: “Prepare three envelopes.” In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine flu.

• Read More

Dismantling America

By Thomas Sowell · Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent? Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers– that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish? Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments? Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom.

• Read More

I hope you enjoy this new resource as much as I do.  Three cheers and kudos for Mark Alexander and The Patriot Post editorial team!!!

Policy

• The Heritage Foundation
• The Cato Institute
• Hoover Institution
• National Rifle Association
• Ludwig von Mises Institute
• National Center for Policy Analysis

 

The fact is, as Americans, we not only enjoy the rights affirmed by our Constitution, we have obligations to understand the mechanics of that affirmation in order to sustain it for our generation and those to come.

No matter what our calling, our occupation or our passion, we have a debt and duty as citizens to both learn about and support our Constitution, and we are obliged to do so above and before all other pursuits, for without constitutional Rule of Law, there are no other pursuits.

~ Mark Alexander, The Rights and Obligations of Liberty

 

http://wp.me/pzfHB-gG

What?  John Stossel Moved to Fox? 

I was delightfully surprised when I saw John Stossel on the Glen Beck TV show just last week.  Then I received an email from a friend and they told me that John Stossel had been asked to part company from ABC.  Primarily because a broadcast about the new proposed health care plan. 

I think I live such a sheltered life that I thought this might be a sham,  so I snooped around some of the WordPress Blogs and found these blogs with some information, http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com   http://obambi.wordpress.com  their posts were written in September and October 2009.  Then I found a link to the New York Post http://www.nypost.com/.  Of course, now I know just how out of touch I am!   Geesh, where have I been?  Glen Beck even has John Stossel’s interview on his web site under “interviews” http://www.glenbeck.com/. 

 Then, I went to www.youtube.com and found this video!  Apparently, this is part of the show that didn’t sit to well with ABC.  So, just incase some of you folks out there are like me, out of the loop so to speak, you can see the clip here too.

Apparently,  This show was broadcast in July.  I missed it because I seldom watch ABC anymore.  Most of the programs are no longer interesting to me, being either to fluffy or a little too liberal for me.   I find CBS to be a little more entertaining and Fox is where I find most of my news.

This one is like the two smallest guys in the schoolyard throwing down on each other -

First is the King of Whine, John Stossel joining the Whack-Job crew over at Faux -

Next Lou “The Immigrant Lover” Dobbs, clearing the air about Whiny man -

A little tune for conservatives…

Universal healthcare is a disaster in Massachusetts, Glenn Beck explained on his TV show. Just imagine what President Obama’s healthcare system will look like.

Since RomneyCare was enacted in 2006, the state’s overall healthcare costs have skyrocketed 42 percent, Beck said. Because the system is devouring the state budget, lawmakers in the Bay State are looking for new sources of revenue to feed the healthcare beast.

Massachusetts politicians want to raise financial penalties for people who refuse to buy health insurance, Beck said. They also want to raise business penalties and taxes on insurers and hospitals. Insurance premiums have gone up.

“They’ve even, in Massachusetts – this isn’t, you know, Botswana – Massachusetts. They have resorted to group doctor visits,” Beck said.

It’s like, OK. He has a gallstone and I’ve got a sore throat. Can you do this at the same time? It’s still not enough. So what are they considering? Excluding coverage of low priority, low-value services. Also, limit the coverage, implementing spending caps. Wait a minute here. This sounds like everything that they are denying would happen in the universal plan. So less service, less innovation. And guess who decides what the value is? No, no, not the doctors. Not you. Those in the state House. I can’t wait.

The brand new anchor of Fox Business, John Stossel, appeared on the show and shared his thoughts. Stossel said the system of employer-sponsored health insurance helps drive up healthcare costs. The problem is “that other people are paying for it,” he said. Because workers don’t pay for health insurance directly the normal market signals such as price aren’t available to workers. Because employees don’t feel the financial consequences of their healthcare decisions, this leads to employees over-utilizing services and drives up prices for healthcare services.

Stossel also pointed out that statists are constantly whining are the cost of healthcare, about how it is ever spiraling upward out of control.

I mean, it’s true the costs are going up sharply. But if you look at the slope of the line, costs are going up just as sharply for spending on recreation in America. Nobody calls that a problem. More people are going to football games or buying their kids soccer cleats. But that’s because they’re spending their own money.

(It was Stossel’s first appearance on Beck’s program since he recently left ABC News for Fox.)

By:  Barry Secrest

Conservative Refocus

It's Alive!  The Stein - Pelosi Healthcare Monster

As we all meander about in our lives within the crispness of autumn, we find that we are perpetually transfixed by the massive government focus on our healthcare system while our economy continues to tank. Many are still asking: “Why is healthcare almost exclusively at the center of the legislators’ attention while we have more pressing problems to deal with?”

This both preceding, and also coming upon the heels of, yet ANOTHER wondrous and awe-inspiring event where the President “magically” received a Nobel Peace Prize based upon what he is “fixing-to-do,” which is a “Nobel first” as far as we can tell.

My young son was all for this novel reward plan with regard to his grades, based upon the premise that he has every intent to make straight A’s, therefore they should be granted on this self-same basis.

At any rate, I wonder if perhaps this is a “giveback” by the Nordic Peoples for their failure to grant the Olympics to the President.

In addition to all of this, we now have the Senate dubiously approving the “idea of a bill” for the go-ahead to a new round of legislative healthcare meddling, rather than an “actual” bill.

October 31st Just Can’t Come Fast Enough…..

The “Mad Scientist Senator,” Harry Reid, in keeping with the Legislative Halloween Theme (The Case for Capitalism: The Statist Menace) has devised a nefarious scheme in which the current construct–having been accepted and which will go to committee–will be enjoined by the Houses’ several miscreant healthcare ideas and then coupled to the TARP legislation–additional funding which will all be then voted upon. In other words, the current plan (America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009) as devised will involve hobbling together a bunch of mismatched parts and pieces and then stealthily sewed all together for the ultimate outcome, which will be government controlled healthcare,( i.e.: the current legislative body’s equivalent of a Frankenstein’s Monster). The jolt from the ensuing vote will then bring the Beast to life, and we shall all then quake at the power and wonderful ugliness of this artificial monster! All the while, there’s Harry Reid–standing back, howling and cackling: “It’s alive!! It’s alive!!! In the name of Obama, We Have Done It!! It’s alive” (Note: Perhaps Reid needs to read the rest of the story. Just saying…)

Going back to this question of “why is healthcare so important all of a sudden?”—the answer seems simple enough to anyone whom has studied the Constitution in an historical context. Once again, this is a power-grab by the democratically controlled Government that would be key in centralizing power and authority by the liberty-eviscerating Authoritarians, because “they know better than the founders” (naturally).

The current healthcare system, for the most part, is privately owned and is, therefore, a “property” belonging to the civil society or peoples of the United States. Private property rights are the keystone in a Democratic Republic, and this will be the first “major” incursion of (already) many into that domain. Once there, the ability to control lives by the government will be dramatically magnified in the interests of “cost savings” (among many others). A recent report from John Stossel outlined what the United States can expect, were She to adopt a healthcare plan predicated on the former and existing legislative attempts at passage of this Bill.

Profit Is the Lubricating OIL of Any Venture and Any Healthy Economy

Waiting periods that are currently non-existent will become commonplace the longer the system is in place, along with the eventual shortage of facilities and physicians, which always accompanies this “Socialization” of medical care. Both the President’s and the democratic Legislators’ rationale for this incursion seems to always fall back on attacking “profit.” The Authoritarians define profit as something dirty, which, they think, should never enter into our healthcare system; however, the true definition is something any human being would recognize. Profit is defined as “the making of gain in Business” and comes from the Latin word “to make progress.” So, if we fall back on the true definition–and do a little sewing job of our own—it is apparent that the Democrats simply do not wish to make progress within Healthcare–based on their actions–which negate the making of progress [or profit] in Healthcare.

The Stossel report clearly shows why profit is such an important component within this venture. Speaking to profit as it applies to individuals, anything left over after we pay off all our bills is profit. We take vacations and go out to eat, etc.–on our own profit. (Liberal Democrats love profit only to the extent that it is their own.)

Profit speaks to improvement of lives.

In the Healthcare business, profit speaks to finding new cures and new treatments, in addition to the wealth that sometimes comes with such ventures. The Authoritarians wish to remove this component from our Healthcare. They blame their counterpart detractors as having “no plan.” Well, I should point out that this whole charade of effecting legislation that will emasculate our current world-class Healthcare system deserves nothing but derision and rejection and should be laughed out of Washington at the first opportunity.

How Can We Fix the Existing Problems within Healthcare?

There are a number of problems which exist outside of the government’s purview, simply because it has not yet endeavored to deal with those whom are making a decent income but cannot obtain insurance for various health reasons. There is already a model government insurance plan in place under Property and Casualty Insurance Coverage that could be emulated on the health insurance side as a government funded (but still private insurance) outlet that could remedy this problem without costing $900 billion–in addition to raising health insurance and various other taxes and ruining the best system in the world. The Government Flood Insurance Program is that model.

By allowing the existing 1700 private health insurers (Yeah, that many! Bet lots of ya’ didn’t know that!) to underwrite the health plans based upon existing popular models (that could only be gotten by those whom have been turned down by traditional carriers) the government could remedy this problem while not breaking all of our banks. The individuals would still have to pay for their coverage, but the pricing would be based on existing rate-established models. This would involve extra cost to be funded by tax payers, but anything would be better than the Authoritarians’ power-grab. Many of the people currently reading this column know exactly what I am referring to and can attest to the effectiveness of their flood insurance coverage–especially those in the Midwest. Many ask, why does the government need to be involved in the issue of flood or Healthcare insurance? Well, the answer when boiled down is this: “Adverse Selection.”

This basically means that only the people whom actually need flood insurance will buy it. This adverse selection creates a rating disparity and would cause many private insurers to simply go out of business because a disproportionate number of folks with ailments/flood problems will always need the coverage. This same problem also would apply to health insurance. The premise of insurance coverage is always based on the spreading out of risks throughout as large a number of individuals as possible.

Doubtful Happenings and the Real Target

The above idea could be put into play quite easily with the help of our insurance carriers, whom wish to remain in business rather than being replaced by government bureaucrats (such greedy guys!). But is this going to happen? Doubtful, because this would endanger the seizure of additional power by those already IN power (though always ignorant of how these rules would be applied to them if they undergo an ejection from their post within their seemingly Socialist leaning Construct). They would have us drop a proven and beneficial system to all in order to take up a system that has been shown to fail time after time. I believe Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11) said it best: “As a progressive party, Democrats will bring you change by using government to enhance revenues from the rich to invest in the production of energy and green collar jobs, and by using diplomacy to engage America’s enemies and end the Iraq War.”

Translation: “As a regressive party, Democrats will bring you the 1970s by using Socialism to raise taxes from you to waste in the production of lethargy and unemployment, and by using magic to appease America’s enemies and lose the Iraq War.”

As we can all see–the Democrats are doing a MARVELOUS job with the economy so far.

Since When did Free Market Capitalism (which is the engine along with our Individual Liberties) that powered the United States into a Super-Economic Powerhouse (the likes of which the world has never seen) become an Illness that needs to be corrected, I ask once again? Socialism and socialist leaning policies have been gaining ground, most likely from within our liberal education system and from, apparently, too much luxury for some.

Define It and the Truth Shall Set You Free!

According to the World Heritage dictionary -our form of government and economic system is not a virus in need of eradication nor is it a disease which one must continually live in misery with.( This may amaze some of you Liberals out there while you sip your latte’s). Please see the below definitions to verify with your own eyes:

cap·i·tal·ism (kâp’ĭ-tl-ĭz’əm)

n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Capitalism allows the free flow of market forces to supply needs to all consumers at all times and is a natural counterpart to a Democratic Republic in that any controls which are in place are there to regulate and mitigate excess rather than interfere in the natural order. Now let’s look at Socialism:

So·cial·ism (sô’shə-lĭz’əm)

n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Hmm…did you all catch the second part of the Socialism definition? Socialism –according to The American Heritage Dictionary is, in essence, a means to Marxism. While we are at it-since socialism seems to lead to Marxism let’s just check Marxism out also:

Marx·ism (märk’sĭz’əm)

n. The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society’s allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Class struggle? No just money struggles for us all, right now!

Wonder, if out of each of these definitions, anyone may have noticed where the word “FREE” was deposited? Freedom is in no way associated with either Socialism or Marxism. I would be remiss if I did not throw in the most important definition: (I wonder if perhaps Marx or Engels had anything on Jefferson and Washington by way of either Grey Matter or character?) Now, our “current” form of Government defined:

Re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb’lĭk)

n. 1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.A nation that has such a political order.A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.A nation that has such a political order.

2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.A nation that has such a political order.

3. Often Republic, a specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France, an autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation, a group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

Here one can see, at a glance, the differences between the three systems. I would ask: Which one of these would you prefer?

In 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was departing the historic convention that determined the course of the Nation, a woman asked him, “Do we have a monarchy or a democracy?” He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Prophetic words, those.

The Authoritarians Dual Attack on Form of Government and Form of Economic System

The assaults on our form of government in the form of bank takeovers, student loan programs, mortgage lending, two of the top three US based vehicle manufacturers, and now the effort at Government Healthcare (among a host of many other items) should leave only the most grandest of imbecilic idiots to wonder if their freedoms are being endangered. In our history these events are unprecedented. It is also a fact that virtually every fascist, dictator, emperor and what not were left-leaning Authoritarians or, in other words, Democrats on steroids (think Barney Frank as the Incredible Hulk) and you will be on the right path to understanding my point. No right-leaning Republican has ever grabbed for Authoritarian power because the Repubs are “individuals rights junkies.”

Normally, within a political period, issues are brought forth and corrected–sometimes big, sometimes small. But in this case never have we had so many political issues over so many ranges brought forth and thrust into votes where the American people would be sorely, if not harmfully affected and forced to endure changes that they neither need nor want. This is how one can tell that his normal government of the past has been starkly altered into something invasive and overbearing — something that does not allow change to occur through means that are positive but rather by forcing the changes upon the people. If change is attained in this manner it is not for the sake of democracy but rather something…else.

We have seen American flags being altered with Obama’s image, we have the president indirectly involved in a name list for dissenters, we have the Prez involved in actuating change through his office and in support of his programs; we have a Prez that disavows funding of ACORN during and after making them a huge part of his campaign; we have a Prez that gets the final votes on a Nobel 14 days after entering office–he was barely in the White House for Heavens sake……on and on and on. All of this seems to be in the interest of furthering the Presidents’ now waning popularity.

We Can Beat ‘Em with One Arm Tied Behind Our Backs(Uh…….Maybe?)

In addition to all of this we have a Commander in Chief that seems to be sorely at odds with his Generals in the Afghanistan Campaign to wipe out Terrorist strongholds. The problem being, to use an apt analogy, the Prez seems to want to conduct the war with a force that is inadequate to the task. Since war is a contest decided by two teams or opposing forces, we can draw an analogy for the president that he should easily be able to identify with – since he’s a big sports fan.

Take basketball or even football for instance–or any team sport. In the big play, most often the other team will always score when a defender is out of place or has been misassigned or there are too few men on the field. Further this type of mistake is one in which the opposing team will nearly always capitalize upon (it ain’t rocket science). This often happens due to poor coaching (hint-hint) or poor preparation; however, in this case, we have a president whom is publicly agonizing over making a decision which finally proved historically instrumental approximately 18 months ago–that decision being–the troop surge in Iraq which decided the victory of Iraq over its insurgency problem.

If the president does not wish to utilize a large portion of the forces which should be and are departing IRAQ and get a sufficient number into Afghanistan, then he should simply pull all of our men off the field before they are overcome and decimated by the enemy. We, the American People, will then be able to aid our brave troops by fighting along side them on our Homeground where the enemy will most likely end up once again—and make no mistake, he will try at some point. You may scoff at that—perhaps–but had any one of us ever assumed that we would be attacked by our own fleet of civilian aircraft as on 9/11?

One should finally take note–enumerable powers being granted to the government can be likened to a Beast whose growth knows no limitation beyond what it is being fed. The more sustenance the creature is given the larger and more demanding of such morsels the Beast becomes. Before long, the Beast desires to take his own food rather than wait for the generosity of his master in that he will now become the master and the former master now becomes the supplicant. This is the form of government that the Authoritarian or Statist Democrats seem to find most appealing.

And Atlas shrugged……

*Authors note: The next and final segment–Part Three:  The Case for Capitalism–will look at how economies of various governmental systems compare and offer closing analogies and arguments.