Who’s the Fairest of Them All? The Laffer Curve Tells Us

(Video description) Should Taxes Be Higher? It’s the million dollar question! Up? Down? No change? Where in the world should taxes go? In election years, the question of tax rates fills the airwaves. In non-election years, the question of tax rates, again, fills the airwaves. So what’s the answer? UCLA Professor of Economics Tim Groseclose explains his research on the topic. Basically, there’s a certain point at which higher tax rates actually reduce the amount of revenue the government collects. What’s that point? When are tax rates too high? Learn a valuable lesson in economics, and public policy.

Video Description:

President Obama has declared that the standard by which all policies and policy outcomes are judged is fairness. This video explores what it means for our economic system and our economic results to be “fair.” Does it mean that everyone has a fair shot? Does it mean that everyone gets the same? Does it mean the government is supposed to play the role of Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor? The surprising answer: Nations with free market systems that allow ALL people to get ahead are the fairest of them all.

Learn more in Who’s the Fairest of Them All? The Truth about Taxes, Opportunity, and Wealth in America by Stephen Moore:

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/whos-the-fairest-of-them-all/

“When I Give A Damn, I’ll Let You Know” ~ Stephen A. Smith

Via The Blaze:

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith on Friday defended Kobe Bryant’s recent remarks on the Trayvon Martin case — and openly admitted his stance would “upset” a lot of black people.

Bryant recently told The New Yorker that he wasn’t entirely comfortable with the way several Miami Heat players wore hoodies in support of Martin following the shooting. He said he doesn’t react emotionally just because a certain case involves an African-American. Instead, he explained, people should relax and wait for all the facts to come out before rushing to judgement.

As TV host Arsenio Hall pointed out during his interview with Smith, the comments sent “black Twitter” into a frenzy. Bryant later said he felt Martin was “wronged” and justice wasn’t served.

“You can’t turn around and assume or think that people from other races are gonna ever to be fair to you if you aren’t willing to exercise fairness yourself. Lay back, listen to the facts, and then accord justice where it should be served,” Smith said, explaining Bryant’s comments. “Me personally, I definitely think [Bryant] was right on point with that.”

“I know a lot of black people are going to be upset about that,” he added. “Like I’ve told you, when I give a damn, I’ll let you know.”

Referencing the infamous Tawana Brawley case, Hall admitted he “went hook, line, and sinker with an opinion” before all the facts came out.

“You have to understand, when you make the mistake of jumping to emotional conclusions and being factually incorrect, your cachet diminishes,” Smith agreed. “As a result, once you make that mistake, you don’t get to come back from that.”

And let’s talk about the narrative (here and here) Stephen Smith and Kobe Bryant are speaking about:

I found this story very interesting. This is via Moonbattery, and is a truncated versions of these two posts:

Here is Moonbat’s post:

We know that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system on the night he tried to kill George Zimmerman, and had been suspended from school for using marijuana. Some believe he was a drug dealer. You might assume his famous mission to acquire Skittles candies and Arizona iced tea (actually watermelon juice, but the media is only good at narratives, not factual details) was a classic example of a pothead with the munchies. Here’s another theory…. (links above)

The “Sage from South Central” dismantles myth of the “angelic kid” other wise known as Trayvon Martin. Couple this with Bill Whittle’s destruction of the media myth (http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls)… and you have a recipe for truth to come out. See also my blog post on the matter: http://tinyurl.com/knp3sxd

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/

Are People Born Good? This View Animates Conservatism (PragerU)

This is one of two of the largest divides between the foundations of left/right philosophies.

(Video Description) In our universities, newspapers, and television shows, it is a given that external forces are the cause of crime. If not for poverty, murder and rape would be much lower. If not for racism, America’s inner cities would be far wealthier. So on and so on. At the core of this belief is that people are basically good, and it is society that makes them bad. This notion is simply not true. As Dennis Prager explains in this video, human nature is not basically good. It is not, though, basically bad. People are born more or less neutral. And it is incumbent upon parents, teachers, and yes, society, to turn children into good adults. It doesn’t happen on its own.

While Prager’s and my own theology differs a bit, ultimately the Judeo-Christian understanding of where we start is similar:

(4GospelTruth) ….We will examine several verses that prove that each and every human being born into this world has the same sinful nature, that we all inherited that sinful nature from Adam and Eve.  We are also going to discover what it actually means to be a sinner and how God describes our sinfulness.  This is VERY important because if we do not understand what God means when He tells us that we are sinners, we will not understand what God means when He tells us that we must repent of our sin.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.  These are the words of David, who was a man “after God’s own heart”–this means that he was pleasing to God.  Yet, David tells us, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that he was shapen (formed in the womb) in iniquity–already IN sin, and that he was a sinner from the moment he was first conceived.  Surely, his fallen condition could NOT be worse than our own. Surely it could not be any different from our own.  The fact is, the fallen, human nature of David is the same fallen nature of EVERY other fallen human being.  This verse tells us WHEN we, as sinners, inherit the sin nature. We see from this verse that we inherit the sin nature from the MOMENT we are first conceived. This means that we never have even a moment of innocence in this life.  All of the innocence of man passed from the scene the moment man fell in the garden, and EVERY sinner born into the world subsequent to that fateful event, inherits a fallen, sinful nature, from the moment of his conception.  This verse tells us WHEN we inherit the sin nature, and the following Bible verses tell us that all human beings DO inherit the sin nature:  “For as by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:19).  This verse tells us that Adam’s sin was passed on to us.   For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Corinthians 15:22).  This verse tells us that our spiritual death, our fallen state of sinfulness, is the RESULT of Adam’s sin.  We became sinners THROUGH Adam. …

Read more on this topic at Gospel for Life.

This idea under-girds the philosophy of conservatism. In a section I added to the first chapter of my book, I note the strong underlying commitment in conservative philosophy (dare I say theology) by quoting Thomas Sowell, as found on my QUOTES page:


Christianity is closely tied to the success of capitalism,[1] as it is the only possible ethic behind such an enterprise.  How can such a thing be said?  The famed economist/sociologist/historian of our day, Thomas Sowell, speaks to this in his book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. He whittles down the many economic views into just two categories, the constrained view and the unconstrained view.

The constrained vision is a tragic vision of the human condition. The unconstrained vision is a moral vision of human intentions, which are viewed as ultimately decisive. The unconstrained vision promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solutions. By contrast, the constrained vision sees the best as the enemy of the good— a vain attempt to reach the unattainable being seen as not only futile but often counterproductive, while the same efforts could have produced a more viable and beneficial trade-off. Adam Smith applied this reasoning not only to economics but also to morality and politics: The prudent reformer, according to Smith, will respect “the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people,” and when he cannot establish what is right, “he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.” His goal is not to create the ideal but to “establish the best that the people can bear.”[2]

Dr. Sowell goes on to point out that while not “all social thinkers fit this schematic dichotomy…. the conflict of visions is no less real because everyone has not chosen sides or irrevocably committed themselves.” Continuing he points out:

Despite necessary caveats, it remains an important and remarkable phenomenon that how human nature is conceived at the outset is highly correlated with the whole conception of knowledge, morality, power, time, rationality, war, freedom, and law which defines a social vision…. The dichotomy between constrained and unconstrained visions is based on whether or not inherent limitations of man are among the key elements included in the vision.[3]

The contribution of the nature of man by the Judeo-Christian ethic is key in this respect. One can almost say, then, that the Christian worldview demands a particular position to be taken in the socio-economic realm.* You can almost liken the constrained view of man in economics and conservatism as the Calvinist position.  Pulitzer prize winning political commentator, Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), makes the above point well:

At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human nature, a map of the universe, and a version of history. To human nature (of the sort conceived), in a universe (of the kind imagined), after a history (so understood), the rules of the code apply.[4]

A free market, then, is typically viewed through the lenses of the Christian worldview with its concrete view of the reality of man balanced with love for your neighbor;

Sean Giordano (AKA. Papa Giorgio), Worldviews: A Click Away from Binary Collisions (Religio-Political Apologetics), found in the introductive chapter, “Technology Junkies


[1] See for instance: R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2000 [originally 1926]); Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003 [originally 1904]); Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York, NY: Random House, 2005); Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005).

[2] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: basic Books, 2007), 27.

[3] Ibid., 33, 34.

[4] Walter lippmann, Public Opinion (New York, NY: Freee Press, 1965), 80.

The above drives or animates conservatives, and causes us to ask fundamental questions that those on the left may ask in their household — but not in society [writ large]. It is why conservatism, while not the Gospel, will always be closer to reality in it’s cures and responses to man’s societal ills than any other viewpoint:

1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?


Politics & The Modern Liberal Contradiction

Arbitrary Values / Relativism

In many cases, “modern liberal” positions are based on the idea of tolerance, the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases.  This in turn is based on moral relativism, the idea that morality is relative to the individual and the situation (which distinguishes it from “classical liberalism”).  Again, what is right or wrong for you may not be right or wrong for others.  As a result, you cannot tell others not to have an abortion, not to look at or publish pornography, or not to live by an “alternative lifestyle.”  Educational environments must be “value free,” there must be no restrictions on sexual and artistic freedom, and according to some, even activities such as recreational drug use should be decriminalized.  Because there are no absolute values, each person must discover his own morality, a process taught in our schools as “values clarification.”

The liberal contradiction lies in the fact that every liberal position claims to be morally correct and objectively true.  It is right to allow abortions and wrong to oppose them.  Tolerance (in its modern definition) is good, intolerance is bad.  Children should be allowed to grow up in a value-free environment; parents should not impose their own values.  Modern liberalism takes a moral stance on every issue, but it undermines its own foundation by claiming that there is no moral absolute or guide to adhere to.

To put it into simple terms, yet once more, when a liberal tells you that you cannot tell other people what to do, he or she is contradicting himself by telling you what to do!  And there is another side to the liberal contradiction.  While many liberal positions are based on tolerance and complete individual freedom, other liberal positions are based on strict authoritarianism.

According to contemporary liberalism, the common good (what Rousseau called “the general will”) necessitates the suppression of individual rights when it comes to “saving” the environment, creating a more “equitable distribution” of wealth, achieving “equality” between races and sexes in all walks of life, and enforcing a strict separation of church and state.  Paradoxically, that same common good” takes a back seat to individual freedoms when it comes to the detrimental effects of: pornography and sexual freedom, reduced police power and criminal punishment, or drug use, or firearm mandates, etc..

Let me hasten to add that I too am for tolerance, equal rights, and ending unjust discrimination.  I too am for freedom of speech, artistic freedom, academic freedom, and the separation of church and state.  I too am for protecting the environment and helping the underprivileged.  But I am for these things because I believe in the tenants of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, not because I reject these absolutes.

If I were to reject the idea of moral truths, what possible motivation (moral duty) could I have to champion these or any other causes?  More important, on what basis could I hope to persuade others of the importance of these causes?  It is inconsistent to claim to be concerned about rights while rejecting the moral foundation from which rights are derived.

The rejection of one’s own moral foundation leads one to be not only immoral, but also illogical.  It leads to positions that are inconsistent with themselves and each other (self-deleting).  It leads to outcomes that directly counter one’s original intention and that threaten one’s own goals.  It is unfortunate for the liberal agenda, but the liberal contradiction poses just such a threat.  And it is not a threat from “conservatives” or from any outside source – it is a threat from within.  Because of the rejection of the moral foundation for liberalism, liberalism is failing to protect the rights it claims to cherish.  “What is is?”  Please Mr. President!

…read more…


A couple more recommended resources for a quick overview of this internal/foundational battle “for the soul” are as follows (the first being mine):

The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left (video below)

Koreas Exchange Volley of Shells ~ N. Korea Desperate

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North and South Korea fired hundreds of artillery shells into each other’s waters Monday in a flare-up of animosity that forced residents of five front-line South Korean islands to evacuate to shelters for several hours, South Korean officials said.

The exchange of fire into the Yellow Sea followed Pyongyang’s sudden announcement that it would conduct live-fire drills in seven areas north of the Koreas’ disputed maritime boundary. North Korea routinely test-fires artillery and missiles into the ocean but rarely discloses those plans in advance. The announcement was seen as an expression of Pyongyang’s frustration at making little progress in its recent push to win outside aid.

North Korea fired 500 rounds of artillery shells over more than three hours, about 100 of which fell south of the sea boundary, South Korean Defense Ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said. South Korea responded by firing 300 shells into North Korean waters, he said.

[….]

The poorly marked western sea boundary has been the scene of several bloody naval skirmishes between the Koreas in recent years. In March 2010, a South Korean warship sank in the area following a torpedo attack blamed on Pyongyang that left 46 sailors dead. North Korea denies responsibility for the sinking. In November 2010, a North Korean artillery bombardment killed four South Koreans on Yeonpyeong.

…read more…

Three-Quarters Of ObamaCare Signups Have Higher Premiums

Lower pay for specialists and doctors mean more “car-sales-men” physicians selling you their personalities rather than their earned specialties. Via Gateway Pundit:

Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove told Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures that three-quarters of ObamaCare signups have higher premiums.

“Well people who’ve signed up, about three-quarters of them, find that their premiums are higher than they had been previously with other insurance. What we do know it that it will have a major impact on healthcare providers. What we do know is that we’re going to get paid less for what we do.”

Larry Elder Lays Bare L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Class Warfare

Garcetti focuses on pay-rate myths in the genders. Again and again the Right has to deal with these mantras of the Left. Video of Mika Brezezski spreading this lie is included in the audio.

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/

Democrats Now Admit Sarah Palin Was Right ~ Death Panels

Take note I wrote (or posted) on this in 2010 and 2012:

True Conservatives on Twitter (TCT), via D.J. Sobieski, sent this story of Democrats acknowledging and coming out against Obama-care’s death panels:

Palin was right as well, and also took a lot of heat, when she referred to ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as a death panel whose decisions would result in health care rationing.

(Under ObamaCare, IPAB’s board of 15 presidentially appointed “experts” will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control.)

Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, admitted as much when he opined: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”…

 

D.J. Sobieski then sends you to the IBD column, who adds:

Some Democrats are signing on to bills repealing the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively ration health care for seniors. So Sarah Palin was right about those death panels after all?

[….]

In an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that Palin could have written, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB “essentially a health care rationing body” and said he believes it will fail.

“The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” wrote Dean, who is also a physician. “Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.”

Indeed, a growing number of Democrats — many of whom face tough re-election bids next year — agree.

Over the past three months, 22 have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill. They include lawmakers such as Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., a longtime GOP target.

Recently as well three of the biggest unions have backed away from Obama-Care. Some people hate, hate, hate saying “I told you so,” I rather enjoy it.

Video Description:

Some Democrats are now “Echoing” Sarah Palin’s deep concerns over ‘Death Panels’. The former Governor of Alaska joins FNC’s Eric Bolling on ‘Cashin In’ to discuss this timely issue. Other topics addressed: President Obama referring calling the other scandals such as Benghazi, the IRS, as ‘Fake and Phony’; the handling of the NSA surveillance controversy; and her devout support of ‘Team Rand Paul’ for his libertarian ideals.

Even Obama mentioned the craziness of Death Panels that his own party is acknowledging in Droves. Let’s “Take the Temperature” and see where the naivety of the left leads us, via The World According to Kimba:

….The speech was truly Obama-esque, taking on the role of leader and teacher, author and facilitator, and at times taking the assemblage to the cloakroom for a good old fashioned scolding. “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.” To those who have sought to make short term political gains…..to those who characterized this initiative with calls of death panels…..those are outright lies.”

While the audience was mainly civilized, it was this last inference that brought about a significant amount of boos from the conservatives in the chamber, but this was not the topper of the evening. Promising that his bill would not mandate guaranteed coverage for illegal aliens, Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, shouted “LIE!” One could only wish the Representative would have missed the speech, opting for a hike along the Appalachian Trail with his counterpart, Governor Sanford…….no such luck.

The bill as outlined by the President, will be a bi-partisan bill, if not due to the Republican votes it garners, but the Republican wishes it contains. No funding for illegal aliens, no funding for abortions, real tort reform, a guarantee of no additional additions to the deficit due to this plan and a renewed free market sense of competition between a not-for-profit public option and the individual insurance companies, especially in regions where there is none….

So Kimba listed some items:

  1. No funding for illegal aliens
  2. no funding for abortions
  3. real tort reform
  4. a guarantee of no additional additions to the deficit

Okay, let’s work through a few of these:

1) No funding for illegal aliens

This comes via Canadian Free Press and CNSNews:

Last week the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it was funneling Obamacare cash to 67 community health centers where the money would be used for migrant farm workers. HHS also informed us that the immigration status of said farm workers would not be ascertained before free care was given meaning that illegal aliens would be given Obamacare funding.

…“approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.

Further, the grant recipients are required to serve “all residents” who walk through their doors.

On his campaign website, Wilson remarked about his vindication over the issue:

Nearly two years ago I made national news when I voiced your outrage at the misrepresentations being perpetuated by the Obama administration. The media and Obama’s liberal allies attacked me for only pointing out the truth that ObamaCare would cover illegal immigrants.

Yesterday, my point was vindicated when the Department of Health and Human Services announced its newest ObamaCare grant.

…The president specifically promised the American people that ObamaCare would not cover those who are here illegally. He misled all of us.

Facts, as they say, are stubborn things….

…read more at FoxNation…

 

2) no funding for abortions

Firstly, National Review, last year, explained what person’s on the left cannot grasp — and that is, Obama-care funds abortions:

…But Obamacare provides taxpayer dollars to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion-on-demand–a policy that is politically toxic and nearly brought the bill down in an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Obamacare also forces almost all insurance plans, including plans provided and purchased by religious Americans, to cover abortion drugs

The issue here does not appear to be that Romney is backing off his stance on abortion–indeed, he says he will use an executive order to cut off funding to groups that perform abortion overseas. But he is mistaken in thinking that there aren’t issues related to abortion-funding are handled through the legislative process at the federal level…

Another newsworthy mention should be that Planned Parenthood directly receives funds via Obama-Care. But put simply, as Gateway Pundit does, Obama lied:

It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “the final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

The ACLJ notes the same.

3) real tort reform

One small newspaper notes the following earlier this year:

As we all are beginning to realize, Obamacare is rapidly becoming a disaster on so many fronts. Even one of its creators, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, recently described it as a “train wreck.”

One serious flaw in its enactment is the total lack of consideration of tort reform. Every physician, whether he or she will admit it, has practiced some form of defensive medicine, thereby increasing the cost of medical care. Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty, and trial lawyers (devout Obama supporters) will be rewarded handsomely, perhaps intentionally, when medical errors are perceived…

A larger paper chimes in, the Wall Street Journal:

This is an absurd position, in that the law makes no provision for tort reform.

According to Patients for Fair Compensation, doctors spend more than $650 billion a year practicing “defensive medicine,” ordering unnecessary tests and procedures in the interest of warding off plaintiff attorneys.

Without concomitant tort reform, there will never be meaningful health-care reform, and it is absurd to ask doctors to speak well of the law to their patients.

~ Robert N. Levin, M.D.

And prior to the latest election, the Huffington Post points out that tort reform is not in Obama-Care:

Looks like Obamacare is not what the doctor ordered.

More than half of physicians say they’ll vote for Mitt Romney come November 6th compared to just 36 percent for Obama, according to a recent survey by medical staffing firm Jackson and Cokey. In fact, 15 percent of survey respondents said they’ll be switching to the Republican camp this election, with most citing the Affordable Care Act as the reason.

The majority of the 3,660 doctors polled in the survey said they also are in favor of repealing and replacing Obama’s signature piece of legislation because it failed to address tort reform, an issue relating regulations surrounding malpractice lawsuits.

It’s not just doctors that aren’t pleased with Obamacare, however. Other critics include the food service industry, which fears the law may adversely affect restaurants’ ability to maintain slim profit margins since it requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide affordable health insurance. In August, Papa John’s pizza CEO John Schnatter said that at least some of those extra costs would be passed on to the customer….

4) a guarantee of no additional additions to the deficit

Really!? Do I have to show what every paper and news organization and health experts has said? Laughable!

Obama’s Surgeon General Pick Another Wolf in Doctors Clothing

Investors Daily Business has a story about the extreme goals of Obama appointee picks. In this case it is his [OBAMA!] U.S. Surgeon Generals choice:

Second Amendment: The administration’s choice to be the nation’s doctor in chief views gun ownership as a public health issue and not a constitutional right, and wants doctors to query patients about guns in their homes.

Cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal’s champion, Debo Adegbile, President Obama’s defeated pick to be assistant attorney general for the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, is not the only radical on President Obama’s wish list.

That list includes gun-grabbing advocate Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, Obama’s nominee to be U.S. Surgeon General.

Nose In Air

Another guy who seems like he can tell ordinary citizens what to do and what not to do.

Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of the anti-gun group Doctors for America, which advocates ObamaCare and gun control laws.

His group, which has been dubbed “Docs vs. Glocks,” has pushed Congress to ban “assault” weapons and “high-capacity” magazines.

He also wants to spend more tax dollars on more research to prove that fewer guns mean a lower crime rate, despite the fact that a number of reputable studies prove the opposite.

[….]

The call for universal background checks, including at all gun shows, ignores that the guns Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook were legally purchased and registered by his mother.

Just such a gun-free zone policy is why the Aurora, Colo., shooter carefully chose the theater he did. And unlike the mall in Clackamass, Ore., where a concealed-carry holder prevented a massacre, there was no one in Aurora to shoot back.

At Sandy Hook, 27-year-old teacher Victoria Soto hid students in a bathroom or closet and died trying to protect them from shooter Lanza. If she, the principal or any of the other adults at the school had access to a firearm, things might have turned out differently.

A recent Department of Justice study found only 0.7% of guns were purchased at gun shows and only 20% of guns used in crimes were purchased anywhere. Chicago street gangs, which are responsible for most of that city’s homicides, are unlikely to line up for gun permits.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which did nothing to prevent Columbine, was largely based on a weapon’s cosmetic appearance, not on its capability for carnage.

…read more…