WHY WE FIGHT

Dennis Prager succinctly explains in the video below the foundation that needs to underlie our ongoing battle.  Watch it thoughtfully, then watch it again.

Filed under: constitution, U.S. GOVERNMENT, 2010 elections, big government, liberty

FIRST, THEY CAME FOR THE BANKS, AND I SAID NOTHING.

Then, they came for Wall Street, and I said nothing.  Next, they came for the automotive companies, and I said nothing.  Now, they are coming for the Health Insurance Industry.  Are you detecting the pattern?

Obviously, the justification that the Obama Administration used for their control of the banks, financial industry and auto companies was that they were given tax-payer money for “bailouts”, and therefore put themselves in the position to expect strict Government intervention, oversight and regulation.  After all, “we the people”, (technically), owned them.  So, what is the justification for Government take-over of the health insurance industry?

Probably the most disturbing aspect, among many disturbing aspects, of the “Health Reform Bill” now wending its way through the Senate is the way it will systematically kill the Health Insurance Industry, (1/6 of our economy), and put it squarely into Government hands.  On September 10, 2009, I published a post called, Evil Insurance Empire.  In that post was a link to a chart that showed the profits of the Health Insurance Industry, (3.2%), and how those compared to profit margins of other industries in 2008.  (It was around 85th, if my memory serves.  You can re-check the link yourself.)  The point is that the Health Insurance Industry does not reap anything like “windfall” profits at our expense.  Despite this fact, the “Reid Bill” currently being passed through the Senate would dictate how this Industry operates with every bit as much strictness as those industries that were “bailed out” with public funds.

The “Reid Bill” would regulate Industry salaries and bonuses.  It would cap the amount of profit that the Industry could make and the amount of dividends that it could pay to shareholders.  In addition, the “Reid Bill”, mandates coverage for pre-existing conditions and removes yearly and life-time caps for pay-outs.  Anyone that can apply common sense can quickly grasp that a business, especially an insurance business, will not be able to remain viable under this type of Government burden.  Might this be the point of this Leftist plan?  Ultimately, if the Health Insurance companies fail, the Government would have “justification” to move in and take them over, running them in fact instead of indirectly through legislative regulation.  Voila, a single payer system emerges–that which Obama has wanted all along.

Constitutionally, there is no provision whatsoever that allows the Federal Government to meddle in private industry in such a way as to actually operate it, while technically allowing its ownership to remain in private hands.  The reason that there are Constitutional prohibitions against such Governmental behavior are apparent.  If the private sector is not protected against such Governmental power, soon the Government, by default, would in reality own and operate every private company according to their own designs, (even if private owners were allowed to remain as “figureheads”).  This kind of Government control has a name–fascism.  Students of history will recognize that this same kind of creeping Government take-over happened in Germany in the years before WWII.  And there was always a “justification” for these actions; always a “greater good” for the “people” was promised.  After all, that was a time of extraordinary economic hardship.

Watch closely, Sparrows.  Educate yourselves.  Be ready to act in 2010.  It has ever been thought that what happened to Germany can “never happen here”.  I beg to differ.  It can.

Filed under: congress, constitution, LEGISLATION, liberal activism, U.S. GOVERNMENT, Uncategorized, fascism, healthcare, leftwork, regulation, statism

‘TIS THE SEASON

A couple of days ago, I posed a question that, in part, observed that the POTUS leads in the exact opposite direction that he proposes to go.  In this piece from biggovernment.com, the author asks, “Is it opposite day?”

Scare Tactics: Obama Says USA Will ‘Go Bankrupt’ if Senate Bill Not Passed

Nowadays, my strategy when listening to anything coming from the Left is to remember the famous words of Willie Wonka, “Strike that.  Reverse it.”  Then, surprisingly enough, they actually make sense.

Turning to the continuing fallout from “Climategate”, Icecap has reported that Russian climate data on temperatures was manipulated by the Hadley Climate Center.  A good, but fairly distressing, read.

Finally, since “’tis the season” for gift-giving, here is a list of books that make great presents for you, someone else and especially for your “Progressive” friends and family. HO! HO! HO!

Economics

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek

The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes

Climate Change and Green Policies

Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer

The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon

The Green Crusade: Rethinking the Roots of Environmentalism by Charles T. Rubin

Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner

Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death by Paul Driessen

U.S. Constitution and Capitalism and Socialism

Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

How Capitalism Will Save Us by Steve Forbes

The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen

Witness by Whittaker Chambers

U.S. Supreme Court

Men In Black by Mark Levin

My Grandfather’s Son by Clarence Thomas

Obviously, there are many great books out there.  However, these are the ones that I know first-hand from reading them myself.  Each has helped to broaden and shape my reasoning, as well as deepen my thinking beyond a “talking-points” mentality.  All are an antidote to the constant “Progressive” rhetoric of the current day.  It is not enough to be against a position, policy, bill, etc.  Not only do we need to know why we are against something, but also why we are for something else instead.  I highly recommend that you treat yourself, or someone you love who shares well, to one or two of these this Christmas to make it a merry one.  Remember, our New Year, with its promise of the 2010 elections is fast approaching!

Filed under: cap & trade, climate change, constitution, economy, healthcare, liberal activism, personal, POTUS, SCOTUS, U.S. GOVERNMENT, climate change, Climategate, constitution, economy, global warming, healthcare, personal note, POTUS

TERRORIST TRIALS IN N.Y.C.-what could possibly go wrong?

Photo by Park Foreman

Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the 1993 WTC bombing, has written his analysis of specific weaknesses in Holder’s decision to try terrorists in NYC.  Mr. McCarthy bases his analysis on his own personal experience and in terms of Mr. Holder’s testimony in Washington, D.C. today.

There was also a well-thought-out response to the various arguments made by the Administration in the Wall Street Journal.  It gives a good synopsis of the Senate hearing today with Atty. General Holder.  (BTW, by my reckoning, the amount that NYC will need to be “reimbursed” by all of us could run upwards of $300 million based on the $75 million per year expense over approximately the four years that the trials could take.  Hope the Chinese are cool with continuing to loan us funds.)

Finally, check out this link.  Mr. Goldberg, as always, gives a thorough treatment to the decision to bring terrorists back to NYC.

It’s No Way to Fight a War on Terror by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online.

What do we sparrows think about all of this?  Let me know.

Filed under: constitution, national defense, constitution, national defense, NYC terrorist trials

VUNDERFUL, VUNDERFUL COPENHAGEN

Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about the Global Climate Treaty that will be considered in Copenhagen this December.  The last I heard, the POTUS was not planning to attend the Copenhagen meeting, since he will be busy picking up his Nobel Prize in Oslo, and so he has no plans to sign on to the Global Climate Treaty.  In the near future, however, (probably after we have finally cleared the Healthcare Hurdle), Climate Change will take center stage in the Congress.  If the Congress passes some sort of “Cap and Tax” scheme, I think that the road will be paved for the POTUS to argue that he has the “mandate” to sign onto the Treaty.

So, why should we be concerned at this point about the Copenhagen gathering?  Because forewarned is forearmed.  Lord Monckton, a well-known British “climate change” critic, recently sounded a warning about the ratification of this Treaty.  I, like Steven Groves at the Heritage Foundation, think that perhaps Lord Monckton has over-stated the issue somewhat, however, there is good reason to believe that the Treaty could compromise U.S. sovereignty, as well as act as a vehicle to globally redistribute wealth.  (Remember the Global Anti-poverty Tax that Obama supports?)

After you have the opportunity to read the articles linked above, you will want to watch the videos below that describe the contents of the Treaty.   What are your thoughts about this?

Filed under: cap & trade, constitution, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE, LEGISLATION, liberal activism, POTUS, U.S. GOVERNMENT, cap & trade, constitution, international negations, leftwork, POTUS, statism

FCC POISED TO ACT ON “NET NEUTRALITY”

Below I have excerpted important information about the concept of  “net neutrality” and what Government regulation of the internet would involve.  Since the FCC will be taking a vote tomorrow, Thursday, October 22, 2009, it is important for each of you to read through this information.  Then check out this link to further understand the impact of this kind of regulation.  Finally go here to comment to the FCC prior to their vote.  Let’s make our voices heard on this important issue.  We certainly do NOT need additional Government interference in the private sector.  Chirp on, Sparrows!!

Hold Off On Net Neutrality

By David Farber and Michael Katz
Friday, January 19, 2007
Washington Post
The Internet needs a makeover. Unfortunately, congressional initiatives aimed at preserving the best of the old Internet threaten to stifle the emergence of the new one.

The current Internet supports many popular and valuable services. But experts agree that an updated Internet could offer a wide range of new and improved services, including better security against viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks and zombie computers; services that require high levels of reliability, such as medical monitoring; and those that cannot tolerate network delays, such as voice and streaming video. To provide these services, both the architecture of the Internet and the business models through which services are delivered will probably have to change.

Congress failed to pass legislation amid rancorous debate last summer, but last week a group of senators reintroduced several initiatives under the banner of “network neutrality.”

Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender’s willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.
ad_icon

Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient’s heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.

Pricing raises similar issues. To date, Internet pricing has been relatively simple. Based on experience in similar markets, we expect that, if left alone, pricing and service models will probably evolve. For example, new services with guaranteed delivery quality might emerge to support applications such as medical monitoring that require higher levels of reliability than the current Internet can guarantee. Suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services.

Blocking premium pricing in the name of neutrality might have the unintended effect of blocking the premium services from which customers would benefit. No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a “fast lane” mail service is “undemocratic.” Yet some current proposals would do exactly this for Internet services.

We’re not saying that all discrimination is good or that the market always gets it right. Some forms of discrimination can be harmful, especially when service providers have market power. For example, if a local telephone company that is a monopoly provider of both broadband access and plain old telephone service for a community blocks its broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, this discrimination can harm both competition and consumers.

Public policy should intervene where anti-competitive actions can be identified and the cure will not be worse than the disease. Policymakers must tread carefully, however, because it can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in advance whether a particular practice promotes or harms competition. Antitrust law generally takes a case-by-case approach under which private parties or public agencies can challenge business practices and the courts require proof of harm to competition before declaring a practice illegal. This is a sound approach that has served our economy well.

The legislative proposals debated in the 109th Congress take a very different approach. They would impose far-reaching prohibitions affecting all broadband providers, regardless of whether they wielded monopoly power and without any analysis of whether the challenged practice actually harmed competition. If enacted, these proposals would threaten to restrict a wide range of innovative services without providing any compensating customer benefits.

Does this mean we believe that we should place all our trust in the market and the current providers? No. But it does mean we should wait until there is a problem before rushing to enact solutions.

David Farber is distinguished career professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Michael L. Katz is a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Gerald Faulhaber, a professor at the Wharton School and the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, and Christopher S. Yoo, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, also contributed to this article.

Excerpts from Jan 15, 2009 CNET

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10144035-38.htm

The Bush administration has taken a dim view of Internet regulations in the form of Net neutrality rules, warning (see #1 below) last year that they could “inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of ‘neutrality’ would do just that, with respect to the Internet.” A report (see #2 below) from the Federal Trade Commission reached the same conclusion in 2007.

In addition, a recent study (see #3 below) from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the absence of Net neutrality laws or similar federally mandated regulations has spurred telecommunications companies to invest heavily in infrastructure, and changing the rules “would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, investment, and innovation.”

#1 The Bush administration believes that government regulators should be “highly skeptical” of Net neutrality regulations and instead rely on competition to protect consumers.

The comments came in a public filing that the U.S. Department of Justice sent on Thursday to the Federal Communications Commission, warning against the adoption of extensive Net neutrality rules.

“However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of ‘neutrality’ would do just that, with respect to the Internet,” the comments say.

(The comments aren’t very long and are really worth reading yourself.)

This shouldn’t really be a surprise. The Republican chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Deborah Platt Majoras, was almost as skeptical last year, and a formal report from the entire FTC in June came up with the same no-new-laws-needed conclusion.

Public Knowledge, which supports giving the FCC more power to regulate broadband providers, critiqued the Justice Department’s filing thusly: “Perhaps the (Justice Department) does not recall that there is very little in the way of market forces to protect consumers. Perhaps the department has forgotten that many consumers have little or no choice at all for their high-speed broadband services. A more vigorous antitrust analysis would have recognized there is a market failure and would have resulted in conditions on the AT&T takeover of BellSouth that would have benefited consumers and Internet companies.”

#2 The lifelong bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission are hardly a bunch of Hayek-quoting, Ron Paul-voting libertarians.

Which is why it’s worthwhile to note the conclusion that the FTC reached on Wednesday about Net neutrality: No new laws.

It took the FTC a mere 169 pages to arrive at that result in its new report on the topic, probably one of the most exhaustive treatments of Net neutrality to date. It concludes: “We recommend that policy makers proceed with caution in evaluating proposals to enact regulation in the area of broadband Internet access.”

Translated from government-speak, that means there’s no need for extensive regulations of the sort that the Republican-controlled Congress considered, and rejected, last year. The Democrats have not tried to resuscitate the legislation this year.

The FTC says, sensibly enough: “Industrywide regulatory schemes–particularly those imposing general, one-size-fits-all restraints on business conduct–may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents.”

True to form, the FTC isn’t recommending a hands-off approach. The staff report notes that it shares antitrust enforcement with the U.S. Justice Department and is “well-equipped to analyze potential conduct and business arrangements involving broadband Internet access.” It also says that “current federal consumer protection law” can address deceptive marketing practices by Internet service providers.

Commissioner Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, published what amounts to a dissenting opinion He said that existing antitrust law may not be “adequate to the task” of Internet broadband regulation.

The report drew praise from Tim Muris, who was forced to be circumspect while heading the FTC but can speak speak more freely now that he’s back teaching at George Mason University’s law school in Arlington, Va.

“Net neutrality is a meaningless term, lacking a rationale or analytical basis to impose new regulations on the Internet,” Muris said. “Some government actions, while seeking to help consumers, harm them instead. As the FTC report today detailed, robust competition and dynamic business models pervade the Internet.”

In contrast, pro-regulation groups, who would like to see the Federal Communications Commission receive the power to enforce Net neutrality rules, attacked the FTC report.

It “falls far short in its analysis of a competitive market and the related issue of Net neutrality,” said Public Knowledge, which has pressed Congress to give the FCC that authority.

The Bush administration believes that government regulators should be “highly skeptical” of Net neutrality regulations and instead rely on competition to protect consumers.

The comments came in a public filing that the U.S. Department of Justice sent on Thursday to the Federal Communications Commission, warning against the adoption of extensive Net neutrality rules.

“However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of ‘neutrality’ would do just that, with respect to the Internet,” the comments say.

(The comments aren’t very long and are really worth reading yourself.)

This shouldn’t really be a surprise. The Republican chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Deborah Platt Majoras, was almost as skeptical last year, and a formal report from the entire FTC in June came up with the same no-new-laws-needed conclusion.

Public Knowledge, which supports giving the FCC more power to regulate broadband providers, critiqued the Justice Department’s filing thusly: “Perhaps the (Justice Department) does not recall that there is very little in the way of market forces to protect consumers. Perhaps the department has forgotten that many consumers have little or no choice at all for their high-speed broadband services. A more vigorous antitrust analysis would have recognized there is a market failure and would have resulted in conditions on the AT&T takeover of BellSouth that would have benefited consumers and Internet companies.”

#3 Broadband development should not be stifled by federal regulation that intends to make networks more “neutral,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is arguing through two papers released Monday.

The papers, the first in a series of five that will examine the impact of broadband on certain user groups and for certain purposes, argue that the federal government’s current loose regulatory structure has enabled broadband to become a “life-altering tool” both for the general population and for senior citizens specifically.

“An estimated $60 billion has been invested in broadband infrastructure by the communications industry this year,” William Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber’s vice president for environment, technology, and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. “Given these turbulent economic times, federal policy must continue to support this high-level of investment. This will spur job growth, innovation, and consumer choice.”

The lack of Net neutrality laws or other federally-mandated regulations has spurred telecommunications companies to heavily invest in broadband infrastructure, according to the first paper, “Network Effects: An Introduction to Broadband Technology & Regulation.” (PDF)

“Moving away from a pro-investment model would halt this organic progress and would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, investment, and innovation,” it says. “Moreover, policies aimed at management practices are unnecessary and would serve only to chill innovation at the network level and at its edges, resulting in net consumer welfare losses.”

Network owners need to be able to manage content flow in order to prioritize important data like 911 voice over IP calls, according to the paper, authored by Charles Davidson and Michael Santorelli of the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute at New York Law School. The need to manage networks will only grow as the amount of services offered online grows, it says.

“A variety of proposals have been put forward to regulate the broadband sector under the guise of making the physical infrastructure more ‘neutral’ to the data flowing over it,” the paper says, but such regulations would lessen incentives for investment in broadband and slow the development of content and applications.

The paper recommends legislators focus on targeting broadband funding in regions where it is most needed, reforming the Universal Service Fund, and embracing public-private partnerships to promote broadband deployment.

The second paper, “The Impact of Broadband on Senior Citizens,” (PDF) recommends similar support for broadband deployment as well as educating seniors on the usefulness of broadband and expanding their options for getting online. If obstacles for adoption are removed, the paper says, broadband could transform senior life and senior care, just as the senior population is set to expand significantly.

The chamber will later release papers examining the impact of broadband deployment on telemedicine, education, and people with disabilities.

Filed under: constitution, media, U.S. GOVERNMENT, constitution, leftwork, media, statism

ARIZONA HEALTH FREEDOM ACT

This article from Reason Magazine is worth a thoughtful read and additional contemplation.  The Arizonans, as well as the five other states that are also considering this type of legislation, may be onto something that may, at the very least, form the basis for a Constitutional challenge to the State mandates that are presently in all of the Health Care Reform bills.

Filed under: constitution, healthcare, LEGISLATION, SCOTUS, constitution, healthcare

Cass Sunstein’s “Zombie Constitution”

Cass Sunstein’s “Zombie Constitution”

Shared via AddThis

Filed under: constitution, language, POTUS, SCOTUS, constitution, media, POTUS, SCOTUS

THE CONSTITUTION & HEALTH REFORM MANDATES

David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A Casey have co-authored an article at the Wall Street Journal online. It is one of the best arguments against the insurance mandates that have been included in all of the Congressional Healthcare Reform bills. All of our elected representatives swear the “protect and defend” our Constitution. This article points out that mandates would breach so thoroughly Constitutional authority as to make it possible for Congress to regulate every single aspect of American life.

It is somewhat heartening to note that this provision would be fought in the Courts on the basis of the “Commerce Clause”. (NOTE: I have also heard the possibility of invalidating at least parts of some of the bills on the strength of the “right to privacy” set up by “Roe v. Wade”-a delicious irony!) It is also somewhat DIS-heartening to note that the current Federal Court system has the reputation of being not only extremely left-leaning, but also activist in its rulings.

Again, it would seem so much better to step back from the current pieces of legislation and to formulate a Healthcare Reform bill that would address the real issues that need to be, and can be, fixed without dismantling an entire industry and eventually placing both it, and us, under Government control.

Filed under: congress, constitution, healthcare, LEGISLATION, U.S. GOVERNMENT, constitution, healthcare, statism

9.12 MUST READS

As I have been monitoring the 9.12 events in Washington and across the country, I recalled a group of articles from the “must read” list on the National Review Institute site. The last article is, IMHO, a “MUST, must read”. The Hon. James Buckley writes cogently and persuasively about Federalism as an antidote to the cumbersome and costly Centralized Government that fosters special interests, lobbyists, corruption and spending other people’s money, (OUR money).
In light of the recent scandals with respect to the “Czars”, ACORN and the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts), Buckley’s article is especially apropos. Enjoy!

Filed under: constitution, U.S. GOVERNMENT, constitution, statism