Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Pezutti's HMMMmmm?
Income Redistribution: Cost of Government Day
According to the Cost of Government Day (COGD) report, prepared by Monika Ciesielska for the Center for Fiscal Accountability, a project of Americans for Tax Reform, Americans this year worked from Jan. 1 to Aug. 12 -- a staggering 224 days -- just to cover the cost of government. This is nearly one month more than last year (July 16) and the first time COGD has pressed into August.
Of course, Cost of Government Day is only a national average.
Some states are worse than others.
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York had the highest cost of government.
In Connecticut , COGD is Sept. 7 -- Labor Day, appropriately enough.
Forced vaccines: Ready for yours?
Exclusive: Janet Porter discusses signs of possible swine flu 'pandemic' mandate
--WND
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death."
The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was last Friday… it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.
A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.
President Obama himself took the comments of the former governor of the 47th-largest state seriously enough to answer them directly in his so-called town-hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth , N.H. As we noted Wednesday, he was callous rather than reassuring, speaking glibly--to audience laughter--about "pulling the plug on grandma."
The Los Angeles Times reports that Palin has won a legislative victory as well:
A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.
The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa , ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be "misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." . . .
The Palin claim about "death panels" was so widely discredited that the White House has begun openly quoting it in an effort to show that opponents of the healthcare overhaul are misinformed.
You have to love that last bit. The fearless, independent journalists of the Los Angeles Times justify their assertion that the Palin claim was "widely discredited" with an appeal to authority--the authority of the White House, which is to say, the other side in the debate.
And of course this appears in a story about how the Senate was persuaded to act in accord with Palin's position--which doesn't prove that position right but does show that it is widely (though, to be sure, not universally) credited.
Obama slams TV over health care 'ruckus'...
ACCUSES INSURANCE COS. OF 'FUNDING IN OPPOSITION'...
Dear Dr. Laura,
Last night I was frustrated. I had asked my three year old son numerous times to go get his pajamas on to no avail. Finally, I sent him to his room and told him he could not come out without his pajamas on. A few minutes later I hear music coming from his room. I knew he was playing with his musical keyboard instead of doing what I had asked.
I charged into his room ready to let him have it. When I poked my head in, I saw him dancing in his underwear on his bed! I thought to myself, either I can get angry and ruin the moment or I can join in the fun. So instead of getting mad at him I started dancing with him. All my angry frustrated feelings melted away as I became a FUN mom! Because I was able to control my emotions I shared a precious moment with my son . . . and it was so worth it!
Tiffany
Obama Destroying His Credibility on Healthcare
Pundits are warning that a fact-challenged President Barack Obama is hurting his own credibility and further confusing the healthcare debate, after yet another litany of misstatements and dubious assertions during Friday's town hall meeting in Belgrade , Mont.
Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing.
This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!
Dear Senator Boxer:
You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs.
How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two? Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.
Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.
What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?
Have a fine day. Cheers!
Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
South Hill , WA 98374
PRESIDENT ACCUSES INSURANCE COS OF 'FUNDING IN OPPOSITION'...
Obama slams TV over health care 'ruckus'...
Campaign Ad Firms Signed On to Push Health-Care Overhaul...
TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO OBAMACARE:
(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.
(9) Directions to your doctor's office include "Take a left when you enter the trailer park."
(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.
(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.
(6) The only item listed under Preventive Care Coverage is "an apple a day.."
(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.
(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges," is not a typographical error.
(3) The only expense covered 100% is "embalming."
(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.
AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED OBAMACARE:
(1) You ask for Viagra and they give you a Popsicle stick and Duct Tape.
A student challenges Obama on health care reform
Ah, the young people of today, they just don't respect their elders, their betters. Just listen to Zach Lahn, a student at the University of Colorado challenging President Barack Obama (D) to a debate on health care, asking Obama hard questions on his health care insurance reform plans.
Rachel Martin and Sunlen Miller of ABC News provide the transcript.
I'd love to have a debate, just all out, anytime, Oxford-style, if you'd like," Lahn said to President Obama and then proceeded on with his question. "How in the world can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes -- they do not have to -- they're not subject to local regulations? How can a company compete with that?"
Later, during an interview, Lahn expressed his disappointment in Obama's response.
I'm not trying to incite any uproar. I just want an answer. The American people deserve an answer," he said. "We have a Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security is bankrupting our country and we're supposed to put more faith in the federal government? If you cant ride a bike don't hop on the motorcycle, you know?"
Lahn said he got the same old talking points from the President.
"The truthful answer is there is no way a private company can -- when businesses start writing off their employees to save money by putting off a public plan, how can insurance companies survive at all? They are just being demonized in this whole situation."
Lahn, a Republican who has volunteered for campaigns and most recently Sen. John McCain's presidential run, said that he's still waiting for a real debate with Obama.
"Anytime that he would like to do a debate, I am open for a debate," he said. "I have facts on my side."
In this 40th anniversary week of the excesses of a certain segment of an earlier generation of youth at Woodstock , Lahn's solid response is a sign of hope for the youth of this generation.
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
--WND
AN OWNERSHIP SOCIETY NO MORE Neal Boortz
The Obama administration has decided to do away with the petty notion of an "ownership society." Instead, Obama would like to increase the number of government leaches. He would like to create a larger class of people dependent on the government for their every need, including housing. That is why Barack Obama is going to spend another $4.25 billion of your tax dollars - under the guise of economic stimulus - in order to build more subsidized housing.
He wants to use federal stimulus money to build subsidized rental units: low-rise apartment buildings and town homes. He also wants your tax dollars to fund the purchasing of foreclosed homes so they can be refurbished and then rented to poor people at "affordable" rates.
The White House did get one thing right ... not everyone can or should own a home. But that doesn't mean that the government should support those who choose to be renters for life.
Here are a few points to remember when it comes to government subsidized apartments:
- As I said, the goal here is to create dependency. I can hear the Democrat talking points during the next election now: "Vote for the Republicans and they will take your home away."
- If you are not in need of a government subsidy to find a place to live, listen and heed. Do not, whatever you do, rent an apartment in a complex that permits government-subsidized housing. You do not want to live there. You do not want to be living around a bunch of people who cannot carry their own load. The crime rates will be high and the place will quickly fall into disrepair. You may not like the insensitivity, but facts is facts.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama: Every move you make, I'll be watching you online
Planned lifting of ban on 'cookies' called '1984'-style spying effort
--WND
In a 2007 exchange with union officials, Barack Obama openly stated his style of health care “reform” will lead to the eventual eradication of private health insurance, regardless of whether the so-called “public option” is in the final draft of the bill – or quietly slipped in later.
His Chicago confidante, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, gleefully cheered on a crowd of radical activists, claiming the bill, which didn’t even include a public option in the draft at the time, will end all private insurance in America.
Don’t be fooled. Democrats aren’t giving up their drive to make your private medical decisions the business of government.
Their goal is nothing less than an America where “my opponent will cut off your government-provided health care” is all you need to campaign for re-election.
They already do it to those on Medicare, which may be why those very seniors so adamantly oppose the proposed government takeover.
Howard Dean: Gov't-Run Healthcare Crucial
Poll: Majority Doubts Obama Stimulus Results
A majority of Americans believe that a 787-billion-dollar stimulus package passed six months ago with support from President Barack Obama has had no effect or even made the US economy worse.
A USAToday/Gallup poll released Monday found that 41 percent of Americans think the spending has made the US economy better, but 57 percent believe it has either made no difference or worsened the recession that began in 2007.
But respondents were skeptical about the effects of the massive expenditure on their personal finances, with just 18 percent saying their fortunes had improved, and 68 percent saying they had seen no change.
Americans also expressed pessimism about the long-term effects of the package, which combined 288 billion dollars in tax cuts and 499 billion in new spending for a variety of projects, including infrastructure renewal.
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Arabs pressure Obama to endorse strike on Iran
White House believes talks will stop Tehran interests from going nuclear
--WND
FAMILY
"Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development. It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading 'home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.'
The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. The bill says that the government agents, 'well-trained and competent staff,' would 'provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,' and 'skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.'
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values?
... Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
... One government rebuttal is that this program would be 'voluntary.' Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, 'I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices'? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840:
The state 'shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families.'
... Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress?"
--columnist Chuck Norris
TESTING THE FAITH
N.Y. church bars flags on vets' caskets
'Only Christian symbols may rest on or be placed near the coffin during the funeral'
-- Albany Times-Union
The official Democrat Party playbook turned the page to its typical Hail Mary play – broad-brush accusations of racism.
The Washington Post’s Susan Jacoby, opening an online discussion with readers this morning, asked if opposition to government-run health care was:
A) the “unwillingness of an unreconciled minority to accept the legitimacy of an African-American president,”
B) “right-wing populism (which has always included a strong element of racism).”
At no time did she ever suggest opposition to government-run health care was the product of anything other than hate.
AARP Loses 60,000+ Members Over Pro- Obama Health Care Stance...
NBC Hawks Pro-Obama Merchandise Online
In what appears to be a blatant case of media bias, NBC’s online store has become a major distributor of pro-Obama T-shirts, DVDS and refrigerator magnets.
If you're a fan of all things Obama, NBC Universal's online store has no fewer than 29 options for your buying pleasure -- from a shirt with the president's picture proclaiming "YES WE DID"...to both of his books...to a special inauguration DVD...to a refrigerator magnet of the first couple, Fox News reports.
Some analysts tell Fox it’s merely good business, that NBC is simply offering what people want to buy. But others note that there is no merchandise available that shows support for the other side of the political aisle.
And they question whether the political bent of the items on sale are healthy for a corporation that operates an impartial news outlet.
© 2009 Newsmax
Obama disses marriage law as Justice defends it...
This little story from Persia should be known to everybody on earth. In a certain family, a very pious son rose early to read the Koran and to meditate and pray. One morning, this son said to his father that the other children were lost in irreligious slumber. He alone was praising God and performing his devotions. The wise father said, “Son of my soul, it is better to sleep than to wake to notice the faults of others.”
Consciously or not, all of us respond to the appreciation of others. Unfortunately, as much as we need it and seek it and accept it from those around us, we are quite often so very slow in dispensing it to others, ourselves. We are more likely to see that which is depreciating, that which limits, that which annoys and hurts, that which is like a fog that obscures the sun of our vision. On the other hand, appreciation going out from us clears our vision and casts a radiance over all it touches. You might give yourself a check-up sometime, when you count the things you have done for others and for which you have never received credit. When you give attention to the circumstances that appear to stand between you and further growth or further expression, notice that more and more obstacles rise up all around you and more things go wrong. So…Something’s Got to Give. Something’s Got to Give, and that something must be you. If you want a blessing, give a blessing. If you want appreciation, think this way, and the pattern of your experience will begin to shift and change and alter, and good things will begin to flow forth. In developing and expressing appreciation, little irritations will fall away, and they will no longer have a hold on you. You will find yourself doing that which you have always wanted to do, and you will find that the attitudes of others will change from indifference or antagonism to ones of warm smiles and glad companionship.
… One little schoolboy was completely incorrigible. His wise teacher praised him, one day, for his clean shirt. The next day, a tattered tie was in place. Further appreciation was given, and the day after that, he had new shoelaces and polished shoes. The teacher passed the word around to the other teachers to praise the youngster, and the boy was transformed into an excellent student. Years later, he became the president of a great university. His whole life, seemingly, was shaped and influenced by that new trend of praise and love and appreciation. And, you just kind of wonder what might have happened if that one wise teacher had not seen fit to start praising the youngster.
So much happens through the expression of appreciation and praise. We enter into such a program, of course, not with an eye on the results but, rather, for the simple joy of giving. Giving is what it’s all about! Begin to give! Think give! Get your thoughts in the consciousness of giving. And, of course, results follow. They are bound to.
One who is an appreciative person, attunes himself or herself to an added dimension of life. This Basic Principle underlies the Laws of Abundance. If you would increase your supply of good, the surest way is to appreciate that which you already have. This is the surest way. Begin to appreciate, to give thanks for the good that is yours at the moment, whatever it may be, even if it’s limited. Whatever your situation, yours will be the joy of fullness of life when you have learned to be appreciative and to praise and to give thanks.
So, this is the key: When things are difficult for you, when you are in tribulation, when relationships are strained, when problems seem to hold sway around you, when it seems that nothing is going right, Something’s Got to Give! And that something is you. It is in you. It is your consciousness. Give thanks, give praise, give appreciation, and truly, THERE IS MAGIC IN IT!
© Eric Butterworth
"Fill your mind with the meaningless stimuli of a world preoccupied with meaningless things,
and it will not be easy to feel peace in your heart."
- Marianne Williamson
Rep. Weiner Calls for Fed Takeover of Healthcare
Rep. Anthony Weiner, the New York Democratic leading a liberal revolt against President Obama’s plan to jettison the public option from the controversial healthcare reform bill, called today for an outright public takeover of the U.S. health-insurance industry.
Weiner’s statements on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Program calling for a complete federal takeover left host Joe Scarborough, a former GOP Congressman, describing himself as “speechless” and “astounded.”
Weiner’s support for a true takeover of the healthcare system appeared to confirm the worst fears voiced by town hall protesters, who have warned healthcare reform would actually become a backdoor means of instituting a European-style, single-payer system, in which the government plays a key role in managing healthcare options available to individual patients.
“It sounds like you think there is no need for us to have private health-insurance companies,” Scarborough repeated, as if giving Weiner an opportunity to modify his position.
“Well,” Weiner shot back, “I’ve asked you three times: What is their value? What are insurance companies bringing to the deal?”
The notion that private insurance firms should have to justify their existence to the federal government left Scarborough nonplussed.
“But see, you are making the conservatives’ point,” Scarborough replied. “You are making the point [of people who attend] the town hall meetings and say, ‘This is Barack Obama’s opportunity to get with healthcare and turn it completely over to the federal government.’ And so I’m sitting here stunned, saying, ‘Oh my God, you’re making the point of the healthcare protesters.’”
ROBERT D. NOVAK DEAD... DEVELOPING...
'Always love your country — but never trust your government!'
Democrats, realizing the success of the President's "Cash For Clunkers" rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reed are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named....
"CASH FOR CODGERS" And It Works Like This...
Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent 'codgers' will garner the highest amounts.
Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, and any member of the Republican Party.
Smaller bonuses will be given for 'codgers' who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips, lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, Brussels sprouts, or Girl Scout Cookies.
All 'codgers' will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts harvested to keep other 'codgers' in repair.
According to Rasmussen, just 6% of voters nationwide now expect their own taxes to go down during the Obama years.
GOVERNMENT 'CLAWING BACK' COMPENSATION Neal Boortz
Do you realize how much power the Congress has given Barack Obama's pay czar? Not only does pay czar Kenneth Feinberg have "binding" authority over executive compensation, he has the ability to "claw back" money that has already been paid.
Not only that, but he hasn't even begun to explore this idea of a "claw back" provision.
Did you even know that the Congress has given this man the authority to do that?
Just tell me where in the Constitution it says that Congress can create laws that would allow a government bureaucrat to retroactively seize money from private businesses? Just curious ....
CANADIAN SYSTEM: Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Vancouver...
CONSERVATIVES OUTNUMBER LIBERALS Neal Boortz
A new Gallup poll shows that more people describe themselves as conservative rather than liberal ... in all 50 states.
Here's a brief look at the stats:
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either "conservative" (31%) or "very conservative" (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are "liberal" and 5% who say they are "very liberal."
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
If this is really the case, then why aren't the Republicans running the show? Easy, because the Republicans are barely more conservative than the Democrats in charge. Plus, after Bush's spending spree and the institution of such programs as Medicare coverage for prescription drugs and immigration "reform," many conservatives simply don't trust the Republicans any more.
Yeah, maybe they are socially conservative, but when it comes to the economy and spending,
people lost faith in the Republican Party dramatically increasing government spending for many years.
They got caught up in the power. So now, they are left completely impotent.
They are left with a country full of people just dying for someone with real fiscally conservative gonads to represent them in Washington .
But they just don't trust the Republicans to do it.
Can you blame them?
Blaming a cabal of conspirators—a time-honored technique for leaders on the wrong side of public opinion—is paranoid and self-defeating.
More importantly, it betrays a tin ear to the culture of most Americans—
-- an independent, optimistic culture that is mistrustful of government nannying and intolerant of policies that mortgage our future.
HEALTHCARE BECOMES A RACIAL ISSUE Neal Boortz
This interview appeared on CNN sometime yesterday. The person being interviewed was a guy by the name of Tim Wise ... whoever in the wide wide world of sports THAT is. So let me just get right to it.
He says that the reason Americans don't want healthcare reform is because a large percentage of white America associate social spending race. He says, "There is a perception that when we talk about government spending for the 'have-nots,' we are talking about taking from hard-working white people and giving to lazy black folks."
Meanwhile, CNN has this interview labeled as a "Developing Story: Healthcare Showdown."
This guy also says,
"When the country the founders envisioned was a formal system of white supremacy, excuse me if I find it a little hard to think that race is not perhaps playing a pretty big role."
Race pimps . they will always be with us.
Former DNC Chair Howard Dean: Senate Republicans want to 'kill the bill and kill the president'...
Egypt's Mubarak: Obama on the Side of Islam
Despite the vote in November, it is clear that when Americans are not in an abject panic, we dislike government fiscal promiscuity. The president's sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration's free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president's economic policies was, literally, "spending too much." In second place was the worry that the president is "leading the nation toward socialism" through government takeovers and bailouts.
What exactly is our problem with government spending? It is not just that we think it is wasteful and ineffective (although most recognize this to be true). Americans actually think the government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life.
In January 2009, the Pew Research Center asked about 2,000 Americans, "Do you think the government does more to help or more to hurt people trying to move up the economic ladder?" Amid the most frightening economic crisis in decades, more Americans still said the government would hurt than the number who thought it would help (50% versus 39%). Independent surveys from roughly the same period found that only one in five Americans believed he or she could trust the government.
Citizens will put up with a lot—but not with anyone who imperils our future. There is practically nothing that lowers American happiness more than taking away our faith in a better tomorrow. Data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey in 2004 show that, even if two people have the same income, education, race, sex, family status and political views, a lack of optimism about the future lowers the likelihood by nearly 50% of one saying he or she is "very happy" about the present.
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Communists cry to media: 'We are people, too'
Claim 'red-baiting' being used to generate opposition to Obama
--WND
The president said that he would "examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples under existing law."
So, let's enumerate the different types of couples:
§ Couple: a boy and a girl.
§ Gay couple: a boy and a boy.
§ Lesbian couple: a girl and a girl.
So far, so good. "Transgender couple" is a more esoteric concept, but we suppose it might consist of a boy and a girl who wishes she were a boy, a girl and a boy who wishes he were a girl, or a boy who wishes he were a girl and a girl who wishes she were a boy. In a fairer world, transgender couples would have their own acronym to encompass all the possible combinations.
But what in the heck is a "bisexual couple"? A bisexual is a boy or a girl who likes both boys and girls. In order for a bisexual to have both a boy and a girl, the "couple" would have to consist of at least three people, possibly four. By definition, this is no longer a couple.
Is this change you can believe in? It isn't even change you can logically conceive of.
"The essence of Government is power;
and power, lodged as it must be in human hands,
will ever be liable to abuse."
--James Madison
One-Stop Shopping
Why did the president compare ObamaCare to the post office? Maybe because the reality would be even worse. Blogger William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor, notes that under the House and Senate ObamaCare bills, the Internal Revenue Service would "play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers":
These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.
These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.
They say death and taxes are inevitable. If President Obama has his way, we'll have one-stop shopping.
Mom gives birth on pavement 'after refused ambulance'
British health system forces woman in labor to find own way to hospital
-- London Daily Mail
Woman told 'not ready,' then gives birth on floor
Father turned away from hospital with pregnant wife delivers baby in bathroom
-- London Daily Mail
A pregnant woman is turned away from a UK hospital and ends up giving birth on her bathroom floor.
The NHS response? "We would encourage the family to contact our patient advice service if they have any concerns over the care received."
Grassley: FCC Diversity Chief May Stifle Talk Radio
Sen. Charles Grassley is worried that Obama administration’s new federal communications "diversity" director may try to regulate talk radio with a "backdoor" method akin to the Fairness Doctrine.
The Iowa Republican expressed his concerns because of a paper in which Mark Lloyd, the diversity director, alleged a “structural imbalance” in political talk radio and suggested increasing government involvement to regulate it. Lloyd co-authored the paper for the liberal Center for American Progress.
Grassley sent a letter Friday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski voicing strong disagreement with the idea that government needs to regulate talk radio and arguing that a return to the Fairness Doctrine would end the diversity of views on the airwaves.
“Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market,” Grassley wrote.
“I am concerned that, despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means….”
The Fannie Mae health system
Ben Shapiro sees new 'co-op' idea going the way of 'private' mortgage company
--WND
Is racial profiling racist?
Harvard professor Henry Gates' arrest has given new life to the issue of racial profiling. We can think of profiling in general as a practice where people use an observable or known physical attribute as a proxy or estimator of some other unobservable or unknown attribute. Race or sex profiling is simply the use of race or sex as that estimator. Profiling represents mankind's attempt to cope with information cost. God would not have to profile since God is all knowing.
People differ by race and sex. Let's look at a few profiling examples to see which ones you'd like outlawed. According to the American Cancer Society, the lifetime risk of men getting breast cancer is about one-tenth of 1 percent, or 1 in 1,000; and 440 men will die of breast cancer this year. For women, the risk of developing breast cancer is about 12 percent, or 1 in 8, and 40,610 will die from it this year. Should doctors and medical insurance companies be prosecuted for the discriminatory practice of routine breast cancer screening for women but not for men?
Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average. The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest known diabetes rates in the world. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men.
Knowing patient race or ethnicity, what might be considered as racial profiling, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services
One might take the position that while it is acceptable for doctors to use race, ethnicity and sex as indicators of the higher probability of certain diseases, it is not acceptable to use race or ethnicity as indicators for other attributes such as criminal behavior. Other than simply stating that it is acceptable to use race or ethnicity as information acquisition technique in the case of medicine but not in other areas of life, is there really a difference? Surely, race and ethnicity are not perfect indicators of the risk of prostate cancer or hypertension; neither are they perfect indicators of criminal behavior; however, there are concrete factual data that surely indicate associations.
Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang says, "For four violent offenses – homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault – the crime rates for blacks are at least 10 times as high as they are for whites."
In a 1999 article, "Capital Cabbies Salute Race Profiling," James Owens writes, "If racial profiling is racism, then the cab drivers of Washington, D.C., they themselves mainly blacks and Hispanics, are all for it.
A District taxicab commissioner, Sandra Seegars, who is black, issued a safety-advice statement urging D.C.'s 6,800 cabbies to refuse to pick up 'dangerous looking' passengers. She described 'dangerous looking' as a young black guy ... with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes."
The Pizza Marketing Quarterly carried a story of charges of racial discrimination filed in St. Louis against Papa John's pizza delivery services. Papa John's district manager said she could not and would not ask her drivers to put their lives on the line. She added that the racial discrimination accusation is false because 75 to 85 percent of the drivers in the complaining neighborhood are black and, moreover, most of those drivers lived in the very neighborhood being denied delivery service.
Some years ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson complained, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery – then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Here's my question: Is the racial profiling done by cab drivers, pizza deliverers or Jesse Jackson a sign of racism or economizing on information costs?
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Rep Anthony Weiner says that "healthcare is not a commodity"
and he wants to eliminate private insurance altogether.
WEALTH ENVY IN GREAT BRITAIN Neal Boortz
A group of leftists and centre-leftists have come together in ecumenical communion to call for the establishment of a High Pay Commission. The 100 signatories to the request include Lib Dems, Labourites, Greens and lecturers in media studies, and their most famous champion (in these days when the General Secretary of the TUC is no longer a household name) is the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor, Vincent Cable. The argument of the 100 signatories is that, just as in 1997 there was a case for the Low Pay Commission to tackle the problem of low pay, so today we need a commission to tackle the problem of high pay.
So .. there you have looters in Great Britain talking about putting the government in charge of deciding who can make what in the private marketplace.
Does this sound a bit like any other country you know? I mean, other than China .
Topeka Cracks Down On Unlicensed Bicycles
Violators Face $76 In Fines
Topeka police are warning local bicycle owners they could face up to $76 in fines and court costs if they're caught pedaling unlicensed bikes.
Already this year 27 cyclists have received citations that include a $10 fine plus $66 court costs for riding unlicensed bikes.
Little Susie goes home from school and tells her mum that the boys keep asking her to do cartwheels because she's very good at them.
Mom said: "You should say NO. They only want to see your undies".
Susie said: "I know they do, that's why I hide them in my backpack"!
Horrors!:
"A man at a pro-health care reform rally ...
wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....
[T]here are questions about whether this has racial overtones....
[W]hite people showing up with guns."
--MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, fretting over ObamaCare protesters legally carrying guns,
but neglecting to mention the man she described was black
"In reality, the entirety of the congressional health care plan is a 'public option.'
It is all about one thing: putting government in control of health care.
In doing so, it will necessarily increase the government's influence
over some of the most morally significant decisions you will ever make about your own life and the lives of your loved ones.
... Americans can either be self-reliant and free or reliant on government and not free.
Choose freedom."
--columnist Terence Jeffrey
Our Fearless Independent Media:
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics" --NPR.org
"Obama Takes On Health Care Reform Critics" --Voice of America Web site
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics" --Associated Press
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics" -- USA Today
"Obama Takes On Critics at Town Hall Forum" -- Chicago Tribune
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics" --Slate.com
"Obama to Take On Health-Care Critics" -- Washington Post
DeMint: Co-ops 'Make Absolutely No Sense'
Sen. Jim DeMint said President Obama’s plan to set up a quasi-government cooperative at every state level to compete with the individual insurance companies makes “absolutely no sense” and is nothing more than a “fairly elaborate hoax.”
Appearing on Fox News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto” Monday, DeMint, author of “Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America's Slide into Socialism,” said whatever the government calls its public option plan to reform healthcare, it essentially is more government control, no matter how you look at it.
“Whatever they call it, this is a government takeover,” DeMint told Fox News. “They may try to call it a co-op, [or] they can call it a public option, but you know [the Obama team] are all on record saying they want a single-payer government system.”
State Healthcare Reforms Touted by Obama Plagued by Debt, Legal Problems
The Obama administration has frequently touted the public health reforms in Massachusetts and Tennessee as models for a national healthcare system.
But both systems are largely regarded as disasters by taxpayers footing the cost of mismanagement, increasing debt and legal problems. FULL STORY
This summer, Texas Congressman Ron Paul introduced two important health freedom bills. Together, the "Health Freedom Act" and the "Health Information Protection Act" would help to limit the power of my old adversary, the Food and Drug Administration.
The Health Freedom Act would prevent the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from limiting the health claims that makers of vitamins and other supplements can put on their packaging.
The natural supplement business has long been unfairly burdened with FDA regulations that are designed to make prescription drugs seem like a safer option.
Meanwhile, supplements like glucosamine, which is terrific for joint health -- cannot even mention this benefit on their packaging.
The Health Freedom Act would give consumers ready access to the information that they need to help them turn to natural health solutions. And as such, this bill could empower consumers to make their own health decisions.
You can imagine that a bill like this will be enormously unpopular with the Big Government loonies in the Obama camp.
The Health Information Protection Act would keep the FDA and the FTC from taking legal action against any advertiser that makes a health claim about a product. This bill would set right a longstanding and un-Constitutional wrong.
Currently, advertisers are not allowed to make any health claim about their product that hasn't been fully vetted by the FDA.
Most of us have been made to think that this is logical, but in terms of U.S. law, it's actually the reverse of the tried and true legal concept that puts the burden of proof on an accuser.
The government can take legal action against an advertiser and demand the advertiser to prove that their claim is true.
Usually, it would be up to the government to prove that the advertiser's claims are false.
This was recently illustrated when the FDA went after Cheerios for claiming the cereal had cholesterol-lowering properties. The feds demanded that General Mills remove the claim from the Cheerio's packaging until the company could prove the claim to the government's satisfaction.
It's a bullying tactic by an out-of-control bureaucracy. And it stinks. This is the same kind of thug tactics that the FDA has been using against natural supplement and multivitamin makers for decades. And it has to stop.
This is as much a First Amendment issue as it is a food and health issue. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in one Supreme Court decision regarding a similar health claim, "Regulating speech must be a last -- not first -- resort."
These important bills certainly face long odds in a House and Senate that are dominated by Big Government liberals. But with your help and support, they stand a chance.
Take heart from those vocal opponents of Obamacare that have made themselves heard and helped to stem the rising socialist tide.
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
This columnist seems to think it is a good idea to
mandate that doctors provide free medical care
if they want to get/keep their license.
Michael Moore: Congressional Dems 'a bunch of losers -- weak, scared, stupid'...
WHEN WILL THESE PEOPLE STOP? Neal Boortz
A few days ago I told you about the unprecedented powers that have been given to our pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. This guy can make "binding" decisions on compensation levels at financial institutions. He can even "claw back" any compensation that he feels was unjustly earned. Over the recent months, we have seen the demonizing of Wall Street, auto executives, oil companies, ...you name it ... and now that the Democrats have moved on to healthcare, they have found another industry to attack and demonize. The health insurance industry.
Have they gone to far this time?
The Democrat plan of attack is obtain and then demonize financial records of private insurance companies until the public becomes "outraged."
Some House Democrats sent letters to some of the nation's top insurance firms, asking - no, DEMANDING - that they provide detailed financial records for Congress. The Representatives say that the committee is simply "examining executive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry."
Noodle this one out: Why do the Democrats need to know the information about the following:
- Compensation levels of highly paid employees - those making more than $500,000 in any year between 2003 and 2008. This includes bonuses, stock options, perquisites and deferred compensation.
- Documents on the companies' premium income and claims payments
- Explain how executive pay is determined and provide documents used by the boards' compensation committees.
- Any information on corporate events held outside company facilities since 2007, including detailed costs on transportation, entertainment, food and gifts.
I'll tell you why ... because the Democrats are about to start another clown parade in Washington . They know they are losing the PR battle when it comes to healthcare. So they are going to ramp up their program to demonize the insurance industry. The objective is to make these health insurance companies look so heinous and greedy and frivolous that the average American will be begging government to punish them or kill them off entirely. Pure government bullying.
The solution, of course, will be the government option ... a government health care program that will be so fair, so pure and so above-board.
We are witnessing the creation of another crisis ... the health insurance industry crisis.
Pretty soon this will be such a horrible and devastating crisis that only strong and immediate government intervention can help.
Following the script.
Kyl Slams Dem Healthcare Plan for Illegals
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama: Palestinian state now, Israel 's security later
Official says U.S. applying 'huge' pressure for total freeze on Jewish construction
--WND
Cash for Clunkers: Another Giant Gov't Flop
Syndicated columnist Steve Chapman may have summed up the absurd "Cash for Clunkers" program better than anyone:
"Cash for Clunkers has been a thrilling moment for advocates of expanded government, who say it proves what we can accomplish when our leaders put their minds to it.
They are absolutely right.
The program proves the federal government is unsurpassed at two things: dispersing money and destroying things.
ACLU Sues Sheriff Arpaio for Detaining Illegals
WIRE: 'Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day'...
Tens of Thousands of U.K. Patients Forced to Live in Agony
"Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections."
That horrifying headline appeared in the UK. Telegraph newspaper on August 2, 2009.
And the accompanying story is as shocking as the headline promises.
Here's an excerpt:
"The Government's drug rationing watchdog says 'therapeutic' injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.
"Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.
"Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.”
Clinton's negotiator: Climate bill 'out of control'
'The Republicans are right – it's a cap-and-tax bill'
--Bloomberg
Canada Health Plan May Deny 6,000 Surgeries
Oh, The Injustice!
Libertarian journalist Sheldon Richman examines the outrage of insurance companies not covering preexisting conditions:
"The house of a friend caught on fire. While his home was aflame he called an insurance company to buy fire insurance. Honest fellow that he is, he told the company rep that his house was on fire as they spoke.
"The company refused to issue the policy.
"When will we finally get homeowner's insurance reform so that companies will stop this cruel practice of refusing to cover preexisting conditions?
"After that we should move against the life insurance companies' vicious discrimination against dead people."
Firms with Obama ties profit from health push...
Insurers Fear Probe By House Dems Is Reprisal for Opposing Part of Plan...
Are smokers infringing on your rights?
QUESTION: I disagree with your recent column on smoking. Why is it up to the non-smoker to choose a smoke-free work environment or restaurant? Isn't this a case where a person's right to swing their arms (i.e., smoking) ends with the next person's nose (potential health risks and fouling the clothing of non-smokers)? Isn't it the smokers who are infringing on my right to be free of their smoke?
MY SHORT ANSWER: I, too, am a non-smoker who appreciates a smoke-free environment, so I know exactly where you are coming from.
Libertarians don't support government-mandated smoking bans in restaurants and bars, because these restaurants and bars are the property of the owners, not the patrons or the government. Only the owners of these establishments have the right to determine whether smoking will be permitted.
Similarly, libertarians wouldn't outlaw smoking in residences so that non-smoking visitors wouldn't have to breathe the smoke of their hosts. In both cases, the owners decide what type of environment that they will invest in; patrons and visitors are free to decide if they wish to expose themselves to that environment.
Of course, "public" (government-owned) property, like courthouses and municipal buildings, poses special problems, because the "owners" (supposedly the entire citizenry, which include smokers and non-smokers), are unlikely to agree on whether or not to ban smoking there. So settling such disagreements is almost impossible. Such dilemmas support the libertarian notion that all property (or at the very least, as much as possible) should be private, and such decisions left to the owners. Clearly-defined property rights solve many, many problems!
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees...
Bumper stickers seen on Marine Corps Base
" U.S. Marines -- Certified Counselors to the 72 Virgins Dating Club"
"Water-boarding is out so kill them all!"
"Interrogators can't water board dead guys"
" U.S. Marines -- Travel Agents To Allah"
"Stop Global Whining"
"When In Doubt, Empty The Magazine" Naval Corollary; Dead men don't testify.
"The Marine Corps -- When It Absolutely, Positively Has To Be Destroyed Overnight"
"Death Smiles At Everyone -- Marines Smile Back"
"Marine Sniper - You can run, but you'll just die tired!"
"What Do I Feel When I Kill A Terrorist? .... A little Recoil"
"Marines -- Providing Enemies of America an Opportunity To Die For their Country Since 1775"*
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It"
"Happiness Is A Belt-Fed Weapon"
"It's God's Job to Forgive Bin Laden -- It's Our Job To Arrange The Meeting"
"Artillery Brings Dignity to What Would Otherwise Be Just A Brawl"
"One Shot, Twelve Kills -- US Navy Gun Fire Support"
"Do draft dodgers Have Reunions? If So, What Do They Talk About?"
"My kid fought in Iraq so your kid can party in college"
"Machine Gunners -- Accuracy by Volume"
"A Dead Enemy Is A Peaceful Enemy -- Blessed Be The Peacemakers"
"If You Can Read, Thank A Teacher. If You Can Read It In English, Thank A Veteran"
"Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, WAR has Never Solved Anything.”
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem." - Ronald Reagan
As Vets Await Checks, VA Workers Get $24M Bonuses
Dem Congressman: Covering uninsured not top priority of health reform...
The "Public Option" is Neither Public Nor Optional by Sharon Harris
Proponents of a government health insurance plan have won a major rhetorical victory by having it commonly referred to as the "public option."
No defender of freedom should ever use that term. It is sheer propaganda, and highly misleading.
When you hear it used, consider politely responding that it is actually "the so-called public option."
Point out that this term is deceptive. Just as "public schools" are really "government schools, funded by taxpayers," the "public option" is really a "government health care plan, to be paid for by your tax dollars." It's actually the "government option."
Further, should it become law, it will likely quickly become not just an "option" but a mandatory plan.
State and local governments have expanded their payrolls since recession...
In New Hampshire, 700 of 796 stimulus jobs are state workers...
Private payrolls are shrinking. Government payrolls are expanding.
The government sector, which can use deadly force to achieve its goals, is growing stronger.
The private sector, which cannot, is growing weaker.
For those who believe that America 's greatness comes from government, this would be a good thing.
"You can't stop the waves, but you can learn to surf."
- Unknown
Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner warns that a government cooperative plan won’t look anything like a true co-op. “Under the government plan, the members wouldn’t choose its officers — the president would,” he said. According to Tanner, that’s the problem:
Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises that operate by the same rules as other insurers. This is not really about creating more choices and competition….
If a "co-op" is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, it's simply government-run health insurance by another name.
Opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled.
How many times is Obama going to get away with his "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," It simply isn't true.
Either President Hopey-Changey knows it's not true, which would make him a liar; or he doesn't know it's not true, which would make him ignorant.
Must be one or the other.
Cato scholar Jeffery A. Miron explains why “Cash for Clunkers” is bad medicine for the economy:
Government policy should not favor some industries at the expense of others, but that is exactly what cash for clunkers does. The program helps consumers who can take advantage, and it increases profit and employment in the auto industry. But funding for the program comes from all other taxpayers, so it harms the consumers and industries not supported by the program.
Thus cash for clunkers creates winners and losers based on political considerations, not economic values….
Cash for clunkers is therefore just redistribution to certain consumers and to the auto industry; it is more bailout dressed up as environmental policy.
Congress should end the program, not expand it.
UN climate summit flop feared; 20,000 hotel room reservations cancelled...
If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa , California , and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders.
His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns.
“There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds.
Health care needs a major overhaul, but that’s no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies.
Under the Obama administration, the VA has started issuing end of life planning documents
asking them to decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."
"Obama has said his opponents were trying to 'scare and mislead the American people,'
when in fact his opponents are the American people whom he is trying to scare and mislead."
--columnist David Limbaugh
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil .
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil 's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil 's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro . Brazil 's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas .
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil , why not in the old US.A. ? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
Just yesterday I told you about the US loaning money to Brazil 's Petrobras for offshore drilling.
Guess who happens to have just bought $2.6 billion in Petrobras stock?
George Soros must be very bullish on stocks, he bought a lot, especially oil.
He was already heavily invested in energy stocks, and he bought more.
Petroleo Brasileiro alone is accounted for more than 22% of his fund.
A Crucial Voting Bloc
"N.J. Cockroach Contest Predicts Corzine Will Beat Christie in Governor's Race"-
-headline, Star-Ledger ( Newark ), Aug. 20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)