These voices want CLEAR, CONSISTENT, NON-BIASED News Media.

Being an alternative to the main-stream-media (MSM) ourselves, we couldn’t agree more.

For More Information, Click here: http://www.operationcanyouhearusnow.com/

Could it be that our leadership is finally feeling that they had better listen to the American people?  Could it be that millions of Americans have stood up across party-lines to demand that their senators and congressmen listen to what they want for their country, for their future?  Could it be that we are finally seeing the marketing attempts of a group of people to actually reach citizens and find out what they want?

Well, we hope so.  And we will see.  The Good American Post will vet the site “American Speaking Out” and let you know what we think as this media develops.

Let us know what YOU think!

VISIT AMERICA SPEAKING OUT HERE.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

More evidence is coming forward about the potential chemicals that can be found in our food.  First of all, it is the centralized food system and dangerous choices made by people, that has resulted in this action.  The USDA has rules and guidelines, and attempts to enforce them as best that they can, however it would be impossible (economically) for an inspection to occur on every piece of meat that hits store grocery shelves.

What to do?  Safety resides in knowing your farmer.  The customer does the inspecting.  Generally, small farmers have less need for dangerous chemicals and antibiotics (at least in large quantities).  Knowing who your farmer is and their farming practices is a sure bet to ensuring the quality of your beef and the health of those who will consume it.

Become responsible for your purchasing decisions.  As our good friend Paul Alhadef has said, “We need a consumption revolution”.  It is up to us to make better choices, support and purchase from local vendors, and take control of the decisions that affect our food.

Read the whole story HERE.

- Tisha Casida

There is a truism in governance which states if you want to limit a particular behavior or activity then regulate it—if you want to severely limit it then tax it.  Consider the current “health care” debate this country is having.  Then reflect on the various “social engineering” initiatives this country has supported based on moral grounds:  Prohibition—alcohol; regulation and prohibition of various pharmaceuticals aka “drugs”; regulation of tobacco, and ever increasing taxing of its use; legalization and government funding of abortion; funding and support for various sex education programs for youth; government funding of planned parenthood, and single parent support initiatives.

The list above is but a few random selections.  Based on the examples I provided above, when the government both regulated and taxed an activity (tobacco use) the result was a dramatic reduction in the use of the offending product.  Those unable to break their habit pay a heavy tax to continue satisfying their urge.  Some may say this is an unjust taxation as typically smokers are from the lower strata of the socioeconomic status—we are penalizing the poor to fill government coffers.  What can I say?  What government tax or regulatory regime is fair?  When does it not take from one group and give to another group?  At least the behavior is legal and smokers are free to choose whether to pay the price or not, whereas many other tax schemes do not afford one a choice.  Note the failings of the other initiatives listed above—what do they have in common?  They are projects whose stated objectives are failing miserably.  It seems the more money we put into education, or child pregnancy prevention the worse the results.  There is no adverse tax, or regulation associated with those behaviors.  We don’t regulate or tax the activity—in fact we subsidize it and thereby encourage the behavior.

So, drawing empirically from the anecdotes above, one could surmise if you wish to limit a behavior, then you should regulate and tax it.  If you wish to encourage a behavior, then limit the regulation, tax, and cost associated with the activity.  (Hmmm, a paradoxical conundrum may exist; we publically deplore an activity, yet through our governmental action we are literally increasing the numbers of participants in said “bad” behavior.)

Applying this postulate to health care will allow an effective perspective to develop.  Let’s start by stating the goals for which we can all agree:

1. Universal transportable coverage.
2. Reasonable/affordable costs for both services and insurance.
3. The best health services and medication available in the world.

We don’t want to see costs continue their rapid escalation; we don’t want to see rationing, or long waits for care; and we don’t want to see any degradation in the quality of care in our country as it exists today.  It is becoming readily apparent the various proposals being weighed in the Congress will not achieve the basic tenets we desire, nor will they guarantee no degradation of the current system we have.

The various options all discuss increased regulatory oversight of all aspects of our system; they include various increases in the tax burden for both small business and the currently insured.  Remember, taxing and regulating limit a behavior; I think we want to encourage citizens and business to be responsible and pay for their own insurance and health care.  So, if the solution is to reduce regulatory burden and the tax burden to incentivize a desired behavior, what would it look like?  John Mackey’s “The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare” (WSJ, August 12, 2009) provides a CEO’s (Whole Foods, national grocer) perspective with several private sector solutions:

-Encourage HSAs (Health Savings Accounts).  Similar to IRAs, individuals can deposit money directly tax free, as well as accepting deposits from their employer into this same account tax free.  The monies roll forward year to year tax free which encourages savings to cover deductibles or health care costs directly.  This is a limit on taxes which encourages a good behavior.

-Ensure all health insurance plans are tax deductible.  Whether paid for directly by the individual or by an employer, we should encourage this.  Making the premiums tax deductible will definitely encourage everyone to buy an insurance plan.

-Reduce regulations regarding mandatory coverage.  Oftentimes many like to blame a failing of the market place when results are not desirable.  In this case years of mandated coverage by our well meaning government have increased the cost of coverage for all concerned.  Let’s allow the consumer/citizen to choose what coverage they need—not special interest groups and their lobbyists.  This is the practice in all other forms of insurance markets (i.e., auto, life, property, etc.)

-Tort reform.  No surprise here.  If my costs to insure my practice increase, I simply pass the cost to the consumer.  If I cannot recover the cost, then I cannot stay in business which limits the number of practitioners, increasing demand on the remaining service providers which further increases costs.  Some argue tort reform is a canard.  They say liability claims represent only 1% of the total monies spent in health care.  What they don’t discuss are the various extra tests, and costs associated with ensuring a practitioner is not vulnerable to a future claim of negligence.  Oftentimes a past law suit judgment against a doctor causes all others in the medical field to require additional procedures to ensure they are safe from potential nuisance suits.

-Transparent and timely costs.  Call a doctor or hospital and ask for their rate sheet on various procedures and they won’t be able to provide one.  Why?  Well, it depends on the method of payment, the insurance company, and several other medically irrelevant factors.  Why is this not the case with a dentist?  How about a Veterinarian?  If you get a cavity filled, or your dog has its regular check up, you know the cost and you pay it right then and there.  Let’s make routine treatment the same for our personal medical needs.  If you have to pay it, you will likely be more cost conscious.  If your doctor does not have to wait 60 to 90 days while fighting your insurance company for payment, then costs will be reduced.

You can see these are simple suggestions, but they are based on eliminating needless regulation and tax.  We should own our coverage and be responsible for the costs associated with our health care.  As with other areas of our life, when we have to pay the freight directly, we are more diligent in ensuring costs are low and quality is high.  What about pre-existing conditions?  If you owned your health care plan, and it was not tied to your employment, then this issue would be mollified tremendously. With few exceptions we could all get inexpensive health coverage plans when we are young. Similar to term life insurance, you would lock in an annual premium for life.  Regardless of sickness in the years ahead, your premium would remain the same.  If you lose your job, you don’t lose the coverage—analogous to life, property, and auto insurance.  Your employer can, and as your value to the firm dictates, should contribute towards your individual health insurance plan.  Again, this would be tax deductible and increase the savings for the individual plan holder.

Individual responsibility, limiting government involvement, and allowing the power of personal economics to govern one’s choice of coverage is the key.  Whatever difficult issue faces our country, it is, it will be, and it always has been better to solve difficult issues in our country by supporting individual choice, as opposed to arcane legislation.

A US ARMY Veteran who proudly served as a Cavalry Officer and  Airborne Ranger.  After his military service, McCarthy worked as an executive in the transportation industry providing transportation solutions for large manufacturing facilities.  Intrigued by manufacturing McCarthy was hired by the Trane Company in Pueblo as a production manager in 1995,  learning their innovative world class manufacturing processes.  This allowed him to run his own facility in Colorado Springs for a small door and window manufacturer.

Commuting, and working long hours for the benefit of absentee owners motivated McCarthy to start his own enterprise.  His affinity for “numbers” drew him to the mortgage industry.  On July 4th, 1997 he started his venture which he has run continuously either solely or with partners since.  He purposely started on that date to commemorate his own “independence” day.  McCarthy still owns and operates Castle Investment & Loan, an independent mortgage brokerage and private placement lender.

McCarthy serves on numerous community boards in Pueblo; currently he is President of both the PCC Foundation Board of Directors, as well as the Pueblo Performing Arts Guild (PPAG).  He proudly advocates for Pueblo businesses, the downtown district (member Board of Directors Pueblo Downtown Assoc.), taxpayers, and the “Traditional Liberal” perspective of free enterprise, limited government, and fiscal prudence.   McCarthy can be reached at: seanmccarthy@aculink.net

We are excited to see the momentum behind some of our new candidates seeking office.  We were able to interview Bob McConnell (pictured above) running for Congress in District 3 of Colorado – his interview can be found on page 21 of our premier national issue (visit www.goodamericanpost.com).

It is so important for folks to learn about their candidates and understand how they are seeking office – what we mean is – whether or not they have been chosen by the political party “elites”.  People in power are not just those at the national level of our current administration – the power is also in the hands of the people who make decisions at caucuses and primaries.  Know who your local officials and leaders are, and find out who THEY are supporting, and then decide if you are happy with who they are supporting.

We have to hold everyone accountable here, and we have plenty of good candidates running – now we need to make sure that those in positions of power actually listen to us – we the people.

By Tisha Casida

Having the opportunity to currently study leadership, as well as work with activist groups and organizations in the name of “liberty”, it should be noted that we are all fighting for the same thing, and that it is very important and very necessary to work together to achieve a common goal.

The movement of “change” – first initiated by a presidential campaign, and now an inherent part of real changes and additions to our operations as an economy and country – is something that has been created and something that we can deal with – AS CONSUMERS, AS CONSTITUENTS, and as CITIZENS.

WE THE PEOPLE are the future, and it is up to us to work together in the name of LIBERTY and FREE MARKETS.  It does not matter if you are a republican, a democrat, an independent, a libertarian, or a constitutionalist.  This is about the United States of America, and each of us, as citizen leaders (Couto, 1995) play a part.

We must all support each other – organizations like American Liberty Alliance, are doing just that.  Check them out at: http://americanlibertyalliance.com/objective/

Couto, R. (1995). Defining a Citizen Leader. In Wren, J.T. (Ed.), The Leader’s Companion (pp. 11-17). New York, NY: The Free Press.

A direct “summary” from this website:

Prohibits the federal government from acquiring, directly or indirectly, any ownership interest in a troubled asset described in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) that was purchased from a financial institution by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Requires the Secretary to divest the government of any such interest not later than July 1, 2010, with exceptions allowing ownership interests of not more than six months if: (1) divestiture would have a significant adverse impact on taxpayers; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that a waiver would allow recovery of the cost of acquiring such interest. Amends EESA to state that the limit of authority to purchase troubled assets is $700 billion (under current law, such limitation, reduced by $1.259 billion, is described as “outstanding at any one time”).

Requires all repayments of obligations arising under EESA, and all proceeds from the sale of assets acquired by the government under that Act, to be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt. Makes it unlawful for an officer or employee of the executive branch to knowingly make, with the intent to influence, a communication regarding a significant management decision of a recipient of EESA assistance to any officer or employee of the recipient.

Makes the Financial Stability Oversight Board responsible for reviewing the ownership interest termination provisions of this Act. Establishes requirements for reports by the Secretary on: (1) ownership interests; (2) plans for compliance with this Act, including for winding down and divestiture; and (3) ending conservatorship and direct ownership by the government of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively).

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As we watch the Dow Jones “plummet” and show the volatility of the market right now – the news-casters and reporters could make one feel like the end of the world is near.

What is really going on here?

Why in the world do we get so swept up in “the market” which has no name and no face?

Although I do not have any investments in these mechanisms, I know that many do.  All of this, is supposedly tied to the Greek protests and the potential “collapse” of the financial system in Europe.

Our extreme wealth in this country has come because of the globalization of our world.  This is not necessarily bad or necessarily good.  One thing is for certain – we cannot change what has happened.

However, we could certainly look at “hedging” ourselves a little better in the future – instead of investing so much in the no-names and no-faces of the national/global stock-market we could invest LOCALLY with people who have names and faces, that we can call, talk to, and have confidence in (at least more confidence than in computers thousands of miles away).

This probably sounds idealistic.  But I am sick and tired of having the media make me so afraid of everything!  It is not THAT complex!  If we at least attempt to have local banking systems, local food systems, etc. I bet we will find that instead of watching those darn green and red numbers all day we could feel much more confidant in our investments RIGHT HERE that require no numbers because we have names and faces.

We can do both – global and local – and we should, because being afraid and upset all the time is counter-productive to liberty, happiness, and the American way.

- Tisha Casida