About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

ARE YOU A CONSPIRATOR?

 
   Former President Bill Clinton, obviously irked at being temporarily upstaged by a senile Jimmy Carter, has
surfaced again on Meet the Press to claim that the same "vast right wing" conspiracy that targeted him over
the Monica Lewinsky affair is now after Barack Obama. Carter, who recently argued that all criticism of
Obama is based in racism, had momentarily stolen center stage in the political theatre of the absurd, and
Clinton clearly felt that the only way to snatch it back was to make an equally controversial claim and to do
so on national television.
   To listen to these prominent Democrats rail against their political opponents. one would suppose that they
must all be addicted to pharmaceutical sleep aids. How else could they possibly get any shuteye with so many
Nazis, Ku Klux Klanners and other free radicals prowling the land? Bill Clinton, aided and abetted by wife
Hillary, sought to distract the nation from his infidelity by claiming that a faceless fascist throng, led by
Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, was actively seeking his political demise. Seeing his claims as a pathetic
attempt at misdirection, Americans could hardly wait to get Clinton and the Democratic party out of office,
handing the leaders of the so-called conspiracy an overwhelming mandate in the next election. Proof that
conspiracy works, according to the Clintons.
   But in the cold light of day, Americans must evaluate such conspiracy theories for what they are: a colossal
misdirection to distract attention from failing policies, mendacious arguments and dirty politics on the part of
those crying foul. It is, after all, the only face-saving alternative to rescue their mounstrous egos from the fact
that America is rejecting their policies, their behaviors and their political philosophy simply because they do
not agree with them. It would seem the principle is that when dissent reaches critical mass, it must be the
hallmark of conspiracy.
   And so, when Michael Moore makes a film mocking capitalism, that's just art and free speech. But when
Americans express outrage at Democratic healthcare plans and spending boondoggles at town hall meetings
they are mere "asttroturf," or "brown-shirted Nazis." When socialist billionaire George Soros seeks to buy
elections and put up his own private money to publicize the administration's policies, it's just self-expression,
but when biggovernment.org releases videos exposing ACORN as crook-advising, tax cheating, HUD fleecing
thugs, it is libelous. When the New York times runs moveon.org's full page commercial accusing a fine
American general of betraying the nation, but steers carefully around major coverage of communist, racist
Obama "czar" Van Jones and the emerging ACORN scandal it's no problem, but when Fox News covers them
in depth it is misuse of the airways, abuse of the public trust and proof that the network is nothing but the
mouthpiece for right wing radicalism. In other words, "ours doesn't stink, but yours does."
   It was Abraham LIncoln who wisely said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people
all the time. but you can't fool all the people all the time." Apparently the Democrats prefer P.T. Barnum's maxim
that "there's a sucker born every minute." But as Lincoln knew, the intelligence of the American people should
not be underestimated, nor lapses in gullibility mistaken for permanent abdication of patriotic duty. It is true
enough that America has been temporarily mesmerized by a pretty face. But the increasingly panicky protestations
of Clinton, Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and other leaders of the left that seek to portray Obama as a victim
of a senseless, racist, Nazi mob of conspirators has begun to fall on deaf ears. The folly of their deficit spending,
spcial giveaway, unendning bailout, freedom restricting, debate stifling, private sector invading, socialist mentality is
catching up with them. Americans are beginning to "get it" by the millions, and what the Democrats have mistakenly
labeled a "vast right wing conspiracy" is, in fact, just freeedom in action. It's a "vast American conspiracy" to get
rid of stupidity, waste and frayd in government and finally kick the avaricious politburo in Washington out of our
private lives. Vive le conspiracie!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FLYING PURPLE PEOPLE EATER?

 
   Years ago an obscure singer by the name of Sheb Wooley popularized a nonsensical ditty dubbed
"One=Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater." The fantasy creature utilized descriptors
people were familiar with such as "eyes," "horns" and "purple," but it existed only in the songwriter's
vivid imagination, reviving in a  silly way the old debate between Plato, the Idealist, and Aristotle, the
Realist. Does something exist in reality just because someone can conceptualize it and talk about it?
And just because something has definable, familar components, do they exist in combination in the
real world?
   Barack Obama's utopian vision of healthcare for all Americans is very reminiscent of the "One-Eyed,
One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater." He tells us that a massive increase in the number of Americans
covered by his new health plan will actually drive down medical costs, slash the deficit and improve the
quality of medical services. He says that we will all be able to keep our own doctors and the health plans
we are happy with, even as Democrats hack away at Medicare Advantage funding, thus jeopardizing ten
million seniors in those plans who will NOT be able to keep them because they will no longer exist. He
tells us that the plan will absolutely not cover illegal aliens, nor will government funding cover abortions.
All the while congress stubbornly rejects amendment after amendment designed to plug the obvious loop-
holes that would make such travesties reality. Obama tells Americans that he can slash $500 billion from 
Medicare in waste and fraud without negatively impacting senior healthcare, even though he intends to
accomplish this simply by cutting payments to providers and letting them try to find the savuigs, with the
net result that the honest providers trying to work within the system are penalized right along with the
fraudsters and wastrels. He tells us that he can establish government run insurance, the "public option,"
without driving private insurers out of business. Finally, as the crown jewel of his fantasy, he insists that
he will accomplish all this without raising taxes. Yeah, right!
   Now Obama communicates all of this with his customary glib, slick charm. He marshals his army of
adoring sycophants to sing songs and paint pictures and write poems praising his vision. Sheb Wooley
sang a nice little song, too, but no one was dumb enough to think his imaginary creature was real. But
Obama is countng on three factors to get his plan passed into law. First, he is banking on the fact that
because Americans believe healthcare needs to be fixed (and it does), they will buy into his unrealistic
plan for fixing it. The "any port in a storm" gambit is alive and well. Second, the components he is
talking about -- stable taxes, insurance for the uninsured and the uninsurable, portability of coverage,
the need to reduce deficit, the elimination of fraud and waste -- are all familiar and important to most
citizens. And the combining of these promises into one vision, however impossible, is bound to have
appeal for the wishful. Third, as a last resort he is banking on the Democrats' "supermajority" ramming
some version of his plan down America's throat, because despite what the polls clearly show about
what Americans do and don't want, he is convinced that he and his party know better. How do you spell
a-r-r-o-g-a-n-c-e?
   But the sad fact remains that a healthcare reform that cuts costs, covers everybody, allows freedom
of choice, maintains stable taxes and doesn't negatively affect the quality and quantity of care is, at
present, just like the "One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater." It's fun to talk about (and just
about everyone is), but it doesn't exist anywhere out there in reality. And the quickest way for Obama to
become yet another Democrat one-term president (remember JimmyCarter) is to promise people the
"One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater." only to deliver some mutation with a blind eye and
a broken horn that, although purple, eats only tax dollars.
   When legislators scurry to meet artificial deadlines, stifle full and fair debate, refuse to publish the full
text of a bill before votoing on it (because they know voters will be outraged), threaten to use paliamentary
tricks like "reconciliation" to force through ill-considered legislation that fundamentally deceives and defrauds
Americans and then concedes that they can't and won't even read the entire bill themselves before voting on it,
the stage is fully set for the irreversible enshrinement of a socialized medical system that will only work
for those who can't afford anything else or those too rich to nned it. Guess who that leaves out. Right, all
the rest of us in the middle. So much for taking care of the middle class. And guess who will end up paying
for it. Right again! Those of us in the middle, because the poor can't and the rich aren't rich enough or
numerous enough to do it.
   Have you seen any One-Eyed, One Horned Flying Purple People Eaters today? Neither have I. But
the President of the United States and his corrupt party are promising to show us one. I, for one, am not
holding my breath. Lots of Americans were born at night. But not LAST night!
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A JEFFERSON MANIFESTO

 
   All cultures and peoples revere accumulated wisdom rooted in their history. Noted philosophers,
national heroes, honored religious leaders and great statesmen are among those contribtuing to the
corpus of any civilizations wellspring of ideas. Those that ring truest with a nation's citizenry over long
periods of time, are enshrined in its governance documents, and tested by the pragmatics of everyday
living are the ones that define national character and survive efforts to supplant them. Thomas
Jefferson, one of America's "founding fathers," a framer of The Constitution and a noted president
is one of history's giants in that regard. He, as well as anyone, understood what the framers intended
by the constitutional provisions they penned. Some of the voices that serve as a national clarion call
are, in fact, voices from the grave. And a few of Jefferson's most notable maxims ring with a
Nostradamus-like clarity in the current battle for The Constitution and its hallowed liberties. Four.
in particular, stand out.
   (1) "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work, and
give to those who would not." It seems that Jefferson has scoffed at Barack Obama's "redistribution of
wealth" scenario long before the current president proposed it. Understanding that the creation of an
ultimate entitlement state would ultinately destroy every incentive to productivity, Jefferson sought to
exclude a "welfare mentality" from national consideration.
   (2) "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes, a principle which, if acted on,
would save one-half the wars of the world." In today's world of multi-trillion dollar national debts and
rampant, out-of-control government spending, Jefferson would be a lonely voice crying out in the
wilderness. But history has relentlessly confirmed his contention. The policies of Barack Obama threaten
to propel the United States of America down the slippery slope to bankruptcy, heaping on our children
and theirs a mountain of unsustainable debt and making it ever more likely that they will have to go to war
just to survive.
   (3) "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much goverbnment."
Presently the United states government is expanding -- in numbers of new hires, in scope and in reach -- at
an unprecedented rate. It has taken over the nation's automotive industry (Chrysler, GM), banks and
financial services companies, and now threatens to usurp control of national healthcare which currently
represents one-sixth of the nation's economy. If bad government comes from too much government,
Obama's is on a pace to become the worst in history.
   (4) "I predict happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labor of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them." Obama proposes to increase tazes on "the wealthy,"
on companies and individuals declining to purchase health insurance, on busineeses exceeding an arbitrarily
imposed emissions quota, and even on soda pop and juice drinks. He would have us believe that he
can provide healthcare for all that will cut medical costs, improve the quality of services, not add to
the short or long term deficit, save billions in fraud and waste that no previous administration has been
able to make a serious dent in while maintaining steady tax rates for the middle class. These are promises
believed only by starry-eyed sycophants, political spinmeisters and the most naive in our society. The
more Obama tries to take care of everyone, the less their incentives to take responsibioity for themselves.
The end result? A bankrupt nation of the irresponsible.
   Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama are two presidents on opposite ends of history, philosophy,
politics and constitutional interpretation. Jefferson was a fierce defender if individual liberty, while
Obama has taken public positions abridging fredom of speech,the right to bear arms, and employees' right
to vote on unionization, among others. Jefferson championed responsibility of the individual citizen, Obama
the creation of an entitlement state where responsibility rests with the government. Jefferson warned
against big government, precisely what Obama is day-by-day creating. Jefferson decried the seizure
of wealth for the purpose of distributing it equally. Redistribution is the centerpiece of Obama's policies and
the apparent goal of his legion of extremist "czars." One man helped write the constitution, the other
seems hell bent on re-writing it. One fancies himself a constitutional scholar, the other actually sat with
the founding fathers from whose wisdom it arose. One's ideas have stood the test of time, and been a
bedrock from which the world's greatest nation has evolved. The other is enamored of the failing European
socialist republics in which the more radical the implementation of socialist ideology, the more
calamitous the collapse of order, prosperity and democracy. In elections to come, Americans will
determine whose ideas to carry into the future, and whose to discard on the scrap heap of political
failure. America elected Obama to bring hope, and to change the way Washington does business. He
has done little of either, and current polling reflects growing public repudiation of his policies. Personally,
my bet is on Jefferson every time. And thanks for the reality check, Tom!
   
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

VOICES FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY

 
   Following the House admonishment resolution directed at Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) for shouting "you lie"
during the president's healthcare address to congress, a voice from the past has spoken, pronouncing opposition to
the president as "rooted in racism." Jimmy Carter, former peanut farmer, weak sister one-term Democratic
president and international busybody, who is politics' version of the undead, has played the race card again,
and in the cheesiest most dishonorable way imaginable.
   According to Carter, those who oppose Obama do so basicically by playing on racially motivated fears of a
black president, rather than because they simply disagree with his policies and tactics. This is a ploy straight
out of the new Democrat playbook which says "facts suspect, argument weak, shout racism." By this reasoning
it would be literally impossible to disagree with or oppose anything Barack Obama does or wants to do without
being a racist, a convenient Catch-22 permitting socialist Democrats to impose their will on America willy-milly.
The irony is that by demonstrating how stupid they think the rest of us are, they have exposed how stupid they
are, because an independent minded, thinking electorate will nevr accept such a preposterous broad brush
indictment, nor allow reverse racial bigotry to trump facts and reason.
   By accusing dissident Americans of being racists, Carter has lowered the political debate to a sub-gutter
level, done a massive disservice to the just crusade for racial understanding and equality, embarrassed his
party and revealed himself as a meddling, senile nitwit who is not to be taken seriously. Considering
himself somehow an "international emissary of peace," Carter has meddled in the foreign policy of nearly
every administration since American voters overwhelmingly expelled him from office. Himself accused
of being an anit-semite, Carter's latest insane gambit has been to lobby the Obama administration to remove
bus-bombing, civilian-maiming, rocket=firing Hamas, itself a vehemently RACIST organization, from the
list of terrorist groups, stating that no peace process can go forward in the Middle East that does not
include them. Go figure!
   Jimmy Carter is living proof that politics breeds liars. Can one be "admonished" for calling an ex=president
a liar? In any case, Carter did more to bring disrespect to his office than any president before him. Indecisive 
and ineffectual, he so repulsed voters that even running as an incumbent he was slaughtered in the subsequent
election by his opponent. So, in the serious debate that rages in America today, when voices from the
peanut gallery shout stupidity, unproveable conspiracy theories and moronic diatribes contrived to lift a
failing president above criticism, there is only one thing to do. Consider the source!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BLACK SHEEP BLEATING

 
   Most of us remember being told, as children, about the "little boy who cried wolf." Repeatedly he ran
 to his parents and neighbors warning that the big bad wolf was pursuing him and he feared being eaten
 alive. On each occasion, investigating adults discovered no wolf, no threat. Then one day, when the
wolf did appear, the boy's cries for help fell on deaf ears because he had cried "wolf" too often when
there was none.
   As the House Democrats convene to mete out punishment to member Joe Wilson (R-SC) for yelling
"you lie" at President Obama during his address to the joint houses of congress, the Congressional
Black Caucus and left-wing media are ramping up the heat by brazenly and abusively trying to play
the "race card." Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) said that failing to admonish Wilson would be
tantamount to embracing Ku Klux Klan style racism, and both Washington Post columnist Eugene
Robinson and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd have directly accused Wilson of being a
racist, with Dowd going so far as to speculate that Wilson's outburst was caused by his dislike of
"being lectured by the brainy black president" in the hallowed halls of congress.
   The irony of this soap opera is that these phony defenders of justice do the righteous quest for
racial equality in America an irretrievable disservice when they shout "racism" at everyone who
dares disagree with Obama and other African American public figures. This is particularly true
when there is no overt evidence of any linkage betwee racial motivation and the particular
criticism in question. Johnson even went so far as to suggest that the recent conservative protest
in Washington, D.C. was racist. The Congressional Black Caucus, Dowd and Robinson are
reminiscent of the International Amnest organization to which every act of war constitutes a
"war crime." They've cried "wolf" so often that no one believes them anymore. They've lost
objectivity, credibility and hence the gravitas to make a difference in an area of society that
clearly matters to them.
   But their tired attempt to dredge up a racial motive for a factual dispute sets in bold relief a
tactic that was exploited to the hilt by the Obama campaign in the days prior to the election. In
areas where Obama's policies were weak and his experience dubious, critics were simply labeled as
bigits, racists who would employ criticism to prevent a qualified black man from winning public
office. Obama's own people suggested it by subtle innuendo, but their surrogates in the media, the
blogosphere, local campaign offices and ACORN trumpeted it blatantly. The result they intended,
and for the most part achieved, was that Barack Obama was simply above criticism, made so not
because he was right, but because he was black.
   Joe Wilson was wrong to breach congressional protocol with his outcry against the president,
and perhaps he should be admonished. But he was not wrong in the substance of his charge, and
both the bloggers and Senate Democrats have proven it by urging closure of the loophole in the
House bill that would, undeniably, have enabled illegal aliens to obtain government funded
health coverage under the plan. This is the same loophole which sycophant Obama defenders
shouted to the heavens did not exist at the time Wilson made the charge. And not a shred of
credible evidence has been adduced to demonstrate either that Representative Wilson is a racist,
or that his outburst was racially motivated.
   Hank Johnson, the Congressional Black Caucus, Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson and the
other "wolf crybabies" would be well-advised to consider that they are just one cry away from
uncaring oblivion. When everything becomes "racism," then nothing is. They also need to realize
that Barack Obama is not "the black President of the United States of America." He is simply
the President of all Americans. He is not owed unchallenging silence by concerned citizens
simply because of his race. And he's not going to get it!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHO IS LYING?

 
   A response to my last post raises an interesting question. Just who is lying about healthcare reform?
The respondent took the hopelessly naive position that if the legislation doesn't specifically permit
those in the country illegally to enroll in the "public option," then they can't. Therefore, President
Obama was being truthful in his address to congress, despite Congressman Wilson calling him a
liar. The laws of logic tell us that a thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time. So ether
Obama and his defenders or Wilson and his supporters must ve lying.
   To sort it out, one need look only at the bill itself, legal precedent and history. House Resolution
3200 does not say in plain language that illegal aliens may sign up for government run healthcare. But
in case after case, entitlement after entitlement, the courts have ruled that what is not specifically
prohibited is permitted. Those wishing to defraud the government have siphoned off billions of
taxpayer dollars, not because they were qualified to receive government benefitsbut because the law
upon which the entitlement was based provided no enforceable standard for
excluding them. Those
loopholes have had to be closed one at a time by successor legislation, and
the U.S. treasury continues
to bleed green because many are still wide open. the House resolution
in effect places illegal aliens on
an honor system, trusting that they will not try to sign up for
government funded healthcare. These
are people who entered the country illegally, who have
falsified documentation in order to work and
who continue to live here in defiance of the law and are professional cheaters of the system.. Are
Obama and the Democrats really so stupid that they believe this group of lawbreakers will not
seek to exploit such an easy target as free government healthcare with no mechanism to keep them
out? Do they think the rest of America is that stupid? No, they don't. It is therefore clear that he, and
they are disingenuous in their claim that healthcare reform, as they have proposed it, will not
cover illegal aliens.
   More dishonesty surfaces regarding the use of public funds for abortion. The public option,
along with many of the other plans that might be included in any insurance exchange under
Obamacare will provide "reproductive healthcare," a favorite Democrat euphemism for abortion,
and one Obama himself has used time and again. If the public option includes "reproductive
healthcare," and that includes abortion, by what possible stretch of credulity can Obama say that
no public funds will go to pay for abortions? Democrats have struck down nine different measures
attempting to specifically exclude abortion from coverage. The bill doesn't say abortions are
covered. But it also doesn't say that they aren't. The logical maxim that a thing cannot at the same
time be true and untrue, and the time-honored legal principle that what is not specifically forbidden
is permitted, along with decades of unchecked welfare fraud tell us all we need to know. Obama
and Democrats fully intend to fund backdoor abortions and to do so with public funds. And he,
and they are lying to the American people by saying otherwise.
   Then there is the matter of cost control and deficit spending. Obama argued again in his speech that
his healthcare reform will "bring down costs" and add nothing to the deficit. Yet the non-partisan says
that the plan will likely not bring down costs and, in some cases, may increase them, and that over ten
years an beyond will add to and create unsustainable deficits. Is it more likely that a partisan political
group pushing their agenda is playing fast and loose with numbers, or that a non-partisan, highly credible
watchdog agency has gotten it completely wrong? It seems to many a classic proof of the adage that
while figures don't lie, liars figure. Both of these positions cannot, at the same time, be true. The one
pushing the untruth is lying.
   The Democrats are rabidly pursuing policies contrary to the wishes of the American people. The
polls make it crystal clear. The closure of Guantanamo Bay, the investigation of CIA interrogators, the
public funding of abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, cap-and-trade energy tax, unending bailouts
the blockage of offshore drilling and card check forced unionism are all minority positions. Yet Democrats
believe they know better than other Americans and have made it clear that they intend to use the
bully pulpit of the presidency and their cngressional majorities to ram their agenda down America's
throat. They have apparently forgotten the lesson of 1994 and are oblivious to the principle that fools
who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LIAR, LAWYER, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?

 
 
     During President Obama's speech to the joint houses of congress on healthcare, he made the claim
that his program would not provide healthcare to persons in the U.S. illegally. That statement so
incensed South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson that he broke legislative protocol and shouted
"liar" at the president. While the president has accepted Wilson's apology, Democrats in the House
are threatening him with censure if he does not formally apologize to them.
   So lost has the controversy become in Wilson's angry outburst and what should be done about it,
that few have even stopped to think about whether his charge was true. Certainly there is value in civility,
and in abiding by traditions, and in that sense Wilson's behavior is unjustifiable. While the bath may be
ineffective or undesirable, however, we ought not hasten to throw the baby out with it. Was Obama or
was he not lying?
   HB 3200, which we must assume Obama was talking about, does not, in fact overtly provide funds
to specifically cover illegal aliens with health insuirance. Neither, however, does it overtly prevent
such coverage, and Democrats have repeatedly rejected the attachment of enforcement measure that
would require persons seeking coverage to prove citizenship. That would seem to make their intent
clear enough. Further, the old principle of law is that "what is not specifically forbidden is permitted."
So, without some enforcement measure in place, there is absolutely nothing to stop illegal aliens from
claiming that they are citizens and registering for government funded healthcare. At least not under
the terms of HB 3200. Did President Obama know this at the time he made the statement that drew
Wilson's ire? Of course he did! Was he dodging the issue by hiding out under the umbrella of "the bill
doesn't say it covers illegals?" Probably so. Is that dishonest? You be the judge.
   Then there is the troubling case of two California initiatives to plug their own loopholes. Submerged
in a sea of unsustainable taxes and flooded by illegals who were bleeding their capacity to provide free
public services dry, California passed two bills denying such services to the undocumented. The problem
is that this remedy apparently runs afoul of the Constitution which holds that services provided by
government to its citizens must also be provided to other residents, both legal and illegal. Both were
thrown out as unconstitutional by district courts. Now, the president is a constitutional lawyer who has
actually taught constitutional law in the law school of a prominent university (The University of
Chicago), right? One must ask if it is plausible to believe that the president of the United States is
ignorant of the California debacle and of the constitutional provisions cited by the courts in reversing
those bills. If he is a good constitutional scholar and has a whole legal staff to track and research
these precedents, how could he not know that if he gets his "public option" it must, by law, cover
illegal aliens as well as American citizens? And if he knew and STILL persisted in promising congress
and America that illegals would not be covered by "his" plan, was he not, in fact lying? (The PC term
is "misrepresenting the truth." Would Joe Wilson be in less hot water if he had yelled that?)
   The problem with rushing "healthcare reform" through, as Obama is seeking to do, is that it simply does
not allow time to weed out the loopholes, contradicitons, unconstitutionality and impracticality with
which HB 3200 is riddled. Censure Joe Wilsod for poor taste if you will. But Obama needs to be held
accountable for the inaccuracies and mendacity of his own statements. Quick to call his opponents
liars, he might have bent a few truths himself.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A FEW QUESTIONS, MR. PRESIDENT

 
 
   Everyone knows that America needs healthcare reform, Mr. President, and you are to be applauded
for making it a high priority on your agenda. Your speech last night was so important that I listened
carefully to every word -- even read the transcript afterward. The whole debate is so opaque, so
murky, that I was hoping for real clarification of your position and the important aspects of the issue.
But after hearing you, I still have some lingering questions. So do other Americans, and if you could
just answer them I believe we could shortly have a bill that most would sign onto.
      You said at one point that under your plan illegal aliens would not be covered. I'm not sure which
plan "your plan" is, since the only thing we have concretely on the table is HB 3200, which does NOT
specifically exclude the undocumented from coverage. Further, you continue to use the number of
fifty million to describe the uninsured, and I'm not sure how you could get to that number without
including the undocumented. So please tell me, Mr. President, if the undocumented are really not
going to be elligible, why is it that YOUR party persistently blacks amendments to HB 3200 that
would say so in plain language and provide enforcement measures to guarantee it? It just appears
to some of us that while YOUR words are conveying one message, THEIR actions, which will eventually
constitute the law, are sending a contrary one. Could you please clarify?
   You also said that no taxpayer funds would be used to fund abortion. But HB 3200 says no such thing.
In fact, YOUR party has blocked at least nine amendments that would have guaranteed your promise.
Why is that, Mr. President? Are we just supposed to blindly believe your assertion, when all of your
administration's policies have blatantly favored abortion? How can we believe you if the law under
consideration doesn't say it?
   You say that reform. including the "public option" will be paid for by saving $500 billion in
Medicare waste and fraud. Who decides what's wasteful? Is a second test to confirm further development
of a disease wasteful? Is chemotherapy for a senior believed to be terminally ill wasteful? Is natural
medicine or physical therapy wasteful? Who decides? What are the MEDICAL qualificatiions of
those who do? And beyond that, you ask us to believe that YOU can cut payments, improve care
and not create more deficit spending when the Congressional Budget Office says the exact opposite?
We're pretty gullible, Mr. President, but what proof can you cite that would cause Americans to
believe that you -- more than those who have preceded you -- can do the impossible?
   You said that you want bipartsianship in the healthcare bill. Whys is it, then, that YOUR parrty
has completely refused to consult with the opposition to get such a bill, that when Republicans wrote
you a letter asking for a meeting YOU did not grant it, that Republican alternatives to your vision,
which are also embodied in bills, are never debated or brought up for a vote? Why do YOU, in a
nationally televised speech, categorize differing interpretations based on your mixed messages as
"lies," and why does your party persist in calling those who do not agree with them "Nazis"
"teabaggers" or "astroturfers?" You seem to be giving lip service to bipartisanship, while YOUR
actions, and those of YOUR party remain bitterly partisan. Can you explain that to us, Mr.
President?
   You see, once your teleprompter has gone blank, America is still left with a host of unansered
questions, and a myriad of contradictions between YOUR words and YOUR party's actions -- between
the vision you tout and what the only bills Americans have read actually say. What we want, Mr.
President, is some consistency, some common sense, some straight answers, some inclusiveness.
Otherwise we must conclude that the only ideas you're really interested in hearing are those that
agree with your own, and that's just not the way Democracy works. Or are we going to reform
that too? 
 
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM I LEARNED IN THE 2ND GRADE

 
 
   Second grade got off to a rough start. Our home room teacher got sick and was replaced by
 
Miss Krantz, an idiosyncratic spinster with a nervous tic and an annoying habit of mumbling
 
when she read to the class. There was a kid in our class named Eugene who was a big bully
 
and who, for whatever reason, had a bunch of friends. He came up with the idea that if we
 
all complained to the principal, we could get Miss Krantz sacked.
 
   Some of us were doubtful. While we didn't think Miss Krantz was the greatest teacher, we
 
also didn't think she deserved to be victimized by a conspiracy. We had concerns that
 
Eugene's strategy might not work, that we might all end up in hot water or that whoever
 
they replaced her with might be a lot worse. We made the mistake of speaking up and
 
voicing our misgivings. Eugene marshaled his forces, and soon they were calling us names,
 
ridiculing us and threatening to beat us up at recess or after school. We believed strongly
 
that what Eugene wanted to do was headstrong, ill-advised, based on less than all the facts
 
and not in the best interests of the class. The issue, however, had ceased to be about any of
 
those things. You were either one of "Eugene's people," or an outlier, a doubter, a pariah.
 
   Eugene moved forward with his plan, even without the rest of us. The principal came in
 
and interviewed each student privately. Most went along with Eugene, but a lot of us
 
didn't. And things didn't work out quite the way Eugene said they would. Miss Krantz was,
 
in fact, reassigned. But her replacement, Miss Jernigan the tough old bat who replaced her 
 
ran the class like a gulag, limiting our choices and controlling who we could talk to and what
 
we could say. Owell would have loved her.
 
   As it turns out, everything I needed to know about the 2009 healthcare reform debate I
 
learned in that second grade class. Eugene is still using his majority to browbeat those who
 
disagree with him. Never mind that he doesn't know how this will al work, how much it
 
might cost us or if it will really be better than what we have. Because it has by now ceased
 
to be about us, and what's best for us. It's more about whether you're one of "Eugene's
 
People" or not. If not, be prepared for the labels "Nazi," or "tea bagger," or "astroturfer"
 
or "brain dead," even "racist." Worst of all brace for a future in Miss Jernigan's gulag,
 
where nothing worked out the way "Eugene" promises it will, and you no longer have
 
any choices.
 
   One thing I learned in second grade is that it's better to face the consequences of speaking
 
up than it is to sit idly by while the Eugenes of this world burn down that which, while not
 
ideal, is working at some level. I also learned that there comes a time to push back, and one
 
day when it finally came to that and Eugene was laying on the ground wiping the bloody
 
nose I had just given him I think he learned something too. My second grade experience was
 
a near perfect allegory of the current healthcae debate. I leave it to you to decide who
 
corresponds to whom, and whether you want to be one of "Eugene's people," or one of
 
those who wants to proceed more cautiously and get it right.
 
 
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MY LETTER TO THE IRS

 
 
   Like most Americans, I have infrequent occasions to communicate with the IRS. Following is the
 
letter I'd LIKE to send them with my next quarterly payment.
 
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
 
Another quarter has ended, and it's time for me, as a good and law abiding citizen, to pay my tax
 
bill. I usually just send it in mindlessly like evrybody else, but this time I have some conditions.
 
1. I will send you the payment due when the President of the United States guarantees me that
 
not a single penny of it will be spent to support the practice of abortion, which violates my moral
 
conscience.
 
2. I will send the check as soon as he promises publicly that none of it will support healthcare for
 
undocumented aliens who are in this country illegally.
 
3. I'll ship it right out when he stops importing dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo Bay at our

expense to my
homeland and swears that he in no way signed off on the release of Libya's Lockerbie

bomber
by the United Kingdom.
 
4. The check will be in the mail immediately after he stops shelling out money and favors to the
 
labor unions, ACORN and the New Black Panthers, and insists that they abide by the same laws
 
as the rest of us.
 
5. Payment will be rendered promptly when he tells the truth about the future deficits that will
 
be spawned by his so-called "healthcare reform" bill, and his seemingly unending string of
 
bailouts.
 
6. I'll pay right up when Congressman Charlie Rangel has paid all of his back tazes and been kicked
 
out of the House of Representatives, and when Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad are forced to refinance
 
their mortgages at the same rates others had to pay when they took them out.
 
You see I'd like to send it now. I really would. But giving this irresponsible administration and

corrupt congress
money is like feeding peanuts to elephants. However much you give them they

want more.
 
Get back to me when honest grownups are once again making decisions about how to spend it and
 
maybe we can work something out.
 
                                                                _____
 
That's the letter I'd LIKE to send. If we all did it maybe we could get their attention. Oh, sure,
 
they could put us all in jail. But remember, in the 1700's King George tried to KILL all the
 
colonists when they refused to pay up. Look what that got him. It's food for thought.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WILL OBAMA OPEN PANDORA'S BOX?

 
 
   Congressional Democrats, reeling from a series of disastrous town halls in which they
 
have been booed, jeered and shouted down over HB 3200, their version of so-called
 
"healthcare reform," and facing an uncertain future in trying to pass unpopular
 
legislation that may, in the end, cost many of them their seats, are now openly calling
 
on President Barack Obama to exercise some leadership and submit his own bill. But
 
that is a dangerous gambit for this president, and he knows it.
 
   To be sure. most of the concepts in HB 3200 have been championed by Obama at
 
one time for another, including taxing the rich, cutting Medicare payments and
 
reducing fraud and waste in that program that is already on financial life support,
 
reproductive healthcare (read government funded abortions), unrestricted care
 
(read free healthcare for illegal aliens), a National Health Committee (read
 
healthcare rationing board), and a "public option" (read government insurance
 
that will jeopardize private insurance companies). It is these very concepts that
 
have made HB 3200 a legislative pariah. For all their bluster Democrats still
 
aren't sure they have the votes to pass it and they are looking for their leader
 
to pull some magical rabbit out of the hat and ride to the rescue. Whether he
 
tries to do that or not will tell Americans a great deal about this man they have
 
elected to lead the nation.
 
   First, he is being asked to lay his appreciable but ever dwindling personal popularity
 
squarely on the line, call in all his political favors and exhort a doubtful electorate
 
to climb aboard a budget busting bandwagon with an uncertain future. If he does
 
so and fails to get the bill passed, his chances for a second term seem bleak at best,
 
If he does so and succeeds, and any or all of the critics' dreads come to pass, the
 
same applies.
 
   Second, to propose a deadlock breaking alternative he would most surely have
 
to jettison the objectionable concepts for which he has so eloquently argued.
 
While a successful makeover could be spun as a magnificent bi=partisan
 
leadership demonstration, it will almost surely squander his meager remaining 
 
credibility with the vocal left wing of his own party, and be seen as a sign of
 
political weakness by his opposition.
 
   Third, without a clear way of paying for the bill that will not make middle
 
class tax increases inevitable before he leaves office, he will have done little
 
but to have birthed a stillborn miscreant that will surely be put out of America's
 
misery when, in the inevitable turnaround of political fortunes, conservatives
 
regain congressional ascendancy.
 
   In the movie "War Games" the computer decides that as with tic-tac-toe, when
 
it comes to global thermonuclear war the only winning move is not to play. In
 
this case Obama can make a case for asking the congress to do its job instead
 
of asking him to do it for them. His safest move is to let HB 3200 die a certain, 
 
quiet death, lick his (and his party's) wounds and make another, far more subtle
 
run at it during his second term. That's if he gets one. That will allow a cooling
 
off period in which the few grownups left on capitol hill can sit down and craft
 
reasonable reforms in the current healthcare and health insurance system
 
instead of irresponsibly burning it to the ground/ HB 3200 is a horse that
 
won't run, Mr. President, a dog that won't hunt. The smart thing and the right
 
thing are, for once, identical. Let it go!
 
 
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HEALTHCARE QUESTIONS THE DEMS WILL NEVER ANSWER

 
   In the raging debate about healthcare reform, the issues are set in bold relief
 
by the fact that the Democratic party proposing the government takeover of
 
the most private, intimate and sacrosanct transactions of our lives persistently
 
refuses to answer a set of specific questions. And their perpetual silence
 
speaks volumes.
 
   Question #1: If, as the president has said, HB 3200 does not intend to
 
provide public funding for abortions, then why have the Democratically
 
controlled House and Senate rejected all nine proposed amendments
 
specifically banning such?  The true answer is that Democrats fully
 
intend to fund unlimited abortion on demand, but since polls now indicate
 
that a majority of Americans oppose abortion, they don't have the guts
 
to say so and are trying to slide it in under the radar.
 
   Question #2: If, as Democrats claim, 45 million more Americans will have
 
covered access to medical care, yet there are no provisions in HB 3200
 
to train more doctors and nurses, where is this alleged healthcare coming
 
from? The true answer is that fewer will enter the medical professions under
 
socialized medicine, not more, and the additional 45 million will have to
 
divide available services with those already covered, thus making healthcare
 
rationing inevitable.
 
   Question #3: If the intent is not to offer free healthcare coverage to 12-20
 
million illegal aliens, then why have Democrats explicitly rejected everty
 
attempt to place enforcement measures (identification) in HB 3200? The
 
true answer is that Democrats, by excluding enforcement provisions, have
 
every intent of laying the healthcare bill for those in the country illegally
 
on the backs of American taxpayers.
 
   Question #4: If, as President Obama claims, the purpose of his National
 
Health Committee is not, in the end, to set up a system whereby healthcare
 
can be rationed, then why not specifically and permanently exclude that
 
from their statutory function? The true answer is that rationing is the
 
Democratic goal, and that the "death panel" charges are not as far off
 
base as one might think
 
   Question #5: If the purpose of HB 3200 is not to arrive at a "single
 
payer" system (with the government being the single payer), then why
 
does America need the "public option," wherein the government, which
 
makes the rules, enters into direct competition with private sector
 
insurance companies. Won't this ultimately put those companies out
 
of business? The true answer is that the government will simply undersell
 
and regulate private insurance companies out of business. House
 
Democrat Barney Frank has admitted, in an unguarded moment, that
 
HB 3200 is the best way to achieve a single payer system.
 
   Democrats will never answer these and other questions about their
 
radical healthcare reform proposal because they know that direct and
 
truthful responses will outrage the American public, doom their utopian
 
spendthrift initiative and lead to their defeat in future elections. But
 
their boldfaced mendacity has overtaken them You simply can't fool
 
all of the people all of the time.
   
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE FACE OF PANIC

   
   Barack Obama's socialist healthcare scheme is being shredded around him day by day.
 
Attempts to ram the legislation through before anyone could read it failed. The
 
town hall meetings have turned into a forum for opposition. Denigrating the
 
dissenters has backfired. Legislators refused to make themselves subject
 
to the reform's mandates. While lawmakers ignored demands that they read
 
the entire bill before voting on it, almost everyone else now is. And every
 
damning socialist pipe dream in it is coming to light piece by incriminating
 
piece.. Democrats stand wild-eyed on the verge of complete panic. With
 
each passing day some new tactic of desperation is rolled out, with little
 
home of stemming the tide of opposition or stabilizing Obama's free-falling

poll
ratings.
 
   First Obama held a prime time news conference touting the government
 
takeover of healthcare. Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issud "talking
 
points" for legislators holding town hall meetings, the intent of which was
 
to blame the hea;thcare system's ills on the :immoral" insurance companies.
 
When that didn't fly and angry protestors, 84% of whom are satisfied with
 
their healthcare as it is, began asking (and in some cases shouting) some
 
real hardball questions, truthful answers to which would only further undermine
 
the ill-conceived reform effort. Calling the protesters Nazis, right-wing extremists,
 
a "mob," Republican plants or a planted activists didn't work either. New polls
 
show that the public doesn't believe a word of it. Hastily, the White House put
 
up a firefighting website comprised if loyalists attcking straw men, and asked
 
supporters to report "fishy" claims about the proposd reforms. That raised the
 
concern of even the ACLU that the White House was keeping track of
 
"enemies." Some lawmakers closed their town halls to those who could not
 
peoduce picture ID proving thatthey live in the district. Socialist billionaire
 
George Soros has crawled out of the woodwork again, offering $5 milklion
 
to help pass the measure. Who he plans to bribe is still unclear. Finally,
 
a "randomly chosen" little girl who turned out to have been a poster child
 
for the Obama campaign, and a phony "doctor" in Houston who turned
 
out not to be a doctor at all but an Obama convention delegate turned out
 
to praise and support the troglodyte bill. Threats, slander, intimidation, 
 
disinformation and now, at last, the use of planted impostors -- I believe
 
you can smell the acrid stench of moral decay wherever you are.
 
   Democrats will not give straightforward answers to straightforward
 
questions about the bill. Does it provide public funding for abortion?
 
Does it propose free hea;thcare for illegal aliens? Could the national
 
health board ever, under any circumstances, deny or ration healthcare?
 
What guarantee is there that digitally shared personal medical data will 
 
be secure? How will this be paid for? What guarantee is there that the
 
so-called public option won't put my insurance company out of business?
 
The questions proliferate, but straight, honest answers do not.
 
   It has been said that legislators' votes on this bill will be the most important
 
they will ever cast. That is so, and it's so because never have a president
 
of his party attempted to perpetrate such a massive fraud on the American
 
people. Never has any group worked so hard, spent so much money,
 
twisted so many arms just to keep Americans from finding out the truth.
 
But it's just not working. Obama's job rating approval has plummeted
 
twenty-one points in just four months, with significantly more than half
 
of those polled disapproving of his performance in office. Legislators
 
face the distasteful prospect of voting against the monstrous plan
 
their president wants and they helped craft, or simply being swept
 
out of office in a landslide in 2010 and 2012. That's what the panic
 
is about. And after all the arrogance, pretention and abuse of power,
 
it's a beautiful thing to watch. 
 
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ORWELL LIVES!

 
 
   If you want to participate in an experiment in terror, go to the "reality check" website
 
and check out the videobytes intended to "combat myths about healthcare reform." What
 
you'll see is a series of vignettes by White House minions that set up straw men (things
 
no one in their right mind is actually saying) and then proceed to blow them out of
 
the imaginary water. It gave me a strange sense of Orwellian foreboding, and I could
 
almost see the zombie-like face of Barack Obama hovering in giant relief over the
 
free-flowing doublespeak.
 
   But the site, along with Obama's New Hampshire town hall meeting and tactics
 
employed by various lawmakers in similar settings make the Democratic strategy
 
to pass healthcare reform crystal clear. Discredit dissenters. Call them un-American,
 
Nazis, a mob, holligans and thugs. Seize on arguments no serious critics are making
 
and paint all dissent with the same brush as misinformed extremism. What sticks in
 
the craw is that Obama and his people think Americans are really that dumb.
 
   But their strategy will work UNLESS those who oppose Draconian government
 
control of the quality-of-life issue that affects every one of us takes action now. It
 
is clear that a part of the Democratic strategy is to flood the town halls with union
 
thugs like the ones who assaulted someone for distributing American flags in St.
 
Louis. We must not be intimidated, show up in force and give them a fight, verbally
 
if we can and otherwise if they want it that way. The New Black Panthers bullied
 
voters successfully in Philadelphia and the politicians that benefited from their
 
intimidation let them go unpunished. If they think we're afraid and that they can
 
keep us away then they will win. Find a town hall meeting near you and by all
 
means, go.
 
   But the big thing we have to do is make the Democratic politicians answer the
 
real questions: the ones they weasel, twist on, dodge and avoid. Those questions
 
are not the straw men on Obama's phony website. They are as follows:
 
   1. Does the bill currently before the House of Representatives allow the funding
 
of abortion with public money? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
 
   2. Does the bill provide healthcare for illegal aliens with taxpare money? Yes or no?
 
It's not rocket science.
 
   3. Does the bill specifically and unambiguously debar the National Health Board
 
being created from ever rationing or limiting care based on age, chronic disease or
 
cost? Yes or no? 'Fess up!
 
   4. Does this bill or does it not impose a sirtax on businesses with payrolls of $250,000
 
or more that do not provide "acceptable" health insurance for their employees? Yes nor no?
 
      a. If yes, is the government saying businesses that cannot provide health
 
benefits and still make a profit should just go out of business? And who decides what's
 
acceptable? What are the criteria?
 
      b. Consider this scenario: Joe and Molly own a flower shop. In addition to themselves
 
they have two clerk/order takers, one delivery man and one bookkeeper who handles
 
the bills, the taxes, billing and receivables. The payroll is a modest $256,000. Is this
 
bill saying that Joe and Molly must provide full health benefits for everyone who
 
works for them or pay a surtax? If so, why not just close them down?
 
   5. What provision is built into this legislation to guarantee that private insurance
 
options will continue to exist and not be closed down by trying to compete with
 
the same entity (the government) that also makes the rules? What guarantees that
 
this bill will not, over time, force  a "single payer" scenariio by default?
 
   6. Is it true that this bill authorizes the government to look into our checking and
 
savings accounts without our specific knowledge and permission? Yes or no?
 
Spit it out.
 
   There are many more such questions that can be asked. But by the time you've
 
finished these they will either have shouted you into silence or forced you to leave
 
hall. They won't answer them because they're partisan cowards and because they
 
know that if they answer them truthfully they will ignite a storm of protest from
 
which they can never recover politically.
 
   Doublespeak, threats, intimidation and namecalling can never silence us as long
 
as we refuse to be silenced. Let's call these people out for what they are and MAKE
 
them wear what they're shoveling.  Let's MAKE them write bills, as one Pennsylvania
 
educator suggested to Senator Spector in a town hall meetung, that can be read and
 
understood by a junior high school student. Or let's, as another gentleman requested,
 
see a list of the people who actually write the bills, find out about their political
 
affiliation and agenda. Or as the best suggestion of all would have it, let's have a
 
national referendum on healthcare reform. Then, Mr. President, we'll be glad to
 
tell you what we think of your program. But, then, you're probably too big a
 
coward to that either. George Orwell is alive and well in Obamerica!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHO IS "Un-AMERICAN?"

 
   In a new op-ed the Democratic leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives have
 
labeled as "un-American" those flocking to town hall meetings across the nation to
 
protest the proposed sweeping healthcare reforms of Barack Obama. So who is really
 
"un-American?"
 
   Maybe the place to start is by defining what is "American." Presumably we're talking
 
about a code of behaviors and values here, rather than a simple accident of birth.
 
Historically, it has been classified as patriotic to express dissent, confront elected
 
officials and demand that they be accounatble to those who elected them and that
 
public policies they make be temperate, well-grounded in fact, fiscally defensible
 
and a fair represntation of all the people.
 
   But it seems that in Nancy Pdlosi' twisted mind we've all suddenly been catapulted
 
back through Alice's Rabbit Hole, and in this new reality all the things that once
 
typified Americans are now shameful, the actions that once comprised duty are now
 
forbidden and the demands for accountability are classified as the maniacal howling
 
of "Nazis," organized hooligans and thugs. What  happened?
 
   What happened is that in January 2009 Barack Obama took the presidential oath of
 
of office and began immediately imposing his neo-socialistic agenda on Americans,
 
spending the country into oblivion and paying off his union supporters and community
 
organizing pals whose money put him there. When Democrats rode his coattails to
 
full control of both houses of the legislature, he simply declared "I won," implying
 
that no dissent to his agenda would be tolereated.
 
   Both houses began ramming through legislation and questionable cabinet and other
 
nominees while allowing the opposition little or no input. In a classic abuse of power
 
scenario the freight train was rolling. Then came the infamous healthcare reform bill
 
and some red lights began coming on. Republicans hated it. Blue Dog Democrats
 
didn't like it much either. It cost too much, took away care from those who needed
 
it to give to those who wanted it (so long as it was free), set in place a government
 
bureaucracy that could soon ration care, threatened to run existing health insurance
 
companies out of business because they could not compete with a so-called "public
 
option," provided care for illegal aliens, made taxpayer money available to fund
 
abortions and peanlized small businesses whose benefits do not currently include
 
health insurance. Democrats speak only about near term costs, and shun all
 
projections of long-range deficits. And to this day no one can state coherently
 
exactly how it will be paid for, although in a rare moment of candor two of
 
Obama's advisors, Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers recently admitted on
 
national television that it was not a matter of "if" but of "when" taxes would
 
have to be raised on the middle class (something Obama swore he would not do)
 
in order to pay for it. Anyone still wonder why Americans are exercised about
 
the matter?
 
   Watching the polls and realizing that the tide of public opinion was turning
 
against them on the issue, Obama and the Democrats schemed to use town hall
 
meetings during the congressional recess to regain momentum. Only a funny
 
thing happened on the way to the town hall. A whole bunch of Americans, fed
 
up with force fed socialism and satisfied with their current healthcare (84%)
 
showed up and, with varying degrees of panache, shouted "NO WAY!"
 
   Their panties now completely in a wad, the White House has put out a call
 
for information on "fishy" e-mails opposed to Obamacare. "Fishy" in this case
 
clearly means "dissenting." Elected politicians have started calling everyday
 
citizens "Nazis," labeled their confrontational tactics un-American and charged
 
them with inciting violence. (Although, humorously enough, the most notorious
 
incidence of violence was perpetrated by Democrat SEIU thigs against a black
 
man passing out American flags at a St. Louis rally. Isn't rank hypocrisy a
 
beautiful thing)?
 
   So, who's un-American? Is it people demanding the chance to criticize a wacky
 
plan congress' own budget office says will cost more than it saves? Is it those
 
who have definite ideas about the clumsy, bumbling bureaucry of government
 
messing with a healthcare system which, for all its shortcomings, is still the finest
 
in the world? Is it those who are under the assumption that a constitution is still
 
in force that guarantees citizens the right to freely speak their minds? Or is it
 
those who use their platforms of power to intrude, threaten, intimidate, call
 
names and impose their own agenda without regard to public opinion? You decide
 
who's trying to kill the America I know and love? I know that I have.
 
   And on the off chance that some Obamaton reads this and wants to forward it
 
to the "fish department" at the White House, knock yourself out. The United
 
States Constitution is and will always be bigger than Barack Obama and his
 
disingenuous coterie who have long since forgotten that only "the truth will
 
set you free." Real Ameicans just aren't "afraid of the big, bad wolf."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive