The Rule Of Law

November 18, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Crime, Dan Scott, Foreign Policy, Government, Corruption, Islam, Islamofascism, Military, President, Religion, Society/Culture, Terrorism, The Law, War on Terror | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

The Obama Administration via Attorney General Holder has announced that they will try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in the US, specifically New York. The location of the trial is rationalized as the so-called location of where the crime was committed. As with many things liberals foist upon the public it seems to make some shallow sense until we start digging beneath the surface. Why would President Obama and liberals in general insist on the location of the trial being in the jurisdiction of the crime? In general principle of US Law, the trial of any defendant should occur as a matter of practicality where the crime was committed in order to ensure witnesses are available to testify to the details of the crime. Sounds good so far, except 911 was not a criminal offense, but an act of War, specifically a war crime.

Terrorism it so happens, falls in a gray area of being between a criminal act and an act of War. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, his act of terrorism was a criminal act. Why? Timothy McVeigh was not allied or working at the behest of any foreign or transnational group such as al Qaeda. Timothy McVeigh was NOT an agent of a foreign power, whether that be a country or a group like al Qaeda. Timothy McVeigh was DOMESTIC TERRORIST; his crimes were of civil insurrection not war. KSM by his own admission was an agent of al Qaeda, a foreign entity who publicly declared war upon the US. The US Congress in granting President Bush powers to prosecute action against al Qaeda, formally DECLARED WAR against it. A state of war exists between al Qaeda, it’s allies (including self directed individuals) and the US government. Therefore any prisoners taken by the US in the prosecution of that war is by definition a prisoner of war. Since the legalities of uniformed combat as recognized by the Geneva Convention didn’t fully deal with non-uniformed or irregulars, they were called enemy combatants. KSM falls in this category but the US has for it’s stated purposes treated him as a prisoner of war.
Read more

Bookmark to:

The Beginning Of The End

October 30, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Capitalism, Communism, Constitution, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Health, Liberals, President, Society/Culture, Taxes | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

To hear President Obama crow in vindication of his Stimulus Bill, one would think the light at the end of the tunnel is visible on the economic front. Obama has taken credit for the third quarter GDP growth of 3.5% as well he should. However, we need to examine what that growth was based upon and whether it was a bona fide growth of the economy or the counting of stolen booty.

The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment…

…Motor vehicle output added 1.66 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.19 percentage point to the second-quarter change…

… Durable goods increased 22.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 5.6 percent. The third-quarter increase largely reflected motor vehicle purchases under the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (popularly called, “Cash for Clunkers” Program).
Read more

Bookmark to:

The Liberal False Choice

October 15, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Capitalism, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Government, Corruption, Health, Liberals, Socialism, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

To say the least, liberals have a peculiar view of the world and no more peculiar is their view of economics. The assertions based on this view are thinly veiled promises of prosperity and equality for all. Senator Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana expressed this worldview in a WSJ opinion piece recently. As I have said many times, the best told lies are those sprinkled with facts.

Nationwide, small firms will spend $156 billion on health premiums this year. In place of those high premiums, small business owners could employ 10 million additional workers—the entire state of Michigan—at minimum wage for a year.

Source

The central assertion offered to the public to accept ObamaCare is the idea billions of dollars will be saved if their so called Reform is passed and furthermore those savings would create 10 million new jobs. In fact, isn’t that similar to what we hear from President Obama? Healthcare Reform will create jobs and is essential to get the economy growing again? Let’s examine what she said; firstly small businesses spend $156 billion annually on health insurance premiums. I’m not sure where this figure is derived, however, let’s just accept for the moment that as accurate for the sake of argument without passing judgment on it or doing lots of research to verify or discredit it. Then she goes on to make the claim IF, in place of spending that money on health insurance small businesses could employ 10 million people at minimum wage. Her math is correct, $156 billion divided by 10 million people do indeed equate to minimum wage of $7.35 an hour. However, this is where the lie occurs, you notice small businesses in order to have the money to create these jobs would have to drop health insurance altogether, not merely saving on some of the premiums.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Out of Touch

October 12, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Elections, Free Trade, Government, Corruption, House of Representatives, Liberals, President, Socialism, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

A turning point in US history has come; either the Elites who advocate for the statist cause for control prevails or the self-governance by the citizenry prevails. We are at the tipping point of government micromanagement versus individual responsibility (power). Unless you have been living as a hermit these past few years most people now recognize the stark choice that is before the country. Will the government be allowed to usurp individual choice and responsibility without opposition by reason of clever arguments by those who claim they know better or will the people rise up and clean house in the 2010 elections to remove the Elites? Who runs the country? The Elites or the People?

The following quotes are brought up for your consideration regarding the attitudes and behavior of government officials (Elites) regarding self-rule in a Republic.

“Everybody thinks there’s still an appetite for California bonds,” Lockyer said. “There’s certainly a continuing need for long-term investments in schools, high-speed rail, stem-cell research centers and so on.”

Source

As you can see, the idea of fiscal restraint to prioritize government action in the face of limited resources does not exist. Furthermore, notice what are considered investments? All three are liberal boondoggles. Public schools are turning out less and less high school graduates each year as a percent of enrollment yet more and more money is thrown ineffectively at the situation doubling down using the same failed methods. Bureaucrats are foisting their vision of the future with expensive (billions) pipe dreams of high speed rail that is neither cost effective or energy efficient and (embryonic) stem cell research which has never produced even one medical therapy. Had the billions wasted on these boondoggles been not diverted from investment in the economy, millions of jobs would have been created. Money it seems can be borrowed without thought of repayment and printed as monopoly paper without consequence destroying its underlying value. The national debt is spiraling out of control on a federal level due to the same sky’s the limit mentality of the Elites at the State level who believe they know better.
Read more

Bookmark to:

A Program Looking For A Justification

October 2, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Government, Corruption, Health, Liberals, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

With all the rationalizations going around by liberals to justify a government take over of the health care system, the newest one is a Harvard Study claiming approximately 45,000 people a year die due to a lack of health insurance. President Obama used a similar tact to rationalize his position on the public option for the uninsured, but as it turned out one of his examples was shall we say was not quite what he represented. Setting aside the veracity of such claims, does it justify a starting point of a trillion dollars of tax increases for the first 10 years? It needs to be said the following 10 years will be even more expensive. Is the public option the only option to paying for health care for those who are economically disadvantaged? Why is it the Harvard Study thinks the lack of health insurance is the cause of the deaths and not the attitudes of those people who have mostly preventable diseases? This is not to say that all diseases are preventable and that an individual’s genetics may predispose them to certain ailments.

So many questions but the Harvard Study managed to avoid them all. The money quote for the Harvard Study is quite telling as to the reach taken by the liberal elites to rationalize the public option. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.” Notice that each of these diseases used as an example are mostly preventable by lifestyle. In addition, apparently the Harvard Study did not take into account that pharmacies with companies like Walmart, Costco, Sam’s Club, CVS or Walgreen’s offer significant drug prescription discount plans that address the cost of drugs for a 30 day supply for chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes and heart disease are less than a pack of cigarettes.
Read more

Bookmark to:

We Support Freedom for Iran!

September 27, 2009 | Filed Under Capitalism, Crime, Dan Scott, Economy/Finances, Elections, Free Speech, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Iran, Islam, Islamofascism, Patriotism, Religion, Society/Culture, Warner Todd Huston | No Comments

Here at Publius Forum, we support the people of Iran in their quest to shake off the oppression of the religious Mullahs and their iron-fisted control of the Iranian government.

Dan Scott will be posting updates here about the developing situation in Iran as time goes on.

Dissidents Mass in Tehran to Subvert an Anti-U.S. Rally — 11/04/09

Suicide bomber kills 30 in attack on Iran’s Guards — 10/18/09

Iran will execute 2 for election protests — 10/11/09

Obama Cuts Off Funding for Iranian Human-Rights Documentation — 10/06/09

Iran Human Rights Documentation Center

Death to dictator; chanted demonstrators in Tehran — 10/02/09

Student Protests Against Ahmadinejad Continue In Tehran– 09/29/09

Website Cites Antigovernment Protest By Iran Students — 09/28/09

Iran’s nuclear stand-off reaches new heights — 09/28/09

Jews turn out for anti-Iran demonstrations in N.Y., D.C. — 09/24/09

Iranian Rally Leads to Violence — 09/22/09

The Death Spiral of the Islamic Republic — 09/21/09

Iran detains about 35 people over Quds Day protests — 09/20/09

Qods Day security forces. Tehran — 09/18/09

IRAN: Riots in Tehran and Other Cities — 09/18/09

YOUTUBE: Iran Tehran Protestors chanting Death to dictator in metro 18 september 2009 Ghods Protest Part 75

YOUTUBE: ran protest , CNN report 1, sept 18 2009, 27 shahrivar

Mirdammad street Tehran Iran protest

YOUTUBE: News from Iran, Protest in Tehran Sep 18 part1

YOUTUBE: Iran Tehran Karimkhan St 18 Sep 09 Quds Protest

Iranian Opposition Protests Resurface During Anti-Israel Rallies — 9/18/09

Clashes erupt on day of dueling demonstrations — 9/18/09

Bookmark to:

The Reason Why Obama Is Stumped On Afghanistan

September 24, 2009 | Filed Under Afghanistan, Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Foreign Policy, Government, Corruption, Islam, Islamofascism, Liberals, Military, President, Religion, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Terrorism, War on Terror | 1 Comment

-By Dan Scott

We have been hearing in the news lately that President Obama and his cadre of advisors are stumped as to what to do with Afghanistan. The Left is telling him to cut and run and the Right is accusing him of being soft on terrorism. Obama’s response so far has been to dither. Politically, Obama is in a tough spot because he painted himself in a corner. Only the incompetents paint themselves in a corner. If Obama doesn’t lay out a concise plan to get out of Afghanistan then Nancy Pelosi will have no choice but to throw Obama under the bus as she is beholding to the lunatic left fringe. Any plan that doesn’t involve a quick exit strategy or gives the appearance of slogging it out with terrorists (freedom fighters and aggrieved poor not on US welfare to the left) means he is merely following the policies of the hated George W Bush. On the other hand, if Afghanistan falls into chaos where the Taliban and al Qaeda go back to business as usual pre-911, Barack Obama will go down in history as the one who led the US (a superpower) to defeat at the hands of a group of people who don’t even own a tank or fighter jet. He will be known as Jimmy Carter the second, you know the guy who gave us Khomeini. The repercussions at the 2010 and 2012 elections would be decisive in toppling the Democrat Party from power.

Any reading of the liberal criticisms regarding both Iraq and Afghanistan will be consistent with Obama’s current remarks about his dithering on sending more troops to Afghanistan. This is the same group of people who said the Surge wouldn’t work.

fundamental objectives President Obama announced in his March 27 speech, “…to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”
Read more

Bookmark to:

Your House Is On Fire, Oh, I Didn’t Notice

September 22, 2009 | Filed Under ACORN, Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Capitalism, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, Society/Culture, Taxes | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

Liberals, their plans, veracity and activities have been under a lot of public scrutiny lately. They seem to be very uncomfortable with the light of public gaze upon them, even to the point of walking on eggshells. When they can’t find what they believe is an non revealing answer which they know will anger the public to some very straightforward questions they pretend to be obtuse on the issue at hand. Feigning obtuseness seems to be the best they can do to not come clean on the issues. The point of feigning obtuseness is to avoid the really uncomfortable questions of why they failed to respond to something, which so obviously is inappropriate. It’s the old, “what did you know” and “when did you know it” quagmire. The failure to respond appropriately is a very telling disconnect of “affect” which calls into question one’s competence, motives or agenda.

The disconnect of affect was raised to the ridiculous with the growing scandals involving ACORN. Charles Gibson, an ABC news anchor was asked why the media wasn’t covering the cut off of funds by Congress to ACORN. Gibson claimed he didn’t know anything about it. How likely was his answer? Let’s add some background context to answer that question. A person working for the media doesn’t know anything (to the point of cluelessness) about an organization squandering public funds engaging in clearly unethical activity caught on video tape, the story gone viral on the internet, talked about on the radio waves and reported on by at least one media outlet and one print outlet. Furthermore, the standard procedure for all media organizations is to monitor their competitors so they aren’t scooped which would cause a loss of ratings share. A loss of ratings share means a LOSS of advertising revenue, and that’s their lifeblood. Is it likely Charles Gibson didn’t know about the ACORN story? NOT LIKELY. Why did Gibson give such a lame response? To not answer the question what did you know, when did you know about it and what was your reason to not report on it? You notice Gibson never answered the question why he wasn’t reporting on it. It makes one wonder what else the media hasn’t covered and what were their reasons.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Update On The (Proxy) War With Iran

September 15, 2009 | Filed Under Afghanistan, Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Foreign Policy, Government, Corruption, Iran, Islam, Islamofascism, Israel, Liberals, Military, Palestinians, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Terrorism, War on Terror | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

Since the opening shot by Iran at Khobar Towers in 1996, the response of the US handling the conflict has been confused at best and misguided at worst. Iran has been battling the US in the Middle East on a number of fronts using proxies for decades with little consequence to itself. In terms of a military strategy for a smaller country against a superpower, it has been a resounding success. This is not to say that the initiator of a proxy war is immune to consequences such as economic ones. Iran’s research and development on nuclear weapons has been certainly hampered but ultimately not stopped.

The beauty of a proxy war for a small country with designs of expanding it’s power and influence is to frame a conflict in limited terms commensurate to their resources and abilities. In other words, Iran has chosen to fight at the time and place of their choosing. This strategy limits the response of a superpower like the US to only reacting to the circumstances of the confrontation instead of pro-acting against the actual perpetrator, the initiator or mastermind. Because of this, US efforts have had limited success repeatedly due to the failure to recognize and properly respond to Iran in addition to the proxies. Obama has confirmed this continuing failure of response by saying he is focusing on killing Osama Bin Laden and defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Iran’s front in Iraq has now been mostly settled by the surge, a reactive strategy to Iran supplying weapons, IEDs, training and money to insurgents attempting to destabilize Iraq. The objective by Iran was to cause an intractable situation of an ungovernable and deadly Iraq to re-create the Vietnam War scenario. It almost worked. Now that the Iraq front is not panning out for the current moment, a new front in Afghanistan has been opened. Do not be lulled into a sense of complacency that the situation in Iraq is settled, Iran is merely waiting for the circumstances on the ground to change back to its favor in Iraq. There will continue to be sporadic bombings and incidents in order to probe the readiness of both the Iraq and US militaries.
Read more

Bookmark to:

The Kennedy Irony

August 27, 2009 | Filed Under Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Government, Corruption, Liberals, Senate, Socialism, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

In a desperate bid to legitimize a government take over of the health care industry; Democrats now are seeking to gain political cover and traction with the recent death of Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy died of brain cancer this week, a condition that on average had a 33% survival rate over 5 years. To say the least, his condition was one no one would wish upon another human being. So it is interesting that Democrats wanting to use Senator Kennedy’s death from this horrible disease fail to recognize the irony of their shallow maneuver. Given the life years and the efficacy requirements that would judge the cost effectiveness of a treatment, in all likelihood, Senator Kennedy at age 77, would have been denied treatment or even worse under a government run system rationing the dollars allocated to health care would not be attempting improve the efficacy of such treatments.

As more information comes to light regarding what is in HR 3200, the public is increasingly opposing the bill and seeing the disconnect between what President Obama says the bill will do versus what is actually written in it. This disconnect is highlighted by the faulty premise that underlies the idea of government run health care. Even if a quote single payer system is not implemented, health care will still be government run by the virtue of the fact Congress has usurped authority to be calling the shots via legislation imposing rules and regulations that are contrary to free market principles.

The premise of government run health care is to limit the total dollar amount spent for the population as a whole due to an individual’s ability to pay under the guise of providing equal access to everyone. Whereas, under the current free market system there is no such limitation due to overall cost. Otherwise why are they wanting to eliminate a successful program like Medicare Advantage for seniors to obtain more money for uninsured people? The only limitation is the individual’s ability to pay for any particular medical procedure. Does it not occur to Democrats and liberals that those who are financially well off provide the seed money for new treatments that will in the long run SAVE money on a per treatment basis because medical providers are taking the risk to find ever more effective means to offer these treatments to a greater number of people? The profit premise that modern capitalism operates under is sales volume. Yes, the total spent on health care is more under the current system than in a government run system such as Canada or England. Why? Because medical providers in our current free market system are continually developing more treatments for the purpose of making a significant profit from customers who have the ability to pay. So whose money is it to spend in the first place?
Read more

Bookmark to:

Primer On The Economy

August 19, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Communism, Congress, Conservatives, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Health, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Socialism, Society/Culture, Taxes, The Law | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

Speaking of misinformation, here is a question, how can the MSM crow that the recession is over when 1) positive GDP quarterly results haven’t been reported. 2) the EIA is reporting we once again used LESS gasoline than the disastrous year before??? 3) Summer job hires were virtually nil. 4) The gross number of unemployed has not dropped in any month despite the statistical skewing of the unemployment rate due to the continuing reduction in civilian labor force because all those on unemployment for over a year are NOT being counted as unemployed. And 5) Tax collections revenue continues to nose dive.

What we need to determine here is what are the reasonable non-political indications a recession is over because we are not getting it from the MSM or the prattling fools in Congress desperately hoping to gin up a recovery in a vain attempt in talking up the economy. Just because you can talk it down, it does not follow you can talk it up. I think they are taking this “animal spirits” thing too far, expecting people to believe the latest story line that the economy is on the rebound. At what point is the assertion falsified (
Karl Popper )? Falsification is the logical process verifying an assertion or theory is sound. A sound assertion or theory must be able to be disproved by being mutually exclusive of contradictory occurrences such as claiming the plane is not crashing because the rate of speed isn’t as great as before even though it is still headed straight to the ground. It is contradictory to claim an increase when objective measures say a decline is still present. I suggest reading what Karl Popper had to say as it really does speak directly to the current situation with the liberal spin.

How can we show an assertion of economics to be falsified? What benchmarks would be appropriate to not be simply deemed a pessimist? What are the objective terms of measure can we present that are easily understandable and difficult to spin without coming off as propagandizing for one side or the other? The point here is to give the public the means to firmly suspend their disbelief in giving the benefit of the doubt to the current administration. It is the benefit of the doubt that gives cover to the multitude of rosy stories being told.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Fact Check of Obama’s Portsmouth Town Hall

August 14, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Health, Liberals, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

President Obama complains about misinformation out from the opponents regarding the health care debate, however, it seems he is a major source of misinformation himself. Here is a brief and by no means exhaustive examination of President Obama’s comments at just one town hall meeting.

(transcript of town hall)

Mischaracterizing Senator Isakson of GA over end of life legislation.

It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican — then House member, now senator, named Johnny Isakson from Georgia — who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people’s options. And somehow it’s gotten spun into this idea of “death panels.” I am not in favor of that. So just I want to — (applause.) I want to clear the air here.

The Senator responded this way to Obama’s statement:
Read more

Bookmark to:

Hanlon’s Razor

August 11, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Communism, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Health, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Rights, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes, Welfare | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

There is a lot of invective being flung around by liberals and conservatives these days regarding the each other’s motivations. We hear accusations of “un-American”, unpatriotic, astro-turfing, the police accused of acting stupidly, etc. All of these invectives are nothing more than an attempt to sidestep the legitimate concerns of people asking questions instead of properly showing leadership by addressing the concerns. It seems some people confuse leadership with salesmanship. A leader who expects people to follow them must engender trust for that to happen; clearly hurling invectives at the followers doesn’t engender trust. A salesman is expected to narrowly focus on the sales points of the product they want to sell; a leader has no such latitude. A leader’s responsibility is to explore both the positives and negatives. It’s a pretty incompetent leader who thinks they should horn swoggle people in order to persuade them. Incompetence combined with arrogance many times is mistaken for malice.

Whether it is the Federal Budget, Cap & Trade or Healthcare Reform, these issues are far more complex than the sales points and wrongly assumes everyone affected by these issues understands all the details. One of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to assume everyone understands what the issues are, what the details are and then assign a negative motivation to those who don’t see things the same way. Given the inappropriate comments from Nancy Pelosi and President Obama towards those who disagree with their solutions and characterization of it they display their incompetence in engendering trust. They may be frustrated with the dissent, however, it is their failure the leadership to clearly articulate what they want to do and transparently write the language before Congress to implement their plans. You cannot blame people for misunderstanding your plans if you are not willing to answer their concerns by transparently CHANGING the language in the bill before Congress to address those concerns. It is not an act of transparency to presume upon people by saying, “trust me.”
Read more

Bookmark to:

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

August 7, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Health, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Society/Culture, Taxes | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

With the recent pushback by the public against the rushing legislative juggernaut of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, they have suffered a loss of credibility. The DNC has begun running ads basically saying paid mobs by the GOP and insurance industry are trying to derail Healthcare Reform. The problem for Democrats with such a strategy is it is an exercise in self-delusion leading to defeat. The old dictum of “the customer is always right” tells us if you want to sell something you don’t insult, belittle, or dismiss the customer. No matter how correct you believe yourself to be, an angry customer is not one whom will not be returning to your establishment anytime soon. The Democrats are operating under the delusion that since they won the election, they have the unchallengeable right to do as they please. The public has responded accordingly. Hilariously, the DNC ads actually imply that conservatives and GOP voters are sore losers preventing the will of the majority.

A sore loser may act in bad form, but an ungracious winner is far more unacceptable and immature. But let’s examine this idea of sore loser as implied by the DNC. The idea of an election in a Republic is to represent the interests of the majority with deference to the point of not trampling on the rights of the minority. In the most elementary form, any person elected to public office does not just represent those who voted for them otherwise they would not have any credibility and more importantly would lack the authority to legitimately govern all the people. Our system of government is based on SELF GOVERNANCE, which means the governed have to CONSENT to any action by those who would govern. This consent is not merely a one time iron clad commitment granted as a blank check upon winning a popularity contest, it is EARNED by the consistent representation of the governed who in turn continue to consent. While the public reasonably gives the benefit of the doubt (Public Trust) to elected officials, it is the responsibility of the elected officials to keep faith with this trust as they represented it. Any misrepresentation by someone campaigning for office is a violation of the public trust and voids any claim of legitimacy even if they garner a majority of votes by such a misrepresentation. An interesting side note here, Robert Gibbs when recognizing the government of Iran as legitimate by virtue of an obvious fraudulent election seemed to choke on that statement. At some level, even Gibbs realizes an election does not necessarily confer legitimacy.
Read more

Bookmark to:

President Obama’s Case Against Healthcare Reform

July 28, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Government, Corruption, Health, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Society/Culture, The Law | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

If you take President Obama’s example at face value concerning unnecessary tonsillectomies here are six points to consider why he basically made the case against his so called Healthcare Reform Plan (ObamaCare):

1) He accused doctors of unnecessary medical procedures. His example was a pediatrician profiting from tonsillectomies. Since when does a pediatrician perform surgeries? They don’t, a (pediatric) surgeon does. A pediatrician does not get any kickback or money from the surgeon for the referral. His example shows either a profound ignorance of the division of labor within health care or a deliberate deception. In fact under his example, the pediatrician would make MORE money from seeing the child repeatedly over a period of months by collecting the copay at each visit under a PPO arrangement. In an HMO where the doctor makes most of his money on a flat rate per patient per month regardless of the number of times the person sees the doctor. Under an HMO, the pediatrician would make money by making the tonsillectomy referral since seeing an individual LESS would mean having more patients on the roster thus collecting more money in the aggregate. However, most HMOs would ding the pediatrician for having a higher rate of referrals thus restricting their medical practice to stop such abuse.

2) All medical procedures on a child or adult are done with the prior CONSENT of the guardian or patient. If you are going to question the integrity of doctors, you will also have to question the motives of guardians and patients for acting proactively.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Acting Stupidly

July 26, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Government, Corruption, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, Police, President, Race, Security/Safety, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

At the end of President Obama’s health care sales pitch he made some remarks, which revealed elements of his worldview. He said the police acted stupidly with the preface of not knowing the all the facts, what does this say of Obama’s worldview? President Obama says he respects the efforts of the police whom he then claims they acted stupidly. He admits he doesn’t have all the facts and then pronounces judgment. Equally as revealing were the Harvard Professor Gates’ attitudes toward the white cop, i.e. the police. He made the same assumptions as President Obama. The common element between both of them is their liberal worldview. When someone axiomatically assumes a certain cause for the effect without ANY attempt to determine what the facts are, it says this person is operating on stereotypes. This would be like Archie Bunker assuming the burglary next door was committed by Blacks. Or the owner of the fancy house down the street is a Jew. I submit Barack Obama is nothing more than a modern day Archie Bunker. Just as Archie Bunker was the caricature for conservatives, Barack Obama is the caricatures for liberals. The obvious exception is that Archie Bunker was a fictional character whereas Barack Obama is not.

Here we have the demonstrated epitome of liberal stereotypes and jurisprudence, you are presumed guilty of all negative stereotypes unless you provide concrete proof to the contrary. The Archie Bunker of liberalism has spoken his truth but what truth was it? Was it race? Here’s something to consider, a Hispanic cop and a Black cop back up the actions of a White cop, however the common element between all three is BLUE. The Great Divider tossed the ethereal version of the race card. Perhaps we have all misunderstood his statement, because he said he was sorry that we misunderstood, but he did not say he was sorry for what he said. We were supposed to get the US VERSUS THEM against the police, but being the dolts we are, we thought he was alluding to race, i.e. the color of his skin because the arresting officer was white. Clearly the professor saw the other two cops of different races, so like Obama, he was claiming Blue racism against Blacks. Interestingly, the police union didn’t misunderstand Obama’s message, hence their demand for an apology. Both Obama and the police are operating on the same wavelength.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Liberal Mantras

July 21, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Health, Liberals, Socialism, Society/Culture, State Government, Taxes | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

The new liberal mantra regarding the current drive to quote, reform our health care system, unquote, is that the current system is broken and furthermore, we have debated the idea for 40 years as thee reasons for change. On the surface, the sales pitch is compelling, but like all things liberals attempt to sell the public they are short on details and when those details are revealed, the whole system is found to be one big unworkable boondoggle. One thing we have learned over the years is that liberal assertions are nothing more than falsehoods waiting to be exposed. I don’t know about you, but once I determine someone is misleading me, I stop believing anything they say.

How is our health care system broken? Most citizens have health care via insurance or direct pay, 1. Employer sponsored plans, 2. A COBRA plan because they are unemployed (indirect pay), 3. An individual plan (indirect pay), 4. Medicare if you are over 65, 5. Medicaid if you are indigent or 6. The wealthy that for their own reasons pay the bill presented by any health care provider directly. The observed facts say the system works for the majority of users. For a system that is supposedly broken, thousands of foreigners flock to the US to receive health care they see as clearly second to none. The system is said not to work for illegal aliens, the young who choose not to have insurance and those between jobs who elect not to take advantage of COBRA or get an individual policy. Who are we missing here? Those people who choose not to prioritize monthly health insurance payments over that of their other personal priorities.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Stealth Wealth Redistribution

July 7, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Communism, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Socialism, Taxes | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

A number of warnings have gone out about the printing of money. The Federal Reserve has been injecting money into the economy by buying US Treasuries in an attempt to keep down interest rates. Their efforts thus far are beginning to fail as bond rates are starting to climb. As we all know, the US Treasury has been forced to issue ever increasing amounts of bonds to finance Congress’s irresponsible spending. The chilling part is the bulk of the Stimulus money has yet to be spent meaning the US Treasury will have to significantly ramp up its bond sales to finance government operations. That on top of the trillion dollar budget deficit this year, next year and years to come.

Given the massive amounts of debt issuance, one must wonder if we are about to become another Zimbabwe experiencing hyperinflation. While the US Treasury, who is tasked to raise funds for government operations, doesn’t have the authority to say no to Congress, the Federal Reserve does. At what point is it the Federal Reserve’s responsibility to say to Congress we can’t print anymore money regardless of your desire to spend it? If the Federal Reserve did so, interest rates would shoot up due to the US Treasury attempting to meet the spending levels. Recently, I have begun to rethink the threat of hyperinflation due to all the wealth destruction over the past year.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Did We Just See Obama Squirm?

June 30, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Communism, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Foreign Policy, Government, Corruption, Islam, Islamofascism, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Race, Religion, Security/Safety, Socialism, Society/Culture, Terrorism, War on Terror | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

Two international occurrences over the past month have given us an interesting insight into President Obama. The first being his initial tepid response to Iranians demonstrating non violently in the streets over a very suspicious election result and the Basij murdering seven demonstrators in a staged attacked to make the demonstrators look violent. The purpose of the attack was to delegitimize a peaceful movement and their dissent in order to shift the focus away from a less than believable election result. One cannot count millions of hand marked paper ballots in a matter of four hours, not even in the US. No one bought the staged attack anymore than the phony election results. However, President Obama curiously refused to support the demonstrators under the rationalization that it would appear as meddling in Iranian affairs and would compromise future nuclear weapons negotiations. It wasn’t until more demonstrators were murdered and President Obama was essentially shamed into it by Congress and then being accused by Iran of meddling that he finally found his rhetorical voice to speak words of support for the demonstrators. Obama affirmed the right of peaceful dissent for the Iranian demonstrators and that the Iranian government should allow them to speak their piece without use of force. He said nothing about the legitimacy elections.

The second insight into President Obama came this week when President Zelaya of Honduras was arrested by the Army removing him from power. President Obama called for the Rule of Law in opposing the ouster of Zelaya. Interestingly, it was the Rule of Law that Zelaya broke and that nation’s Supreme Court ordered his arrest. It appears he wanted to follow in Chavez’s footsteps to become president for life by holding an illegal referendum removing term limits. It was all very democratic, except the part of not following the Constitution of Honduras and President Obama knew this.
Read more

Bookmark to:

Screwing Over The Poor Again!

June 23, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Communism, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Elections, Family, Government, Corruption, Liberals, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes, The Law, Welfare | No Comments

-By Dan Scott

In another example of feel good legislation Congress has once again come up with a plan to help their primary constituents, the unions under the guise of advancing environmentalism and helping the economy. The cash for clunkers act as it is named will pay anywhere from $3,500 to $4,500 for any vehicle sold in a transaction to purchase a more fuel efficient one. As with most feel good legislation, it is ill considered with unintended consequences and a waste of taxpayer money.

Let’s examine the pertinent numbers. Under the act, $1 billion as a starter will be spent by the taxpayer to buy up (and scrap) a vehicle that gets less than 18 mpg. The better gas mileage the newer vehicle gets, the higher the amount of taxpayer money you get. Using an average $4000 as the credit that would take approximately 250,000 used cars off the road. As of 2006 there were roughly 135.4 million passenger cars, 6.7 million motorcycles and 99.1 million light trucks and SUVs. In that same year, roughly 42.6 million used vehicles were sold. Why is that important? Approximately one sixth of the total vehicles on the road are re-sold each year and that’s a sizable market. Taking 250,000 off the road would barely register at 0.6% of the annual sales volume of older vehicles. While this is a very small percentage, it will have a most pernicious effect of setting the base price for any used car at $3,500.
Read more

Bookmark to: