Glenn’s opening monologue is about the collapse of Dubai, the correlation to California, and the exact same path that our current administration is on that was tried during the ’30’s depression. He also speaking about how less than 10% of Obama’s appointees have private sector experience. Comforting, isn’t it considering Obama is having a jobs summit where they do not plan on listening to the CEOs.
I will post his interview with David Buckner as soon as it becomes available.
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s thoughts on health care and the republican’s approach to harnessing technology to provide more choice, and empower people to find the right health care for them. I am absolutely convinced that McCotter’s IQ must be higher than the combined IQs of the democratic majority and the occupants of the WH. Ten minutes flies by when you are listening to an intelligent person with a total command of the subject of health care, taxes, small business, etc.
Here is an opening quote:
In short, our first approach is to increase the supply of healthcare through market forces to meet the rising demand. Otherwise, what the government is going to do is by trying to control the supply of healthcare through taxation, regulation, etc., supply will be reduced at the very time demand goes up, costs shoot through the roof, and you get in a vicious circle.
Individuals who purchase health coverage through an “exchange” in the Senate Democrats’ health care bill would pay higher premiums than they would under current law for their plans, but new subsidies would offset the increased costs for more than half those people, according to a new analysis.
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the Senate’s measure also indicates that part of the reason for the higher premiums is that proposed regulations in the bill would force insurance companies to offer a greater level of coverage in the plans they sold.
According to CBO, however, “the majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies . . . would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium.”
According to the analysis, once the bill’s programs were fully implemented in 2016, people buying insurance plans individually on the exchange would pay 10 percent to 13 percent more per person than they would under current law. But some 57 percent of people on the exchange would get subsidies in the form of tax credits, and on average those individuals would actually pay 56 percent to 59 percent less for their premiums than they would otherwise.
The average premium for those buying through the exchange would be $5,800 for a single plan, or $15,200 for a family plan.
When the Tylenol kicks in, I am going to try reading it again because there is more to this report than that 10-13% increase. As far as I can assess right now, small businesses (50 employees and less), and individual policy buyers get hurt more than large corporations. Imagine that.
Nongroup Policies CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.
The legislation would have much smaller effects on premiums for employment-based coverage, which would account for about five-sixths of the total health insurance market. In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016 (relative to current law). In the large group market, which is defined here as consisting of employers with more than 50 workers, the legislation would yield an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative to current law). Those overall effects reflect the net impact of many relatively small changes, some of which would tend to increase premiums and some of which would tend to reduce them (as shown in Table 1).7
Just days ahead of the pResident’s trip to Hopenhagen to help hammer out some kind of deal that usurps American sovereignty and moola, Robert Gibbs takes a question from Major Garrett about the hacked ClimateGate emails, and totally sidesteps answering it by stating that “…Carol Browner addressed that last week; on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly among most people, in dispute anymore.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for Gibbs or Obama to volunteer that those scientists based their opinions on faked data.
C-SPAN2 offers gavel to gavel coverage of the U.S. Senate. C-SPAN2 also offers a balanced variety of public affairs programming when the Senate is in adjournment, including congressional committee hearings, press briefings, newsmaker speeches & public policy discussions.
The powers that be keep saying that all these guns laws are about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. How ridiculous is that considering criminals are criminals BECAUSE they don’t follow the rules. This law requires face to face transactions only, (no online purchases), and all purchasers of ammunition to be thumbprinted, IDed, exact types and amounts of ammunition recorded, and carries jail time and fines for selling to known criminals. How stupid is that considering a road trip to a nearby state would only take a few hours, giving the ammo away isn’t illegal, and then of course, “representatives” of law enforcement agencies are exempt from this law. (As usual, bold emphasis is mine and meant to bring your attention to parts of the bill.)
AB 962, De Leon. Ammunition. Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition. The bill would provide that no handgun ammunition vendor, as defined, shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the vendor or employee thereof.
Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition. This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing February 1, 2011, require handgun ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
This bill would provide that a person enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang, as specified, would be prohibited from having under his or her possession, custody, or control, any ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.
The bill would prohibit supplying or delivering, as specified, handgun ammunition to prohibited persons, as described, by persons or others who know, or by using reasonable care should know, that the recipient is a person prohibited from possessing ammunition or a minor prohibited from possessing ammunition, as specified. Violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor with specified penalties.
The bill would provide, subject to exceptions, that commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Article 3.5. Handgun Ammunition Vendors
12060. As used in this article, the following terms apply:
(a) “Department” means the Department of Justice.
(b) “Handgun ammunition” means handgun ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323, but excluding ammunition designed and intended to be used in an “antique firearm” as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Handgun ammunition does not include blanks.
(c) “Handgun ammunition vendor” or “vendor” means any person, firm, corporation, dealer, or any other business enterprise that is engaged in the retail sale of any handgun ammunition, or that holds itself out as engaged in the business of selling any handgun ammunition.
12061. (a) A vendor shall comply with all of the following conditions, requirements and prohibitions:
(1) A vendor shall not permit any employee who the vendor knows or reasonably should know is a person described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to handle, sell, or deliver handgun ammunition in the course and scope of his or her employment.
(2) A vendor shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of, offer for sale or otherwise offer to transfer ownership of, or display for sale or display for transfer of ownership of any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser or transferee without the assistance of the vendor or employee thereof.
(3) Commencing February 1, 2011, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without, at the time of delivery, legibly recording the following information:
(A) The date of the sale or other transaction.
(B) The purchaser’s or transferee’s driver’s license or other identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
(D) The purchaser’s or transferee’s signature.
(E) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other transaction.
(F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the above form.
(G) The purchaser’s or transferee’s full residential address and telephone number.
(H) The purchaser’s or transferee’s date of birth.
(4) Commencing February 1, 2011, the records required by this section shall be maintained on the premises of the vendor for a period of not less than five years from the date of the recorded transfer.
(5) Commencing February 1, 2011, the records referred to in paragraph (3) shall be subject to inspection at any time during normal business hours by any peace officer employed by a sheriff, city police department, or district attorney as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 830.1, or employed by the department as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 830.1, provided the officer is conducting an investigation where access to those records is or may be relevant to that investigation, is seeking information about persons prohibited from owning a firearm or ammunition, or is engaged in ensuring compliance with the Dangerous Weapons Control Law (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 2 of Part 4), or any other laws pertaining to firearms or ammunition. The records shall also be subject to inspection at any time during normal business hours by any other employee of the department, provided that employee is conducting an investigation where access to those records is or may be relevant to that investigation, is seeking information about persons prohibited from owning a firearm or ammunition, or is engaged in ensuring compliance with the Dangerous Weapons Control Law (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 2 of Part 4), or any other laws pertaining to firearms or ammunition.
(6) Commencing February 1, 2011, the vendor shall not knowingly make a false entry in, fail to make a required entry in, fail to obtain the required thumbprint, or otherwise fail to maintain in the required manner records prepared in accordance with paragraph (2). If the right thumbprint is not available, then the vendor shall have the purchaser or transferee use his or her left thumb, or any available finger, and shall so indicate on the form. If the purchaser or transferee is physically unable to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint, the vendor shall so indicate on the form.
(7) Commencing February 1, 2011, no vendor shall refuse to permit a person authorized under paragraph (5) to examine any record prepared in accordance with this section during any inspection conducted pursuant to this section, or refuse to permit the use of any record or information by those persons.
(b) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect sales or other transfers of ownership of handgun ammunition by handgun ammunition vendors to any of the following, if properly identified:
(1) A person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(2) A handgun ammunition vendor.
(3) A person who is on the centralized list maintained by the department pursuant to Section 12083.
(4) A target facility which holds a business or regulatory license.
(7) Manufacturers or importers of firearms licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(8) Sales or other transfers of ownership made to authorized law enforcement representatives of cities, counties, cities and counties, or state or federal governments for exclusive use by those government agencies if, prior to the delivery, transfer, or sale of handgun ammunition, written authorization from the head of the agency authorizing the transaction is presented to the person from whom the purchase, delivery, or transfer is being made. Proper written authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency by which the purchaser, transferee, or person otherwise acquiring ownership is employed, identifying the employee as an individual authorized to conduct the transaction, and authorizing the transaction for the exclusive use of the agency by which he or she is employed.
The jail time and fines start on page 4 of this law.
Gun Owners of California Reacts to Governor’s Signature of Ammunition Registration Bill
By Sam Paredes, Executive Director
On Thursday morning, at 10:25 a.m., Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had a ceremonial signing of AB 962 in front of a backdrop of law enforcement officials and Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon, author of the legislation. Some of those supporting the Governor’s action were Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, representatives of the City of Long Beach, City of Oxnard, and the biggest cheerleader of then all, newly elected and NRA endorsed Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen A. Trutanich. Trutanich announced that the signing of AB 962 would rock the world !
All had long speeches talking about how this was a new day for crime fighting and how this will prevent criminals from buying ammunition from local retailers. Assemblyman DeLeon stated that he has never said that AB 962 was the “panacea” to end gang violence and crime. He did disclose that AB 962 is just the first step towards creating a statewide database of ammunition purchasers and that in the upcoming year or the following he will introduce the next step. That is the secret. The anti-gun leaders in the legislature and law enforcement want background checks and a database on all ammunition purchasers. No doubt a waiting period is also in their thinking.
After touting the fact that he owned many guns and lots of ammunition, the Governor stated that he is a supporter of the Second Amendment and did not see how signing a registration book and giving a thumbprint would infringe on a gun owner’s rights. A reporter asked him, when was the last time he personally purchased any ammunition? He sheepishly admitted that he hadn’t in the past 10 years. Talk about being out of touch.
As the only member of the pro-Second Amendment community present at the press conference, Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes issued the following statements immediately following the Governor’s press event to the assembled members of the Los Angeles media:
“This bill does nothing more than implement a failed federal policy that was dumped in 1986 by Congress because it proved to be completely ineffective as a crime-fighting tool, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.”
As signed on October 11 by Governor Schwarzenegger, AB 962 requires ammunition dealers to log all ammunition purchases, obtain a thumbprint of the purchaser, make all handgun ammunition unavailable to purchasers without assistance from the vendor, and bans purchases by mail-order.
The registration information is required to be kept at the vendor’s place of business and must be made available for inspection by law enforcement, even though there is no requirement for the information to be transmitted to any state or local agency, thus necessitating a law enforcement officer to physically visit the vendor and examine the registrations.
“How the officer will recognize a prohibited person is a mystery. Will they profile registrants based on what’s listed on a piece of paper – their name, address, or even worse – their nationality? Will they investigate individuals who buy large quantities of ammo? This is a backwards and invasive,” says Paredes.
This bill requires all transactions to be conducted “face to face”, which creates a virtual ban on mail order purchases of any “ bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectiles capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence . “ However, state law cannot regulate the U.S. Postal Service, nor can it prevent the shipment of any of the above-listed items into California. (The U.S. Postal Service does not ship loaded ammunition.)
California stands to loose millions of dollars in sales tax revenue, as evidenced by a similar law regulating spray paint. When canned pray paint was put in locked cases, the industry saw a drop of between 25% and 34% in sales. That translates to a loss of approximately $3,000,000 a year in sales tax revenues to the state.
One issue the Governor and the author fail to mention is that anyone who acquires handgun ammunition, either from within California or any other state, or reloads their own, can give it away to anybody they want and they would not be in violation of AB 962. Criminals included.
The Governor vetoed this bill once before – why is he now trying to curry favor with anti-Second Amendment Democrats? AB 962 creates a liberal feel-good log-book that will do nothing to solve crime.
Given the cozy relationship that the Governor is publicly displaying with radically liberal Democrat legislators like Assemblyman Kevin Deleon, insiders at the Capitol and the press are suggesting that he is willing to wheel and deal, giving in on bad legislation like AB 962, in order to gain support for his solutions to the California’s water crisis.
…because to do so would impair the stability of the economy.
What did Ben expect to happen when they increased the money supply by over 120% since last year; a Nobel for saving the world from “financial extinction”? With the exception of his banker buddies, it looks like everybody else is on the road to financial extinction either through loss of income because of the depression we are in, or loss of future income through the hyperinflation that is coming down the road because of the inflated money supply.
It’s obvious Ben still thinks The Fed has a chance of pulling their a**es out of the fire and maintaining the monopoly on the American money supply, debt, and will be able to continue to make trillions off of us for interest payments on money the traitors in congress told them to print and the taxpayers pick up the check for.
Does anybody else realize the insanity of billions and billions of dollars of interest being paid to The Fed for money that was printed and loaned to a deaf Congress and Obama administration to bailout the big banks and car companies, “free” health care, and anything else the Dems want, in order to completely ENSLAVE Americans with unsustainable debt and interest payments? Until Paulson, Bernanke, and Obama, we were working until May 5th to pay our taxes. Now that line is moving upward again from August 15th. We now spend 2/3 of the year working to pay our taxes and to keep this going. What happens when The Fed raises interest rates? Hmmm?
Does Ben really think that the snake oil scam started in 1913 by New York bankers was going to go on into infinity? And people wonder why Americans have become so poor all of a sudden. Ben, get ready. The Fed is going away either in 2010 or 2012. The New York bankers monopoly on our economic stability is about to be crushed.
As for the title of the Bloomberg article below; I say NOT KICKING THE FED TO THE CURB PERMANENTLY will impair the economy and any future growth. I wonder what Market Ticker is going to have to say about all this.
Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said curbing the central bank’s authority to supervise the banking system and tampering with its independence would “seriously impair” economic stability in the U.S.
“A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions,” the Fed chairman said in a commentary released yesterday on the Web site of the Washington Post. The measures “would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the U.S..”
Bernanke has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While the 55-year-old Fed chairman has said he averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantlement of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913.
Bernanke’s commentary, to appear in tomorrow’s Post, is his first comprehensive answer to proposals in the House and Senate that would limit the Fed’s supervisory powers and exert more political oversight in the setting of interest rates. The issues are likely to be discussed when he faces the Senate Banking Committee on Dec. 3 for a hearing on his nomination to a second term as chairman.
Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, has criticized the central bank for lax supervision and introduced legislation this month that would strip bank oversight from the Fed and create a single bank regulator. Dodd would also limit the central bank’s ability to loan to individual companies.
“There is a strong case for a continued role for the Federal Reserve in bank supervision,” Bernanke said. “Because of our role in making monetary policy, the Fed brings unparalleled economic and financial expertise to its oversight of banks.”
The Fed chairman said that the government’s actions, while in some instances “distasteful and unfair,” were necessary to prevent “a global economic catastrophe that could have rivaled the Great Depression in length and severity.”
Bernanke pushed the Fed’s backstop lending beyond banks, setting up programs to support the commercial paper and asset- backed securities markets. The Fed Board approved the bank holding company applications of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, giving them access to the Fed’s loan window.
The former Princeton University economist and Great Depression scholar has more than doubled the Fed’s assets to $2.21 trillion and become the lender of last resort to government bond dealers, banks, Wall Street firms and U.S. corporations. The central bank has also propped up markets for mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities that support credit to consumers, small businesses and commercial real estate.
Kids, that $2.21 Trillion is the Fed’s money. It is a private banking cartel! Are you understanding now?
Matthew McCabe’s lawyer, Neal Puckett, speaking with Fox News about his client’s innocence, the unknown events surrounding the “assault” and the current lack of discovery to prepare for McCabe’s upcoming arraignment for court-martial on December 7th, 2009, (of all days).
Neil Puckett states that McCabe “has a completely clean record. In fact, he was onto a sterling career as a SEAL, as were his other two SEALs.” Puckett also wants to know “if the service is going to bring this terrorist to the courtroom in Norfolk so that we can have our 6th Amendment rights to confrontation of his accuser?”
There will be a rally to support these SEALs on December 7th in Norfolk, Virginia.
From an email I received this morning from a reader:
This is a complete outrage and mockery of our US Military. As Americans, we CANNOT stand for this and MUST show our support for our troops who are constantly being put in harms way to protect the country that is now bringing them under fire. We must send a message that “political correctness” has reached a boiling point and that these service men will not be hung out to dry.
I ask everyone, within reason, to take to Norfolk, VA on Dec 7 and send a message loud and clear that we stand behind them.
And PLEASE, even if you cannot make it because it’s just too far or you have other commitments, invite everyone on your friend list and encourage them to do the same. We have one week to get the word out and we need this to reach the right people.
US Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps : The Office of the Judge Advocate General : Public Affairs : 1322 Patterson Ave., Suite 3000 : Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066 Comm: (202) 685-5493 : Phone Numbers: Washington Navy Yard: (202) 685-5190 : Pentagon, Room 4C642: (703) 614-7420 : AJAG, Military Law : 1254 Charles Morris St., SE Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5047 Comm: (202) 685-7053