Ron Johnson Against the Constitution? Tell Me It’s Not So Ron!

1 Comment


As Red State reports 26 Republican Senators voted for the anti-business amendment imposing a state tax on internet transactions.  This is done under the progressive mythology of fairness, but fairness to who?  This from Red State.

On the Republican side, perhaps the most egregious vote was the Enzi amendment to allow states to form a cartel and collect internet sales taxes for other states.  The so-called Market Fairness Act passed in the form of a second degree amendment by 75-24, with the support of 26 Republicans.

The Tenth Amendment Center clearly shows the intent of the Constitution.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.

Sadly the TEA Party favorite Ron Johnson was among the traitors to free enterprise and the Constitution. The intent of the Commerce Clause of the constitution was to promote free trade between the states, competition between the states promotes lower prices and taxes for all.  This act is a protectionist act that punishes the consumer and rewards the politicians and the states that impose draconian taxes on it’s victims.

Of course Ron was not alone in this act Senator Roy Blunt is a champion of this treasonous act.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and other lawmakers want to close that sales-tax loophole for customers and online retailers alike, arguing that the system favors Internet companies over brick-and-mortar stores.

“It’s wrong for the government to penalize some businesses over others,” Blunt said this month as the Senate debated legislation that would allow states to collect sales tax for online purchases made from out-of-state retailers. “This is the fair thing to do.”

What part of  TEA (Taxed Enough Already) did you guys miss?  Mr Blunt, it’s wrong to penalize any business, period!  The sales tax imposed by most states already exceeds the paltry Tea Tax that helped spark the original revolution.  Every state imposes taxes in different ways, some tax clothing . . . some don’t so what is the regulatory expense going to be on these online retailers.

Ron Paul nailed it on the head when he said:

The Internet Tax Mandate also violates the original purpose of the Commerce Clause, which was to guarantee free trade among the states. Instead, the bill would allow states to levy taxes on goods crossing into their state, which is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Why should California be able to force a business in Texas to collect and pay California sales tax?

When considering any economic proposal, the unseen, potential ramifications must be examined. This mandate could discourage online commerce and stifle the growth of new businesses, exactly the opposite of what we need if we want to expand entrepreneurship and revive our economy. In addition, the long arm of Big Government would reach for companies operating in states currently lacking a sales tax.

Those brick-and-mortar businesses worried about competition from the Internet marketplace and wanting to “level the playing field” should instead focus on ways to decrease the burden of regulations and lessen government’s effect on a company’s bottom line. Reduced operational costs can lead to more competitive prices.

The National Internet Tax Mandate provides yet another example of the corporatism so prevalent in the “solutions” legislators are quick to propose—big business getting together with Big Government to step on the taxpayers and smaller competitors—and should be soundly rejected by those interested in restoring a vibrant economy.

Ron isn’t that one of the things that you were fighting against?  The Regulatory expense imposed on businesses.  I post Judge Nepolitano’s video regularly . . . I guess I have to repeat it regularly until you guys get it.

Ron you are a disappointment!

Update

Ron saw the light and Voted against this act that should be appropriately labeled “The Marketplace Extortion Act”  For more information.

http://www.teapartyperspective.com/2013/05/06/the-marketplace-extortion-act/#more-2647

MAC Get’s Spanked

1 Comment


MAC (Media Action Center) is crying the blues.  Broadcast Blues that is.  Sue Wilson (the founder) has been trying for years to silence Conservative Talk Radio. She even had an exchange with Top conservative Talker Rush Limbaugh who gave it to her in spades in SacBee Laments Right-Wing Talk Radio as a “Threat to Democracy”

So at least one conservative was willing to give her a voice.  This Libertarian and life long broadcaster has had several exchanges with her including exchanges on my blog and her own.  The thrust of her argument was that the airwaves were owned by the people aka the government, which I thoroughly trashed here.  She also tried to backdoor the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine” through the “Zapple Doctrine” claiming that the editorializing done by the pundits in talk radio constituted free time for a conservative candidate.  Of course she ignores the part of the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press and their right to editorialize and the fact that Zapple applies to the purchase of advertising not the content of a talk show host.  In the latest post by MAC they all but said the above.

For the Zapple Doctrine to be invoked, the supporters of the opposing candidate would have to specifically ask the station for air time.  If the station refused, the supporters could then appeal to the FCC, but no such Zapple complaint has been made in at least eight years.  Therefore, there was no violation of the Zapple Doctrine by the stations here, and even if there were, that would not be a basis for the denial of a license renewal, since programming has nothing to do with licensing in the first place.(Emphasis mine)

Zapple was and is intended to allow supporters of a candidate to purchase equal time as an opposing candidate, not to be used as a tool do dictate content of a show!

She then goes on to whine.

Perhaps, sir, you have forgotten our telephone conversation last May about this matter.  Perhaps you have forgotten that, on May 24th of this year, I emailed you documents entitled “Formal Complaint to FCC re WISN and WTMJ,” and “addendum:  Formal Complaint to FCC re WISN and WTMJ” citing specific Zapple violations by the stations.  Perhaps you have forgotten that you emailed me back, acknowledging receipt of said complaint.

Perhaps Sue you should again read the emphasised portion of their response.  Shall I repeat it reeeeaaaal Slooow.  “and even if there were, that would not be a basis for the denial of a license renewal, since programming has nothing to do with licensing in the first place.”

For them to dictate programming would be a violation of the first amendment and freedom of the press. Or do you need a primer on the first amendment too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far a the stations serving the public, I would say the arbitron about sums it up.  I do not have access to the Milwaukee arbitrons but if they are anything like Madison more people listen to conservative then liberal and that is not the fault of programming.  I have said this repeatedly, this is sour grapes because no one wants to listen to progressive radio and because of that no stations want to carry it.

New Arbitron ratings paint bleak picture for progressive talk in Madison

Cowards at Voices! (MAC)

2 Comments


The leftist rag out of Madison called Voices deleted the majority of my posts yesterday. I of course don’t try to hide my bias as I clearly state in my about page “MY BIAS”

Marshall Keith a Libertarian who is fighting the abuse of power by modern day progressives of both parties. Marshall is a lifelong Broadcast Engineer.

Of course the Conservative talk show hosts attacked by MAC are open about their bias.  The stations bill them as that and that is what they are selling.  Here is just one of the Talk show hosts attacked.

Vicki calls herself a “converted conservative”, which she credits to her upbringing and a conversation with former Congressman Mark Neumann in her early days of reporting.  Her conservative ideology has been honed and refined over the years; now, Vicki passionately advocates a conservative point-of-view on social and political issues, as well as matters dealing with pop culture and everyday life.
Read more: http://www.newstalk1130.com/pages/mckenna_biopage.html#ixzz2DjfPiLVJ

As opposed to Voices page.

Madison Voices was launched in 2005 as the Allied-Dunns Marsh Community newsletter. We have since expanded our scope, reach, and coverage. We now publish a 16 page paper each month that is posted on our website (www.madisonvoices.com) and we will use this blog to share content and resources between the print editions. “We are each others most valuable resource”. Please join us and let your voice be heard. (Emphasis mine)

It is their paper and they are free to do as they choose, but the hypocrisy is glaring when it comes to the topic we were discussing. They posted three times in one week a leftist activist group (Media Action Center) attempt to shut down right wing talk radio. They did this on November 20, November 25 and November 26.  The actions of MAC are fighting against exactly the rights that this leftist rag are exercising and a right guaranteed by the “First Amendment” right to freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The thrust of Sue Wilson’s argument is the People aka the government owns the airwaves.  This argument is patently false.  The FCC is a regulatory body and even they don’t claim ownership.  Yes like almost all businesses in America broadcast radio is regulated.  The fact that it is a regulatory body is clearly stated on the FCC’s website.

The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and operates as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress.

It is common knowledge that the majority of the media has a left wing bias, the only place that the right wing dominates is AM talk radio and of course she excludes them from the fight.

Dave F. said

NOV 20, 2012 AT 4:31 PM

Sue. Go get a life. This country is based on free speech. Except obviously when a slimy liberal doesn’t like it. I don’t see you trying to silence MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and every other obvious liberal pandering news outlet.

Sue Wilson said

NOV 20, 2012 AT 4:55 PM

Dave, why are you so intent on silencing anything but right-wing views from the airwaves we ALL own? We all don’t own Msnbc or FOX, that’s private enterprise. We DO own CBS and ABC local stations, and if you don’t like what they are doing, prove it and complain to them and the FCC. It’s your right!

Come on Sue can you show ownership of either WTMJ  or WISN?  Yes they are regulated by the FCC as are both satellite and cable.  Even the newswires used by newsprint are regulated by them.  All of the Cable stations get their programming via satellite who’s frequencies are far less then terrestrial.  How may terrestrial licences are there vs satellite.  Can you show ownership of either of the above stations?

All of Fairness Doctrine was found unconstitutional by either the courts or the FCC and was abolished, an offshoot (the Zapple Doctrine) remains.  But as I pointed out to Sue,  Zapple only applies to time bought on the station and not to the time that the pundits spend editorializing (which is covered by freedom of the press.  I posted the following from the renowned FCC attorney.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do.(Emphasis mine) Similarly, a station can take a position on a ballot issue, or on another controversial issue of public importance in their communities without having to provide time to those with opposing viewpoints – allowing stations to fully participate in their communities political life.  Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations even had to give time to those with viewpoints opposed to parties who bought time on a controversial issue if the opponents could not themselves afford to buy time.  The occasional discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine ignores these issues. . . . so no decision was released as to whether the Zapple Doctrine had continuing validity after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine.   Presumably, this policy, even if still valid, would not be applied to talk shows, as the statements of talk show hosts, while certainly biased and pointed in one political direction or another, rarely state outright “go vote for candidate X.” (again emphasis mine)

This is not the first time the left has attacked talk radio Mark Lloyd Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer concocted a plain to force talk radio to subsidize public radio.

The above arguments were deleted but the one that remained brought ad hominem attacks from both Sue and another poster.

Sue Wilson Reports said…

Dear Marshall of Media Trackers,

Let me share some of what’s been said on my blog about this (readers may find the exchange here: http://www.suewilsonreports.com/2012/11/media-action-center-files-legal-action.html ) . . .

In fairness to Sue, she has not censored my comments on her blog, Voices did on theirs. Of course this is still ad-homenem. She can’t show that I am in any way affiliated with Media Trackers and has no bearing on the issues at hand.  But hey I am a Libertarian and by extension one of those “evil capitalist” so hey Media Trackers, if you want to send some money my way, well I won’t turn it down.

The funniest ad-hominem attack came from Proud Badger.

Proud Badger said…

WOW, marshall, you are one scary irrational dude — clicked through to your blog.

Now I know why you post rambling nonsense here about MAC and Ms. Wilson — evidently, you haven’t learned how to organize a train of thought which is why your blog is one massive scroll of rambling.

So how’d that smokin’ ban thing work out fer?

And why do you hate America and the freedoms men and women died for? Freedoms like the right to vote and be represented in a democracy instead of corporate rule?

Don’t you know U.S. history? The American Revolution was to throw the Wal-Mart of its day, East India Tea Company off the back of the colonies because excessive tax breaks and monopoly powers undermined the freedoms of the those living under multinational corporate rule.

Why do you hate Madison, Wisconsin, and the United States of America?

Of course this person shows a leftist revisionist view of history but ignores the fact that we are in fact a “Constitutional Republic” not a “Democracy” and I suggested he/she look at another of my blogposts.  I also asked the question does badger hate all corporations or only those he disagreed with and pointed out the fact that MAC was probably a 501c corporation and that Voices was probably a corporation.  But then the state of Wisconsin is in fact a corporation.

Unless you get vulger or attack another poster (other then me) I do not censor my blog.  But then I don’t pretend to be unbiased and don’t put ” Please join us and let your voice be heard.” on my page.

 

Update

Being active in the fight against smoking bans, I am use to the ad hominem attacks to divert attention from the topic at hand.  And of course it didn’t take long for it to raise it’s ugly head.

Anonymous said…

Isn’t media trackers a couple of guys not-so secretly paid to write stuff by rich benefactors? Franklin, McIver, American Majority are some of the sugar daddies of these pay-for-propaganda writers.

If you read about them by Daniel Bice of JSOnline, you can judge their cred yourself: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/127152603.html

Maybe Marshall and Aue can model what an out-in-the open debate looks like so we can all benefit from both perspectives?

Come on, is that the only tactic the left has when losing an argument?

Media Action Center “The Empire Strikes Back”

4 Comments


It appears the leftist group “Media Action Center” Lost it bid to stifle free speech by using the Zapple doctrine to back door the Fairness Doctrine back into existence. In her blog post Sue Wilson (the founder of Media Action Center) made the claim that I did not know the FCC rules.

 WI Broadcasters Assn knows the rules, don’t you? (1+ / 0-)

See pages 5 and 6.

http://www.gklaw.com/…

By the way, I have been a broadcaster – a NEWS broadcaster since 1987.  Emmy’s, AP, RTNDA awards…  I do get things right.

by Sue Wilson on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:51:16 PM PDT

To Which I responded.

You conveniently ignore the fact that on page four (of your document)  section C  The equal opportunities requirement applies to “legally qualified candidates”   and section D that only opposing candidates are afforded equal time.

In another blog post Mz Wilson was forced to admit that I was in fact correct.

 [new]  Section 315 A Communications Act (3+ / 0-)

This law does say equal time for major party candidates only.  I disagree with that law, but for now, if I can at least get the Democrats represented on radio in the 60 days before an election, rather than Republicans only, that’s a really good start.

by Sue Wilson on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:33:31 PM PDT

But the attack on freedom of speech doesn’t end there.  The Empire has literally struck back with a petition campaign. Of course they make the socialist claim that the “Airwaves are government owned” with the following statement from the petition.

The Media Action Center (“MAC”) and local Milwaukee area residents and members of MAC Ray Grosch and Randall Bryce (declarations attached),oppose the renewal of the broadcast license of station WISN-AM  (“Station”) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,  because existing management is failing to serve the public interest in the community, and is using the publicly owned airwaves with political intent which violates existing FCC rules.  Renewal of said license would detrimentally and irreparably harm the public.

Of course that statement is patently false.  It is true that like many industries Radio is heavily regulated, regulation does not mean ownership!  The vast majority of the regulations are in effect to keep stations from interfering with each other or putting up an even larger transmitter that would overpower smaller stations.  The fact that the Fairness Doctrine was found unconstitutional shows that the government does not have control over content.

How is it that these programs can take political positions without triggering requirements that opposing candidates get equal time? Under FCC rules, unless a candidate’ recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities. In the past, until the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by declaring it to be unconstitutional, even without a candidate appearance, the station would have had an obligation to give both sides of a controversial issue of public importance, such as an election, free time to respond to on-air statements by an announcer. When the doctrine was abolished, stations were free to air pointed programs taking positions on issues, giving rise initially principally to the conservative commentators, and more recently to their more liberal counterparts such as those heard on Air America radio.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do.

In the petition Sue makes the following argument.

According to the FCC, programs must meet three tests to be considered “bonafide news.”  The program must be regularly scheduled, producers must be in control of guests and content, and the program must be non-partisan, not supporting any candidates.

As I pointed out in a previous blog post she is yet again dead wrong. She as most leftist claim to support the “First Amendment” ignore and bastardize it’s intent.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By dictating content they are infringing on the rights of the broadcasters right to free speech and the freedom of the press. As pointed out earlier print media has always had the right to endorse a candidate and it is worth repeating.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do.

The “First Amendment” prohibits the federal government from interfering with the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Compelled speech is just as much an infringement as much as a denial of speech. Here is Judge Andrew Nepolitano’s take on it.

On the other hand, if our rights come from our humanity and our humanity is a gift from God, then we would still enjoy the freedom of speech, whether it is insulated from government interference by the First Amendment or not. The wording of the First Amendment itself gives us a peek at what its authors thought. They wrote: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” It doesn’t say that Congress shall grant freedom of speech; rather, it prohibits Congress from interfering with it. And by referring to free speech as the freedom of speech, the drafters recognized that the freedom of speech already existed before the country that they were founding even came to be.

Of course Sue like all leftist concentrated on the “Scott Walker recall” ignoring the fact that Obama won the election proving that Conservative radio does not have the negative impact that they claim.  They just did not make their case to the public through their outlets.  Their Hypocrisy is also apparent in the fact that they do not hold left wing talk radio to the same standard. Ed Schultz was camped out in Wisconsin pushing for the leftist agenda.

Yet another “Progressive blogger” used similar arguments.

In a statement to Badger Democracy, Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski raised grave concern over this practice:

If it is not illegal it certainly is unethical for these broadcast corporations to be providing propaganda support in a scheme straight out of the Kremlin’s playbook. The employers at WTMJ and the other stations should explain how they are independent of the Walker administration and how their hours and hours of slavishly positive-and now, we see, coordinated-coverage fits within their own ethical guidelines and the rules and laws of Wisconsin and the United States.
The idea that the government can so directly control broadcasters who use public airwaves represents a major crisis for Wisconsin journalism.
A fellow member of “Media Action Center” Andrew defended Sue with the following comment.

AndrewR
Jun 14, 2012 @ 03:59:43 [Edit]

I seriously doubt that.
a) Even during the election cycles, the shows are free to be as partisan and one-sided as always whenever the topic is not about that current election.
b) How could constructive debate of both sides put them out of business? In fact, some of the most exciting and entertaining radio is when both sides are allowed to hash it out together. Why is WISN and WTMJ so afraid of that?
Progressive talk shows already have plenty of conservative guests on for debate. Take for example, http://www.thomhartmann.com/
3 million+ listeners tune in to hear him debate multiple conservative guests on almost every show. Why can’t Belling, Sykes, or McKenna do that?

Here is a classic example of Thom’s fair and balanced approach to Journalism.

Of course you don’t see Libertarians like me or even Conservatives calling for these shows taken off the air.  But then you don’t see any of us using class warfare,gender warfare or race baiting to make our case.  But there are warnings from the past on those that do.

Of course it is not only free speech that these “Progressives” are going after.  Your privacy is at stake.

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans’ electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans’ correspondence stored on systems not offered “to the public,” including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant — or subsequent court review — if they claim “emergency” situations exist.

✭ Says providers “shall notify” law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to “10 business days.” This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Update

I have frequently pointed out in the past that no one listens to liberal radio, that’s why Air America failed!  They were both in the progressive areas of Wisconsin and Milwaukee and yet they failed.  Freedom of choice dictates that if you don’t like the content you simply change the dial!

Rush put it eloquently.

RUSH:  All right, a couple more little blurbs here.  Sacramento Bee, Sue Wilson: “Considering a 2003 Gallup poll showing that 22 percent of Americans get their information from talk radio, we’re not just talking about what is fair play; we are talking about a threat to the democracy we hold dear.”  Lib talk radio dying. Lib talk radio “has been taken off the air in Boston; Fresno; San Diego; Madison, Wis.; Eugene, Ore.; Austin, Texas; New Haven, Conn.; Columbus, Ohio and other markets all across the country,” because it failed, because it got no listeners.  But yet there’s this 2003 Gallup poll showing that “22% of Americans get their information from talk radio.  We’re not just talking about what’s fair play.

He also said;

Let me answer your question, Sue. Corporate dollars are not the sole arbiter of what information you the people get to hear on publicly owned airwaves. Your little lib station, your little lib programming has had a couple of opportunities in Sacramento. Nobody wanted to listen to it. Corporations are not required to lose money in order to present a point of view and in such a way that irritates people just so there is so-called fairness.

 

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Accuses the Rest of the Story Author of Being Unprofessional

2 Comments


Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Accuses the Rest of the Story Author of Being Unprofessional 

 

I disagree with Dr Siegel on the issue of smoking bans, but I would never question his integrity!  He is one of the very few within the Tobacco Control Movement that is willing to stand on what he believes is sound science. A lot of earlier links to his works are broken as are a lot of mine when I was with “Ban the Ban Wisconsin”

There are only two people in the “Tobacco Control” movement that I have any respect for and that is the good “Dr Siegel” and “Martin Pion” of MoGASP although I am losing faith in the latter as I have been banished from his site without explanation.  Both are members of the FDA shadow panel.

I defended Dr Siegel several years ago while working with “Ban the Ban Wisconsin” not because I agreed with him but because of his integrity.  One can disagree with someone and still respect them for their integrity.  Science is not as simple as 2+2=4, and it is even less so when it comes to statistics, and the entirety of smoking bans are based on statistics! And as Mark Twain said in his autobiography said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”

It is one thing to disagree with someone, it is quite another to attack their integrity.  This is not the first time that Dr Siegel has been attacked! The other time I defended him they attempted to get him fired from his job at the Boston University School of Public Health.  Again my post at “Ban the Ban” is gone and I can’t find his post from that period, but it did happen. But to put the good doctors words in perspective.

As a primarily science-based movement, public health is supposed to have room for those who dissent from consensus opinions based on reasonable scientific grounds. To argue that those who fail to conclude that the small relative risk for lung cancer of 1.3 among persons exposed to secondhand smoke is indicative of a causal connection are comparable to Holocaust deniers is to turn public health into a religion, where the doctrines must be accepted on blind faith to avoid being branded as a heretic.

While I personally believe the evidence is sufficient to conclude that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer, there are a considerable number of reputable scientists who have come to different conclusions. While I believe those scientists are wrong, I would never argue that they are denialists, nor would I ever compare their dissent with Holocaust denial.

Diethelm and McKee appear to be basing their assessment that secondhand smoke “dissenters” are “denialists” not on the reasonableness of the scientific arguments, but on the position of these arguments. This is a dangerous proposition which threatens the integrity of public health by turning it into a purely ideological movement, rather than a scientific one.

Again my links are broken but those are the words of Dr Siegel, if I could find the original article Diethelm and McKee compared those of us fighting the bans as flat earther’s yet it was those very people that tried to use consensus and political might to suppress the opposition.

As much taxpayer money that is being spent in the name of “Big Pharma” and in the name of Tobacco Control” it is time for a full fledged investigation into the spending and grants into this prohibitionist movement.  A lot of the money funding this movement came from extortion from the Master Settlement Agreement, when in history was any group forced through force of law, forced to fund the lobby group lobbying against them.  Where the Jews forced to fund the Nazi party?  Where the blacks forced to fund the KKK? But in modern america it is acceptable to force smokers to fund the very people lobbying against them? And even with the billions of dollars they have extorted they still demand more through more punitive taxes!  When does it all end!

The Taxing Power and the Public’s Health

1 Comment


Previously I have written on Taxation As a Tool for Nannie Statism where I show in my state that tobacco products are taxed between 70 to 100% of the wholesale price of the product and that is just the state.  The Federal government as part of SCHIP raised taxes on some products as high as 2200%.

“I’ll say this plainly, I’ve said it before – Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do,” says Judge Andrew Napolitano

“And with apologies to Sinclair Lewis, if fascism comes to America, it will not be waving a flag or a cross, it will be waving a medical chart,” said Colorado state Sen. Shawn Mitchell

There have been many who laughed at those of us who talked about the slippery slope of “Nanny Statism”  Well we have been proven correct and we are not laughing.  This from The New England Journal of Medicine.

Many observers feared that the Supreme Court decision on the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)1 would endorse a breathtaking expansion of the role of the federal government in regulating health matters. And it did — but not in the anticipated way. While enunciating limits on the commerce and spending powers, the Court opened the door for Congress to use its taxing power to achieve myriad policy objectives. The federal government may now increasingly join state and local governments in making creative use of taxes to pursue public health goals, though political obstacles may block immediate action.

They go on to say.

The federal government has long used taxes to achieve public health goals, but in fairly limited ways. Taxes and tax penalties for individuals have generally been confined to products that cause health harms and associated social costs, such as tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and pollutants. Taxing of activities is rarer and confined to economic transactions; most recently, the ACA imposed a 10% tax on tanning-salon services. Broader use has been made of tax penalties and incentives to influence corporations to refrain from activities that threaten health, such as environmental contamination, or to engage in health-promoting activities such as subsidizing health insurance and wellness programs.

Roberts’s opinion appears to invite more targeted, assertive interventions to promote public health. For example, instead of merely taxing tobacco sales, the federal government could require individuals to pay a tax penalty unless they declare that they haven’t used tobacco products during the year. It could give a tax credit to people who submit documentation that their body-mass index is in the normal range or has decreased during the year or to diabetic persons who document that their glycated hemoglobin levels are controlled. It could tax individuals who fail to purchase gym memberships. It could require taxpayers to complete an annual health improvement plan with their physician in order to obtain a tax credit, though that might be challenged under other parts of the Constitution. These strategies depart from traditional uses of taxes by targeting omissions and noncommercial activities that are important drivers of chronic disease.

State and local governments, too, can pursue such strategies. Levying taxes to achieve regulatory aims — even taxes resembling mandates with penalties — is well within their police-power authority. They’ve wielded this power to impose various “sin” taxes on unhealthful products, as well as in more innovative ways, such as the insurance mandate with an SRP that Massachusetts pioneered. The Court ruling makes clear that the federal government can enter territory historically dominated by the states.

Freedom is on the line, individual rights are on the line!

 

Update

The Determinators:

Whoever Pays Holds the Power to Decide

Badger Democracy Revisited

Leave a comment


A couple of weeks ago I took on a progressive blogger because of his attacks on Talk radio. The exchange quickly turned to economics.  He said:

There is too much here to discuss in a comment response. If you are hanging your economic hat on Friedman, I’m sorry. He and his followers have been wrong in so many ways about his so-called “free market” theories. Friedman’s theories put into practice are directly responsible for worldwide dissolution and collapse of middle class working economies. The only reason his economics are still practiced is revisionist history and those in power profiting greatly from the outcome. Greed as the driving force – you are missing the point. Friedman has always misrepresented the work of Adam Smith – ignoring the moral imperative in his work. “Superior prudence,” Smith said, “is the best head joined to the best heart.” But over the years, economics instructors have edited out Smith’s “moral sentiments” — leaving only the impression that the “invisible hand” of free markets can magically convert individual greed into mutual benefit. Much ignored today is the fact that Smith was pro regulation – The purpose of banking regulations was to oblige “all of them to be more circumspect in their conduct, and by not extending their currency beyond its due proportion to their cash, to guard themselves against the ruinous runs, which the rivalship of so many competitors is always ready to bring upon them” (Wealth of Nations).

On the invisible hand comment Right from Smiths wealth of nations page 363,

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Page 19

Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do
this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which
you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this
manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of
those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the
benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase.

On regulation page 112;

A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. It connects individuals who might never otherwise be known to one another, and gives every man of the trade a direction where to find every other man of it.
A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves, in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.
An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes
the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade, an
effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law, with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever.
The pretence that corporations are necessary for the better government of the trade, is without any foundation. The real and
effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman, is not that
of his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear of losing
their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.

Badger then goes on to say:

 . . .  As for your definition of fascism – to imply that progressive policies in any way reflect fascism is laughable. And by the way…the founders NEVER intended pure laissez faire capitalism. Our current state of corporate capitalist-dominated politics was one of their worst nightmares.

It is not my definition of fascism it is your fellow progressives that have made that distinction.

Of course you ignore the fact that it is the Progressives that took the money supply from the Department of  Treasury and created a private corporation called the FED who they also gave control of the banks.

From the FED’s own page.

The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress.

In recent history the progressives passed the PACT Act under the guise of stopping the trafficking of cigarettes. it did nothing to reduce trafficking  it was nothing more then a protective measure to protect the states that imposed abusive taxes on it’s citizens. With the added benefit of “nanny statism” Then we move on to The Main Street Fairness Act which has the same protectionist attitude as the PACT Act but applies it to sales tax. It ignores the fact that competition lowers cost even when it comes to taxation.  Adam Smith even covers this.

Page 361

That this monopoly of the home market frequently gives great
encouragement to that particular species of industry which enjoys
it, and frequently turns towards that employment a greater share
of both the labour and stock of the society than would otherwise
have gone to it, cannot be doubted. But whether it tends either to
increase the general industry of the society, or to give it the most
advantageous direction, is not, perhaps, altogether so evident.
The general industry of the society can never exceed what the
capital of the society can employ. As the number of workmen that
can be kept in employment by any particular person must bear a
certain proportion to his capital, so the number of those that can
be continually employed by all the members of a great society
must bear a certain proportion to the whole capital of the society,
and never can exceed that proportion. No regulation of commerce
can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what
its capital can maintain. It can only divert a part of it into a direction
into which it might not otherwise have gone;

It is quite lengthy but Joseph T. Salerno did a video called “Keynes and the “New Economics” of Fascism”

 

 

Older Entries Newer Entries