About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

DEBATING THE BIG LIE

 
   Within a few days the United States Senate will begin debate on the so-called healthcare reform bill drafted behind
closed doors and then disclosed privately to members of the majority before either the minority or the public were
allowed to see it. Once debate begins. seanators will have an opportunity to propose amendments before a final bill
can be voted on. The process is expected to be long and acrimonious.
   What is most astonishing is that grown men and women, elected to the snior house of the legislature by their own
respective constituencies will spend so much time discussing, and then trying to pass into law something that does
not even rise to the level of good fiction. It is, instead, a flimsy tissue of outright lies.
   At Barack Obama's insistence the language of the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibiting the use of any federal funds
for abortion has already been stripped out of the bill. If it passes in its current form. it will constitute the largest
expansion of abortion since it was legalized,  use tax dollars to pay for elective abortions and penalize private
insurers who do not wish to fund abortions. There are two issue here. First, if you believe the killing of unborn infants
is immoral, you cannot support this bill. Second, whatever you believe about abortion, if you believe your tax
dollars and the taxes of those who do object o moral grounds should  not be used to fund elective abortions
then you cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has promised Nancy Pelosi that if the
bill comes back from the conference committee without the amendment banning public funding of abortions she
will lose ten to fifteen votes toward final passage. The bill only passed by five votes,
   Second, the message that the bill will not increase the deficit, either in the short or long term, and that it will reduce
the costs of medical care are groundless fantasies based om hypothetical projections much like those used to pass
Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are now nearly bankrupt and continue fueling the deficit. It's a lie, plain and
simple. If you believe it you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny!
   Third, the notion that the only tax increases will be for the wealthiest class is false on its face. In fact, taxes will
go up on small businesses -- that's right, the ones run by Joe and Mary Middleclass. And those new taxes on wheelchairs,
crutches, breathing assistance machines and the like. Do you believe that only the wealthy buy such things" If ever there
was a true gouge, this is it. Let's take healthcare for the poor out of grandma's social security. It's obscene!
   Fourth, if you believe it's possible to whack $400M out of a program like Medicare without reducing the availability
and quality of care, then please say hello to the tooth fairy for me. If this government can save that much in fraud and
waste then why didn't they start doing it when Obama took office and use it to avoid some of the bailouts? They can't
do anything like what they're promising. The Congressional Budget Office knows it and I guarantee you that senior
Americans know it.
   Fifth, how can any sane adult believe that an entity that makes and enforces the rules governing health insurance
can go into direct competition with those who have to live by those rules without gradually squeezing them out
of business? This is one of the biggest Obama lies of all, and it's so obvious it's hardly worth arguing. It's why
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have said they won't vote for any bill that inclides the "public
option," and why Repuiblicans unanimously oppose it.
   Finally, if you want to look through a crystal ball at the future of government run healthcare, just look at what
a wonderful job it has done with the H1N1 vaccine that's been too little, too late and is still not available to
all of the at risk. This is what big givernment does to just about everything it touches. It can't even accurately
count the jobs that have been produced (or not) by the great stimulus boondoggle that should never have been.
   But the fact that in spite of the obvious mendacity with which this president and the Democratic party have
tried to sell America this tripe, they continue to trumpet it from the rooftops, even applauding themselves for
thinking of it, The resaon this administration has abandoned the prosecution of marijuana violators is that they
hope more Americans will smoke themselves into a stoned stupor until they can slide through a entitlement
program that will hopelessly indenture future generations to an unsustainable debt, and not fix anything now
in the bargain. Joe Lieberman, Blcnahe Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mary Landirieu are the key senators who
can block this misbegotten bill from ever soming up for a vote. Write or call them if you can. Tell them you;re
counting on them to see through the lies and vote "no" for cloture. Maybe that will finally give this "Abortion
Presidnet" something to think about.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA MAKES BAD DECISIONS

 
   Since taking office Barack Obama has made a series of decisions which, to many Americans are unfathomable.
Why did he announce the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay before having a concrete strategy in place
to deal with the dangerous men being detained there? Why is he still dithering about what to do in Afghanstan
when continued delay plays into the hands of the Taliban? Why, after promising that he would not do so, does he
allow his attorney general to persecute, er, prosecute the CIA tasked with catching and interrogating these monsters? 
But the question pushing others to the back of the line today is why did Obama and his attorney general decide to try
accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators as criminals, and in New York?
   The simple answer to what goes on in the mind of a liberal is "not very much." But reflection reveals a carefully
calculated political and philosophical equation in which certain basic commitments drive everything else. It can
best be seen in Obama;s reaction to the Fort Hood massacre in which radical Islamist Nidal Hasan murderd
13 and wounded thirty more while screaming "allahu akbar," god is great. A number of White House critics
have rasied the question about why Obama's first response was to caution against "jumping to conclusions" and
to quickly label what happened "a horrific crime,." even insisting that the Senate delay investigating related
intelligence and security breaches until the criminal investigation is completed. The reason is simple, and it also
explains why Obama wants Mohammed tried in New York. He wants no linakge whatever between terrorism
and Fort Hood because if we call it terrorism then we have to concede that it was this man's radical Islamist
ideologoy that drove him to murder and thus connects him to the worldwide network of violent Islamic jihad.
If we paint him as a lunatic, or even a common criminal who acted alone, we are spared the exercise of
connecting the dots that Obama desparately wants to avoid connecting. If a person commits a crime, then
we simply try him as a criminal. If he commits terrorism, then that connects his actions with a broader international
consppiracy, whether specific to the event in question or generalized as a crusade to kill Americans.
   If Americans reach the latter conclusion, which polls suggest more than 60% have, then the carnage becomes
an attack in a wider war for which Obama has no stomach. If he labels Fort Hood terrorism, then he concedes
that it is an act of war, involving not just an individual but a group. Since it is very difficult, if not impossible
to try a group so large as the whole jihadist movement in criminal court, some other means must be found to
render justice, i.e., war. Obama's liberal mindset will simply not allow him to countenance the possibility that we
are unalterably and unequivocally at war with radical Islam. It's a war he's afraid of, one which distracts from
his socialist domestic agenda and one which financially strains a nation he has already spent to the verge of
bankruptcy with his bailouts, stumulus packages and entitlements. And it is at odds with the version of reality
that he tried to seel to the Muslim world in his Cairo speech. In his mind, if we can simply convict and imprison
some of the more notorious jihadists, that will get us off the hook to succeed in fighting terrorism abroad. Ah,
if only it were that simple.
   It is definotely more politically correct to say that Mohammed, Binalshib and, for that matter, Hasan were
random sociopaths who did terrible things. It is completely another to face the fact that it is an extreme and
violent faction of one of the world's most popular religions that motivates and binds them inextricably together
in their nefarious intent. Killing a few of the snakes can never substitute for wiping out the nest. In his pique to
appease Muslims, Obama has thrown criminality, war and terror all into the same perverse blender and concocted
a mixture too bitter for Americans to drink. In so doing he is using the typical liberal sleight-of-hand by calling
something obvious by another name, in hopes that no one will notice that he's trying to do a hammer's job with
a screwdriver.
   Differentiate for us if you can, Mr. President, between 9/11, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of the
Nairobi embassy and the massacre at Fort Hood. Each wantonly took American life. Each was planned and carried
 out by radical Muslims. Each was applauded worldwide by still other Muslims. Exactly what would it take for you
 to admit that America is at war with radical Islam? The answer is that there is no imaginable set of circumstances
that would elicit such an admission from this president, because to make such would be to set in motion a nearly
infinite regress of policy shockwaves would simply unravel his liberal commitments.
   So we have come to this. We bring one of America;s sworn enemies to our most populous city, a city he has
already profaned with his murderous acts and his obscene version of a religion, and we involve him, after the fact,
in a criminal prosecution in which evidence may now be suspect, procedure difficult to follow, security a nightmare
and the outcome uncertain. This is Barack Obama and Eric Holder's concept of justice. The only thing missing to
complete the farce is a judge with "empathy" for the murderers. But the White House is undoubtedly interviewing.
Why does Barack Obama make so many bad decisions? All of his intellectual water is drawn from a poisoned well.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT

 
   Whoever said that democracy is rule by majority? The only time that's even semi-true seems to be at
the time of a presidential election. From that time forward the president and the party in power seem
to do as they jolly well please without reference to the majority opinion of the American people.
   Recent history is replete with examples, and the polls tell the sad tale. A majority of the population
opposes the healthcare reform bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and vigorously
lobbied for by the president. A majority of Americans opposes closing Guantanamo Bay and and an even
larger majority disagrees with bringing the terrorists to American soil and trying them in civilian courts.
Yet that is what is in progress today. A clear majority of Americans oppose raising taxes to pay for
more entitlement programs, government encroachment into the private sector, union takeover by
card check, cap-and-trade energy policies, abortion on demand, gay marriage and gays in the military
and a host of other things that Barack Obama are daily striving to impose on the nation. The election
was last year. The majority clearly does not govern this year.
   What's wrong with these people that they're not listening? Even more important, what's wrong with
our system that a president and his party can run roughshod over the American people on issues
ranging from their most dearly held moral principles to their freedom of speech to their healthcare?
In many of the world's Democracies massive public denunciation of a leader's actions can lead to
mandatory special elections. If elections were forced today, would Barack Obama and the Democratic
legislative majority retain power? Only when pigs fly!
   The problem with the Democratic party and their president is that they have spent decades flirting
with and adopting a socialist political philosophy, and when America granted them the windfall of
near unbridled control of the White House and both houses of congress they reacted like a child who
stole the entire cookie jar. They plan to stuff themselves until they eventually get sick. Trouble is,
they're making the rest of us sick in the process. Are they miscalculating? Doubtful. They understand
that when their agenda has been enacted they will be thrown out of Washington for abusing their
power and doing the very things a majority of American don't want. But they also know that whatever
they can successfully write into law will be extremely difficult -- maybe even impossible -- for
successor givernments to undo. They are exactly like the kid who stole the car he could never afford
to buy, and, like him, they're going to drive it as far and as fast as they can before they crash. The
bad news is that there won't be anything left of the car, and America is the car.
   So what can be done about presidents and parties who habitually break promises they made to get
elected and who insist in ramming policies the majority don't agree with down America's throat? Very
little on the short term. The Tea Parties, angry town hall meeting protests and the precious few news
organizations that have criticized and challenged them have, at least, rocked them back on their heels
a bit. But they have also become more determined to enact their catastrophic agenda fast, before the
mid-term elections and the looming presidential election of 2012. When those elections occur, Americans
will have a chance to prove ther're not as dumb as electing Obama made them look. That might be too
late. It is critically important to wrest majority status in the House of Representatives from the Democrats
in 2010. But that may be a long shot.
   What about the longer term? Term limits would help, althugh the current Democratic majority in the
Senate will never pass that suggested limitation. What we need is a constitutional mandate to demand
immediate new elections when it becomes clear that elected officials have lied to gain power and are not
acting according to the will of a majority of American citizens. Good luck with that!
   Meanwhile, what we've got is what we've got. Hugo Chavez, socialist dictator Venezuela has clutched
 and consolidated his power by silencing critics through intimdation, restricting the free press, forcing
enactment of legislation and nationalizing everything from oil refineries to gilf courses. Can anyone with
half a brain look at what's going on in America and say, with a straight face, that Barack Obama is NOT
doing or trying to do all of those same things? Of course he is, because he fancies himself a socialist
dictator, not the president of a free democracy. America is well down the road toward having an emperor
instead of a president. I'm passing on a family gathering this weekend because I have a Tea Party to go
to. What are you willing to give up for the country we used to know?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO TO NEW YORK AGAIN

 
   Just when we thought the Obama administration had completely exhausted its bottomless bag of abject
stupidity, faux Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed
and his accomplices will be given a civil trial in New York City. Undoubtedly we will be putting them up at
the Waldorf on the taxpayers' dime, buying them brand new prayer rugs and making certain the call to
prayer is broadcast promptly at 6 AM over the hotel speaker system. There will probably be changes in the
menu during their stay, too. Don't go looking for a late night BLT in the coffee shop.
   A criminal trial for a Pearl Harbor style act of war against an unsuspecting civilian population, eh? Never
mind the compromise of top secret national sceurity data that will have to be released in dicovery. Or the
probable exclusion of evidentiary statements extracted under "torture." Or the tab to taxpeyrs for funding
the astronomincal cost of their trial defense. Or the trial the CIA will be put through (it wasn't enough to
puublicly call them liars and open an investigation into them). Or the possibility that the chain of evidence
may have been violated by soldiers who had no idea they were responsible for upholding rules of criminal
procedure.
   What if Mohammed and/or some of the others walk free? What if some liberal judge throws out all the
evidence? What if the ham-handed Obama administration screws this up the way they have everything they've
touched? What do we say to 3,000 grieving families? That justice was served? That the killers had their day in
court and prevailed? If that happens what odds would you give on Mohammed actually leaving New York
alive? Three-thousand families makes lots of angry, hurt people.
   America has a president who does not know the difference between terror, war and crime. It has an attorney
general whose actions have been racially motivated from the day he was sworn in. And it has a justice system
which is now, according to Obama, to value empathy over the rule of law. Maybe after the trial is over we
can take th culprits to D.C. so the Democrats in congress can apologize to them for what WE have put THEM
through. Can it get any sicker than this?
   But look at the bright side, If even one of these scurvy jihadists walks free, Barack Obama couldn't get elected
homeowners association president in Chicago, let alone president of the United States in 2012. It was said over,
and over and over again before the election. The man has no experience in governing anything, and has no clue
what he's doing now. His slavish devotion to blind socialist ideology is weakening the military, devastating our
intelligence community and now, at last, making amockery of our criminal justice system.
   Putting Mohammed and the others on criminal trial in New York is a monumental mistake, one in what will
apparently be an unendingline of them. And it will badly hurt the nation Obama has sworn to serve. Mohammed
begged to be executed while he was at Gitmo. The trial hasn't started yet, and it's still not too late to grant his wish.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK . . .

 
   A radical Muslim terrorist shot and killed 13 at Fort Hood, and wounded 30 more. If that's not politcally
correct enough for you, go read some other column. Here, for the next few paragraphs, we're going to
tell it like it is.
   The President urged us not to jump to conclusions, and a general officer who reports to him fretted that
the diversity of our military might be in danger. Then the intel began to leak out, and the rest of America
wondered why someone didn't jump to the obvious conclusion a long time ago, and just how many good men
and women the army is prepared to lose in order to protect diversity.
   Look at the plain facts. Major Nidal Hasan told a group of military doctors that "we must sever the heads
of infidels and pour boiling oil down their throats." He warned of "adverse events" if Muslim soldiers were
forced to fight against fellow Muslims. He had contacts with al Qaeda in Pakistan, sent money there and
had a relationship with a mosque frequented by 911 attackers. He had a business card engraved "SOA" -
soldier of allah, and before commencing his murderous rampage is reported to have shouted allahu akbar --
god is great -- the favorite rallying cry of the jihadists. Just how much more do you want, Mr,. President,
before you'll let us "jump" to the obvious conclusion that while this guy may have had a screw loose, he
was carrying out murder in the name of his ultra-violent religion?
   There is a real sense in which political correctness is as responsible for the needless deaths at Fort Hood
as is is Muslim wack job. And it's something our president embnraces and touts. In his Cairo speech and his
visits to Arab countries he toadied up to Muslims. One by one he has downplayed the attacks by Muslims
on our military -- from the fragging of officers in Kuwait to the brutal assassination in Arkansas -- as
isolated events. He has bought into the consensus of liberal scholarship that the Arabic "allah" is a version of
the Hebrew "el" and therefore while the Muslims' prophet is Muhammad and the Christian's is Jesus we
really all worship the same deity.
   Well, get this through your obtuse, politically correct head, Mr. President. Many of us don't worship any
so-called god who obligates us to support our fellow believers in their attempts to murder others. We think
Muhammad was a knock-off prophet who purveyed junk religion, and whose life was hardly a paradigm
of virtue to be emulated. The Constituion enjoins us from prohibiting the free worship of any man, but it
does not compel us to believe in a religion which we consider both false and dangerous. You give all the
speeches that you want to, and have your anti-American "diversity czar" issue rules and regulations until his
behind falls off. That won't make Islam credible, nor will it make America safer.
   If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, guess what? It's almost always a duck. Obama and the
liberal PC sycophant papers like the NY and LA Times can deny, delay, obfuscate and foam at the
mouth as much as they want to. Nonoe of it will change the fact that the dastardly execution carried out
at Fort Hood was jihadist murder, Islamic terrorism. It's time Americans stopped playing games. It's time
our president, so quick to condemn Cambridge police over an incident hw knew nothing about, faced up
to and admitted the facts about Fort Hood, which he now knows a lot about. Will he do it? Not a chance!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PROOF POSITIVE THAT OBAMA LIED!

 
   When President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of congress, he stridently and aggressively made
certain claims about the bill Democrats were trying to pass and that he supported. At one point he was
interrupted by Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted, "You lie." Wilso was subsequently
pilloried in the media and disciplined by Democrats in the House for his outburst. Ensuing events have
proven beyond a shadow of doubt, however, that Obama did lie, and did it repeatedly. So the real
question is not why did Joe Wilson shout, "You lie?" The real question is what will it take to muster
the intestinal fortitude in the rest of us to do the same?
   The facts speak for themselves. Obama claimed that the proposed healthcare reform would not allow
coverage for illegal aliens, A Sebate committee spent the entire week after the promise had been made
stripping out the loophole that proved Wilson's contention. Now, the Houseof Representatives, caving
in to the Hispanic Caucus, has put it back. Illegal aliens will be able to get insurance through the "public
option." Democrats point out that they will have to use their own money to do it, but  ignore the fact that
the reason they will be able to afford it is because it will be subsidized by your tax dollar. Wilson was right!
Obama lied then, and he's lying now if he says that the House bill just passed will not cover illegals.
   Obama promised that healthcare reform would not provide federal dollars to pay for abortion. It was a
lie when he said it, and it was a lie up until an hour before the health vote in the House. Democrat Bart
Stupak (R-MI) put together a coalition of pro-life Democrats and threatened to join Republicans in
blocking the healthcare reform bill's passage unless it strictly prohinited any use of federal dollars to fund
abortion. His amendment to that effect was known as the Stupak-Pitts amendment. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi prevailed upon pro-choice elements to agree to its passage in order to bring the bigger bill to the
floor for a successful vote. The amendment passed 240-194. Does anyone want to bet that Pelosi didn't
promise the pro-choiceers that Stupak-Pitts would be stripped out of the final bill in conference? If so,
you're on! If Obama was telling the truth, then why was Stupak-Pitts necessary? Clearly, it wouldn't have
been. Obama lied through his teeth.
   The president promised that "if you like you;re healthcare plan, you can keep it." To ten million seniors
on Medicare Advantage that was a lie, because all the existing bills de-fund Medicare Advantage in order
to pay for healthcare reform. This means that those seniors will not. as Obama promised, be able to keep
the healthcare plans they are happy with. They will eventually have to purchase a medicare supplement
plan which is several times more expensive and does not cover much of the preventive and maintenance
care that Medicare Advantage allows. Obama lied to ten million seniors, and he did it knowingly and to
gain political advantage. How much lower can it get?
   It's not okay for presidents to lie to congress or the American people. When Democrats became convinced
that George W. Bush had deceived congress and Americans about the reasons for invading Iraq, they labeled
him a liar and pressed the assertion through the remainder of his term and throughout the 2008 election
campaign. They had far less proof that Bush lied that we now have that Barack Obama did. When it comes
to prevarication, America has allowed its leaders a good deal of slack (Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, et al). But
when deception becomes the daily modus operandi of an entire administration -- from the White House right
down through the congress -- Americans are unlikely to be so charitable. It is a painful thing for a nation
to admit that its elected leaders were elected and continue to govern supported by a tissue of premeditated
falsehoods. Obama promised that if opponents said things that weren't true about his beloved healthcare
reform "we're going to call you out." Well, Mr. President, you have lied to us, repeatedly and premeditatedly.
Now we're calling you out. That's what comes just before we throw you out!
 
   
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT'S WRITTEN ON THE WIND

 
   Electoral breezes of autumn have blown, and the outcomes are rife with lessons for political parties and
elected officials alike. Beware the coming storm, and ignore what's written on this wind at your own peril.
   President Obama's minions are furiously spinning the outcome of Tuesday's elections in which Republicans
wrested the only two governorships up for grabs from the Democrats' grasp. Dems are at great pains to assure
all that these outcomes were not a sign of national disapproval of the president, but based on local issues
alone. They ignore the fact that exit polling clearly demonstrates that disapproval of Obama's directions
did, indeed, factor in (the polled voters said so), and that while Obama carried both New Jersey and
Virginia in 2009 and actively campaigned for the Democratic incumbent in one and the Democratic pretender
in the other, both states repudiated his pleas. If face-saving is more important to the Valerie Jarretts, Anita
Dunns, David Axelrods and Robert Gibbs of Obama's staff than careful analysis and a sobering reality check 
it does not bode well for any change of direction going forward. Whatever they're saying publicly, congressional
Democrats are thinking privately, "This means I could very well get my own butt kicked in the 2010 mid-term
elections if I appear to be a knee-jerk liberal voter." They would be right to worry.
   Republicans, who are riding high after the two big wins, seem to think that the 2010 and 2012 elections
are now in the bag. That kind of foolishness assures their defeat and ignores the chaos on the ground in
which Republican leadership gave every appearance of not knowing who is on first. In New York 23 the
 idiotic party leadership nominated a candidate who was so far left she wound up being repudiated by
polled voters, dropped out and then promptly endirsed the Democrats who won election to the House. To
make matters worse, Deirdre Sozzafava, the left-leaning dropout, was endorsed along the road by the likes
of the RNC and party chair Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and other noted Republicans.
Some how it just didn;t make sense to voters to back a candidate with the same views as her Democratic
opponent and they couldn't understand why party leadership would want to send to Washington someone
who would vote for all the things they were against. Local leadership not in touch, national party in
disarray, political endorsers (except for Sarah Palin, Fred and Jeri Thompson and Tim Pawlenty) politics
as usual. Picking candidates with views so radically different from the local voters is plain dumb, and
supporting such a candidate by endorsement because she wears a particular party tag is brain dead. Who
wants to vote for that? The clock is ticking, and if the Republican party doesn't get its act together soon,
it's celebration will be short-lived.
   If the angry town hall meetings and the tea parties didn't get Barack Obama's attention, then Tuesday's
outcomes should. It would be a fool's miscalculation to deny that protest has now spread from the
streets to the voting booths. Voters are saying that they are nervous about or, in many cases downright
disapproving of the high spending, big government, socialist leaning, foreign policy dithering approach
that Obama and the Democrats are hawking. These are not policy directions consistent with Obama's
commitment to "govern fron the center." and voters expect accountability. However much the White
House talking heads blather about the state elections being about local issues, a look at those issue,
i.e., high taxes, corruption in government and marginalizing the private sector are precisely the same
issues bearing on people's opinions of the Obama administration. The statement that "all politics is local
politics" definitely applies here. The natives are getting restless, and they are saying, "Mr. President, we
don't like what you're doing." Congress is beyond listening to it, and they'll pay. Obama had better listen
if he doesn't want to meet the same fate.
   There are messages written on the elctoral winds for Independents, too. The showing that Doug Hoffman
put on in NY 23, losing narrowly to Democrat Bill Owens while underfunded, spurned by the Republicans
and stabbed in the back by fauz Republican Sozzafava, was astounding. Forty percent of Americans call
temselves conservatives, with another thirty saying they are moderate. With the Democrats selling out to
socialism and the Republicans in disarray, the time was never more ripe for a successful third (consiervative)
party to be a factor. Independents are already the swing vote. Why aren't they entitled to a candidate of
their own. Glenn Beck has said that a third party candidate could win in 2012. Maybe so. But in any case
it is high time for conservatives and Independents to let both parties know in no uncertain terms that if
they continue politics as usual, nominate unsupportanle candidates and ignore the voice of the people those
parties cannot count on their support.
   The trend nationally is nothing if not toward conservative values. Maine voters repealed their own legislature's
approval of gay marriage rights, and in Washington, an extremely liberal state, the same sex partner benefit
passed by only a whisker. A majority of Americans now disapprove of abortion and are most concerned about
the deficit, runaway spending and government invasiveness. The wind is well on its way to becoming a storm.
There's a whole lot written on yesterday's winds. Those who read it well will be the future's winners. Those who
don;t are destined for the scrap heap of unsuccessful anonymity.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"BECAUSE WE SAY SO"

 
   The Associated Press recently ran a story stating that government had substantially axaggerated the
number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus. Quicker than a congressman can say "you lie," they
joined Fox News in Barack Obama's doghouse, while his minions blasted the story as "misleading."
   What's presently going on between Obama and certain media outlets and personalities reminds one
greatly of the repartee between an exasperated, dithering parent and his recalcitrant child. When the
child continues to ask impertinent questions, however valid those questions may be, there often comes
a time when the parent either cannot or will not justify himself/herself and snaps, "That's the way it is
because I say so." It's not very good parenting, and it's a disaster when it becomes the modus operandi
for the leader of the free world.
   White House communications troll Anita Dunn has boasted openly about how, during the election
campaign, Obama and his people were able to control (read "manipulate") the press, getting them
to cover what they wanted covered and not cover what they didn't want covered, putting out their
own version of reality without having to talk to reporters. But as it becomes increasingly apparent
that the latest messiah impostor cannot, with the stroke of his bailout pen, turn the water of recession
into the wine of prosperity, some of those pesky reporters are spending less time taking dictation and
more time digging out the facts. Uh oh!
   AP's artcile was right on point. Arguing that one is working miracles to stave off a depression as
the job rate continues to tank, first time unemployment applications are going steadily up and
businesses who hoped to rehire laid off workers aren't, is the political equivalent of spitting into the
wind. The White House's rebuttal of the AP piece (which really isn't) is just like an ill-tempered
parent who chooses to construct his/her own private version of reality shrilling, "It's so because I
say it's so." Sorry Obama, Joe Biden, Robert Gobbs, David Axelrod. It really isn't so just because
you say so, and the media sharks are just beginning to taste the blood in the water.
   Democrats have tried to cast Republicans as the "partyof no," and the Tea Party movement as
astroturf, something that looks real enough but isn't. But what Republicans are saying "no" to is
more big government boondoggles based on false and overly rosy projections. For example, in
arguing that healthcare reform practically pays for itself, a lie any child can see through, Democrats
continue to posit thAT they can slash three=hundred to five-hundred billion from Medicare and
Medicaid by simply eliminating waste and fraud. But those dumb Republicans keep on asking
how they're going to do that, why they aren't doing it now if it can be done, and how the arbitrary
reduction in payments (which is how they plan to try to do it) won't hurt patient care. The answer?
Because we say so!
   And Tea Partiers are asking how new taxes Like the cap-and-trade energy tax aren't just new
ways of bilking the middle class. They're not really taxes and they won't hurt the middle class
because we say so, retort the Democrats.
   "Because we say so" rarely works in an election campaign. The media's slobbering love affair with
a charismatic candidate created a momentary rift in grim reality that is now slowly beginning to
evaporate. Barack Obama, Anita Dunn, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel. Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi have gotten just about all the mileage they're going to get out of that tired postulate. Real
questions demand real answers, and it is clearer by the day that the only ones this administration has
come straight out of the European socialist playbook. Book burning generally isn't a good thing, but
Americans are darn sure going to want to end up burning that one.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MADOFF'S GOT NOTHING ON HARRY REID

 
   While crooked financier Berniie Madoff rots in prison, Harry Reid is running a scam which, over the next
decade, will make Madoff's swindle look like a church picnic. He's calling it the "public option with an opt
out provision." The hook is that states not wanting to participate in the "public option" can simply choose
not to do so. That Reid and the Senate liberal Democrats think Americans can be duped by so  blatant a
falsehood shows how little they think of regular citizens.
   Here is the lie: states can opt out of participating, but they can't opt out of paying for it. It's like when you
go to the ice cream shoppe and order a double decker cone. When the clerk serves it up you have to pay
for it. If it doesn't look or taste like you hoped, you can just not eat it. But you can't get your money back.
The Democratic healthcare reform boondoggle has fifty-nine billion dollars in new taes wrapped inside.
Citizens, small businesses and seniors whose Medicare gets cut are still going to have to pay those taxes and
put up with those cuts whether they "opt out" or not.
   So what's the difference between plain old government run healthcare and "opt out" hea;thcare. Nothing
but words. Bernie Madoff promised people returns that consistently exceeded the market. And since he
was using new investors' money to pay off old investors he made it look like it worked. Democrats are
doing exactly the same thing with their healtcare reform proposals. They can't deliver the cuts and savings they
promise, or do what they're proposing without increasing the deficit, or do it without egregiously increasing
taxes on the middle class. If you believe they can, you're a bigger sucker than Madoff's entourage. Even
the Congressional Budget Office doesn;t believe it. When you stop believing the adage that when something
seems to good to be true, it probably is, you're just sticking your chin in the air and saying "hit me please."
The Democrats are just itching to oblige.
   In the Baucus version of the Senate health bill it was even proposed that granma's wheelchair rental be
taxed. Talk about kicking someone who is down. But they're determined to have their socialized medicine
at any cost, especially when taxpayers are footing that cost. I used to have an old Springer Spaniel named
Duke who'd wander all over the place. But the one thing you knew for sure was that when the dinner plate
started rattling he'd be right there to stick his nose in it. The Democrats are equally reliable. Anytime there's
a new entitlement to be handed out and a new tax to raise they'll do it as reliably as the sun rising in the
morning.
   Hopefully there are a few Democrats who have not taken leave of their senses. There is hope for Joe
Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln. Ben Nelson and a few others. But Harry Reid will do everything on top of
and under the table to make them accomplices to his great scam. What if there really was no difference
between a convicted swindler and the Senate Majority Leader? One's in prison. Maybe the other one
should join him so they can have a good laugh together over how they scammed America.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE WAR ON DISSENT: WHAT IT'S REALLY ABOUT

 
   In a startling and unprecedented series of railing attacks, Barack Obama and his White House cronies have
unleasehed unrelenting attacks on a news network (Fox), the Chamber of Commerce and the Health Insurance
Industry, attributing to them motives of greed and impugning their character as dishonest. Not since the days
of disgraced Richard Nixon has America seen a president embrace such a "bunker mentality," or degrade his
office by stooping to petty namecalling. There is little doubt that a civil (or uncivil) war of words is raging in
America less than a year into Obama's presidency. So what's up?
   First, understand that it's not just a skirmish. It's serious business for both Obama and America. Not only has
he sent his director of communications, his chief of staff and his political advisor to blitz talk shows and friendly
media outlets with blanket condemnations of dissenters, he has made Mark Lloyd, a staunch Marxist who has
praised Hugo Chavez, publicly stated that he has no use for free speech and suggested that the "fairness doctrine"
does not go far enough, his czar for diversity at the Federal Communications Commission. One of Lloyd's first
gambits at the FCC has been to set up a panel of experts to evaluate balance and fairness in talk radio, It is no
coincidence that not a single conservative sits on that panel. It is a foregone conclusion that the panel will decide
that policies should be put in place to muzzle the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mike Gallagher. Undoubtedly
conservative television networks and internet blogs will be next. Of course, institution of any such rules will
trigger massive lawsuits against the FCC that will end up being resolved in the Supreme Court. They have to
know that too, but the fact that they are pressing the issue anyway shows how desparate they are to stifle all
credible dissenrting voices. These guys are serious.
   Second, it's important to understand that liberals are in a race against time. They know that a majority of
Americans (40%) consider themselves conservative in philosophy, while those considering themselves
liberal approximate only half of that. Given the radical nature of the agenda liberals are trying to impose,
and the backlash already building, they know they are operating on borrowed time. If they can stifle
dissent, even tenmporarily, they can buy more time to get their agenda enacted into law, some of which
may well be irreversible. When that conservative majority wakes up to the fact that Obama's idea of change
means remaking America after the image of socialist Europe, the game will be up.
   Now, if you are in denial of these facts, you can blather on about how many more people there are calling
themselves Democrats than there are Republicans. But this isn't actually about Democrats and Republicans.
It's about liberals and conservatives. If you doubt that, just look at the battle over healthcare reform, who is
thwarting whom and how desperately Obama is trying to push it through before people even have time to
understand it.
   Understand too, that there is a real warning in this for Republicans. They can no longer take my vote as
a conservative independent for granted. In the Bush years many of us believed their rhetoric, but once
elected they ran off to Washington, told us to kiss off and behaved just like liberal Democrats. Fool me once,
shame on you. But fool me twice? The proof that independents are ready to assert themselves as a political
force  can be clearly seen in the strong showings of conservatives Marco Rubio in Florida and Doug Hoffman \
in New York, conservatives not backed by Republican leadership. The party's position seems to be to ask us
whether we wouldn't rather have a liberal Republican in office than a conservative Democrat, and the answer is
maybe not.
   But the point is that once we lose the right to vocally disagree, on the air waves and in print with the
tyrannical demagogues in the Obama White House and anyone of any persuasion who comes after him,
the first amendment is null and void. Republicans can't win this war, but conservatives can. We need to
stand together and stand up. To succeed we have to listen to one another and not take one another for
granted. And we have to demand that all voices, even those with whom we may disagree, should be heard.
This is one war the president has to lose if America is going to win.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BADLY NEEDED: THE PARTY OF NO

 
   Weekend talk and news programs ran rife with chatter about whether Republicans may face an electoral
backlash if they remain united in their opposition to Obamacare in light of the compromise proposals being
floated on Capitol Hill. Such speculation is proof positive that politics inevitably spawns drivelish reasoning.
   It is important to understand that ALL the compromise proposals are compromises between disagreeing
Democrats, not bipartisan overtures from Democrats to Republicans. And every one of them contains a
version of the same poison pill the GOP has thus far refused to swallow: the government run healthcare
option. If I am deathly allergic to peanuts and you offer me a menu choice of peantut butter, peanut brittle
or peanut clusters, that really doesn't give me a genuine choice. I'm dead either way. The Democrats are
determined that they will have their precious "public option" by hook or by crook, and the criticism that
Republicans are unduly negative for resisting all versions of it is specious on its face.
   Juan Williams of NPR, during recent appearances on Fox News panels, has accused Republicans of
being MIA on healthcare reform. This is a judgment by one who apparently takes only selective note of
the facts. The fact is that Republicans in the House of Representatives have submitted thirty-four separate
healthcare reform bills, none of which was given the time of day by the Democratic majority. Every
amendment offered by Republicans to Democratic bills has similarly failed. How can one play in the big
poker game if the ante is to concede in advance that the other guy wins every hand?
   While Democratics are so enthused about the "public option" that they can offer it to us in chocolate,
vanilla or strawberry, they are similarly disinterested in tort reform, allowing insurance companies to
compete across state lines and the formation of state or regional insurance cooperatives, all Republican
ideas about how to save healthcare dollars, and all validated by the congressional budget office. Now which
is the "party of no?"
   Americans need to encourage Republicans and moderate Democrats to stand their ground and courageously
say "NO." NO to expensive government run healthcare, NO to the cap-and-trade energy tax, NO to blanket
amnesty for illegal aliens, NO to socialism in any form and NO to allowing the United Nations to make virtual
laws constraining Americans! Because if we become a society so eager to get to "yes" that we can no longer
find strong voices to say "no" to ideas that are foreugn to our Constitution, our history and the majority
values upon which this country was built, then we stand to lose everything that is America. Thank God for
 legislators and parties and Tea Partiers who are willing to stand up to a bullying president and just say NO.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SUPPORT A PUBLIC OPTION!

 
  Even as liberal Democrats cling desperately to hopes of passing a "public option," wherein the same
government that regulates healthcare would enter into "competition" with private sector companies
selling healthcare insurance, I am writing my congressman and asking him to submit companion
legislation that extends the "public option" concept to banking. After all, isn't it a fundamental right
of every American to be able to keep safe what little of our money the government allows us to
keep?
   Under such legislation, the federal governent would get into the banking business. (Oh, darn, they've
already done that). But they could actually open branches of a U.S. Federal Bank in every community,
charging lower interest rates, backing all deposits with the full faith and credit of the government, reducing
overdraft charges to a maxiumum of $5, extending long grace periods for late payments on credit cards they
issue and zero late fees, free checking and high interest on savings. Then they could give a check for $250
to everyone who opens an account. Meanwhile they could squeeze competition by tightening regulations
to force them into the same practices. If those businesses then bacame unprofitable they could either
bail them out (tisk) or let them fail. It would be kind of a "single banker" system. That way everyone could
have an account even if they were broke, by using the $250 giveaway as an initial deposit, and since most
services would be free, everyone could afford it. That way, the feds could mandate that every American
have such an account. It could even have a "trigger" in case silly banks seeking a profit don't play ball.
   It could also be extended into the real estate market because, if you believe the Democrats, every American
has a fundamental right to home ownership. The feds could open a federal real estate brokerage in every
community, charging sales commissions that are a  fraction of current practice, selling Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac mortgages directly to citizens without going through mortgage banks and federally guaranteeing
that whether you can afford the home you're buying or not you can never be foreclosed. Excellent!
   Then perhaps the same plan could be extended to American automakers (whoops), because everyone has
a fundamental right to get around. Or maybe to laundries and drycleaners, because every citizen needs clean
clothes, and to grocers, for everyone has the right to eat. You see how it goes -- AND HOW UTTERLY
RIDICULOUS IT IS.
   One must ask, then, how an idea so preposterous on its face could gain credence with so many elected
officials. Is the air in D.C. really that polluted? The so-called "public option," triggered or otherwise, will
end up running private insurers out of business, leaving American healthcare in the hands of a bumbling
government bureaucracy that has already proven it can't organize an egg on toast and will be forced by
massive shortfalls of cash and medical providers to ration care. Believing the bogus financial calculations
propping it up is dumber than believing in the tooth fairy.
   Nevertheless, it is important that grownups in American society DO support a public optiion: the one
we'll have in 2010 and 2012 to send the big-taxing, big-spending Washington liberals packing back to Chicago.
That's the public option worth supporting. While Obama, surrounded by his "Forty Thieves" (the czars) fiddles
away trying to prove that there is, after all a free lunch, those who aren't smoking what they apparently are
need to get to work finding ways to solve current problems that won't bankrupt future generations.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT IF HEALTHCARE IS NOT THE POINT?

 
   Since Barack Obama's ascent to the White House and the Democrats' seizure of near absolute power in
both houses of the legislature, we have seen a constant reign of intrusion on business and industry in the guise.
of bailout. Banks and automakers have been seized and virtually nationalized. An ever expanding
net of government regulation has blanketed for-profit enterprise and lawmakers have proposed new taxes
on businesses and individuals making over $250,000 annually. The theme of Obama's campaign was that
of "re-distribution," by which he meant taking from those he deemed to be rich, and giving to those he
deemed poor. These and other developments have led to renewed charges that Obama and the Democrats
are socialists whose goal is to remake America in the likeness of the socialist democracies of Western
Europe.
   Theses related events have attracted scant attention by comparison with the raging debate over healthcare
reform which, in most of the pending bills propose a virtual government takeover of the medical and
health insurance industries either through regulation, or by a combination of regulation and competition
that makes the for-profit insurance industry untenable This, in effect, is a government takeover of one
seventh of the nation's entire economy.
   Great promises have accompanied the much ballyhooed reform package. It would reduce national health-
care costs, add nothing to the deficit, make affordable universal coverage available and reduce healthcare
premiums. That's what we were told. Now, according to a number of studies, we see that in fact national
healthcare costs will rise 2.1% even if the trillion dollar bills become law, premiums will skyrocket almost
immediately, millions of Americans will still not be covered (under any version) and while some of the bills
are deficit neutral over the first ten years, all of them will increase deificit to unsustainable levels (a la
Mediacare) during the second decade. Additionally, while benefits would be four years in coming, tax
increases required to pay for them would be immediate, and there would be an enforcible mandatethat all
Americans must purchase insurance.
   All of this begs an important question. If reform is not going to cut costs or be long-term deficit neutral, 
and if it still leaves some citizens without coverage, then what is it really about? What if it is only a link
in the chain of a massive government takeover of the enture national economy? What if, as Democratic
Representative Barney Frank has stated, the "public option" is really the doorway to a single-payer system 
by which the government pays for and thus controls all aspects of healthcare (socialized medicine)? What
if a Democrat victory in passing healthcare reform is simply a springboard to the next link in the chain, the
passage of the cap-and-trade government takeover of the energy industry.
   In the heat of debate, with numbers, cost estimates and methodologies flying randomly back and forth, it
is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Healthcare reform is just a swell. The brick-by-brick
deconstruction of capitalism (as one of Obama's "czars" put it) is the tsunami. Does healthcare need to be
reformed? Of course! Do American families need accessible, affordable coverage. Undoubtedly! But do we
need to burn down the best healthcare system in the world and replace it with a bureaucratically run
entitlement boondoggle that jeopardizes our national economy, heaps an additional burden on taxpayers
and projects the spectre of rationed care that we see in other scocieties that have adopted it? By no stretch
of the imagination UNLESS it is simply a steppingstone to something bigger and more insidious. Despite
the derogation of America that the country is "too racist for socialism" by Obama czar Cass Sunstein, one
cannot help but wonder if that is not Obama's goal. To paraphrase Socrates, "The unexamined bill is not
worth passsing."
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DISSING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

 
   A pattern of actions by the Obama administration cloaked as "information management" now verges
on virtual nullification of first amendment rights to free speech in America. The thinly veiled campaign
to stifle dissent has, instead, spawned a growing tsunami of backlash with the potential to wash away
the president's chances for ramming through his radical agenda or, for that matter, being re-elected.
   He has used his bully pulpit to impose a unilateral (and unconstitutional) gag order on insurance
companies challenging his healthcare reform initiative, indicted financial and other corporate interests,
labeled those opposed to illegal alien amnesty as "demagogues," and legitimate creditors of the failed
auto giants as "greedy," and most recently has launched an all-out offensive against Fox News calling
it "not a real news network" and encouraging other networks not to cooperate with it. The problem here
is that in addition to threatening first amendment rights to free speech and dissent, the charges don't
stand up in the light of day.
   Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of staff and hatchet man, and David Axelrod, White House advisor
who lies for a living, have publicly accused Fox of having a "point of view." The most thoughful response
to such a criticism is "so?" Could anyone deny that the mainstraem media had a "point of view" during
Obama's election campiagn? Could anyone seriously argue that CBS was not advancing a particular
"point of view" when it gave Obama a prime time spot from the White House to hawk his healthcare reform
while denying his naysayers equal time to rebut him? Is it even remotely conceivable to argue that Chris
Matthews and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC do not have a "point of view" when they slobber over the
president's every word? So much for that lame argument. The problem is not that a network -- any network --
has a point of view, because all of them do. The problem for Obama is that Fox News does not share HIS
point of view, and they have more viewers than any competing network.
   The current strategy of the White House is to stifle dissent by any means possible, whether namecalling,
orchestrating a conspiracy against those who disagree or claiming that those who report on ideas contrary
to their agenda are not actually reporting news. From Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director whose
face is an eloquent commercial for Botox to Obama's 40 Thieves," the unelected czars who daily plot the
demise of conservative talk radio and government control of the internet, the objective seems unfied. Silence
all critics. This must be what Dunn alluded to when she touted her love affair with Mao Tse Tung. They have
a quick and easy way of dealing with dissent in Communist China.
   But it won't work here for three reasons. First, it is as amateurish as it is boorish for a president to declare
and prosecute a war against a single news network. Even the liberal intellectuals are running from this puppy
at flank speed. Such an attack does not detract from credibility, but guarantees it. It will not reduce market
share but increase it. It will not stifle dissent, but encourage it. Whether born of naivete or downright
stupidity it is a losing strategy and clearly demonstrates how out of their depth Obama and those around
him really are.
   Second. it will not work because of the first amendment to the Constitution which, at the end of the day,
guarantees Americans the right to speak freely and dissent from government policy. Obama's phony czars
can enact all the critic-stifling rules and regulations they want to, but they will all be challenged in court
and, when push comes to shove, if they in any sense deny free expression will be thrown out as unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court. This will turn short-term victory for the Obamorons, who give new meaning to the
term "demagogue," into long-term humiliating defeat.
   Third, Obama will have no more success in stifling the voices of Americans, whether they be the Tea
Partiers, the Glenn Becks, the Shawn Hannitys or the minority party in congress, than King George V
had in muzzling Patrick Henry, George Washington, John Hancock and the others who overthrew his
tyrannical regime and kicked him uncermoniously out of America. Truth has this nasty little habit of
surfacing, no matter how hard you deny it, try to embarrass those who tell it, or orcghestrate elaborate
cover ups. Just ask John Edwards, William Jefferson, Rod Blagohevich and Charluie Rangel.
   As it turns out the man whom the NY Times' Maureen Dowd labeled the "brainy black president"
isn't so brainy after all. Neither is the oligarchy of deceit that surrounds him. There's a great scene in
the movie Ghostbusters when the heroes are invited to choose their own demise just by thinking it.
When the character played by Dan Ayckroyd inadvertently thinks of of the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man,
that spectre becomes the "destructor." Obama and his professional liars have conceived their own demise,
and their "destructor" may well be the first amendment. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE TWO-SIDED COIN OF DECEPTION

 
   In a recent televised discussion a commentator pointed out how many broken promises, misstatements
of fact, egregious embellishments and downright prevarications the president had been caught in by the
media and his critics. The response from a well-known Democratic political strategist was, "Oh, come
on. You know how politicians are. They say whatever they need to say to get elected." I could not help
but think what a deplorable situation it is when Americans must assume that their elected officials have
lied to them, and that those same officials expect Americans to think nothing of it.
   Political mendacity comes in many forms. The most popular is making outlandish promises to achieve
things beyond the candidate's control, or that defy the known laws of probability. Take for example the
promise to provide affordable healthcare to 47 million uninsured Americans, the centerpiece of the
Obama campaign, The promise was to insure the uninsured without raising taxes on the middle class,
increasing the deficit or subtracting coverage from those who have it. Now this was a promise that could
never be kept. Even today, after months and months of debate and numerous studies, no one has
the slightest idea how much healthcare reform as proposed by the Democrats will really cost. all of
the ways in which they have proposed to pay for it vastly increase taxes on everyone, deprive
tem million seniors of the policies they now have and may well drive up (not down) the cost of all health
insurance. If you tell a real whopper, what are a few more little white lies to prop it up?
   Another form of political lying is egreguious embellishment. Take for example the story Obama told in
his address to congress about the man in Illinois who lost his insurance after he became ill and was left to
die. But those darned fact checkers discovered that the man did, in fact, get his coverage back, and though
he died (much later) it was from another disease. So what was portrayed as a gross miscarriage of justice
perpetrated by an evil insurance company resulting in an individual's death really turned out to be something
entirely different. It was a good story to hammer home Obama's point. The problem is that iy just wasn't
true.
   Many other Obama promises and others by congressional leaders and senators are of the same ilk, They
are bogus, pie-in-the-sky, unsubstantiated fabrications. But the real problem is that when Americans
become hopeless, cynical and disenfranchised, they also become gullible. The believe not because promises
pass the smell test, not because of facts or historical precedent or common sense, but because the lies are
glibly told and because we so desperately and idealistically want to believe that we forget ourselves and
hope that wishing will mae it so.
   The two sides of the coin of deception are that yes, politicians lie in order to get elected and/or stay in
power. But we choose to believe those lies, all evidence to the contrary, because that's how we wish things
were. Then come the consequences! We are now staring down the barrel of a multi=trillion dollar healthcare
entitlement that will (a) not lower healthcare costs (at least not so far as the congressional budget office
can prove) (b) raise taxes on everybody (and anyone who says otherwise is a liar) (c) eliminate the options
and ultinmately marginalize all healthcare for seniors, (d) lead to a single-payer system where the
government makes our healthcare decision because they have to in order to keep their socialized system
afloat and (e) lead to long-term deficits that will break America financially. Democrats claim otherwise,
but they still don't have a shred of hard proof to back up their bogus promises.
   The president and Democratic leades are insisting that a bill be passed this year. Why? If the ten
million Americans (a real number) who want health insurance and can't get it are the problem, then let's
addresds that.If avaricious profits in the healthcare industry are a culprit, then let's tax or regulate those.
If drug companies are pillaging us then let's deal with them like we did with Wall Street swindlers. The point
is that one need not burn down the entire healthcare system and start over with the government in
control in order to meet the most pressing needs. By now Barack Obama has clearly demonstrated
that, far from being divine, he's not even a very strong human being. Believing his promise that this
enormous new entitlement can be achieved without raising taxes, increasing the deficit or penalizing
senior citizens is like believing the moon is made of green cheese. Shame on him for lying to us! And
shame on us for believing him!
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »