A restaurateur on the Hugh Hewitt show said that mandating health insurance for food service employees would drive many restaurants out of business and drive up the cost of eating at those restaurants that were able to survive. Another food service manager said that, in the event Obamacare passes, he was considering laying off his wait staff and having customers order at computer terminals at each table.

08-03-09 Liberal Columnist Paul Krugman appeared in a video clip shown on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox TV Show. Krugman, sitting on a discussion panel, asked “How many Canadians in the audience?” Several hands went up. “How many of you Canadians believe that you have a terrible health care system?” About the same number of hands went up. Krugman responded with a strained grin, “Well, now! I shouldn’t have done that, should I?”

In the United States Political Arena, the Democrats have effectively shut the Republicans out of the health care debate. One result of this one-party approach is that there appears to be no effective tort reform in either bill. Insurance companies, until they are driven out of business by the “public option,” will still not be able to offer coverage across state lines. There appear to be no effective provisions to increase the number of doctors and other medical staff to handle the increased patient load. One survey of doctors reported that as many as 45% of them would consider retiring, if Obamacare were passed.

Stories from the occupied territories:

A young Canadian man was on a two-year waiting list for an operation. Unfortunately, the doctors only gave him 18 months to live. He came to the US for his operation. He survived.

A Young Canadian woman needed a hospital that could handle multiple births. There were no openings in Canada. She had her babies in the US.

A Canadian woman reported that her dog has better health care than she does. Her dog can get same day treatment in an unregulated veterinary clinic, while she must wait for three weeks to get an appointment with a government-regulated physician.

A doctor called Hugh Hewitt from Texas on 08-02-09 and reported that he overheard the payoff on a gruesome bet between residents (apprentice doctors), while he was working in England. One of their patients had been on a waiting list for two years for an operation to correct a life-threatening aneurysm in the wall of his aorta. One of the budding doctors had wagered that the man would die, before he got the operation. The other one bet that the man would get the operation and survive. Unfortunately for the patient, the death-betting resident physician won the wager.

The same caller reported that, following rounds one day, the doctor and the residents were enjoying tea. A nurse came in and told the doctor that a patient was having severe chest pains. The doctor looked up and said, “Tell the patient that we are at tea, and that when we are finished, we will come and have a look at him.”

A survey of British Subjects revealed that many of them were dissatisfied with their health care, but that they didn’t complain, because they felt that no one in government would listen to their pleas.

A story out of Great Britain reported that only 40% of cancer patients in that country are able to see an oncologist (cancer specialist).

The main reasons to oppose Obamacare-probable results:

• The destruction of Medicare Advantage to “save tax dollars” will mean that millions of seniors will be driven to buy more expensive Medicare supplemental coverage from the anti-gun American Association of Retired Persons, otherwise known as AARP. (AARP is now on board as a supporter of Obamacare.)

• Obamacare will be terribly expensive in terms of tax dollars and probably require raising taxes on all Americans.
• It will drive up the costs of all goods and services.

• It will destroy an American Health Insurance Industry unable to compete with a government-subsidized “public option.”

• It will result in health care rationing, especially for the elderly, who will not be ” good investments” as candidates for heart surgery, knee and hip replacements, or expensive medication. Not only will overweight people, elderly people and others who are not considered “worthy” not be able to get government health care, they will not be able to get government approval for certain procedures or drugs anywhere in the country.
• Gun Owners of America has published information indicating that government health care may result in de facto registration of gun owners. The intrusive health care bureaucracy may view gun owners as a “high risk” group, comparable to smokers or obese persons. Will criminal penalties for failure to buy insurance create more “prohibited persons” who are forever banned from legal gun ownership?
• Obamacare will vastly increase the national debt and may very well wreck the economy.

If Obamacare passes, Congress will keep its own “special” heath insurance. Many government bureaucrats will have special plans. “Common” citizens will be locked into a health plan that has had marginal results at best in most of the rest of the world.

The end result of Obamacare will likely be a system where the rich, including wealthy Democrats, go to other countries for treatment for serious conditions, knee and hip replacements, and expensive medication. Substantial numbers of US doctors will leave to practice in these countries, where they will be able to make much more money than they can under a socialized system in the US. Elderly Americans will die on waiting lists, or along with overweight citizens, be unable to get treatment anywhere. Illegal aliens and people on welfare will continue to receive care at low or no cost, unless of course, they are elderly or obese.

If the US socializes health care, where will seriously ill British and Canadians go for treatment? (The rich ones will probably join the rich Americans in clinics in South America and the Caribbean.) The rest will suffer on their own waiting lists like the silly American “common citizens” who voted for “Hope and Change.”

Go to DickMorris.com for more information

Def Mech

It is possible that S. 2099 is a deliberate distraction from the many real threats to our fundamental, individual rights to self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  These real threats include, but are not limited to:

H.R. 45-Registers owners of handguns and semi-automatic firearms.  The bill appears to effectively ban access to or possession of any firearm by anyone under 18.  (See my post, “House Bill 45, the anti-gun rights campaign begins in ernest,” under the tag, “anti-gun Democrats,” 01-19-09.)

H.R. 2401-Transfers information from the notoriously innacurate no-fly lists to the National Instant Check System.  The late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy was on a no-fly list. (See my post, “H.R. 2401: ‘No Fly, No Buy!’ ’Big Brother loves you,’ but isn’t good with names,” tagged “H.R 2401,” 08-14-09.)

H.R. 2159-Allows the Attorney General to strip you of your right to own a gun if you are “suspected” of being a terrorist.  This bill dovetails with H.R. 2401 above.  The AG thinks you are a terrorist, because you are a veteran, because you are against abortion, or because you oppose gun control.  Your name goes on the “no-fly” list as a suspected terrorist and immediately gets flagged on the NICS computer.  What was it that O’Henry said, “…beautiful and simple, as all truly great swindles are.”    

S. 843-Would almost certainly kill every gun show in the country by over-regulation.  As I read S. 843, in order to comply with the provisions of this act, a promoter would  need to register every single person in the show.  (I’m not an attorney.  I don’t even play one on TV.)  (See my post of 04-27-09, “S. 843 threatens your rights,” tagged “S. 843 (2009.”)

The so-called “CIFTA” Agreement, a “Convention” of the Organization of American States, endangers gun rights in this country on an on-going basis.  (See my post of 04-17-09, “OAS treaty threatens Second Amendment,” tagged “Foreign Influence.”)

Who could have perpetrated a hoax such as a 2009 version of S. 2099?  Oh, I don’t know, maybe the same folks who faked those fraudulent negative officer efficiency reports about President Bush. 

Advocates for individual rights in this country have already beaten back governmental threats to freedom this year.  Two of these threats were the attempted destruction of military surplus ammunition shell casings and an attempt by the Customs Service to declare knives that can be opened with one hand to be “switchblades.” (”Reports of military brass destruction could be bad news for reloaders and shooters,” 03-14-09, tagged “Another attack on gun owners?”) (’”Write Customs to stop proposed knife ruling,” 06-16-09, tagged “Knife Issues.”)

The real threats are real enough.  We can’t waste time and energy chasing after long-dead phantoms like 2099.  If you get an E-mail with this charade in it, reply to the sender that it is bogus.  Request that the sender forward your E-mail to everyone that got the fake message.  We can’t afford distractions from the vital business of defending our birthright of freedom.

Def Mech

Today, my particular bone of contention with the Left-wing media involves Mother Goose and Grim, which I submit is wasting ink agonizing over the restoration of a Second Amendment right to American Citizens in some of our national parks. This historic event is to occur early next year, after Congress passed an amendment affirming a Bush Administration rule change making possible this restoration of a lost right to self-defense.

In the simple arithmetic of the cartoon strip and probably many Liberal minds, allowing concealed carry permit holders to protect themselves and others equals exposing the parks to a hail of gunfire from trigger happy rednecks bent on killing Bambi, Thumper and each other. Don’t even mention hundreds of innocent bystanders! (Bambi and Thumper are registered trademarks of the Disney Corporation.)

We heard this same doomsday rhetoric before the passage of every “shall-issue” concealed carry law in the country. “Blood in the Streets! Fender bender shootouts! The end of civilization as we know it!”

The “expected” slaughter hasn’t happened. CCW permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Law enforcement officials in state after state have admitted as much.

The following statements are from two Texas police officials quoted by H. Sterling Burnett in Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors, Brief Analysis No. 324 from the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, June 2, 2,000, Page 2.

John B. Holmes, Harris Country District Attorney, said of his former opposition to concealed carry, “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris Country, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, stated in support of concealed carry, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen… I’m a convert.”

If someone intends to commit crimes using a firearm, how likely is he or she to go to the trouble of getting a permit? As one young gang banger opined years ago on Denver talk radio, “If you’re going to smoke somebody, you don’t need no paperwork.” Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. (Someone, somewhere, please engrave this phrase in stone over the door to a library or courthouse!)

BTW, concealed carry has nothing to do with hunting in national parks, contrary to the 09-02-09 Mother Goose… cartoon in The Denver Post. Concealed carry is primarily a defense against two-legged human predators. Open carry of defensive handguns might be a sensible option against bear or mountain lion attacks, but such a display of “evil” guns would no doubt shock many Liberal tourists out of their Ho Chi Minh sandals.

For what it’s worth, to ease the angst-ridden minds of Liberals anticipating the destruction of parks by gunfire and the catastrophic pollution of all nearby water by lead residue, there are still laws prohibiting the brandishing and discharge of these “oh-so-deadly” concealed weapons. In other words, if you are going to display or fire a gun in a national park, you would want to have a legally defensible reason.

If the laws against display and discharge don’t deter would-be evil doers, how exactly would a policy against government sanctioned concealed carry be any more efficient in preventing crime? The simple answer is, it wouldn’t! (See my posts under the Category, “Gun Law Failures.”)

Furthermore, concealed carry in national parks applies only to those states that allow concealed carry in state parks. In those jurisdictions that still restrict the Second Amendment rights of their citizens in state parks, those rights are also denied in national parks within the boundaries of the infringing state. (We’ll have to fix that problem later.)

The action of Congress and the signature of President Obama on the CCW amendment simply restored a portion of the rights previously lost by American Citizens to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny, and genocide. The forest streams will not run red with the blood of innocents, if our national experience with concealed carry is any indication.

Take heart, Liberals! Hoplophobia can be treated. You don’t need to live in fear.

Def Mech

The problem with the bill is that the “No Fly” Lists are notoriously inaccurate to the point that the bold print comment on Page 8B of The Denver Post on 05-31-09 reads, “Security: Mistaken IDs of fliers on watch lists happen ‘daily.” According to the Post article starting on Page 1B, “Name’s not same?  That just won’t fly,”  there are about 400,000 people on the watch lists. 95% of these folks are not U.S. citizens, according to the story. Let’s see. That means there are about 20,000 chances that your name could match the name of a citizen on a watch list.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a little different view on the watch lists.  The ACLU staff believes that there are over a million names on the lists and that the lists are growing by leaps and bounds.  You do the math!

Of course, your name could be Edward Kennedy, whose name actually did show up on a watch list. I imagine that the Senator had an easier time getting off the list than would you or I. You see the government doesn’t have to tell you how you got on the list and there is an unholy amount of bureaucratic red tape involved in trying to get off the list, if you are a “common” citizen. Did I mention that until you get off the list, you probably are not legally eligible to own a gun?

But was Kennedy flagged because his name matched the name of a suspected terrorist who happened to be a citizen, or is there an Irishman named Kennedy who is associated with a faction of the Irish Republican Army. Think about all the old and new terrorist organizations in various countries around the world. MS 13, FALN (Puerto Rico), the Mexican Mafia, PLF, HAMAS, the Animal Liberation Front (US) the Earth Liberation Front (US), Al Qaeda, the Japanese Red Army, the Aryan Nations (US), Hezbollah, the Shining Path, and the Basque Fatherland and Liberty organization, to name a few. What are the odds that your name matches somebody, somewhere on a watch list?

As far as we know, the Obama Administration hasn’t started putting Tea Party members on the lists, but who knows? If you are against Obamacare, your neighbors may have snitched you out to the White House Web Site on “misinformation” or “disinformation” on the socialized medicine issue.

Returning veterans, opponents of abortion, and certainly advocates for the right to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide are probably candidates for a spot on the “No Fly” Lists. (Remember the Homeland Security Report?)  George Orwell got it right in 1984.  “Big Brother” really is watching.

Keep an eye on this bill. It fits in “nicely” with H.R. 2159, which allows you to be stripped of your legal right to own a gun if the Attorney General “suspects” you of being a terrorist. See my post, ” As we were saying…,” dated 05-21-09, tagged ” H.R. 2159.”

“Eternal vigilance…”

Def Mech

Mike Littwin’s piece, “Is strategy a concealed weapon?” appears on Page 2A of the 07-24-09 edition of The Denver Post.  The Post editorial entitled, “Senators misfire on gun measure” is on Page 10B of the same paper.

“Political cover” involves action taken by elected officials to inoculate themselves from criticism by a constituent group by casting votes favorable to that group, after first determining that the measure in question has no chance of passing, with or without the politicians’ support.  According to a Washington Post columnist cited in both Denver Post articles, Udall and Bennet consulted with virulent anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer, before casting their votes.  The Thune-Vitter measure failed, after gaining 58 of the 60 “supermajority” votes required to get a bill through the Senate.

In any case, Udall and Bennet will probably receive some credit for their votes from pro-gun rights organizations, such as the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, the NRA, GOA, The Citizens Committee…, and JPFO.  Organizations that do not support the right of American Citizens to armed self-defense from crime, tyranny, and genocide will be unhappy with the votes of the Colorado Senators.  Everybody who is politically sophisticated on both sides of the issue will understand the “inside baseball” aspect of this situation.

Udall and Bennet did vote for the amendment to a credit card bill that preserved the endangered “right” of citizens to concealed carry in national parks where state law permits carry in state parks.  That concealed carry amendment was a partial victory for supporters of individual liberty.  We’ll take incremental steps to restore the full Second Amendment rights of Americans where we can.  We will also remember the votes that support or retard the recovery of freedom.

Stay tuned for more drama from D.C.

Def Mech

The anti-gunners are up in arms, so to speak, over this.  We need a good turnout.

Def Mech

As I read H.R. 675, the disturbing powers granted by the bill are the authority to “execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States,” and to “make arrests without a warrant…”  for probable cause of past commission or the commission of actual offenses against the United States.   Do we really want game wardens serving warrants?  What additional federal statutes might be passed that would give these newly minted minions of the law increased control over state and local issues?

Possession of a firearm following a conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor was retroactively made  a violation of  federal law.  (Lautenberg Amendment)  Does this bill mean that a game warden would be making arrests during deer season for someone who pled out to a domestic violence beef in 1970 to avoid attorney’s fees, before the conviction meant a loss of Second Amendment rights?  (Sorry about that, but the SCOTUS ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment did not have an Ex Post Facto problem.)

 This proposed law seems to be an effort by Democrats to implement Obama’s national “civilian” security force.  The US Department of Defense has issued Directive 1404.10 that appears to pave the way for a massive ”Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” to support military operations inside and outside the United States.

Are these measures designed to protect the American People from terrorism, or are they designed to protect the Federal Government from American Citizens?  Do these activities, taken as a whole represent an attempt to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act, which keeps the Federal Government out of local law enforcement?

Do the Democrats plan to establish a national police force along the lines of the French Surete?  How will these plans relate to Obama’s volunteer youth corps?  (See my post, “Obama’s ’service’ speech: Gestapo, Red Guards, or something else?” 07-21-08, under the tag, “national security.”)

Ask your senators and representatives to tell you what they know about H.R. 675 and DoD Directive 1404.10.  These laws and regulations sound suspiciously like the birth of the Gestapo, the S.A., the S.S., the NKVD, or the KGB.  Of course, this flurry of activity  might be nothing at all.  We need to find out what it is, before we have federal agents asking to see our papers at roadblocks and investigating “hooliganism” in our neighborhoods.

Def Mech

The US Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program supported the project.  CU Professor Mark Pogrebin led the team of CU and CSU researchers, who surveyed prisoners in 2003, 2004.

We should keep in mind that 73 individuals constitute an extremely small sample size, totaling about four percent of the subjects of the landmark prison study done by Professors Wright and Rossi.  (See my post under the Category: “Research.”)

The Colorado study group may have been an available sample rather than a random sample, but we will have to wait for the book in July to look at their selection process.

Given these potential limitations, we can consider the self-reports of the prisoners to be representative to some degree of the Colorado population of convicted felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime.  (We should keep in mind that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.)

It will be instructive to find out if the book goes into other crimes committed by the research subjects.  The book does apparently touch on the role of drugs, especially Meth, in increasing violent criminal behavior.  (It is also illegal for drug addicts to possess firearms.)

According to the article, the Colorado findings suggest that “gun-control laws would have had little effect on the study subjects’ criminal behavior.”  The impressive CDC Study and the even more massive NAS Study, which indicate that there is no substantial scientific evidence that gun control laws prevent crime, support this conclusion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

Another interesting finding of the study in question is that some criminals would be deterred by liberal concealed carry laws.  Wright and Rossi found that criminals are risk averse and, in effect, do a kind of risk/benefit analysis when selecting victims.

Florida Scientist Gary Kleck found up to 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in the United States.  Economist John Lott postulates that “shall issue” concealed carry laws save lives and reduce crime.  (See David Kopel’s review of John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime, here.)

An interesting artifact of the Colorado Study is that “most inmates said that concealed weapons…” or “the perception” of concealed weapons in the hands of potential victims would lead to more violent behavior on the part of the criminals.  There are two possible problems with giving credence to this idea.

The first problem is that the criminals in the study group could have been motivated by bravado, attempting to convince the researchers (and themselves) that they were not intimidated by the idea of relatively widespread, spontaneous, armed opposition to their felonious acts.  The second, and more insidious possibility, is that the convicts knew that their responses might find their way into public policy debates on concealed weapons permits.  What better way for a career criminal to improve “business conditions” than to provide responses to researchers that might actually disarm potential victims?

Most criminals do not attack police officers in order to take their weapons.  Few criminals attempt armed robberies at gun stores or gun shows.  I personally give more weight to the much larger Wright and Rossi Study and the evidence of crime deterrence suggested by Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott.

One convict’s remark that he would shoot people he thought were carrying concealed guns should make it abundantly clear that CCW permit holders’ names must be kept private to protect them and society as a whole.  Another implication of this individual’s attitude is that we should incarcerate dangerous felons for as long as possible to keep them from committing future criminal acts.

According to the Post article, this small Colorado study seems to agree with much of the research supporting the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of American Citizens to self-defense against crime.  Defense against tyranny and genocide appear to be beyond the scope of the study.  It will be interesting to check out the book.

Def Mech