What Next From The Department Of Homeland Security?

(Hat tip to Bob Mack for the graphic and the link below)

Look at how the Department of Homeland Security is overreaching its original parameters:

The Department of Homeland Security’s ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.

[...]

...[T]he sites were seized before the site’s owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves.

[...]

In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?

Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS?

Immediately following 9/11, I cheered the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Most Americans felt the same way.

But just think of the department's powers now in the hands of an administration which is ever trying to grab more power.

Turn the page ....

Quote Of The Day

From this thread, at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, a comment by SamenoKami, upon the news that the United States Senate voted to extend unemployment benefits:

"Insurance is paid by the employer/employee to cover 26wks of unemployment, after that it's welfare. The gov't is going deeper into debt to pay people's bennies so that money will be put into the economy and people will think that they can get by and get thru this and there will be a better day. Ha! The borrowed money digs the hole deeper and screws us, our children/grand and great grandchildren and guarantees that things will be worse than if the gov't left it alone. We are approaching a point where the interest on the debt will take up all the collected taxes. If/when that happens there will be NO- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, unemployment, etc. etc. They have to keep the game going as long as possible, otherwise it all goes belly up (which it will eventually anyway) and those who were screwed get the tar, feathers and rope and head to DC."

Detailed information about how unemployment benefits work HERE at About.com:US Government Info.

Quite the reality check, huh?

In my view, most Americans right now don't see the train wreck coming. But it IS coming, and The Nanny State cannot save us.

Turn the page ....

The White House Science Czar

"Czar" being a particularly apt word.

From I Hate The Media, citing World Net Daily about the college textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, co-authored by Science Czar John Holdren:

The authors argued that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”

They recommended the creation of a “planetary regime” created to act as an “international superagency for population, resources, and environment.”

“Such a Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist,” they argued.

“Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.”

Read more HERE at Zombie Time, which has scanned pages from the aforementioned textbook.

According to THIS at Science Progress [July 15, 2009], all the eugenics and other measures were not actually proposals:

Paul and Anne Ehrlich have also refuted the charges—they sent out an email observing that “We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described—but not recommended—in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.” In his Senate confirmation hearing...Holdren also rejected the idea that he supports government-mandated efforts at population control.

...The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either.

At what point during the three decades since the book was first published did the denials as to book's intent begin? When Obama made known his choice of John Holdren for the position as "science czar"?

Note the following parsing, also from Science Progress:

...[T]o describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they supported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions....They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today.

In other words: Nothing to see here, move right along.

But don't the words "better choice" still leave the eugenics option on the table and tell us a lot about the ethics system of John Holdren?

Turn the page ....

Mind-Boggling Ignorance

If not outright stupidity.

Via My Daily Trek:





Waaaay past time for taxpayer revolt!

Turn the page ....

Whine, Whine, Whine

This post is not another personal, whiny one as should be obvious by the accompany graphic from Google images.

Rather, this post is a reaction to this June 4, 2010 story from the Washington Post. Lengthy excerpt below the fold:

It wasn't typical fare for the neighborhood e-mail discussion group, but Jean Teichroew hoped that another Silver Spring resident might know the answer to her question: "Whose responsibility in the county is it to remove a dead chicken?"

The rust-colored, feathered corpse had been lying rear-up near an empty Heineken box at 16th Street and Second Avenue, just north of downtown Silver Spring, since late last week, Teichroew wrote on the North Woodside forum Tuesday. After it had begun to "ripen" in the heat, she wrote, she called Montgomery County's Animal Services Division but was told that officers couldn't retrieve it unless the bird was "the size of a vulture."

[...]

...A Montgomery County Council member's staff intervened and red-shirted "ambassadors" from downtown Silver Spring's Urban District were sent to pick it up....

Apparently, these citizens in Montgomery County, Maryland, felt that they required government help to get rid of a dead chicken, particularly when

Teichroew said that the chicken, which she had to pass daily on her walk to work, was "pretty disgusting."

Of course, as the dead chicken lay there day after to day, it continued to rot and reek while citizens waited for the government to take care of the matter:

Teichroew said she and her son, Peter, 24, planned to remove the chicken themselves Saturday with a bag and a pair of gloves. But when her son saw the bird's size, he told her, "Mom, that thing is huge!"

Concerned that the smelly, fly-covered corpse was a public health hazard, she asked her son to call Animal Services again. "Tell them it's really, really big," she recalled telling him. "Maybe you'll get someone who doesn't have the 'vulture rule.'"

This time, he was told that someone would be sent out. But when Teichroew walked to work Tuesday morning, the chicken was still there. She then called Montgomery's Highway Services division, but it referred her back to Animal Services and the police department's non-emergency number. When she called that, she said, she was pointed back to Animal Services and the highway division. That's when she called the office of council member Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring), and a staff member passed her concerns along to Rodriguez.

Finally, the local government arrived to solve the problem, that of a dead chicken, for pity's sake.

Although both the newspaper and the various involved civil servants found a lot of humor in this story, I do not.

Why in the world didn't at least one of the affected citizens glove up, don a mask, grab a shovel and a couple of heavy-duty trash bags, and take care of the matter himself (or herself, for that matter)? Not a pleasant task, to be sure, but a necessary one, unless one wants to smell decomposing animal flesh day after day. I also find amazing that the woman and her twenty-four-year-old son, both adults, wimped out from scooping up a dead chicken.

Americans have become way too reliant on the government to solve problems which citizens themselves can and should solve for themselves. Honestly, I cannot imagine my father's generation walking by a stinking animal carcass day after day and not tending to the matter themselves. Can you?

As Mark of Casting Pearls Before Swine recently opined:

We are becoming a nation of whiny little wusses.

In all sorts of ways, right down to being too squeamish to remove a chicken carcass.

Turn the page ....

Our Health-Care System And The Nanny State

(Note to family and friends: The most recent update on Mr. AOW is here, updated December 12. Also see this post).

The essay below relates an aspect of my personal experience in dealing with our health-care system when Mr. AOW had a serious stroke last fall. He remained in medical-care facilities from September 15 to November 25.
--------
No doubt about it, when Mr. AOW was released from the inpatient hospital stroke rehabilitation center on October 16, he was unable to be cared for at home. In addition to being completely paralyzed on the left side (limbs and trunk), his sense of balance was completely awry: he could fall forward, backward, or to either side at any given moment. His brain didn't know what direction up was! He also suffered from mental confusion. For example, he said, "I know I'm in the hospital here in Virginia, but I feel like I'm in California."

In fact, in spite of the ninety days of coverage supposedly provided by the health-insurance plan the hospital refused to keep Mr. AOW any longer than two weeks or to release him to home. Instead, the hospital and the nursing home teamed up to release him only to a skilled nursing facility, which costs a minimum of $350 per day.

At both the rehab hospital and the nursing home, both of which were in-network facilities of Mr. AOW's health-insurance plan, I was repeatedly advised to obtain Medicare and Medicaid. This mandate, in spite of the fact that Mr. AOW was not eligible for Medicare at the age of fifty-nine and has always had health insurance for, lo, three decades!

When I pointed out to the hospital and the nursing home that Mr. AOW and I had too many assets to qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid, I was advised to liquidate all those assets that Mr. AOW and I had spent a lifetime accumulating, go bankrupt once those assets were consumed by medical care, and become beneficiaries of the Nanny State. By the way, all assets were on the table, including retirement accounts (IRA's).

Looking back, I realize that both the hospital and the nursing home anticipated that Mr. AOW would always be a resident of the nursing home, never mind that he was admitted there for stroke therapy and not as a long-term resident.

After Mr. AOW made substantial progress after several weeks in the nursing home, the day arrived when I informed the health-insurance company and the nursing home that I would be bringing Mr. AOW home in a few weeks. The representative from the health-insurance company again advised me to seek out Medicaid coverage. Talk about having their needle stuck!

Once we established that Medicaid was not an option and that I was indeed determined to bring Mr. AOW home, I was threatened: "We'll have to report you to adult protective services."

So, how did I bring Mr. AOW home without getting arrested? I had in place the necessary paperwork: complete power of attorney and the advanced medical directive, both of which documents gave me conseiderable legal power. I also had on my side our family physician, who was willing to sign the release orders. This last is very important! Had I not placed Mr. AOW under the care of the family physician, the nursing-home physician could have refused to release Mr. AOW, thus forcing us into bankruptcy.

Also of help was a bit of name dropping, specifically, the name of my husband's personal attorney, famous as "the attorney of attorneys." Were he called in, he would own the nursing home by the time he was finished! At that point, the nursing home, recognizing the kind of legal proceedings they could be up against, agreed to starting the necessary paperwork for Mr. AOW's release from the nursing home. The one requirement: that Mr. AOW receive occasional visits from a registered nurse.

I have learned there is some truth in what some of my older relatives used to say: "Once I go into the hospital, I'll never come back home." Hospitals and nursing homes do have the power to hold patients and their families hostage.

Via the necessary legal documents and before illness strikes, arm yourself in advance so that you don't become a victim of the health-care system's trying to push you and your family under the care of the Nanny State. Believe me, the health-care system will try hard to push you in that direction!

And what would have happened under ObamaKare?

Turn the page ....

Essential Government Services?

How do you define "essential government services"? The issue of that definition will play a big part in the next budget in Fairfax County.

Check out this letter to the editor, from the November 22, 2009 edition of the Washington Post:

Parks and libraries are essentials

I applaud the Nov. 15 Metro article "Fiscal outlook grim for 2 Fairfax agencies," alerting Fairfax County residents that the public library system and the Park Authority are being asked to submit proposed budgets for fiscal 2011 with 15 percent cuts.

I do not share County Executive Anthony H. Griffin's opinion that these two agencies' services are "discretionary." Resources and services provided by parks and libraries attract new residents and visitors to Fairfax County, and both agencies have seen an increase in users over the past year. It is shocking that the county is choosing not to protect and manage such valuable resources.

It is time for Mr. Griffin and the County Board of Supervisors to seriously discuss and implement ways to generate increased revenue rather than putting all of their effort into cutting services.

Kathi McNeil, Alexandria

The writer is president of the Friends of Huntley Meadows Park.

The article referenced in the above letter to the editor is HERE. Please read the entire article to get a full picture of some of the cuts proposed for other agencies, including public safety agencies, in this time of a $318 million shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Apparently, Ms. McNeil is concerned about the following portion:

"The reality is that there is no requirement or mandate to provide many of the library and park programs being offered like there is with our other services," [Fairfax County Executive] Griffin said. "Parks and libraries are essentially discretionary programs. And we have to look at it in the context of, if they don't get cut, what does?"

Real-estate owners and taxpayers are already groaning under the load of real-estate taxes, and the rate of foreclosures is high enough already. Furthermore, even though assessments of property values were lowered this year, the rate of taxation was jacked up so that most property owners are paying the same amount in taxes as two years before, previous to the housing-market crash. Indeed, many property owners are faced with the situation of having no equity or greatly reduced equity in their homes, essentially trapping home owners and even renters in Fairfax County. The increase in homelessness is also a matter of concern. A lot of Northern Virginia residents have tightened their belts as far as their belts will go!

The grim situation outlined above is one faced throughout all counties in Northern Virginia and throughout the United States. And Ms. McNeil is stressing over libraries and parks? She must be living in an ivory tower!

Ms. McNeil, how do you propose to raise county revenues without taxing property owners even more? Reality check, please.

I love the public library, as my regular readers know, the parks not so much as I rarely use them. But if it comes to a choice between reduced services at libraries and parks or another increase in real-estate taxes, I choose the former.

Turn the page ....

TARP Repayment: More Bad News For The American Taxpayer

Note to family and friends: Updates on Mr. AOW are being added to this post.

According to this article in the Washington Times, the taxpayers are going to get the shaft when it comes to getting their money back — never mind all the politicians' promises at the time the TARP funds were allocated.

But there's something else too:

AIG has missed three TARP dividend payments to Treasury as of Sept. 30. If the company misses a fourth payment Nov. 1, Treasury will have the right to elect directors to the AIG board.

More at this link. Read it and weep.

Turn the page ....

Well, Excuse Me!

Note to family and friends: Updates on Mr. AOW are being added to this post.


Added commentary is mine (The Merry Widow)

Bill forces citizens to list guns on taxes?
Firearms tracking act gives authorities access to your 'mental health records'
Posted: October 12, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A firearms tracking bill has many bloggers up in arms over a federal requirement that would purportedly force gun owners to list their firearms on federal income tax returns.

But while the bill implements sweeping gun-control measures – including one that would prohibit citizens from owning a gun without a license – the income tax provision doesn't exist.
Praise be to GOD for SMALL favors!
The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, or H.R. 45, was introduced Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., on Jan. 6. While the bill does not include stipulations about reporting guns on tax forms, it does contain numerous gun-control proposals that are drawing fierce criticism from gun-rights advocates.

If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license.
Wonder how much THAT would cost, how many classes and psych evaluations would be required(and paid for)?
Under the legislation, a person who is seeking a firearm license must submit to the attorney general an application including the following information:

1) current passport-sized photo

2) name, address, date and birthplace

3) any other name the applicant has used

4) a clear thumbprint

5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited by federal or state law from obtaining a firearm

6) certification that the applicant will keep the firearm safely stored and out of the possession of minors
What they consider safely stored and what I consider safely stored would most certainly clash! But then, I spanked my 2 when they were little...
7) certificate showing applicant has passed a written firearms examination on the safe storage of firearms, safe handling of firearms, use of firearms in the home and risks associated with use, legal responsibilities of forearms owners and "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate"
How many bloody hoops can you jump through in 1 go?
8) authorization to release "to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant"
I would probably be disqualified, since I have endogenous depression...even though I'm NOT suicidal.
9) the date on which the application was submitted

10) applicant signature

The bill makes it illegal for "any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm [any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques] to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector" without verifying that the transferee has a valid license. However, this requirement does not apply to "infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, interstate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other."
mutter...mutter...mutter...how very generous of them...:spit:
Licensed dealers would be required submit to the attorney general or appropriate state authorities the following information within 14 days of a transfer of a qualifying firearm: 1) manufacturer, 2) model name or number 3) serial number 4) date of transfer 5) number of the transferee's valid firearm license 6) name and address of person who transferred the firearm.
And will we have to be TATTOOED with the above information?
Within nine months of the bill's passage, the attorney general would be required to establish and maintain a federal system to track sales, including all of the identifying information submitted during a transfer of ownership.
Time for the birth of a new bureaucracy.
Under H.B. 45, it would be illegal to fail to report lost or stolen firearms or to fail to report change of address within 60 days of the change.
Wonder about any snowbirds who are down here for the winter? If they are robbed while they are out of town for 3-4 months?
To ensure compliance with the act, the attorney general would be authorized, during regular business hours, to "enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."
Busybodies...
The act does not apply to governmental authorities.
Heck no! Can't let us interfere with the governmental abuse of powers...

"This bill validates the concerns of sportsmen and gun owners about what … Congress and administration portend for Second Amendment rights," Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice-president/general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told ESPN Outdoors.

Keane continued, "The U.S. Supreme Court definitively said in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment provides individual civil rights to law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. (They don't have to be in a militia to own and keep guns.) This bill, however, would treat those citizens who exercise their civil liberties like criminals."

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons told ESPN the bill focuses primarily on guns as instruments as crime instead of penalizing the people who commit criminal acts. She said, under the bill, law-abiding citizens might become violators of the law.
Too right, punish the tool, not the tool user, or misuser!
"Several provisions in this bill would make compliance nearly impossible," she said. "For instance, the bill spells out that if a firearms license holder fails to notify the Attorney General of an address change within 60 days, that person would be subject to a 5 year prison term and a fine of up to $250,000."

She also condemned the licensing requirements in the bill.

"Any kind of bill that would require photographing and fingerprinting for simple possession of a firearm is fundamentally different in opinion from that which the NRA holds," she said. "Any law should target the criminal element, but this law would simply further burden law-abiding people."
I do not need anymore "help", thank you!
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and does not have a single co-sponsor, leading many to believe passage is highly unlikely.
Praise be to GOD for that!
Keane said the legislation is far too far-reaching and repressive to become law.

"If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose (control of) their chamber in upcoming mid-term elections (2010)," he said. "The leadership in the House knows that."
Politics and politicians!
In April, a group of more than 450 gun-rights advocates sent a letter signed by more than 3,000 people to lawmakers in condemnation of H.R. 45.

"We are tired of our rights being denigrated and destroyed," it said. "[A]ny politician who votes for this bill or any bill of this type will be noted, and voted against when they come up for re-election."

The letter noted that more than 200,000 existing gun laws "do nothing to stop or curtail criminals." It states that history and statistics both prove that such bills are destructive to the citizenry.

"If this bills' purpose is to truly 'protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death' then the Congress should realize that the only threats to the public are from a criminal element that this bill … will not address, and from the government itself."
BINGO! We need to fear our government...it is attempting to scarf up everything that makes us Americans. And make us into Amerikans...I AM NOT A SLAVE!
"With guns, we are 'citizens,'" the letter concludes. "Without them, we are 'subjects.'"
I am a subject of GOD Almighty, not human beings!

Turn the page ....

This Morning On NBC's Today Show (video added)

(Two posts today. Please scroll down)

Something very like this from CNBC's John Harwood as he and the show anchor we discussing that parents shouldn't be concerned about BHO's upcoming national address to schoolchildren on September 8:

"Parents who object to the President speaking to schoolchildren aren't able to raise their children very effectively."

This is what the majority of Americans accept as news and words from an expert?

1. The mainstream media will not say anything negative about BHO's power grab and appointees. See Epa's post at Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

2. Having concerns about "The One" means that you are an unfit parent.

Get the picture?

Addendum, September 7:

Turn the page ....

One of FDR's Fireside Chats

Listen carefully (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance):



Tell me your observations in the comments section. Do you notice something disturbing? If not, see the information from the post at Infidel Bloggers Alliance below the fold.

Note that at the beginning he speaks of the rights to life and liberty. He goes on to list the other basic rights from our in the Bill of Rights including "free speech, free press, free worship." What he doesn't mention is the right of private property, with good reason. He then goes on to assert "that we have accepted a second bill of rights." These so called "rights" are economic in nature. Roosevelt also had the audacity to explicitly state that the "normalcy" of the 1920s, i.e. liberty, was the cause of fascism. Of course, Roosevelt spent his time in office stealing from some in order to provide these "rights" to others. These so-called rights include, but are not limited to:

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

This form of legalized theft under the guise of providing "rights" is now the main function of American government at all levels. Now the nation is reaping the fruits of becoming a giant "robbers' den," just as Rome did.

And now you know how BHO got elected and why he is often compared to FDR.

Is it even possible now to educate the American electorate now as to what the meaning of "rights" is? After all, several generations have embraced FDR's "new Bill of Rights."

Turn the page ....

Greenie Coercion

A recent edition of the Washington Post dropped a hint that the government would like nothing better than to force us to buy a new car in the name of the better good, both for the environment and for our own health.

From this article in the Washington Post:

Older Cars Fouling Region's Air Quality
Agency Study Links Recession, Pollution

The recession is contributing to higher levels of air pollution in the Washington area as new car sales plummet and older, dirtier vehicles remain on the road longer, according to a recent study by regional planners.

[...]

"If you trade in a 1995 Jeep Cherokee for a new one, that's a big difference in emissions," said Ronald F. Kirby, COG's transportation planning director. "We can't keep emissions going down unless we get newer vehicles in the fleet."

[...]

Kirby said he was particularly troubled that aging vehicles are predicted to cause increased emissions even as motorists are expected to cut their driving by 2.5 percent...The finding is at odds with a basic tenet of transportation planning, that tailpipe emissions drop when people drive less.

The article also indicates that the problem is a national one, albeit not yet widely recognized:

Rich Denbow, director of technical programs for the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, said the COG study is the first in the country to document the connection between older vehicles and worsening air pollution. However, Denbow said, he expects other areas will find the same problem when they update their air quality forecasts.

"We're the first ones to see it, but I think it will be a national issue," said Denbow, whose organization is based in the District. "Our economy is better than a lot of others, so the [older vehicle] problem isn't as bad here as it will be in other areas."

We also read the following statement from Joan Rohlfs, chief of air quality planning for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, as she emphasizes how controlling emissions is a health mandate:

"Anything that contributes to pollution is not good for anyone's health"...

Perhaps most significantly, we read the following money quote from the aforementioned Kirby:

"How can you expect us to meet our targets for emissions when we have no control over the economy and the rate at which people buy new vehicles?"

In other words, "If we, your government overseers, are going to meet the federal requirements and get our federal subsidy, we must tell our citizens to shape up right now and head on over to the car dealer."

As one whose newest vehicle dates from year 2000, I can see what's coming sooner or later: I, and others like me, will be taxed or fined for driving older vehicles and thereby coerced into buying a newer vehicle.

Such coercion will, of course, have a negative effect on independent automotive-repair garages as car owners will be forced to obtain service at car dealers. The dealers, often the only facilities with the kind of equipment needed to effect certain repairs and types of maintenance, are fewer now, thanks to BHO's meddling in the automotive industry. I guess that it's fine and dandy to have to drive further, pay more, and wait longer for those repairs. After all, doing so is all for the greater good — never mind the good of my wallet or yours.

After all, we must save Mother Earth, even at the cost of enslavement and not being able to enjoy her bounty:

There are no slaves so willing as those who don chains and shackles of their own accord and in the name of the greater good.

Additional reading: THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS and Junk Science.

Oh, and just so you know, Anthony “Van” Jones, BHO's "Green Czar" is an admitted Communist with an arrest record:

...The East Bay Express, an Oakland area Black on line magazine reported Comrade Czar Jones...became a communist when he became enchanted with “these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, … I need to be a part of[them].”

[...]

Jones proudly says he spent the next ten years working with the people he met in jail in April, and “by August I was a Communist.”

His website “Green for all” carries this telling quote from Comrade Jones on his new position, “… we’re going to be in an economic slowdown for a couple of years. So to take three months, four months, six months to spend this money the right way-we’re not going to get a chance to spend a trillion dollars again! Ever. So let’s do it the right way!”

This is the kind of appointee BHO wants as a close adviser. Telling, very telling.

Of course, Greenie coercion isn't limited to your cars. Nosirree! From this posting at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, citing this essay:

...[T]he Waxman-Markley energy bill has a requirement that forces the entire United States to use a National Building Code based on the green building standards of California. Regardless of whether your house is in Miami, Florida or Bangor, Maine, you’ll have to adhere to the standards used in a state that has one of the most moderate climates in the U.S. The construction industry is really going to suffer.

The bill forces sellers to have an energy inspection prior to being able to sell their home. Windows, appliances and insulation will have to be inspected and approved by a government inspector and modifications would have to be made for compliance before you can close the sale.

Basically, you won’t be able to sell until you go through the expense of bringing your house up to the new code. This will cost a prohibitive amount in many cases.

So much for our right to property, be it the right to own our present automobile or to sell our homes. That right will be yielding to the right of Big Brother to snoop into every aspect of our lives.

Turn the page ....

ObamaKare Will Force You Into Managed Care

The title of this posting is not a come-on. It's the real deal, folks. Or should I say "raw deal"?

Lifted from this posting at Yid With Lid, citing today's New York Post:

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199).

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

Think about the above points. Is this the kind of health care you would choose in a free society?

If you have a health-insurance policy, you already know how often copays change. And the change is just one loophole to force you into ObamaKare.

ObamaKare will negate BHO's words:

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," Obama said addressing the American Medical Association. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." He didn't let up."If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."

And now, for your viewing nightmare and framed in Communist red, is the video Yid With Lid used to conclude his post:



Welcome to CHANGE. Not much hope, though.

Turn the page ....

The Morning News

Eyes bleary and first cup of coffee in hand, I often hear inane statements on the local morning news. Today, while I was waiting for the computer to boot up, was no exception.

The anchor and some "expert" were discussing the recession. The brief exchange mentioned the 100 Thing Challenge, found quickly via a Google search:

The 100 Thing Challenge is my little way to personalize my efforts to fight consumerism.

That said, a lot of other people are participating, too. I'll be working on ways for people to connect. For example, the 100 Thing Challenge Facebook Page. Please join and participate!

Goal: By November 12, 2008 I will only have 100 personal things. I will live with only 100 personal things for one full year, until November 12, 2009....

"Fight consumerism"? Way to help the economy, Dave.

Back on my television screen, the news anchor, a woman, got a concerned look on her face and wanted to know if her shoe collection counted as one thing. Of course, the "expert" gave her permission to do so.

The next portion of the interview was equally inane. During this portion, the anchor cheerily stated: "Now you can tell your kids why they can't have everything they ask for."

I sighed. It takes a recession to tell one's children to stop being greedy and selfish? I tell you this: my parents had no problem whatsoever telling me that I couldn't have everything I wanted.

The show's segment concluded with a vapid statement, uttered in soothing and silky tones, as to how this recession is teaching people to cherish non-material things.

The computer hadn't quite finished booting up, so I turned to the local section of today's Washington Post and found this, which began in the now-typical-of-news-stories fluff style that so irritates me. At least the poetic description lasted for only one paragraph:

'Hard to Put a Price Tag' On Quality of Life
More Budget Cuts in the Cards, Fairfax Grapples With Trimming Its Cherished Cultural Diversion

The 200 music fans who came to Royal Lake Park in Fairfax County on a recent Friday to hear folk singer Mike Seeger brought lawn chairs, buckets of fried chicken and the expectation of an enjoyable evening amid difficult times. They appeared to get it: A father and son tossed a football, the setting sun cast golden light and a great blue heron skimmed the lake as Seeger strummed Carter Family classics.

The taxpayer-funded event is one of many continuing in Fairfax despite the worst economic downturn in a generation -- punctuated by the news that next year will bring another round of deep cuts to schools, police, the fire department and other essential services.

As they make difficult budget choices, local leaders have struggled to strike the right balance with the smaller programs that help define their communities but become increasingly difficult to justify as the recession wears on. In many cases, they have spared the events.

Hello, local governments? It's time to tell the taxpayers, your "children," that they cannot continue buying everything they want during a recession. Maybe you local leaders need a particular kind of 100 Thing Challenge when you're working on the budget.

And, now, on to that second cup of coffee and checking the web.

Turn the page ....

Is Health Care Reform Part Of Reparations For Slavery And Discrimination?

From NewsBusters: Health care reform is part of reparations for slavery and racial discrimination.

Here's the video:



The apology that Clyburn references was supposed to be only an apology - specifically without reparations. Obviously, Clyburn sees matters differently.

Again, here are Clyburn's words:

Well, I think that Congressman Cohen's resolution that was unanimously passed by the House offered an apology, but it went into talking about how we ought to go about rectifying some of the current effects of that past discrimination. And that's what we're doing today as we roll out this working draft of our health care bill.

What I would do is exactly what we're attempting to do with this legislation, energy legislation, health legislation. I would look at ways that we can programatically and with new policy, address these inequities and make concerted efforts to do things that would make up for them and eliminate the disparities. That's what I would do. We're talking about addressing inequities, disparities that exist in the health care in our communities. That's the kind of thing that we ought to be doing.

Is Clyburn playing up victimology? Or does he know something about the proposed legislation that the rest of us don't?

(crossposted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Turn the page ....

Book Review: Liberty and Tyranny

Guest post by MJB
Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin presents the two forms of world polity—liberty and tyranny—and the views shared by those who believe in them. In the first chapter, Mark Levin divides people into two categories: he who supports liberty—the Conservative—and he who supports tyranny or the all-powerful, authoritarian state—the Statist. The author asserts that these two groups, although claiming to share the same goal, diametrically oppose each other and thus are incompatible. As summed up by the following quote of President Abraham Lincoln found on the back cover of the book:

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.

Liberty and Tyranny does not bull-headedly focus on a certain facet of conservative thinking such as paleoconservatism, conserving the culture, or social conservatism, or focusing on faith and values. Rather, the author looks at all areas of political controversy through a conservative’s eyes. Indeed, he states that conservatism isn’t meant to be cherry-picked to suit one’s political motives. One believes in either individual liberty or communal slavery. All aspects of politics lead to one of these situations.
------
Mark Levin repeatedly writes of the different methods the Statist uses to reach his goal of an omnipotent state. The crisis method has proved most popular. Utilizing this method, the Statist must create a sense of urgency, danger, and a need to act immediately so as to remediate the supposed poor judgment of a previous political leader or from the supposed lack of compassion, responsibility, and sacrifice on the part of the people. Examples of such artificial crises becoming tools of the Statist include “The War on Poverty,” “The War for Children,” and “The Fight against Global Warming.”

What solution does the Statist always propose? Change. Change wipes out everything that was before and replaces it with something new, fresh, and good. Or so people believe. Edmund Burke, the English Parliamentarian and thinker, explains elegantly the fallacy of such thought:

There is a manifest, marked distinction, which ill men with ill designs, or weak men incapable of any design, will constantly be confounding,—that is, a marked distinction between change and reformation. The former alters the substance of the objects themselves, and gets rid of all their essential good as well as of all the accidental evil annexed to them. Change is novelty; and whether it is to operate any one of the effects of reformation at all, or whether it may not contradict the very principle upon which reformation is desired, cannot be known beforehand. Reform is not change in the substance or in the primary modification of the object, but a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of. So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was.

Many of the American electorate today express surprise at President Barack Obama’s Statist view of economics, social issues, and foreign policy. But one has only to look at his campaign speeches in which he constantly emphasized that he was “fundamentally opposed” to the ways and institutions of the United States government. His campaign slogan: "Change!"

So how does the Conservative battle against the schemes of the Statist? For one, the Conservative must act as an educator to those who follow the Statist. For example, many Americans today believe that universal health care should be a right. They ask, “How can we rest when 47 million people lack health insurance? How can we be so heartless and uncaring?” In this instance, the Conservative could respond, as Mark R. Levin does, with the following information from the U.S. Census Bureau report in 2006: 9.5 million people of the purported 47 million uninsured were not U.S. citizens but can be treated anyway, if they so desire to be treated, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000. Eighteen million were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, viewing themselves healthy enough to survive without paying for health insurance. Fifty percent of the 47 million regained their health insurance in four months. In the end and no matter the argument, the Conservative must present facts to educate those who have been chicaned by the Statist.

Another way the Conservative can battle the schemes of the Statist is by the usage of reasoning to combat the attractiveness of Statism in its various do-good manifestations. The Statist promotes solutions for all the problems that face us, or so he says. But how does the Statist reach his goals, which today includes emotionally charged issues such as fighting, fighting global warming, and fighting poverty? How can we fight the collapse of the auto industry? As his name indicates, the Statist believes in totalitarian government as the panacea to the ills of society. But the Statist does not believe in nor act for the benefit for the individuals who build the society. Rather, the Statist believes that government should act as the clean-up crew which alone knows how to give meaning to the lives of people, and afterwards the Statist will invariably control and dictate the people's lives and actions. British writer C. S. Lewis noted the following on the subject of the government acting for the good of the people:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their conscience.

What lies before today's Conservative? Even though the United States is inching slowly towards Statism, the belief in authoritarianism proves more popular than ever in American history. What can the Conservative do? He can educate. He can reason. He can warn those who are tempted by the siren’s call of Statism of the consequences of bequeathing power to a cold oligarchy. He can explicate the many pervasive historical examples of the horrors of such governmental systems.

Above all, the Conservative must show ideological determination in this battle and recognize that our nation wasn’t founded on tyrannical ideology, no matter how seductive that ideology is under certain circumstances. Over the last century, the Statist has manipulated the American people into a centralized-government way of thinking. The Conservative must remember the deceptive determination of his opposition if he desires to reclaim his country.

Over two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan recognized the fragility of our way of life:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Those words call out to us today. The Conservative must choose to act if the Statist is not to claim tyrannical victory. By reading Liberty and Tyranny, the Conservative can fortify himself in this ongoing battle for freedom.

Note from AOW: MJB, the author of the above book review, is a student in my American Government class.

Turn the page ....

The Food Police?

According to this article:

There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op.

(crossposted to The Astute Bloggers)

Turn the page ....

Baseball As An Entitlement?

Look, I love baseball. I was learning to swing a bat even before I started going to kindergarten.

But to expect the taxpayers' to pay for keeping Metro, the D.C. transporation system including both bus and rail service, open beyond the usual hour so that attendeees of night games can ride home. Other groups don't receive that same special privilege for free. Furthermore, such special consideration for the Washington Nationals flies in the face of financial realities, especially at a time when Metro is facing a budget gap of $29 million, laying off some 300 workers, and cutting back on bus services.

The rule for keeping Metro open beyond the usual closing hour is as follows:

Under a 2003 Metro policy, organizations that want Metrorail to open early or close late are required to pay the agency a fee. Such organizations and events include the Washington Redskins, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the Marine Corps Marathon and groups that perform at Verizon Center. The fees must be paid two weeks in advance, and organizers receive refunds if fares exceed that amount, which typically happens with large events.

That policy seems fair enough. But after some apparent confusion and a lack of communication among the D.C. Transportation Department, Metro, and the Washington Nationals, the late-service fee of $27,000 per hour has been waived:

District officials have decided that the city will cover all the costs for Metro to stay open to accommodate late Washington Nationals games after having suggested that others in the region share the tab.

Suddenly, as if by magic, the District now claims capable of finding the necessary budget resources for transportation after those late-release baseball games. If those funds can be found now, why couldn't they have been found before? Or is Metro going to make cutbacks in other ways so that the transportation system can run the few times that a Washington Nationals game runs beyond the usual time?

What brought the above to a head and resulted in the city's decision is the following:

The confusion over who would pay for such service began when Gabe Klein, director of the D.C. Transportation Department, told Metro officials in a letter last week that the city would no longer pay the late-service fee of $27,000 an hour because of the budget crunch. Team officials said they did not know that there had been a policy change until Monday night, when a rain delay pushed the game past Metro's midnight closing.

Metro and team officials spent more than two hours squabbling about when Metro would close and who would pay if it stayed open. Some fans said they were confused by last-minute announcements at Nationals Park about when the last train would leave Navy Yard. Ultimately, Metro agreed to stay open past the regular midnight shutdown.

The mix-up stemmed from a communication breakdown, Albert said. Klein said he sent the letter to Metro based on staff information that his department did not have money this year to pay the late-game fees, which occur when games go late because of rain delays or extra innings. He did not check with the mayor's office, he said.

[...]

Albert said the city will pay for the extra hour and a half of service after Monday's game, roughly $40,000. That works out to about $2,531 for each of the 16 passengers who entered Metrorail after midnight.

In my view, baseball fans who wish to attend a game should be ingenious enough to arrange their own transportation. Or perhaps the taxpayer subsidy of Nationals Stadium was a bad idea in the first place:

Economists seldom agree, but the many studies done over the past decade all arrived at the same conclusion: Publicly funded stadiums do not deliver the benefits they promise. A recent paper by the Cato Institute concluded, "The academic research overwhelmingly concludes that the presence of professional sports teams has no measurable positive impact on economic growth."

[...]

Funding a new stadium in the District may be good politics, but it is bad public policy. Major League Baseball will be laughing all the way to the bank while D.C. residents will find that they get much less than they were promised -- and paid for.

Despite stadium was funded. Now the issue is transportation. Once rearing its head, the nanny continues to need more and more from the taxpayer — all in the name of the common good, even if that good does nothing more than serve special interests.

(Crossposted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Turn the page ....

A Bailout For Newspapers Too? Part Two

Last month, I posted about the Newspaper Revitalization Act. At the time of that posting, few took seriously the possibility that such a bailout, i.e., government control, of the print media could gain traction. The bill, proposed by U.S. Senator Benjamin Cardin, had no sponsors at the point of that previous posting and was limited to preserving local newspapers, not for the purpose of bailing out the media conglomerates.

Now comes this story from Fox News (hat tip to Weasel Zippers):

Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout

Rosa Brooks, who has moved from the L.A. Times to the Pentagon, called for more "direct government support for public media" and government licensing of the news, which critics say would destroy the independent media.

Influential Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks has hung up her journalistic hat and joined the Obama administration, but not before penning a public proposal calling for some radical ideas to help bail out the failing news industry.

Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping "direct government support for public media" and creating licenses to govern news operations.

"Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off," she wrote in her parting column on April 9.

Brooks said this would help rescue the industry from a "death spiral"...

But critics say her proposal would spell an end to the independent media and make journalists reliant lapdogs...

Read the rest.

A stepping stone to control of the media as portrayed by George Orwell's dystopia in 1984 via the control of what information and terminology the public can find available in the mainstream media? Welcome to Pravda USA!

Bill O'Reilly on the topic of Rosa Brooks:



WE THE PEOPLE can have all the Tax Day Tea Parties we want, but if the government gains extensive control of the media, those Parties will be in vain, particularly if there is no overall plan to continue the momentum of such a grassroots movement.

Turn the page ....

BHO As CEO

Dick Morris opines that BHO's forcing out of GM's Rick Wagoner will backfire.

Excerpt from this column at The Hill:

...By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company....

[...]

This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company’s future.

And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.

Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public’s mind.

Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.

Read the rest HERE.

Statist that he is, BHO successfully demonized GM's corporate management. Continuing the socialistic power grab, he continues to demonize in moralistic tones all sorts of corporate managers and, thereby, presents himself as "The One" who can save us peons from evil management. In his runaway bestseller Liberty and Tyranny, Mark R. Levin explains that kind of maneuver in some detail in Chapter One.

The purpose of this post, however, is not to discuss the same issues as those discussed by Mark Levin in his book, although I recommend that all of my readers obtain their own copy and wade in. Instead, my purpose here, as one who comes from a long line of automotive mechanics, is to ask a few questions about BHO as CEO....

1. Is BHO, or anyone he chooses to manage GM, an experienced CEO?

2. What does the new CEO of GM know about the auto industry?

3. Did BHO's forcing out of Mr. Wagoner amount to extortion?

I know that my analogy below isn't perfect. Nonetheless, BHO's move to push out Mr. Wagoner reminds me of the machinations of the efficiency expert:

A specialist who seeks to increase the productivity of a business or an industry by improving the efficiency of its operations.

Any mechanic can tell us just how efficient such experts are. The mechanic's comments are unprintable in polite company.

Maybe Mr. Wagoner needed to go. I don't know. But will whoever takes his place be any better?

Meanwhile, we also have BHO trying to force Chrysler to team up with Fiat, which, in the past anyway, used to be referred to by mechanics as Fix It Again Tony:

...[M]any auto experts think the proposed alliance between financially healthy Fiat and nearly dead Chrysler can work, when the Daimler-Chrysler linkup is considered to have failed. Fiat, it is argued, builds excellent small and midsize cars - exactly where Chrysler is weakest....

[...]


[E]ven the most optimistic experts aren't sure whether Fiat and Chrysler will be a marriage made in heaven - or, like the Daimler and Chrysler tie-up - one made in purgatory....

One can only, pardon the expression, hope that Fiat has improved over the unreliable vehicle is used to be, when even auto salesmen advised buyers, "If you love your wife, don't buy her a Fiat."

In spite of being vilified by various media, Ford Motor Company may have shown great wisdom in refusing bailout money. By refusing federal funds, Ford has disallowed federal control of the company's management. In any case, those of us who rely upon our cars for transportation to and from work are going to find out exactly which makes and models keep us moving on down the road. Perhaps so as to cover our bases, all of us should invest in towing companies. Heh.

Turn the page ....