From the anti-strib blog
Posted by: Kermit at
http://www.anti-strib.com/blog/whining-will-get-you-nowhere.html
Regarding a story published at KARE 11
ST. CLOUD, Minn. -- About three dozen Muslims and their supporters rallied Monday morning across from Apollo High School to show support for students who attend the school.
Those at the rally say the school staff is not doing enough to keep Muslim students from being harassed and in some cases is contributing to it. "Some of the teachers on some of these things, they say a lot of bad stuff, like go back to (your) country. You guys stink," said Ali Gure, 18, a high school senior.
"Some of the teachers". Hmm. I believe the stink mentioned is the waft of bullshit.
The rally organizer, Mohamoud Ismail Mohamed, added his own list of grievances. "Verbal abuses, like 'I hate Islam' and 'I hate you guys. You are different. Why (did) you come to our country?' which makes the life of the children in this school very hard," said Mohamed.
A more succinct question would have been "Why are you trying to bring your country here?" The story goes on to report that St. Cloud schools are about 9% Muslim, with most of them being Somali. This story is a microcosm of the inevitable result when we abandoned the "melting pot" value and replaced it with a mindless worship of "diversity".
March 31, 2010
Once They Encouraged the Pitchforks, Now Democrats are Frightened of Them........
By: Evan Coyne Maloney
(linked through Newsbusters)
When Barack Obama decided to launch his political career in the living room of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, he tacitly endorsed using violence as a political tactic.
And when two staunch allies of the Democratic Party—the SEIU and ACORN—drove busloads of protesters to the private homes of AIG executives, just days later, President Obama told a meeting of bankers that “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
Implicitly, Obama was using the threat of violence to get the bankers to acquiesce.
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama didn’t shy away from confrontation. In fact, he encouraged it by telling supporters to “argue with” opponents and to “get in their face[s].”
The Obama Administration’s confrontational tone included some violent imagery last August, when one White House official encouraged Obama supporters to “punch back twice as hard” against opponents.
Later that day, at an anti-ObamaCare rally in St. Louis, a black man named Kenneth Gladney was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags when he was approached by pro-ObamaCare SEIU union members. One of the men asked Gladney, “What kind of nigger are you to be giving out this kind of stuff?”
The union thugs then beat him so badly he required overnight hospitalization.
Obama’s supporters got the message. They were getting in people’s faces, and they were punching. And kicking. Repeatedly.
Yet despite the fact that the Kenneth Gladney beating occurred the same day that the Obama Administration recommended supporters “punch back twice as hard,” there was no hyperventilating in the media about political violence or the veiled threats that encouraged it.
Today, however, the Democratic politicians who rammed through ObamaCare over the wishes of the American public are worried about the ugly environment that the Obama Administration spent over a year stoking. And if Obama and the Democrats truly believe that words lead to violence, then they should accept responsibility for the beating of Kenneth Gladney.
I’m certainly not condoning political violence, and would condemn any that actually happens. But there has been no reported violence against any Congressman, Senator or government official, despite the media frenzy of stories describing a crazed American public ready to terrorize politicians.
All politicians receive threats; any moderately trafficked blogger receives threats. So while I would hate for there to be any actual violence, excuse me if I chuckle at the chatter of the chickens in the media and our political class. This media-driven national freakout is a diversion, designed to de-legitimize opposition to ObamaCare and to take your attention away from the illegitimate and unprecedented usurpation of power by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama. They’re banking on you forgetting by November.
If the media is going to report on this atmosphere without discussing the Obama Administration’s words or the SEIU beat-down of Kenneth Gladney, if they are going to spend time breathlessly reporting rumored threats that have not been carried out while ignoring violence that actually occurred but didn’t fit their narrative, then it is yet more proof of the media’s patent bias
March 30, 2010
What happens when you leave a progressives unsupervised…..
Are you offended by the term “Good Friday”? Only if you’re a liberal whack job. This report is from Davenport, Iowa. It is humorously absurd.
One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar
Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday." (Citing the separation of church and state)
"My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday," said city council alderman Bill Edmond. "People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok."
Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.
"The city council didn't know anything about the change. We were blind sided and now we've got to clean this mess up. How do you tell people the city renamed a 2,000 year old holiday?" said Edmond.
It didn't take long for the city the resurrect the name Good Friday. Malin was overruled today and the words "Spring Holiday" disappeared. Good riddance
One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar
Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday." (Citing the separation of church and state)
"My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday," said city council alderman Bill Edmond. "People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok."
Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.
"The city council didn't know anything about the change. We were blind sided and now we've got to clean this mess up. How do you tell people the city renamed a 2,000 year old holiday?" said Edmond.
It didn't take long for the city the resurrect the name Good Friday. Malin was overruled today and the words "Spring Holiday" disappeared. Good riddance
New from the AP predicts massive doctor shortage................
Primary care physicians are already in short supply in parts of the country, and the health overhaul that will bring them millions more newly insured patients in the next few years promises extra strain.
This was a common criticism of the Health care reform legislationthat was constantly ignored by our media, and casually dismissed in political debate. The healthcare reform adds 32 million new patients to a system that is already low on supply, and at the same time reduces the financial incentives of becoming a medical practitioner. The result is obvious, we are bound for a shortage of doctors. This fact can no longer be ignored as the bill has now been signed into law. In a report published by the AP, some of the obvious issues are finally coming to light:
"Recently published reports predict a shortfall of roughly 40,000 primary care doctors over the next decade, a field losing out to the better pay, better hours and higher profile of many other specialties. Provisions in the new law aim to start reversing that tide, from bonus payments for certain physicians to expanded community health centers that will pick up some of the slack."
Along with the current shortage and 10-year projection, many current doctors will be leaving their profession as government regulations threaten their profitability. In a poll conducted one week before the health care passage, nearly 50% of doctors stated that the passage of the legislation would lead them to seek a new profession. Provisions in the healthcare bill attempt to entice them to stay, but the attempt is laughable at best. The new law provides a 10% bonus from Medicare for primary care doctors serving in areas already short on medical professionals. However, the government only cover around 80% Medicare payments, so the clinic still comes away losing money on the care.
Its not rocket science. The reason there is a shortage of doctors in certain areas is because the people in those areas don't pay for their care. There is no money for doctors there, and without that evil profit, the medical practitioners can't sustain their practice. There is nothing greedy about it, it's just a fact of life. No matter how many times you hear people say that healthcare is a basic human right, it cannot be considered a right as long as we depend on other people to and perform specialized care. Clinics cannot cover an area of people paying 80% of the costs. It is unsustainable
What this bill will do, is take the doctor shortage in these localized areas, and spread them among the general population. It wont’ get any better for those experiencing the shortage now, if anything it will get worse. What will be different is all the other areas around them that start experiencing the same shortages. That’s what socialized systems like this do. They guarantee the lowest common denominator for all.
This was a common criticism of the Health care reform legislationthat was constantly ignored by our media, and casually dismissed in political debate. The healthcare reform adds 32 million new patients to a system that is already low on supply, and at the same time reduces the financial incentives of becoming a medical practitioner. The result is obvious, we are bound for a shortage of doctors. This fact can no longer be ignored as the bill has now been signed into law. In a report published by the AP, some of the obvious issues are finally coming to light:
"Recently published reports predict a shortfall of roughly 40,000 primary care doctors over the next decade, a field losing out to the better pay, better hours and higher profile of many other specialties. Provisions in the new law aim to start reversing that tide, from bonus payments for certain physicians to expanded community health centers that will pick up some of the slack."
Along with the current shortage and 10-year projection, many current doctors will be leaving their profession as government regulations threaten their profitability. In a poll conducted one week before the health care passage, nearly 50% of doctors stated that the passage of the legislation would lead them to seek a new profession. Provisions in the healthcare bill attempt to entice them to stay, but the attempt is laughable at best. The new law provides a 10% bonus from Medicare for primary care doctors serving in areas already short on medical professionals. However, the government only cover around 80% Medicare payments, so the clinic still comes away losing money on the care.
Its not rocket science. The reason there is a shortage of doctors in certain areas is because the people in those areas don't pay for their care. There is no money for doctors there, and without that evil profit, the medical practitioners can't sustain their practice. There is nothing greedy about it, it's just a fact of life. No matter how many times you hear people say that healthcare is a basic human right, it cannot be considered a right as long as we depend on other people to and perform specialized care. Clinics cannot cover an area of people paying 80% of the costs. It is unsustainable
What this bill will do, is take the doctor shortage in these localized areas, and spread them among the general population. It wont’ get any better for those experiencing the shortage now, if anything it will get worse. What will be different is all the other areas around them that start experiencing the same shortages. That’s what socialized systems like this do. They guarantee the lowest common denominator for all.
Change" Is Not New
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
When ancient fossils of creatures that live on the ocean floor have been found in rock formations at the summit of Mount Everest, that ought to give us a clue that big changes in the earth are nothing new, and that huge changes have been going on long before human beings appeared on the scene.
The recent statement that the earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, made by the climate scientist who is at the heart of the recent scandal about "global warming" statistics, ought to at least give pause to those who are determined to believe that human beings must be the reason for "climate change."
Other climate scientists have pointed out before now that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries. Contrary to the impression created in much of the media and in politics, no one has denied that temperatures change, sometimes more than they are changing today.
Three years ago, a book by Singer and Avery was published with a title that says it all: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."
Contrary to clever political spin that likened those who refused to join the "global warming" hysteria to people who denied the Holocaust, no one denied that climates change. Indeed, some of the climate scientists who have been the biggest critics of the current hysteria have pointed out that climates had changed back and forth, long before human beings created industrial societies or drove SUVs.
It is those who have been pushing the hysteria who have been playing fast and loose with the facts, wanting to keep crucial data from becoming public, and even "losing" some of that data that supposedly proved the most dire consequences. It has not been facts but computer models at the heart of the "global warming" crusade.
Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything. Back during the 1970s, there were computer models predicting mass starvation and global cooling. The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially computer models based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even "lose" when investigators start closing in.
On climate issues, as on many other issues, the biggest argument of the left has been that there is no argument. The word "science" has been used as a magic mantra to shut up critics, even when those critics have been scientists with international reputations as specialists in climate science.
Stealing the aura of science for political purposes is nothing new for the left. Karl Marx called his brand of Utopianism "scientific socialism." Even earlier, in the 18th century, the Marquis de Condorcet referred to "engineering" society. In the 20th century, H.G. Wells referred to the creation of a lasting peace as a heavy and complex "piece of mental engineering."
Genuine science is the opposite of dogmatism, but that does not keep dogmatists from invoking the name of science in order to shut off debate. Science is a method of analysis, rather than simply a set of conclusions. In fact, much of the history of science is a history of having to abandon the prevailing conclusions among scientists, in light of new evidence or new methods of analysis.
When the scientists in England who were promoting "global warming" hysteria sent e-mails out to colleagues, urging them not to reveal certain data and not to let the fact become widely known that there was a freedom-of-information act in Britain, they were behaving like politicians, rather than scientists.
The huge political, financial and ideological investment of many individuals and institutions in the "global warming" hysteria makes it virtually impossible for many of the climate crusaders to gamble it all on a roll of the dice, which is what empirical verification is. It is far safer to dogmatize and to demonize those who think otherwise.
Educators who turn schools into indoctrination centers have been going all out to propagandize a whole generation with Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"-- which has in fact carried a message that has been very convenient for Al Gore financially, producing millions of dollars from his "green" activities.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
When ancient fossils of creatures that live on the ocean floor have been found in rock formations at the summit of Mount Everest, that ought to give us a clue that big changes in the earth are nothing new, and that huge changes have been going on long before human beings appeared on the scene.
The recent statement that the earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, made by the climate scientist who is at the heart of the recent scandal about "global warming" statistics, ought to at least give pause to those who are determined to believe that human beings must be the reason for "climate change."
Other climate scientists have pointed out before now that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries. Contrary to the impression created in much of the media and in politics, no one has denied that temperatures change, sometimes more than they are changing today.
Three years ago, a book by Singer and Avery was published with a title that says it all: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."
Contrary to clever political spin that likened those who refused to join the "global warming" hysteria to people who denied the Holocaust, no one denied that climates change. Indeed, some of the climate scientists who have been the biggest critics of the current hysteria have pointed out that climates had changed back and forth, long before human beings created industrial societies or drove SUVs.
It is those who have been pushing the hysteria who have been playing fast and loose with the facts, wanting to keep crucial data from becoming public, and even "losing" some of that data that supposedly proved the most dire consequences. It has not been facts but computer models at the heart of the "global warming" crusade.
Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything. Back during the 1970s, there were computer models predicting mass starvation and global cooling. The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially computer models based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even "lose" when investigators start closing in.
On climate issues, as on many other issues, the biggest argument of the left has been that there is no argument. The word "science" has been used as a magic mantra to shut up critics, even when those critics have been scientists with international reputations as specialists in climate science.
Stealing the aura of science for political purposes is nothing new for the left. Karl Marx called his brand of Utopianism "scientific socialism." Even earlier, in the 18th century, the Marquis de Condorcet referred to "engineering" society. In the 20th century, H.G. Wells referred to the creation of a lasting peace as a heavy and complex "piece of mental engineering."
Genuine science is the opposite of dogmatism, but that does not keep dogmatists from invoking the name of science in order to shut off debate. Science is a method of analysis, rather than simply a set of conclusions. In fact, much of the history of science is a history of having to abandon the prevailing conclusions among scientists, in light of new evidence or new methods of analysis.
When the scientists in England who were promoting "global warming" hysteria sent e-mails out to colleagues, urging them not to reveal certain data and not to let the fact become widely known that there was a freedom-of-information act in Britain, they were behaving like politicians, rather than scientists.
The huge political, financial and ideological investment of many individuals and institutions in the "global warming" hysteria makes it virtually impossible for many of the climate crusaders to gamble it all on a roll of the dice, which is what empirical verification is. It is far safer to dogmatize and to demonize those who think otherwise.
Educators who turn schools into indoctrination centers have been going all out to propagandize a whole generation with Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"-- which has in fact carried a message that has been very convenient for Al Gore financially, producing millions of dollars from his "green" activities.
March 26, 2010
CBO forecast project federal deficit to exceed 90% of GDP by 2020............
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020. The numbers are beyond staggering. In a budget report filed Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the president's spending habits would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade. Unfortunatelyhose numbers, while extremely crippling, will only hold under the best case scenario. Barrack Obama's Presidency has been like watching what would happen if Paris Hilton took over her daddy’s Hilton hotels; bankrupting them in one weekend because she wanted everyone to have a free room.. He is our incompetant leader--elected in what will go down as the popluarity contest of the millenium. "Cool tall black guy vs. short old white guy with a hump on his back" - who will win the public hearts? But the election of this social worker is a different topic of discussion
The federal public debt totals $8.2 trillion as of today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion in 2020. That comes out to around t$72,000 per household today, and more than $170,000 per household in 2020. The figure projected by the CBO would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year. Economist Kenneth Rogoff made the following point:
"For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more"
The federal public debt totals $8.2 trillion as of today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion in 2020. That comes out to around t$72,000 per household today, and more than $170,000 per household in 2020. The figure projected by the CBO would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year. Economist Kenneth Rogoff made the following point:
"For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more"
American Liberalism is Socialism................
In a typical liberal rant, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz tells his radio listeners that he believes the next "socialist"
takeover by the government should be on all the radio airwaves. Its not all that surprising really. I've been saying it for nearly 3 years now: Democrats have become Socialist. They are bought and piad for by extreme lefitst. It's not even a rip on them, it's a fact based on their actions and ideas. They believe in big government control, and want the people to be dependant on them. In their mind, government takeover of free-markets is for the greater good. They are by all standards full blown socialists. Why can't we be honest about it? If liberal think this crap works; if regulating speech and energy and healthcare is what will help, then why not come out and say it? Why not be open, and proclaim a socailist fix is what America needs.
Shultz doesn't hide it, and in a twisted kind of way I respect him for it. At least he is open about what he wants to do. No other Democrat has been so honest. Europeans still think Obama’s a moderate for crying out loud. Our media persists that he is a centrist. Yet, Obama is the most socialist President this country has seen since Woodrow Wilson. Why continue does everyone try to hide it? The reason is actually very simple.
Everyone knows that socialism is a failure. It simply does not work. Democrats are trying to disguise what they are doing because the public has a justified fear of socialist governments. American's witnessed the tyranny of the socialist in eastern Europe and Germany. We fought WWII against the National Socialist Party of Germany (yes the Nazi’s were progressives), and then a cold War with the Soviet Union. We are still fighting with North Korea, and the human rights violations of China are not easily forgotten. We have socialist dictators in Venezuela and Cuba, murdering opposition and shutting down free speech. If Democrats presented their beliefs for what they actually are (socialism) they would never get a sniff from voters ever again.
March 24, 2010
Basic Human Rights.........
During the final healthcare debates, Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina repeated a typical progressive argument that healthcare is a fundamental human right. This is a ridiculous statement that is constantly repeated by liberal ideologues. Let me be clear, any object or activity that requires the wealth (or work) of other people to produce it, cannot be considered a human right. Only by force can another guarantee a right to anything that is produced by others. We all have a right to buy it, but we are not entitled to it. If we were all entitled to free healthcare, then why should the wealthy have to pay? Don’t they deserve the basic Human rights of all people?
Here is what Clyburn said:
“I said earlier, during my talk on the floor, that I consider this to be the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century – because I do believe that this is the one fundamental right that this country had been wrestling with now for almost a hundred years. I think tonight, we took a giant step toward the establishment of a more perfect union”
This statement is incredibly insulting to the people involved in the 60’s civil rights movement. Take a minute and compare the two. The civil rights movement of the late 60’s changed the way Americans think about people. It drove home the fact that our core constitutional rights are endowed too every man woman and child; regardless of their appearance or ethnicity They led a group of people to new heights while being directly persecuted by the government and its citisenry. They fought discrimination in the streets, abused and hated all the way, while remaining peaceful and insistent to their cause. They didn’t ask for anything from anyone else, except that they be given the freedoms promised them in the constitution. They wanted the freedom to live as equals, not priviledged. The civil rights movement was directly supporting and promoting the core beliefs of freedom and equality that started propelled this country forward.
Here is what Clyburn said:
“I said earlier, during my talk on the floor, that I consider this to be the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century – because I do believe that this is the one fundamental right that this country had been wrestling with now for almost a hundred years. I think tonight, we took a giant step toward the establishment of a more perfect union”
This statement is incredibly insulting to the people involved in the 60’s civil rights movement. Take a minute and compare the two. The civil rights movement of the late 60’s changed the way Americans think about people. It drove home the fact that our core constitutional rights are endowed too every man woman and child; regardless of their appearance or ethnicity They led a group of people to new heights while being directly persecuted by the government and its citisenry. They fought discrimination in the streets, abused and hated all the way, while remaining peaceful and insistent to their cause. They didn’t ask for anything from anyone else, except that they be given the freedoms promised them in the constitution. They wanted the freedom to live as equals, not priviledged. The civil rights movement was directly supporting and promoting the core beliefs of freedom and equality that started propelled this country forward.
An Off-Budget Office?
Under the headline "Costly Bill Seen as Saving Money," the San Francisco Chronicle last week began a front-page story with these words: "Many people find it hard to understand how the health care legislation heading for a decisive vote Sunday can cost $940 billion and cut the horrendous federal deficit at the same time."
It's not hard to understand at all. It is a lie.
What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people, who might otherwise use their common sense, is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money.
The Congressional Budget Office does honest work. But it can only use the numbers that Congress supplies-- and Congress does dishonest work. It is not the CBO's job to give their opinion as to whether any of the marvelous things that Congress says it will do in the future are either likely or possible.
It's not hard to understand at all. It is a lie.
What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people, who might otherwise use their common sense, is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money.
The Congressional Budget Office does honest work. But it can only use the numbers that Congress supplies-- and Congress does dishonest work. It is not the CBO's job to give their opinion as to whether any of the marvelous things that Congress says it will do in the future are either likely or possible.
March 23, 2010
Media Display Disgusting and Cowardly ..............
March 23, 2010 13:38 ET
The crescendo of bigotry by the left-wing media against the Tea Party movement reached a disgusting pinnacle yesterday with MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann indicting the entire movement as being homophobic racists based on the actions of a few fringe protestors. After describing reports of the “n” word being shouted at Rep. John Lewis Olbermann looked straight into the camera and exploded:
“In a backwards, sick-to-my-stomach way, I would like to thank whoever shouted at Mr. Lewis and Mr. Carson for proving my previous point. If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of Democracy, or of the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.”
Spoken like a true tyrant Olberman. And seriously, do you really want to talk about which party refuses to accept the outcomes of elections? Al Gore still thinks he is a former president, and so do most liberals. But for Olberman, anecdotal evidence - citing one shouted statement - is proof enough to cast a label of racism on a large and widely varied group of people. They all share the same beliefs regarding limited government, therefore they are ALL as racist as their most racist member. Eureka! They got us by the balls now.
The crescendo of bigotry by the left-wing media against the Tea Party movement reached a disgusting pinnacle yesterday with MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann indicting the entire movement as being homophobic racists based on the actions of a few fringe protestors. After describing reports of the “n” word being shouted at Rep. John Lewis Olbermann looked straight into the camera and exploded:
“In a backwards, sick-to-my-stomach way, I would like to thank whoever shouted at Mr. Lewis and Mr. Carson for proving my previous point. If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of Democracy, or of the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.”
Spoken like a true tyrant Olberman. And seriously, do you really want to talk about which party refuses to accept the outcomes of elections? Al Gore still thinks he is a former president, and so do most liberals. But for Olberman, anecdotal evidence - citing one shouted statement - is proof enough to cast a label of racism on a large and widely varied group of people. They all share the same beliefs regarding limited government, therefore they are ALL as racist as their most racist member. Eureka! They got us by the balls now.
How to lie like a president..............
On the campaign trail President Obama said the "public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk" before he signs it into law. Evidently, this is one of those promises that Obama was only joking about.
Just one lie among all the others, which are endless. I guess he figured after not airing debate on TV, not reading the bill, and not voting on the bill; people wouldn’t care as much about one more little lie.
This guy has zero integrity, and that alone should make people very nervous. Obama dismissed the recorded 5-day promise as a fabricated attack from racist right wingers. MSNBC came out in support of his assertion saying the video, audio, and written transcripts were proof of more racism in the American Right. They went on to show that Obama has lied less in one year, then anyone who ever lived. Then, they gave him a gold tiara and declared him the coolest person in the Universe. Al Gore confirmed that this decision had the support of a scientific consensus, and that the evidence was undisputable
A Point of No Return?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical care system of the United States, a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America.
Even the massive transfer of crucial decisions from millions of doctors and patients to Washington bureaucrats and advisory panels-- as momentous as that is-- does not measure the full impact of this largely unread and certainly unscrutinized legislation.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical care system of the United States, a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America.
Even the massive transfer of crucial decisions from millions of doctors and patients to Washington bureaucrats and advisory panels-- as momentous as that is-- does not measure the full impact of this largely unread and certainly unscrutinized legislation.
March 22, 2010
A very bad move for America..........
Despite what fawning and gushing liberal media members have been reporting concerning what happened in our nation's capital Sunday, Former House Majority Speaker Tom DeLay spoke the really inconvenient truth that might haunt this country for generations,
"You saw the Constitution burned by the Democrats in the House of Representatives tonight"
"Not only did they not listen to the American people, they shredded and trashed the Constitution and then stood there on the floor of the House and lied to the American people."
The 111th congress and the shredding of the constitution……..
For those who haven’t figured it out, the name of this blog is in reference to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. We adopted the name “the 57th signature” as a way to express our support for the declaration and the constitution. The enormity of what they created cannot be understated. They changed the world! They fought the tyranny of the state with ideas of individual human rights. They were revolutionaries.
The Constitution is without a doubt, one of the most profound and brilliant documents ever produced by man. It created a free people with individual rights, where every man is created equal. They announced to the world that there are no kings among men. That each man is entitled only to that which he came into this world with, or produced by the sweat of his brow. They gave us the freedom to act on our own judgment, free of coercion, free of dependence. They taught us that the value of the greater good is found in the individual, not in groups. These ideas inspired our nation, and catapulted us to excellence. The United States of America was united in it’s advocacy of the individual, and rejected the premise that some are innately fit to govern without the consent of the People. The Founders were brilliant men that saw the full potential of humanity, and found a way to put that potential to work. They gave us freedom.
On March 21, 2010, the 111th Congress of the United States passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (“Paging Dagney taggart.”) They might as well have called it the “Horray for Everything Bill”. This congress spit in the face of America by socializing 1/3 of our economy without even a super majority vote. They have taken over a sector of our lives that gives them control over nearly every activity we particiapte in.
They have forced the American people into servitude. President Barrack Obama and the 111th Congress, have violated the constitution and their oath of office. Every single representative who voted for this bill should be impeached. They were sworn to uphold the constitution. They failed miserably. As far as I’m concerned, they are enemy’s of the state.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed it “a great act of patriotism which honored the vows of our Founders for us to be a land of opportunity.”
This statement is a slap in the face of the founders and the American people. Pelosi, Obama, and Reid have put the federal government in charge of medical decisions and patient care. They have empowered government to deny medical care, penalize doctors, raise taxes, enforce penalties, jail citizens, expand deficits, and establish intrusive bureaucracies.
At the end of the day, here’s what you can expect from this legislation:
1.) New taxes – The bill doesn’t cover anyone for four years, but the taxes will begin immediately to pay for the initial cost of the legislation
2.) Bankrupt insurance companies – Private insurers only operate on a 3% profit margin. They have no control over the cost of care. Medical care still costs whatever it did yesterday, its just being paid for with taxes and loans by the government instead of you. Because the insurance companies need to make a profit to exist, the government will subsidize them right out of business. We will be single payer before long
3.) Increased demand for medical care – when you add 40 million people to the insured market, and don’t make them pay for it, they are going to use as much of it as they can. It would be the same if you gave out free ice cream – people would eat it. This means we are going to use FAR more medical resources then we have been in the past. Lowering the supply and increasing the cost. This will eventually lead to rationing and the government will decide who gets what care – if any at all.
4.) Medicare catastrophe - It is already bankrupt and they are balancing the healthcare sheets by making cuts to it. This is all well and good, except that the people on Medicare aren’t going to disappear. They will either stop Medicare all together and put everyone on the governments healthcare, or they will re-invest in it and expand it. Which would be the worst thing they could do for a system projecting trillions in deficit spending
5.) Fewer and less competent healthcare professionals – There is a reason Medicare failed. Medicare does not reimburse practitioners the full cost of coverage. Every time they treat someone with Medicare they lose money. With the government running the show 50% of doctors have said they will leave the field. 50% doctors and 40 million new patients means longer waits, more poor treatment, and shitty service
6.) Denial of care – When the government realizes the shit storm they created, they will have no choice but to deny expensive treatments to those trying to extend life. Those who could have gotten hospice care or heart surgery will be denied because of the expense. The threat of Death Panels will come about. That is a guarantee stated plainly in every version of the bill.
7.) Bankruptcy – Obama tried to get the American people to believe that without this reform healthcare costs would skyrocket and America would go broke. The problem is, his solution did nothing to address the cost of care. It is an insurance bill. It will only provide cheaper insurance. The costs of healthcare will become worse from this because more people need coverage, but less money is going to pay for more supply. You don’t need to be an economist to figure where that math will lead.
8.) Behavioral control - they pay for your healthcare. If you want healthcare you will do as your told. No mare fatty foods, alcohol, or tobacco; instead you have mandatory excersize. This is absolutely going to happen
9.) Socialism, Communism, or Fascism are the end result. If this bill is enacted into law we will fall into one of these 3 movements. It is guaranteed.
So enjoy the last remnants of freedom in this country, because four years from now it will be a whole new world……..
The Constitution is without a doubt, one of the most profound and brilliant documents ever produced by man. It created a free people with individual rights, where every man is created equal. They announced to the world that there are no kings among men. That each man is entitled only to that which he came into this world with, or produced by the sweat of his brow. They gave us the freedom to act on our own judgment, free of coercion, free of dependence. They taught us that the value of the greater good is found in the individual, not in groups. These ideas inspired our nation, and catapulted us to excellence. The United States of America was united in it’s advocacy of the individual, and rejected the premise that some are innately fit to govern without the consent of the People. The Founders were brilliant men that saw the full potential of humanity, and found a way to put that potential to work. They gave us freedom.
On March 21, 2010, the 111th Congress of the United States passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (“Paging Dagney taggart.”) They might as well have called it the “Horray for Everything Bill”. This congress spit in the face of America by socializing 1/3 of our economy without even a super majority vote. They have taken over a sector of our lives that gives them control over nearly every activity we particiapte in.
They have forced the American people into servitude. President Barrack Obama and the 111th Congress, have violated the constitution and their oath of office. Every single representative who voted for this bill should be impeached. They were sworn to uphold the constitution. They failed miserably. As far as I’m concerned, they are enemy’s of the state.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed it “a great act of patriotism which honored the vows of our Founders for us to be a land of opportunity.”
This statement is a slap in the face of the founders and the American people. Pelosi, Obama, and Reid have put the federal government in charge of medical decisions and patient care. They have empowered government to deny medical care, penalize doctors, raise taxes, enforce penalties, jail citizens, expand deficits, and establish intrusive bureaucracies.
At the end of the day, here’s what you can expect from this legislation:
1.) New taxes – The bill doesn’t cover anyone for four years, but the taxes will begin immediately to pay for the initial cost of the legislation
2.) Bankrupt insurance companies – Private insurers only operate on a 3% profit margin. They have no control over the cost of care. Medical care still costs whatever it did yesterday, its just being paid for with taxes and loans by the government instead of you. Because the insurance companies need to make a profit to exist, the government will subsidize them right out of business. We will be single payer before long
3.) Increased demand for medical care – when you add 40 million people to the insured market, and don’t make them pay for it, they are going to use as much of it as they can. It would be the same if you gave out free ice cream – people would eat it. This means we are going to use FAR more medical resources then we have been in the past. Lowering the supply and increasing the cost. This will eventually lead to rationing and the government will decide who gets what care – if any at all.
4.) Medicare catastrophe - It is already bankrupt and they are balancing the healthcare sheets by making cuts to it. This is all well and good, except that the people on Medicare aren’t going to disappear. They will either stop Medicare all together and put everyone on the governments healthcare, or they will re-invest in it and expand it. Which would be the worst thing they could do for a system projecting trillions in deficit spending
5.) Fewer and less competent healthcare professionals – There is a reason Medicare failed. Medicare does not reimburse practitioners the full cost of coverage. Every time they treat someone with Medicare they lose money. With the government running the show 50% of doctors have said they will leave the field. 50% doctors and 40 million new patients means longer waits, more poor treatment, and shitty service
6.) Denial of care – When the government realizes the shit storm they created, they will have no choice but to deny expensive treatments to those trying to extend life. Those who could have gotten hospice care or heart surgery will be denied because of the expense. The threat of Death Panels will come about. That is a guarantee stated plainly in every version of the bill.
7.) Bankruptcy – Obama tried to get the American people to believe that without this reform healthcare costs would skyrocket and America would go broke. The problem is, his solution did nothing to address the cost of care. It is an insurance bill. It will only provide cheaper insurance. The costs of healthcare will become worse from this because more people need coverage, but less money is going to pay for more supply. You don’t need to be an economist to figure where that math will lead.
8.) Behavioral control - they pay for your healthcare. If you want healthcare you will do as your told. No mare fatty foods, alcohol, or tobacco; instead you have mandatory excersize. This is absolutely going to happen
9.) Socialism, Communism, or Fascism are the end result. If this bill is enacted into law we will fall into one of these 3 movements. It is guaranteed.
So enjoy the last remnants of freedom in this country, because four years from now it will be a whole new world……..
The delusion of morality in diversity..............
The protesters of healthcare are racist bigots, hateful, and discriminatory. That is how the opposition to Obamacare is portrayed by the media. The media has been a lapdog for this administration, and have done everything they could to discredit any opposition with racial platitudes and accusations of hate. It is nothing but a distraction to keep the uninformed from really looking into the issue, and it persuaded idiots to dismiss opposition to the President as racial intolerance, or uneducated rambling.
What's so amazing about this, is that progressive racial ideology has become the "be all end all" of our social morality. Our country is more concerned with the opinions of diversity councils then they are economists. We care more about what seem nice then what works. We are are governed by white guilt. End of story. The Social progressive agenda is now the moral code for America. And that is truly pathetic. This is the same social code that has created the largest group of dependant minorities in American history. They took a country that was formed by massive immigration, a country that created the only melting pot of ethnic backgrounds in the history of the world, and have made it a dumping ground for the dependant. Immigrants no longer come here to be productive American citizens. They come for the free lunch, for a life of dependant victim hood. They are told that to assimilate would be accepting racism. That they deserve better, without earning it. They turned the most successful, free, and productive country in the world, to a group of progressive busy bodies concerned only with what is and is not offensive
For the sake of argument, let's just say that everyone who opposed healthcare was a full blown racist. They hate the presidents ideas because he's black. They oppose his bill because they want to keep the black man down. They want to go back to a pre-civil rights society. Let's just pretend that all the worst things about the tea party movement are 100% true. The tea party would still right be right about this government seizure of healthcare.
Whether they are racist or not shouldn't even influence the debate. The social views of a group should not influence the enactment of a bill in our country. It is irrelevant to the issue, especially since much of the cost increases have been the result of giving away free health care to those who don’t have coverage.. Socialized medicine is either a good idea or not. The racial preferences of its opposition, or supporters, does not matter. It has always been a deliberate distraction, something to keep people from paying attention.
This is another reason why most people should be terrified of this bill. It was never presented to the American people. It was never argued for based on better health care or lower premiums. It was argued for by Democrats and the media as, "The bill the racists hate". It was the most untruthful campaign since Obama’s presidential campaign. The government just took regulating authority of our health, because republicans are racists (evidently). Its a joke. It is another example of how over-sensitive out country is. We don't even debate issues anymore. We debate the moral fortitude of an idea’s supporters and opposers. The media's coverage of Tea Partys this year was the most ridiculous spectacle in modern media history. They failed in their duties as information hubs for the people, and that’s why they are all going out of business. They delivered us into dependency because people were too afraid of being labeled intolerant. As if tolerance of a bad idea were a virtue. But a shit sandwich is gonna taste like shit, whether its made by a member of the diversity council, or by a Nazi.
I won't get into how this bill will destroy out healthcare. That’s for a different post. For now, I can only reflect on what I find to be an amazing illustration of mass delusion and government propaganda. We are so lost in our fight for cosmic justice that we just invited tyranny to rule the most free land in the history of the world. It is a sad sad day to be an American. It is one of the first times I've ever been ashamed to be a citizen of this country. Every politician, and every progressive journalist should be held accountable for this. It is time for the next revolution. Let the legal battles begin.
What's so amazing about this, is that progressive racial ideology has become the "be all end all" of our social morality. Our country is more concerned with the opinions of diversity councils then they are economists. We care more about what seem nice then what works. We are are governed by white guilt. End of story. The Social progressive agenda is now the moral code for America. And that is truly pathetic. This is the same social code that has created the largest group of dependant minorities in American history. They took a country that was formed by massive immigration, a country that created the only melting pot of ethnic backgrounds in the history of the world, and have made it a dumping ground for the dependant. Immigrants no longer come here to be productive American citizens. They come for the free lunch, for a life of dependant victim hood. They are told that to assimilate would be accepting racism. That they deserve better, without earning it. They turned the most successful, free, and productive country in the world, to a group of progressive busy bodies concerned only with what is and is not offensive
For the sake of argument, let's just say that everyone who opposed healthcare was a full blown racist. They hate the presidents ideas because he's black. They oppose his bill because they want to keep the black man down. They want to go back to a pre-civil rights society. Let's just pretend that all the worst things about the tea party movement are 100% true. The tea party would still right be right about this government seizure of healthcare.
Whether they are racist or not shouldn't even influence the debate. The social views of a group should not influence the enactment of a bill in our country. It is irrelevant to the issue, especially since much of the cost increases have been the result of giving away free health care to those who don’t have coverage.. Socialized medicine is either a good idea or not. The racial preferences of its opposition, or supporters, does not matter. It has always been a deliberate distraction, something to keep people from paying attention.
This is another reason why most people should be terrified of this bill. It was never presented to the American people. It was never argued for based on better health care or lower premiums. It was argued for by Democrats and the media as, "The bill the racists hate". It was the most untruthful campaign since Obama’s presidential campaign. The government just took regulating authority of our health, because republicans are racists (evidently). Its a joke. It is another example of how over-sensitive out country is. We don't even debate issues anymore. We debate the moral fortitude of an idea’s supporters and opposers. The media's coverage of Tea Partys this year was the most ridiculous spectacle in modern media history. They failed in their duties as information hubs for the people, and that’s why they are all going out of business. They delivered us into dependency because people were too afraid of being labeled intolerant. As if tolerance of a bad idea were a virtue. But a shit sandwich is gonna taste like shit, whether its made by a member of the diversity council, or by a Nazi.
I won't get into how this bill will destroy out healthcare. That’s for a different post. For now, I can only reflect on what I find to be an amazing illustration of mass delusion and government propaganda. We are so lost in our fight for cosmic justice that we just invited tyranny to rule the most free land in the history of the world. It is a sad sad day to be an American. It is one of the first times I've ever been ashamed to be a citizen of this country. Every politician, and every progressive journalist should be held accountable for this. It is time for the next revolution. Let the legal battles begin.
March 19, 2010
Landmark set to sue the President, and other cabinet members to prevent unconstitutional reform....
Posted on http://www.healthcarescam.com/
Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,” “self-executing,” or “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance. A copy of the complaint can be found here: Landmark’s Draft “Slaughter Rule” Complaint.
By a vote of 222 to 203, House Democrats voted today to uphold the usage of the “self-executing rule,” also known as the Slaughter Solution. This further validates that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats will to anything to pass this health care bill, even if it is unconstitutional and just plain shady. The undocumented President Obama has made it clear time and again that he doesn’t care about the process – he just wants it passed, no matter the consequences. And there will be consequences.
The Slaughter Solution “deems” the Senate bill passed without the House ever having cast a vote, while they vote separately on a reconciliation measure. Pelosi wants this done so the American people wont’ be able to see who actually voted for the bill – she wants to shield her Congressional allies from their constituents who are mad as hell about their representatives not listening to the people.
Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,” “self-executing,” or “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance. A copy of the complaint can be found here: Landmark’s Draft “Slaughter Rule” Complaint.
By a vote of 222 to 203, House Democrats voted today to uphold the usage of the “self-executing rule,” also known as the Slaughter Solution. This further validates that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats will to anything to pass this health care bill, even if it is unconstitutional and just plain shady. The undocumented President Obama has made it clear time and again that he doesn’t care about the process – he just wants it passed, no matter the consequences. And there will be consequences.
The Slaughter Solution “deems” the Senate bill passed without the House ever having cast a vote, while they vote separately on a reconciliation measure. Pelosi wants this done so the American people wont’ be able to see who actually voted for the bill – she wants to shield her Congressional allies from their constituents who are mad as hell about their representatives not listening to the people.
Impeach the President?
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
March 16, 2010
Hypocrisy on display…………………..
What would be worse than the government taking over health care? How about the government taking over health care without even voting on it? That is exactly what the White House and Congress are about to do, not two years after they themselves deemed the action reprehensible and unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi has some nice words about the process, which she doesn’t seem to find contradictory to her self proclaimed title as : “the most transparent government in American History.”
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know, but I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."
Wow. How nice for them. They don’t even have to vote on the bill that none of them have read. That must be a pretty nice gig. Show up, do nothing, and BOOM – unconstitutional healthcare takeover. It is truly amazing to see the switch in mindset from democrats on how our federal government should pass this type of legislation. Heres a quote from Barrack Obama from the 2007 campaign trail:
“This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're gonna have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority."
Yet, what we have on Obama’s desk, is a fifty plus one majority. One that also was never voted on in the House. How could this happen when Obama said it was impossible? Makes you wonder what else Obama is wrong about. These statements are everywhere and easy to find. This next quote was delivered by the President during a press conference at the National Press Club.
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know, but I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."
Wow. How nice for them. They don’t even have to vote on the bill that none of them have read. That must be a pretty nice gig. Show up, do nothing, and BOOM – unconstitutional healthcare takeover. It is truly amazing to see the switch in mindset from democrats on how our federal government should pass this type of legislation. Heres a quote from Barrack Obama from the 2007 campaign trail:
“This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're gonna have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority."
Yet, what we have on Obama’s desk, is a fifty plus one majority. One that also was never voted on in the House. How could this happen when Obama said it was impossible? Makes you wonder what else Obama is wrong about. These statements are everywhere and easy to find. This next quote was delivered by the President during a press conference at the National Press Club.
Gore Attaches Global Warming as Cause to Last Weekend's Storm in Northeast
By Jeff Poor (my thoughts posted after the article)
Business & Media Institute
3/16/2010 6:22:24 AM
If there’s a drought – it’s global warming. When there’s a hurricane – it’s global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it’s somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that’s consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.
Business & Media Institute
3/16/2010 6:22:24 AM
If there’s a drought – it’s global warming. When there’s a hurricane – it’s global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it’s somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that’s consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.
Global Warming PR campaign on the way.................................
Politicians and the public question global climate change evidence, so scientists are looking to Hollywood and websites for a new voice. This is from an article on the Christian science monitor, published today.
Keeping the public looped in on what scientists are discovering has never been easy. For one thing, the traditional explainers – journalists – can distort, hype, or oversimplify the latest breakthroughs. But the need to communicate science broadly and clearly has never been more urgent. Understanding science helps people know “where the truth speakers are on an issue” such as climate change, says Robert Semper, the executive associate director of the Exploratorium, a hands-on science center in San Francisco. “The more educated and knowledgeable the public is about science ... the more responsible they can be when it comes time for voting or expressing opinions about public policy,” adds Leslie Fink, a public affairs specialist at the National Science Foundation in Washington.
I couldn’t agree more. The problem global warming alarmist are having however, is that when people start to educate themselves on this issue, they realize these people are full of shit. Think about it, talk to a skeptic and see what they know about man made climate change. Then, go talk to an alarmist and see what they know. The skeptic will have research from renowned scientists, examples of cherry picked data, evidence of tampering with data, computer predictions off by over 300%, cloud miscalculations, ocean current oversights, historical evidence of hotter and colder weather then we have ever experienced. They will be able to explain that co2 is only 3% of the atmosphere and a very weak Green house gas. They will know that human contributions to that 3% is less than 1%, making our contribution to atmospheric GHG’s almost minute. The skeptic will know the economic cost of cap-n-trade. The skeptic will know that the solutions proposed by alarmists, wouldn’t do anything to stop global warming even if it were a problem. Ask an alarmist about climate change and all you will here is: it’s real, there is a consensus, and republicans are to blame. The alarmist argues with nothing but the support of the television anchor, or local politician. They can never tell you anything about the science, because they have never done any research on it. They believe because the politicians and journalists that they like, tell them too. The skeptic however, not only has scientific evidence; but can point to nearly every alarmist and show that they are the people with the largest carbon footprints. They are the most responsible for the demise they predict. They hold festivals and conferences and summits. They travel all over the world to talk about this non-sense, when they could easily do it over the internet. They are the biggest “carbon criminals” that exist. Oh yeah, and they are making billions of dollars doing it.
Keeping the public looped in on what scientists are discovering has never been easy. For one thing, the traditional explainers – journalists – can distort, hype, or oversimplify the latest breakthroughs. But the need to communicate science broadly and clearly has never been more urgent. Understanding science helps people know “where the truth speakers are on an issue” such as climate change, says Robert Semper, the executive associate director of the Exploratorium, a hands-on science center in San Francisco. “The more educated and knowledgeable the public is about science ... the more responsible they can be when it comes time for voting or expressing opinions about public policy,” adds Leslie Fink, a public affairs specialist at the National Science Foundation in Washington.
I couldn’t agree more. The problem global warming alarmist are having however, is that when people start to educate themselves on this issue, they realize these people are full of shit. Think about it, talk to a skeptic and see what they know about man made climate change. Then, go talk to an alarmist and see what they know. The skeptic will have research from renowned scientists, examples of cherry picked data, evidence of tampering with data, computer predictions off by over 300%, cloud miscalculations, ocean current oversights, historical evidence of hotter and colder weather then we have ever experienced. They will be able to explain that co2 is only 3% of the atmosphere and a very weak Green house gas. They will know that human contributions to that 3% is less than 1%, making our contribution to atmospheric GHG’s almost minute. The skeptic will know the economic cost of cap-n-trade. The skeptic will know that the solutions proposed by alarmists, wouldn’t do anything to stop global warming even if it were a problem. Ask an alarmist about climate change and all you will here is: it’s real, there is a consensus, and republicans are to blame. The alarmist argues with nothing but the support of the television anchor, or local politician. They can never tell you anything about the science, because they have never done any research on it. They believe because the politicians and journalists that they like, tell them too. The skeptic however, not only has scientific evidence; but can point to nearly every alarmist and show that they are the people with the largest carbon footprints. They are the most responsible for the demise they predict. They hold festivals and conferences and summits. They travel all over the world to talk about this non-sense, when they could easily do it over the internet. They are the biggest “carbon criminals” that exist. Oh yeah, and they are making billions of dollars doing it.
PROMISES, PROMISES: Is Gov’t more open with Obama?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal agencies haven't lived up to President Barack Obama's promise of a more open government, increasing their use of legal exemptions to keep records secret during his first year in office. An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.
Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making. Obama specifically directed agencies to stop using that exemption so frequently, but that directive appears to have been widely ignored.
Major agencies cited that exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.
Departments used the exemption more even though Obama's Justice Department told agencies to that disclosing such records was "fully consistent with the purpose of the FOIA," a law intended to keep government accountable to the public.
For example, The FAA claimed the exemption to hold back nearly all records on its approval of an Air Force One flyover of New York City for publicity shots - a flight that prompted fears in the city of a Sept. 11-style attack. It also withheld internal communications during the aftermath of the public relations gaffe.
In all, major agencies cited that or other FOIA exemptions to refuse information at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009.
Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making. Obama specifically directed agencies to stop using that exemption so frequently, but that directive appears to have been widely ignored.
Major agencies cited that exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.
Departments used the exemption more even though Obama's Justice Department told agencies to that disclosing such records was "fully consistent with the purpose of the FOIA," a law intended to keep government accountable to the public.
For example, The FAA claimed the exemption to hold back nearly all records on its approval of an Air Force One flyover of New York City for publicity shots - a flight that prompted fears in the city of a Sept. 11-style attack. It also withheld internal communications during the aftermath of the public relations gaffe.
In all, major agencies cited that or other FOIA exemptions to refuse information at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009.
March 15, 2010
Artificial Stupidity
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A woman with a petition went among the crowds attending a state fair, asking people to sign her petition demanding the banning of dihydroxymonoxide. She said it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears. She collected hundreds of signatures to ban dihydroxymonoxide -- a fancy chemical name for water. A couple of comedians were behind this ploy. But there is nothing funny about its implications. It is one of the grim and dangerous signs of our times.
(I've seen this video, so I attached it here if you would like to watch. Funny Stuff)
This little episode revealed how conditioned we have become, responding like Pavlov's dog when we hear a certain sound-- in this case, the sound of some politically correct crusade. People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities. In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.
Educational institutions created to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them have instead been turned into indoctrination centers to promote whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today's intelligentsia.
Many conservatives have protested against the specifics of the things with which students are being indoctrinated. But that is not where the most lasting harm is done. Many, if not most, of the leading conservatives of our times were on the left in their youth. These have included Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and the whole neoconservative movement.
The experiences of life can help people outgrow whatever they were indoctrinated with. What may persist, however, is the lazy habit of hearing one side of an issue and being galvanized into action without hearing the other side-- and, more fundamentally, not having developed any mental skills that would enable you to systematically test one set of beliefs against another.
It was once the proud declaration of many educators that "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." But far too many of our teachers and professors today are teaching their students what to think, about everything from global warming to the new trinity of "race, class and gender."
Even if all the conclusions with which they indoctrinate their students were 100 percent correct, that would still not be equipping students with the mental skills to weigh opposing views for themselves, in order to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes, after they leave the schools and colleges.
Many of today's "educators" not only supply students with conclusions, they promote the idea that students should spring into action because of these prepackaged conclusions-- in other words, vent their feelings and go galloping off on crusades, without either a knowledge of what is said by those on the other side or the intellectual discipline to know how to analyze opposing arguments.
When we see children in elementary schools out carrying signs in demonstrations, we are seeing the kind of mindless groupthink that causes adults to sign petitions they don't understand or-- worse yet-- follow leaders they don't understand, whether to the White House, the Kremlin or Jonestown.
A philosopher once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of one's own ignorance. That is the knowledge that too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach our young people.
It takes a certain amount of knowledge just to understand the extent of one's own ignorance. But our "educators" have given assignments to children who are not yet a decade old to write letters to members of Congress, or to Presidents, spouting off on issues ranging from nuclear weapons to medical care.
Will Rogers once said that it was not ignorance that was so bad but "all the things we know that ain't so." But our classroom indoctrinators are getting students to think that they know after hearing only one side of an issue. It is artificial stupidity.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A woman with a petition went among the crowds attending a state fair, asking people to sign her petition demanding the banning of dihydroxymonoxide. She said it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears. She collected hundreds of signatures to ban dihydroxymonoxide -- a fancy chemical name for water. A couple of comedians were behind this ploy. But there is nothing funny about its implications. It is one of the grim and dangerous signs of our times.
(I've seen this video, so I attached it here if you would like to watch. Funny Stuff)
This little episode revealed how conditioned we have become, responding like Pavlov's dog when we hear a certain sound-- in this case, the sound of some politically correct crusade. People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities. In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.
Educational institutions created to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them have instead been turned into indoctrination centers to promote whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today's intelligentsia.
Many conservatives have protested against the specifics of the things with which students are being indoctrinated. But that is not where the most lasting harm is done. Many, if not most, of the leading conservatives of our times were on the left in their youth. These have included Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and the whole neoconservative movement.
The experiences of life can help people outgrow whatever they were indoctrinated with. What may persist, however, is the lazy habit of hearing one side of an issue and being galvanized into action without hearing the other side-- and, more fundamentally, not having developed any mental skills that would enable you to systematically test one set of beliefs against another.
It was once the proud declaration of many educators that "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." But far too many of our teachers and professors today are teaching their students what to think, about everything from global warming to the new trinity of "race, class and gender."
Even if all the conclusions with which they indoctrinate their students were 100 percent correct, that would still not be equipping students with the mental skills to weigh opposing views for themselves, in order to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes, after they leave the schools and colleges.
Many of today's "educators" not only supply students with conclusions, they promote the idea that students should spring into action because of these prepackaged conclusions-- in other words, vent their feelings and go galloping off on crusades, without either a knowledge of what is said by those on the other side or the intellectual discipline to know how to analyze opposing arguments.
When we see children in elementary schools out carrying signs in demonstrations, we are seeing the kind of mindless groupthink that causes adults to sign petitions they don't understand or-- worse yet-- follow leaders they don't understand, whether to the White House, the Kremlin or Jonestown.
A philosopher once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of one's own ignorance. That is the knowledge that too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach our young people.
It takes a certain amount of knowledge just to understand the extent of one's own ignorance. But our "educators" have given assignments to children who are not yet a decade old to write letters to members of Congress, or to Presidents, spouting off on issues ranging from nuclear weapons to medical care.
Will Rogers once said that it was not ignorance that was so bad but "all the things we know that ain't so." But our classroom indoctrinators are getting students to think that they know after hearing only one side of an issue. It is artificial stupidity.
March 9, 2010
Stimulus or Sedative?
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs.
What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ.
That was called "pump priming." To get a pump going, people put a little water into it, so that the pump will start pumping out a lot of water. In other words, government money alone was never supposed to restore the economy by itself. It was supposed to get the private sector spending, lending, investing and employing.
The question is: Is that what has actually happened?
Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs.
What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ.
That was called "pump priming." To get a pump going, people put a little water into it, so that the pump will start pumping out a lot of water. In other words, government money alone was never supposed to restore the economy by itself. It was supposed to get the private sector spending, lending, investing and employing.
The question is: Is that what has actually happened?
Objectivism vs. Religion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tea Party Should Shrug Off Atlas
March 9, 2010 at 6:32 am
by Walter Scott Hudson, Op-Ed for the New Patriot Journal
Tea Partiers should be wary of the ideology underlying a novel popular within the movement. Signs reading “Who is John Galt?” became a common sight at rallies last year. They reference Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, which is considered an affirmation of individual rights and the free market. However, according to a central advocate of Rand’s worldview, there is a deeper message within the novel which the Tea Party must embrace if it hopes to affect libertarian change.
On February 23rd, in a lecture hall at the University of Minnesota, Rand advocate Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of “Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It,” delivered a presentation entitled “Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System.” Biddle argued capitalism is the only system which recognizes the requirements for human life. Those requirements, according to the Objectivist philosophy Biddle advocates, are productivity and rational thought.
To illustrate this, Biddle offered the hypothetical situation of a man deserted on a remote island. In order to survive, the castaway would need food, shelter, and clothing. In order to obtain those provisions, the castaway would need to act productively, to take action based on his own judgment to meet his needs. The only thing which could prevent the castaway from acting on his own judgment would be externally applied force, which Biddle represented with a hypothetical brute likewise stranded on the island. If the brute tied the castaway to a tree, or demanded all or part of the castaway’s production in tribute, the castaway would not be free to act on his own judgment.
Tea Party Should Shrug Off Atlas
March 9, 2010 at 6:32 am
by Walter Scott Hudson, Op-Ed for the New Patriot Journal
Tea Partiers should be wary of the ideology underlying a novel popular within the movement. Signs reading “Who is John Galt?” became a common sight at rallies last year. They reference Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, which is considered an affirmation of individual rights and the free market. However, according to a central advocate of Rand’s worldview, there is a deeper message within the novel which the Tea Party must embrace if it hopes to affect libertarian change.
On February 23rd, in a lecture hall at the University of Minnesota, Rand advocate Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of “Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It,” delivered a presentation entitled “Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System.” Biddle argued capitalism is the only system which recognizes the requirements for human life. Those requirements, according to the Objectivist philosophy Biddle advocates, are productivity and rational thought.
To illustrate this, Biddle offered the hypothetical situation of a man deserted on a remote island. In order to survive, the castaway would need food, shelter, and clothing. In order to obtain those provisions, the castaway would need to act productively, to take action based on his own judgment to meet his needs. The only thing which could prevent the castaway from acting on his own judgment would be externally applied force, which Biddle represented with a hypothetical brute likewise stranded on the island. If the brute tied the castaway to a tree, or demanded all or part of the castaway’s production in tribute, the castaway would not be free to act on his own judgment.
March 8, 2010
E-congress....................
I read a post from a Minneapolis blogger tpoday (fightingwords.com) who had a very simple idea on how to limit the power of the federal government. It would not be difficult to implement and I am curious to see what others have to say about it. It is called e-congress, which would utilize state of the art technology to have congress conduct business through teleconference, as oppose to meeting face to face in Washington. It would reduce much of the travel costs associated with Washington’s elected officials, not to mention security costs and energy use. It could also make it so politicians are less exposed to the corrupt side of Washington politics, separating them from lobbyist and special interests, and keeping them more in tone with the needs of congressional districts. I don’t know how helpful this would be in practice, but I kind of like the idea. It is supposed to decentralize the federal government and help representatives focus on needs at home. Any thoughts on this idea ?????????
Alice in Medical Care: Part IV
Thomas Sowell
Friday, March 05, 2010
Some years ago, one of my favorite doctors retired. On my last visit to his office, he took some time to explain to me why he was retiring early and in good health.
Being a doctor was becoming more of a hassle as the years went by, he said, and also less fulfilling. It was becoming more of a hassle because of the increasing paperwork, and it was less fulfilling because of the way patients came to him.
He was currently being asked to Xerox lots of records from his files, in order to be reimbursed for another patient he was treating. He said it just wasn't worth it. Whoever was paying-- it might have been an insurance company or the government-- would either pay him or not, he said, but he wasn't going to jump through all those hoops.
My doctor said that doctor-patient relationships were not the same as they had been when he entered the profession. Back then, people came to him because someone had recommended him to them, but now increasing numbers of people were sent to him because they had some group insurance plan that included his group.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Some years ago, one of my favorite doctors retired. On my last visit to his office, he took some time to explain to me why he was retiring early and in good health.
Being a doctor was becoming more of a hassle as the years went by, he said, and also less fulfilling. It was becoming more of a hassle because of the increasing paperwork, and it was less fulfilling because of the way patients came to him.
He was currently being asked to Xerox lots of records from his files, in order to be reimbursed for another patient he was treating. He said it just wasn't worth it. Whoever was paying-- it might have been an insurance company or the government-- would either pay him or not, he said, but he wasn't going to jump through all those hoops.
My doctor said that doctor-patient relationships were not the same as they had been when he entered the profession. Back then, people came to him because someone had recommended him to them, but now increasing numbers of people were sent to him because they had some group insurance plan that included his group.
March 5, 2010
Global Warming Alarmist: sad that they are no-longer part of the popular crowd... :(
Global Warming alarmists are finally starting to realize the problem they are in. They have been undaunted by ridiculious scandals and are now seeking to flex their muscles on the issue of Man Made Climate Change. The scientists who have made a living off this fraud are now plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said, needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.
"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.
This is a truly interesting approach to science. Claim to be underfunded. Then, make sure that it seems like your being attacked by some rich corporate fat-cat. Then, claim the press is against you. CHECKMATE! There is only one problem: the US government spent $79 billion in the last 15 years promoting climate change. That’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to skeptics. Oh yeah, you need to disregard Europe too, because they have spent even more promoting this crap.Climate change alarmists have free-rain of press releases, and include the PR departments of tax funded institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program.
Some of the alarmists, for their part, did at least question the new “victim” strategy: Saying they should focus instead on perfecting their theories. What a noble idea. To think, some scientists would actually rely on the scientific method in proving their theories. What a great day that would be! However, the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work. ( I can’t believe they are serious)
The truth may be harder for them to handle. The political battle is the only thing keeping them employed. The politicians have done everything they can to keep this crap sandwich going. The media is their lapdog, and the suburban progressive eats it up. The problem they are having now, is the exposure of what they are actually doing. They use doctord numbers and silence dissenters. They had to retract a number of extreme claims just this year. They destroy contrary temperature data and create their own. The list of scientific screw-ups would run from coast to coast. It has gotten so ridiculious, that Senator James M. Inhofe is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants falsified data. Don’t expect to hear anything further on this however, with Eric Holder running Obama’s gustapo.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.
"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.
This is a truly interesting approach to science. Claim to be underfunded. Then, make sure that it seems like your being attacked by some rich corporate fat-cat. Then, claim the press is against you. CHECKMATE! There is only one problem: the US government spent $79 billion in the last 15 years promoting climate change. That’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to skeptics. Oh yeah, you need to disregard Europe too, because they have spent even more promoting this crap.Climate change alarmists have free-rain of press releases, and include the PR departments of tax funded institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program.
Some of the alarmists, for their part, did at least question the new “victim” strategy: Saying they should focus instead on perfecting their theories. What a noble idea. To think, some scientists would actually rely on the scientific method in proving their theories. What a great day that would be! However, the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work. ( I can’t believe they are serious)
The truth may be harder for them to handle. The political battle is the only thing keeping them employed. The politicians have done everything they can to keep this crap sandwich going. The media is their lapdog, and the suburban progressive eats it up. The problem they are having now, is the exposure of what they are actually doing. They use doctord numbers and silence dissenters. They had to retract a number of extreme claims just this year. They destroy contrary temperature data and create their own. The list of scientific screw-ups would run from coast to coast. It has gotten so ridiculious, that Senator James M. Inhofe is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants falsified data. Don’t expect to hear anything further on this however, with Eric Holder running Obama’s gustapo.
March 4, 2010
Senator Bunning on vote to hold up unemployment extentions
Senator Jim Bunning wrote an op-ed today explaining his decision to hold up the extension of unemployment benefits. I believe this was not only the right thing to do, but a brilliant thing to do. He has been castigated by every media outlet for doing it, playing him as the cold hearted villian in any way they can. His personal defense was printed in USA today, and it is spot on. Democrats couldn't live up to their own legislation. He called them on it, and they proved him right. Here is the op-ed:
Why I took a stand
‘If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.’
By Jim Bunning
I have been serving the citizens of Kentucky for nearly 24 years in Washington. During that time I have been a member of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I have taken thousands of votes in relation to spending the taxpayers' money. I will be the first one to admit that I have cast some bad votes during my tenure, and I wish I could have some of them back. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers' money as a slush fund that does not ever end. At some point, the madness has to stop.
Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).
Why now?
Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.
Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.
Why I took a stand
‘If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.’
By Jim Bunning
I have been serving the citizens of Kentucky for nearly 24 years in Washington. During that time I have been a member of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I have taken thousands of votes in relation to spending the taxpayers' money. I will be the first one to admit that I have cast some bad votes during my tenure, and I wish I could have some of them back. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers' money as a slush fund that does not ever end. At some point, the madness has to stop.
Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).
Why now?
Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.
Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.
Alice in Health Care: Part III
Thomas Sowell
Thursday, March 04, 2010
With all the controversies, charges, counter-charges and buzzwords swirling around the issue of medical care in the United States, there is a lot to be said for going back to square one and asking just what is the fundamental problem.
The quality of the medical care itself is not the problem. Few-- if any-- countries can match American medical training, medical technology or the development of life-saving pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. Most countries with government-controlled medical care cannot come close to matching how fast an American can get medical treatment, particularly from specialists.
Political hype is no reason to throw all that away. In fact, policies based on political hype over the years are what have gotten us into what is most wrong with medical care today-- namely, the way it is paid for.
Insurance companies or the government pay directly for most of the costs of most medical treatment in the United States. That is virtually a guarantee that more people will demand more medical treatment than they would if they were paying directly out of their own pockets, instead of paying indirectly in premiums and taxes.
Since people who staff either insurance company bureaucracies or government bureaucracies have to be paid, this is not bringing down the cost of medical care, but adding to it.
What also adds to the costs are politicians at both state and federal levels who mandate additional benefits to be paid for by insurance companies, thereby driving up the cost of insurance.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
With all the controversies, charges, counter-charges and buzzwords swirling around the issue of medical care in the United States, there is a lot to be said for going back to square one and asking just what is the fundamental problem.
The quality of the medical care itself is not the problem. Few-- if any-- countries can match American medical training, medical technology or the development of life-saving pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. Most countries with government-controlled medical care cannot come close to matching how fast an American can get medical treatment, particularly from specialists.
Political hype is no reason to throw all that away. In fact, policies based on political hype over the years are what have gotten us into what is most wrong with medical care today-- namely, the way it is paid for.
Insurance companies or the government pay directly for most of the costs of most medical treatment in the United States. That is virtually a guarantee that more people will demand more medical treatment than they would if they were paying directly out of their own pockets, instead of paying indirectly in premiums and taxes.
Since people who staff either insurance company bureaucracies or government bureaucracies have to be paid, this is not bringing down the cost of medical care, but adding to it.
What also adds to the costs are politicians at both state and federal levels who mandate additional benefits to be paid for by insurance companies, thereby driving up the cost of insurance.
March 3, 2010
Alice in Health Care (Part II)
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
What is most like Alice in Wonderland is discussing medical care reform in the abstract, as if there are not already government-run medical care systems in this country and elsewhere.
Yet there seems to be remarkably little interest in examining how government-run medical care actually turns out-- medically and financially-- whether in Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals in this country, or in government-run medical systems in other countries.
We are repeatedly being told that we need to have a government-controlled medical care system, because other countries have it-- as if our policies on something as serious as medical care should be based on the principle of monkey see, monkey do.
By all means look at other countries, but not just to see what to imitate. See how it actually turns out. Yet there seems to be an amazing lack of interest in examining what government-controlled medical care produces.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
What is most like Alice in Wonderland is discussing medical care reform in the abstract, as if there are not already government-run medical care systems in this country and elsewhere.
Yet there seems to be remarkably little interest in examining how government-run medical care actually turns out-- medically and financially-- whether in Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals in this country, or in government-run medical systems in other countries.
We are repeatedly being told that we need to have a government-controlled medical care system, because other countries have it-- as if our policies on something as serious as medical care should be based on the principle of monkey see, monkey do.
By all means look at other countries, but not just to see what to imitate. See how it actually turns out. Yet there seems to be an amazing lack of interest in examining what government-controlled medical care produces.
Alice in Health Care (part I)
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 03, 2010
Most discussions of health care are like something out of Alice in Wonderland. What is the biggest complaint about the current medical care situation? "It costs too much." Yet one looks in vain for anything in the pending legislation that will lower those costs.
One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians' answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government.
Back when the "single payer" was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used -- and bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing.
Money is just one of the costs of people seeking more medical care than they would if they were paying for it with their own money. Both waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer when people with sniffles and minor skin rashes take up the time of doctors, while people with cancer are waiting.
Tuesday, March 03, 2010
Most discussions of health care are like something out of Alice in Wonderland. What is the biggest complaint about the current medical care situation? "It costs too much." Yet one looks in vain for anything in the pending legislation that will lower those costs.
One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians' answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government.
Back when the "single payer" was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used -- and bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing.
Money is just one of the costs of people seeking more medical care than they would if they were paying for it with their own money. Both waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer when people with sniffles and minor skin rashes take up the time of doctors, while people with cancer are waiting.
March 2, 2010
The only guy who gets it.......
On the floor of the Senate, Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky just defended the position he's taken that has delayed an extension of jobless benefits for the nation's unemployed and has forced the furlough of about 2,000 federal workers.Saying that he has blocked votes on the legislation to underscore his opposition to the ongoing growth in federal debt, Bunning read a letter from "Robert in Louisville," who told the senator that even though he hasn't been working regularly in the past two years he supports what Bunning is doing.
"This country is sooner or later going to implode because of the massive amount of debt run up over the past 40 or 50 years," Robert wrote, according to Bunning.
"Why now?" Bunning said he's been asked, regarding his objection to the legislation. "Why not now?"
And, he added, if the Democratic majority and many Republicans want to force action on the legislation, they should use the Senate rules to override his objection.
At some point, a bankrupt country cannot continue to pay people for doing nothing. Benefits have been extended time and agian, it is time to put people into survival mode. They need to find other sources of income, even if it means taking a job they don't like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
