Obamacare: Taxing the Sick

What kind of a government would put a tax on medical devices?  What kind of people would do that?  After all, guess who uses medical devices:  The sick.  The elderly.  The weak.  The handicapped.  Wounded veterans.   If you tax something, you get less of it. You make it more costly, harder to get.  Yet President Barack Obama and his left-wing followers in Congress imposed a 2.3 percent tax on all medical devices in the U.S. to help pay for his federal takeover of health insurance.  And where are the Republicans?  Here is a very effective argument to use against the president's policies, and yet they are silent.  During the presidential election in November, GOP candidate Mitt Romney was silent on the tax.  He was running against a man who wants to finance his policies on the backs of the sick and the elderly, yet Romney and his incompetent campaign strategists were silent on the issue.  And so are Republicans today. No wonder they lose elections. Republicans simply do not possess the skills necessary to successfully confront and defeat dedicated left-wingers.

 How Stupid Are America's Rulers?

According to Time magazine, the U.S. Army did not know that physical differences between men and women were genetically determined.  Here's what Time reports in its current online edition:

QUOTE:  The average woman doesn’t have the same upper-body strength as the average man. "From 1970 to the late 1990s, the military services, especially the Army, conducted numerous tests to determine whether the physiological differences between men and women in upper-body strength, stamina, endurance, speed, and coordination were genetically determined or the product of a less active culture among women and, therefore, subject to change through proper conditioning programs," a 2004 Army study said. "Test results varied widely except in the case of upper-body strength, which, it was generally agreed, seldom reached the male level among females."  UNQUOTE

(http://nation.time.com/2013/01/25/women-in-combat-vive-a-difference/#ixzz2J5Yr61Mc).

How stupid can you be to not know that the difference in physical strength between men and women is the result of genetics?  The U.S. government actually spent taxpayers' money on a "study" to find out.  Here at Middle American News, we could have told them the answer for free.

Bill of Rights Opponent Explains the Aim of Gun Control Legislation

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time.... The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."  --  Nelson Shields, Co-founder and Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.

Source:  "A Reporter At Large: Handguns," by  Richard Harris,The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 57-58

Supreme Court Says Only the Law-Abiding Have to Register Guns; Criminals Are Exempt

If one of the gun registration schemes now under discussion in the nation's capital becomes law, there's one group that won't have to obey it: convicted felons.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that because of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, convicted felons do not have to register their guns. Only squeaky-clean, law-abiding people have to obey gun registration laws.

In Haynes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968), Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawul possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun.   He pointed out that since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the gun registration charge, it was illegal for him to possess the firearm. He argued that for a conviced felon to be compelled to register a gun, it would be, in effect, an announcement to the authorities that he was breaking the law.  If he did register it, he would be incriminating himself, he said. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly commands that "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

So the Supreme Court ruled, "We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense..."

Thus the court declared in Haynes v. U.S.  that because it would be self-incriminating, a criminal cannot be compelled to register his gun, nor even be criminally charged with possession of an unregistered gun.

That means registration schemes now under consideration for certain semi-atuomatic rifles that look like military weapons will have no effect on criminals.

Washington Post Spreads Falsehoods About Gun Laws

The Washington Post is spreading falsehoods about guns in a transparent effort to boost the work of members of Congress trying to strip Americans of 2nd Amendment rights.  On Sunday, Jan 6, reporter Sean Sullivan made a stunningly false claim about gun laws in his article, "Lines drawn in gun-control debate."  Sullivan asserted that federal gun laws contain "a loophole that allows background checks to be waived in purchases of firearms at gun shows." That is a stark falsehood.  All state and federal laws pertaining to gun sales also apply to gun sales at gun shows.  There are no exceptions at any gun shows anywhere in the U.S.  No laws requiring backgound checks are "waived" at gun shows.  Mr. Sullivan is not telling the truth.

Journalist Howard Kurtz: Okay for David Gregory to Break the Law

Journalist Howard Kurtz says it is okay for journalists to break gun laws.  "Was it a stunt? Yep, and an eye-catching one," writes media critic Kurtz. "Was Gregory being aggressive with the NRA chief, or seeming to push gun control in a confrontational interview? All that is up for debate. But a police probe over what I assume was an empty ammo clip is a total waste of time."  Then he goes on to claim, "But I don't think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes."  (See his column here.) Oh yeah?  Fact is, merely possessing the magazine is a crime in the District of Columbia, punishable by a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.  If any NRA member had inadvertently driven into DC with such a magazine in his car, he'd be thrown in the slammer as journalists like Kurtz and Gregory applaud.  It's time to enforce the laws fairly.  Throw Gregory in jail.

A Modest Proposal

An idea for journalists and politicians:  To keep our nation's leaders safe, should we protect them the same way we protect school chidren, by making Capitol Hill a "gun free zone" and send the Capitol Hill police home?

Knives, Fists or Rifles -- Which Pose the Greatest Danger?

As U.S. political elites consider plans to confiscate semi-automatic rifles from American citizens, FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed by hands, fists and feet than by rifles of any kind.  The FBI says that in 2010, 358 people were murdered by killers using rifles.  But killers using knives killed 1,704 people, more than four times as many.  Other killers beat their victims with hands, fists, or feet, killing 758 people, twice as many as those killed by rifle shots.  What these statistics mean is that when politicians say that banning so-called "assault rifles" is necessary to keep Americans safe, they are lying.

Memo to NRA and GOP on Messaging About Guns

Since the leadership of neither the Republican Party nor the National Rifle Association know how to defend their position on guns, we here at Middle American News will show them how.   The Republicans especially need this lesson because it will fall on the shoulders of conservative GOP members of Congress to fight the coming legislative assault on the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.  They are the ones who will face denunciations for their positions from the news media.

Sen Diane Feinstein, D-CA, will likely lead the effort with the bill she is introducing to outlaw the sale of semi-automatic rifles that look like military assault rifles.  She claims the guns must be banned because they enable killers to murder too many people at once.

Here's how to answer whatever argument she and her media supporters will advance:

In 2010, according to official FBI crime statistics, there were 358 murders committed with rifles of any sort.  In that same year, there were 1,704 murders committed with knives, more than four times as many victims.   So why are we trying to ban a kind of rifle when knives kill far more people?  It is true that a killer with a military-looking weapon can kill far more people than a killer with only a knife.  But in the real world, knives kill more people -- more than four times as many!   All lives have equal value, whether destroyed by a knife or by a rifle.  Since knives are used to kill more people, obviously they are a far more serious threat to life than a military-looking rifle.  In fact, it is plainly irrational to target rifles when other weapons are far more dangerous.  When making policy, we must be rational, not emotional.

Of course, the news media on its own won't report arguments that embarrass the gun ban advocates.  So the statistic about knives and rifles must be voiced consistently, by every gun rights supporter, over and over and over again.  No matter what question a journalist asks, the gun rights politician must answer with the statistic about rifles vs. knives. When the reporter asks a different question, the politician must repeat the statistic again. And again.  No matter what he is asked, he must work in the statistic until it beomes second nature.  It will eventually filter into the public consciousness as long as GOP gun rights supporters (and NRA spokesmen) repeat the same statistic ad infinitum.

The purpose of repeating this statistic is not to "win" the argument.  In politics, no one "wins" arugments.  Arguments are used to gain influence or reduce others' influence with the public.   The purpose of repeating the statistic is to diminish the demonization of semi-automatic rifles in the mind of the public, to provide a factual perspective that robs gun ban advocates of the irrational emotional impact they achieve when denouncing rifles that look like military weapons.

 The Stupid Party Rides Again

As everyone knows from the last two presidential elections, Republicans have a major problem with messaging.  In fact, to call it a problem is somewhat of an understatement.  It is, in fact, a politcally catastrophic manifestation of stupidity so broad it is difficult to exaggerate. 

Consider:  GOP leaders on Capitol Hill are taking seriously a president who proposes to raise taxes on "the rich" that will keep the federal government operating for eight days.  Yeah, eight days.  That is the official position of President Barack Obama and his party.  Obama says dealing with the budget crisis and massive federal debt requires a "balanced approach" and "flexibility" that includes both spending reductions and increased taxes.  He and his multi-millionaire friends in Congress think people who earn $200,000 have too much money.  So they want to take more away from them so that the federal government will have enough money to run for eight days.

Why do Republicans take this seriously?  Why have they not reacted with utter contempt at such a plainly trivial proposal?  Obama and his pals ought to be ridiculed into shame for such a plainly ineffective, worthless proposal.  The Democrats' push to raise taxes on "the rich" is purely a propaganda ploy to make themselves look like the defenders of the poor and the middle class.  As the Republicans make a serious effort to resist, they contribute to, and actually enhance the propaganda effect, feeding directly into the Democrats' plan to paint Republicans as the party of the evil rich.

House Majority Leader John Boehner says he is willing to raise revenues through fiddling with tax deductions and exemptions, but he will not agree to raise rates.  By taking that position, he is giving the president's proposal credibility that it does not deserve. 

Here's how the Republicans should react to Obama's trivial and worthless proposal:  Laughter and contempt. Here's what every single Republican on Capitol Hill should say, after laughing at the president's proposal:

"Since the president has proposed increasing taxes just to run the federal government for only eight days, he cannot be taken seriously as a leader of the country.  His idea is laughable and pathetic on its face.  His proposal is an embarrassment to anyone who can do basic arithmetic.  Any 12 year-old knows that raising enough revenue for eight days when the government faces a $16 trillion debt is an utter waste of time.  We Republicans are still waiting for the president to come up with a serious proposal.  When he does, we will be willing to negoitate."

Republicans must stop reacting respectfully to the president's tax hike.  It must be ridiculed and lampooned.

  The Real Reason Romney Lost

The real reason Mitt Romney lost the election is the multiculturalist political environment that prevents conservative forces from mobilizing their natural constituency.

Here's what happened:  Team Obama ran a campaign based on "us vs. them," while Romney ran a campaign based on ideas.  In that kind of contest, ideas always lose.   Obama demonized opponent Romney as a threat and as an enemy while cultivating and encouraging the racial, ethnic, and gender solidarity of his own supporters.   That's what he meant when he said, "voting is the best revenge."  Revenge against whom?  Rich white guys.  And those are the people he means when he says he intends to make the wealthy pay their "fair share" by increasing taxes.  His black and Hispanic constituencies know their own taxes won't go up.  Obama's entire campaign was based on the unspoken question, "whose side are you on?"

This solidarity, or "we feeling" is the most powerful of human motivations.  It is so powerful that in times of war, an individual is willing to surrender his life for his group.  That group may be a family, a tribe, or a political unit such as a country.  The only possible way to defeat a group with a "we feeling" is with a stronger, opposing "we feeling."

But Romney's campaign was based on intellectual arguments.  He and his supporters actually ran television advertisements featuring charts and graphs.  While Obama talked people, Romney talked numbers.  Team Romney did not explain why Obama's ideas were bad, only that they were inexplicably wrong.  Obama was depicted not as a threat or an enemy, but as merely mistaken.  In fact, Team Romney made no effort whatsoever to characterize Obama in any way at all.  Romney asserted no group solidarity to oppose Obama, and created no image of the opponent for voters to dislike.  Romney did not ask, "whose side are you on?" but, "whose ideas do you like better?"

Obama won more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, and more than 90 percent of the black vote.  That's because individual blacks and Hispanics identified their self interests with their group interests. What is good for the group was seen as good for themselves individually.  Relying on gender chauvinism, Obama was also able to garner significant support from single white women.  They were not won over by ideas or rational argument, but by an irrational fear of a "war on women."

Romney won only 57 to 59 percent of the white vote, compared to the higher percentages of non-whites for Obama.  Because whites are roughly 72 to 73 percent of the entire electorate, only a slight increase in the white vote for Romney would give him enough to win a majority of votes.  Romney failed -- or was unable -- to maximize the white vote.

Multiculturalist America doesn't allow white unity or appeals to it.  In America today, blacks and Hispanics (and other non-whites) are encouraged by the multiculturalist milieu to cultivate, celebrate, and enhance their racial solidarity culturally and politically.  There is an NAACP and Black Entertainment Television for blacks, a National Council of La Raza, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Univision for Hispanics, but no corresponding apparatus for whites, and none are permitted.  As newspaper columnist William Raspberry bluntly put it, "It's always illegitimate for white men to organize as white men."

Because whites are not allowed to organize on their own behalf, conservative pundits and politicians now openly suggest that Republicans can win future presidential contests only through increased appeals to blacks and Hispanics.  Unfortunately, blacks and Hispanics respond en bloc only to appeals for expropriation of white wealth or defeat of white power.  Completing the multiculturalist triumph against whites, some commentators have even suggested that non-whites must appear on future Republican presidential tickets.

Racial politics may be lamentable, but in a multiracial society they are inevitable.

As non-white voting strength increases in the next four years through naturalization of millions more Hispanic immigrants, whites face the historically important choice of political oblivion or racial solidarity.

 What You Can Do
Join a Nationwide Protest by Signing a Petition Sponsored by Immigration Law Enforcement Agents
Your help is needed to protect immigration law enforcement. Right now, the Obama regime is punishing agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) if they fail to waive deportation proceedings for illegal aliens. One agent was suspended after he arrested an illegal alien with 10 traffic violations who did not fit the official criteria to qualify for President Barack Obama's amnesty executive order. You can help by signing a petition to tell Obama's ICE Director John Morton to stop punishing agents who enforce immigration law. The petition is sponsored by the National ICE Council, the union that represents front-line immigration law enforcement agents. Click Here to See the Petition.
 
 
 
The Top 10 Questions Reporters Will Never Ask Politicians
1. By what percentage will the crime rate fall if Congress adopts your gun control proposals, and when will that decline occur? [More]

Who Do You Trust?
Which has better judgment, your local gun club or the federal government? Accused Colorado mass killer James Holmes applied for membership in the Lead Valley Gun Range in Byers, Colorado, but was turned down. Range official Glenn Rotkovich said Holmes was too "bizarre." However, Holmes had no trouble getting a $26,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health to pursue his Ph.D. in neuroscience.

The Narrative Gap
In the middle of a relentless beating from negative ads by President Barack Obama's campaign, Mitt Romney seemed to regain his footing last week when he hit back after the president belittled the achievements of people who built their own businesses. It was the first time in months that the Romney campaign managed to land a blow against Obama in a campaign where the candidates appear to be locked in a dead heat. But that counterattack, unlike the attacks on Romney from Obama, is not part of any single over-arching theme. The result is a narrative gap in which the Obama campaign maintains a distinct advantage. [More]

Romney Campaign Flubs Again
The Romney campaign's response to charges from Team Obama that Romney at Bain Capital was a "pioneer" in outsourcing jobs overseas is weak and ineffective. Romney's TV ad, "No Evidence" simply asserts that Obama is lying without offering any factual basis for the assertion. As a result, it is unconvincing. What Romney should have done is pointed out that Obama is giving work permits to illegal aliens to steal jobs from Americans inside the U.S., and that is driving up unemployment for U.S. workers and driving down wages. But the Romney campaign appears to lack the political instincts needed to launch effective arguments.

Poised for Defeat
The GOP's Mitt Romney is perfectly positioned to lose the November election. That is not to say his loss is inevitable, for a lot can happen in the remaining weeks and months before election day. But an examination of the candidate and his campaign strategy shows that all the factors leading to his defeat are already in place. [MORE]