September
30th, 2009
Dear Liberty Activist,
As you know, the radical group ACORN is
suing Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart over the
publication of undercover videos revealing ACORN employees giving
advice on how to evade taxes, set up a brothel, and even use minors as
prostitutes.
Although the publication by
BigGovernment.com of the videos is undoubtedly protected by the First
Amendment, that does not mean that Giles, O'Keefe, and Breitbart will
not have to spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in
legal fees to defend their good names.
To that end, Hannah Giles has started a
legal defense fund at DefendHannah.com,
a project of the Liberty Legal Institute. You can help with even
a small donation. Hannah needs our help!
Showing your
support for Hannah is a great way to stand by what was seminal,
hard-hitting, and critically important journalism that rooted out the
misappropriation of your tax dollars. I know you won't let her
down.
On the ObamaCare front, it is becoming
increasingly clear that with or without the so-called "public option,"
Congress will eventually be voting on adding some 26 to 45 million
individuals to the government-run health care rolls at a cost of
anywhere from $1.2 to $2.1 trillion over ten years. Let's
get on CapWiz and tell them, "No way, Jose!" Enter your zip code
and follow the steps. And we can keep calling out to
the House and to
the Senate. Of course, you can also reach them via the Capitol
switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
And,
here's the
Target 92 list on the House side to all vulnerable and Blue Dog
Democrats. (You can really use this on any issue, whether
ObamaCare, defunding ACORN, etc.) Blue Dogs are in blue. Here's the .xls.pdf
versions. Of note, the first 40 on the list are the Blue Dogs
that signed the "deficit-neutral" letter mentioned above.
Everything you need to email their staff, write letters, make phone
calls and send faxes, both to their district and Capitol Hill offices.
and
In today's Liberty
Action Report, Mark Lloyd wants to implement the
Un-Fairness Doctrine via "localism," the cap-and-tax will steal from
the poor and give to politically-favored organizations, and the
Barstool Economist analyzes the economics of mandatory health
insurance. Plus, Andrew Breitbart writes about the ACORN scandal
and how the Left did (and did not) deal with it.
Please send your letters to the editor at Robert@getliberty.org. We
publish all points of view! Today, Mary writes, "I have no money
to send but I am faithful in contacting our non-representatives. God
Bless you for all that you are doing for the cause of Liberty."
That's wonderful, Mary! Here at ALG we
emphasize action, so you've come to the right place. And thank
you for your kind words.
For Liberty,
Robert Romano
ALG Senior News Editor
www.getliberty.org
P.S. Want to help us keep fighting? Help
us out with a small donation today! Or mail it to: Americans for
Limited Government, 9900 Main Street, Suite 303, Fairfax, VA 22031.
Open Source
& Copyright Free
Editorial:
A Bad Tree Bears Bad Fruit
The latest nominee to come under fire is Mark Lloyd, recently
appointed by Barack Obama to be Associate General Counsel and Chief
Diversity Officer of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission—aka the
"Diversity Czar."
Stealing
by Any Other Name
According to the Institute for Energy Research, carbon
cap-and-tax will redistribute $14 billion a year from the poor to the
rich.
The
Barstool Economist: The Economics of Mandated Health Insurance
Just in case the Republicans think the proposed mandated
health insurance "compromise" is economically viable, think again.
Too
Hot Not To Note: Podesta spends Soros' money stupidly
The Washington Times publishes Andrew Breitbarts latest
comments on the ACORN video scandal.
Editorial:
A Bad Tree Bears Bad Fruit 
Barack Obama's appointees are once again
causing trouble—and once again reminding the American people that the
proverbial apple does not fall far from the gnarled tree. Each and
every one of his appointments gives an unadulterated glimpse into
Obama, who he is, and from where his ideology is derived.
And the view is quite disconcerting.
The latest nominee to come under fire is
Mark Lloyd, recently appointed by Barack Obama to be Associate General
Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission—aka the "Diversity Czar." While the name sounds flowery and
benevolent, the man is anything but.
Mr. Lloyd's record and statements reveal
him as nothing more than an outright opponent of free speech and honest
competition in the marketplace of both ideas and radio waves. He has
openly revealed his disdain for popular conservative talk-radio
personalities and the lack of any successful liberal counterparts.
In 2007, Lloyd helped co-author a report by
the Center for American Progress, "The Structural Imbalance of
Political Talk Radio," where it is written, "The disparities between
conservative and progressive programming reflects the absence of
localism in American radio markets." This disparity, the paper argues,
arises from "the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the
corresponding dominance of syndicated programming…"
The truth, of course, is that the
consolidation represents the dictates of the marketplace of its own
free will.
The Center for American Progress report
goes on to advocate for the restoration of local and national caps on
the ownership of commercial radio stations, greater power for local
boards to control radio licensing, and a requirement that commercial
owners who fail to abide by "enforceable" public interest obligations
to pay a fine to support public broadcasting. So much for popular
choice.
Americans for Limited Government President
Bill Wilson spared no words when describing the threat Mr. Lloyd
portends. As he recently stated:
"Mark Lloyd is an enemy of freedom, the
Constitution, and free speech. He has no place in a position of power
to curtail that freedom."
Although both Lloyd and his defenders
stress how he has not called for a reinstatement of the "Fairness
Doctrine", his aim is just as sinister (and more discrete). As Wilson
warned, Mark Lloyd's stated goals ought not to be underestimated or
overlooked. As he said:
"This is the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine'
by other means. If Lloyd has his way, the American people will be
subjected to a radical shift in the radio programming they enjoy, no
longer based on ad sales, but by local boards that will act as
licensors—and, by extension, censors—for radio stations. That is where
content will be determined…
Mark Lloyd is a menace to the freedom of
expression, and the right of the American people to choose which
content they want to listen to through in a competitive marketplace"
To fully understand his agenda, one need
look no further than who Mr. Lloyd admires. At the National Conference
for Media Reform in 2008, Mr. Lloyd enthusiastically embraced Hugo
Chavez—as a model of superior leadership:
"In Venezuela, Chavez really had an
incredible revolution, a democratic revolution, to begin to put in
place things that were going to have an impact on the people in
Venezuela…
And then Chavez began to take very
seriously media in his country."
Mark Lloyd clearly has no issue with
authoritarian despots shutting down media outlets and seizing radio
stations that dare challenge the authority of their leaders or
government. It's what he wants the American president to do, after all.
If Mr. Obama seeks to reverse the
radicalism that has consumed his administration, he must immediately
fire people such as Mark Lloyd. His goals are anti-democratic—and
anti-American—at heart. And people like him have no place is a small-d
democratic presidential administration.
Barack Obama must fire Mark Lloyd. That
might prove difficult, however—the two are intrinsically linked in
ideology and aspirations. And the fruit of that "family tree" will be
bitter for all who value freedom to swallow.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1611
Stealing
by Any Other Name
By Robert Romano
Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer can
call the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-tax bill to be introduced in the
Senate anything they want. "Pollution reduction." "Cap-and-trade."
"Carbon limits." But, at the end of the day, it's still a tax.
And it's still stealing. As
a recent report by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) reveals,
Waxman-Markey is a regressive tax that will hit the poorest the hardest.
According to the independent, expert
analysis, "On a gross basis, the bill would cost $106 billion per year
or $892 per household, ranging from $451 to $1,531 depending on income.
On a net basis, households in the four lowest-earning quintiles would
pay between $31 and $512 per year, while households in the
highest-earning quintile would actually profit by $604 per
year—effectively redistributing roughly $14 billion per year to the
highest earning households in the U.S."
Making matters worse, according to the
study's lead author, Andrew Chamberlain, "the free allowances
distributed under Waxman-Markey will result in large windfall profits
for the corporate allies of the legislation."
Which, of course, includes so-called
"green" industries: companies—carbon capture and sequestration
companies, energy efficiency producers, and solar and wind companies,
and "companies engaged in 'clean' energy innovation, and 'clean'
vehicle technology companies," according to the report. The bill would
result in a windfall of $10.6 billion and $18.7 billion every single
year for these companies, with a total of $135.3 billion between 2012
and 2020.
What emerges from IER's analysis is
legislation that attempts to reorder the nation's energy industry, by
redirecting profits around, and by forcing consumers to pay more for
goods and services that depend upon carbon-emitting fuels like coal,
oil, and gasoline. And it is designed to especially victimize
lower-income consumers.
The legislation, HR
2454, would force carbon-emitting industries coal, oil, gasoline,
and natural gas to purchase carbon permits. The bill aims to reduce
industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 17
percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
Meanwhile, "green" companies, which produce
inefficient energy that will predictably result in inefficient
transportation, manufacturing, and heavy industries, will be gaining a
competitive advantage through the bill's implementation. They will also
be heavily subsidized through tax incentives and other favors, goodies,
and kickbacks for their loyalty.
Really, the point is just to drive up the
costs of gasoline, oil, and coal—energies the American people depend
upon for electricity, transportation, heating, and just about
everything else that makes America run. And it all comes at a time when
the American people are desperately struggling just to make ends meet.
In the process, Congress will have handed
over the nation's energy policy to a radical faction that has but one
agenda: to wreck the nation's economic standing in the world by making
energy unaffordable, eliminating real jobs, and sealing away American
natural resources from an economy that will be unable to grow without
them. All in the name of "saving mankind" – while destroying people.
The final House
vote in favor of the legislation was a razor-thin 219 to 212. One
can only hope that in the Senate, supposedly the most deliberative body
in the world, the members of Congress will come to its senses.
Worst of all, according APS Physics, "Climate
Sensitivity Revisited," there is really no reason to reorganize the
entire economy to affect "climate change" when the Monckton study
raises serious doubts as to the accuracy of the UN International Panel
on Climate Change's computer models. The whole hypothesis is not even
based on actual observable data. It turns out to be computer
predictions that have proven to be wildly off.
All of which raises the question: Why? Why
tax the poor to give to the rich, elite ruling class? Why destroy the
economy when the nation is struggling to compete with China and India?
Why open up this Pandora's Box?
Perhaps it's because they are more
interested in redirecting profits than with "saving the planet."
Perhaps, taking the charitable view, it is because they are horribly
misguided and terminally naïve. Or, perhaps because it is just
stealing by another name.
Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News
Editor.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1610
The Economics of Mandated
Health Insurance
By Justin Williams
The status of health care reform, since
Congress went on recess, has captured every columnists, pundits, and
even economist's rants and raves. Now that Congress has reconvened, the
speculation of what will and will not be in the bill is coming to a
close. But one thing is for sure: Congress does not want to leave
without some type of government growth.
The public option quickly became unpopular
due to the massive amounts of debt and government intrusion that many
were proposing. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) thought that he could garner
bi-partisan support with his mandated insurance plan, but right now it
has been lost in a fight over the details.
Whether or not the plan "cuts too much out
of Medicare benefits," as Senator John Coryn (R-TX) stated
to reporters, is salient. But, it's really the core principle of
the effects of a mandated insurance plan will have on the American
people is what needs to be in front of the debate.
Mandates for certain types of coverage are
not new, but mandates requiring citizens to buy health care insurance
are. Many states have already passed plans, containing some sort of
mandates, including Massachusetts under former Republican Presidential
Candidate and Governor Mitt Romney.
So it is no surprise why the Democrats have
taken the mandated health insurance route over the public option route,
as of late.
Mandated health insurance is an escape
route that government takes for an indirect tax on people's income.
Without raising the income tax, the government mandate will reduce the
employee's wages by the amount it costs for the employer to offer it.
Lawrence Summers, economist and current
Director of Obama's National Economic Council, wrote
in 1989 that after a mandate was put in "A new equilibrium level
of employment and wages is reached, with lower wages and employment…"
because (unlike government) business cannot just print new money to
make up for new costs.
And that's not all.
Paul Hsieh, MD, and founding member of
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM), found
in Massachusetts that once mandates were in place the cost to get
an insurance plan rose rapidly. This is because the government decides
what must be covered in an insurance plan and special interest groups
make sure the politicians include everything under the sun. Hsieh
states:
"For example, Massachusetts currently
requires insurance plans to include forty-three mandatory benefits,
including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and
chiropractor services – whether or not customers want them. Residents
must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are
teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health
insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent."
Economically, mandated coverage lowers
"wages and employment," while not even controlling cost. It puts more
red tape and burden on the small business with penalties possibly
including jail time.
And with Barack Obama's commitment to
eventually getting the United States on a single-payer plan, this
individual mandate "compromise" will be nothing but a facilitator of
that very plan.
Justin Williams is the Senior Commentary
Editor of ALG News Bureau and, as always, he accepts questions and
comments at jwilliams@libertyfeatures.com
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1609
ALG Editor's Note:In
the following featured commentary, Andrew Breitbart reviews the
ACORN video scandal and how the left did (or did not) handle it.
Podesta spends Soros' money
stupidly
By Andrew
Breitbart
A telling event
occurred on Sept. 15, Day 6 of the drip, drip, drip ACORN video
rollout. President Obama met for lunch with former President Bill
Clinton at trendy Il Mulino in New York City.
For the second
consecutive day, the New York Post featured the ACORN scandal on its
cover - complete with James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in their
outrageous "pimp and ho" costumes.
Does anyone
think the president and the former president were unaware that the city
in which they were dining was mesmerized by the ACORN scandal -
especially since ACORN had bragged that its employees had kicked Mr.
O'Keefe and Ms. Giles out of their New York office?
The Sept. 15
edition of the New York Post explored the political angles and directed
attention to the Brooklyn District Attorney's investigation into why an
ACORN office in its jurisdiction helped instruct a prospective brothel
owner how to hide his prostitution proceeds in a tin in his backyard.
No one in the
morally superior media world has asked, why did Mr. Obama have lunch
with Mr. Clinton that day? So let me take a guess, and it seems like an
obvious answer. Mr. Obama, under siege by a video-a-day expose that was
exposing the Democratic Party to an avalanche of consequences (ACORN
defunded in the House and Senate, ACORN delinked from the census,
etc.), needed advice from the last president to navigate through a
major political scandal.
On this day,
neither the president or the former president, nor the media knew how
many more videos were coming.
The next day,
Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, the Democratic Party's top fix-it
guy with control over much of the left's well-funded vast attack
machinery (think George Soros, the Tides Foundation, et al.), was among
a small advisory group placed in charge of investigating the matter.
With the
mainstream media continuing to ignore the evidence on the tapes, Mr.
Podesta is now clearly in charge of feeding them information about his
well-structured investigation into the investigators. The ACORN
internal probe is a "war room" aimed at destroying the messengers and
is not meant to clean up major corruption.
Continue reading
here.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1608
Americans for Limited
Government
9900 Main Street, Suite
303
Fairfax, VA 22033
|
