"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of United States (1743 - 1826) 1802 Letter to Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter. And I've had very good relationships with presidents."
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1987 - 2006) September 18, 2007 Interview with Jim Lehrer, PBS: NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
"I have always been afraid of banks."
Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States (1829-1837).
Posted by brettwashere on 05/01/10 Last updated 05/01/10
Recently, there has been a percieved controversy over Arizona's Immigration Bill SB 1070 that was signed into law this last month. The bill was designed to enforce the law... a shortcoming of the federal government to do sucessfully. Arizona is sparked into action by the influx of a population that, by some estimates, is over 460,000. The burdon that this population places on Arizona's social programs and law enforcement is bringing Arizona to it's knees.
What the law does is simply enforce federal statutes, that has fallen short of any degree of reality in the law itself and enforcement, and charges the illegal immigrant with trespassing. The nay sayer's to the law are open border protagonists, Mexican Citizens, and Civil Libertarians like the ACLU - who feel that this should not be a law or that it will be abused.
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, and Maria Archuleta, ACLU, have issued in an April 23, 2010 statement:
PHOENIX - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer today signed into law Arizona's discriminatory immigration enforcement bill which requires law enforcement to question individuals about their immigration status during everyday police encounters. The law creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona strongly condemn the governor's decision to sign the unconstitutional law and are dismayed by her disregard for the serious damage it could cause to civil liberties and public safety in the state.
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6006 (office) or 418-5499 Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Arizona Immigration Law Threatens Civil Rights And Public Safety, Says ACLU[:] Law Will Poison Community Policing Efforts
Governor Brewer, of course, has been flooded by concerns as to civil liberties, loss of revenue, minority groups, the Catholic Church and even the Mayor of Pheonix. In a publication by Debbie Di Carlo, Director of Parish Social Ministry, she quotes Mayor Phil Gordon's and shed's light toward his understanding of the issue:
"At a gathering of 1500 VIP members in April 2008, Mayor Gordon acknowledged the important role of ordinary people organizing their voices to stand up for human dignity, when he said, 'I understood - when I came to the church, and heard your stories.These stories put a human face to the issue. Their powerful testimony countered the vocal anti-immigrant sentiment that the mayor so often hears.'"
At hand, there are fears that Illegal Immigrants will not be treated with dignity and their basic human rights will be violated. Allbeit, there is a certain indignation to being aprehended. Being put in handcuffs or plastic ties (whatever is expedient) and being taken by force and relocated to the country that you just left. Sometimes, the Illegal Immigrants gave up everything they had to come here.
Governor Brewer argues, that law enforcement will behave themselves and act in a professional manner. Making that indignation as tolerable as possible.
"Taking into consideration questions and concerns that have been expressed about the SB1070 legislation I signed last week, today I signed HB 2162 which defines and clarifies even further the proper implementation and enforcement of the law. These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona.
"I am proud that the Arizona Legislature has listened carefully to everyone's concerns, and, in a gesture of statesmanship, acted swiftly and appropriately to lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling.
"Arizona is acting responsibly to address a border security crisis that is not of our making. The federal government's failure requires us to act to protect our citizens, and we are doing just that."
Traditionally, action groups like The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have taken a front seat in this issue. Working to strike down, what was percieved as effective enforcement laws. In a statement, suprising to some, FAIR has endorsed the law.
(Washington, D.C. April 23, 2010) Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the nation's leading immigration reform organization, issued the following statement in response to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signing S.B. 1070:
"FAIR applauds Gov. Jan Brewer, Sen. Russell Pearce and other Arizona leaders for acting decisively to protect Arizonans as they cope with a crisis brought on by mass illegal immigration. Once again, Arizona is showing the rest of the nation that in the face of federal indifference to border security, state and local governments have the ability to protect their citizens and public resources.
"Faced with mounting costs, lost jobs and violent crime resulting from mass illegal immigration, Gov. Brewer has acted responsibly to protect Arizonans. In signing S.B. 1070, Gov. Brewer has responded to the will of the people and risen above the incendiary rhetoric of those who are maliciously attempting to divide Arizonans along ethnic lines.
"We hope that enactment of S.B. 1070 will result in renewed interest on the part of Washington to secure the border and enforce our laws throughout the nation. The vast majority of Americans simply want the government to enforce our laws, and Gov. Brewer and the Arizona legislature are proving it can be done."
In light of all the pro's and con's Arizona is still faced with half a million Illegal Immigrants - and the US is faced with 16 million nationwide. How do you enforce a law, that the criminals knew was illegal, without suffering some indignation? How do you get 16 million people back to their homes and legal residences without enforcing the law?.. Maybe that is what the majority of Illegal Immigrants are betting on. Maybe other States should consider this before it's a critical event - as in Arizona.
Poll: How many Illegal Immigrants are estimated to be in Arizona? the US?
Is it logical to first identify a problem - before solving a problem? The problem with our health care system is that there exists a financial triangle between the health care, insurance, and trial lawyer professions - each with the greed driven ability to drive up the rates of the other two. Those rates have been driven up and up over the years that it now equates to, by some estimates, 16.4 percent of our gross domestic product. We pay more than twice the best health care providers in the world - but our quality ranks thirty eighth, behind the third world country of Fiji. The fix is simple - but will our representatives give up their special interest money to fix it? The answer is not to stir a big money pot. It is simply make health care professionals salaried through federal, state and community programs, institute tort reforms to indemnify them from malpractice suits, and contract generic pharmaceuticals to produce those drugs where the patents have expired.
In 1962 there was a doctor's strike in the Saskatchewan Province of Canada. Doctors feared that they would become salaried employees of the state, whose clinics would be run by bureaucrats and state administrators. Lord Taylor was called on to mediate between the striking doctors and the Saskatoon Government. When it was all said and done, the doctors found that not only would they have complete autonomy with regard to how they ran their clinics - but they had one of five ways of being paid. In the long run, doctors who wanted to be paid on a fee for service basis found much of their time spent on itemizing, and billing could have been spent on seeing patients and that their salaried colleagues made more money than they did. Now more than ninety percent of Saskatoon Doctors are salaried. This reduces the army of clerical staff, normally designed to deal with billing and insurance and converts them to performing triage, holistics, technicians, directing patients and inventory of medical supplies. It also greatly reduces the army of insurance professionals that you, the patient, pay for.
All too often, we see that an injured person has pain and suffering, expensive medical bills, loss of work, and other associated expenses... rightfully so. The lawyer justifies his or her one third of the settlement by saying that they got you more. Rarely does the doctor pay for the injury and suffering. Ultimately, it is you, the patient, who pays the malpractice insurance agent's income, who pays the lawyer's income, who pays the victim. In the case of gross malpractice, a patient simply reports the physician to the medical licensing board, then the board decides if the physician was negligent and decides whether or not to sanction.
Another huge expense is Pharmaceuticals, They will wine and dine doctors to push their brand of drugs and give in office samples as a marketing strategy. Behind the scenes, when a patent expires, the profit of continuing to sell their product is significantly higher than the generic manufacturer to retool and sell the same product at a lesser price. In effect, the generic companies can receive a greater profit margin not to manufacture that particular drug. The state can buy the drugs from the lowest bidder and entice generic companies to manufacture drugs at lower costs. Universities can break into the normally expensive and time consuming research and development process.
Thursday a 1,990-page public health option was presented by the United States House of Representatives to the tune of 894 billion dollars in the attempt to generate a government run health insurance company - to compete with private insurance companies. Very few of us or our elected officials will read it before signing off on it. Few of us really have the patience to read really dry, cloudy worded, works that include numerous earmarks - our self serving elected officials who wrote it are banking on it.
We don't need another army of bureaucrats who, by profession, are the cause of healthcare costs skyrocketing - we need an army of competent healthcare professionals that are free to practice their trade. The result will be that we will spend less than we do now and everyone will be covered - the rich and poor.
Poll: What percent of the population in West Virginia currently recieve health care through social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, veterans and military programs?
Before I'm accused of being a socialist, I do believe that good government can help to promote the general welfare. Presently, 3 of every 5 dollars that you spend at the doctor's office goes to pay insurance agents, trial lawyers and clerical staff - who neither treat you nor benefiet you in any way. I am a lucky few that have insurance and the VA to fall back on. But there is a huge greedy glut on the profession by middlemen who provide no natural resource or service, such as manufactury or technology... remember the good money principle.
Brett, I wouldn't say socialist. Just a little off in terms of liberty and freedom. A doctor has the right to charge whatever the market will bear anything else is tyranny. Whether you like it or approve of it is not relevant unless you happen to own the doctor. It really doesn't matter the profession, the government does not have the right to set labor rates. The studies that show the US so far down are based on "access" not the actual quality of care. The US is best in quality. but even if it weren't liberty is still the only moral choice. A bureaucrat in charge of healthcare will mean political capital will determine treatment instead of merit or cash. I don't want Barry deciding the fate of my family.
Cradle to Grave means American Slave.
The accessibility noted by the WHO and AMA is not the same thing as getting in to see a doctor it is only a right to get an appointment. This is one of the reasons the US ranks low on the list of nations regarding healthcare.
Yet any in-depth analysis shows that in the US patients get better care with shorter waits.
We have the best care available to anybody who can pay.
The entire problem with the healthcare system can be traced back to another benevolent government intervention during WWII when the government instituted wage controls that forced companies to offer health insurance as a perk since they needed something to set themselves apart and more pay was illegal.
As people began to use insurance and distance themselves from the true costs of healthcare the inevitable happened healthcare costs went up. Think about it, if you had food insurance that covered a sub sandwich or steak equally well which would you choose? My bet is you wouldn't choose a homemade sub when steak at Texas Roadhouse costs you personally the same amount.
Or put another way, if Michelle Antoinette had been required to pay for the actual costs of Tuscan Kale she may have decided to make do with Virginia Kale instead.
The government made the insurance situation worse by providing tax incentives to the companies who provide insurance which caused insurance to be more tightly tied to employment.
Today we are not allowed to purchase insurance across state lines even though prices in some parts of the country are extremely low compared to other areas. More government interference more market distortion.
If there is one thing we can count on at this point; more government interference will only make things worse.
Instead government ought to make all insurance tax deductable not just employer provided insurance. Or they could make no insurance tax deductable, just make it fair. They should allow any person to purchase insurance from any company in any state. Then when one state has good regulations their insurance companies will sell more policies. Other states will follow suit in order to keep the businesses and tax bases from leaving.
These seem like government imposed solutions but they are really just an undoing of government interference.
As far as your sinus infection goes the clinics that are being installed in Walmart, Walgreens and other places are how the market responds even to government hosing the system and lowers prices anyway. Today, without government interference many of these stores have medical clinics that are staffed and could have provided the prescription for $10 or less. The visits are $25-$50. It may seem coldhearted but the truth is anybody not willing to pay $50 isn't that sick.
Free healthcare will be massively abused because it is already being abused. The local EMSs right here in Buckhannon can tell you all about "REGULAR" customers who waste $10,000's if not $100,000's of your money and mine every year getting free rides to the hospital. Not because they are sick but because they are lonely.
As far as insurance companies backing out on people, it is already illegal in every state to cancel a policy because somebody gets sick. Pre-existing conditions are a valid reason for charging more. Why should a guy who spends twenty years driving the latest truck, cable TV, cell phone and a big screen TV expect when he suddenly needs insurance to get it for the same price as the guy who drove an older truck, has no cell phone or cable TV all so he could afford a good insurance policy? One guy plans ahead and is penalized while the other is rewarded for bad behavior. Then we wonder why the country is going to hell. Hell is what happens when you subsidize bad behavior. Because sure as hell the second guy isn't going to watch the first being taken care of and then continue to act and spend responsibly. Why would he?
The government created this problem now they just need to get out of the way and let regular people solve it.
I actually did do a vast amount of detailed research on this subject. I stabbed at the heart of the trouble to avoid a long, dry, technical article that would lose most readers.
The point that I'm making, in light of this thesis, The Bill passed and who will the real benefactor be?... my guess is insurance companies. After all didn't they pay the most bribes <oops!> campaign contributions and get the most lip service during the congressional drafting process?
Incidentally, you might want to invest in insurance stocks:
Wellpoint - up 12.6
United Health Group - up 9.84
Aetna - up 11.96
Humana - up 5.77
I wonder how many of our elected officials are investing?
..."the second guy isn't going to watch the first being taken care of and then continue to act and spend responsibly. Why would he?"
I agree insurance companies will benefit. Look at other countries that have transitioned to tyranny and you will find Big Business is generally supportive of the process. It offers a captive audience with no upstarts to worry about.
..."the second guy isn't going to watch the first being taken care of and then continue to act and spend responsibly. Why would he?"
>>>>>>personal wealth and prosperity? <<<<<<<
I assume we are not yet talkiing about wealth or prosperity. Only about whether or not he buys insurance if he doesn't have to buy it until he needs it.
In fact wealth and prosperity are among the reasons he would choose to not buy insurance.
He can take the money and buy a big screen TV instead or invest it in mutual funds and pursue wealth. Either way he need not buy insurance since it can be purchased if, and only if, he needs it.
This is why forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is a bad idea. Unless of course the customer has a pre-existing payment history.
We have moved very far away from the real purpose of insurance. Insurance is not for doctor visits it is for heart attacks, cancer treatments and kidney transplants.
A lot of this information comes from a university ecocomics textbook,"Money and the American Banking System". Specifically, The "triangle" in the opening thesis. In my research with some doctor friends, friends in the insurance business, and my family(half are lawyers) - this checks out well on the ground and is the main problem of the industry. The market is not bearing the cost in light of a shrinking middle class.
To avoid grandstanding, I simply offered one cost effective alternative. All of the doctors that I had interveiwed for the article are in favor of the idea (100%) - as they would make more income,it would free up, an estimated, forty percent of their time to see more patients and efficiently streamiline their clinics. No-one suggests owning a doctor, it wouldn't be compulsory... "if you build it - they will come"
What I would consider tyranny is a protection racket, extortion, mandated insurance or whatever name that anyone has for it, being backed up by the IRS, the Treasury Department and the Federal Marshalls to do the arm twisting and leg breaking.
Posted by brettwashere on 11/21/09 Last updated 11/21/09
This Dude was born back in 1725. At the age of ten, his father drowned when his boat overturned in the Potomac River. He and his mother went to live with his uncle John Mercer (no relation to General Hugh Mercer whom Mercer County was named)
John Mercer had, at the time, a private liabrary that boasted 1500 - 1800 volumes. While he had no formal education, He was an astute reader and took a liking to philosophy. Later, he must have read from Jean-Jaques Rousseau or Thomas Hobbes because he had the idea of a social contract - even before Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independance.
A social contract is, quite simply, a contract between the people and a governing body; in return for giving up some individual autonomy, the governing body promises to defend the rights of the people it governs. If the governing body fails to do so - it renigs and the contract becomes null and void. Functionally, a social contract requires a declaration of rights and a charter or constitution.
He served at the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg in 1776. During this time he created drafts of the first declaration of rights and state constitution in the Colonies. Both were adopted after committee alterations; the Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted June 12, 1776, and the Virginia Constitution was adopted June 29, 1776.
Later, He was appointed in 1786 to represent Virginia as a delegate to a Federal Convention, to meet in Philadelphia for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. He served at the Federal Convention in Philadelphia from May to September 1787 and contributed significantly to the formation of the Constitution.
At it's ratification, he and other anti-federalists wouldn't sign off on it - because it had no Bill of Rights. He ended long friendships with his neighbor, George Washington, because of this - but he still continued to be an outspoken opponent to the Constitution. While he was one of the top five speakers at the Convention some of the key ideas that he gave us were:
Power shared by three branches, judicial, legislative, and executive.
All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
Limited Federal power (currency, ambasadors, and militia) with a perponderance of power reserved for the States.
Disestablishment of the Church [of England] from the State.
Finally, on December 15, 1791, the U.S. Bill of Rights, based primarily on Virginia's Declaration of Rights, was ratified in response to his agitation and mounting support from others...
The Bill of Rights.
Many historians agree that without his work, the United States would have no Bill of Rights.
"THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
" & nbsp;
Poll: So, Who is this guy - to whom we owe our freedom?
Posted by brettwashere on 04/10/09 Last updated 11/20/09
This dude, like Ron Paul, was a physician. In addition to a physician, was also a philosopher and an economist. He is credited with profoundly influencing the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independance. In addition, he wrote the first Constitution of Carolina. Some of the concepts that he created were:
Fundamental Worth of the Individual
Majority Rule with Minority Rights
Necessity of Compromise
Individual Freedom
Equality of All Persons
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
excellent blog post! methinks it serves to provoke and encourage thought, learning, and knowledge. -much to the chagrin of the Socialist Masters and their servants - let them gnash their teeth.
Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
