Thursday, February 23, 2012
from the Rooster

Ever wonder what “Fat Cats” and “Prostitutes” have in common?   The latter work in Cat Houses and Fat Cats just take your money. What’s what? You say?
            I am talking about the striking difference between the present day progressive politician who lives high on the hog (there I go again with the animal thing) at your expense.    What gave me the thought was an article I read about how Chinese Communist bosses steal from the coffers.   Remember the Communist motto, “One for all and all for one!” It seems Party bosses drive around in $100,000.00 dollar cars and military officers drive $560,000 Bentleys, etc. Their motto is “All for me and none for you”. Then I read, in Italy, members of Congress rip off the people with salaries of over $200,000.00. That is just the tip of the ice theft, with expenses covered for office, staff, travel, health care, families on the payroll, and inside trading. There is no end to their theft. Remember, Italy is broke. Progressives really like change. Well not so much… bills are better.
            Politicians in Asia, Europe, and here, are actively stealing wealth from the taxpayers and it is not considered theft. On the other hand, a Prostitute, in most countries, is a criminal. Right?  You see, if you pass the law, you have the power to exclude yourself from the definition of theft. But do they? Maybe it is just that no one wants to prosecute politicians for theft. After all, most prosecutors are politicians as well.    Oh! It’s easy to find a District Attorney who will joyously prosecute a hapless lady or young lad who gives pleasure for money, but that same District Attorney will not even begin to bring to justice a Senator or Congressmen, etc. for dipping into the treasury far in excess of their worth.
            In most States and Countries, theft is a simple crime. You take value from someone else, without their consent, and the law says you are thief.  It can be by force or not.   Not a complicated concept.   What about when a politician who passes a law sucking up money, he or she is not worth. Isn’t that doing the same thing?  Eureka!!   Taxpayers have never given consent to have their taxes pay for something of no value. Taxpayers vote politicians in office, but not so they can steal from the treasury. Excess pay and benefits are things providing no value and are taken against the will. Where is the prosecutor who will demand an honest hour for an honest dollar? Not in my community.
            No where in the Constitution of the US, Italy, or any of our States, is there a law which gives anyone the right to take, for their own benefit, money (directly or indirectly) from the Treasury. You have to go to the Criminal codes for your answer. What these selfish, self-centered politicians are doing fits the classic definition of theft.  Why then do they get away with it?  First of all, politicians vote for their own wage and benefits. Taxpayers only relief is to vote them out of office.  Another reason is these politicians pay bribes to the voters, in the way of gifts (food stamps), stimulus packages for this group or that group etc.  This puts their voters in the rip-off mode as well.  A final reason is that their taking has snuck up on us.   If your assemblyman/woman simply grabbed the money and ran, you would scream “theft”. When they take it by little pieces, everyone is hood winked. The same occurs when the bookkeeper embezzles from a trusting employer.   The taking should be a crime, but few understand it or care. Well, I do and so should you. 
            Just to give you a homegrown example. In the early 60’s, a California Assembly person got $9,000.00 a year, an allotment for an apartment in Sacramento, and a meager travel allowance. ($9,000 today would be some $60,000).  The apartment was to lessen the travel needed. It was a wash.    He/she also got a meager staff.   An office and maybe three people. One for the home district and two in Sacramento. That Assemblyperson was in session about 6 months of the year.  Today, he or she gets a base salary of $95,000 plus and a per diem when in session (now, you know why they stay in session so long). Ok, let’s say they stay in session for 200 days. They get $141 plus a day or $28,000.00 plus a year. This is on top of the $95,000, for a total base pay of $123,000.00. Add to this a staff of some 5 to 10, offices, and stuff paid for, gifts from lobbyist, medical care, free travel, and on and on, and the real expenditure, each year, for a low rung Assemblyperson is close to $200,000.00 a year. Don’t forget extra pay for temporary duty. Compare that to the 1964 price and you can see we are being ripped off by about 60% . Don’t tell me they are worth it. Pay nothing and you will have candidates standing in line.   It does not take a high IQ to figure out we are being ripped off.   That, Amigos, is a synonym for stealing.
Posted at 13:46 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 23, 2012
the Ninth Circuit Court… Gawd save us!!
from The Rooster

This week the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled against a provision of the California Constitution, which banned Gay folks from Marriage.  When that law was a baby it was called Proposition 8.   Mind you this law did not condemn Gays, it did not say they were disenfranchised from the vote, or any such thing. It simply said “Marriage” is reserved for people of the opposite sex.   It did not prohibit gays from establishing, as they had, another form of legal union.   It simply recognized history, that marriage was developed as a concept for the union of opposite sexes, to make a family.  The two judges who voted to  invalidate this law,  violated their oath of office and should be disbarred.
            The reason I quit the law business, after some 34 years, was just this. So many men and women have taken the oath to be a Judge and then ignore their oath  and  do as they feel.  Let’s not forget that the California Judge, who ruled proposition 8  was unconstitutional was himself gay, and retired right after making his opinion. His conflict was so obvious it must have weighed heavily on his mind.    Ignoring the law was not the way we did business,  when I started back in the 60s,  but that is the way it ended up. Especially in California, and more especially in the 9th Circus Court.   Ruling on feelings destroys the concept that we live under laws and must obey laws. It is part of anarchy.
            The Oath each of these judges took is as follows:
                        “I …Stephen Reinhardt (the judge who wrote the opinion) …_do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge under the constitution and laws of the United States. “  
            Simply stated, when looking at the law, a judge should apply the law without feelings and partiality.  He or she must do this recognizing the laws of California are part of the laws of the United States.   Now these two judges applied their feelings and were partial. Exactly what they swore not to do.
Here is what they said which are their personal feelings and violated the “respect to persons”  part of the oath.  Remember they did not act as trial judges.
            1- “Proposition 8 serves no purpose…”   That is their opinion. Not law.
            2- “…has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and  lesbians..”    That is their opinion.  Others disagree and is not law.
            3- “…officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples…”    That is their opinion. Not law and others disagree.
             The part of the US Constitution these two appelate judges used is the much abused 14th amendment. This amendments original purpose was to do nothing more than to prevent States from denying citizens rights the Federal Constitution and laws guaranteed.   In the final part of the 14th’s first provision, it says.’
             “ …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”   
            Most Civil rights rulings have used this provision as if it stood alone as brand new law.   It does not and did not.   The problem is that the Federal law is not equal and there is no mandate that it be equal.   I rest my case on the graduated Income tax, affirmative action laws, and subsidies for this person and company as congress sees fit.   All the 14th was doing was nailing down the cure for Slavery, just as the 13th did and as the 15th did.   It took three amendments to get it right.
            So for these judges to rule, on their opinions, and to apply equality when the US Constitution does not require it, is like their saying they do not like bathrooms because they smell, and especially that any law allowing them should be un-constitutional because they do not treat the sexes equally.   At its best their action is legislative, not judicial. At its worst, they ignore their oath, and for that reason I say they should be impeached as a warning to others, not to stray from what they swear to do.
Posted at 13:42 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, February 17, 2012
CALIFORNIA IS ------"LaLa Land"
By Roger Hedgecock

I live in California. If you were wondering what living in Obama's
second term would be like, wonder no longer. We in California are
living there now.

California is a one-party state dominated by a virulent Democrat Left
enabled by a complicit media where every agency of local, county, and
state government is run by and for the public employee unions. The
unemployment rate is 12%.

California has more folks on food stamps than any other state, has
added so many benefits and higher rates to Medicaid that we call it
"Medi-Cal." Our K-12 schools have more administrators than teachers,
with smaller classes but lower test scores and higher dropout rates
with twice the per-student budget of 15 years ago.

This week, the once and current Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown had to
confess that the "balanced" state budget adopted five months ago was
billions in the red because actual tax revenues were billions lower
than the airy-fairy revenue estimates on which the balance was

After trimming legislators' perks and reducing the number of cell
phones provided to state civil servants, the governor intoned that
drastic budget reductions had already hollowed out state programs for
the needy, law enforcement and our schoolchildren. California
government needed more money.

Echoing the Occupy movement, the governor proclaimed the rich must pay
their fair share. Fair share? The top 1% of California income earners
currently pays 50% of the state's income tax.

California has seven income tax brackets. The top income tax rate is
9.3%, which is slapped on the greedy rich earning at least $47,056 a
year. Income of more than $1 million pays the "millionaires' and
billionaires'" surcharge tax rate of 10.3%.

Brown's proposal would add 2% for income over $250,000. A million-
dollar income would then be taxed at 12.3%. And that's just for the

Brown also proposed a one-half-cent sales tax increase, which would
bring sales taxes (which vary by county) up to 7.75% to as much as
10%. Both tax increases would be on the ballot in 2012.

The sales tax increase proposal immediately brought howls of protest
from the Left. Charlie Eaton, a sociology grad student at
UC Berkeley and leader of the UC Student-Workers Union, said, "We've
paid enough. It's time for millionaires to pay."

At least five other ballot measures to raise taxes are circulating for
signatures to get on the 2012 ballot in California. The governor's
proposals are the most conservative.

The Obama way doesn't end with taxes.

The governor and the state legislature continue to applaud the efforts
of the California High Speed Rail Authority to build a train
connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco Even though the budget is
three times the voter-approved amount, and the first segment will only
connect two small towns in the agricultural Central Valley. But hey,
if we build it, they will ride.

And we don't want to turn down the Obama bullet-train bucks Florida
and other states rejected because the operating costs would bankrupt
them. Can't happen here because we're already insolvent.

If we get into real trouble with the train, we'll just bring in the
Chinese. It worked with the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989
earthquake, the bridge connecting Oakland and San Francisco was
rebuilt with steel made in China. Workers from China too. Paid for
with money borrowed from China. Makes perfect sense.

In California, we hate the rich (except the rich in
Hollywood, in sports, and in drug dealing). But we love people who
have broken into California to eat the bounty created by the
productive rich.

Illegals get benefits from various generous welfare programs, free
medical care, free schools for their kids, including meals, and of
course, in-state tuition rates and scholarships, too. Nothing's too good
for our guests.

To erase even a hint of criticism of illegal immigration, the
California Legislature is considering a unilateral state amnesty.
Democrat State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes has proposed an initiative
that would bar deportation of illegals from California.

Interesting dilemma for Obama there. If immigration is exclusively a
federal matter, and Obama has sued four states for trying to enforce
federal immigration laws he won't enforce, what will the President do
to a California law that exempts California from federal immigration

California is also near fulfilling the environmentalist dream of

After driving out the old industrial base (auto and airplane assembly,
for example), air and water regulators and tax policies are now
driving out the high-tech, biotech and even internet-based companies
that were supposed to be California's future.

The California cap-and-trade tax on business in the name of reducing
CO2 makes our state the leader in wacky environmentalism and
guarantees a further job exodus from the state.

Even green energy companies can't do business in California. Solyndra
went under, taking its taxpayer loan guarantee with it.

No job is too small to escape the regulators. The state has even
banned weekend amateur gold miners from the historic gold mining
streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

In fact, more and more of California's public land is off-limits to
recreation by the people who paid for that land. Unless you're

Then you can clear the land, set up marijuana plantations at will,
bring in fertilizers that legal farmers can no longer use, exploit
illegal farm workers who live in hovels with no running water or
sanitation, and protect your investment with armed illegals carrying
guns no California citizen is allowed to own.

The rest of us only found out about these plantations when the
workers' open campfire started one of those devastating fires that
have killed hundreds of people and burned out thousands of homes in
California over the last decade.

It's often said that whatever happens in California will soon happen
in your state.

You'd better hope that's wrong.
Posted at 10:27 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Can a Mormon Be Elected President?
By Harris Sherline

As the Republican nominating process reached its zenith in the Iowa caucuses, entrance polls showed a close vote between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, with Newt Gingrich fighting to maintain a viable candidacy. Romney has since moved ahead in the Republican race and, although he has recently lost some ground, it looks as though he will become the Republican standard bearer against Obama in the 2012 election.
For a variety of reasons, all the GOP candidates have their supporters and detractors, but notwithstanding the problems in Newt Gingrich’s history and Rick Santorum’s strong pro-life belief, Mitt Romney may have the biggest hurdle to overcome, which is his religion: Mormonism.
My guess is that we won’t hear much commentary in the media about the fact that Romney is Mormon, at least for the present. So far there hasn’t had much said about it. However, if Romney should become the Republican candidate in the 2012 election, I predict that there will be a great deal of attention paid to the Mormon religion and, therefore, Romney by implication.
Religion has played a part in past Presidential elections, perhaps most notably that of John F. Kennedy (JFK), who was the first Catholic to win the office. Until his election, voters in general questioned whether a Catholic president would owe his first allegiance to the Pope or to the United States.
JFK managed to overcome the issue of his religion to become the first Catholic president of the United States.
A recent L.A. Times article noted, “The nomination of Romney, a onetime Mormon bishop who remains active in the church, would be ‘a 1960, JFK moment for Mormons, where the glass ceiling is shattered,’ said Patrick Q. Mason, a professor of Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University, referring to John F. Kennedy's election as the first Catholic president.”

Thus, the adage that history repeats itself seems to be playing out once again, this time involving a Mormon candidate.
If Romney becomes the GOP candidate, his religion will undoubtedly be heavily exploited by Obama’s supporters, who will characterize it as a small, off-beat religion whose adherents are out of the “American mainstream.” Not directly, mind you, but on the Internet, by bloggers, op-ed writers, and the plethora of political websites.
Many voters may question whether a U.S. president who is Mormon would owe a higher allegiance to his church than to the responsibilities of his office? 
Considering the importance of the issue, a few points about the Mormon religion may be instructive. Without getting into the minutia of the history of the Mormons, a few facts are of particular interest:
There are only about 20 million Mormons worldwide: approximately 6.1 million in the U.S., 1.2 million in Mexico, 1.1 million in Brazil, 630,000 in the Philippines, 560,000 in Chile, 500,000 in Peru, and 380,000 in Argentina.
Mormonism has often been associated with polygamy, a practice that was followed by many early Mormons, until it was renounced by the LDS Church in 1890. Today, polygamy is practiced only by certain “fundamentalist” groups that have left the LDS Church.
In 1978, the church reversed its policy of excluding black males from the priesthood, which was prompted by problems encountered with mixed-race converts in Brazil.
In an article titled, “Evangelicals and Romney: Should Theology Matter?,” Dennis Prager pointed out that “Most evangelicals label Mormonism a cult, and many accuse Mormons for being dishonest for calling themselves Christians.” Prager also made the following observations, among others, about Mormonism:
-“Regarding Mormonism being labeled a cult, my study of religious history has taught me that just about every religion is seen as a cult in its formative years…or it gets labeled as a cult by the older religion in order to delegitimize it.”
“…I believe that what most annoys evangelicals (and some other Christians) about Mormonism is that Mormons call themselves Christian.”
“…in the view of most evangelicals, if people wish to believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the prophecy of Joseph Smith, that is their business, but to call these and other distinctive Mormons “Christian” bothers many evangelicals.”
In the final analysis, when we cast our ballots for president of the United States, or a contender for any other political office, each of us must ask ourselves if the religion of the various candidates influences our vote. For example, would you vote for an Islamic candidate for president of the United States, or a Jewish one, or a Christian fundamentalist, or any candidate whose religious beliefs don’t necessarily square with your own?
© 2012 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Posted at 13:18 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Monday, February 13, 2012
Health Insurance Companies: an Endangered Species

By 2020, “the American health insurance industry will be extinct,” writes Ezekiel Emanuel, on the New York Times opinion blog. Is this sometime advisor to the Obama White House saying that the insurance companies who were “at the table” with Obama are being treated like prostitutes, used then discarded?

Time will tell. Perhaps five of the black-robed Supreme Court justices will go all the way back to the precedent called the Constitution and rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that it is not severable, and the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or “ Obamacare”) will be thrown in the trash bin like so many unwanted body parts.

Perhaps the insurance companies will wake up, repudiate their support of Obamacare, and present a real medical insurance policy (not the prepaid medical plans now sold as insurance) that includes the catastrophic coverage that most families need, and, as an option, a health savings account (HSA) that the individual owns to pay for routine medical expenses.

Perhaps the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) will repudiate their support for this abomination, which brings crushing compliance costs, enforced through draconian fines and prison terms, on their members.

Not likely, since the AMA makes more than $70 million a year from their exclusive government-granted monopoly on code books (Current Procedural Terminology or “CPT”). CPT is actually unnecessary because insurers could pay claims from an itemized bill, as they did before CPT. An insurance clerk, after all, can read the English note and determine whether the service matches the code. Claiming that it does not allows the insurer to earn interest as payment is delayed until the doctor provides the “proper” code. Often, the code game saves the insurer from paying the claim at all by discouraging the doctor from re-filing. Thus, CPT benefits the AMA and insurers while increasing doctors’ costs and risks.

The AOA is also unlikely to recant their support, as its officials want to be seen at the table with the President.

Perhaps doctors will finally realize that they were brainwashed to believe they could not succeed unless they signed all the insurance contracts. Doctors will suddenly realize that patients need doctors, not insurance companies, and patients will gladly pay a fair, transparent price, not the inflated price caused by the insurance game. Doctors will learn to trust each other and their patients, and boot out the lying insurance companies and politicians. Perhaps.

Perhaps patients will realize that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is government fraud, since their most personal health data will not be protected from multiple levels of bureaucrats, and the system will not be affordable, but rather much more costly than what they have available now. Perhaps they will demand its repeal.

Emanuel writes, “Accountable care organizations [ACOs] will increase coordination of patient’s care and shift the focus of medicine away from treating sickness and toward keeping people healthy.” Referring to the “enhanced information system”, he says, “but this analytic capacity will be directed at improving health outcomes, not at imposing barriers to those seeking treatment.” Have you noticed how the government tells you what won’t happen, and then it does?

Emanuel writes, “In the 1990s, we lacked the information technology and proven models of integrated care delivery that we have now.” The only models are scale models—experiments, with patients as guinea pigs.

Emanuel writes, “A final bonus of A.C.O.’s is that they will lead to a better form of competition in health care markets.” Here he says what will happen, but it won’t. There will be no competition, since insurance companies, by Emanuel’s prediction, will be extinct. Patients will be locked into the ACO that owns their doctor. Remember, “If you have a health plan you like, you will get to keep it.” Unless it is extinct.

The third-party payment model has failed. Managed care didn’t save it, and neither can ACOs. It deserves to be extinct, and it will be if patients and physicians return to the direct-payment model that has always worked, and true insurance is allowed to compete fairly.

Dr Watson is the former President of the Association of American Physicians

Posted at 08:51 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator