Category Archives: Individual Rights

Update III: Why No One Robs A 7-11 In Israel:

Feminism, Gender, GUNS, Individual Rights, Israel, Military

The adorable, armed girls of Israel (via Walter Block). (I’d be careful not to shortchange the redhead.)

Clearly, mowing down Israeli soldiers on and off base is not as easy as it is stateside. When a Jihadi committed fratricide last year at Fort Hood, murdering 13 people and maiming 31, Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone, commander of III Corps at that based, boasted: “We don’t carry weapons here, this is our home.”

Invert that and you’ll arrive at my philosophy, and that of most patriots.

Be it on the border or on base, the American treason class proves over and over again that it hates its own.

As hateful as they are to some of Israel’s enemies, Israeli politicians (there is no such thing as a Jerusalem Elite) simply don’t hate their own as much as Washington hates its underlings.

Update I (Feb. 15): Unlike the US Army—and contrary to the utter ignoramuses who’ve called Israel a “bristling Sparta” without ever having visited there—Israelis society, its armed forces especially, is very informal. There is no jumping to attention every second; uniforms are worse than casual (positively disheveled, I’d say), etc. Women—again, unlike our crazy PC military—don’t go into combat. They serve in auxiliary roles, as they should. This does not mean they are unable to drop a Jihadi.

Update II (Feb. 16): Van Wijk makes an astute comment. These Israeli girls carry rifles as naturally as other women carry handbags or pooches, or adopted, exotic ankle biters. That’s precisely what’s so good about the image.

Update III: “Hottie with Krinkov Uses Live Ammo On Attacker.” This is an ad, yes? Which means it’s not real, right? So in a phony universe, where everything comes alive provided it’s on TV or YouTube, a scantily clad bimbo shooting off a machine gun—in real-life probably a lefty who opposes what she’s doings—this is better than ordinary kids buying candy, guns strung across their shoulders?

Phony, stylized illusion (model filmed shooting a nice toy) is preferred over natural, organic behavior (Israeli lasses)?

I give up. Or perhaps the reader was just joking.

The attempts to demote the Israeli youngsters, a representative sample of tens of thousands of such kids in that country, is pathetic.

As reader Alan Butler notes, “the 2nd lady on the right has a 30 round magazine in her belt. Only seconds away from lock and load!!!”

The girls’ outfits indicate to me that they are undergoing basic training, which mean these sweet things are all of 18! Babies.

Shame on their detractors. Most of you, in secret, wish you had such daughters.

Updated: If Justice Samuel Alito Were Ill-Mannered …

Barack Obama, Constitution, Elections, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Law

He’d have cried out “You Lie” at the president during the State of the Union, last night. It so happens that Justice Alito is a gentleman, so he didn’t. All Alito did was gesticulate in surprise at the president’s audacious “misrepresentation ” of the SCOTUS’ invalidation of “a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.”

Writes Judge Andrew P. Napolitano:

“The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, ‘What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?’ Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.”

“Thus, as a result of this ruling, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on any political campaigns …”

“On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: ‘That’s not true.’ Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.”

For posterity:

Update (Jan. 29): Randy Barnett on “a shocking lack of decorum”:

“In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.”

The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Democrats, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, Natural Law, Reason, Republicans

From my new, WND.COM column, “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic”:

“In the course of the agonizing debates over the soon-to-be-merged Senate and House health-care bills, Republicans cried out for partisanship, griped about procedure and said next to nothing about principles, an accusation that cannot be directed at the Democrats.

‘Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,’ thundered Sen. Christopher J. Dodd. The Democrat from Connecticut was expressing sentiments that are par for the course in Democrat discourse.

Nancy Pelosi’s core beliefs vis-à-vis conscripting individuals into buying (or providing) a commodity at the pains of punishment came across loud and quirky. When the House passed its hulking health-care legislation, the speaker was asked where in the Constitution is the warrant for individual health mandates. Pelosi’s response was for posterity. ‘Are you serious?’ she shot back.

No, Democrats are not in the habit of hiding how they feel about the US Constitution.

As much as he dislikes the philosophical foundations of the republic, the president seems to know – and prattle – about them more so than do the Republicans. Here’s Sen. Barack Obama talking about the document Republicans discount and Democrats deem dated”…

The complete column is “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic.”

My libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society, is back in print. The Second Edition features bonus material. Get your copy (or copies) now!

A Happy New Year to all,
ilana

The Health-Care Hell Ahead

Healthcare, Individual Rights, Regulation, Socialism

Following Senate Democrats’ victorious vote to end debate on their version of the health care bill (“Cash for Cloture”), the “Senate is on track to hold a final vote on Christmas eve, but there’s still a long way to go” before Barry gets to ink The Thing.

A public option in some permutation (co-ops/exchanges) is a reality to be hammered out in conference. What this will mean to those of us who have adequate insurance is plain: With the Man and his Machine offering up coverage to whomever wants it, the market place will change. Big time.

Given the degree to which the insurance market is going to be further regulated, insurers will gradually divest of their market share, leaving so big a gap that the State will assert the need to move in by “necessity.”

CNN has the low-down on what has been decided for you so far:

“Senate Democrats claimed a major victory this weekend after voting to end debate on their version of the health care bill.

The Senate is on track to hold a final vote on Christmas eve, but there’s still a long way to go before a bill is on President Obama’s desk.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about what’s in the House and Senate health care bills and what’s next.

Where does the health care debate stand?

The House passed its version of health care reform last month. The Senate, which follows different procedures than the House, is slated to vote on its version of the health care bill before Christmas.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs a simple majority of 51 votes for final passage. Assuming the bill makes it through the Senate, a conference committee will then need to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions and merge them into one bill.

Both chambers will then need to pass the revised bill before it is sent to the president’s desk.

Read Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s take on the health care bill

Why does Obama want health care reform?

The president made health care reform his top domestic priority. He says overhauling the health care system is key to getting the economy back on track.

The president says he wants to reform health care in order to slow the growth of costs for families, businesses and the government. He also wants to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care, regardless of their income or medical history.

Who will be covered and how much will it cost?

The House plan is projected to guarantee coverage for 96 percent of Americans at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate plan is projected to cover 94 percent of Americans with an $871 billion price over the next 10 years, according to the CBO.

How will this be paid for?

The House planimposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals with annual incomes over $500,000, as well as families earning more than $1 million.

The Senate plan increases the Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 from the current 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent.

The Senate bill also imposes a new tax on insurers that provide so-called “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. The 40 percent tax would be on the value of the plan. In addition, it imposes a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning salon treatments.

Both bills call for cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans say that those cuts will impair Medicare coverage, but Democrats say the savings will come from eliminating waste and fraud.

The House and Senate bills also call for fees on medical device manufacturers.

Do I have to buy health insurance?

TheHouse and Senate bills both require individuals to buy health insurance. The House bill imposes a fine of up to 2.5 percent of a person’s income for noncompliance.

The Senate plan imposes a noncompliance fine that starts at $95 in 2010 and escalates to $750 in 2016. It also requires parents to provide health coverage for children up to age 18.

What if I can’t afford coverage?

The House and Senate plans both include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Both bills subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

With subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty ($29,326.50) would be a maximum of $440 under the House plan, while premiums for a family of four making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $10,584.

Under the Senate plan, with subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty would be a maximum of $821.14, while premiums for a family making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $8,643.60.

I own a business. Do I have to provide coverage for my employees?

The House plan requires companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

Under the Senate plan, starting in 2013, companies with more than 50 employees would be required to pay a fee per worker if its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

What if I have a pre-existing condition?

Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Both plans also bar insurers from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history. Insurers can only vary rates based on three things: age, geography and family make-up/size.

What is a health insurance exchange?

‘Health insurance exchange’ refers to the marketplace of the health insurance options. Obama has defined the exchange as a ‘one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans — including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest — and choose what’s best for your family.’

The House bill creates a national health insurance exchange designed to make it easier for small businesses, self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

The Senate bill creates state health insurance exchanges in all 50 states.

What is a health care co-op?

Nonprofit health cooperatives, or “co-ops,” are being proposed as an option to compete with the private sector and as an alternative to a government-sponsored public health insurance option. Co-ops are owned and governed by the same people they insure.

The House and Senate plans both establish “co-ops” and strip insurance companies of an antitrust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.

What happened to the public option?

The House bill creates a public option, which is a government-funded, government-run health care option, similar to Medicare. The public option would be a part of an insurance exchange available to people without coverage or unable to afford private coverage.

The Senate bill does not create a public option. Instead, it allows nonprofit private insurers to offer coverage with approval of Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal employees’ health plan.

What will happen to Medicaid?

The House and Senate bills would both significantly expand Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for the poor.

The House plan extends coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four.

The Senate plan extends coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

Will abortion treatments be funded with federal dollars?

The House bill prohibits any health plan receiving federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion.

The Senate plan allows states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in health plans offered in the insurance exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Will illegal immigrants be covered?

The House bill mandates insurance coverage for illegal immigrants and allows illegal immigrants to enroll in the public option and to buy private coverage in the national insurance exchange, but prohibits government subsidies for such private coverage.

The Senate plan exempts illegal immigrants from the health coverage mandate, and prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchanges.”

CNN’s Tom Cohen, Kristi Keck and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.