Allison Bricker

Jack Hunter and myself will debate is a Supreme Court ruling on the Chicago Gun ban could violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if their ruling does overturn the Chicago ban in place since 1982. After posting  my reply entitled “Essay No. 3″ to Mr. Hunter’s original YouTube video editorial, Kurt Wallace, Editor & Publisher of “The Liberty Pulse” and a mutual friend to both myself and Mr. Hunter suggested that perhaps the best way to further expand upon our points would be for a somewhat impromptu debate.

Thus, after working out the logistics between the three of us last week, Kurt has agreed to moderate and host the half-hour debate which will air live on LibertyPulse Radio this Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

The Smoking Argus

WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address President Obama says Congress will schedule a final vote on reform which according to the President, will give families and businesses more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. President Obama feels that after nearly a year of debate, as well as a seven-hour summit with Democrats and Republicans the time for discussion is over and instead will pursue passage of his agenda without support from Republicans in Congress or the American people. However, with most scientific polling data indicating the American people are still not prepared to support further government largess into the health care industry, President Obama may be marching his fellow Democrats to a bloodbath in the 2010 fall elections.  [FULL TRANSCRIPT]

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: What Health Reform Will Deliver – This Year TRANSCRIPT (PDF 44KB)

Source(s): The White House Briefing Room • The Official White House YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – As the health insurance reform debate enters into its final stages in Congress, the President denounces the desperate and deceptive last-ditch efforts of the health insurance companies to derail it. October 17, 2009. (Public Domain)

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Taking the Insurance Companies Down the Road TRANSCRIPT (PDF 16.7 Kb)

Source(s):

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – The President goes through the leading conservative and Republican figures who have come out one after another urging passage of health insurance reform. After a summer of intense debate, cooler heads begin to prevail to make progress for the American people. October 10, 2009. (Public Domain)

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: New Momentum for Health Reform TRANSCRIPT (PDF 11.4 Kb)

Source(s): The White House, Briefing Room “Weekly Address: President Obama Praises Emerging Consensus on Health Insurance Reform • The White House YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

(OFFICIAL STATEMENT) WASHINGTON D.C. – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama highlighted a new report from the Treasury Department that found that about half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next ten years. The report also found that Americans under 21 have more than a 50-percent chance of going uninsured at some point in that time. And more than one-third of Americans will go without coverage for longer than one year. The full Treasury report can be viewed here.

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address
The White House
September 12, 2009

On Wednesday, I addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people about why we need health insurance reform and what it will take to do it.

Since then, I’ve continued to hear from many Americans across the country about why this is so urgent and important.

I’ve heard from Americans who can’t get health coverage; men and women who worry that one accident or illness could drive them into bankruptcy.

And I’ve heard from Americans with insurance who thought that “the uninsured” always referred to someone else – but between skyrocketing costs and insurance company practices; they’re beginning to worry that they could find themselves uninsured too.

It’s an anxiety that’s keeping more and more Americans awake at night. Over the last twelve months, nearly six million more Americans lost their health coverage – that’s 17,000 men and women every single day. We’re not just talking about Americans in poverty, either – we’re talking about middle-class Americans. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

And based on a brand-new report from the Treasury Department, we can expect that about half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next ten years. If you’re under the age of 21 today, chances are more than half that you’ll find yourself uninsured at some point in that time. And more than one-third of Americans will go without coverage for longer than one year.

I refuse to allow that future to happen. In the United States of America, no one should have to worry that they’ll go without health insurance – not for one year, not for one month, not for one day. And once I sign my health reform plan into law – they won’t.

My plan will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance; offer quality, affordable choices to those who currently don’t; and bring health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government under control.

First of all, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in my plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

What my plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. We’ll make it illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition, drop your coverage when you get sick, or water it down when you need it most. They’ll no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or over a lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one should go broke just because they get sick.

Second, if you’re one of the more than thirty million American citizens who can’t get coverage, you’ll finally have quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job, change your job, or start your own business, you will be able to get coverage.

And as I have said over and over again, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – period. This plan will be paid for. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we can successfully slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Affordable, quality care within reach for the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it today. Stability and security for the hundreds of millions who do. That’s the reform we seek.

We have had a long and important debate. But now is the time for action. Because every day we wait, more Americans will lose their health care, their businesses, and their homes – but also the dreams they’ve worked for and the peace of mind they deserve. They are why we have to succeed.

So if you’re willing to put country before party and the interests of our children above our own; if you refuse to settle for a politics where scoring points is more important than solving problems; and if you believe, as I do, that America can still come together to do great things – then join us. Give us your help. And we will finally get health insurance reform done this year.

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s):
	WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Highlights New Treasury Report on Instability of Health Insurance in America TRANSCRIPT (PDF 14.9kb)

Wire Report

(WIRE Report: C4L) -  In his latest Campaign for Liberty video, 14th Texas Congressional District Representative, Ron Paul addresses President Obama’s Tuesday speech to students, the health care debate, and more as he gives a preview of what to expect now that the congressional recess is over.

Source(s): Campaign for Liberty “Legislative Update”

Kelly

No, not the Presidential debate. But, the debate that took place on our living room couch, while we watched the pathetic back and forth of Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Our debate was not subject to every cable news outlet and their armies of hack pundits, nor was it subject to focus groups of independents. Neither Allison nor I were attempting to please our base, as we have no party affiliation beholden to scum-bag lobbyists. This is important to note, because the fact that we are individuals beholden only to our unique individual principles assures us that we will participate in a debate with real substance.

Sparking our “living room” debate was this question from Bob Schieffer:

Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn’t.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

At which point, Allison is already responding, in fact, before the question has even left Bob Schieffer’s lips, “I hate this issue.” And though I do not wish to speak for Allison or interpret her words, it becomes clear through our debate that she hates this issue because it is so very divisive and because she believes it will continue to be that way until the decision making on abortion is turned over to the states. As it should be?

Frankly, I take issue with the idea that abortion rights should be decided upon by the states. The pro-life movement which is deeply rooted in Christianity would not suddenly halt their agenda if Roe v Wade were to be overturned by the Supreme Court and then put back on the states to handle. Nor would the pro-choice movement halt their efforts. Both sides of the issue would continue to fight for their beliefs; the only difference is that it would be at the state level. However, the infighting within the states is least consequential. Most importantly is that it is cruel and unusual that a woman would in some cases have to travel across a state line, quite possibly across multiple state lines in order to have a safe and legal abortion. Because my estimate is that the choice/life states would resemble the red/blue states map to a near tee. Thus, the 16 year old who becomes pregnant through the act of rape and happens to live in Kansas would have to travel up to thousands of miles were she to come to the decision to abort. In this instance, legislating abortion illegal is not a law made to promote the common good. Only one agenda is being promoted while the other side is not only being ignored, but being punished.

I suppose it could be equally argued that the pro-life people of this country have in fact had their moral cries ignored at the federal level since 1973 with the decision of Roe v Wade. And certainly they believe that God’s will is being punished under current law. Except that those who wish to choose life, can. There is choice. For whichever side of the abortion issue one falls, there is choice. Individuals may choose that which suits their ideologies or circumstances. Circumstances that cannot be foreseen by political parties being wined and dined by lobbyists. Circumstances that will always be far beyond what the human imagination can dream of. Circumstances that sometimes require difficult and heartbreaking decisions and whether the person or family making this decision lives in a red state or blue state should not matter, should not be an obstacle.

Joseph Marohl

In its pre-show to the third Presidential debate, CNN predicted that Obama would “try to avoid any gaffes” and McCain, behind in recent polls, would probably try to find a way to change that fact. Tonight’s debate would be unique, CNN assured me, because the two candidates would be seated, at a table, facing each other (1).

Wow.

The reality-show framework of modern political campaigning foregrounds situation, unique challenges, and viewer response. The focus used to be the candidates’ personalities and character—before that—though perhaps only in some mythical past—the emphasis was on national issues and, um, actual debate.

Perhaps in the near future we can hope to see candidates in an even greater variety of telegenic settings–lying prone in a potato field, answering telepathically broadcast questions while disco dancing, or holding a tribal hall meeting on an island where fashion models eat live slugs.

In the third debate, moderator Bob Schieffer prodded the two candidates to criticize each others’ campaigns and choices of running mates. No doubt in hommage to Jerry Springer.

McCain complained that Obama’s ads misrepresented his positions and tied him unfairly to George W. Bush. McCain even managed to lob a zinger, chiding Obama, “If you wanted to run against George Bush you should have run four years ago.”

Obama pointed to McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s inadequate responses to their audiences’ rabid jeering of Obama’s name—shouting, not kindly, “traitor” and “kill him.”

But Obama’s most conspicuous response was to laugh quietly yet derisively at McCain’s bluster.

This debate had the icky feeling of 90 minutes spent at a dysfunctional family Thanksgiving—with McCain playing the self-pitying elder barely containing his rage at others’ lack of deference to age and reputation—and Obama playing the mocking teen, shaking his head in disbelief at the elders’ passive aggression and blindness to nuance.

Though McCain criticized Obama’s campaign for unfairly linking him with Bush, McCain’s main tactic in this debate was to enumerate Obama’s associations with people like Bill Ayers, Hugo Chavez, and Congressman John Lewis. So, I take it, guilt by association is bad only when directed against McCain.

Clearly, McCain knew he needed to do something to bolster his flagging poll numbers. He attacked Obama’s strengths—insinuating that the Illinois senator’s oratorical skills were deceptive, while lacking sufficient skills to drive the point home.

He also introduced a semi-fictitious character, Joe the Plumber—no relation to Joe Six Pack or to me—based on a real person who apparently had spoken with Obama at a recent Democratic rally.

McCain leveled his eyes directly at the camera to speak to “Joe,” promising him to be a better President for the working man than Obama would be.

Not particularly effective to begin with, the chat with “Joe” became so bizarre that Obama himself began, tongue in cheek, to address McCain’s imaginary friend, too.

The thrust of this tactic was, it seems to me, to pander to traditionally Democratic, white, blue-collar workers with reservations about Obama, based on—no secret here—Obama’s skin color.

As in the previous two debates, Obama seemed the more confident and poised of the two—blamable only for, if anything, a detectable air of condescension and, at his worse, the dreary, nerdy sing-song I associate with Jeopardy contestants.

And, again, McCain’s almost constant blinking worked against any attempt the senator might have been making to appear to be telling the truth.

In fact, I sensed something a little bit creepy in McCain’s mask-like affect, a failure to convey humanity—or a working nervous system.

On some level, McCain may have succeeded in tapping into some Americans’ fears that Obama supports terrorism, wants to “spread the wealth” (i.e. “is a commie”) by raising taxes and gas prices, conducts “class warfare,” and is too inexperienced (having never traveled to Colombia, for instance) and too black to be President—all the while denying that he would stoop to such tactics.

But my call is that Obama won three out of three here, conveying in each of the debates a steady calm, intelligence, and consistency nowhere apparent in his opponent.

(1) Hornick, Ed. “Obama, McCain hope to woo undecideds in debate.” CNN.com. 15 Oct. 2008.

Joseph Marohl

The most crippling aspect of modern democracy is the decline in logical argument.

Logical argument was the invention of the Greeks, along with theatre (once used to bolster the free flow of ideas), philosophy, and Western democracy. All four of these contributions to civilization are posed against the blind acceptance of (or faith in) the dictates of authority and power.

In the first century of the American nation, political debates were actual debates—with set positions argued for and counter-arguments defended against. How great would it be now for seekers of high office to debate a single issue, such as the role of the middle classes in American society or the best policy towards foreign dictators!

At one time, argument permeated the social scene, with party invitations’ commonly instructing invitees to bone up on set topics in preparation for speaking on them with other guests. The middle-brow Circuit Chautauqua, nineteenth-century traveling shows, featured lectures on various topics from prison reform to memory improvement, mixed with band music and Metropolitan Opera singers, followed by question-and-answer sessions involving members of the community.

Much is made of the role of Faith in early American culture, but seldom is Argument credited for promoting progress and establishing America’s character and self-confidence. Ultimately, it was argument, not faith, that abolished slavery, expanded voting rights, and established the 40-hour work week.

By argument, I do not mean shouting people down. I do not see argument in the harangues of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. I would not count the glib sarcasm of Stephen Colbert and Al Franken, entertaining and valuable as it is, as argument. Oprah Winfrey, though a goddess of common sense, mainly exhorts and inspires—she rarely, if ever anymore, uses her show as a meeting-place for opposing opinions, as the old Phil Donahue and Dick Cavett shows used to do (and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher still attempts to do).

Argument requires a forum, where differences in opinion are expected, respected, and encouraged in the interest of forming a more complete understanding of the issues under debate.

Argument requires clarification of the dividing lines between opposing positions. It requires a focus on logic and facts as proofs for the rightness of one’s position.

Argument requires that probability, not certainty and not mere possibilities, be put to the test, “proof” meaning, quite simply, the test that an opinion is put to—by speakers and listeners alike.

Today America is full of opinions, but few Americans know how to back them up. Few Americans feel comfortable expressing their opinions, convinced that blithe agreeableness is preferable to taking a position—while others think that bull-headed pontification requires no further explanation or proof.

Things have gotten so bad that to take any position at all more complicated or unusual than what can be fit on a bumper sticker smacks of extremism—or crackpotism.

The old adage forbidding discussion of religion and politics at the dinner table has now morphed into “Let’s just agree to disagree,” a more polite way of saying, “Shut up—I’m not interested in your reasons for disagreeing with me.”

Now that nobody expects anyone to back up anything he or she says in public, all kinds of bullshit pass for intelligent commentary these days. Idiocy is justified on the grounds that idiots sincerely believe in their idiocy.

Sincerity and good intentions are things we cannot evaluate or judge from outside. Facts, logic, and clarity of expression are things we can observe and make judgments on. As long as sincerity counts more than proof, humanity will not see further progress.

The sincerity of your belief and hope for the future is admirable, but what exactly are you saying, and how can you back it up?

Allison Bricker

In the self aggrandizing banter following last night’s Vice-Presidential debate, the punditocracy’s own, Chris Matthews committed a giant verbal faux pas.  As soon as the word “depression” left his lips, Mr. Matthews froze. Viewers could literally witness his face glaze over, trying to process the gravity of his own words.  Mr. Matthews then attempted a course correction, nervously fumbling over, “recession”.

Make no mistake, now that this bailout bill has passed and is on its way to the President, our American republic is headed towards a multi-year economic depression, instead of just a shorter less painful recession. Contrary to the condescending tones from the financial “gurus” about how “We the average People” just do not understand the complexities or necessity of the bill, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you do not fix a debt problem by shoveling on more debt.

Americans knew all too well twice before that central banks were bad for the country.  Both “The First and Second  Banks of the United States” were ripe with corruption, caused wild speculation in markets and, were not renewed at the times their 20 year charters came up for review before Congress¹.

However, unlike “The Third Bank of the United States”, i.e “The Federal Reserve” the first two central banking schemes utilized sound money to back the currency.  Where once the American Dollar bore the words “Gold” or Silver Certificate”, meaning the Dollar was legally convertible into actual gold or silver on demand of the bearer.  Today’s Dollar only bears “Federal Reserve Note” on its face, and are thus nothing more than paper backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

From 1800 to 1933 the average daily price of one Troy ounce gold, chugged along steadily at $20.00/ounce². Thus a Dollar in 1800 basically bought the same amount of goods in 1912. However, on March 9, 1933, in an effort to “stabilize agricultural crop prices”, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt signed Presidential Executive Order 6102 which invoked his authority to make it unlawful to own or hold gold coins, gold bullion, or gold dollar certificates³. By the end of that year gold rose 62% to $32.00/Troy ounce.

As the “Great Depression” continued, the government tried all sorts of measures, such as the 1933 “Agricultural Adjustment Act”⁴. The AAA even paid a subsidy to farmers to plow under their crops in order to “stabilize crop prices”, whilst 7 million+ Americans starved.  All so “Prices” could remain stable on the “open” market. Only after inflating the currency even further via the “Lend/Lease” scheme of World War II and being in charge of the massive rebuilding of a devasted Europe, would America climb out of the “Great Depression”.

Following World War II, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government continued its effort to move totally away from a sound currency.  Finally, in 1973, President Nixon put the final nail in the coffin, and removed the dollar completely, 100% off the Bretton Woods gold standard⁵.

Since that day, our money’s value has been based on one thing; the peoples ability to perpetuate the borrow/repay cycle needed to sustain a wholly fiat currency.  This time however we are propping up “home prices” by buying up these failed mortgage backed securities at an over valued price, from the criminal financiers who recklessly packaged said instruments in the first place.  It sometimes seems like we never learn, and hence why my philosophy on the importance of history is: “You cannot know where you are going, if you do not know where you have been.”

Please do not misconstrue my analysis that we are headed into another depression as yet another condescending statement to “We the People”.  The difference now is that in previous borrow/repay cycles, the creditors were fellow Americans, in the form of local banks, business, etcetera, etcetera.  However, now the creditors are wholly foreign as we no longer produce much of any real assets,  instead we consume.  We consume all the wonderful distracting gadgets, such as plasma televisions, iPhones, and clothing to name a few.

In the final analysis, let us say you take a credit card with a $50,000.00 limit and spend until the card is completely maxed to its limit.  You then fall behind on a couple of “minimum payments on the National Debt”.  Which leads you to the bright idea to call the credit card company and explain to them to raise your credit limit so you can buy/invest in some more consumable not durable goods or real assets, which will then allow you to make a profit to pay off the originally purchased items “sometime in the future” – maybe.

What do you think that credit card company would say? This is exactly what this bailout is in essence requesting.  However, even more despicable, is that this bill will print the money out of thin air and then try to sell these Treasury I.O.U’s to our master creditor, the Chinese government.

My fellow Americans, this is the situation we now find ourselves in thanks to the wholly uncaring, selfish, corrupt, and deviant government that runs amok in Washington.  It spread its “Consume until bloated” mentality to both the state governments and the American people.  Unfortunately, the “United States Credit Card” has officially just been Declined” for the inability to repay.  My fellow readers, our country is bankrupt.  Perhaps Mr. Peter Schiff’s words from an interview on Thursday says it more succinctly, stating “we’re screwed” in response to the question, “What will happen if the bailout passes?”  Mr. Schiff, as our loyal readers already know, warned us two years ago exactly where this current debt based bubble was taking the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, I have no direct answer on how to solve this crisis.  If our family was wealthy enough we would invest in foreign gold and silver markets.  However, this malfeasance threatens our Republic’s very existence, and even if that opportunity were available, it is only a matter of time before the government outlaws the possession of gold yet again.

Perhaps there will be a groundswell of Americans finally ready to repeal the charter of the Federal Reserve and thus a demand to return to sound money.  If not, there is always that tree, and it seems more and more to be in need of a serious refreshment.

Source(s): ¹ Central banking functions of the United States Treasury, 1789-1941 published: 1943- ² World Gold Council – ³The American Presidency Project/University of California – ⁴The Depression in the United States–An Overview/University of Illinois – ⁵Commanding Heights by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Published 1997 – “Purchasing Power of Federal Reserve Notes”/Consumer Price Index/Bureau of Labor Statistics