Appeals court allows Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood

The social issues are always difficult, especially abortion because the issue inflames passions on all sides. Reuters reports:

An appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the state of Texas can exclude Planned Parenthood from a state health program for low-income women because the organization performs abortions.

The ruling by 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization.The emergency ruling on Tuesday means the state is free - for now - to enforce a new rule banning Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program, Texas officials said. The court requested a response from Planned Parenthood by Tuesday afternoon. "

At this point, Planned Parenthood is not an eligible provider in the Women's Health Program," Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said on Tuesday.

The Women's Health Program, which is part of the federal-state Medicaid program, provides cancer screenings, birth control and other health services to more than 100,000 low-income women.

Read the rest here

Reuters

Texas already bans public funding for abortions so specifically targeting Planned Parenthood because it provides legal abortion while providing other services related to women's health is probably not going to survive a judicial test because it's punitive and discriminatory.

Personally, I don't believe that taxpayers dollars should ever fund abortion (and most everything else for that matter) but so long as abortion is legal the state of Texas is going to have a difficult time trying to outlaw abortion by targeting abortion providers who provide other heathcare services.

    

Judy Morris

The 2012 Farm Bill: A Happy Marriage between Democratic Socialism and Corporate Capitalism

Taxpayer subsidies and anti-competition legislative are the mothers milk of crony capitalism and the fascist state. Karen Kwiatkowski, who is running for Congress in VA, wrote an outstanding piece on this boondoggle.

Complaints are rampant about the draft 2012 Federal Farm Bill. Farm subsidy recipients are enraged about proposed cuts, even as the same benefits would flow to them through direct payments and insurance offsets. Sustainable small farm and local food efforts complain that they are getting short shrift, and corporate agriculture is busily lobbying for its favorite programs. The 46 million Americans currently enrolled in the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Program may see reductions and restrictions, and we hear that starvation looms large. Everybody wants a piece of the federal agricultural pie. But no one seems to be questioning why this monster half a trillion dollar piece of taxpayer and debt-funded socialized program is in any way good for this country.

Yes, the farm bill is half a trillion dollars and King Corn is also lobbying for ethanol subsidies. Churning our food supply into ethanol energy is hugely subsidized, hugely expensive and produces little in the way of cost effective green energy. Still, that won't stop Big Ag from lobbying to fill its pockets with gobs of taxpayer cash.

King Corn is eyeing the possible loss of the Renewable Fuels Standard (ethanol) subsidy and seeking to gain compensatory supports for corn.

Kwiatkowski then confronts the subsidy scandal with powerful and highly relevant questions.

Here are some questions I’d like to ask about the 2012 Farm Bill: Didn’t centralized government 5-year plans go out with the 1989 demise of the Soviet Union? When do we get to try the free market and liberty?

Why do the lobbyists believe Congress owes them our money? As Davy Crockett noted, it’s not Congress’ money– it belongs to the people!

Can no one envision a future where the government doesn’t pick winners and losers and try to control every aspect of the marketplace? Corporate aid to big banks is wrong. But standing tax-funded bailouts and benefits for industrial giants like Monsanto and ADM are all just fine?

In an era of nearly $18 Trillion in current federal debt, why are we clamoring for even more redistribution of wealth?

Can someone explain to me the collusion between USDA, FDA, FBI, IRS and DHS in conducting raids, confiscations and general harassment of small food producers and retailers all over the country? What part of the budget can we cut to relieve us of this idiocy?

Read the rest here
The Virginia Conservative

Kwiatkowski closes with a most radical proposal: "I have a radical idea. Let’s let farmers grow and raise what makes sense to them, and let consumers buy and consume what they want. Let’s get the corn syrup, white flour and Monsanto bought-and-paid-for bureaucrats out of policy-making. Why not put private property rights first for a change?"

Any talk of economic liberty and free markets is verboten in the statist, corporatist planned economy where big corporations rule and free market choices are banned as radical.

America definitely has a severe deficit of radicals for liberty.

Judy Morris

Dick Lugar’s Voting Record

I'm no fan of Redstate but it did an excellent job summarizing the voting record of Sen. Richard Lugar who is facing a primary challenger in the Indiana primary on 5/8.

Dick Lugar voted:
To support a host of anti-gun legislation including a concealed weapons ban
To support the Bridge to Nowhere To oppose school choice for victims of Hurricane Katrina
To oppose $13 billion in new mandatory spending cuts
To support raiding the social security trust fund to fund general budget appropriations
To oppose a one year earmark moratorium
To support adding $52 billion in new spending to Barack Obama’s stimulus bill
To support TARP To support giving the IMF more money
To support the tax credit and tariff on ethanol
To support increased foreign aid spending To support an expansion of highway spending that would bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund
To support increasing the loan limit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Read the rest here

Red State

I doubt that Lugar's chief primary challenger, Richard Mourdock (endorsed by Sarah Palin), will be much different.  The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) has endorsed Patrick Flynn, here.

Judy Morris

Setting the Record Straight on The Real Delegate Count

There is much confusion about the delegate process. That’s because each state has its own unique and frequently complex rules and procedures but basically delegates to the RNC National Convention are selected at state conventions or at a State Executive Committee meeting (not all states have state conventions).

Headlines are popping up that say ‘Ron Paul wins MN or CO or IA or WA’. It’s simply not true. Neither Washington or Iowa nor Minnesota have even had their state conventions yet.

Let’s start with the states that have actually had state conventions that have finalized delegates to the national convention or where delegates are a done deal. 

NH (1/10) Romney 9, Paul 3 (decided at primary)
ND (4/1) Romney 20, Santorum 6, Paul 2, State Convention
TN (4/7) Santorum 29, Romney 17, Gingrich 9, State Executive Committee – tentative
CO (4/14) Romney 14, Santorum 6, plus 16 uncommitted delegates. State Convention
WY (4/14) Romney 23, Santorum 2, Paul 2, plus 1 uncommitted and 2 available, State Convention

In NH, Ron Paul got 23% of the vote and 25% of the 12 delegates.

In TN, Santorum got 37% of the vote but 53% of the delegates. Romney got 28% of the vote but 31% of the delegates. Gingrich got 24% of the vote and 16% of the delegates. Ron Paul got 9% of the vote and zero delegates. The delegates are “tentative” because TN will probably end up awarding all its delegates to Romney.

In ND, Ron Paul got 28% of the caucus vote but only 7% of the delegates. Santorum got 40% of the caucus vote but only 21% of the delegates. Romney got 24% of the caucus vote but 71% of the delegates.

In CO, Ron Paul got 12% of the caucus vote, but zero delegates. Santorum got 40% of the vote but only 17% of the delegates. Romney got 35% of the vote but 39% of the delegates. However, CO has 15 uncommitted delegates.

In WY, Ron Paul got 21% of the vote but only 3% of the delegates. Santorum got 32% of the vote but only 7% of the delegates. Romney got 39% of the vote but 79% of the delegates. WY has 3 uncommitted delegates.

It’s 100% true that Republicans and GOP party officials have done everything possible to shut out and marginalize Ron Paul and the Paulites. GOP treachery is best explained by what happened in Wyoming as posted on Doug Wead’s blog.

And we [Ron Paul supporters] did take over the Nominating Committee on Friday. We had 16 out of 44 of the votes in the committee but we managed to take 9 out of the 14 preferred delegate positions on the ballot. I actually saw/heard one guy telling that to Senator Enzi and his wife Diana. ‘The Ron Paul people took over the Nominations Committee’ and Diana put her hand over her mouth and gasped, ‘OH NO!’ You would think someone just told her we killed her dog

There was a definite sick feeling at the convention. I didn’t see a rally behind Romney at all. It took all the Senators, the Governor and even the former VP of the U.S. (Dick Cheney) getting on stage and telling them to suck it up and vote for Romney; but the delegates did not vote Romney with excitement. They did it because they were told that there was no other choice that ‘could win.’” Read the rest here.

Politics is very much a contact sport that is fought in trench warfare. It’s gritty, it’s dirty and it’s corrupt. The elites who hold power will do anything to preserve their power.

Ron Paul is waging a Revolution more than he’s running to win an election because he knows the power players and what he’s up against. For Ron Paul, it’s all about educating folks on the issues so that they will someday have the knowledge and voting power to evict the traitors who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the banksters, military industrial complex and corporatist special interests. On that point alone, Ron Paul’s success can only be described as phenomenal and beyond our wildest expectations.

The results of state conventions and state executive committee meetings will start to roll in fast and furious. In Minnesota and Iowa, Ron Paul is heavily favored simply because Paulite grassroots succeeded in making substantial inroads into the state party machine. Upcoming conventions:

AK 4/26 –28, 27 delegates, including 3 unpledged. State Convention
DE 4/28, 17 delegates. State Convention
KS 4/28 40 delegates. State Party Committee Meeting
ME (5/5-6) 24 delegates. Maine District Caucuses and State Convention
NV (5/5-6) 28 delegates. State Convention
OK (5/11-12) 43 delegates, including 3 unpledged. State Convention
CT (5/18) 28 delegates, including 3 unpledged. State Committee Meeting
GA (5/18-19) 76 delegates. State Convention
MI (5/18-19) 30 delegates. Congressional District Caucuses/State Convention
MN (5/18-19) 40 delegates. State Convention
MS (5/18-19) 40 delegates, including 3 unpledged. State Convention
SC (5/19) 25 delegates. State Convention.

As most of the state conventions wrap up in April, May and June, Santorum and Gingrich delegates will probably go to Romney because they’ve both now endorsed Romney. For more information, please visit The Green Papers.

While it's true that the GOP machines employed ruthless and dirty tactics to shut out the Paulites, it's also true that liberty activist are the GOP's minority party crashers. Most Republicans are quite happy with the party just the way it is. The only real dispute within establishment Republican ranks is the social conservative agenda that makes party elites cringe. Both factions support statism, the wars, endless foreign interventionism, entitlements,the Nazified Police State and fascist crony capitalism.

Liberty activists can continue to play in the GOP's pond until they finally succeed in taking it over, something that will eventually happen. Meanwhile we need to do all that we can do to prevent Republican victories when the candidate is a statist neocon. That's something we can accomplish by supporting Gary Johnson in the event Ron Paul isn't the nominee and he probably won't be.

How Sweet It Is - For Big Sugar Daddies & Other Corporate Welfare Queens

The cost to American consumers resulting from agricultural subsidies in terms of high food costs and the taxes needed to support one of the biggest corporate welfare boondoggles is a real shocker. Take milk for instance. Americans pay far more for milk under the subsidy system than they would pay under a true free market capitalist system because the subsidy costs are passed from taxpayers to dairy producers for the sole enrichment of the rich and powerful dairy industry.

In 2007, Cato.org published a piece stating:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that U.S. dairy policies create a 26 percent “implicit tax” on milk consumers. This milk “tax” is regressive, causing relatively greater harm to low-income families.

The Government Accountability Office compared U.S. dairy prices to world prices over a seven-year period. It found that U.S. prices for butter averaged twice the world price, cheese prices were about 50 percent higher, and nonfat dry milk prices were about 30 percent higher….

The ultimate effects are to transfer income from consumers and taxpayers to dairy businesses and to stifle innovation in this $90 billion industry.

Does Congress care one iota if Americans are being looted when they buy milk and other dairy products? Hell NO! Congress critters only care about having their campaign coffers filled with special interest dough even if consumers and taxpayers are stiffed.

In a Cato.org article on sugar subsidies, it’s more than clear that Americans are looted by the U.S. sugar industry and Congress.

The sugar program is essentially a producer cartel run out of Washington. The Agriculture Department operates a complex loan program to guarantee sugar growers certain prices, which it enforces with import barriers and domestic production controls. 

The sugar program also causes environmental damage. Large areas of the Florida Everglades have been converted to cane sugar production as a result of sugar protection. That has caused damage from the related land drainage, runoff of chemical fertilizers, and the destruction of natural habitat. 

With all the negative effects of the sugar program, why does it survive? Because Congress often puts the interests of the favored few ahead of the general public good.

Besides charging American families higher than the “free market” cost of sugar and destroying the environment, the sugar subsidies really hurt the third world and their ability to dig their way out of poverty by exporting food stuffs. But Obama has proven to be very much a sugar daddy to big sugar and has continued Republican style agricultural welfare by implementing import quotas on imported sugar. Congress has been strengthening the power of the U.S. sugar cartel since the 1980’s. In America, you fill a few campaign coffers and you buy yourself an incredibly profitable legalized monopoly.

The high cost of sugar in the U.S. has cost 6,400 jobs in the sugar processing industry and the U.S. Trade Commission has the brazen audacity to claim that the program saves 2,200 jobs in the U.S. That’s government math in action – lose 3 jobs for every job it claims to save and drive up consumer food costs. Meanwhile, the number of sugar processing plants in the U.S. has dropped from 23 to 8 and producers making products containing sugar are moving out of the U.S. In Canada, sugar is 50% cheaper than in the U.S.

The Heritage Foundation had some choice words for farm subsidies, here:

These subsidy programs tax working Americans to award millions to millionaires and provide profitable corporate farms with money that has been used to buy out family farms. The current farm bills would provide even greater subsidies for large farmers...

Thus, large farms and agribusinesses--which not only have the most acres of land, but also, because of their economies of scale, happen to be the nation's most profitable farms--receive the largest subsidies. Meanwhile, family farmers with few acres receive little or nothing in subsidies. In other words, far from serving as a safety net for poor farmers, farm subsidies comprise America's largest corporate welfare program...

. It’s been estimated that agricultural subsidies add 10% to our food costs. Agricultural and food subsidies constitute a tax on consumers and a wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to very wealthy corporations. Moreover, food costs have risen substantially in recent years as a result of the 'inflation tax' attributable to unsustainable federal deficits and debt totaling over $15 trillion (and climbing).

But the situation of rising food costs is getting far worse because the outrageously stupid energy scam of churning our food into fuel (another taxpayer subsidized boondoggle) is causing massive global hungry as corn prices rise. The agricultural lobby known as Big Corn has now seized upon an opportunity to double its subsidies and welfare profits, first with food and now with the energy scam know as the ethanol boondoggle. Congress Critters also got their cut because every step along the way, somebody’s campaign coffer gets filled with special interest dough. Owning a legislative body is about the easiest way to make money and Congress and its Critters are cheap to buy.

Americans like to think that America is a humane nation who cares deeply about the plight of the poor in third world nations. Neither America nor any other westernized nation gives a hoot about the starving around the world. Farm subsidies only accomplish one thing – they vastly enrich US and European powerful agriculture interests at the expense of the starving third world simply because poor nations cannot produce and grow food stuffs when they are forced to compete with highly subsidized products produced in America and Europe.

Western corporate welfare queens are directly responsible for much of the human misery on the planet. Corporate welfare is not only the lifeblood of public corruption, it plunders American consumers and causes horrific suffering everywhere but especially in the 3rd world. American style subsidies keeps corporate welfare queens rich with subsidies while driving up the cost of just about everything. Consumers and taxpayers are always screwed.

US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet

Our unconstitutional and murderous wars are destroying the planet and the US Military burns through about 350-400,000 barrels of oil a day. One of my favorite blogs (Washingtonsblog.com) posted some great information in a piece titled “The Elephant in the Room: The U.S. Military is One of the World's Largest Sources of C02” that includes:

"The military accounts for a full 80 percent of the federal government's energy demand."

Sixteen gallons of oil.  That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

And in 2008, Oil Change International released a report showing that:

The [Iraq] war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.

The fact that the U.S. military is one of the world's largest sources of C02 is an open secret that no one is addressing. If C02 causes warming and the military is one of the largest producers of C02, then any talk of climate change which does not include the military is nothing but hot air.

Environmentalists Against War (envirosagainstwar.org) has listed many reasons to end our destructive wars and carbon burning foreign policy including:

War destroys human settlements and native habitats.

War destroys wildlife and contaminates the land, air and water. The damage can last for generations.

US clusterbombs, thermobaric explosions, electromagnetic bursts and weapons made with depleted uranium are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.

Bombs pollute, poisoning the land with unexploded shells and toxic chemicals. Bombs can't locate or neatly destroy hidden chemical or biological weapons (CBW), but they can cause the uncontrolled spread of deadly CBW agents.

Of course, you will never hear MSM ever discuss the environmental impact of our unnecessary and gargantuan military, its colossal carbon footprint or the massive environmental degradation resulting from military missions, invasions and occupations. Furthermore, there is no way anybody can seriously discuss energy or the environment without first acknowledging the monster appetite of the military for fuel and its effects on people and their environment. However, our military machine is all about money and lots of it; defense contractors could care less about dead people, environmental degradation or carbon footprints.

Is Obama's re-election in the bag?

The media has moved beyond the primary and has anointed Romney the presumptive Republican nominee. Now the chatter is focused on the general election and the state by state electoral count as the media, the RNC and the DNC ponder how to get to the magical number of 270 electoral votes to win. For the Republicans, it's a very difficult challenge as well as an uphill battle.

In 2008, Obama literally squashed McCain with 365-173 electoral votes in a truly pathetic finish for the Republicans. Bush/Cheney fatigue, war fatigue and Bankster bailout fatigue were all contributing factors to Obama's historic election. Most voters are reluctant to acknowledge that Obama is really Obushma; Obama's policies are no different than Bush policies.

Obama's astounding victory is attributable to the fact that he flipped 9 red states as he succeeded in shattering the red state/blue state divide by winning FL,CO,IN,IA,NM,NV,NC,OH and VA, all states that voted Republican in 2004. Can Obama do it again? To get to 270, he doesn't have to win all those red states he won in 2008; he only has to win a few. All the poll pundits are obviously tracking the polls in the critical swing states and most concluded, based on the polls, that Obama has a floor of 230-250 electoral votes. That's excellent news for The Democrats and very bad news for the Republicans. I did my own 'quick and dirty' calculations and concluded that Obama had a floor of 246 electoral votes simply because there are states that are so blue they will never flip red. Red states can  flip to blue but blue states rarely flip to red.

The biggest damage the Republicans have inflicted upon themselves, besides their utter determination to maintain the status quo (everything is fine just the way it is including the wars, the economy and the financial system), is the rabid rants of the social conservatives who have suggested that birth control be outlawed because it's a form of abortion. Moreover, the social conservatives are fighting hard for state and federal personhood amendments that define human life as beginning at the precise moment of conception. This in turn has devastated female support for Republicans who now have a 20 point deficit with the female voters. How will all of this shakeout in the general election? Just follow the polls in the swing states and it's clear that Obama has a huge advantage.

 The 9 red/purple states won by Obama in 2008 and the margin he won by.

FL -  29 electoral votes, won by Obama 51-48
OH - 18 electoral votes, won by Obama 52-47
NC - 15 electoral votes, won by Obama 50-49
VA - 13 electoral votes, won by Obama 53-47
IN -  11 electoral votes, won by Obama 50-49
CO -  9 electoral votes, won by Obama 54-45
IA -    6 electoral votes, won by Obama 54-45
NV -  6 electoral votes, won by Obama 55-43
NM - 5 electoral votes, won by Obama 57-42

That's a whopping 112 electoral votes that are up for grabs and in many of those states Obama is comfortably leading. Florida is a huge prize with 29 electoral votes, following by the others. All this begs the question: Does the GOP even stand a chance?

Stu Rothenberg (Rothenbergpoliticalreport.com) is one of the best numbers crunching political pundits out there. Right now, his 2012 general election predictions are:

Democrat   232 (Safe Democrat and lean Democrat (MI,MN,NM & PA)
Republican 206 (Safe Republican and lean Republican (NC)

According to Rothenberg, 95 electoral votes are pure toss up - CO, FL, IA, NH, NV, OH, VA and WI.

What's different from 2008? Rothenberg says NM leans Democrat and Indiana and North Carolina lean Republican. He's also tossed in Wisconsin and New Hampshire into the pure toss-up mix.

Rothenberg's analysis is here.

Pundits typically play it safe and are very conservative in their estimates. Intrade, however, is the online gambling site that has a steller record at accurately calling election results based on the bets of its gambling participants. Right now Intrade has the probability of Obama winning at 60.9% and the probability of Romney winning at 38.1%.

How accurate was Intrade in 2008?  Intrade predicted a 364-174 electoral college Obama victory in 2008.  Obama actually won 365-173.

The pundits are none too happy that they now have to compete with with the gamblers for the lofty status of being the most accurate predictor of election results.

Electoralmap.net graded the major pollsters in 2008 on accuracy and consistency.

Poll Score Grade
Rasmussen Reports,  A-
Ipsos/McClatchy, B+
CNN/Opinion Research, B+
Fox News, B
Pew,  B-
GWU/Battleground, C+
Diageo/Hotline, C+
NBC News/WSJ, C-
Gallup Traditional, C
Marist, D+
ABC/Wash Post,  D+
IBD/TIPP, D
Gallup Expanded, D
CBS News/NYT, D-
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby, F

Full results here

For Republicans to win the presidency in November will absolutely require that the GOP win a significant chunk of the swing states.  Increasingly, that's looking impossible.  The Republican Party has managed to alienate female voters,  youth voters, independent voters, Ron Paul supporters, Libertarians, anti-war voters and other constituencies that are just fed up with Republicans.  For these folks, Obama isn't the enemy but just a political twin of Bush and the Republicans.

What holds the potential to be interesting this year is if 3rd parties fare any better in the general election than they have in the past, particularly the Libertarian Party.