Thursday, 13 August 2009

OBAMA'S 'GREEN JOBS CZAR' WORKED WITH TERROR FOUNDER


Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director

Van Jones, the man appointed as "green jobs czar" to the White House, previously served on the board of an environmental activist group at which a founder of the Weather Underground terrorist organization is a top director.
WND previously reported Jones was as an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader.

He was appointed to serve as the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. According to the White House blog, Jones' duties include helping to craft job-generating climate policy and to ensure equal opportunity in the administration's energy proposals.
Jones, formerly a self-described "rowdy black nationalist," boasted in a 2005 interview with the left-leaning East Bay Express that his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Jones was president and founder of Green For All, a nonprofit organization that advocates for building a so-called inclusive green economy.
Until recently, Jones was a longtime member of the board of Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, business, environmental and community leaders that claims on its website to be "working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs."

Although influential, Apollo has only 14 state affiliates nationwide. Its New York office is directed by Jeff Jones, a top founding member of the Weather Underground radical organization.

Jeff Jones' bio on the Apollo website boasts the activist campaigned to remove PCBs from the Hudson River, clean up toxic pollution in inner-city and rural neighborhoods, and reverse global warming.

The bio states that from 1995-2005, Jeff Jones served as the communications director of Environmental Advocates of New York. Previously, he was a reporter covering state politics and policy for a variety of news organizations.
Not mentioned is that Jeff Jones was a leading anti-war activist and terrorist group founder who spent time on the run from law enforcement agencies while his group carried out a series of bombings of U.S. government
buildings.

Jeff Jones joined the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered in the fall of 1965. Two years later, he became the SDS's New York City regional director, a position in which he participated in nearly all of the group's major protests until 1969, including the 1968 Columbia University protests and the violent riots that same year at the Democratic National Convention.

In 1969, Jeff Jones founded the Weathermen with terrorists Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd when the three signed an infamous statement calling for a revolution against the American government inside and outside the country to fight and defeat what the group called U.S. imperialism. President Obama came under fire for his longtime, extensive association with Ayers.

Jeff Jones was a main leader and orchestrator of what became known as the Days of Rage, a series of violent riots in Chicago organized by the Weathermen. The culmination of the riots came when he gave a signal for rowdy protestors to target a hotel that was the home of a local judge presiding over a trial of anti-war activists.

Jeff Jones went underground after he failed to appear for a March 1970 court date to face charges of "crossing state lines to foment a riot and conspiring to do so." He moved to San Francisco with Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dorhn. That year, at least one bombing claimed by the Weathermen went off in Jones' locale at the Presidio Army base.

Jones' Weathermen would take credit for multiple bombings of U.S. government buildings, including attacks against the U.S. Capitol March 1, 1971; the Pentagon May 19, 1972, and a 1975 bombing of the State Department building.

Jeff Jones did not return WND phone and e-mail requests for comment.
White House adviser Van Jones, meanwhile, is not impartial to radical activism.
He was a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. The organization had its roots in a grouping of black people organizing to protest the first Gulf War. STORM was formally founded in 1994, becoming one of the most influential and active radical groups in the San Francisco Bay area.

STORM worked with known communist leaders. It led the charge in black protests against various issues, including a local attempt to pass Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the penalties for violent crimes and require more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.

The leftist blog Machete 48 identifies STORM's influences as "third-worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism)."

Speaking to the East Bay Express, Van Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.
"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

"I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.

Trevor Loudon, a communist researcher and administrator of the New Zeal blog, identified several Bay Area communists who worked with STORM, including Elizabeth Martinez, who helped advise Jones' Ella Baker Human Rights Center, which Jones founded to advocate civil justice. Jones and Martinez also attended a "Challenging White Supremacy" workshop together.

Martinez was a long time Maoist who went on to join the Communist Party USA breakaway organization Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or CCDS, in the early 1990s, according to Loudon. Martinez still serves on the CCDS council and is also a board member of the Movement for a Democratic Society, where she sits alongside former Weathermen radicals Ayers and Dorhn.

One of STORM's newsletters featured a tribute to Amilcar Cabral, the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands.
The tribute is noteworthy because Jones reportedly named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.
STORM eventually fell apart amid bickering among its leaders.

Van Jones then moved on to environmentalism. He used his Ella Baker Center to advocate "inclusive" environmentalism and launch a Green-Collar Jobs Campaign, which led to the nation's first Green Jobs Corps in Oakland, Calif.

At the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007, Jones announced the establishment of Green For All, an activist organization which in 2008 held a national green conference in which most attendees were black. Jones also released a book, "The Green Collar Economy," which debuted at No.12 on the New York Times' bestseller list – the first environmental book written by an African American to make the list.

His appointment as a White House environmental adviser was announced March 10.

Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily, 8/13/09

TLT Celebrates 200th Post: The Message Is Getting Through


“I believe that Barack Obama’s greatest legacy as president will be that he inspired a new generation of conservatives to rise up and defend our liberty.”

Ted Cruz, Texas' former Solicitor General and Tea Party Protestor

I like to take this opportunity to thank our readers for your support and feedback both positive and negative. I consider TLT a small voice in the wilderness of misinformation that is dispatched by the Main Stream Media that has chosen to forgo its responsibility to the public for providing objective news coverage.

They have become propagandists for the government which is why circulation of their daily newspapers are down and ratings of TV networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC continue to drop to new lows.

The American people are not only voting with their feet, but also with their wallets and TV clickers as well.

Somebody recently asked me why I hate Barack Obama so much?

This is typical of the Leftist mindset. I don’t hate the president at all. And like that famous line from the Godfather, “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.” And the business of TLT is to provide the voice of the loyal opposition to the policies of this administration.

America is a Republic, not a kingdom.

We elect a president to serve the people, not a king to rule over them.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people in this country that don’t even understand that principle which is more an indictment of our failing public schools system than the people themselves.

Government of the people, for the people, and by the people is set forth in the Constitution which makes America unlike any country in the history of the world.

But, President Obama believes in big, intrusive, centralized government that restricts personal freedom. He believes government knows what’s best for the people instead of the other way around.

Regrettably, the main stream media successfully hid these characteristics during the presidential campaign causing millions of people to vote for an undercover Socialist.

But, after eight months those people who voted for the president are feeling hoodwinked--which is why they’re rising up to stop Universal Healthcare.

I tried to warn you!

Nevertheless, all is not lost. Barack Obama is the best thing to happen to the Conservative cause since Jimmy Carter.

Just watch and learn.

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America


1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you keep your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans will have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.

3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a healthcare plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.

4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. ... If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your healthcare decisions?

5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: President Obama is open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than in France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?

7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factor. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these provisions do not exist.

9. It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that amount will likely continue to rise over the long term.

10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before -- with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours -- without reading it -- or we would have 8% unemployment. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

Human Events, compiled by the Heritage Foundation, 8/12/09

Obama Steps on His Tongue


“UPS and Fed Ex are doing just fine. Alright…the ahh… No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

Barack Obama, New Hampshire Town Meeting, 8/11/09.

Although the White House denies it, in a New Hampshire town meeting filled with carefully screened supporters of the president, President Obama nonetheless stumbled over his own argument for providing a public option for healthcare.

Incredibly, he made a telling analogy between Fed Ex, UPS and the U.S. Postal service and admitted that the government run outfit is riddled with problems.

Hello, Mr. President?

That’s exactly the same point that thousands of Americans have been vociferously making to the Democrats in other town hall meetings across the nation-which is, government cannot run anything as efficiently and as competently as the private sector.

So why ask the American people to pony up trillions of dollars for a new government run health care system that will not work as advertised?

The American people are not fools!

They can plainly see other government run health care systems like in Canada and the UK where medical services are rationed and are sub par to the U.S. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize it’s not worth the bother.

But, for as much as the Democrats may try to disparage the American free market system by constantly saying that we’re the only industrialized country without universal health care, the merits of such an argument falls on its face because the American people clearly know that other people from countries with universal healthcare come to the United States to get well.

Truth be told-universal health care is yet another Liberal Utopian construct that provides lousy medical services wherever it’s been tried.

Of course this won’t stop the ideology-Left minded Democrats from trying to force universal health care down Americans throats just the same.

Obama wanted to sneak this legislation by before the August recess. But, Americans are not giving in to a failed ideology without a fight.

Don’t tread on us, Mr. President!

Samuel Gonzalez, The Last Tradition, 8/12/09

Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Obama’s Pay Off to North Korea


LAST week, I speculated about what "ransom" the Obama administration may have had ex-President Bill Clinton promise to win the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee from the North Korean regime.

It didn't take long to learn at least the first concession. President Obama has broken with past US policy to agree to bilateral talks with North Korea -- a diplomatic plum that Kim Jong Il has sought for years, and a major coup in his attempt to nail down the succession of his 26-year-old son, Kim Jong Un.

While the administration maintains that Clinton (in the words of National Security Adviser James Jones) "passed no official messages and made no promises during his mission," it appears, as columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, "We are for the first time in memory hearing the truth from North Korean news agencies and lies from the White House."

Of course, the handover of hostages Ling and Lee had clearly been negotiated before Clinton left for Pyongyang. It's thus entirely possible that White House negotiators had offered bilateral talks in advance, with the offer affirmed in Clinton's three-hour meeting with Kim.

Jones reinforced this in comments to ABC News, saying, "We have coordinated all of this by the way with the other allies -- the Chinese, the Russians, the South Koreans, the Japanese." In fact, genuine coordination would require considerably more diplomacy than could be mounted in the days since Clinton's return. So it's most likely we simply informed those "allies" of a fait accompli -- a slap in the face for our actual allies (South Korea, Japan), and cause for triumphal smiles for the Chinese and Russians.

Russia and China have already successfully tested Obama and found him wanting. He has already taken human-rights and dollar-exchange-rate issues off the table with China. And he happily traded missile defense in Eastern Europe for a tentative nuclear-forces-reduction agreement that actually benefits Russian revival of Cold War-era arms reduction, plus a Russian promise (easily revoked) to provide an overland supply route for our forces in Afghanistan.

Watching the administration cave to Kim over two female journalists can only whet appetites for future concessions from the American naifs.

Meanwhile, officials in Seoul and Tokyo are wondering what, if any, security measures they can reasonably rely on America to provide in time of genuine crisis. Can full recognition of North Korea be far away?

South Korea, having abandoned the fruitless appeasement efforts of its previous "Sunshine Policy" (derided as the "Shoeshine Policy" by detractors) now watches helplessly as the US morphs from trusted ally to North Korean patsy.

Expect both countries to rely increasingly on internal resources for defense. Will they feel obliged to opt for a nuclear capability of their own?

Meanwhile, expect the coming bilateral talks to bring more US concessions on donations of fuel, food and medical assistance -- plus some trade concessions and the removal of export restrictions. In return, we'll get fresh North Korean promises to cease nuclear and missile development -- promises sure to prove to be as empty now as every time the regime made them previously.

Do not expect Obama to express outrage over the vast counterfeiting, narcotics and espionage empire that Kim has built. And forget about human rights for the oppressed North Korean people. Even before her husband's visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had taken that off the table as "unhelpful" to solution of the nuclear issues.

The lesson is now clear to America's enemies: Just push a little, and Obama will give you all you want.

Gordon Cucullu, a former Army lieutenant colonel, is author of "Separated at Birth: How North Korea Became the Evil Twin." His latest book is "Inside Gitmo.", NY Post, 8/11/09

Monday, 10 August 2009

Obama’s Three Stooges


August 2009 may go down as the coolest weather on record, but the political rhetoric on President Obama’s attempt to nationalize health care is more heated than ever.

Health care is a kitchen table issue: every American adult wants the best health care for themselves and their families and -- across the generation gaps -- they are coming out in record numbers against the Obamacare proposal.

As a result, the president and congressional Democrats are doing their best to stifle the debate and silence their critics

Nancy Pelosi’s August recess strategy memo said, (as HUMAN EVENTS’ Connie Hair reported on August 3) “Winning the health reform debate in August requires nothing less than an aggressive, multi-front effort to control the message and keep the momentum moving forward.”

The president is working hard to control the message. Campaigning for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds last week, Obama criticized those who opposed his nationalization of healthcare. He said, “I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess…”

Barack Obama’s rhetoric is straight out of Ring Lardner. One of the greatest writers America has ever produced, Larder wrote the best fictional dialogue. Here’s one brief exchange from “The Young Immigrunts,” between father and child:

“Are we lost, daddy?” I asked tenderly.

“Shut up, he explained.”

But Americans aren’t shutting up: they’re making their voices heard just like they did in the 2007 immigration debate. And their greatest voice is conservative talk radio, the “loud folks” liberal Sen. Lindsay Graham (R?-SC) complained of then.

After calling health insurance companies “villains,” Speaker Pelosi said that the thousands of Americans who are protesting Obamacare at congressional Democrats’ town hall meetings are phonies, organized by right wing extremists. She said, “I think they’re AstroTurf, you be the judge...They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

Despite Obama’s command to silence dissent, people are speaking out and his legislation has stalled because many Democrats are uncomfortable with the cost and the intervention of government in the doctor-patient relationship. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “So far, they have produced a measure that they cannot sell even to their own members. The only thing bipartisan, so far, is the opposition.”

For the next three weeks, until Congress returns on September 4, congressional Democrats -- at least those, unlike Indiana’s Baron Hill, who is apparently too scared of his constituents to even schedule a town hall meeting -- will be hearing continuously from constituents who are concerned and angry at the Dems’ approach to health care “reform.”

But they have a lot on their side. Especially Obama’s three stooges: the SEIU, AARP and PhRMA.

Pelosi’s strategy memo also said, “The Leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August.” Complimentary means opposing the protests of concerned Americans.

The three stooges are all members of a coalition of union, lobbying and business groups called “Heathy Economy Now” which is spending an enormous amount of money on television ads aimed at the Blue Dog Democrats, seeking to push them into supporting Obamacare.

The Service Employees’ International Union made its presence felt in the 2008 election, spending a reported $150 million to elect Obama and Congressional Democrats. And they’re showing up at the town hall meetings in considerable numbers. We’ve all seen the video of people wearing SEIU t-shirts pushing and shoving -- physically assaulting -- protesters outside one town hall meeting. They want the so-called “public option” which will establish government-run healthcare, and they will brook no dissent.

AARP supposedly represents the retired and elderly. But Obamacare proposes to cut about $500 million out of Medicare over the next decade, and will result in both healthcare rationing and “rationalization.” The rationalization -- based on cost effectiveness determined by life expectancy -- will limit what the elderly can obtain from their doctors. If the Washington bureaucracy decides that you’re too old for a hip replacement, you’ll either have to pay for it yourself, or be unable to get it.

And AARP members aren’t supporting Obamacare. But the AARP -- now nothing more than a liberal lobbying group disconnected from the interests of its members -- is spending time and a lot of money to help stampede congress into passing the bill.

Perhaps the most shameful is PhRMA: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA is the business lobby comprised of drug manufacturers. Its support was purchased in negotiations with the White House. PhRMA’s chief is former Louisiana Democratic congressman Billy Tauzin.

As the Wall Street Journal reported on August 7, “Chief pharma lobbyist Billy Tauzin’s clients were probably wondering about the return on their investment. Then, lo, Mr. Tauzin disclosed this week in a page-one story in the New York Times that, yes, the concessions were capped at $80 billion, no further. ‘We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’” Mr. Tauzin said. ‘Adding other stuff changes the deal.’ The White House confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account.”

Tauzin had said, according to the Times report, that the deal was confirmed with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, deputy chief of staff Jim Messina and health care reform “czarina” Nancy-Ann DeParle.

PhRMA is planning to spend $150 million on television ads supporting Obamacare beginning this month. You can’t expect to see the hard sell from PhRMA: with all that money to spend, they’ll likely hire the best actors and actresses to star in their commercials. The old will be likely be assured by Wilford Brimley that they won’t feel the pain of Medicare cuts. Younger voters will probably be told about the benefits of Obamacare by experts such as Denise Richards, famous consumer of optional enhancement surgery.

All through August, Senate negotiators will continue work on the Obamacare bill. The three Republicans -- Sens. Charles Grassley (Ia), Olympia Snowe (Me) and Mike Enzi (Wyo) -- will be the keys to killing the bill. While Snowe is hopeless, Enzi -- so far -- has rejected the nationalization approach. Which means Grassley is the key to stopping Obamacare.

Grassley has said that there should be no “public option”, the government-run insurance plan that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said will drive 131 million Americans out of their private plans and into the government plan. But Grassley is an old-time Washington deal-maker. He needs to hear from his constituents at every August meeting and he will. And so should every other member of Congress.

Obama and his congressional cohort are in a state of near-panic because Americans are speaking out in huge numbers against their effort to nationalize health care. Voters rightly doubt that Obamacare will do anything to improve the way they receive health care or limit its cost.

It won’t do either, and the more Americans speak out to stop it, the more likely we’ll be able to have the best healthcare system in the world: that’s the one we have now, not the one Obama’s three stooges want to shove us into.

Jed Babbin, Human Events, 8/10/09

ObamaCare Equals Government Controlled Life, Personal Freedom Be Damned


HIDDEN 'REFORM' COSTS: THE HEALTH COPS

EAT your vegetables. Avoid sweets and fats. Never smoke. And do your calis thenics.

Or be ready to pay a hefty tax.

Ridiculous? Sure. But under ObamaCare, Americans may well find themselves moving quickly toward a world of just those kind of mandates. Here's why.

As taxpayers start paying an ever-larger share of the nation's health bill (as they clearly will under the Dems' health reforms), pressure will mount for Uncle Sam to see that folks live healthy lives. There'll be two key rationales for broader sin taxes and other ways to control lifestyles:

* They promote "wellness."

* They make those living "unhealthy lives" bear the medical costs of their "reckless" behavior.

Certainly, the nation's "nannies" -- those who seek to run lives -- will push these arguments. And they'll have a point; after all, why should, say, a non-smoker pay for the lung-cancer treatment of someone who insisted on smoking all his life?

Such reasoning is already used to partly justify mind-boggling cigarette taxes in places like New York. Smokers drive up government health-care bills (e.g., higher Medicaid and Medicare costs), so it's only fair that they pay more in taxes.

Lifestyle cops also trot out health-cost arguments to push trans-fats and fast-food bans, zoning changes to promote fruit and vegetable sales and more public recreation space.

In April, then-city health czar Tom Frieden called for steep new taxes on soda -- which he claims would help curb obesity, and so lower costs tied to treating obesity-related diseases.

Last month, an Urban Institute study urged higher levies "on sugar-sweetened beverages, cigarettes and alcohol." It claimed "disease prevention" -- "increased physical activity, improved nutrition and smoking cessation" to "reduce both diabetes and hypertension" -- saves bucks. A second UI study asserted that excess weight causes "over $200 billion in annual health-care spending, half . . . funded by the taxpayers."

President Obama made his views clear in May when he tapped Frieden to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC then put out its own study, pegging the "cost of obesity" at $147 billion. Co-author Eric Finkelstein tied the issue directly to ObamaCare: "Unless you address obesity, you're never going to address rising health-care costs."

But then, who'd care about the taxpayers' health-care tab -- if there were no nationalized health care to begin with? "Preventable" costs are no reason to dictate lives but to avoid socialized medicine, like ObamaCare.

That's not the nannies' goal, of course. The CDC report, notably, cites 24 intrusive "strategies":

* Making kids walk to school.

* Pushing moms to breastfeed.

* Cutting down entrée portions served in public venues.

* Creating more bike lanes and recreational areas.

* Discouraging sales of "unhealthy" foods.

* Offering incentives to stores to push farm produce.

If voters back such steps for their own health, of course, that's one thing. But to claim they're essential to save taxpayers bucks gets the logic backward -- because, again, without nationalized health care, there'd be no nationalized costs. Folks would make their own choices -- and just pay the consequences.

Actually, sin-taxers understand this. By slapping levies on soda and cigs, they're implicitly telling folks: You can consume these products and possibly drive up health-care costs, as long as you're willing to pay the tax.

But why only soda and cigs? What about ice cream, Chinese food, salted pretzels -- laziness? Why not tax TV and Web time? (Not to give anyone ideas.)

Economist Gerald Prante goes further, asking: Rather than taxing fattening foods, why not tax obesity itself? Taxpayers could declare their height and weight on their 1040s, and pay an "obesity tax" based on the resulting Body Mass Index.

And no reason to stop there. If the goal is to make each of us pay the health costs linked to our own indulgences, there's a more efficient way to do it: Simply make everyone pay his own medical bills -- and scrap nationalized health care altogether.

Lifestyle dictators will have none of that, of course. They'd rather end personal financial responsibility for health-care costs and then claim government has a right to mandate how we live -- since it pays the bills.

Which is why a vote for government health care is a vote for government-run life. Let's hope Americans understand that be fore ObamaCare goes to the floor.

Adam Brodsky, 8/10/09