Followers

Friday, June 20, 2014

The Quick Fix President

The Quick Fix President and the Low Information Administration
© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 6.19.14

It has been reported that President Obama is bored with being President.  He does not have the support of Congress and has decided to go it alone.  He gets his news from the morning newspapers and claims to have been surprised by many of the recent “crises”.

This has resulted in many quick fix (not well thought out) executive orders and spin/lies that have back fired. In early 2014, while touring Monticello with French President François Hollande he said “That’s the thing about being president; I can do whatever I want”.[1] He later stated he had a pen and a phone and would take action unilaterally.

“The President has come to the conclusion that his administration is not going to accomplish its goals.  He knows the economy is not going to turn around. He knows Obamacare is not going to be popular. And he understands that his job approval rating will likely remain below 50 percent. Therefore, the President has concluded that public opinion really doesn't matter anymore.”[2]

I just heard Brit Hume say that “most of the recent “crises” were politically manageable but for the spin, lies and cover-ups propagated by the administration.” He also said when asked why the president seems to be perpetually caught off guard by developing events: “This is an administration," Hume declared, "that is one of almost unimaginable incompetence and disengagement. It's not clear to me that the intelligence agencies aren't trying to keep the administration informed, but I don't know that this president is paying much attention. I think he's overwhelmed, I don't think he knows what to do. This president is smart enough, but he is not wise enough for the job, in my judgment. The chickens are coming home to roost and they're coming home in droves."[3]

Most of us know that, at least since the Watergate (Nixon) debacle, the cover-up is worse than the truth. But this administration is truth challenged.

IRAQ

Iraq is coming apart at the seams as an Al Qaeda linked group (State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) takes over greater and greater portions of the country.  In our hast to end the war (quick fix) we did not leave the necessary contingency force to support the Iraqi army thereby creating a void which is being rapidly filled by these radical extremists. Our generals warned the administration that this would happen. But the administration did not listen.  As Senator McCain recently said, fire your CREW and get some experienced people to advise you.

Even though 70 percent of Americans supported ending the war, I believe we had an obligation to protect our investment (4,500 dead, well over 32,000 wounded Americans and $1 Trillion) in that country.  This includes heavy military equipment that the Iraqi army abandoned and is now under the control of ISIS who we are now (8.8.14) bombing.

The prime minister of Iraq came here in October 2013 begging for more support.  So we have known about this problem for at least 8 months, probably more.  But the administration claims to have been surprised and has no plan going forward.

You can be sure that we will have to fight these bad guys.  The question is whether we fight them over there or HERE.

The Sergeant Bowe Bergdah Swap

I am happy to have Mr. Bergdah home but I think we gave up too much in the exchange.  Was it because, as Mr. Obama says, he made the exchange because he believed the Sergeant's life was in danger? Was it because Mr. Obama wants to close gitmo and it might be easier if it was cleared of the most hardened criminals?

It now appears that Mr. Bergdah’s health is good according to his doctors.  And was it necessary for Susan Rice to appear on national television to proclaim that he “served with honor and distinction?” (spin/lies)  Was it necessary for Mr. Obama to have a ceremony at the White House celebrating Mr. Bergdah’s release and allow his father to speak in Pashto and thank Allah for his mercy? (spin/lies)

“Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer’s apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you’ve turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.

President Obama did this to himself (and to Bergdahl). This beautifully educated man, who never tires of letting us know how much smarter he is than the rest of us, never stopped to consider that our troops and their families might have been offended by their commander-in-chief staging a love-fest at the White House to celebrate trading five top terrorists for one deserter and featuring not the families of those soldiers (at least six of them) who died in the efforts to find and free Bergdahl, but, instead, giving a starring role on the international stage to Pa Taliban, parent of a deserter and a creature of dubious sympathies (that beard on pops ain’t a tribute to ZZ Top).

How do you say “outrageous insult to our vets” in Pashto?”[4]

Mrs. Clinton claims that the five swapped enemy combatants are not a threat to the U.S. but rather a threat to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.  If that is true just think of the curse we have unleashed on the innocent people of those countries and the World!  She also ascribes to the tradition that we not leave soldiers on the field, as I do, but the war is not over and swaps and trades are premature.  I also believe in the tradition of NOT negotiating with terrorists, I guess Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do not.  How convenient to believe in traditions when they suit your purpose and the same goes for laws, laws which were broken by the administration when they did not inform Congress.  Oh, I guess it was just a matter on convenience!  

VA

Despite promises to improve the way the VA services our veterans (going back to 2007) nothing was done.  In fact, as the result of appointing incompetent administrators, things got worse-even criminal.  The persons charged with caring for our vets were more concerned with their promotions and bonuses than with doing their job which lead to lying and cheating.

The VA hospital system is unique in that it is the only system operated solely by FedGov.  It has no competition and no benchmarks to compare itself to in order to access its effectiveness. It is inefficient and bloated.

Mr. Obama claims to have been surprised by recent revelations at the VA (spin/lies); however, the record shows that numerous warnings had been given the administration going back several years.

It should be eliminated and replaced with a market based system whereby FedGov purchases an insurance policy for every veteran which would allow them to get the care they need at the place of their choosing.

Obamacare

The implementation of Obamacare was a disaster due again to incompetent administrators. The administration has told us that Obamacare would result in lower premiums and would help reduce the deficit (spin/lies).  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) once said Obamacare would save $120 Billion, but now they say they just don’t know.  For their latest comments see here… 

We have been sold a bill of goods because you cannot increase benefits without increasing premiums.  There is no need for a Ph.D. in economics to understand that concept. Moreover, the cost of Medicaid will skyrocket and Obamacare will not decrease the number of uninsured over the long term.  See a recent Wall Street Journal here…..

And do not forget, we out sourced the development of the failed web site to a Canadian company (CGI) pursuant to a $678 million no bid contract-fishy? That work could have surely been done by a U.S. company. We cannot make toys competitively but we surely can write code! See this article for more: Red Flags? Company behind Obamacare site has checkered past.  Moreover, a CGI official happened to be a classmate of Michelle Obama-fishy? See this article for more: White House Logs Show Visits by CGI Official, Classmate of Michelle Obama.

Huh, a $678,000,000.00 no bid contract… I could go for that.

And on top of it all, we spent untold millions to fix that inadequate web site.  The actual number has not been disclosed because no one really knows—FedGov just writes checks and more checks with absolutely no accountability.

Obamacare is administered by FedGov (or a few States that have to follow the federal model).  It is unique in that it uses health insurance policies to pay the private clinics, hospitals, doctors, nurses and is paid for by users of the system except for those dumped off to the Medicaid system. Obamacare sets minimum coverage requirements for the insurance policies and restricts the insurance companies’ ability to price their product based on their assessment of risk. 

Because Obamacare relies on insurance companies to provide the needed policies (and due to their inability to price their policies in the traditional way) Obamacare added an incentive for them. Obamacare guarantees that the insurance companies’ earn net income of 3% of the policy premiums collected.  In other words, the risk that insurance companies traditionally assumed has been eliminated. If they lose money or net less than the guaranteed amount FedGov will write them a check (bailout).

So, under Obamacare, FedGov writes the rules of the game and in order to get the players (insurance companies) to play they are guaranteed a profit (quick fix).

For more see my article on the subject here…  Also see Peggy Noonan’s comments here…

Benghazi

The terrorists who attacked the consulate in Benghazi were intent upon capturing or killing Ambassador Stevens and they were successful. There was no protest.  It was not the result of a video. It was a well planned attack carried out on September 11, a very sensitive day for all Americans.

Susan Rice claimed that the attack resulted from a video and that the White House had no part in developing the talking points she used while making her remarks (spin/lies).  But now:

"Susan Rice said she did the Sunday talk shows (blaming the attack on video-spin/lies) because it had been a ‘painful’ and ‘stressful’ week for then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Heck, I guess lying to families and knowing you had abandoned Americans to die can be stressful -- really sucks for Amb. Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glenn Doherty." Allen West

Politico has reported that American special operators and law enforcement agents captured (on Sunday) a key suspect in the 2012 Benghazi attack and that Ahmed Abu Khatallah is “in U.S. custody in a secure location outside of Libya.

We’ve known about this jerk for two years. He was the one who sat outside in a hotel, giving an interview to Time magazine only five weeks after the attack. We’ve known his whereabouts — so why now?

Is it a convenient shift from the countless evident failures of Obama?  Is it because it is an election year and the Democrats need something to crow about?

And they are going to bring the SOB to the U.S. for trial so he will get lawyered up after being read his Miranda rights and that will be the end of it. And why would this “unlawful enemy combatant” be granted legal rights? He should be sent to Gitmo like all other enemy combatants.” Paraphrased from Allen West’s comments on Face book.

For more see my article on the subject here…

IRS

“I’d really like to get rid of the IRS and its criminal conduct of playing politics with the law and the tax code that chokes the life out of our economy.” Mike Huckabee

The Chicago Way: Deceive, Distract, Deny and Delay.  And now after a year of attempting to get subpoenaed documents the IRS claims critical emails were lost!  Unbelievable!  More spin/lies. See more here…

And Mr. Obama said there is not a “smidgen of corruption” at the IRS.[5] More spin/lies.

Immigration

We have been assured that the borders are secure.  How we hear of a surge of new immigrants many of whom are children. And the administration seems to be caught by surprise. This is happening precisely because of the president’s executive order (quick fix) stating that young people brought here by their undocumented parents will not be deported.

These immigrants have been told (by their local press/governments) that this is the time to immigrate to the US because they will not be deported.  This information is being disseminated due to the administration’s selective enforcement of the law and the president’s executive order.

Tuesday morning President Obama honored beneficiaries of his decision to “lift the shadow of deportation” from illegal immigrants who are Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients via executive order (those who would have qualified for citizenship under the DREAM Act if it had passed by Congress but was not). Was this really necessary as our border patrol agents are being overwhelmed by the influx of children and their families flooding across the border as a result of this same executive order?

Finally

 “When Putin invaded Crimea, America was caught by surprise. When terrorists killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, America was caught by surprise. When the V.A. scandal broke in Phoenix Arizona, the administration was caught by surprise. When thousands of children started illegally walking across the southern border it was a surprise in Washington.

And now, with Iraq on the verge of collapse, guess what? They are surprised. But the President says they are working hard on the problem.

President Obama does appear disengaged from vital problems all over the world and it looks like American voters are starting to understand that. New Gallup poll asks does President Obama manage government effectively. 39 percent say yes; 60 percent say no. Then this question: does President Obama have a clear plan for solving the country's problems? -- 34 percent say yes; a whopping 65 percent no.

Let me put that number into perspective for you; 34 percent of Americans will approve of whatever Barack Obama does. It doesn't matter to them. They just like him and that's that. So the President is virtually getting a no confidence vote from every other person in the country. That's amazing.” O’Reilly.

Summary

We have an administration that is disintegrating before our eyes not unlike Iraq.  The administration gets its information like we do, from the daily news!  An administration that has a quick fix for any problem without much thought of the consequences and, therefore, no contingency plans for possible problems that might develop as a result. And an administration of, as Mr. Hume puts it, almost unimaginable incompetence and disengagement.

I had a problem finishing my thoughts herein because of the ever increasing revelations but I have to stop somewhere.

God Bless America



The Cost of Health Care

The Cost of Health Care
© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 6.19.14


Cost of health care per person in 2009 was $8,233.00.[1]  This is 2.5 times the average cost incurred by 29 other free market countries.[2] Our cost could be reduced by about half (to $4,117.00) if certain improvements in efficiency are made resulting is a savings of $4 Trillion over ten years.  See this Wall Street Journal article Searching for the True Cost of Health Care.

Broken down further:

  • VA benefit cost per person in 2020 will be $9,770.00[3]
  • Medicaid cost per person in 2008 was $14,780.00[4]
  • Average premium paid for individual health coverage in 2011 was $2,196.00[5]
  • Average premium for Obamacare in was 2013 $3,936.00[6]
  • Medicare costs per capita in 2009 was $9,702.00[7]
In order to arrive at a realistic estimation of the real cost of healthcare we can discard the individual health coverage component because is no longer available, thanks to Obamacare. We know that the Medicaid component is wildly out of hand due to abuse and fraud and that the VA component is higher than it needs to be because of inefficiency and waste.  Further, we know that Medicare is ridden with fraud and abuse and that ten percent of the beneficiaries rack up more than $55,000.00 in annual costs vs. the average of $9,702.00.[8]

Therefore, it would appear that a reasonable average price for a policy for a covered person should be around $4,000.00 per year. If this could be accomplished it would save about $4 Trillion over a ten year period

I think we should explore moving our veterans, federal employees, persons on Medicaid and Medicare and any others who wish to participate into a market based system which uses private insurance companies (competing nationwide) to provide policies for these individuals so that they can get the care they need at the place of their choosing. The goal should be to provide reasonable benefits while keeping the average cost per capita at around $4,000.00 annually.

Some would argue that a government provided “single payer” system would be better; however, I believe that a competition based market system is more efficient than that of a bureaucratic system.  I mean, I would rather have a private company negotiate with the providers and drug companies and pay claims than a government bureaucrat.

We also need to reduce the cost of business for the healthcare providers by limiting malpractice claims and, therefore, malpractice insurance costs and encourage providers to share information and test results and encourage billing based on costs rather than on a fee schedule.  We need to aggressively look for fraud and abuse where ever it can be found and eliminate it.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

FedGov and Healthcare

FedGov and Healthcare
© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 5.21.14
  
The VA health Care system is run entirely by FedGov.  FedGov operates the clinics and hospitals, employs the doctors, nurses and support personnel.  It is unique in that regard and it is a mess. Further, the VA hospital system has no competition and no benchmarks to compare itself to in order to access its effectiveness. It is inefficient and bloated.There are long wait times for needed services, inadequate service (when it's provided) and most recently it has come to light that there has been fraud committed as it relates to reporting of wait times and services provided. Cost per person is about $10,000.00 annually.

See this video of Megyn Kelly interviewing Charles Krauthammer. 
See this video of O’Reilly Slamming the Administration on VA Scandal.
See this video of Charles Krauthammer on how the Obama administration is handling the VA scandal.
See this video of Megyn Kelly 5.21.14

  • Duncan Hunter a representative from California said "all government organizations run like this. Its just that no one dies.  This is what government Bureaucracy‎ brings you.  Obamacare will look like this in 10 years. This is government run bureaucracy - it is not compassionate."

And as it turns out, the very people (administrators,doctors, nurses and others) assigned to provide care for our vets are members of a UNION and apparently are more concerned with their pay and advancement then with taking care of our of our vets.

The Medicaid (welfare) system is funded entirely by FedGov but it uses private clinics, hospitals, doctors, nurses. And, it is a mess.  Ask your doctor how he or she feels about Medicaid.  Mine and many many others refuse to see people covered by Medicaid because FedGov will not pay them enough to make a profit on the services rendered.  Additionally, there is rampant waste, fraud and misuse of this system.  Cost per person is about $15,000.00 annually.

The Medicare system is funded by workers by having a portion of every paycheck withheld and sent to a trust fund which FedGov administers.  The system is funded by FedGov in times of shortages in the trust fund.  The system uses private clinics, hospitals, doctors, nurses who are paid by FedGov from the trust fund.  It is a mess but not as bad as the first two.  FedGov pays the service providers more under this system than under the Medicaid system, however, there is rampant waste, fraud and misuse of the system.  Cost per person is about $8,000.00 annually.

Obamacare is administered by FedGov (or a few States that have to follow the federal model).  It is unique in that it uses health insurance policies to pay the private clinics, hospitals, doctors, nurses and is paid for by users of the system except for those dumped off to the Medicaid system. Obamacare sets minimum coverage requirements for the insurance policies and restricts the insurance companies’ ability to price their product based on their assessment of risk.  For example, historically, the health insurance premiums for a man were less than that of a woman the same age. This was because, as a general rule, females consumed more services than males; therefore the risk involved to cover a female with a policy was higher. This was not discrimination because the numbers proved that this was so.  I wonder if the higher consumption of health service contributes to the fact that females live longer than males.

Obamacare requires that the premium be the same in this circumstance, regardless of the risk involved. There many other examples of this type of situation which results in antiquating the traditional business model followed by insurance companies as they become minions of FedGov.  But, they are smart and will figure a way to exploit the system set up by Obamacare. Cost per person in 2013 was about $4,000.00 annually, excluding bailout funds.

Because Obamacare relies on insurance companies to provide the needed policies (and due to their inability to price their policies in the traditional way) Obamacare added an incentive for them. Obamacare guarantees that the insurance companies’ earn net income of 3% of the policy premiums collected.  In other words, the risk that insurance companies traditionally assumed has been eliminated. If they lose money or net less than the guaranteed amount FedGov will write them a check (bailout).



So, under Obamacare FedGov writes the rules of the game and in order to get the players (insurance companies) to play they are guaranteed a profit.

What a deal, I wish I was in the health insurance business.

The point of this is to show that FedGov cannot manage. Their mismanagement costs the taxpayers’ money thru higher taxes.  Maybe the whole idea that FedGov be in the health care business should be scrapped and privatized.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Benghazi

Benghazi
© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 5.17.14

For those of you who are tired of hearing about the Benghazi affair let me try to explain why it will not go away. The four who died were civilian U.S. citizens who were serving our country as employees of the State Department. They were not soldiers. They did not sign up to shoot and be shot at. They could have been any of you or your loved ones. They deserved to be protected, however, they were neglected and abandoned by Hillary’s State Department and the President and they were murdered as a result.

The terrorists who attacked the consulate were intent upon capturing or killing Ambassador Stevens and they were successful. There was no protest. It was a well planned attack carried out on September 11, a very sensitive day for all Americans.

Even though Congress subpoenaed all records related to
Benghazi many months ago it took a lawsuit by Legal Watch to finally produce the email which is the cause of the latest uproar. If the White House had produced the email when Congress asked for it maybe this would all be over but they did not. This makes it look like a cover up and like the administration can just ignore requests made by Congress. Read more... 


It appears that the administration covered up its failures and lied about what happened to the American public. I mean, the truth could not be allowed to be told just weeks before the 2012 election because the truth might have caused the election to go the other way. Additionally, President Obama had already announced that Al Qaeda had been decimated and was on the run. How would it have played out if the American people had been told that Al Qaeda attacked and killed four of our citizens including an Ambassador after they had been assured that the attackers had already been decimated?

"Susan Rice said she did the Sunday talk shows because it had been a "painful" and "stressful" week for then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Heck, I guess lying to families and knowing you had abandoned Americans to die can be stressful -- really sucks for Amb. Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glenn Doherty." by Allen West

You know good and well that the white house, when preparing their damage control, went down the chain of command in deciding who should appear on the Sunday talk shows. They asked Hillary (the logical candidate because she was in command) then General Petraeus (because as head of the
CIA he had all available information) who both probably said Hell No (they would not lie) and they ended up with Ms. Rice who said she would do it. By doing so she forfeited the Secretary of State job but she did end up with a nice high paying white house job.

"“If that was stressful for Hillary, then she ain't ready to be Commander-in-Chief, EVER. Rice said recently "she does not have time to think about a false controversy" when pressed about
Benghazi. That lying pawn, I wonder if she can look into the eyes of Ty Woods' young son and tell him his dad's death was a false controversy. Obama, Clinton, Rice are the embodiment of that which I despise: cowards and liars. Talk about "false."” by Allen West.

And finally, the armed security on the ground was reduced from 30 to about 7 people during the months leading up to the attack despite objections by the commander in charge as well as Ambassador Stevens. Why?  Once the attack began our military did nothing to stop it. Why?  The General in charge (General Lovell) said “we should have tried," Read more… http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/01/benghazi-testimony-africom-general/8554559/

And so it goes….check out this special report hosted by Brett Bair, it is very insightful.
 Read more...

Don't Brett Bair's special '13 Hours at Benghazi' airing Friday (9.5.14) at 10pmET, Saturday at 5pmET and 9pmET, and Sunday at 8pmET and 11pmET.

It smells like a cover up.  If not,  then FedGov was ultra grossly incompetent,  at the very least.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

GUN CONTROL

Gun Control II 
© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 3.25.14

An open letter to those who are against guns.

I grew up in the early 1960s hearing discussions about gun control.  Especially after the assassinations of political figures during that period.  One of the underlying themes of these discussions was “if you take guns away from law abiding citizens only criminals will be armed.”

I have continued to hear various arguments about gun control my entire life. So let me give you some facts.

Only around 30 percent of households maintain guns in their homes (a record low and it is declining.) ([1])  Most of these guns are locked away and only used for hunting, target shooting or as collector items.  You will never see them!

About eight million Americans had concealed-carry permits as of 2012, the Government Accountability Office said in what it called a conservative estimate.([2])  Concealed-carry means that no one in the general public is very likely to see these guns because there are penalties for exposing them.  In addition, these people must undergo classroom training, shooting range training and an FBI background check including fingerprints and the like.  They have to be upstanding citizens who have had no serious legal problems.  They assume enormous responsibility and potential liability when they get a permit.  These folks are not likely to bother you! Criminals do not know who is a concealed carrier so they are less likely to bother any Citizen in a jurisdiction that allows concealed carry.

In order for a Citizen to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed gun dealer (even at gun shows) a detailed form must be completed and the dealer must call that information in to the FBI for verification that the purchaser is not a felon, not a domestic abuser, not an obvious illegal substance abuser and not an obvious mental defect.  This check is less extensive than the one for a concealed carry permit and is only as good as the FBI’s database. That database is built based on information reported to the FBI by Federal and State law enforcement agencies and Courts.  Currently the main weakness seems to be in the reporting of “mental defects.”

There is no restriction on the sale or exchange of a legally owned firearm between individual Citizens unless the seller knows or has knowledge that the buyer is a felon, is a domestic abuser, is an obvious illegal substance abuser or has an obvious mental defect.  There is no requirement to check with the FBI. This is the way it is because, as the argument goes, if granddad wants to give his grandson or granddaughter one of his guns he should be able to do so without interference from FedGov.

Note that all new guns must be purchased from a licensed dealer and are subject to background checks.  Only used guns can be sold or exchanged between individual Citizens without such checks, as explained above.

The violation of any of the rules associated with purchase of a weapon, as summarized above, can result in sever penalties, fines or imprisonment.

There is no Federal registry of gun owners; however, each licensed gun dealer must keep the paperwork related to each sale for as long as he or she has a license.  This provides a paper trail, from the manufacturer to the dealer to the purchaser, if it is ever needed.  So, there is a registry of gun owners and it is regulated by ATF it’s just not administered by FedGov. 

Gun owners fear that if FedGov is allowed to keep and administer a national registry of gun owners the next step would be confiscation.  See the discussion about Australia and the U.K, below. 

Therefore, the purchase and sale of firearms between law abiding Citizens and dealers is well regulated although, one could argue that a sale or exchange between individual Citizens should be subjected to background checks required of dealers and that the reporting of mental issues be improved.

Now, we come to the real problem.  The sale or exchange of weapons between criminals violates all of the above rules and is illegal.  A weapon in the hands of a felon is illegal.  The above rules do not apply to criminals because they acquire their weapons and ammunition illegally. Bans on guns based on their looks or magazine capacity do not apply to criminals for the same reason.  And these are the people who commit the vast majority of gun crimes and their guns are illegal today.

At this point I would ask you, if you think that making guns illegal would remove them from the streets then maybe we should make heroin and meth illegal too.  These street guns are already illegal; we are just not enforcing the law very well.  The point is, if you make gun ownership by responsible Citizens illegal only the criminals would have guns.  That would make all of us much less safe because the criminals would know that the citizenry is unarmed and they would be far more brazen.  I would argue that the general public is safer with the situation that we have now than it would be it we made guns illegal.

What we need to do is remove the illegal guns from the streets.  New York, for example, has made enormous progress using its stop, question and frisk policy. Additionally, they have a law that if you are caught with a loaded illegal gun you get a mandatory 3 year sentence. Other large cities should adopt this policy and apply it in the areas that are just too crime ridden for Cops to go into (they exist in all of our big cities). We need to get the guns away from the criminals otherwise who will be left with them when they take ours away?

Note the following:

1.  “… the determination of murder and suicide are basic social, economic and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism. In that connection, recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls.” -Excerpt from “World Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?’ Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30.

2.  The National Institute of Justice’s earliest firearms studies uncovered who owns guns, legally and illegally, and how illegal gun trafficking is tied to juvenile gun violence and other crimes such as drug dealing and gang crime. Highlights of these studies:
  • Many juveniles and young adults can easily obtain guns illegally; most claim to carry them for self-defense.
  • A study of persons arrested for a wide range of crimes showed that a higher percentage of arrestees than regular citizens own firearms. Arrestees are also more likely to be injured or killed by gun violence. Within a community, this amounts to an identifiable group of “career” offenders.
  • Surveys of offenders have found that they prefer newer, high-quality guns and may steal or borrow them; most, however, acquire guns “off the street” through the illicit gun market. ([3])
3.  One might argue that society simply does not need guns.  Many of the people who believe this are surrounded 24/7 by guards who carry guns.  We live in a violent society and, the fact is, the police cannot protect us because we do not have enough of them and cannot afford enough of them to deter all crime. Moreover;

  • Restrictive gun laws create a "Catch-22" for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals. ([4]In 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that the government does not have a constitutional duty to protect people, including abused children, who are not in custody. ([5])   See another example here…
So do not fool yourself into thinking that the police are all you need for protection.  If we remove legal guns from our society our citizens will be overwhelmed by uncontrolled criminal violence.

4. In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.([6] )

5.  The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime.([7])

6.  Mayor Bloomberg and police Commissioner Ray Kelly have staunchly defended the tactic of stop, question and frisk as the centerpiece of a crime-fighting strategy that has driven overall crime down in New York City by more than 30 percent during Bloomberg's three terms in office.([8])

In New York it’s the stop and frisk policy that is reducing the murder rate.  NY has a law which provides for a mandatory three year sentence if you are caught with a loaded illegal gun. Other large cities should adopt this policy and apply it in the areas that are just too crime ridden for Cops to go into (they exist in all of our big cities). 

We need to get the guns away from the criminals, otherwise who will be left with them when they take ours away?

7.  Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware (homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment. Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and "revolving door justice." We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, established to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, CrimeStrike has worked for passage of "truth in sentencing laws" which requires that criminals actually serve at least 85% of time sentenced, "Victim's Bill of Rights" constitutional amendments, and "Three Strikes You're Out" laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one. The longer "gun control" advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action has taken it. ([9])

The above should show us that the current gun control agenda will do nothing to stop gun violence because it is not aimed at the problem but at responsible Citizens.  Regulating guns based on their looks or the capacity of their magazines makes no difference in gun crime rates.

Check out this video from the Daily Caller:

Following the tragic shooting in Washington, president Obama turned a memorial service into a platform to promote his gun control agenda.  The president scolded the nation that gun violence “Ought to obsess us” and he invoked the United Kingdom and Australia as modeling the correct parodigm.  After “just a single mass shooting occurred in those Countries,” he said, “they change.… mobilize and they changed.… “

Obama thinks Australia and the United Kingdom should be our models.  First, you should know that these Countries forced the registration of all guns then confiscated them and made their ownership illegal. Neither of these Countries have a Constitution, by the way.  In any case, let’s just see how they are doing now:

  1. From the Ballina Shire Advocate, August 21, 2013, “New plan unveiled to tackle out-of-control gun violence.”
  2. From News Limited Network August 2, 2013, “Is Australia starring down the barrel of a gun crisis?”
  3. The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
How could this be? Guns are illegal in Australia and the UK. 

I do not think the current administration knows what it’s talking about. They just want to do “something”, anything including violating the Constitution. Well, let’s attack the problem and get the illegal guns off the streets! And, at the same time, leave our law abiding Citizens alone.

The administration also wants a National registry of all gun owners. We have gun registration; it’s just not centrally controlled by FedGov. 

See this for a discussion of Why does Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association, claim that Obama wants a national federal registry for guns?

Check out this recent headline “Detroit Police Chief Craig Endorses Concealed Carry For A Safer City”. It seems that “But over the course of a 36-year career in law enforcement, Craig found that violent criminals believed in gun control, too. After all, why would bad guys want to increase the probability that their victims are capable of matching force with force?” Read more…

It should be clear by now that we are safer with the way things are now than we would be by banning guns.  We have plenty of gun laws on the books save improving the reporting of mental defects and 100 percent background checks.  Don’t be swayed by the Washington rhetoric, they are on the wrong track.  We need to address the real problem, criminals with guns!


More notes:

  • John F. Kennedy was a Life member of the National Rifle Association.  He supported Second Amendment rights for Americans, saying in an April 1960 statement, “By calling attention to a well-regulated militia, the security of the nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy.  Although it is extremely unlikely that the of government tyranny  which gave rise to the Second Amendment will never be a major danger to our nation,  the Amendment still remains a major declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country.  For this reason, I believe the second amendment will always be important.”
  • Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence. Read more… ([10])
  • 13 Must-Know Stats on Gun Violence and Public Shootings. Read more… ([11])
  • Some U.S. Cities Have Higher Gun Violence Than ENTIRE Nations — Check This Map Read more… ([12])
  • Quoting from Federal Judge Chang (he heard the case against Chicago pursuant to which the City attempted to ban licensed gun dealers (gun stores), from operating within the City “whatever burdens the City hopes to impose on criminal users also falls squarely on law-abiding residents who want to exercise their second Amendment right”. He concluded that the law was unconstitutional.  He also cited a study by Chicago’s lawyers which concluded that licensed dealers (gun stores) “play a minor and unimportant role as direct sources of the criminal handgun supply”.

















Saturday, March 8, 2014

Enough Federal Laws in the Country

© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 3.8.14

Does anybody believe that we do not have enough federal laws in the Country?

The Congress and regulators seem to exist only to make more and more new laws while refusing to enforce our existing ones.  I think we have plenty already although, from time to time, a new one might be needed and old ones might need to be changed or eliminated (which almost never happens).

For this reason our founders set up the Constitution the way they did.  It was supposed to be hard for FedGov to pass laws.  After all, the States set up FedGov for specific purposes and they are the BOSS of FedGov.  The purposes of FedGov were supposed to be for things like defense and foreign policy.  It was never meant to interfere with the daily lives of individual Citizens. The Founders did not intend for FedGov to grow into the monstrosity that it has become.

The States need to take back the power that they have allowed FedGov to usurp over the years.  The process is called nullification and it happens when a State legislature (or group of States) passes a law that nullifies a federal statue or regulation.  It has been done before and it needs to occur more often.  Just look are the debate over Marijuana.  Some states have made it legal even though federal law considers it illegal.  Such things are State issues and FedGov needs to step aside. The same is true for the Gay marriage issues and most others.

Another way, according the Constitution, is to have a Convention of the States. Georgia has just called for one.  read more…here  The House of Representatives of Alabama has just called for one. read more…here 

This is extremely important because it is the way, according to Thomas Jefferson, to determine the constitutionality of laws and to control FedGov. After all, 13 States created FedGov and gave it very limited power. FedGov is owned by and is responsible to the States. However, over the last 70 years or so FedGov has usurped much of the power of the States and needs to be brought under control.

Think about the minimum wage issue.  Since California in not like New York or Texas how can FedGov set a wage that is fair all across the 50 States?  They can not.  Let the States do as they so choose and get FedGov out of the picture.

After all we are not one State we are 50 States united for specific purposes and the cookie cutter (one size fits all) approach taken by FedGov just doesn’t work well.




Sunday, February 9, 2014

FEELING SORRY FOR OBAMA

© 2014 Rick Adamson
By Rick Adamson 2.9.14

I have begun to feel a little sorry for Barack because history, I think, will consider his presidency to be one on the worst. It is partially his own doing but his trusted supporters bear a significant portion of the blame. They have blind sided him over and over again.

He is so removed from the legislative process that he does not know what is going on.  He would rather fly around the Country campaigning (for who knows what, I mean he has already been elected) than to set down with members of Congress and work out a deal.

Obamacare is a good example, (which really should be called Pelosi care because she and her minions along with the big insurance companies wrote the law) he just delegated the task to Pelosi and Reed and happily signed into law what ever came back. Pelosi herself said “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” This indicates the she delegated it further down the line and did not know what was in it.

Obamacare has become his signature legislation and I predict that it will forever taint his presidency.

I believe that Obama and the Democrats (Progressives) found themselves in a unique position in 2009 in that they controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate for the first time in a long time.  They had a long list of wishes that they had not been able to get into law so they took the opportunity to slam dunk as much as they could while they had the chance.

The problem was at the same time we had a recession.  And although some of their ideas might have been good it was not the right time. But the timing and the state of the economy did not matter to them they just wanted to pass as many laws and regulations as fast as they could while they could.

This just illustrates how unprepared and incompetent the leaders were to deal with the problems of ordinary people.  Take the war on coal as an example.  Sure it would be nice to move toward natural gas or other cleaner energy sources but in the middle of a recession is not the time to press such as issue when it puts people out of work.  But did they care? No.

What about the Keystone pipeline? It has been on hold for five years while Obama studied the issue.  Heck, we need the jobs, Mr. President.  You see, the tree huggers were against it because they believed it might result in more pollution.  I recently heard a California Congresswoman say that she was against it.  My advice to her would be to stay in la la land and that the pipeline is of no concern to her or her State.  Moreover, the pipeline is for the purpose of moving Canadian oil to the refineries in the Gulf States.  Does anyone believe that Canada will halt the harvest to their oil simply because there is no pipe to take to the U.S.?  That is crazy.  The oil will be harvested no matter what.  The only question is whether we want to participate in its refinement.

The list goes on and on. 

In 2012, the Country missed a golden opportunity to have elected a career problem solver, a turnaround expert and manager when we most needed it. We should be ashamed that we now elect Presidents based on popularity rather than substance, ability and experience.

"Don't expect anything good for America until this guy is gone" Alan Simpson, retired Senator

“Simply put, Barack Obama is a petty, petty man, concerned only with himself, his political agenda, and his "legacy" as he sees it.” Ken