About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

DEMS TIP HAND ON HEALTHCARE

 
   Larry Summers, the president's chief economic advisor, inadvertently gave
 
away the Democrats' real healthcare agenda. After blathering on about all those
 
"unneccessary" tonsilectomies and hysterectomies that are performed, he commented
 
that billions could be saved if those were disallowed for insurance coverage and/or
 
doctors needed some external permission to perform them. Keep your gown tied
 
tightly when in the exam room, and don't bend over. Big brother's about to be there
 
watching -- and meddling.
 
   When the creation of a national healthcare board was crammed into the Porkulus
 
spending bill, Demcrats claimed that the board's only purpose was to establish a
 
system of nationally computerized medical records and compile "research" that
 
would help to improve medical treatment/ Both they and Republican moderate
 
Arlen Specter -- who voted for the bill and whom we now know to have been a
 
closet Democrat all along -- denied that it could lead in any way, shape or form
 
to the rationing of medical care. Research later revealed that the wording was taken
 
directly from Britain's law that established socialized medicine there and has resulted
 
in the most egregious form of healthcare rationing wherein people routinely die
 
while waiting their turn for treatment. Everybody there is equally entitled to health-
 
care. Only by the time you get it, you may be dead.
 
   Now Summers, who has no medical background whatsoever, is pontificating on
 
national television about which procedures should be abridged or disallowed. That
 
is only the first shot across the bow. Unless you've been asleep for the last three
 
months, you clearly see that Barack Obama and his minions are hell bent on
 
transforming the United States of America into a replica of the European socialist
 
democracies like the U.K., France, Norway and Sweden. He's taken over automakers,
 
banks, insurance companies and your local doctor's practice is next. It's as clear as
 
can be.
 
   "Cut the prez some slack." you say? Have you ever lived in any of those countries
 
I mentioned? I have! Have you ever been told that you have to wait at the end of the
 
line for treatment because you are old or have a chronic disease and may die anyway?
 
Lots of people there have. Have you ever tried to pull your own infected tooth because
 
it hurt like crazy and you couldn't get in to see a dentist for six months? Folks in
 
those countries do it all the time. That's socialized medicine. That's rationed
 
healthcare. That's what Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have in
 
store for you.
 
   The cardinal problems with rationed healthcare are obvious. One, it constitutes
 
a bunch of government bean counters trying to put a price on human life, which
 
is grotesquely immoral, no matter how much it allegedly saves. And if it does
 
save a few bucks, while patient X is dying because he can't get surgery, Obama
 
will still be sending out those tax rebate checks to people who never paid any taxes
 
in the firstplace. In hard stratight language, he's compromising your health in order
 
to re-create a welfare state.
 
   The second problem is that when the National Health Review Board and their
 
bean counters in any way come between you and your doctor, they have invaded
 
one of the most sacrosanct relationships in American life today. When they take
 
away our choice they strip us of yet another freedom to which we are supposed
 
to be entitled. So much for the land of the free.
 
   Finally, by turning the practice of medicine into an assembly line where watch-
 
dogs are peering over your doctor;s shoulder, they risk driving the brightest and
 
best out of the medical field altogether. In a recent poll, more than 60% of American
 
physicians said that they were considering retiring or cutting back their practices, and
 
that in no case would they advise their own children to pursue a medical career. The
 
situation is that sad. My own personal physician was educated in the U.K. and left
 
there to practice in America. Imagine how he feels as he watches his profession
 
invaded by bumbling government bureaucrats, his patients denied the care they
 
need and deserve and his livelihood slipping away as the government slashes all
 
fees to a Medicare level.
 
   If you voted for Barack Obama because you hated George Bush, this is what
 
you asked for and it may be what you're stuck with. If it doesn't work, we can't
 
just go back to the way things were before. It will take years to undo the damage
 
and we'll never get back the fine doctors who just got sick of it and quit. Tell this
 
socialist president and brain dead Democratic congress to leave our healthcare
 
system alone. With all of its' faults, it's still the best there is. Or, just sit back,
 
don't worry, be happy and suffer when Larry Summers decides the government
 
and its' "wonderful" universal healthcare denies your plea for immediate treatment
 
while you waste away and die.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GREAT DISCONNECT

 
   Recent polls reflect a growing disconnect between the public's regard for President
 
Barack Obama and their opinions about his policies. It is the tenuous nature of that
 
opinion gap that is driving the speed train on which Obama is trying to push through
 
his social reform agenda and the urgency of the task facing the loyal opposition.
 
   People like Obama personally -- at least 63% of them do. But the support for his
 
big spending, big government policies has declined steadily in recent weeks. In other
 
words, since a lot of people like having a "rock star" for a president, they're willing
 
to cut him some slack to mess with America. But that has limits. The open question
 
is how long will America be willing to contine the honeymoon after their electric
 
bills double, the dollar is de-valued by rampant inflation and it becomes clear that
 
universal healthcare means fewer and poorer options for the average American?
 
That honeymoon is bound to end, but how much irrevocable change will have been
 
set in motion before it happens?
 
   Republicans were dealt a severe blow by the defection of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen
 
Specter who placed the preservation of his own tenure in office ahead of party loyalty
 
by switching to the Democrats. So what can the GOP do now? The answer is obvious.
 
They need to work very hard at making Obama wear his socialist policies. Party
 
propagandists need to burn the midnight oil designing graphic ways to make Americans
 
feel foolish for fawnning on Obama, on the one heand, and faunching over his policies
 
on the other. The goal in view should be that by the next election Barack Obama is
 
synonymous with unsustainable deficits, government interference in the private
 
sector and out-of-control big government that the same polls show Americans
 
resent and don't want.
 
   Sprcial interest groups should be courted. For example, it is inconceivable that
 
any good, practicing Catholic who believes abortion to be child murder can support
 
Barack Obama in any election. Obama's role in loosening restrictions on abortion,
 
creating public funding supporting it, pressuring doctors to perform them and
 
appointing an HHS Secretary with a history of supporting late-term partial birth
 
abortions and those who perform them should be plasterered before the Catholic
 
Church, whose American bishops are already on record with their opposition. One
 
of former presidential candidate John McCain's advisors cautioned the GOP against
 
becoming "the religious party." But religion and politics have always mixed in one
 
way or another, and an army of offended Catholics joining arms with an equally
 
outraged horde of evangelicals and supplemented by the anti-gun control, anti-
 
illegal immigration, pro-states rights group could easily unseat Obama in as little
 
as four years. The GOP has to make Obama wear his policies, and trumpet the
 
inconsistency of worshiping the man and hating what he does.
 
   In the early 90's the Republican party was down, and according to some, out.
 
Then came Newt Gingrich and the contract with America. Americans like charismatic
 
leaders. But make no mistake: in the end, Americans are their own leaders. Exploit
 
them, deceive them, dismiss them and they will get rid of you. It's time for America
 
to quit acting like a blushing debutante and connect the dots. The picture will look
 
a little different when that happens.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SPECTER OF CHANGE

 
   All day the blogs and cable news outlets have been abuzz about the defection of
 
Pennsylvanian Senator Arlen Specter from the Republican party to become a Democrat
 
and the potential 60th vote in a filibuster-proof majority. While conservatives vilified
 
him as a traitor, Democrats rolled out the red carpet, including a welcoming call from
 
the president himself. Is all now lost for the Republican party? What does it all mean
 
for American politics?
 
   Specter's sickly protests to the contrary, his move reflects no shift either in his own
 
ideology or that of the Republican party. It is about -- and ONLY about -- his realization
 
that he had no chance of being re-elected in Pennsylvania as a Republican. He only
 
narrowly won his last primary against Pat Toomey, a fiscal conservative, and lost
 
whatever remaining Republican capital he had by votingwfith Democrats on the
 
Porkulus spending bill. He is banking on the (estimated) 200,000 Pennsylvania
 
Democrats who flipped to Obama in the presidential election continuing to vote
 
Democratic in the 2010 primary. That, in itself is a substantial gamble, given the
 
disconnect betwee Obama's personal popularity and the dwindling ratings of his
 
policy initiatives. It also fails to take into account the "Bush rejection" factior
 
that no doubt drove many voters in the presidential election, but may not drive
 
them in the mid-terms, particularly when the consequences of some of the Obama
 
policies begin to play out. We'll see.
 
   On the shorter term, it is doubtful if Specter, a centrist at heart, will vote a straight
 
party line with the Democrats. He is already on record as opposing Obama's nominee
 
for deputy attorney general, the union's card check bill and seems to have significant
 
reservations about cap-and-trade. He will doubtless receive a lot of pressure, from
 
party leadership as well as from the unions in Pennsylvania, but the odds are he'll
 
continue to be a centrist maverick. Changing parties may not change the man, provided
 
Republicans do not treat him as such a pariah that they drive him into the Democratic
 
column on vote after vote.
 
   Juan William of National Public Radar, smilingly pronounced Specter's move as
 
another nail in the coffin of the Republican party which, he announced gleefully,
 
is now a southern party of old white men. I guess the partisan Mr. Williams
 
doesn't read the thousands of rightist blogs, consider the Young Republicans viable,
 
or even consider that the Obama administration might, in very short order, lead the
 
country tio ruin. He points out correctly that in polls 46% of Americans admit to
 
being Democrats, whil only 28% favor the GOP. Taken at face values those numbers
 
may be daunting, but they disregard the tendency of Democratic voters to stay at
 
when they think everything is under control, the oft changing vote swings of the
 
independents who really decide elections and the ability of the Republicans to
 
accomplish a grass-roots turnout of the 52% of registered voters in the last
 
election. This "Silent Majority" is the sleeping giant that will likely be aroused
 
by the oppression of cap-and-trade and the prospect of rationed healthcare. When
 
the Repuublicans swept into power in the eary 90's on the "Clinton disgust" factor
 
the Democratic party was also pronounced dead. Williams has simply engaged in
 
wishful partisan thinking, disguised as news commentary, that he may well live to
 
eat.
 
   But, as Specter himself sheepishly confessed before the TV cameras, his prospects
 
in the Pennsylvania Republican primary were bleak, at best. And that reveals what's
 
really wrong with American politics. If Specter had experienced an epiphany revealing
 
Barack Obama's Messishship, we could understand. He didn't! If he had felt so strongly
 
that the Democrats were right on one or two critical issues, it might be easier to cut
 
him some slack. He doesn't. Convicted by his own words, Specter is guilty of placing
 
his own re-election, the retention of his own personal power above party, idelology
 
and yes, even his duty to Pennsylvania voters. The Democrats will try their best to
 
reward such spinelessness and banal values. But the Pennsylvania electorate may not.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

STOP OBAMA'S ENERGY INSANITY

 
   The House Energy Committee is currently holding "hearings" on the cap-and-trade
 
energy legislation proposed by Henry Waxman (D-California) and Edward Markey
 
(D-Massachusetts), and supported by President Barack Obama. The ringmaster
 
clown-in-chief is quintessestial junk scientist Al Gore. The proceedings are replete
 
with dire predictions about the end of the world as we know it, and propose as a
 
countermeasure the biggest tax hike in American history. Democrats whine that
 
for Republicans cutting taxes is the solution to everything. On the record, it seems
 
that Democrats' answer is raising them.
 
   But the biggest mistake in the history of American governance can still be stopped,
 
and most Republicans think they have the votes to do it. Absent invocation of the
 
"fast track" parliamentary trick the Democrats are using to deny Republicans the
 
right to debate Obama's immednsely costly universal healthcare program, cap-and-
 
trade will draw universal  GOP rejection and they will be joined by a significant
 
number of senate Democrats whose districts would be deeply damaged by the bill.
 
Why is this legislation so onerous? Let me count the ways.
 
   1. Contrary to Democrat claims, cap-and-trade is a tax! It is a levy imposed by
 
government for a specific service. That's the disctionary definition of tax. Look
 
it up. Even the White House budget office admits it may cost two or three times
 
what they have estimated, and whatever it costs it will still be the biggest tax
 
increase since WWII -- and in the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
 
The inmates are definitely running the asylum.
 
   2. This energy tax is now projected to cost every American household a minimum
 
of $3,900 annually. That will be a crushing blow to the elderly living on a fixed
 
income, to middle class families hard htt by job losses and to the poor. And Obama's
 
piddling $400 per person welfare hand-out won't even make a small dent in it. (Note
 
the old Democrat ploy: give something with one hand and take away eight times as
 
much with the other). Obama himself promised that under cap-and-trade the cost of
 
electricity would "skyrocket." Are you ready to see your electricity bill go from
 
$150 a month to $600? That's what we're all looking at if this lunacy becomes law.
 
   3. The legislation creates enormous windows for corruption and abuse of power.
 
Under its provisions any American can sue any other American if they think they
 
are or may be a victim if the negative effects of global warming. Firms needing
 
more energy can petition the government through their legislators. Given the
 
current congressional record regarding the acceptance of bribes and payoffs, does
 
anyone seriously think that this will not become a congressional get-rich-quick

 sheme?
 
   4. It is not only your electric bill that will rise dramatically. By Obama's own
 
admission, businesses using energy (which is all of them) will have to retrofit to
 
accommodate less energy use, and they will then pass the costs along to the
 
customer. Guess who that is? Yep, the same poor schmucks that are paying the
 
big electrice bills -- you and me. And now we'll get to pay more for food,
 
clothing. office and school supplies as well. How is this going to help people
 
who already are struggling to pay their mortgages?
 
   5. Cap-and-trade will cost millions of American jobs. When cap-and-trade
 
was tried in Europe, a Belgian cement plant. facing bankruptcy because of
 
the increased energy costs, simply closed its European operation and moved to
 
Morocco. Does anyone seriously believe the same won;t happen here, with
 
businesses fleeing to Mexico, India, South America and other places where
 
government is trying to make profitable enterprise work, rather than regulating it
 
under the table? Have any cement plants in your state? Kiss those jobs goodbye
 
if this moronic bill succeeds.
 
   6. Cap-and-trade didn't even work in Europe. Carbon pollution actually became
 
worse, a fact that the Democrats don't want you to know. They claim that they'll
 
implement the plan smarter than the Europeans, making it as effective as the
 
acid rain reduction measures. Now they're really insulting our intelligence. First,
 
carbon pollution isn't acid rain. The technology that helped to control the latter
 
was already in the latter stages of development, whereas alternative energy research
 
is still in relative infancy, rasing the specter that this hideously expensive regulation
 
may be THE long-term solution, and that American households will bear the entire
 
cost of it.
 
   In the throes of an economic quagmire such as the one gripping our nation, a solution
 
MUST be found that does not simply grind the American taxpayer into the ground/ If
 
this crop of legislators isn't up to it then they should all resign and make way for
 
creative problem solvers whose answer to every problem is NOT spend mega-billions and
 
soak the poord dumb taxpayers for it. I'm one taxpayer who's had just about enough!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHEN ICONS CRUMBLE

 
   Miss America used to be a national heroine, beautiful, talented, reigning in
 
majesty while championing causes benefiting children or the challenged. She
 
was everyone's darling daughter, apolitical, non-controversial, and the winner
 
of one of the year's most spectaculr pageants. But it all came crashing down one
 
night in April, 2009.
 
   Behind the disaster was "celebrity blogger" Armando Levandeira, who calls
 
himself "Perez Hilton," although the only thing he shares with Paris is the air
 
between the ears. Violating the explicit rules of the pageant, Levandeira asked
 
Carrie Prejean, Miss California, whether she thought other states should follow
 
the first four to legalize gay marriage. When she answered that in her own
 
value structire marriage was for a man and a woman, Levandeira went ballistic,
 
calling her vile names both in his blog and on interviews for days after. Making
 
matters worse, another judge stated that for her snwer Miss California should have
 
been made 51st runner-up instead of first. The head honchos of the Miss California
 
pageant were no more supportive, and the straight-bashers in Hollywood wasted
 
no time piling on. The incident was so distasteful, so politicized, so obnoxious
 
as to forever taint what has long been an American institution. Gone is the
 
possibility that we can ever expect honest answers from the candidates again. They
 
will always choose the politically correct answer over what they may privately
 
believe, because they know that (a) they won't win if they don't, and (b) they'll
 
be called foul names and publicly ridiculed if they speak their minds. The thrill is
 
gone!
 
   Some intersting questions should be raised, however. What good is a pageant that
 
sets rules for judges and then sits on its thumbs when judges break them? What
 
qualifies Hilton, a virulent gay activist, to judge beautiful young women? The
 
cretan doesn't even like women. And why would the morons Lewis and Moakler
 
not stridently back Miss Prejean when California residents solidly voiced their
 
own disapproval of gay marriage in the much written about Proposition 8 election?
 
Is political correctness now an official judging standard for contestants, and were
 
they told that in advance? The answers to these and a plethora of other questions
 
are blowing in the wind.
 
   But a few things are obvious. Levandeira (aka "Hilton"), reprehensible, bigoted,
 
tasteless slob that he is, had no business whatever being a judge in the Miss
 
America pageant. If his distaste for women didn't disqualify him, then his blatant
 
political agenda and transparent lack of class should have. So the people who ran
 
the pageant were about as adept at it as Tim Geithner is at doing his taxes. Just like
 
the old computer maxim, "garbage in, garbage out."
 
   Some good legal minds believe that Carrie Prejean has a solid basis for a big
 
lawsuit against Levandeira, and perhaos even the pageant.  Personally,
 
I hope she pursues it. They ought to pay more for slandering
and humiliating her

than she did for telling the truth they didn't want to hear. Gays
have a clear double

standard. You can't say one word against their right to be, have 
or do anything

whatsover that they want, no matter how perverse you consider it.
But there are

no boundaries whatever around what they can say about you. It's
time for a change!

Sue their butss off, Carrie. You go girl!
 
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

YOU MIGHT BE A LEFT-WING EXTREMIST IF . . .

 
   In the wake of the scandalous DHS report labeling anti-abortionists, anti-gay
 
marraige activists, those who want immigration laws actually enforced and
 
returning military vets as potential radicalized right-wing extremists who are prone
 
to commit acts of terrorism, maybe it's time for some pushback. So, here are
 
some indicators of a different stripe/ YOU MIGHT BE A RADICALIZED LEFT
 
WING EXTREMIST IF:
 
   1. You sign petitions suggesting admitted bomber William Ayers is an OK guy, or
 
   2. Your initials are BHO and you new best buds are named Hugo, Fidel and Raul, or
 
   3. You're a new Secretary of Homeland Security who refuses to enforce existing
 
immigration laws, or
 
   4. You want to impose a cacamamy $3,100 annual energy tax at a time when
 
the earth us actually cooling (for the last eleven tears) and the Continental ice
 
shelf is thickening, or
 
   5. You think tea bags are only significant to Barney Frank, or
 
   6. You praise yourself in advance for cutting in half a deficit that you plan to
 
create, or
 
   7. You are obsessed with "spreading around" other people's wealth, or
 
   8. You/'re dumb enough to say publicly that you want $8 a gallon gas, or
 
   9. You want ACORN involved in the census so we can be sure and double count
 
all those dead and ficitious voters they registered, or
 
   10. You really look forward to slipshod, rationed healthcare, or
 
   11. You want Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle or Kathleen Sebelius to do your taxes, or
 
   12. You believe there was no pork in the stimulus (choke, gag) bill, or
 
   13. You honestly think Nancy Pelosi is not a partisan witch, or
 
   14. You see Jeremiah Wright as a patriot, or
 
   15. You think a little socialism never hurt anybody (Russia, Cuba, Poland,
 
etc,)
 
   16. You don't believe the president's insane budget will produce unsustainable
 
deficits, or
 
   17. You want to see a government that has yet to prove it can organize an egg
 
on toast running GM or Bank of America, or
 
   18. You don't see the similarities between Christopher Dodd, Barney Franl
 
and Bernie Madoff, or
 
   19. You think the leader of the free world in the midst of the worst national
 
crisis in decades should be conducting a witch hunt against people he'll never
 
convict, are no longer in office and may well have done nothing illegal, or
 
   20. You honestly want the USA to look ANYTHING AT ALL like western
 
Europe.
 
   Actually, if you want that last one you're not only a dangerous, radicalized left
 
wing extremist. YOU'RE AN IDIOT! Have a nice day. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SANE HEALTHCARE REFORM

 
   Healthcare reform is the next congressional "hot potato." President Barack Obama
 
wants to Institute universal healthcare, much like that of Sweden, France, Norway
 
and the U.K. so that no American will be uninsured. While covering every citizen
 
is a noble goal, the costs associated with it create the mothre of all entitlement
 
programs and increase the national debt to unsustainable proportions. If it follows
 
the aforementioned European models it is also likely to lead to a greatly reduced
 
quality of care for all but the most wealthy and, unavoidably, a rationing of
 
care that will throw the elderly and the chronically ill under the bus. A way must
 
be found to place an umbrella of care over most Americans, while maintaining
 
the nation's undisputed leadership in quality of medical care. Let;s not throw
 
out the baby with the bathwater.
 
   Instead of offering blanket universal coverage that must inevitably lead to a
 
healthcare tax, there are some other steps that can and should be taken. A basic
 
Medicare-like policy might be created for those living at or below the poverty
 
level, with the stipulation that they waive the "tax rebate" (refund of taxes they
 
never paid) which would go to help defray the cost of their premium. When their
 
earnings climb to a certain level above poverty, they would phase into contributing
 
to their own premium based on their earnings, Prioritizing healthcare is a choice
 
for most of us, and even a government supported policy should not relieve those
 
covered by it of some responsibility for prioritizng their health over luxuries and
 
other discretionary spending. Private insurers could be engaged to bid on the right
 
to provide such government subsidized policies, much like the Medicare Advantage
 
plans. This would ensure that private insurers willing to cooperate with the new
 
system could stay in business, although at a reduced level of profit.
 
   If the government wishes to involve itself in subsidizing healthcare, then it can
 
look into assisting businesses, especially smaller businesses in providing health
 
plans for their employees. By bundling these businesses and using government
 
clout, substantially lower rates for coverage can be negotiated. although employee
 
choice of coverage may be curtailed to some extent.
 
   Another thing government can do is begin subsidizing physicians by renegotiating
 
and then paying their malpractice insurance premiums. Combined with national
 
tort reform capping payments for malpractice awards, the cost of coverage could
 
be significantly reduced. Government could also become the universal purchasing
 
agent for medical supplies and equipment, thereby cutting physicians' costs in
 
adequately equipping their practices. Full fare government scholarships could be
 
offered to qualified med students, which would alleviate their need for repayment
 
income when they open a practice. Physicians could repay this government
 
assistance by lowering their fees for service proportionately to the savings they
 
realize or. alternative, chipping in proportionately to a government fund that
 
would help to pay the premiums for the poor.
 
   The already scheduled computerization of medical records should, once in place,
 
also provide more efficiency and cost effectiveness. Drug companies and pharmacies
 
should also be given incentives to further engage in cost-reduction of prescriiption
 
drugs needed to treat the poor and the elderly. Similar provisions could encompass
 
extended care facilities, physical therapists and proven forms of alternative medical
 
providers. Everyone will make a little less, but the costs of doing business will also
 
decline, with a result that the tax burden necessary to provide basic coverage to the
 
uninsured can be lightened.
 
   This seems like a common sense proposal that can minimize additional tax burdens,
 
provide basic medical care for almost everyone and yet not tear down our present
 
system of medical care fir a system that has already proven both ineffectual and
 
exclusionary in Europe. Every day people come to this country from other places
 
to receive the finest care money can buy. You don't see those same people flocking
 
to the European socialist democracies where people routinely die awaiting needed
 
care. Let's show some common sense and find a middle ground for our healthcare
 
system. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

STICKS AND STONES

 
   "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me." So goes the
 
old schoolyard rejoinder to verbal bullies. But the sad truth is that labeling has become a
 
paramount bully tactic of the political left, and the epithet du jour is "radicalized right
 
wing extremist," a descriptive term currently used by Democrats, including officials
 
of the Obama administration, to describe anti-abortion protestors, tax protesters,
 
advocates of immigration law enforcement, anti-global warming activists, Republicans
 
in general, and anyone else who disagrees with them. The plan is quite clearly to
 
cast all dissenters as foaming-at-the-mouth, out of the mainstream lunatics. Liberal
 
advocacy organizations like MSNBC and CNN have been quick to adopt the jargon
 
and maintain the drumbeat.
 
   Worse yet, Homeland Defense Secretary Janet Napolitano, one of the dimmer bulbs
 
in a cabinet of dimbulbs, seems obsessed with the notion that returning military
 
veterans are ripe pickings for the so-called extremists, and "may be recruited to
 
commit acts of domestic terrorism." That, of course, is the next step in the Democrats'
 
ploy. Downgrade the focus on foreign terrorists so we can make nice with our enemies
 
and link all domestic dissent to possble terrorist action. It's a lie, it's filthy, it's gutter
 
politics, it's an insult to our brave military men and a purposeful non-evidence-based
 
smear on those of us courageous enough to stand up and publicly oppose the
 
lunatic administration of Barack Obama. It's not an accident. It's not a slip of the
 
tongue that can be weaseled out of by some glib and facile "apology." It's a cold,
 
premeditated smear campaign designed to stifle public dissent. And it's not going
 
to work -- unless we let it.
 
   This thing can cut both ways, and it's time we start slapping labels on them as
 
they are trying to do to us. Who's the extremist, the anti-abortionist trying to save
 
human lives, or the president who almost weekly announces some new policy to
 
fund killing unborn infants or punish doctors who refuse to do so? Duh! Who's
 
the radical, those who welcome our military personnel home with the thanks of
 
a grateful nation, or those who try to label them extermists and a danger to society?
 
Who's more dangerous to America, those who simply want immigration laws
 
enforced, or those who want amnesty for aliens who have broken those laws and
 
now threaten American jobs and impose unbearble costs on the states where they
 
hide? Who's the more irresponsible, those who attend Tea Parties to protest higher
 
taxes and profligate congressional spending, or those who are wantonly creating
 
multi-trillion dollar obligations with which our children and grandchildren
 
will be saddled? Maybe it's time we break out the blogs, the bumper stickers and
 
the conservative talk and TV shows that start applying labels that really fit to
 
those who actions actually warrant them. It is a lead pipe cinch that before our
 
military vets start blowing up government facilities more unborn babies will
 
be slaughtered, more deficit-busting debt will be contracted. more taxes will be
 
imposed, and more illegals will enter and remain in this country with impunity.
 
The Liberals harp on what they're afrid conservatives might do. 'BUT LET'S
 
TAKE A HARD LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING! For every
 
time they publicly use the phrase "radicalized right-wing extremist," we need to
 
SHOUT the phrase "radicalized left-wing baby-killing, vet-insulting, alien-coddling
 
money-wasting, tax-and-spend liberals."
 
   The point is that liberals are wimps. If they want a fight for the soul of America,
 
let's give it to them. We don't have to tolerate their lies and insults in silence. We
 
can give it right back to them. What they don't want to hear is that although they
 
won the last election, they did it with half the voters staying home. Some of those
 
voters attended and recruited oithers to attend the tea party. The silent majority is
 
awakening, and we no longer have to be silent. Let's tell professional idiot Janet
 
Napolitano and conniving politicans, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and
 
yes -- Barack Obama -- to quit calling Americans names and get to work on some
 
real solutions to American problems. In other words, shut up and get to work! That's
 
your job.
 
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT

 
   There is a whole lot of chaos in Washington these days. Dizzying spending bills and
 
partisan bickering have many Americans wondering what's next. The Democratic party,
 
for the first time in ages controls both the White House and the two branches of congress.
 
Barack Obama promised big changes. What's really coming? Just what do the Democrats
 
want?
 
   They won't say it in plain English. It would be too hard to swallow for too many
 
Americans. So you have to watch the budgets and the policies closely, and learn to
 
decipher their code to figure out what's happening. To really get it, you have to
 
understand the Democrats' vision of America's future -- Barack Obama's vision.
 
   America's past is firmly rooted in the belief that people should get what they earn
 
-- no more, and no less. Because 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes and
 
are unemployed or underemployed, by choice or by chance, the tax burden falls
 
squarely on the 60% who do work, do earn and do pay taxes. There are those
 
who fear that we will become a "welfare state." That's like worrying about a bomb
 
that has already gone off. We HAVE a welfare state. The government already uses
 
taxpayer money to provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in
 
the form of welfare checks, food stamps and government subsidized housing for
 
those living below the poverty line. These entitlements cost the country billions
 
every year. Some of the money goes to families who try hard, work hard, but
 
lack the education, skills and opportunity to earn enough to escape from poverty.
 
Much of it also goes to unmarried women who insist in bearing serial babies,
 
drug addicts and career criminals, men who have fathered many children and pay
 
no child support, and those who defraud the government into believing they
 
qualify for subsidies to which they are not lawfully entitled. The premise is that
 
everyone has a right to food, housing and some means of subsistence, no matter
 
how down and out, no matter how lazy, no matter how irresponsible.
 
   What the Democrats want is to equalize the quality of life between those who
 
work, produce and pay taxes and those who do not. So, to the other entitlements
 
they wish to add universal healthcare, good education and home ownership.
 
Since even the government does not have an infinite supply of money (although
 
you'd never know it form the way they're spending it now), Democrats have
 
justified in their own minds bringing the rest of us down some so that the
 
entitlement class can move up some (spreading the wealth around). It's basically
 
a glorified Robin Hood plan, with the government acting as referee to determine
 
who has too much and who too little. The two tools they propose to use are
 
increased taxation and massive new entitlements.
 
   The Democratic vision is not unlike that of Karl Marx, the ideological father
 
of communism. He envisioned a "classless society," where government would ensure
 
that no one had too much or too little. Perennial socialist party presidential candidate
 
Norman Thomas announced some years ago that there was no longer a need for him
 
to run since the Democrats had adopted the entire socialist agenda. Socialism is
 
the precursor of communism, and Thomas was right on point.
 
   What does this mean for you if you work, earn, pay taxes, exercise sexual
 
responsibility, pay child support if you owe it, stay off booze and drugs and
 
don't otherwise belong to the "entitlement class?" Clearly it means that you will
 
have to work harder and longer to continue funding the ever increasung cost of
 
supporting those who cannot or will not support themselves. Not, mind you at
 
a subsistence level, but at the same level at which you live. It also means that if
 
you have opened a small business with the notion of making a lot of money and
 
achieving the American dream, you can basically forget it, because Democrats
 
mean to tax that too. If you've been sitting on a 401K, and if the market ever
 
comes back, your hard-earned savings will NEVER be worth what they once
 
were because Democrats have announced their intention to raise the taxes on
 
your capital gains as well.
 
   So who gets hurt in this mythical classless society. It's not Bill Gates and George
 
Soros. They're billionaires many times over and paying a few million more in taxes
 
on what they haven't already stashed in offshore trusts will mean nothing to them.
 
But Joe and Molly who've opened a carpet cleaning business, Sam, who just opened
 
his own insurance agency and Gino who just bought a pizza place are going to get
 
crushed. Most of them will never realize the American dream of getting ahead
 
because in a socialist society no one is supposed to BE ahead. And under Democratic
 
control, the government will always be there to guarantee it. So, if you can get the
 
same lifestyle by not working as you can by slaving away, why not just quit? The
 
reason is that once the Democrats get their system in place, society would collapse
 
into chaos if those of us who are supporting the rest quit paying and start collecting
 
instead. It's a vicious cycle that will make the ordinary working American
 
indistinct from a hamster on a treadmill. Eventually these opprsessed workers
 
will rebel, and government will have to resort to force to enforce their socialist
 
state. Trying to impose socialism on America is a recipe for civil war, and the Democrats
 
are so caught up in their utopian vision that they'll never believe it until it happens.
 
   So there you have it. It's what the Democrats are all about. They'll never admit it,
 
they'll try to gloss it over with words like "fairness," "hope," "change we can
 
believe in," and others. But it's all doublespeak for the same thing. What can we
 
do about it? Well, for the foreseeable future what we're going to do about it is
 
pay through the nose. But I saw a sign at one of the Tea Parties the other day that
 
posed the only common sense remedy I know about. It said, "You can't fix stupid.
 
But you can vote it out." Truer words were never spoken.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

RESPECT AND THE PRESIDENCY

 
   Military officers are taught that their subordinates are trained to respect their rank,
 
but are unlikely to respect the officer as a person unless that officer demonstrates
 
sterling character, fairness and outstanding leadership. The same goes for presidents.
 
As Americans, we should respect the office of the presidency. Presidents themselves,
 
however, need to earn that respect.
 
   I respect the office of the presidency, but I lost respect for Richard Nixon because
 
he was a paranoid delusional who fancied himself above the law. I respect the office,
 
but I did not respect Jimmy Carter because his spineless personality, socialist agenda
 
and total lack of courageous leadership left my country damaged and open to attack,
 
and because his disastrous policies set the stage for today's subprime mortgage 
 
meltdown. I respected John F. Kennedy, until it was learned that he was a serial
 
philanderer. and Bill Clinton until he was too busy fingering his zipper when he
 
should have been pushing the button on Osama bin Laden. I respected George
 
W. Bush, until he forgot his conservative roots and began spending taxpayer money
 
like a drunken sailor, and ignoring what the American people wanted.  I've always
 
respected the office, but a number of those who filled it have sadly failed the tests
 
of character, honesty, integrity and leadership.
 
   Now we are faced with President Barack Obama, the first African American to
 
have ascended to the Oval Office. Mind you he loses no points with me, nor does he
 
gain any for being black. But the tests of respect for him are exactly the same as
 
they were for the others. So, if you want my respect, Mr. President, listen up. Here's
 
what it will take.
 
   1. Don't follow George W. Bush's lead and institute policies that the American
 
people clearly don't favor. Imposing costly universal healthcare and a questionable
 
cap-and-trade energy policy in the deepest recession many of us have lived through
 
can be no differemt from going to war over imaginary WMDs. Let all the stakeholders
 
speak, listen to the people. When Bush blindly and arrogantly pursued his own agenda
 
Americans began to lose respect. The same can happen to you.
 
   2. Don't go overseas and trash America again. Americans have already suffered a
 
series of heavy blows. If you don't have anything good to say about America when
 
you're abroad, then just shut up. Talking one way about people in western
 
Pennsylvania to their faces, and another when talking about them in California
 
cost you a ton of votes. (Bitter, clinging to their guns and religion -- ring any
 
bells)? The next time you wnat to tell the French Americans are arrogant and
 
dismissive just stuff a sock in it. Such remarks offend a whole lot more than
 
those in western Pennsylvania.
 
   3. Stop lying to us. When you treat us like we're stupid it only makes you
 
appear even more so. I heard your policy speech at Georgetown, and it insulted
 
my intelligence. I'm no whiz-bang economist, but I'm pretty good with numbers.
 
Yours don't add up. The way you cunningly shifted back and forth between short
 
and long term investments and impacts would have made Bernie Madoff proud.
 
If your policies are followed out over ten years America will be an entitlement
 
dependent nation with no incentive or national will, and we will be so deeply in
 
debt to foreign interests that we'll never get out. Is that what you want? Many of us
 
don't. But at least do us the courtesy of telling it like it is instead of trying to dazzle
 
us with smoke and mirrors.
 
   4. Don't try to reinvent the constitution by making it mean whatever you want it
 
to mean. You're very good a manipulating words, but with the skill there somes
 
even greater responsibility. Some presidents have sought to be exceptions to the
 
law by simply breaking it. On their face, it appears that you intend to beat the
 
constitution by simply applying your own meaning to it. The constitution,
 
Sir, has outlasted a number of sorry individuals in the Oval Office, and it is
 
likely to also survive you. Mess with it, and you will not serve a second term
 
and be badly remembered -- just like Jimmy Carter, the worst president America
 
ever had.
 
   5. Ameria made you what you are -- the first black man to have the honor of
 
leading the nation. It also made Abe Lincoln what he was. So stop trying to re-
 
make America in the failed image of the European socialist democracies. How
 
many people do you personally know who go to France, Sweden, Norway or the
 
U.K. for high quality medical treatment? I'll be surprised if it's even one. America
 
was built on the backs of people who worked hard and were rewarded for that work,
 
not those who refuse to work and get refunds (excuse me, "rebates") for taxes they
 
never paid. Help America, give it a tune-up and a paint job, brakes and new tires.
 
But for God's sake, don't rip out the engine, discard lessons learned and start over
 
from scratch. America, like its constitution, will be here long after you are gone.
 
You can either choose to be proud because you helped it along, or ashamed when
 
successors undo your legacy while you bear the blame for one failed policy
 
experiment after another. America's not a high school chem lab, nor does it
 
belong to you any more than the rest of us.
 
   Learn these lessons, Mr. President, and you can still be not only respected, but
 
even beloved. Or fail to learn them and watch your trust, respect and legacy cast
 
on history's trash pile. If you want respect, earn it! There's still time to stop and
 
think.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

5 REASONS WHY DEMOCRATS WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES

 
   MSNBC's rabid leftist commentator Keith Olvermann, in addition to showing off
 
a foul mouth a dirty pig would be ashamed of, argued yesterday on national television
 
that there is no evidence Democrats mean to raise taxes. Apparently he, along with Barack
 
Obama and the Democratic party think that most Americans are plain stupid. There
 
are at least five good reasons why Democrats in power are a surefire guarantee to raise
 
taxes on all American citizens.
 
   First, Obama already promised that he would do so, on upper wage earners, and
 
Democrats such as Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi have been agitating for increased
 
taxes for years. In most cases the Dems say one thing and then do another. No such
 
luck here. We can't say that we weren't warned.
 
   Second, massive borrowing alone cannot fund the massive social programs the
 
Democrats crave. Eventually they will have to raise taxes to pay for them. It will
 
begin by taking away tax credits and deductions, as it already has. Then those who
 
don't pay taxes and still get "tax rebates" will stop getting them because Ubcle Sam
 
is too broke to send them out. Finally, tax brackets will be readjusted to tap just
 
about everyone. which will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire. This is a fully
 
premeditated strategy to broaden and increase taxes on all Americans. I know it,
 
you know it, the Democrats know it. Hell, any fool knows it.
 
   Third, new programs like cap-and-trade will emerge that will cause us to pay
 
more for energy (the "carbon tax"), and it is likely that additional taxes will be
 
imposed to pay for universal healthcare. Taxpayers are already bailing out thousands
 
of irresponsible mortgage holders and greedy, dishonest bankers and financial fims.
 
How are we going to pay for all that? You're probably catching on by now.
 
   Fourth, if you're paying attention to what's going on over at the United Nations
 
(few are), there are increasing rumbles about a world tax to help out needy Third
 
World countries. Recently General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto (an anti-
 
American zealot) regaled the G-20 nations for not doing more for these countries.
 
The scary part is that our own president seems fully on board with this, having
 
already promised billions to the U.N. in the middle of our own deep recession
 
and while we are fighting the world's war in Afghanistan. Who is going to pay the
 
U.N. tax? Duh!
 
   Finally, the Democrats are going to raise your taxes and mine because it's what
 
Democrats do. Firmly committed to the premise that government is the answer to
 
every problem and that government knows better how to spend taxpayers' money
 
than they do, every single Democratic administration from FDR onward has
 
sought to raise taxes. They do it in the face of the firmly established fact that
 
imposing taxes on those who work hard and earn well to benfit those who do neither
 
AKWAYS depresses the economy.
 
   So, my suggestion to the obnoxious Mr. Olbermann is that he take his partisan
 
diatribe and stick it "where the sun don't shine." Even better, we should all
 
immediately cease watching the left-wing gossip channel known as MSNBC, find
 
out which companies run ads during shows featuring Olbermann, Chris Matthews
 
and Rachel Maddow and write a deluge of letters informing those sponsors that we
 
will be boycotting their products 100% until they cease sponsoring MSNBC's
 
slander and lies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AN OPEN LETTER TO JANET NAPOLITANO

 
   Dear Madam Secretary:
 
   In your agency's recent bulletin to law enforcement you have singled out Americans
 
who oppose abortion, decry outrageous taxes, despise big government encroachment,
 
champion states' rights, resent gun control or may be returning military veterans as
 
persons who may be radicalized right-wing extremists. If those are the criteria for
 
dangerous extremists, then on most counts you may consider me one of them. The
 
bad news is that we are millions strong, and in four years you and your socialist boss
 
are going to be joining the ranks of the unemployed. You see, we "extremists" are
 
even now mustering an army -- AN ARMY OF DISGUSTED VOTERS. And no
 
memorandum you issue, no policy you pursue, no conspiracy you hatch can do
 
anything to stop us.
 
   Your problem is that we aren't doing anything illegal. Our Tea Party tax and spending
 
protests are protected free speech. The Supreme Court has already spoken loud and clear
 
on our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Freedom of opinion and speech
 
are constitutionally guaranteed, and our belief that abortion is nothing but legalized
 
infanticide is just as viable as yours that it isn't. What's next?  Are you going to arrest
 
the whole Catholic Church? None of us disputes the government's authority to impose
 
reasonable taxes. But the final arbiter of whether those taxes are reasonable and
 
whether the government is using them responsibility is the voter -- the American
 
citizen -- not the government itself. Of the 23,000 veterans who have returned
 
from our various wars, how many can be shown to have radicalized? The answer
 
is 203. That's eight-tenths of one per cent. Your callous attempt to besmirch the
 
reputations of the fine men who have risked their lives in the service of our nation
 
is a DISGRACE not to them but to you.
 
   So while you point decent enforcement personnel in the direction of little old
 
ladies carrying right to life signs, the Islamic extremists with active cells in
 
this country are free to pursue their nefarious schemes. Illegal aliens who have
 
infiltrated our borders and continue to do so daily run scot free (as your
 
ridiculously lax enforcement allows them to do) in hopes that craven Democrats,
 
desperate to preserve their newfound power will bail them out with a general
 
amnesty. Why don't you do your real job, Madam Secretary, instead of acting
 
like an ACORN thug and singling out conservatives for persecution?
 
   A key player in Hitler's Third Reich was Heinrich Goebbels. Through the
 
information ministry he sought to discredit by innuendo all those who opposed
 
National Socialism and the Fuehrer. At the same time, the Gestapo was ferreting
 
out those who they believed might actually pose a threat. It's essentially the
 
same thing Chavez is doing in Venezuela right now. The reason socialism can
 
only succeed by stifling dissent is because it is indefensible in the marketplace
 
of ideas where respect cannot be ceded, but must be earned. But this is America,
 
 Madam Secretary, and we will not go quietly to Auschwitz, Dachau or obscurity.
 
We will rally those who believe in a free America and WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT!
 
   Your memorandum is a national disgrace! Sieg Heil Napolitano! Sieg Heil Obama!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BARACK AND THE MAGIC BAG

 
   When I was a boy growing up in the Chicago area, I remember how before
 
Christmas my mother would go shopping at Marshall Fields and the other
 
wonderful department stores downtown. In those days all the stores put up
 
ornate creche scenes and displays featuring Santa and his elves in their
 
front windows. Mom used to let us stay outside and gaze at those windows
 
while she went inside and bought Christmas presents. When she came out,
 
she was always carrying one or more beautifully decorated shopping bags
 
full of goodies that would greet our eyes under the tree on Christmas morn.
 
I still remember how hard my brother and sister and I tried to peek into those
 
bags on the ride home, just to get a glimpse of gifts that might be ours. While
 
we rarely got to actually see anything before Christmas, just the thought of
 
those magical bags and what might be inside piqued our fantasies.
 
   Barack Obama's campaign was much like that. Long on window dressing
 
and with great promise, but short on details and anything past or present
 
that could actually be seen. Many got cold feet, and took the position that if
 
they couldn't at least get a glimpse of what was inside the bag, they wouldn't
 
vote for one so short on actual deliverables in his resume. But even more
 
so desperately wanted and hoped that Obama's bag would be filled with
 
goodies that would help America fulfill it's promise that they decided to
 
banish the voices of caution and bet that the magical bag was full of "change
 
we can believe in."
 
   Christmas morning has come and gone, and even some of those who
 
closed their eyes and took the leap are beginning to feel that the bag, after
 
all, is empty. The man who promised to balance the budget through
 
responsible government spending has now rammed through the biggest
 
federal budget -- by far -- in our nation's history. He and his congressional
 
cronies have embarked on an unprecedented and apparently open-ended
 
spending spree, first bailing out and then taking over insurance companies,
 
automakers and banks. The one who promised lower taxes on the middle
 
class now, when the rubber meets the road, has offered only a $400 "tax
 
rebate," while proposing an "energy tax" that would add $3,100 to every
 
family's tax burden. The candidate who promised to "govern from the
 
center" has embarked upon a war against the Catholic Church and all
 
those who oppose government authorized and subsidized abortion on
 
demand. His moves to reinstate funding to groups performing abortions
 
abroad and threats to revoke legal protections for physicians refusing
 
to perform them for the sake of conscience has justly earned him the
 
title applied by one New York legislator of "The Abortion President."
 
   Where is the media who rallied consistently behind Obama during the
 
campaign? Chagrined by the growing backlash from protest "Tea Parties,"
 
 church officials demanding his exclusion from Notre Dame's pending
 
commencement, growing unease over out-of-control spending, a ballooning
 
national deficit, government interference in the private sector and the
 
shocking impotence of his attempted international interventions, all but
 
the most rabid leftists have fallen strangely quiet. Where are the media
 
challenges to wrongheaded and unpopular policies, the criticism when
 
White House spokesmen refuse to give direct answers to simple and
 
straightforward questions and piercing analysis of flimsy schemes? Well,
 
if I were them I'd be hiding out too, I guess. How humiliating for them!
 
   But the truth began to dawn when the Promised One went to the G-20
 
summit and asked Europe to join in bail-out mania -- and they refused. It
 
further set in when he asked NATO for more combat troops on the ground
 
in Afghanistan -- and they said nope. It grew when he warned North Korea
 
not to provoke us by launching their trial ICBM -- and they did it anyway. To
 
make matters worse, he ran, as he promised, to the United Nations
 
Security Council, where ethe Chinese and the Russians pulled the rug out
 
from under his emissary and to this day has not even so much as issued a
 
statement condemning North Korea's blatant violation of its earlier sanctions.
 
During his campaign, he persuaded voters that he would accomplish through
 
diplomacy what Bush had failed to accomplish by isolating Iran. Thus far, his
 
every sniveling olive branch has been shredded and stomped on by Tehran.
 
Media has chosen, by and large, to focus on small successes, like Obama's
 
alleged brokering of an international deal on how to handle tax dodgers ( which
 
is interesting in light of the fact that he has apparently filled his administration
 
wuth them). But whitewash it any way you want to. The foregoing laundry
 
list of bumbling attempts at presidential leadership are FAILURES -- plain
 
and simple. He didn't get what he wanted from the Europeans, then tried to
 
act like he did. He was humiliated by the Koreans and ignored by the Security
 
Council while trying to pretend that he wasn't. He promised to lowed taxes and

now is trying to raise them. He promised fiscal restraint and now is showing

none. How much will it take to convince
the devotess who voted for this rock star

neophyte that he just isn't up to
the job? THE MAGIC BAG IS EMPTY!
 
   If mom's beautiful Christmas bags had been empty, my siblings and I
 
would have been very disappointed. Voters who are paying attention to the
 
Obama amateur hour in the White House should, by now, be disappointed
 
too. And the media churls who helped get him elected should start eating
 
their generous portion of crow now. The feathers take a long time digesting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BUSH LIGHT?

 
   What if hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters voted for a candidate
 
promisng change, and got only a smoother, slicker version of his predecessor
 
instead? On form to date, it turns out that the differences between Barack
 
Obama and George W. Bush are a whole lot more semantics than substance.
 
   Obama promised to "end the war" in Iraq. His actual policy decision has
 
been to leave thousands of combat troops there for at least the next 19 months,
 
with others to remain behind when they leave. While withdrawing a token force
 
from "Bush's war," Obama has sent 17,000 to Afghanistan, with another 4,000
 
soon to follow/ Does that make Afghanistan "Obama's war?" With great pomp
 
the administration announced that the USA is no longer fighting the "war on
 
terror. In its place we have "overseas contingency operations." No fewer
 
troops, no less materiel, no less intelligence requirements will be required.
 
A distinction without a difference? You be the judge. One of Obama's first
 
official actions was to announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay's prison
 
facility. He still hasn't figured out where to put them, but Alexandria, Virginia
 
is sweating bullets. Will the detainees breathe cleaner air in Virginia? Or
 
will they get beach leave? Don't hold your breath. And gays flocked to the
 
polls on Obama's promise that "don't ask, don't tell" would be history. That's
 
been placed on indefinite hold since BHO actually started meeting with his
 
generals. Maybe there are some good reasons why old George (Let's Kick
 
HIm Again) Bush did some of the things he did. Maybe Obama is finding
 
out that things look different from behind the desk in the Oval Office than
 
they do from the campaign stump.
 
   Then there's the matter of the European safari. While Obama was playing
 
"citizen of the world" and apologizing for America's (past) arrogance and for
 
Bush being dismissive of the European allies, he was, at the same time,
 
trying to dictate to them the appropriate stimulus response to the global
 
economic crisis and hitting up NATO for more combat troops in Afghanistan.
 
On the stimulus, Europe's leaders basically told him to mind his own
 
business. And on the troops, all passed except the U.K. who said they
 
would if France would. France isn't talking. What he demanded must have
 
seemed to the Europeans both arrogant and dismissive. What he got was
 
acceptance of his "new" Afghan-Pakistani policy (with no troops to back it
 
up), a polite "no" on additional stimuli and kudos from the foreign press for
 
his glibness.
 
   Finally there's North Korea's "Missilegate," where Obama got suckered like
 
a rookie by the Chinese who promised not to oppose him in taking the blatant
 
violation to the U.N Security Council, then vetod further sanctions when
 
the meeting actually occurred. Obama seems to persist in his faantasy about
 
an "international community" which, in fact, does not exist. At least Bush
 
got sanctions against the Koreans and Iran. The sad fact is that taking
 
such matters to the United Nations is simply the ultimate act of impotence.
 
   Thus far Obama is "Bush Light," with an even bigger ego, virtually the
 
same foreign policy and a whole lot more avaricious spending hunger. My
 
guess is that the extreme lefties who voted for him are in denial about most
 
of this. But that will only last so long. Then what?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

YOU'RE FIRED!

 
   Forgetting that he wasn't Donald Trump on The Apprentice, the President of the
 
United States of America recently fired Rick Wagoner, CEO of troubled General
 
Motors Corporation. The reason, ostensibly, was the giant automaker's failure
 
to come up with a suitable restructuring plan to justify enough federal financial
 
support (bailout) to become viable. Since the United Auto Workers Union must
 
be part and parcel of such a restructuring, some have recently asked whether
 
the government should fire the union head as well. It's another dumb question
 
asked in the context of what already resembles Alice in Wonderland's renowned
 
Rabbit Hole.
 
   First, the government shouldn't be in a position to fire anyone except others
 
in government. The argument runs that since taxpayer money was used to bail
 
GM out, the taxpayers now own the company. Thus, the administration, acting
 
on the taxpayers' behalf, have the right to replace malfeasing managers. True
 
enough, but it begs the question as to whether the taxpayers should be owning
 
private sector businesses at all. The president has made the argument that GM
 
is "too big to fail," and that allowing them to do so would create so massive a
 
job loss as to land a near fatal blow to an already reeling economy.  Based pn
 
that logic, it would seem that the way to guarantee sustainability is to make
 
unrealistic commtments, cook the books to hide mounting losses and hire so
 
many workers that the government can't afford to let you go bust. In such a
 
case the government simply sponsors poor business practices, corporations
 
living habitually beyond their means and any incentive they might have to
 
develop a genuonely competitive business model.
 
   The administration can't fire the head of the union for two reasons. First,
 
the taxpayers haven't bought a piece of the union, and don't have the right
 
to tell the UAW who to employ. Second, the Obama administration has an
 
incredible conflict of interest in even dealing with the union, since it was the
 
union's generous wallet that put them and their congressional cronies in
 
office. Obama's own statement is that "we're not going to do this (bailout)
 
on the backs of the workers," which is Democrat code for "of all those who
 
have to make concessions in order to make GM work, we'll see to it that
 
the union's concessions are the lightest." Given a situation like that, it's a
 
wonder Wagoner didn't quit BEFORE Obama fired him.
 
   Now, after all this posturing, it looks very much as though both Barack
 
Obama and the Forty Thieves (aka "the Adminsitration") and GM's own
 
brain trust have decided that the best option for the company is structured
 
bankruptcy. Duh! It's the decision that should have been made before putting

the American taxpayers on the hook for $17.4 billion in
cold bailout cash.

Though you'll never hear Obama (or any Democrat)
admit it, the greatest

stumblingblock to real restructuring is the bloated
union contract. Bankruptcy

will allow the voiding of that contract and let
the company to start fresh and build

a business model that can compete
with Tioyota, Volkswagen, Nissan and Honda.

The only ones likely to get
screwed in the deal are retired autoworkers, who are

also taxpayers. But
when so many taxpayers are getting hosed already, what's a

few thousand
more?
 
   President Obama must be commended for one thing, though. So far, he's
 
been able to pull off this charade with a straight face. Privately, he must be
 
laughing up his sleeve. Why? Because this whole economic bust is playing
 
right to his socialist agenda. The incompetence of Detroit management, the
 
intransigence of the unions and the malfeasance of Wall Street have given
 
ample public justification for the government to seize banks, investment firms,
 
insurance companies and now automakers. Voila! In one fell swoop the
 
government now owns the means of production. Karl Marx meets Machiavelli
 
and P.T. Barnum. Crowd capitalism out of the major markets, paint it as
 
the source of all corruption, blame hard times on it and all of a sudden the
 
"S" word sounds pretty good. It  sounded pretty good to the Europeans too,
 
until they realized that it didn't work and they were in too deep to get out.
 
   But one thing is clear. Capitalism with infinite government bailouts DOESN'T
 
work. Risk and failure are a part of the natural order, and without them it
 
is difficult to excel or succeed. The alternative is a bland socialist existence
 
without the drive to get ahead, because no one is allowed to BE ahead. All
 
incentive for innovation, industry and investment is destroyed. Try solving
 
climate change with that mix. Apparently that's what this Democratic congress
 
and administration are attempting to do. And no matter how monumentally they
 
fail, they can always pass the bill on to us. Oops! They already did that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive