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
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
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
"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,
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
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
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
Memo to NRA and GOP on Messaging About
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The Top 10 Questions Reporters Will Never Ask
1. By what percentage will the crime rate fall if Congress
adopts your gun control proposals, and when will that decline
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
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,
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]