Monday, August 17, 2009

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

posted by Donny Ferguson on Aug 14, 2009

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey lays out the problems with government-run health care, the need for serious reform and offers a libertarian alternative in a tremendous column in The Wall Street Journal. Click here to read the full column.

Mackey suggests Congress, among other things:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

• Enact Medicare reform.

• Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Mackey also writes:

...Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments...

...Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Austin Petersen's Goodbye Letter

By: Austin Petersen

A little over two years ago I stood in a crowded nightclub surrounded by screaming New Yorkers watching millions of dollars pour into the campaign coffers of Congressman Ron Paul. It was December 16th, the night of the first real Tea Party. As the deafening crowd roared their approval, I stood back with my video camera taping the events so that I could show the world what happened there.

As the millions rolled in that night, little did I know it would be the beginning of my future career in politics. The following February, Dr. Paul’s campaign was suspended and I was disheartened when a phone call from Washington D.C. came in. It was Shane Cory; he wanted me to come to CPAC to interview for a job. I booked the next flight to Reagan, and a week later committed to fill the position of Volunteer Coordinator at the Libertarian National Committee.

I started work in D.C. after having taken over from the last volunteer coordinator with no idea what to do, or where to begin. I knew third party politics would be difficult, but I honestly expected more resistance than I got in some ways. I’ve always been someone to think outside the box and applied that to make projects successful with little to no resources. The Libertarian Party afforded me a fantastic opportunity that I sought to use to further our commonly shared beliefs any way that was possible. I was given near complete autonomy to experiment in an office full of books from decades of libertarian campaigns, one an original signed copy of work by Milton Friedman. It was an experience of a lifetime that I will always remember.

If I could give Libertarians some advice it would be this: Run professional, strategic, think-outside-the-box campaigns. There are enough motivated libertarian minded youths out there now for you to rally to your campaigns. Learn the tools of the trade on Facebook, Youtube and other social networking sites to bring in the support you need. Your friends will run as Libertarians if you ask them to. So do it and support them! Or run yourself for goodness sakes, but just do it, and do it with class and professionalism. You should have a good answer to the questions: Why should people run as a libertarian? Why should the American people vote for our candidates? What does it mean to be a Libertarian?

During the past year and a half I’ve traveled all over the country, worked on Bob Barr’s Presidential campaign, petitioned congress, built a large and exciting internship program at LPHQ, and made many lifelong friends in the movement. I will always be grateful to the LNC for giving me a chance to succeed in professional politics. Now I’m off to start a new journey but with the same goal; to maximize individual liberty. I wish you all the best of luck.

Long Live the Libertarian Party!

A Libertarian question--and answer--about bringing health care to millions of uninsured people ... now

from Delaware Libertarian

The question is, why can private organizers do what the government can't: bring basic health care services to those in need on a shoestring budget like Remote Area Medical?

Here's what the purely private organization does:

The organization was founded in 1985 and years of research and planning yielded a vast, carefully developed network of men and women who have come together to make RAM a highly mobile, remarkably efficient relief force. Volunteers are doctors, nurses, technicians, and veterinarians who go on expeditions at their own expense and treat hundreds of patients a day under some of the worst conditions.

Volunteers have provided general medical, surgical, eye, dental, and veterinary care to tens of thousands of people and animals, with 60% of the expeditions serving rural America. There are plans for expansion of US expeditions, an airborne medical treatment center, a permanent clinic site in Guyana, and a program start-up in Africa.


I never thought Inglewood CA would be considered remote, but maybe urban California is remote in terms of accessible medical care. So here is what RAM is doing, even as I write:

Inglewood, CA (AHN) - Charity clinic Remote Area Medical (RAM) started its eight-day free medical, visual and dental check-up to uninsured and under-insured individuals at the Forum in Inglewood, California on Tuesday.

RAM volunteer doctors will serve 1,200 individuals per day starting at 5:30 a.m. until 6 p.m. As usual, RAM will not require individuals seeking treatment to show proof that they don't have healthcare insurance or have low income.

RAM has set up 45 medical exam rooms, 100 dental stations and 25 eye exam sites at the basketball stadium. Exams include mammography, chest X-ray, PAP smears, blood pressure screening and diabetes test.

Prescription eye glasses will also be fitted and prepared on site.


RAM has some corporate sponsorship and gets donations, but its average yearly budget ranges in the $100-250K range--that's thousands, not millions.

With that, and a willingness to go anywhere, jump through any hoop necessary, and practice in fairgrounds, animal stables, or even on bleachers in the rain, they make a difference and save lives--over 300,000 patients and counting.

RAM founder Stan Brock epitomizes the humanitarian (and libertarian) ideal that it is not acceptable to wait for the State to do it for you.

Which brings me to my major point: the answer.

Why can't the government do this? Suppose Stan Brock had a budget of $1 Billion and worked for the government. Government regulations would not allow him to just lease pieces of ground with no real facilities. Government would require records and authorizations of those who came to be treated. The government would have to have a multi-thousand page manual, a quality control panel, a diversity impact committee, a physician licensing inspection office....

For $1 Billion I will be willing to be you that the government could not treat the 300,000 people that RAM has treated over the past twenty years for less than $5 million.

One of the more ominous pieces of bait and switch in the current debate is when the administration and key congressional leaders stopped referring to what is going on in Washington as health care reform and started calling it health insurance reform.

And rushing us to pass a bill immediately that won't even change anybody's level of insurance or treatment until 2013....

We could make a difference right now, if the State were not so mired in being the State.

Toss some regulations overboard and send the US Public Health Service doctors and nurses out to do RAM-style expeditions at the drop of a hat, with nothing but what they can carry in....

Give poor communities matching grants they can use to invite RAM to come visit them.

Too simple. We need bells, whistles, health advisory panels whose membership is driven by obscure qualifications.

Ah horseshit --waves hand in disgust--you know the answer as well as I do, even if you're not willing to admit it publicly.

So what to do? They need money, and anybody can send it.

I have twenty-one years experience as a medic in the US Army, including specialties in innoculation, physicals, and record-keeping. There is an RAM expedition in Grunday VA on 3-4 October. I'm calling today to volunteer.

If one out of every thousand people jacking their jaws on either side of health care reform would actually get off their ass and do something positive, there would not be a health care crisis of such magnitude in this country.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Yale's Preemptive Surrender

Michael C. Moynihan | August 13, 2009, 5:31pm

This is pathetic. From The New York Times:
So Yale University and Yale University Press (YUP) consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.
YUP director John Donatich admitted that he was caving to threats of violence that he presumes will follow:

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.”
Good for Aslan. What makes this really enraging is that Yale is one of the best academic presses out there, having published, for instance, the Annals of Communism Series, a diverse group of books that mined the (briefly opened) archives of the Soviet Union and effectively rewrote the history of the Spanish Civil War and the myth of a Leninist revolution betrayed by Stalinism. Unlike many academic publishers, there is no ideological conformity at YUP and former editorial director Jonathan Brent went out of his way, it would seem, to get a range of interesting perspectives outside of the typical race-class-gender triumvirate.

I interviewed Jyllands-Posten culture editor and Mohammad cartoon publisher Flemming Rose back in 2007.

Medical Mosh Pits

Understanding the clashes at the health care "town halls"

Jesse Walker | August 13, 2009

Clashes keep breaking out at the "town hall" meetings devoted to discussing health care reform. Usually the excitement amounts to some angry questions and heckling, but sometimes there's more. Six people were arrested at a demonstration outside a meeting in St. Louis. Violence erupted at a town hall in Tampa after opponents of ObamaCare were locked out of the building. A North Carolina congressman cancelled a meeting after receiving a death threat; the pro-market group FreedomWorks, which was involved in some of the protests, fielded a death threat of its own. Supporters of the president's health care reforms, who used to tout the support he'd received from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, are now accusing the very same companies of riling up "mob violence" to stop the plan.

As the charges and countercharges fly, here are three maxims to keep in mind:

1. It isn't Astroturf after the grassroots show up. When the San Francisco Chronicle asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi what she thought of the protests, she replied: "I think they're Astroturf." In other words, there isn't real grassroots dissatisfaction with the direction health care reform is taking. There's just a facsimile of discontent, a show ginned up by cynical political operatives.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a London-based body of PR professionals, defines Astroturfing as "the practice of falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of orchestrated and disguised public relations activity"; the examples it offers include "posting comments on others' blogs or on message boards" and "submitting supposedly amateur videos to YouTube." The equivalent action at the "town hall" meetings would be if someone claimed to be something she's not. That has happened: Early in August, a woman asking a pointed question at Wisconsin meeting identified herself as "just a mom from a few blocks away" who was "not affiliated with any political party." She turned out to have a long history of Republican activism.
READ MORE

FREEDOM WATCH 1 OF 6

Freedom Watch 2 of 6

FREEDOM WATCH 3 OF 6

FREEDOM WATCH 4 OF 6

FREEDOM WATCH 6 OF 6

FREEDOM WATCH 5 OF 6

SAFRA Stinks

by Neal McCluskey
his article appeared in Forbes on August 10, 2009.

Something called the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) zipped through the House Committee on Education and Labor recently.

Odds are you haven't heard much about it, maybe because of the deafening health care clamor, but it would do something pretty big, ending the 44-year-old Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program--which uses federal bucks to back tens of billions of dollars of student loans from private lenders--and replacing it with lending straight from Uncle Sam. In other words, it would destroy what little chance there was of student loans being constrained at all by economic realities.

"First, we saw a drive toward complete government takeover of our nation's health care system," lamented ranking Education and Labor Committee member Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., during deliberation over the bill. "Now, we see government seizing control of student lending, forcing the private sector out and welcoming in a mountain of public debt."

Contrary to what Kline suggests, guaranteed lending is about as close to a free market as a biplane is to the Starship Enterprise. Under FFEL, Washington guarantees lenders--including Fannie's cousin, Sallie--a profit on student loans, reimbursing them almost completely on defaults and paying big subsidies. Making matters worse, legislation was enacted last year that lets the feds more or less directly finance FFEL loans if lenders can't access sufficient funds through private capital markets. READ MORE

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Right Can Do Better Than Romney

by Gene Healy
This article appeared in the DC Examiner on August 11, 2009.

In recent months, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has hit the speaking circuit like a man who is determined to be president and knows he needs to get an early start.

Last week brought news that Romney had secured a major publisher for his forthcoming book, "No Apology: The Case for America's Greatness," in which Romney stands bravely against all those who insist that the United States is a mediocre country that's done more harm than good.

Even before the recent Palin and Sanford flameouts, Romney looked like the Right's favorite son for 2012. He'd garnered National Review's 2008 endorsement as a "full-spectrum conservative," and won the Conservative Political Action Conference's February 2009 straw poll handily.

With his square jaw and flawless salt-and-pepper hair, Romney certainly looks presidential: Like a character actor playing the president in a superhero movie -- or, less charitably, like a creature genetically engineered and grown in a vat for the sole purpose of securing the nation's highest office.

There's more to the presidency than looking the part, however. Conservatives ought to take a good look at the Romney record and ask themselves whether a man of such flexible convictions is the best they can do. READ MORE

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Great American Quotes

"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign that it shouldn't be a law. "

Unknown

GET SOME: How To Fix America's Health Insurance Crisis

Wisdom from Thomas Jefferson

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread. "

Thomas Jefferson

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire. "

Ludwig Mises

IMMIGRATION: THE BECKHAM FACTOR

MICHAEL SHERMER ON THE MODERN HISTORY OF SKEPTICISM

WashTimes: When it comes to quashing dissent, look for the union label

posted by Donny Ferguson on Aug 10, 2009

Today's Washington Times editorial covers a recent trend troubling Libertarians -- elected Democrats employing union violence to stamp down dissent at town hall meetings. Click here to read the editorial, or if you live in the metro D.C. area, pick up a copy of The Washington Times. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

The Times board writes:

EDITORIAL: Look for the union label

The 'persuasion of power' is employed to squash dissent

Politics is getting increasingly violent as Democrats desperately try to salvage their health care bill.

Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, said last week that public protest against the government health care plan "is close to Brown Shirt tactics." For Mr. Baird to characterize his constituents as Nazi storm troops is distasteful, to say the least. Yet it is fully in line with the tone set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who misleadingly decried protesters "carrying swastikas." Closer examination revealed that in every case, the symbol was being used as a warning against the arrogance of power of which Mrs. Pelosi has become emblematic.

Democratic talking points characterize the spontaneous grass-roots opposition to the planned government takeover of the health care system as being organized by a shadowy cabal of lobbyists and insurance companies. However, the real storm troops are being deployed openly by organized labor in an attempt to squelch dissent.

On Aug. 6, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent marching orders to his members to confront concerned citizens at town-hall forums. In St. Louis, members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reportedly attacked and beat Kenneth Gladney, who was passing out yellow flags outside a forum held by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Missouri Democrat. SEIU President Andy Stern has summed up his philosophy as, "We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power." We expect to see his grim-faced "purple shirts" using intimidation at other events during the congressional recess.

This effort is fully consistent with the general contempt that the Democratic majority has shown for those who oppose its radical agenda. The promised era of bipartisanship is long gone. The government's new slogan is "sit down and shut up." In an appearance in McLean last week, President Obama advised opponents of his plan to "get out of the way" and said he didn't want them "to do a lot of talking." The Obama White House made history when it set up an e-mail snitch line for people to report on the "fishy" ideas of their fellow citizens.

The Democrats would do better to try to understand the root causes of this unprecedented spontaneous outpouring of public concern and frustration than to resort to intimidation tactics. There are many serious questions about the growth of government and the planned takeover of health care that need to be answered, not beaten down. Deploying thugs will only lead to violence, which serves no one's interest. If the people are shouting, it is because the politicians have stopped listening.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Taxpayers vs. Tax-Eaters

by Jim Panyard

Playing off the sloganeers of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Presidential re-election campaign, it’s safe to say, “It’s Mourning in America.”

Even The Gipper would admit it.

As of June 2009, 155 million people were laboring in the shrinking private sector of the American Empire with a per capita income of $39,751 and a per household income of $50,740.

In addition to supporting themselves and their dependents on those earnings, they were also supporting:

22.5 million government employees at the federal, state and local levels. The average pay of those on the federal government payroll is $75,419 this year, according to Econwatch. The story is much the same at the state and local levels. In Pennsylvania, for example, the average state employee has a pay package of about $68,000 per year, while the state’s household income is $48,576. (As an aside, there are only about 20 million jobs in the nation’s manufacturing and construction sectors, combined.)

  • 3.9 million welfare recipients
  • 46.5 million Social Security recipients, a number projected to rise to about 72 million in the next 20 years.
  • 14.7 million Americans drawing unemployment benefits, with that number expected to rise consistently in the foreseeable future.

The productive sector workers are also paying for everything the Leviathan State does, such as wars, roads,Imperial adventures, private stadiums, bailouts, counterfeiting, ad infinitum. They also pick up the soaring tabs for 47 million Medicaid and 42 million Medicare recipients.

If this isn’t rampant socialism, it will do until the real thing arrives.


How can 155 million productive workers support themselves, nearly 100 million nonproductive others and a seemingly endless list of government endeavors (most of which could be done more economically and more effectively by the private sector)?

Answer: They can’t. Or, as they say in the computer business, “Game Over.”

America’s ongoing and growing financial bankruptcy is matched by its moral bankruptcy with 50 million “legal” abortions and counting; illegitimacy becoming the societal norm and celebrations of sodomy across the nation.

Theologian and author R.J. Rushdoony noted, correctly, that a nation’s religion is reflected in its culture.

What about hope? As my Dad used to say, “S(p)it in one hand and hope in the other. See which one fills up fastest.”

READ MORE

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. "

Joseph Sobran May 13, 1998 (commenting on US vs Microsoft)

Michael Ostrolenk on transpartisanism, surveillance, and health care

Libertarians call on Democrats to end their 'war on dissent'

White House urges followers to report dissenters, Doggett claims LP organizing ‘mobs’

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson released the following statement Wednesday, after Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse released a statement Tuesday accusing private citizens opposed to the proposed government takeover of health care of being part of a paid, organized conspiracy against the president:

“Whether it’s having the Franking Commission censor congressional opponents’ outgoing mail, sliming private citizens who question their agenda or urging their followers to report critics directly to the White House, desperate Democrats have only one way of dealing with Americans’ overwhelming opposition to their radical agenda -- using the power of government to silence dissent.

“After years of paying ACORN radicals to show up at events and having union members take paid vacations to go protest, I can see how Democrats are now incapable of recognizing free speech when they see it. They appear to have conceded the fact their government takeover of health care sends costs skyrocketing, innovation plummeting and waiting lists growing. Unable to sell Americans on the virtues of government control, Democrats have now resorted to trying to silence them.

“Among them is Congressman Lloyd Doggett, who claimed citizens spontaneously and freely expressing mainstream opinions he didn’t agree with were conspiring with Libertarians to stop government-run medicine. Libertarians didn’t organize this expression of free speech, they’re just joined by millions of other mainstream Americans in opposing this dangerous plan for government-run, rationed care.

“The Democrat war on dissent reached a peak this week when the White House posted a blog entry urging the president’s followers to find people who criticize the president, even “in casual conversation,” and forward the information to flag@whitehouse.gov. That is a brazen attempt to bully people into silence by leading them to believe any statements critical of the president will land them on the new version of the ‘White House enemies list.’”

“Libertarians find it ironic a community organizer is now using the government to try and to stop people from organizing their communities. Instead of using official edicts to smear, slander and intimidate everyday Americans into silence, Democrats should listen to the majority of Americans and drop their plans for a radical government takeover of their health care.

“Libertarians call on President Obama to issue a public apology to the millions of independent-thinking Americans his administration has slimed, to call off his plans to compile the flag@whitehouse.gov enemies list and to end the Democrats’ use of government power to silence dissent.”

Libertarians decry Blue Dog deal on government-controlled health care

Revised bill is ‘delayed-onset government control’

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized Blue Dog Democrat Caucus leaders for finalizing a deal with party leadership on a September vote on the proposed health care reform bill before heading back to their districts to meet with constituents.

The compromise claims to remove some costs, reduce the employer mandate requirements to provide health care to employees and change the so-called “public option” in the initial draft of the bill in exchange for an agreement to hold a vote when Congress reconvenes in September. Libertarians point out the deal is simply “delayed-onset government control” as the offensive provisions will simply be added once the bill is passed.

“This compromise makes the eventual government control of your health care even more likely,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “Congress wants to make it look like government-controlled health care is off the table so they can just get something passed. Once it’s law, all it takes is a few quick amendments to get the government-controlled system they wanted all along. It’s delayed-onset government control.”

“Don’t be fooled by the crocodile tears of the Progressive Caucus. Their objections are meant to make it look like their wildly unpopular plans to eliminate private health insurance are dead. They know this deal makes the elimination of private insurance even more of a reality by making it easier to pass the bill,” said Ferguson.

Blue Dogs also claim credit for loosening employer mandates. The original draft included language requiring employers with a payroll over $100,000 to provide health insurance to employees. The compromise increases that threshold to $500,000.

“Every employer in America knows what’s going to happen because it’s happened with every other bill. They’ll claim defeat so the looser mandate can pass, then once it’s law amend one number to get what they wanted all along,” said Ferguson.

“There are many problems with our current health care system, but this compromise still leads to a government-run health care system that maximizes what’s wrong with the current system and eradicates what works,” said Ferguson.

“Libertarians aren’t fooled, and neither are the millions of independent voters who live in Democrat districts. More and more Americans are finding out the devilish details of this plan and they’ll hold accountable on Election Day anyone who supports it,” said Ferguson. “The only way to make health care affordable and universally available is to defeat this bill entirely. Then we can start brand new negotiations on solutions that work,” said Ferguson.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

How Is America Going To End?

Who's most likely to secede?
By Josh Levin Posted Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2009

In the American end times, our government will take one of two forms. One possibility is that federalism will give way to an all-powerful central government. (In yesterday's global-warming thought experiment, this was the climate strongman scenario.) The other option is decentralization—in the absence of a unifying national interest, the United States of America will fragment and be supplanted by regional governance.

America was designed to avoid these two extremes—to keep the states and the national government in balance. The United States will end when the equilibrium mandated by the Constitution no longer holds. Tomorrow, I'll look at how the country might transition from democracy to totalitarianism. Today, I'll focus on America's disintegration.

Predictions of modern America's collapse usually say more about the speaker than about the country's condition. Igor Panarin, the Russian political scientist who believes the United States will break into six pieces in 2010, seems to be extrapolating from what happened to the Soviet Union. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who paid lip service to secession at a tax-day rally earlier this year, was less predicting America's downfall than feeding chum to a riled-up, "Secede!"-chanting crowd. "[I]f Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people," Perry said, "you know, who knows what might come out of that."

Eric Zuelow, a history professor at the University of New England and the editor of The Nationalism Project, argues that "loud voices" like Perry's bolster the country's strength. The fact that we can debate our country's legitimacy is a sign of national health. For the United States to fall to pieces, Zuelow says, it'll take more than a demagogue on a PA. Americans will have to come to believe they're no longer Americans.

READ MORE

Libertarians challenge SEIU: Why not give everyone unlimited posters?

Union rations access to ‘free’ posters promoting government takeover

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party issued a challenge Tuesday to the Service Employees International Union, which is distributing free posters to activists supporting the proposed government takeover of health care. The posters come with one catch – access to the limited supply is rationed to “only ONE poster per person and address.”

Libertarians challenged the SEIU to live up to the promises behind government-run health care and offer everyone in America unlimited access to as many posters as they want without increasing their costs.

“Nothing more perfectly illustrates the unsustainability of government-controlled health care than the fact even its propaganda posters are being rationed,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “When something is offered at no cost, the increased demand forces you to ration access to it. Whether its government-run medicine or union-offered posters, the rosy promises of universal access lead to the grim reality of rationing.”

“If the advocates of government-run medicine can’t even offer Americans a free poster without rationing access and forcing you to submit your name and address, they have no business controlling Americans’ access to medical care,” said Ferguson.

“Come on, SEIU. Libertarians challenge you to be the first to prove the Obama health care model works by offering everyone in America all the free posters they want, and without increasing your costs,” said Ferguson.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Great American Quotes

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. "

Ronald Reagan

Cash for Clunkers Video

Ron Paul on Cash for Clunkers

The Poverty of Preschool Promises: Saving Children and Money with the Early Education Tax Credit

by Adam B. Schaeffer

Adam B. Schaeffer is a policy analyst with Cato's Center for Educational Freedom and author of "The Public Education Tax Credit" (Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 605).


The political momentum behind state-level preschool programs is tremendous, but existing proposals are often flawed and expensive. Preschool can provide small but statistically significant short-term gains for low-income children; however, these gains usually fade quickly in later grades. There is little evidence to support the belief that large-scale government preschool programs are effective, by themselves, in improving long-term student outcomes. Reform of the existing K–12 system should therefore remain the primary focus of those interested in sustainable improvement in student outcomes.

Given that many states have already instituted pre-K programs, or are committed to doing so, this paper proposes model early education legislation aimed at maximizing their chances for longterm success. The Early Education Tax Credit aims to sustain any potential preschool benefits and establish a solid academic foundation for later success. The program would improve the quality and efficiency of preschool options by harnessing market forces and would pay for itself by using savings generated from the migration of students from public to private schools in grades K–4.

The Early Education Tax Credit approach is unique in meeting the demands of activists for expanded access to high-quality preschool, meeting the needs of children and the preferences of their parents, and meeting the goal of increased educational freedom — all while keeping the budgetary impact low or positive.

CLICK HERE to read the entire 20 page analysis.

Expanding Double Jeopardy

by David Rittgers
This article appeared in National Review (Online) on August 7, 2009.

Welcome to a new age of double jeopardy. The hate-crime statute just passed by Congress expands the potential for federal prosecutions to chilling new levels, and even creates the possibility of retrials for crimes that have already been ruled on by state courts. In one fell swoop, lawmakers have virtually ensured legal proceedings that obviously violate the Bill of Rights and this, for some reason, is being widely hailed as a triumph of justice.


The lack of rigorous debate over this policy is ominous. In the Senate, the hate-crime legislation was not even adopted as a stand-alone measure, but as an add-on to another bill. This relative stealth aside, the flourish of the president's signature pen will radically redraw the boundaries between state and federal jurisprudence.

States and the federal government are considered separate sovereigns. If someone has broken both state and federal laws, he can have a day in court in both systems. A counterfeiter can be charged for his funny money in federal court, for instance, and also face murder prosecution by a state if he has moved to eliminate his competition. A trial by a state does not rule out federal prosecution for the same crime, and this does threaten to thwart the Fifth Amendment's demand that no person suffer double jeopardy. In practice, however, this hasn't happened too often; until now, limited federal jurisdiction meant that Uncle Sam usually didn't have the ability to try or retry a state defendant. READ THE REST @ CATO.ORG

Monday, August 10, 2009

Libertarians: Sotomayor confirmation a defeat for individual, property, gun rights

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson released the following statement Thursday, after the Senate’s 68-31 vote to confirm Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Justice David Souter:

“Today’s confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a significant defeat for individual, property and gun rights. The Libertarian Party was the first political party to announce its opposition to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, after reviewing her history on the bench.

“Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, overturned by the Supreme Court, violates the Libertarian belief in equality under the law. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Maloney v New York and United States v Sanchez-Villar violated basic rights protected under the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in Didden v. Village of Port Chester violated personal property rights and affirmed the power of government to confiscate property for purposes beyond public use. Judge Sotomayor also has a long and troubling history of ruling on cases based on personal feelings and prejudices, rather than the letter of the law.

“Libertarians are joined by millions of Americans in their beliefs in equality under the law and the protection of individual, property and gun rights. Libertarians hope President Obama will work harder in the future to appoint justices who uphold our constitutionally-protected rights, not someone else’s narrow political agenda.”

Absence

I apologize for my absence. I was in Peru on a Mission Trip with our Church. I will resume activities this week.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Markets, Not Mandates


How medical markets would improve health care and reduce costs

Ronald Bailey | July 28, 2009

The New York Times calls it "possibly the most complex legislation in modern history." The health care "reform" currently being hammered out by the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives already clocks in at $1 trillion and 1,000 pages—and it's nowhere near done. But one thing is clear: the legislation attempts to substitute top-down mandates from a centralized bureaucracy for the distributed decisions made by millions of consumers, physicians, and insurers acting in a marketplace. This will fail.

While congressional reform efforts screech and shudder along, let's take a moment to dream: What would real reform look like? It would be consumer driven, transparent, and competitive.

Right now consumers are locked into the health insurance and health care plans that their employers choose, thanks to previous government meddling with the health care system and the tax code. Consequently, most consumers simply don't have a clue what their health insurance costs. They have no way to reduce those costs, and no incentive to do so, even if they could.

Harvard University business professor Regina Herzlinger is stuck in exactly the same place as most Americans—her employer, in this case, the president of Harvard, buys her health insurance for her. "I wouldn't permit him to buy my house or my clothing or my food for me. Yet as my employer, he could take up to $15,000 of my sala­ry each year and buy my health insurance for me, without knowing anything about my preferences or needs. It's ridiculous." Indeed it is.

Third party payments are the main source of dysfunction in the American health system. "The devil systematically built our health insurance system," once suggested Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. As evidence, Reinhardt pointed out that it "has the feature that when you're down on your luck, you're unemployed, you lose your insurance. Only the devil could ever have invented such a system."

So the first step toward real reform is to give consumers responsibility for buying their own health insurance. The employer-based health insurance system must be dismantled, and the money spent by employers for insurance should be converted to additional income. This would immediately inject cost consciousness into health insurance decisions. READ THE REST @ REASON

Peter Schiff Vlog 28 July 2009

Democrat John Conyers Questions why read the 1000 page health care bill

State-Of-The-Art Health Care For Everyone?

by William Poole
This article appeared in Forbes on July 28, 2009.

A basic fact is being ignored amid all the spilt ink in the healthcare debate: A nation cannot afford state-of-the-art health care for everyone. The current effort to expand health care insurance is designed to make the same health care available to both those with extensive insurance and to those currently uninsured. This effort ignores the fact that resources to make such care available to everyone do not exist.

For every major category of goods, higher income families spend more than lower-income families. Health care is not an exception. Consider the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2007, the latest year available; for all respondents together, the survey reports average annual income after taxes per consumer unit of $60,858 and average annual health care expenditures of $2,853.

For the highest income group tabulated, consumer units had average income after taxes of $230,849 and health care expenses of $4,836. The highest income group, therefore, had health care expenses 70% higher than for all groups. Of course, total national expenditures are much higher, with many costs borne by government, companies and private charities.

Let's assume that the highest income group can afford state-of-the-art health care, which we would like to make available to everyone. Based on these data, that would increase national health care outlays by 70%. To achieve this outcome, the nation would need many more physicians, nurses, medical technicians, hospitals, medical schools, MRI machines, drugs and so forth. It would be easier for the space program to send astronauts to Mars than to increase the scale of the medical establishment by 70%.

Providing today's state-of-the-art health care for everyone is simply impossible. Moreover, relentless and highly desirable technical improvements keep pushing the health care frontier outward. An ambitious goal, like sending astronauts to the moon, may be desirable, depending on a calculation of benefits and costs. An impossible goal, like state-of-the-art health care for everyone, is foolish. READ MORE @ CATO

SWINE FLU HOAX 1 OF 9 JANE BURGERMEISTER ON PROJECT CAMELOT RADIO

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Cyber tsar may turn screws on Internet freedom

Our #1 Source of Antioxidants: Coffee

by Elizabeth Walling

Have you been trying to kick the coffee habit? Well, before you say good-bye to your favorite morning drink forever, you may be interested in hearing coffee may not be so bad for you after all. In fact, it's been linked to a variety of health benefits. Did you know that one study shows even one cup of coffee each day can cut your risk for Parkinson's disease in half?

Coffee's full of healthful components like magnesium, potassium and vitamin B3. And coffee is the American's number one source of antioxidants, says one 2005 study from the University of Scranton. Another study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that one cup of coffee can have more antioxidants than a serving of blueberries or oranges. Antioxidants play a key role in reducing the inflammation which is associated with many health problems ranging from heart disease to rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Joe Vinson, a chemistry professor who led the Scranton study, says, "Antioxidants are your army to protect you from the toxic free radicals, which come from breathing oxygen and eating sugar, that start chronic diseases. Antioxidants help stave off cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke."

It may be the high level of antioxidants that helps coffee protect the heart. Researchers from Norway looked at data involving more than 27,000 women in the Iowa Women's Health Study and found women who drank 1–3 cups of coffee each day had a 24 percent reduction in risk of heart disease compared with women who didn't drink coffee at all. Women who drank as much as five cups a day showed up to a 19 percent decrease in risk of death from all causes. However, the study also concluded that more is not always better. Drinking more than six cups of coffee per day did not seem to increase benefits significantly.

Read the rest of the article

From President to Pundit: Why Obama should have stayed quiet about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates

Barack Obama got to be president because he had qualities Americans were yearning for after the bitter tumult of the Bush years. He was calm, sober, fair-minded, and guided by facts rather than emotions. He didn't jump to conclusions, he didn't ignore inconvenient evidence, and he didn't blunder into messes. That was the guy we elected last year, and right now, a lot of people miss him.

He was absent Wednesday when a reporter asked his views on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. At first, Obama sounded like himself. He acknowledged that Gates is a friend, "so I may be a little biased here" and pointed out helpfully, "I don't know all the facts."

That set him up nicely to forgo further comment on a matter that had nothing to do with the topic of his news conference (health care reform) or his responsibilities. Or, rather, it should have.

Instead, he proceeded to rake one Cambridge police sergeant over the coals for having "acted stupidly," before proceeding to place the episode in the context of the "long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

With that, Obama went from president to pundit. We've all heard speculation that Sarah Palin is aiming at a TV career on Fox News. Maybe Obama has his eye on Rachel Maddow's chair.

The Gates story is familiar by now. He arrived home to find his front door jammed. He tried to force the door, before going to the back and using his key. Meanwhile, a neighbor called police to report a burglary. READ MORE AT REASON

Ron Paul Video

Watch this video in a new window RON PAUL JULY 27, 2009 WEEKLY ADDRESS (IMMORALITY OF TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTION)

Obamacare Follies: A Perilous Rush

by Michael D. Tanner
Added to cato.org on July 27, 2009
This article appeared in the New York Post on July 27, 2009.

ON Tuesday, July 14, House Democrats unveiled a health-care-reform bill that was 1,018 pages long. The next day, after all of eight hours of debate, the House Ways and Means Committee passed it. Does anyone believe they actually read the bill?

But apparently, that doesn't matter because, as Ways & Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-Harlem) said: "There's an urgent need to get something done because real lives are at stake."

Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting that the full House vote on the bill before they go home for August recess, less than a week from now. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) says he may even pull the bill from his own committee and send it directly to the floor. "This can't be an interminable discussion," he says.

President Obama, who admits that he hasn't read the bill either, is also pushing for Congress to act quickly. "Health-care reform can't wait," the president said in a half dozen different variations during his most recent news conference.

Why? What's the rush? READ THE REST AT CATO

The Immorality of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion

by Ron Paul

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.



Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.

GERALD CELENTE ON THE LEW ROCKWELL SHOW APRIL 26TH 2009 PART 1 OF 2

Hawk in Hock: Obama pretends to be frugal as we sink deeper in debt.

Remember Barack Obama’s New Era of Responsibility? It got off to aninauspicious start, with a $787 billion economic stimulus package, a $410 billion appropriations bill, and a record $1.8 trillion budget deficit.

But now the president wants to signal that he’s serious about cutting the federal budget. Unfortunately, his plan hinges on the assumption that Americans do not know how to calculate percentages.

In May the Obama administration, after going through the budget “line by line,” unveiled $17 billion in budget cuts. That amounts to less than 0.5 percent of the president’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year and less than 2 percent of the projected $1.3 trillion deficit.

The following week, the White House raised its estimate of the budget deficit for the current fiscal year from $1.75 trillion to $1.84 trillion. The $89 billion correction was more than five times the cuts Obama had proposed four days before.

The president dismissed critics who were unimpressed by his $17 billion in savings as inside-the-Beltway snobs with no understanding of howregular people view things. “In Washington,” he told reporters, “I guess that’s considered trivial. Outside of Washington, that’s still considered a lot of money.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used the same rhetorical strategy. “I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: $17 billion is a lot of money to people in America,” he said. “I understand that it might not be to some people in this town, but that’s probably why we’re sitting on a $12 trillion American Express bill”—a reference to the national debt. READ THE REST AT REASON

Libertarians warn Judiciary vote may have consequences

Senators reminded a vote to confirm was a vote against gun rights

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Wednesday reminded members of the Senate Judiciary Committee their vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a vote against constitutionally-guaranteed gun rights and those who vote to confirm in the full Senate next week can expect to be held accountable at the polls.

Libertarians announced their opposition to the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation early, after reviewing her troubling record on individual, property and gun rights. The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send the nomination to the full Senate. South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham joined the committee’s 12 Democrats.

“A judge’s record is the best indicator of what they will do on the Court, and Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of opposition to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Libertarians, and all of America’s 90 million gun owners, will remember how you voted,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “Your vote on Judge Sotomayor may come back to haunt you one November.”

“And if you think you can’t lose your seat over the gun issue, I suggest you speak with Harris Wofford,” said Ferguson, referring to the incumbent Democratic Pennsylvania senator who lost his seat to Republican Rick Santorum in 1994 by a 49 to 47 percent margin, after supporting the Clinton gun ban. “If I’m a senator who could lose if a small percentage of my pro-gun base votes for another candidate, I’d be worried.”

“History shows, whether it’s a grassroots conservative activist, a blue-collar union member or a libertarian, the base of every party is made up of people who value their gun rights and will not support someone who votes against their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms,” said Ferguson. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America that never compromises on gun rights, and one way or another we will hold those voting to confirm accountable on Election Day.”

In the New York v Maloney case earlier this year, Sotomayor affirmed a lower court ruling that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to the states.

Sotomayor also ruled against gun rights in a 2004 case, United States v Sanchez-Villar, citing as precedent the statement “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

The Supreme Court will likely rule next year on the NRA v Chicago case, a case critical to restoring the individual right to keep and bear arms.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

"Police Use Taser on Deaf, Disabled Alabama Man"

From USA Today:

Police in Mobile, Ala., used pepper spray and a Taser on a deaf, mentally disabled man who they said wouldn't leave a store's bathroom.

The family of 37-year-old Antonio Love has filed a formal complaint over the incident on Friday.

Police tell the Press-Register of Mobile that officers shot pepper spray under the bathroom door after knocking several times. After forcing the door open, they used the stun gun on Love.

Police spokesman Christopher Levy says police didn't realize Love had a hearing impairment until after he was out of the bathroom. The officers' conduct is under investigation.

PETER SCHIFF VS. CHRIS DODD 2010 COMMERCIAL SPREAD THIS LIKE FIRE!!!!!!!

I AM LIBERTARIAN

Fannie Med? Why a "Public Option" Is Hazardous to Your Health

by Michael F. Cannon

President Obama and other leading Democrats have proposed creating a new government health insurance program as an option for Americans under the age of 65, within the context of a new, federally regulated market — typically described as a "National Health Insurance Exchange." Supporters claim that a new government program could deliver higher-quality health care at a lower cost than private insurance, and that competition from a government program would force private insurers to improve.

A full accounting shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. The central problem with proposals to create a new government program, however, is not that government is less efficient than private insurers, but that government can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers away from private insurance, despite offering an inferior product.

A health insurance "exchange," where consumers choose between private health plans with artificially high premiums and a government program with artificially low premiums, would not increase competition. Instead, it would reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business. President Obama's vision of a health insurance exchange is not a market, but a prelude to a government takeover of the health care sector. In the process, millions of Americans would be ousted from their existing health plans.

If Congress wants to make health care more efficient and increase competition in health insurance markets, there are far better options.

Congress should reject proposals to create a new government health insurance program — not for the sake of private insurers, who would be subject to unfair competition, but for the sake of American patients, who would be subject to unnecessary morbidity and mortality.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLICY ANALYSIS

Ron Paul in 1988

Watch this video in a new window GERALD CELENTE ON LEW ROCKWELL SHOW APRIL 26TH 2009 PART 2 OF 2

Mark Calabria Discusses Transparency on CNBC

Wendy Jones Reaching Out To Delaware Voters

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 27, 2009

Voters in Delaware's 19th State Senate District will have two more chances to hear from Libertarian candidate Wendy Jones. Jones is running in the Aug. 3 special election to succeed Senate President Pro Tem Thurman Adams Jr., who died last month from pancreatic cancer.

Jones will appear on Bill Colley’s radio program this Wednesday, at 5:00 p.m. on WGMD, and Jeff Gartman’s radio program on Saturday morning from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. You may listen on the radio, or via the broadcast live from their website.

Jones will also speak with voters on Thursday at the League of Women Voters forum for this special election. All four candidates have bene invited to the event, which will be held at the Sussex County Council Chambers at the Circle in Georgetown.

The 7:00 p.m. event will be broadcast live on the County Council’s webcam, which can be viewed here. Follow the instructions if you need a plug-in to make it work. The audio link is separate from the video link, so you have to click both to see and hear.

Jones will share with voters her plans on several important issues:

Job Creation is top priority. Small businesses create the most jobs. Cut taxes and give business credits to encourage expansion of private businesses with good jobs in Sussex County.

Cut Government by cutting taxes and privatizing. Let private businesses compete to provide the greatest choices and efficiencies for Delawareans.

Health Reform: Government should not be authorized to limit our free choices for our healthcare providers.

Self Defense: Everyone should have the right to self defense and to protect our families. I am a lifetime member of the NRA, and the state representative for the Pink Pistols, advocating self defense for women.

Support School Vouchers: Parents should be free to choose their children’s schools: private, public, parochial, charter, or homeschooling.

Del Pointe: It is immoral and irresponsible for the state to partner with gambling and other special interests, to compete with private businesses in Sussex County. It is unfair for the state to reward a few, politically privileged people at the expense of all − Delaware’s taxpayers.

You may visit Wendy's campaign online at http://www.delawareliberty.com.


-- Post From My iPhone

Monday, July 27, 2009

Monday LP Message


Have a sick child? Then you’d better get used to putting her on a government waiting list.

That’s because while Barack Obama is trying to sell his proposed federal takeover of the entire health care system with promises of lower costs and more choices, it’s about as honest a pitch as that ad in the back of comic books for x-ray glasses.

The truth is his scheme outlaws private insurance (page 16 of the 1,018 page draft bill,) sends government employees to your home to monitor your parenting (page 838) and forces the sick and elderly to submit to “end of life counseling” (page 425.)

On page 167, and elsewhere throughout the draft, it also calls for compulsory “shared responsibility payments,” clearly defined as a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.” The government would confiscate thousands of dollars from your paycheck if they don’t like your choice of coverage. In other words, you have no choice.

And those are just a few of the atrocious provisions of the draft bill. The Congressional Budget Office has found the plan is economically unsustainable. Since “free” care leads to people using the system every time they get the sniffles, it cannot work unless you are put on a miles-long waiting list or get approval from the government to meet your doctor.

That’s commonly called “rationing.”

As more and more information leaks out, Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting. His “strong approval” rating has plunged to a paltry 29 percent. His “strong disapproval” rating has ballooned to 40 percent. A majority of Americans oppose his health care plan.

But Obama will not be deterred by such facts. Why?

Just look at the mail senior citizens get right before an election. With many dependent on the socialized Medicare system for treatment, Democrats use their very lives as campaign fodder.

Every election year, senior citizens are inundated with mail, phone calls and personal visits from Democrat campaign personnel warning them if they don’t show up on Election Day and vote Democrat, the other side will cut off their access to health care and – literally – leave them to die. Terrified because government controls their access to care, most show up to cast their votes for the Democrat…any Democrat!

Obama would love to extend that campaign ploy to all Americans. His goal is a nation where Democrats can make people vote for them simply because Democrats hold their access to medical care in their iron grip, as they already cruelly do to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

That’s why your Libertarian Party is leading the charge against the Obama health care takeover. We’ve launched an aggressive media campaign to inform millions of Americans of this expensive, ineffective and ultimately dangerous scheme to force an entire nation onto rationed welfare care.

It’s working. The Kansas City Star admitted the LP is helping defeat Obama in way that can “cling tightly to its principle and still fit comfortably in the political mainstream.

"That's why our job is hard," wailed a Democrat pollster. "It's always easier to use words to defeat something." For the record, our “words” were nothing more than the facts about the Obama plan.

Even Rush Limbaugh is now reading from Libertarian Party press releases on the air. Dr. Richard Kerr, a West Virginia Libertarian Party member and retired 36-year doctor is publicly asking Obama to apologize to doctors after the president publicly accused them in his press conference last week of deliberately giving the wrong treatments to sick children to make more money.

No matter what you think of Limbaugh, his 22 million listeners are politically active -- and many are independents and libertarians. They’re looking for someone, anyone, to fight back. It’s not like the Republicans, with their profligate spending and Bush Medicare prescription drug entitlement, are much of an alternative.

That kind of media campaign is why we’ve seen a spike in candidate inquiries and e-mailed questions from interested independents, libertarians and former Republicans this week.

We’ve also made it abundantly clear we will hold supporters of the Obama plan accountable the only place it counts – at the ballot box. Libertarian candidates will campaign on their support of proven free-market reforms to make health care affordable and accessible. And they will hold their opponents’ feet to the fire for supporting a radical government takeover that bloats costs, degrades the quality of care and leads to waiting lists and rationing.

As it stands right now, the Obama plan will probably pass in Congress. But you can do something to change it.

Will you join the Libertarian Party’s growing citizen army against the Obama health care takeover?



-- Post From My iPhone

I AM LIBERTARIAN

Ron Paul on Obamacare It's Monstrous: Scrap It


Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has a frank prescription for the health care plan making its way through Congress: Scrap it.

"I think it's monstrous," Paul said.

"I don't think it will improve medical care in this country. I think it's very, very costly and we don't have any money. And they don't have any way of paying for it."

The libertarian GOP congressman and physician was in East Grand Rapids today for a private reception for what was touted as a "conservative comeback luncheon."

Paul is skeptical of estimates that peg the 10-year cost of the plan backed by President Barack Obama at $1 trillion. He puts it much higher.

He noted that cost estimates for Medicaid and Medicare are often below the mark.

"On average, it's two or three times more expensive than they say. This is going to be incredibly expensive."

Paul has introduced a bill that would provide tax credits and medical savings as a means of expanding health insurance coverage.

Paul believes Republicans must return to core principles if they are to resurrect themselves from their losses in 2008, an election that saw the Democratic Party seize the White House and both houses of Congress.

To Paul, that means less government, at home and abroad.

"They are going to have to earn that trust back. They should be more concerned about personal liberties. They shouldn't be the great defenders of government secrecy and torture..."

"The young people aren't supporting Republicans. The worst group for the Republicans is (age) 15 to 25. If they can't appeal to that group, what kind of future is there for the party?"

Paul, who opposed the Iraq war, asserts the United States should pull its troops out of Afghanistan in addition getting out of Iraq.

"I'd come home, from all of it, the sooner the better. The greatest incentive for the recruitment of al-Qaida and the Taliban is occupation. The sooner we realize that and come home, the better."

E-mail Ted Roelofs: troelofs@grpress.com

How Government Grows

"Government does not grow by seizing our freedoms, but by assuming our responsibilities. "

Michael Cloud

Health Care Quotes

"National Health Insurance means combining the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S. … and the cost accounting of the Pentagon. "

Louis Sullivan/Connie Horner quoted by Novak in _Forbes_

Health Care Reform Coming Down to the Wire

Michael D. Tanner

President Obama and the Democratic congressional leaders are pushing hard to finish and vote on legislation that will effectively lead to a government takeover of the health care system.

Health care reform is needed. However, reforms that increase the role of government and an already massive federal budget deficit – as many proposals would – are bad medicine. The Cato Institute is undertaking nationwide outreach on how free-market reforms increase consumer choice and improve health care's quality and affordability.

The Cato Institute is running ads in major newspapers and on radio stations nationwide to inform the public that health care reform is necessary – but only the right kind of reform. These ads aren't cheap, so please consider making a contribution to support Cato's health care reform efforts.

As part of the campaign, Cato health care analysts are working to dispel myths about health care reform. Writing in the New York Post, Cato senior fellow Michael D. Tanner outlines the three big lies of Obamacare:

1 "If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it."

"In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan. Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage."

2 "You will pay less."

The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increase overall health-care costs. … The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy."

3 "Quality will improve."

"Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost — and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage."

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy. "

Nick Nuessle, 1992