About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

ANGER MANAGEMENT: A CONSERVATIVE TUTORIAL

 
   Conservatives in America are angry today because socialist Democrats, in direct
defiance of public opinion used every dirty, dishonest and unethical trick in the
book to pass socialized medicine into law. The measure of conservative success in
ousting from power those responsible for the travesty, and ultimately overturning the
fruits of their mischief, will be the way in which that anger is channeled.
   Protests, demonstrations and e-mail campaigns are fine. Indeed, they are needed
expressions of public outrage and serve to vent the simmering anger spawned by
the ruthless abuse of power. But changing the status quo will take far more than
that. What will be required is a tough, disciplined and yes, equally ruthless
campaign to destroy the last vestiges of Democratic credibility and to remind the
American people daily of the lies they have been told.
   American voters have short memories. In ramming through healthcare reform now,
Democrats are banking on the probability that the anger will have cooled and voters
will have forgotten their betrayal by November. This "memory lapse," they believe,
will enable them to hold onto the reins of power and perhaps even build new momentum
leading up to the presidential contest in 2012. If Republicans are to turn the tables,
they simply cannot afford to let that happen.
   Democrats claim they will save $500B in Medicare waste and fraud. Judicious use
of the public information act can force disclosure of what they actually save, which
will undoubtedly be far less and can be measured beginning immediately. They claim
that the Medicare cuts won't hurt seniors. This puts them between the proverbial "rock"
and "hard place." Either they must pass the "doctor fix," which will add at least $250B
to the actual price tag of Obamacare, or they won't, and doctors will begin dumping or
failing to accept new Medicare and Medicaid patients. Seniors who can't get a doctor
because of what Democrats have done will make very compelling testimonials in
properly placed TV ads.
   Democrats have conned the public about the true cost of Obamacare by feeding the
Congressional Budget Office deflated estimates of costs and inflated estimates of
revenue. Since both are public information, they should be tracked an plastered all
over the headlines of every major news outlet in the country. Let's face it. Every
government program in history has cost more than estimated, and one based on such
accounting sophistry as this will do so quickly and alarmingly.
   Obama crows about what's in the bill. Republicans need to be talking about what's
not. For example, there are no serious cost controls. The originally stated purpose
of reform was to hold down costs. Not only does the bill fail to do so, it actually
portends a situation in which premiums will go up 10-13% even by Democrats' own
estimates. Dems claim that they have insured 94% of Americans, but they've done
no such thing. Their constitutionall questionable mandate for all citizens to be
insured does not mean that all will buy insurance. By making the fine for not buying
it less than the cost of insurance itself, and providing inadequate enforcement teeth
they have virtually guaranteed that the "young immortals" and the welfare crowd
that would rather buy booze and cigarettes will wait until they get sick, orjust not buy
it at all and continue going tp the emergency room. This will simply drive insurance
companies out of business and overall costs up, which will in turn come out of taxpayers'
pockets.
   Then there's the matter of the dishonorable tactics used to pass the bill. Voters should
not be allowed to forget Gator Aid, the Louisiana Purchase or the sweetheart union
deal on the Cadillac insurance tax. Nor should they forget the dubious use of the
reconciliation tactic, the threat of "deem and pass," the executive order bribe or the
political strongarming used to marshal votes for a bill many legislators hated almost
(but not quite) as much as their constituents. But people will forget unless conservatives
consistently and graphically remind them.
   As we have been repeatedly reminded, all politics is local. Those who advocated
and voted for the most hated bill ever to pass congress must be hunted down and
electorally targeted in their own districts, forced to wear and defend the disaster
they have wrought. They can only milk the "we helped people with pre-existing
conditions" sop for so long. Most voters don't have "pre-existing conditions," and
conservatives don't want to see those who do deprived of coverage anymore than
socialist Democrats do.
   Finally, and most important of all, for every negative criticism leveled against
socialist Democrats and their ideas, conservatives must not only be able to explain 
the flaws in those ideas but also  to lift up sensible, plausible alternative ideas.
Negative momentum can carry a candidate or a party only so far. They have to
offer something better if they want to earn America's trust. For every minute spent
talking strategy and form, conservatives need to spend two talking substance and
content. If not what Democrats have passed, then what?
   Conservatives must be realistic in their appraisal of circumstances, realilzing that
the liberal media is aligned against them and with the socialist Democrats. They
must therefore maximize the use of alternative and social media to get the message
out, and galvanize the grassroots by sending hundreds and even thousands of foot
soldiers into the cities, towns, villages and neighborhoods of America talking not
only about the road to ruin mapped out by socilaist Democrats, but the better way
rooted in the Constitution. This brief tutorial is by no means complete. It is a bare
minimum of what conservatives must do to blunt the socialist onslaught and remove
its devotees from office. And make no mistake, it IS a load. Like my old college
coach used to say just before the big game, "Ain't nobody gonna GIVE you nothin'."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE POT AND THE KETTLE: A D.C. SUBSCRIPT

 
   Violence has no legitimate place in the arena of modern American politics. If it
is encouraged or condoned by either side in a heated political debate it is acceptance
of de facto civil war. Democrats have insinuated publicly that Republicans who
questioned their motives during the healthcare reform wrangle are responsible for
threats against them and damage to some of their offices. strongly hinting that the
Tea Partiers may be to blame. There is, of course, no evidence to corroborate either
claim, but that has never stopped Democrats from stating it as though it were fact, or
the liberal media from embellishing the claim in print.
   One-sidedness in media accounts is once again the order of the day, with voice
mail threats to Bart Stupak (D-MI) and a brick through Louise Slaughter's (D-NY)
branch office window overshadowing the gunshot triggered through Eric Cantor's
(R-VA). Never mind the order of magnitude of the threat or the obvious parallel that
if Republicans or Tea Partiers are responsible for the threats to Stupak and Slaughter
then Democrats and their supporters must be equally to blame for the gunfire that struck
 Cantor's office. But not once was that parallel drawn by any of the mainstream media
who were salivating at the chance to indict conservatives for unlawful behavior.
   Media and congressional Democrats likewise characterized healthcare protestors
at the capitol as "crazed," "right-wing extremists," "racists" and "unruly radicals". But
they never mentioned the intimidation and assault tactics regularly practiced by
Service Employees International Union thugs, and quickly quelled reports of voter 
intimidation tactics employed by New Black Panthers in Philadelphia or the cover-ip and
dismissal of charges AFTER CONVICTION by the Obama Justice Department. The
inequity is astonishing!
   One thing is certain: there IS a lot of anger out there over healthcare. It is anger
based on the substitution of the arrogance of a single political party for the clear will
of the people they were elected to serve, and the bastardization of process used to
one-sidedly guarantee the outcome. When government no longer represents the people
then the people have the right to protest and ultimately remove the government. It's in
the Declaration of Independence. Now it is certainly possible to argue that this does not
include lawbreaking. But that is precisely how Martin Luther King and his followers
got segregation laws changed. They methodically and systematically disobeyed them. It
is how illegal aliens are trying to change immigration law, by simply disobeying it
and daring the government to try to stop them. You don't hear many Democrats
whining about that now, do you? No, it's only when THEY feel threatened that they
rise to point the finger at others in righteous indignaion, seeking to dodge the consequences
of their own chicanery.
   Eric Cantor called out Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) and DNC National Chairman
Tim Kane for using the threats against Democrats, real, concocted and assumed as
tools for political capital. They angrily responded that it is the Republicans who stirred
up the people against them, and who thus must condemn the threats publicly. In truth,
the people I know didn't need any help from the Republicans to see through the utter 
mendacity of which the healthcare reform act reeks to stoke their anger. They got there
on their own.
   People who break the law, whether Republican or Democrat, should suffer the penalties
prescribed by the law. But let's not be so dishonest as to pretend that the public's anger
is somehow misplaced or misdirected, or that the Pot is not just as guilty as the Kettle
of stirring elements of the public with whom they hold sway to rise up. It is, in fact,
difficult to see the SEIU gangsters in their vomit purple tee shirts pushing, shoving and
ranting at Tea Partiers without at the same time entertaining visions of the White House's
most frequent visitor, SEIU president Andy Stern, sitting in the oval office with his feet
propped up, smoking cigars and yucking it up with his creation and patron, Barack Obama.
The one-sidedness of the media is nothing new, nor will it change, since liberal bias has
created a streak of dishonesty a yard wide right up the spines of most of them. But
PUH-LEASE, don't pretend that the incitement to violence, the plotting, the scheming
or even the talk about repeal is one-sided. Since the Bush tax cuts were implemented
liberal Democrats talked about nothing else. The truth sometimes hurts!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"R" WORD AVOIDANCE

 
   Now that healthcare reform has passed, Democrats and the liberal media have made
haste to shun the "R" word. No, it's not "Republican," or even "Repeal." It's
"Responsibility." Jack Cafferty wrote an idiotic article on CNN.com lambasting
Republicans for being "sore losers," and inviting the hordes of Obama sycophants
that read CNN to join him, which they lustily did. It is as though the whole nasty
healthcare mess was caused by Republicans refusing to participate instead of being
systematically excluded, obstructing because they persistently voted against a bill
in which they did not believe and spouting hatred because they called Democrat supporters
of the bill out for the liars they demonstrably are. How typical!
   The truth is that Democrats are first in line for taking credit, but nowhere to be seen
in the line of accountability and responsibility. Their so-called healthcare reform bill
is the single most fiscally irresponsible act ever perpetrated by American legislators.
Gaming the Congressional Budget Office by handing it unsupportable assumptions
in order to get a low score, pretending to improve Medicare by slashing $500M
from it, raising taxes during a recession so deep that millions remain unemployed,
mortgage foreclosures are commonplace, investments are worthless (even before the
Draconian new Obama taxes), Democrats have persisted in a series of unsuportable  
claims. The utter fantasy that overall care will be improved as millions of the previously 
uninsured flood the waiting rooms of a shrinking medical population while, at the same
time actually reducing the stunningly frightening deficit they have fueled with their
profligate spending boggles the reasonable mind.
   Instead of tightening the belt, fixing the broken system and containing costs within
the current generation, they have whistled a happy tune, torn the best medical system
in the world down to the ground and passed the tab on to our children and grandchildren.
Ignoring the fact that legislators are supposed to fix problems instead of creating new ones,
spend and waste Democrats have put America on the fast track to bankruptcy by
underestimating costs while over-estimating savings and revenues. And jerks like Jack
Cafferty can't tell the simple difference between "sore losers" and Americans who ponder the mendacity in which this bill of goods is mired and fear for their future and that of
their successor citizens.
   So Jack's position is apparently that we should all just say "don't worry, be happy"
and move on while Obama the socialist grants amnesty to millions of illegals so that
they, too, can enjoy free healthcare, tells us what we can drive and where we have to
set our thermostats and runs us out of our small businesses while padding the pockets
of his union buddies. Well, guess what, Jack. In November we're going to find out
just what kind of losers Democrats are. And I'll be the one jogging your feeble memory
to write an equally one-sided piece about their sorry attitudes, feeble self-justifications
and venomous accusations. After the decade long Dem whine over Al Gore's
presidential defeat, it is plain laughable that you harpoon Republicans for their wish
to repeal a hideous spendthrift bill most Americans never wanted in the first place. You
media ostriches can keep burying your empty heads in the sand, but the lies used to
pass this bill will soon come home to roost. Maybe then you can get a job as a pitch
man trying to save Obama's miserable legacy, because your journalistic credibility
will be in the toilet.
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REQUIEM FOR BIPARTISANSHIP

 
   One of the many betrayals by President Obama of promises made by candidate Obama
was a commitment to "govern from the center" in a "spirit of bipartisanship." It seems
that his definition of bipartisanship is those who disagree with him ultimately giving in
and letting him have it his way. But in fairness to him, it may well be that true
bipartisanship is like the Holy Grail, the Lost Ark, the Yehti and the Sasquatch -- a good
conversation topic about something that is beyond anyone's grasp.
   That doesn't let Obama completely off the hook, because not recognizing the political
realities or, worse, not being honest about them does little for his credibility as a national
leader and still leaves him dangling on the petard of his own broken promises. Conflict
exists when satisfaction can be had by one party to a disagreement or the other, but not
by both. When statist socialism and constitutional free-market capitalism collide, there
is precious little philosophical middle ground to stand on, and the arena of political
discourse quickly turn into free-fire no-man's lands. It is just such "all or nothing"
politics that have informed the bitter battle over healthcare reform and the angry
backlash in its wake.
   In the history of American democracy there has always been a political spoils system,
with the winning party having substantial public support to shape national policy on many
fronts. In fact, most political victories were spawned by the electorate's hunger for a new
approach. But even under such circumstances it was always tacitly understood that while
policies might be substantially tweaked, the basic values of the nation were inviolable. In
the healthcare debate something went terribly wrong. Democrats, bent on exponentially
increasing the size and reach of government, crossed the line by infringing too deeply
on individual freedom and tainting America's cultural DNA with the socialist virus that
is despicable in the majority's eyes. Now, although a betrayed and outraged electorate
wants a reckoning, it may be impossible for them to ever get restitution.
   All of that leads to this: the Democratic party has become utterly indistinguishable
from the Socialist Democratic parties of Europe. It no longer represents an American
liberal tradition, but rather the progressive left whose vision of an entitlement society
in which government controls everything and everyone, and moral decisions are the
prerogative of bureaucrats is well on its way to being realized. It has no desire for
compromise, input from the opposition or unwelcome interference from constitutionalism.
It simply craves power, and has demonstrated beyond question the willingness to lie,
cheat, bribe, extort and threaten in order to get it. There is no middle ground. Last
weekend's drama in the House and the current proceedings in the Senate have demonstrated
that full well. If Democrats continue to define bipartisanship as everyone else coming
over to their side and giving in to what they want then bipartisanship is truly and forever
dead -- the impossible dream.
   It is now time for some sad but true reality therapy. We are no longer engaged in a
simple political struggle capped by balloons, champagne and celebrations. We are
locked in mortal trench combat with an enemy who has no scruples, no morals, no
boundaries, no historical moorings and no rules of engagement. In the end either
Democratic socialism or Constitutional republicanism must prevail. What the two sides
envision and crave has become so far polarized that the reality  no longer exists in
which one pole can have its own way without completely violating the other.
   If Americans want peace and freedom without civil war, then three things must happen,
and quickly. (1) Both major parties must be denied an overwhelming congressional
majority so as to make it absolutely impossible for progress to occur wthout compromise.
If that leads to gridlock, then the electorate will have to keep seeking out men and
women of goodwill who are committed to finding common ground. Those people are
few and far between in today's Washington. The most practical and immediate way to
accomplish this is for voters to wipe out the current Democratic dominance in congress
and level the playing field beginning with the November elections. (2) Since lawmakers
in the majority party seem bent on implementing far-reaching and sweeping changes that
are clearly against the will of those being governed, the courts must be enlisted as arbiters,
particularly where perversions of the Constitution are at stake. It is ironic that the healthcare
reform act, which Democrats claim the American people really want, is facing legal
challenges in 37 of the 50 states. It is most unfortunate that circumstances have come to
this, but multiple court challenges may be the only way to slow the socialist takeover
down until wiser minds replace the empty heads now calling the dance. (3) America must
stop electing career politicians to the presidency, and must insist that as a basic qualification
to serve, a candidate must have a successful record in business, science, education, the
military -- in life -- as a backdrop for real world decision making and practical leadership.
This may mean that presidents cannot come from the ranks of congress, and in truth it
would be better that way. When one understands that Barack Obama never ran a business
or had to make a payroll, and that his proudest accomplishment before politics was shilling
for an organization that used social bullying as a lever for community change, then it
becomes easier to fathom why he wishes to confiscate from those who have earned and
give to those who haven't, and to spend with reckless profligacy the future of this
generation's children and grandchildren.
   The bitter alternative is real civil war, bloodshed, red states and blue states. But
bipartisanship has gone the way of the Dodo bird. Either one extreme must triumph,
or else Americans must exorcise ALL the extremists. The clock is ticking.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

POLLS AND DEMOCRAT TROLLS

 
   Reveling in their victory on healthcare reform legislation, Democrats have already
begun talking about how they now have to go out and "sell" the bill to America. This
mantra raises a couple of interesting issues. First, if this bill is such a good deal,why,
then, does it now have to be "sold?" Second, if one admits that it has to be "sold"
after the fact, then one is admitting in the same breath that it was not "bought" by
Americans prior to its passage and, therefore, that Democrats acted to impose legislation
they knew to be directly against the wishes of a majority of citizens.
   This, of course, is where the waffling begins. The polls were skewed, Democrats
argue, by misinformation disseminated generously by Republicans. They further argue
that their polls showed that people actually supported the components of the legislation.
That's why they are now tasked with going out and setting the record straight.
   Get real! That this turkey of a bill imposes four years of taxes on a depression weakened
economy before providing substantial benefits is not misinformation, but fact. That it
imposes a half-trillion dollars in new taxes and drains an already sinking Medicare of
about the same is not fiction, but fact. That a panel in Washington will decide what
constitutes best treatment practice (and, thus, what insurance will and will not pay for)
instead of one's own physician is reality. That 100 new bureaucracies entailing a nearly
unparalleled expansion of govrnment result from its' passage is undeniable. And how is it
not a government takeover when government decides what minimum standards policies
must meet, what is a fair price to charge for them and who must buy them -- that would
be everyone -- and then takes money (taxes) from some to pay premiums for those who
can't afford them? So it turns out that what critics have been saying about the bill are
not disinformation, but just inconvenient truths Democrats don't want anyone to hear.
   And the biggest joke of all is "component polling," which only works if one includes
ALL the components. Democrats point out that when they ask people if they want pre-
existing conditions covered, most people say yes. When they ask if people want portability,
and the dissolution of lifetime and annual coverage caps, the answers are affirmative. The
problem is that they never ask those same people if they want to see a half-trillion dollars
stripped from Medicare, or 14 new taxes added to everyone, or groups of bureaucrats
miles away deciding what constitutes the best medical care. If they had asked those
questions, the predictable answers would have told them exactly why Americans liked
some of the components but hated the bill. The benefits to some are outweighed by the
penalties to almost all.
   So, now the Democrats have their coveted "medical welfare," and we have the taxes
and the government meddling with which to cope. We also have the doubtfully
constitutional government mandate that we must buy a private commercial product
(health insurance). I was reading some idiotic Democrat blogger who was crowing
that even should the courts strike down the latter provision, the rest of the law would 
remain intact. The guy was apparently too dumb to understand that the only way of
paying for those with pre-existing conditions and the like is to make everybody buy
insurance. And if the courts strike down the mandate the bill is bankrupt and will 
fall apart like the house of cards it is.
   But the president says "ignore the public polls" and "don't look at the process." It's
easy to see why he'd say that since his own poll numbers, anchored to his healthcare
millstone, are dropping like a rock, and since the arm-twisting, backroom-dealing,
bribing, extortionist tactics used by him and his Democrat cronies to eke out a bare
majority of votes even from his own party make "ugly" a pale characterization. Look
for more of the same when they go out to "sell the bill." Expect them to resort to such
demagoguery as demanding whether their critics would take away insurance from those
with pre-existing conditions. Expect them to trot out crippled children, psychotic
street people and ACORN escapees to use as props for their defense. It's their tactic
of choice. But all the sob stories in the world can't justify bankrupting an entire nation,
or depriving Americans of freedoms others have fought and died for. This is a Democrat
debacle, and Americans should make them wear it through November and beyond. Neither
Obama's slick charm nor Pelosi's unsubtle sophistry can save them from the judgment
that is coming.
 
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S MIDDLE EAST POLICY A CYNICAL JOKE

 
   Why would an entire administration, as if on cue, howl in outrage at something that
has been going on since 1948? And why now? That's the sixty-four dollar question
hovering over the recent anti-Israeli rhetoric from Barak Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary
Clinton and others connected to the current White House mafia.
   Jerusalem -- all of it -- is sovereign Israeli terrirory. They have been building housing
there for their citizens for years. When they recently greenlighted the construction of
1600 more apartment units in East Jerusalem, they simply acted on a plan that has
been publicly known for a long time, and that stands within a precedent that is well
established. Never mind the fact that it is their country and they can do what they want
with it. But the administration immediately began braying about an "insult to America,"
and a "betrayal of trust," giving virtual permission to Palestinian Arabs to riot,
causing civil damage, bodily harm and death to Israeli security forces.
   Is this administration just incredibly stupid,  or is there something larger in play? The
ostensible gripe is that Palestinians contest Israeli ownership of East Jerusalem and
covet it as the capitol of a future Palestinian state. It is therefore in the eyes of Obama
and his pro-Palestinian cronies on the table as something to be bargained over. Yet
Israel has made it crystal clear from time immemorial that they will never, never
abandon Jerusalem or any part thereof to Palestinian sovereignty, that it's non-
negotiable and that it isn't going to happen. What part of "shove it" doesn't Obama
understand?
   But understanding isn't the real problem here, is it? The real problem is that the
Chosen One needed a distraction from his attempt to nationalize healthcare and
the odious tactics being used to do it. How better to create one than to utilize his
vice-president, secretary of state and his own bully pulpit to ream Israel and plunge
U.S.-Israeli relations to its most dismal state since 1956? How better to do it than
to set the Palestinians to rioting, creating an international crisis while Pelosi works
her "deeming" scheme and Reid plans his "reconciliation" gambit to jam through
a ruinous healthcare boondoggle Americans hate? By putting his own ego and
agenda above international relations with an historic ally, not to speak of the
lives and safety of both Palestinians and Israelis goes well beyond cynical. It's
flatly immoral!
   Barak Obama will not go down in history as a great president. He will not be
well remembered by those who elected him. His betrayals dwarf those of Nixon and
Clinton, and he has already publicly spouted more lies than Nixon, Bush and Clinton
combined. Maybe next time voters will stop and think before they cast ballots for
one who has nothing to show for life but being a career politician, and whose character
references come from the Chicago political sewer. What a shame that there are four
more years before we can make him crawl back into it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SCHEMING, DEEMING AND RECONCILIATION: A DEMOCRATIC DISGRACE

 
   Although seemingly endless, the long and acrimonious healthcare debate is nearing
an end. And it is an end that insults the American people, disgraces the Democratic
process and assures infamy for the Democratic party that has so wantonly abused
the political power extended them by a hopeful electorate.
   Their "super majority" shattered by Massachusetts voters who clearly rejected the
Democrats' healthcare proposal, Senate Democrats quickly opted to use "reconciliation,"
a parliamentary trick that would require them to disguise healthcare as  mainly a
budgetary issue, enable them to keep Republicans and other dissenters completely
out of the process and pass the legislative monstrosity by a simple majority of fifty-one
Senate votes. They point out that Republicans have used the tactic before. They are\
correct, but Republicans never used it to take over one-sixth of the American economy
and pass a bill that polls say Americans detest.
   Next came the drama in the House of Representatives, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi
was hard-pressed to get enough of her own party members to vote for the odious Senate
measure. Facing the prospect of failure, and the stigma attached to voting for the bill,
she and Louise Slaughter (D-NYY), who is the House Rules Committee Chair, dragged
out an arcane rule suggesting that they could concoct their package of proposed changes
to the Senate bill, "deem" the Senate bill passed without ever having voted on it, and
then pass the whole conglomerated mess at one time. This would spare Democrats
afraid of an angry constituency the embarrassment of voting straight up or down in
public on the Senate bill per se. Clearly, Pelosi thinks Americans are stupid.
   Then there are the backroom deals made behind closed doors, the "Cornhusker
Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," "Gator Aid," the union sweetheart tax break
and other bribes used just to advance the bill to the current pending status. Bribery,
manipulation, secrecy, graft and corruption are terms that clearly fit the Democratic
manip0ulations employed thus far. The scheming goes on.
   When the repulsed electorate finally throws these charlatans out of office, they
will have so damaged the American economy and the delivery of healthcare itself that no
succeeding congress will be able to repair them. Ignoring the expressed wishes of the
American people, utilizing trickery and deceit and driven by blind ambition to enact
their entire left-wing agenda on a country that hates it, the Democrats more and more
resemble the hindermost parts of their own mascot. The bad things that are going to
happen to their party because of their own immoral, ruthless and egomaniacal actions
are WAY too good for them.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AND THE OSCAR GOES TO . . .

 
   Out of sheer boredom I watched part of the Oscar Awards the other evening. So jaded
has my thought process become, it seemed to me that most of the movies looked strikingly
like the American political scene.
   On the one hand, you have "The Blind Side," for which Sandra Bullock won the award
for Best Actress. Based on the title alone, I was sure that the movie must be about the
embattled gang in the Obama White House, "none so blind as those who will not see." While
the lovely Miss Bullock certainly deserved her Oscar, the sleazy arm twisters at 1600
Pennsylvania ought to get something for their persistent myopia about American public
sentiment. What should it be? Oh, let me think.
   Then there was the ultra-violent Quentin Tarantino flick, "Inglorious Bastards." That
it seemed to be, was really about the fifty-something Democratic Senators who plan a
hostile takeover of one-sixth of the nation's economy by the illegitimate use of a cheap
parliamentary trick called reconcliation. They do this, using the misdirection that it is
because of Republican obstructionism, ignoring the obvious fact that the real problem is
their own lack of unity and competence in getting their own party on the same page.
Titles are like shoes. This one fits and those Democratic Senators ought to wear it.
   "Avatar" was another rewarded film, mostly due to its mesmerizing special effects. As
we know, special effects are basically computer or chemically enhanced illuions designed
to thrill and titillate an audience. They are also not reality. Speaking at a Philadelphia
area college this week, Barack Obama stated that his proposed healthcare reform would
whack a trillion dollars off the deficit during its first decade. According to the Congressional
Budget Office's report he exaggerated (lied?) by $862 billion dollars. They said that if
the figures they were given to work with played out the plan might shave $132B. Confronted
with the distortion, the White House said that the president misspoke, and really meant
that the plan would cut a trillion in the second decade of operation. Never mind that the
CBO has already opublicly stated that such estimates are pure speculation. Some other
"special effects" have included the notorious "Cornhusker Kickback" and Louisiana
Purchase." All have the same thing in common. They advance the president's left wing
agenda, and they are all bogus.
   But my true favorite is "The Hurt Locker," where a military bomb technician keeps
the things that almost killed him in a box under his bed. "The Hurt Locker" is where the
Democrats are headed if they ram this healthcare catastrophe through by reconciliation.
This one is a time dealy fuse that won't go off until November. But when it does they'll
have nowhere to hide.
   And the Oscar for Best Actor goes to Barack Obama, for his role as a music-man-like
minstrel leading an entire nation of the cliff to fiscal oblivion. One who can make a classic
tragedy ;ook so much like a comedy or wholesome family drama is a truly accomplished
thespian. If you were hoping for a thoughtful, mature leader instead, sorry. You're just
out of luck!
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NEW PELOSI H-CARE OUTRAGE

 
   Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, on a nationally televised Sunday talk
show that Democrats should vote for the healthcare reform bill now before congress "even
if it costs them their jobs." Quite aside from the pompous Pelosi's willingness to play fast
and loose with other people's jobs, is the deeper implication of what she is saying.
   Why would voting for the current healthcare bill cost legislators their jobs if that bill is
what their constituents want? But Pelosi's comment seems to indicate her inkling that it
isn't, and that the consequent voter backlash might well end up unseating some of her
colleagues. So what she is  really saying is, "Vote for this bill even when you know those
who elected you don't want you to, and then let the chips fall where they may."
   The reason why this is one of the most important statements by an elected official in the
long and acrimonius debate over the Democrats' version of healthcare reform is because it
cuts straight through to the arrogance at the rotten core of the Democratic left. Pelosi has
seemingly renounced the constitutional principle of electoral surrogacy, the notion that
an elected official has the duty to represent the wishes of his or her electorate. It shows
the audacious readiness of Democrats to substitute their own wisdom for the will of the
people, and it is now clearly unmasked for all to see. 
   To this outrage, she added the esoteric argument that "a bill doesn't need bipartisan votes
to be bipartisan." That sounds like arguing that black can be gray even without adding any
white. How is the bill bipartisan if Republican voters and legislators have repudiated it,
which they have? And how can it be bipartisan when, according to polls, it is drving
Independents to reject the president's agenda in droves?
   Now, she argues, it's time for the House to pass the Senat bill so there can be an up or
down vote in the Senate, meaning that the Senate will set aside normal rules and pass a
government takeover of healthcare with just fifty-one votes using a parliamentary trick
called reconciliation. She wants a food fight when her side has all the food. Given the
corruption and graft that have brought the legislation this far, why should we be surprised.
   You rarely get past the biggest bully on the block by reasoning with him. In the end,
you usually have to give him a bloody nose. Pelosi and her ilk have bullied Americans
long enough. In November it's our turn. I hope she has a lot of cotton.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IT'S STILL A PIG!

 
   After trying valiantly to whitewash his tarnished healthcare reform proposal at the
recent healthcare summit, Barack Obama seems hoist on his own petard. For it was
he who so famously said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." He even
invited Republicans to join in the pig lip painting but, for the most part, they weren't
biting.
   The fiscal truth is that this is not just your garden variety pig. It is an enormous hog
that will gobble obscenely more taxpayer dollars than the "bacon" it produces can ever
justify. Democrats say that the bill will cost one trillion dollars over ten years, but others
estimate the actual cost at over two -and-a-half trillion. Obama claims that it will save
ten billion over the first ten years, but as the CBO has clearly pinted out, that's brcause
he is using the savings from Medicare to pay for a new entitlement while also counting
it as credit against the deficit. Duh! Add ti that the fact that the bill provides five years
of backloaded benefits against ten years of front loaded revenue and the rosy fiscal picture
the Democrats try to paint quickly fades to black.
   And how do they plan to slop this porker? Well, as usual, they've got their noses so far
into the public trough (taxpayers' pockets) that they'll never come up for air. Fourteen
new taxes totalling an astounding half trillion dollars will help to cure this ham. Add to
that a half billion in Medicare cuts. Obama argues that seniors won't lose any services,
but the argument is dishonest and bogus. It pretends that congress won't do the "doctor
fix" in which it adjusts Medicare and Medicaid fees to compensate physicians closer to
market rates on a regular basis, and ignores the fact that the cuts affect hospices, nursing
homes, home health providers and hospitals to the extent that one in five will operate at
a loss. Arguing that in such a case seniors will not suffer a loss of benefits insults every-
one's intelligence and shows the callousness that lurks behind the liberal do gooders'
flimsy facade. One cynical analyst has pointed out that 80% of Medicare recipients are
white and 70% of the uninsured are of color. It might not be too hard to see a wealth
redistribution specter looming in the background.
   Now the president is hoping he can rescue his pet porker by dabbing on a bit of
Republican lipstick. He doesn't get it that adding a few GOP ideas doesn't obviate their
complete rejection of his government healthcare takeover. At the summit he bristled
saying, "it's not a government takeover." No? Let's see, who is going to pay the bill for it?
Why, it's the government (wioth OUR money). Who is going to set the standards for
coverage? Surprise, it's the government? Who's going to require that everyone buy insurance
whether they want it or not? Who's going to tell insurers how much they can charge? Who's
going to establish "best medical practices" (i.e., the best ways for doctors to treat patients
and what insurance will pay for)? Silly me. It's the government, but, of course, this is NOT
a government takeover. The argument falls apart like cut rate toilet paper, and with the
same result.
   Neither Obama's specious sophistry. the mammoth Democratic majority in congress or
the legerdemain of reconcililation can mask the porcine nature of this sow of an entitlement.
You can slap all the lipstick you want on this critter, add some mascar and Republican 
Botox, but it's still a wallowing porker, slopped by new taxes and cuts to a Medicare program
that's already in trouble. A pig by any other name smells just as bad.  And this one stinks to high heaven!
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HEALTH SUMMIT: A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE

 
   Winston Churchill once said of the British Royal Air Force during the German blitz,
"Never was so much owed by so many to so few," To parody, one might say of Barack
Obama's touted "bipartisan" healthcare reform summit, "Never have so few wasted so much
time and accomplished so little, so loudly."
   Instead of a genuine attempt to bring the two sides together, Thursday's nationally
televised meeting was a Democratic attempt to badger Republicans into adopting their
misbegotten healthcare reform boondoggle or, alternatively, to embarrass them into
silence. It failed on both counts, and ended with Obama threatening to "move on without"
Republicans if they don't climb aboard quickly.
   One of the defining moments in the debate occurred when Senator Lamar Alexander
(R-TN) pointed out that according to the CBO, health insurance premiums would rise
under the proposed Democratic legislation. Obama retorted that Alexander was factually
incorrect, but after a whispered message from a staffer conceded that they would go up
for many by 10-13%, BUT they would have better coverage. That, of course, begs the
question as to whether they need or even want "better" coverage at a higher out-of-pocket
cost. Rrepresentative Eric Cantor then pointed out that since under the Dem plan, the
government would be setting minimum standards of coverage for the offered policies,
taxpayers would (a) have no say over whether to be insured, since the legislation makes
it mandatory, and (b) could not opt for less coverage, i.e., "catastrophic" or high deductible
coverage. In ther words, under the Democrats' plan the government would say to Americans,
"You're going to take the coverage WE deem approrpiate and you're jolly well going to
pay more for it." The racket from the founding fathers flipping over in their graves was almost
deafening.
   In another sharp exchange, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), told Obama that Americans
were soured on the process as much as the bill itslef because of the backroom deals, bribes
and kickbacks required to pass it, and because it deprived most Medicare recipients of
the popular Mediace Advantage programs while allowing those in "favored states" to retain
them. Obama's response was that "the election is over." Not only was Obama patronizing
McCain, he was scolding Americans who dislike corruption and manipulation in
government and want no part of anything that smacks of them. It was a cheap shot put
down, not an answer. But what answer did he have? It's a fact!
   Cantor finally said , "Mr. President, it would be nice if everybody could have what they
wanted, but we just can't afford thi bill." The representative had reached the crux of the
matter. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) further read a letter from the CBO showing that
Obama had double counted Medicare savings, spending them on his healthcare reform
bill and then claiming that they reduced the Medicare deficit. Grassley's argument that
the president could have it one way or the other but not both fell on deaf ears, or should
we say ears that had no wish to hear.
   Post-summit polling showed little movement in public sentiment, with most favoring
dumping the Democratoc bills and starting over. Yet Obama and the Democrats made
clear their intent to move ahead with the current bill, setting aside normal Senate rules
to pass it through "reconciliation," requiring only 51 votes for passage. Whether they can
actually get away with that is unknown. Whether the House would even pass the original
Senate bill to enable it is in doubt. But if they do it -- excluding Republcans from the
process and disregarding the clear wishes of the American public -- they might as well
put a .44 magnum in their mouths (politically speaking) and pull the trigger. If it wasn't
going to be so hard to undo the awful mess they'd make, that idea actually sounds pretty
appealing.
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE FALLACY OF CPAC

 
   A number of important issues were addressed at the just concluded Conservative Political
Action Conference, and some future stars like Marco Rubio of Florida lit up the cheering
crowds. The biggest disappointment, however, came when the straw poll for Republican
presidential candidates in 2010 anointed Congressman Ron Paul as the popular choice.
   Paul's small government, balanced budget agenda struck fire with the conservative
audience sick of Obama socialism and tax and spend Democratic and Republican policies
of the past and present. But Paul and his ideas are like the proverbial mackerel in the
moonlight. While they may glitter, they also stink.
   Being the darling of CPAC has never guaranteed anyone the presidential nomination. It
won't this time either, and the reasons are many and varied. Paul's rantings against fed
monetary policy, blatant isolationism and intent to emasculate the military are not only
dangerous, they are non-straters with most Americans. If you listened to his CPAC speech,
you heard the applause lessen every time he started down one of those tarils to nowhere.
At a time when the nation is being attacked fiscally and militarily, and when opposing
countries salivate for our withdrawal from the rest of the world so that they can feast on
the carcass we leave behind simply make Paul's extremism not credible. The point is that
while some of his ideas are good, e.g., reducing the size of government and balancing the
budget, the negatives of some of his other positions destroy his credibility as a serious
candidate.
   Another strike against Paul is his age. And he looks and talks older than he is. Do you
really want to put an esoteric, grandfatherly, ranting professor up against a young, chic,
glib Barack Obama? Not! It didn;t work out so well for John McCain either.
   In presidential cam[paigns, everything one has said and written comes back to haunt.
Many of Pual's writings and speeches, particularly from the 80's, are filled with what
shound like unmistaeable ant-semitic and racist commentary. If he runs on a major party
ticket, his mouth and pen from the past will be his toughest opponents.
   And it is inconceivable that in a conservatism of Marco Rubios, Mitch Daniels', Paul
Ryans, Eric Cantors, Tim Pawlentys, Bobby Jindals, etc., etc., Republicans couldn't
find a young, vital, vibrant firebrand to enunciate their platform in an understandable and
appealing format that can reach all generations and cultures. Why offer up a sacrificial
lamb who would rather be right than president when you can bring out a feisty young
ram who can be both?
   With respect to CPAC and their venerable straw poll, Republicans beware. Americans
who are reeling under left wing extremism may be leery of swinging so far to the right
in one fell swoop. The Republican candidate and his or her ideas will have to make their
bones in an increasingly critical public poltical marketplace. Sending Ron Paul out against
Barack Obama is not tantamount to sending David out against Goliath. It's more like sending
the Sta-Puff marshmallow man out against a blast furnace.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHEN LIBERALS LIE

 
   Appearing in the Frbuary 16 edition of the New York Times was a lengthy article
by David Barstow attempting to link the Tea Party movement to the John Birch
Society, the Aryan Nation, the militias, racism, "birthers," the Oath Takers, and
every stripe of conspiracy theorist known to man. If you believe the Times, the "tea
baggers" are also responsible for someone leaving the toilet seat up at the White
House and should be investigated for causing global warming. One could write a
book entitled "When Liberals Lie," except everyone knows that it's about every time
their mouths move.
   Did members of some of the foregoing extremist groups ever attend Tea Party
rallies? Of course they did. Any time any group dares publicly oppose government,
fringe elements come out to test the waters and see if their particular hobby horse will
ride. To suggest that the Tea Parties are largely made up of such hut jobs, or that
their extreme positions have been adopted is exactly like saying that since Barack
Obama appointed Van Jones, who publicly called himself a communist, to a responsible
post in his administration, that Obama's administration is communistic. (Jones was
also a "truther" who signed a petition blaming the U.S. government for staging 9/11.
You want to talk about conspiracy theorist nut jobs?)
   Disingenuous guilt-by-association tactics are typlical of whining liberal weenies who
can't argue issues and so resort to pejoratively labeling those who disagree with them.
And the New York Times, rumored to consider changing its name to "YellowJournalism
'R Us," is among the worst of the worst. One need only see how many NYT writers have
resigned in disgrace for making up stories out of whole cloth or manufacturing bogus
sources to see what a cesspool of dishonesty swirls there. It makes one want to dismiss
the Tea Party article and say "just consider the source."
   But there is something more insidious at stake here, and it is the brazen attempt to equate
dissent with sedition. Barstow's bogus article even implies that the Tea Parties may be
conspiring with those who would seek to overthrow the government by force of arms. If
liberals succeed in forcing the equation that dissent equals sedition, then they have laid
the groundwork for stifling all dissent. (Wouldn't they love that)?
   The article harps on the obsession that Tea Partiers think elements in the government
are conspiring to curb or abolish certain of their freedoms, or to impose massive controls
against the will of the people. The dictionary definition suggests that a conspiracy occurs
when a few people meet in secret and agree to keep information about an event or course
of action from others. Do you suppose, by any stretch of the imagination, that when a small
group, meeting behind closed doors in the middle of the night, paying bribes to persuade dissenters and planning to pass a sweeping takeover of healthcare already rejected by
the public by use of a rarely used parliamentary trick because they can't get enough
votes to pass it any other way fits that definition? A lot of Americans do, and many of
them never attended a Tea Party.
   Our founding documents hold that government officials serve at the will of the people,
and that the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed. The Tea
Party movement is pro-limited government, pro-lower taxation and pro-Constitution.
Consequently they are ani-taxation, anti-big government and therefore anti-Democrat
and anti-Barack Obama. None of that makes them in any way racist, seditionist or some
kind of lunatic fringe.
   But the very thought of a faceless horde of rubes with pitchforks has liberals, including
Barack Obama, wettting their pants. Why? Because they've been found out and called out.
They have made the fatal miscalculation of trying to impose a left-wing agenda on a right
center country, and it has royally backfired. The Tea Party is just the early crest of a tsunami
of resentment and rejection that they know is going to wash them out of offfice in the
elections of 2010 and 2012. It won't require assassinations, or armed rebellion. Just a few
million Americans who are fed up with big government giveaways,  out-of-control
national debt and arrogant politicans who pontificate from on high as thoug everyone else
was stupid, and then snivel in a corner when somebody calls them the leftist corruptocrats
that they are. They can't hide, so they had better run.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GET REAL!

 
   Just when you thought partisan attacks had reached the ultimate zenith of rank stupidity,
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi step to the microphone and plumb new depths of partisan
illogic and malicious misinformation.
   Both of the foregoing, within the last forty-eight hours, have launched withering attacks
on Republicans, calling them hypocites for saying, on the one hand, that they oppose the
stimulus boondoggle, while on the other accepting stimulus money for their states. Such
moronic whining ignores two very large political realities.
   One is that the stimulus bill, for bettr or, as Republicans and Independents think, for
worse, has already passed. One can analyze why the milk was spilled or decry the fact
that it was intentionally dumped, but one cannot unspill the milk. Since the stimulus was
a largely unproductive and mostly Democratic flail at fixing a sinking economy, they
have to take either blame or credit, whichever is due. Bottom line: you can't blame the
stimulus or its mismanagement on Republicans.
   Two, do Pelosi and Obama seriously think that having lost the battle to defeat the
stimulus, Republican governors are simply going to stand by and pout while Democrats
turn it into an $862B private slush fund with which to reward blue states, Democratic
governors and their own supporters? Like the stimulus or not, the  money appropriated
belongs to all Americans, both Republican and Democrat, and all states, blue or red. The
notion that if you didn't support it you can't have any of it is juvenile, churlish, partisan
and plain wring -- just like Obama and Pelosi.
   But their comments set in stark relief their presupposition that American taxpayer money
belongs exclusively to them, to spend as they please. Preceding the vast entitlement society
they are bent on creating is their own presupposed entitlement. Now Obama is readying a
healthcare reform bill, again behind closed doors. He plans to pass it with fifty-one senatorial
votes, excluding both Republicans and the will of the American public. No doubt he will
justify it with more, "You rubes shut up, we know what's best fo you" rhetoric. Impeachment
is too good for him. Being a one-term disgrace will have to suffice.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE RUBRIC OF SOCIALISM

 
   A key trait of socialism is the achievement of a classless society, one in which wealth
is held in common, usually by the state, and individual wealth is looked upon with disdain.
Such a regimen prevails in many of the western European republics, and is based on massive
public entitlements that necessitate crushing tax rates and destroy individual economic
incentive in quest of the ephemeral collective good. When Barack Obama talks of
"spreading the wealth around," it is precisely such a society hehas in mmind.
   But converting a fiercely free market economy of rugged individualists who are governed
by a constitution that places a premium on personal freedoms requires a massive political,
communications and philosophical transformation that is very difficult to achieve, as Obama
is finding out. However, it is not only the system itself that is repugnant to most Americans, but the rubric, or discipline by which it is usually achieved.
   To make such major systemic change it is necessary to define what that change is from. What \
is it about the old that makes the new better? Socialists, whether they be the precursors of Russian
Communism targeting the bourgeoisie -- the wealthy, property owning class -- or the Obama
administration targeting the "haves" -- 'fat cat Wall Street bankers," immoral insurance companies"
or just Pennsylvanians "bitterly clinging to their guns and relision"  require targets, Revolution can be achieved only if society is successfully polarized and the targets sufficientlyvilified. In "Obamaspeak," the rich are not American citizens entitled to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness like other citizens. They are the butt of jokes, worthy of disdain,
to blame for most of the country's ills and fit only for Draconian taxation to fund enttilement
programs for layabouts who are truly the salt of the earth. Big Oil, Wall Street and the
insuirance giants are not an engine that makes American commerce go, but ruthless profiteers,
hoarders of "unconscionable profits" and "obscene wealth." If these phrases sound familiar
it is because they are quoted directly from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
    When Indiana's Democratic Senator Evan Bayh announced that he would not stand for
re=election, he cited a "broken" congress wherein every Senate bill requires 60 votes (out
of 100) to pass. The deeper question is one of why that state of affairs exists. It exists because
of the radical incongruency of the socialist crowd's agenda with traditional Americam values
and the patronizing rhetoric of the liberal elitists directed at ordinary people. (And by the
way, what's wrong with needing at least sixty out of a hundred votes to pass sweeping
legislation that enables government to take over vast sectors of the national economy?)
   Liberal commentator Bill Maher, appearing on CNN's Larry King show said that Americans
are "too dumb to understand the issues" and "don't care" what positions politicians take so
long as they stick to them. In other words. the average American is an idiot who only respects
power. Such condescending, insulting commentary convinces no one, and builds the wall
of bitter partisanship thicker and higher.
   The rubric of socialism is labeling, hate-mongering and namecalling. People and businesses
of means, Americans of traditional values and lifestyles and anything conservative are the
targets. We have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to have our national policy defined
by who we hate, or whether it might be better to send those who want to transform our
democracy after the image of tattered and failed socialist ones over to Europe, where they
can enjoy themselves without insisting that others jump aboard their hate express.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive