Friday, July 31, 2009

Will Cancer Survival Rate Be A Casualty of ObamaCare?

For all of the horrible claims the Left makes about American health care, most people around the world would choose to be treated in the United States if possible. That is especially true is they have cancer. The United States leads the world in positive outcomes after a cancer diagnosis. As this is the leading cause of death in America, it would seem that we would want to preserve these desirable victories. Today's Wall Street Journal features an editorial by New York writer Myrna Ulfik in which she discusses her long fight with cancer and the opportunities she has had to be treated and survive.

Innovations in treatments and pharmaceuticals are expensive. The would-be czars of American health care do not seem concerned with this. They are interested in everyone having mediocre and limited care, rather than the overwhelming majority receiving excellent care. Ulfik cites self-appointed health care guru Tom Daschle (who would be the Secretary of Health and Human Services if he paid his taxes):

Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.

But the British system is infamous for denying state-of-the-art drugs to cancer patients. Thus cancer-survival rates in Britain are far below those in America, just as they are in Canada.

Like a true Statist, Daschle believes that the government should control and manage your life. This ghoul believes we should dial back the clock thirty years to the good old days when cancer was a sure death sentence. Just accept your fate. Why, just think how many abortions we could pay for with the money wasted to save your life?

It is cruelly ironic to me that the same political movement that has turned a "right to privacy" into an unwritten constitutional amendment and who wail about the government keeping their hands off a woman's body when it comes to a supposed right to kill babies now advocate turning the very lives of all Americans over to a government review board. The obvious contradiction would be hilarious if it weren't so deadly.

Health care rationing kills and does so in the most cruel way. A person is diagnosed with an illness that requires radical and expensive treatment. A pencil-necked geek representing the Kremlin on the Potomac tells the person that the federal treatment matrix shows they fall outside the qualifications for treatment. They are too old. The odds for survival are too low to risk the money. All the allocated money for the procedure in a given year has been spent. "Go see one of our End-of-Life Counselors to plan your final demise. By the way, if you want to be a real patriot you will swallow this arsenic capsule and we can cancel your other medications immediately."

Look at your family and friends. Do you want them to have the best health care in the world available to them? Do you want them to live in a country that continues to lead the world in health care innovation? Or are you so caught up in "hope" and "change" that you want them to just take one for Team Obama?

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Salon's Joan Walsh: Liberal Racism's Exhibit A

Joan Walsh, editrix of Leftist rag Salon, is feeling her oats as she brands Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and every other breathing Conservative as racists. This all stems from Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's CHOICE to insert himself into the situation brought about by the misunderstanding between police and radical Leftist professor Henry Gates. Limbaugh, Beck and others have questioned Obama's motives and they are right to do so. It was an unplanned moment and the community organizer in him came out. Obama is no different than Al Sharpton and Je$$e Jackson at heart. Everything is seen through a prism of race. Unlike the Justice Brothers, Obama has learned to soft-medal his racial focus for political gain. In fact, he portrays himself as just the opposite--a "post-racial" healer.

The facts say something different. Obama's personal history is not one of interracial brotherhood. Start with his twenty year membership in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church. The Reverend is a vicious racist and anti-Semite. Obama sat in the pews. He referred to the man as spiritual advisor to him and his family. This is a church that openly aligns itself with the bigoted loon Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Obama didn't notice that? Defend him all you want, but Obama gave a dozen explanations for his relationship with Reverend Wright during the course of last year's campaign. The answers seemed to change daily for a while. It is hard to know the actual truth, but with so many contradictory versions it was obvious BHO was lying. There is no way he didn't know he was part of a racist church.

Obama's first book, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, provides the author's pre-occupation with race in the title. The book returns again and again to themes of race with Obama repeatedly blanketing Whites with accusations of various wrongdoing. This book sounded the ramblings of an angry Black man, not a man trying to shape a post-racial world.

Of course, Obama's obsession with race is also linked to being a Liberal-Leftist-Progressive-Socialist-Democrat. These people reject the existence of the individual. There are only group identities. Obama never ceases playing one group of Americans off against another on the basis of some demographic characteristic. He is filled with the double-whammy of racial angst (though his life experience is not that of the civil rights movement) and Leftist identity politics which requires that all life is a fight between competing demographic groups.

Joan Walsh is a great example of the hateful Leftist who projects her own vile worldview on others. If you didn't click onto her editorial attack on Conservatives, click here. This maven of Marxism seems to be shooting for the record of liberal cliches and phony assertions.

A few lonely Republican leaders are belatedly trying to clean up the party's mess of crazy, from the racially tinged character attacks on Sonia Sotomayor...

Can Ms. Walsh cite one mainstream Conservative who attacked Sotomayor on her ethnic heritage? She cannot. However, Sotomayor is Hispanic AND a Leftist so any attack on her is racist. Did Ms. Walsh accuse Democrats of racism when they filibustered Miguel Estrada to keep him off a federal circuit court? She did not, even though in internal memos Democrats cited his ethnicity as a reason to keep him off the court. Sotomayor's belief that federal courts are legitimate policy makers and that she does not feel constrained by the Constitution were the reasons her nomination was challenged.

Still, Limbaugh and Beck continue to ratchet up their alarming and increasingly racist hatred for the president.

This is Lib speak for: "if you oppose the President's policies, you are racist." Its a very convenient tactic, but outside of Salon's typical readership most Americans are too smart for this nonsense. Identity politics plus a Black President equals four years of unabated manipulation of white guilt in the eyes of soulless Socialists.

Limbaugh's been on this beat for a long time, but the complicated Gates case inspired him to a whole new level of fiction. "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman," the radio bully told his audience last Friday, the day Obama expressed regret over his quick judgment in the matter and invited Skip Gates and Officer James Crowley to the White House for a beer.

What "beat" is Joan speaking of? Well, dear reader, you are supposed to assume he has been attacking Obama as a Black man. The only people who claim Limbaugh is a racist are the Leftist thugs who do not listen to him, but claim to be experts on every word he utters. As for Rush's words about BHO's attack on Officer Crowley, what did he get wrong? The President of the United States, the most powerful individual in the world, used his bully pulpit to decide the right-and-wrong of the situation for the American people. Does any reasonable person believe race was NOT the primary factor in him doing that? As is his usual schtick, Obama did not apologize for what he said, but for how people may have heard it. A non-apology apology. When the heat is turned on him, he invites them to the White House for a photo-op. His instinct was racial division, but his political survival skills say play the peacemaker. Smooth.

And the piece de resistance:

There's a psychological term for this kind of unhinged behavior, and it's called "projection." These two racists are projecting their own racial feelings onto Obama. Increasingly, the ranks of the racially blinkered (and I include MSNBC's Pat Buchanan here) are playing victim, insisting Obama's modest moves -- appointing a Latina justice, using the Gates case to speak out against racial profiling -- are reversing the racial order wholesale, and putting white men on the bottom of the pile.

"Projection?" Ms. Pot meet Madame Kettle. Notice she just calls Beck and Limbaugh "racists" with no reference to any statement or action. You see, they are Conservatives therefore it is an article of faith in the Church of Liberalism that they are racists. Obama's words cannot be held up as improper because he is Black AND a Statist. But, notice Joanie's own words: Obama's modest moves -- appointing a Latina justice, using the Gates case to speak out against racial profiling. Ask yourself this question: how many times have you heard Democrats defending specific aspects of Sonia Sotomayor's qualifications and how many times have they trotted out her ethnicity? You see, Sotomayor is not to be evaluated on her decisions, her speeches, or her judical philosophy. She is a "Latina justice" and that is all that matters. Opposition equals racism. As for the Gates blowup, it had nothing to do with racial profiling. I'm assuming Joanie Walsh isn't stupid, so she should know the definition of racial profiling. Obama is playing CYA because he openly played the race card and knew he was caught. But, again, Obama is above criticism. We must accept his ridiculous rationalizations lest we be the collective reincarnations of Bull Conner.

It's time for more decent Republicans to take a stand against the vicious anti-Obama racism of the party fringe and their broadcast fuhrers. On Monday Ohio Sen. George Voinovich blasted the dominance of his party's Southern fringe, and its outdated Southern Strategy with its emphasis on racial division.

Ahhhh, projection. Conservatives do not give a whit about race. The only people who claim otherwise are Leftwing hacks who do not listen to the talk shows they criticize or read the columnists or authors they slander. Ms. Walsh, the operative color in the Obama backlash is red not black. He is a Marxist. The federal government is shredding the Constitution and promising to destroy even more liberty. That is what is being challenged by the "broadcast fuhrers." The obligatory Nazi reference demonstrates the historical ignorance of the modern Liberal. The National German Socialist Workers Party was a LEFTIST movement. It is NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Salon, The New York Times, etc., who refuse to treat people as individuals and foment racial identity politics. Conservatives will lambast anti-liberty, socialistic, fascistic public policy all day long. Leftists do not want to engage in an honest debate so they invoke the racist, sexist, homophobic tags. Who is divisive, Ms. Walsh?

Kweisi Mfume appeared with Joan Walsh on "Hardball" and both managed to attack "divisive" conservatives with a straight face. Mfume has made a living off calling political opponents racists. Did he profess outrage when House Democrats accused Republicans of racism for wanting to investigate Fannie Mae? Did he defend the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players? Mfume is a phony and his mock-outrage is pathetic.

Walsh uttered this classic on "Hardball": "He loves white people. Obama got to where he is, in my opinion, largely because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way." What condescending drivel! Obama is where he is because he played to divisive stereotypes cultivated by the Left over the years. Obama is an individual as am I. His mixed race heritage and my whiteness are irrelevant. He doesn't need me for validation nor do I need him. He doesn't make me feel good. He makes me feel like Vladimir Lenin and Norman Thomas were right about how the U.S. would embrace socialism gradually and without realizing what is going on. What this airhead saw as an "up with people" clincher was really added proof that she and her Leftist lemmings see everything in terms of identity politics.

Personally, I am sick and tired of political positions being viewed through a filter of race. It is not the conservative end of the spectrum that does this. They do not need to do so because Conservatives can stand on facts and win the argument. As is clear in Joan Walsh's psychotic ramblings, the Left sees demographics not individuals. Their world view does not allow for the singular citizen. It is time that Democrats take ownership of their radical socialism and be honest about who they are. They won't do that because they know they must pretend to uphold American values in order to win elections. That is why they must "project" their insipid hatred on the thinking population. They can't be honest AND win.

Barack Obama's "I Think You're Stupid" Tour 2009

Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has snapped. The lies are getting bigger and bolder. The disconnect from reality is greater all the time. It seems Mr. Hope-and-Change has taken the advice of noted statesman Adolf Hitler when it comes to employing the Big Lie:

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies. (from Mein Kampf)
His current string of speeches across the fruited plan are based on one basic premise: he believes the American people are fundamentally stupid. The recession was caused by Bush's "tax cuts for the rich." The recession was a Republican party creation. The recession is now over. Massive spending bills have ended the recession. No one will have medical care if the government doesn't manage it. The cheering, clapping throng of loons demonstrates that he is right about a certain segment of the population. Our future depends on the zombies being a minority and opinion polls are showing good news on that front.

Here are a few inconvenient truths for Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama:

  1. Bush also inherited a recession and had to deal with the 9/11 attacks which devastated the economy further. He called for tax cuts which brought on 4+ years of unabated economic growth.
  2. The Bush tax cuts were for ALL tax payers, not just the wealthy. This is where Obama and the Leftists depend on your inability to do math. Ten percent of $50,000 if less than ten percent of $200,000. Both taxpayers get the same percentage cut, but the one who pays more gets more back. That is true economic justice.
  3. The "last eight years of Republican control" is dishonest. The GOP held the executive and legislative branches for four of those years. For two, the Congress was split and for two the Democrats held the majority. In fact, the last two years (2007-2008) when the economic downturn began happened under a Democrat Congress in which Obama was a member.
  4. Democrats never seriously opposed massive spending bills during the Bush years. The Democrat argument was always that NOT ENOUGH was being spent and that taxes should be raised. If the Leftists had mounted any sort of opposition to reckless spending they could take the high ground. Instead, they are complicit.
  5. President Bush and Republicans DID try to reform health care to cut costs. Whenever they tried to fix problems with Medicare, Democrats accused them of trying to kill old people. They tried to fix the problem of runaway lawsuits, but Democrats opposed caps because they are in the hip pocket of the trial lawyer lobby. They tried to open up the market for small business to participate in insurance pools to lower costs, but Democrats fought them. The only "reform" Democrats favor is a government take over.
  6. Republicans tried to investigate and fix the corruption and mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was Republicans who called for greater oversight and regulation of those reckless institutions. Barney Frank can lie all he wants about the recent history of the financial markets, but he led the fight AGAINST greater regulation of the mortgage insurers. Some Democrats accused the investigators of racism. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie were hurtling toward insolvency while Democrat insider Franklin Raines was pocketing over $90 million as its CEO over three years.
  7. Don't try to paint Bush as a fiscal conservative. He was not. He was right to cut taxes, but wrong to expand government spending. Of course, the Democrats were right there voting for the spending. Conservatives increasingly criticized this so-called "compassionate conservatism" which is simply Liberalism Lite. When you say "their failed ideas", you are really talking about incremental socialism. Conservative ideas have nothing to do with any brand of socialism. We favor liberty and freedom, not government enslavement.
  8. Obama voted for every spending bill, except for a couple intended to defend our country. When Obama says "fiscal responsibility", he means HIGHER TAXES.
  9. Obama is now claiming there was "not a single earmark" in his "stimulus" package. Note the careful use of language. There was not a "single" earmark; there were thousands!

No doubt, there is a slice of America that is too ignorant to process the lies and distortions of ObamAlinsky and his Brownshirts. However, we deserve better. There is a reason he lies. There is a reason he ran to the right of John McCain, who is one of those foolish Republicans who simply wants to slow an inevitable march to socialism. Real Americans reject this notion. Socialism and enslavement by the government is not inevitable. We are citizens not subjects.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Sarah Palin Farewell Speech Big Media Missed: On Liberty and Self-Reliance

The media uproar after Sarah Palin's Sunday farewell address as Alaska's governor focused on two things: her "wacky behavior" and her attack on the media. In other words, the coverage had nothing to do with Palin. It was a group therapy session for the Big Media elites and Democrat partisans (I guess that is redundant).

What Big Media calls "instability" is acting like a regular person. That is one of Palin's characteristics that drives these blow-dried blowhards batty. She is always unedited. She doesn't test her words in front of focus groups. Most politicians sounds like they are reading from the same script. Palin connects with Flyover America because she is outraged and irritated by the same things that peeve regular folks.

As for her attacks on the press, Big Media needs to check the polls. Even most Democrats realize that the media is slanted in their direction. Their reporting is sloppy and their evaluation of public figures is hyper-partisan. The "experience" canard during the campaign was a great example. Big Media belittled Sarah Palin's preparatory experience to be vice-president while fawning like a gaggle of teenage girls over Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama who possessed zero executive experience and an undistinguished legislative record which included half a term in the U.S. Senate, most of which was spent running for President. Palin was a nobody from nowhere and he was the greatest leader to ever walk on planet Earth.

Big Media left out the best parts of Palin's farewell speech. She spoke of liberty and self-reliance. Nooooooooooo! Those concepts are so dangerous to the goals of Leftist-Liberal-Progressive-Socialists and Big Media that they are taboo for coverage. But, a lot of Americans still prefer liberty to totalitarianism, even if the freedom is curtailed "for our own good." These words were from a person who is grounded in the Founders, not Marx and Alinsky.

So much success, and Alaska there is much good in store further down the road, but to reach it we must value and live the optimistic pioneering spirit that made this state proud and free, and we can resist enslavement to big central government that crushes hope and opportunity. Be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn't come free and often, accepting it takes away everything that is free, melting into Washington's powerful "care-taking" arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us, and that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free.

I resisted the stimulus package. I resisted the stimulus package and we have championed earmark reform, slashing earmark requests by 85% to break the cycle of dependency on a stifling, unsustainable federal agenda, and other states should follow this for their and for America's stability. We don't have to feel that we must beg an allowance from Washington, except to beg the allowance to be self-determined. See, to be self-sufficient, Alaska must be allowed to develop - to drill and build and climb, to fulfill statehood's promise. At statehood we knew this. At statehood we knew this, that we are responsible for ourselves and our families and our future, and fifty years later, please let's not start believing that government is the answer. It can't make you happy or healthy or wealthy or wise. What can? It is the wisdom of the people and our families and our small businesses, and industrious individuals, and it is God's grace, helping those who help themselves, and then this allows that very generous voluntary hand up that we're known for, enthusiastically providing for those who need it.

Alaskans will remember that years ago, remember we sported the old bumper sticker that said, "Alaska. We Don't Give a Darn How They Do It Outside?" Do you remember that? I remember that, and remember it was because we would be different. We'd roll up our sleeves, and we would diligently sow and reap, and we can still do this to carve wealth out of the wilderness and make our living on the water, with strong hands and innovative minds, now with smarter technology. It is what our first people and our parents did. It worked, because they worked. We must be prudent and persistent and press for the people's right to responsibly develop God-given resources for the maximum benefit of the people.

Yeah, what a kook. Rugged individualism. Development of natural resources. Liberty from government control. State sovereignty (i.e., the U.S. Constitution s written). Government can't solve your problems. Prosperity comes from hard work. In other words, she spoke of all the things Big Media and Leftist Democrats despise. Here is the speech in its entirety.

Sarah Palin may not be the right candidate to defeat Amerika's favorite son Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama in 2012. However, she gets it. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty or whoever else may have designs on the GOP nomination should read Palin's farewell speech and understand that Real America responds to those ideas. They don't want another stiff suit debating the manner in which our freedoms will be usurped. Real Americans want leaders with courage and conviction who will say "no" to evil and totalitarianism rather than negotiate the extent of freedom's loss. In other words, we need somebody who has a pair--even if that someone is a woman.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Big Media Whines About Sarah Palin's Farewell Speech

Sarah Palin gave her farewell speech as Governor of Alaska on Sunday and, of course, the focus on the speech was her smackdown of Big Media. Don't get me wrong, they deserved the smackdown and their response proves they still don't get it. From Palin's speech:

And first, some straight talk for some, just some in the media because another right protected for all of us is freedom of the press, and you all have such important jobs reporting facts and informing the electorate, and exerting power to influence. You represent what could and should be a respected honest profession that could and should be the cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why, that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how 'bout in honor of the American soldier, ya quit makin' things up.
Big Media has been apoplectic since those words passed her lips. "How dare she question them?" "What did we do to her?" "We just report the news." Not a word is said as Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama attacks FoxNews, talk radio, and Conservative pundits. However, when Sarah Palin challenged the credibility of Big Media all hell broke loose. In their eyes, it isn't a lie unless they choose to report it (just ask Dan Rather).

In Big Media's insulated echo chamber, they all dislike Palin because she didn't go to the right schools, doesn't represent socialist ideology, and doesn't pander to the political and social elites. Katie, Wolf, "Stretch Gregory, Stephanopolous, Brian, Charlie and the rest of the arrogant talking heads can sneer at Palin and her supporters, but those are the people who are no longer watching those slimey blowhards. REAL Americans don't care what these news readers think of Palin or of them. Flyover America gets it. They know CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC newscasts have all the legitimacy of a Vince McMahon-produced WWE program. The fix is in and has been for a long time. Big Media has become a dutiful wing of the DNC. They just repeat what Rahmbo and the Family Guy tell them to say.

While flipping channels and listening to some of the discussion panels a comical pattern of irony developed. One after another, these snobbish clowns trashed Palin for whining about her treatment. Read the text of the speech and judge for yourself how much of it was "whiny." But, they immediately jumped into how unfair her attacks on the media are and how paranoid she is. The buzzword of the Monday morning faxes from the DNC to Big Media must have been "Nixonian." They accused her of sniveling while they moaned about how they just do their job and attacks on them are a return to the days of Tricky Dick and Spiro.

I have written several posts about Palin, so one might get the idea I am in her corner for 2012. They would not be accurate. She certainly understands conservatism. She understands American history and the U.S. Constitution. She understands the American values that still matter in Flyover America, if not in the newsrooms of Big Media. Real Americans are drawn to Sarahcuda. She is one of us. This is especially appealing nine months after we elected a community organizer who does not appreciate American values, is not very bright, and who is attempting to foist every failed policy in human history on my country. He is not one of us; he is a Marxist.

Palin may or may not be the future of the GOP. However, her brand of Conservatism is our only hope. She gets it. Prissy David Frum may think Republicans should always position themselves one step to the right of the Democrats no matter how far to the Left they try to take the country. That is irresponsible, dangerous and politically stupid. The Republican Party needs to be an alternative for those who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, individual responsibility, the sovereignty of states and ideals recorded in our Declaration of Independence. If folks want Marxism, they will vote Democrat. The disconnect between the 2006 and 2008 election returns and polls relating to key issues tell the story. America is a Conservative country. The Republican Party abdicated the high ground on so many issues because no matter how many elections they won, they governed as though they had to please Democrats.

Big Media will continue to hate Sarah Palin. That is because they hate the American people. They will never say it, but they see us as a bunch of hayseeds who listen to country music, eat at buffets and prefer pick-up trucks to Priuses. They are the elites and they can't understand why the rabble doesn't just listen to them and do as they are told. They built a celebrity-type groundswell to elect Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama. It was hype not hope. Palin represents the real hope of Real Americans.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Democrats Censor Republican Mail

The Democrats have lost all sense of reality. Congressman John Carter of Texas has gone public with communication he received from the Franking Commission. Representative Carter wanted to let his constituents know he is working to protect them from government-run health care. It seems that phrase is not allowed by Nancy Pelosi's Kommissars.

“I received the script back from the majority, and there are a couple of changes that need to be made to make it compliant,” the Franking Commission e-mail said. “In the first paragraph change ‘House Democrats unveiled a government run health care plan’ to either ‘the house majority (sic) unveiled a public option health care plan’ or 'Just this past week the House majority (sic) unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers ….’”

“Change this on both scripts and send it back to me,” the e-mail concluded.

This is not bipartisanship. In fact, this isn't even American. The Democrats seem to believe that victory in a couple elections gives them the authority to establish a one-party regime. It is amazing that the same people who accused George W. Bush of threatening free speech for eight years (and none spent a day in jail, were fined a single penny or prevented from writing or saying anything) now are party to the suppression of political speech. I guess that is the kind of "change" the Leftist-Liberal-Progressives had in mind.

So Ted Kennedy is the "Knight" of Health Care Reform?

Lately, the Mainstream Media (i.e., Democrat Party Communications Team) has been touting Edward "Ted" Otis Norm Foster Brooks Kennedy as the "heart" of decades of Democrat desires to put a health care policy in every pot and a grievance on every tongue. He has even written editorials on the subject. His recent fight with brain cancer has been used to give the Massachusetts Marxist greater "moral authority" on health issues. That is a bit like putting Bill Clinton in charge of a program to mentor female interns.

Now, I will give Ted this: no American, living or dead, has been more consistently willing to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who have not. In Leftist-Liberal-Progressive circles that is a sign of humanity. After all, the government is much more trustworthy than individual citizens. But, the health guru? Let's examine...

The one time Ted Kennedy had it it his hands to make a life or death decision for another human being, he chose death. Ask Mary Jo Kopechne about Teddy's compassion. Suffocating girl or my political future? Not a hard choice for a privileged Limousine Liberal. Kennedy killed exactly one person more with his form of waterboarding than did the Bush administration. Of course, Bush was dealing with terrorists and Kopechne was a young girl who had the misfortune of being caught up with an irresponsible drunk.

Most of today's health insurance system is a product of the HMO Act of 1973. Who was the author? Yep, Teddy Kennedy. Just as he had been a champion of illegal immigration and undershot the costs of Medicare by nearly $500 billion, Kennedy blustered that the HMO system would save money and be more efficient than the traditional pay-for-care system. Now, the system HE helped created is the bane of humanity and causing death in the streets.

More recently, JFK's embarrassing little brother has endured an episode with brain cancer. Hopefully, he will have a full recovery and live many more years. But, under ObamaCare would Ted Kennedy received the top shelf treatment he has gotten? After all, he is 78 years old with a long history of obesity and heavy drinking. The answer, of course, is YES! He is an elite member of the Leftist establishment.

But, would YOUR parent get the same care? Absolutely not, unless they are part of the Democrat inner circle. You see, the one cost-cutting provision in the "reform" bills in Congress involves government making life and death decisions. Older people will not be treated before their value to society is evaluated. "Liberal Lions" will get the best available care. But, what of regular folks? Yeah, they are your loved ones, but that is irrelevant. They are simply old people who are sucking the system dry. They need to accept fate and die. After all, its for the children.

Forgive me, if I don't find an aging trustfund baby with a record of short-sighted legislation, personal irresponsibility and Marxist idealism to be a beacon of intelligent reform. He has no moral authority on any level of the health care debate.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Barack Obama, Henry Gates and the Attack of the Race Baiters Part Infinitum

Pardon me, but I am sick to death of the on-going "conversation" on race in America. I know I'm just a privileged White guy (not really--Dad worked as a railroad brakeman and Mom as a homemaker), but it seems apparent to me that racism is much more a mechanism for grievance politics than a daily reality in American life. Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that there are bigots and there always will be. In fact, there are bigots of every race, ethnicity and gender. However, the stock phrase "we've come a long way, but we have a long way to go" is asinine in this day and age. The "long way to go" part simply means this: Democrats and the Race industry (i.e., Je$$e Jackson, Al Sharpton, and various so-called "leaders") are not finished using the average Black American to advance their power and position.

The arrest of Professor Henry Gates stemmed from a misunderstanding. From all accounts (including Black policemen and officials), it was Professor Gates who blew the situation out of proportion. The police responded to a call about a break-in. They found Mr. Gates. Of course, they were right to expect him to produce ID before they believed he was the home owner. Gates, who is a long-time engineer on the racial grievance train, went ballistic and was charged for his behavior toward the officers NOT for breaking into his own house as the mainstream media imbeciles have reported. The charges were later dropped, but it didn't stop the race hounds from being released on the public once again.

Last night, I watched part of CNN's "Black in America II." The psychology at work is fascinating. A segment about affluent Blacks was particularly interesting. It was repeated over and over that White people would be surprised these folks exist. Really? I have been White for most of my life and I can honestly say I don't recall ever having a conversation that included shock about a Black person working in a high-paying profession. Why would anyone be surprised to find Blacks working as stock brokers, doctors, lawyers or CEOs? The answer is simple: so-called Black "leaders" are the culprit for many of the negative images.

It is political Leftists and community organizers (like Je$$e, Al, and Barack) who constantly tell us that something has to be done for Black Americans. The implication is that Black Americans cannot do for themselves. Lowering taxes would help Black American. Improving the climate for business start-ups would help Black Americans. Getting the government out of individuals' lives would help Black Americans. Increasing domestic energy production would help Black Americans. Of course, those same things would help Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Pacific Islanders. In other words, truly effective public policy is not race specific.

Every day, Black Americans are taking advantage of educational opportunities. Every day, Black Americans are making smart financial decisions. Every day, Black Americans are working to take care of their families. Every day, Black Americans are counseling their children to do the right thing. Every day, Black Americans are working to advance in their jobs or maybe even starting their own businesses. Again, the key has nothing to do with race. These are individuals making smart and effective decisions to improve themselves and their families. They make the right decisions because they are good citizens and good people, not because they are Black.

Good public policy is color blind. It is not black vs. white. It is government vs. the individual. It is time the race warlords surrender their superiority. There is a cottage industry that has built its wealth and prestige on telling regular folks that they need the Democrat party and the self-appointed Black elites to maintain a basic existence. It is time for new leadership in the Black community that cares more about individuals advancing rather than upholding rotting institutions that have provided decades of disservice.

Let's be logical about this. The Democrat party has dominated the politics of almost every major urban area in America for decades. They control the states with the highest tax rates, the highest unemployment rates, and the highest crime rates. Yet, every election Leftist-Liberal-Progressive Democrat elites tell Black people they are the saviors of the race. The race warlords work hard to deliver votes for the Democrat party by promising more of the same policies that have not worked. Group identity politics has been a disaster.

I will give President Obama credit for giving an apology (sort of) for the disgraceful attack he launched on the arresting officer in the Gates affair. To whatever degree true racial profiling exists, we should all desire an end to the practice. However, just as importantly, we must also reach a point where a misunderstanding between a White person and a Black person can occur without the ghosts of lynchings past being invoked to convince Americans, Black and White, that little has changed in the last half-century. In fact, we have to be able to accept that it could just be the Black guy who acted like a jackass.

I started elementary school in the fall of 1970 in a school district that was integrated in 1967. Having Black students in class was no big deal. We never gave it a thought. I'm sure if you talked to Black kids from my school they heard mean comments from some kids at some point. But, it certainly was not part of the daily experience. Funny thing about kids, if you just leave them alone with each other they have no problem getting along. If all children are told they can succeed and are given the opportunities to do so, their skin color will not matter. However, when adults saddle their children with the baggage of the past the attitudes will become tainted. There will always be individuals who cannot release their racial prism. It is time that leaders resist the temptation to use the most base of human instincts to build their own power.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

States May Flex Their 10th Amendment Muscles on ObamaCare

Finally. After a century of constant usurpations of state authority by the greedy three-headed monster known as the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government, it seems some states may be poised to stand up to the tyrants. In an interview with talk show host Mark Davis, Texas Governor Rick Perry threw down the gauntlet. Perry had earlier supported a pro-10th Amendment which failed in the Texas legislature. At some point, states need to tell the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court to pound sand when they attempt to rule as an autonomous national government rather than function as the limited government DEMANDED by the United States Constitution.

The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have tried to point this out to their colleagues over the years. Arizona Congressman John Shadegg has introduced The Enumerated Powers Act (HR450 in the current Congress) for many years which would require that any bill introduced in Congress include a specific reference to where the Constitution allows for the legislation. Much of the on-going Tea Party movement is focused on the general notion that the federal government has exceeded its legitimate functions and has become a tyranny.

One step American Patriots can take against ObamaCare and much of the other nonsense emanating from the Beltway is to let their legislators know that they expect them to follow the Constitution. Tell them to support Shadegg's bill. Emphasize the Constitution's limit on the federal government when you email or call your legislator. Fill letters-to-the-editor and op-ed pages with commentaries about the Constitution. Challenge Leftists-Liberal-Socialist-Democrats to cite the Constitutional legitimacy of their Marxist ideas. The times they are a changin' for the the arrogant Leftists who thought 2008's election was a mandate for socialism. They were wrong and we need to keep the pressure on.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Defends Barbara Boxer and Proves He Doesn't Understand Liberal Racism

Bill O'Reilly interviewed Harry Alford on "The O'Reilly Factor" and Bill again showed why he is on the margins of the Conservative movement. He just doesn't get it. He actually defended Kalifornia Senator Barbara Boxer's racist confrontation with Mr. Alford during a Senate committee hearing. O'Reilly said Boxer didn't intentionally insert race. He is probably right, but that is the problem. Racism is so endemic to Liberal-Leftist-Progressive-Socialist thought that they have absolutely no self-awareness.

Just like a child who is brought up by bigots to dislike people because of their race, Leftists are raised and nurtured on the notion of inherent differences between people. They develop a paternalistic notion that "those people" cannot function without the help of so-called "liberals." They are sub-citizens who must always be defined with an asterisk and managed as a group rather than treated as individuals.

That is why Boxer, as empty a head as exists in the Senate, was genuinely shocked that Harry Alford was indignant at her belittling of the Black Chamber of Commerce's climate change position. The BCC has been involved in studies of the issue for over a decade and has built a position based on scientific data. Boxer confronted a Black professional group's data analysis with a resolution of the NAACP, which is a partisan political organization. She could have dug up a different professional group's stance, but that never occurred to her. This was a Black group, so they must be countered with a Black group.

This should also be a message to the Republican losers who are constantly looking for a way to pander to Blacks or single women or Hispanics or homosexuals. DON'T DO IT! Democrats own the copyright on identity politics, so it is futile to compete. Besides, it is degrading to those who are members of those groups, but who actually see themselves as distinct individuals.

The media and racist Democrats have pulled the same non-sense with the Sonia Sotomayor nomination. "Republicans risk alienating Hispanics." "Republicans have a Hispanic problem." "Oppose her at your own risk." None of that has anything to do with deciphering whether or not she will be lying when she promises to uphold the Constitution. The opposition to Sotomayor had nothing to do with ethnicity; it was mostly about her own words and decisions standing in opposition to the Constitution and the role of the federal courts.

Leftists in the media and the Democrat party do not give one hoot about Hispanics (or any other minority) as individuals. They do revel in their ability to exploit race and ethnicity for political and ideological gain. When President Bush appointed Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Appellate Court, Democrats fought tooth and nail to defeat his nomination. In fact, they attacked his ethnicity calling him "unauthentic." Did the up-with-people media come to Estrada's defense and attack the Democrat filibuster? Did they accuse Democrats of denying an opportunity to an accomplished Hispanic man? Yeah, right!

Conservatives need to get their message out to people in these demographics. High taxes, intrusive government, heavy regulation, federal power grabs and creeping Big Brotherism is a threat to Americans regardless of race, gender or sexual preference. The Alford incident should be used to expose the racial superiority that under girds the politics of many White Liberal-Leftist-Progressive-Socialists.

Is It a He or a She? Only Your Imperial Federal Government Knows For Sure

I would like to make a motion that all satire within Amerika's borders be eliminated. It is no longer necessary as the reality of the United Socialist States of Amerika has become so ridiculous that it defies all logic. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" might be seen as a serious reform pamphlet today rather than a scathing satire.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has included this juicy little nugget in their version of health care "reform": the Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently space ranger Kathleen Sebelius) would have the authority and responsibility to develop criteria for defining gender. Yep, Amerika is now so brain dead and helpless that we cannot tell Adam from Eve. We need Big Brother to define the most basic distinctive characteristic of human beings (or any animal lifeform).

We have mainstreamed Amerika's growing freakshow. We do not need to change the understandings of thousands of years of human existence to accomodate the confused, the metally ill, and the bizarre. They may be befuzzled about their identity, but I am not.

Edgycater has a little hint for anyone confused about their gender: pull down your La Cage Aux Folles underoos and hold in your jelly roll: if you see an outie you are a buck and if you see an innie you are a doe. Any questions? You are welcome. Feel free to share this wisdom with your confused Leftist-Liberal-Progressive-Socialist friends if they are experiencing gender confusion.

Monday, July 20, 2009

ObamaCare Includes Committee To Tell Folks How To Die

In Friday's New York Post, Betsy McCaughey exposed some of the lies in the health care "reform" bills that are currently being pushed through Congress. The promises of President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and the Democrat party do not jibe with some of the frightening provisions in the bills. The biggest lie involves the idea that people can keep their current policies. That is nearly impossible under the current bill.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

No one with any political sense believed Obama about that anyway. Government is not a "free market competitor" as ObamAlinsky claimed. It is an instrument of force and that is how it functions.

One of the more sinister passages of this bill involves bureaucrats "advising" older folks on life and death decisions:

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Are you starting to see where some of the cost savings may occur? The bill shows no other potential for reducing costs, so isn't if fair to assume that pushing our senior citizens toward the light more quickly could be the "cash cow" for reducing health costs? Rationing of care is implemented in most every country with national health care. In most cases, it involves a pecking order in which the elderly (and sometimes middle-aged) are denied or placed at the end of the line until treatment becomes a moot point.

So, Mr. or Mrs. Leftist-Liberal-Progressive, are you comfortable with a committee of federal bureaucrats deciding when your parents or grandparents have lived long enough? When that someday comes and D.C. pencil pushers decide that your loved one is a year past their treatment being a sound public investment, think back to the "bad old days" when we had the freedom to make our own health care choices.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Eighty-three percent of folks are satisfied, but we have a "health care" crisis that requires throwing that away for a government program? We have the most responsive health care system in the world and we need to gut it and turn it over to Barry Obama and the radical Left? These people are insane, but they are powerful and well-financed by folks that understand controlling people's health is a huge step toward controlling the people.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor 2.0: Originalist Judge Or Lying Opportunist?

Barack Obama was clear about his ideal Supreme Court justice: he or she should put personal empathy ahead of the Constitution. In fact, the former constitutional lecturer doesn't seem constrained by the document in any way. He voted against both John Roberts and Sam Alito, even though he admitted both were qualified. Both "no" votes were ideological.

We have heard and read about Sonia Sotomayor's judicial rulings and speeches about the law. She certainly has seemed to be in the Obama mold. "Social justice" comes before actual justice. Latina women make better judges than white men. Federal district court is where policy is need (despite Article I of the Constitution giving ALL legislative powers to Congress).

However, a different woman showed up for the Senate hearings leading to a vote on Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. This woman sounded like a champion of the rule of law who is more in line with Alito and Roberts than Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama.

James Taranto chronicled Sotomayor 2.0 for The Wall Street Journal. Some snippets:

Under normal circumstances, a judge who says the things Sonia Sotomayor has said during her confirmation hearings would not be able to win confirmation in a Senate with a solid Democratic majority. Consider some of the positions she has taken:

  • On empathy: She repudiated the idea that it has any place in judging, as we noted yesterday.
  • On foreign law: She expressed her agreement with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and said flatly, "Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn't direct you to that law."
  • On the 2nd Amendment: She said, "I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." As to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states under the incorporation doctrine, she agreed with Justice Scalia that this is an open question.
  • On abortion: She declined to endorse Roe v. Wade, offering only the usual dodge that it is "the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court."
  • On judicial activism: She said that judges' "imposing policy choices in--or their views of the world or their views of how things should be done" is "improper."

Judge Sotomayor was under oath when she testified in front of the Senate. Now, I hope Sotomayor 2.0 is really a new and improved legal mind who indeed plans to use the Constitution as her guide rather than her unique Latina life experience. But, if she is more like the Obama ideal, that begs a question: does lying to the Senate in a judicial hearing constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?" In other words, is that an impeachable offense? When Justice Breyer or Ginsburg inevitably use foreign law to justify a screwball decision and Sotomayor signs on to their opinion, will she have committed perjury? Something to file away for when the opinions start to flow.

Heritage Foundation Looks At Senate Health Care Committee Bill

This piece on the Heritage Foundation blog examines some of the amendments added to or voted down in committee as the Senate debates whether or not to annex the health care of individual citizens. Did you know that Democrats have buried more community development spending in the health care takeover? Oh yes, rebuilding sidewalks and creating bike paths will lower our health care costs. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn attempted to control this with an amendment:

Financing Neighborhood Construction. (Coburn Amendment #49 ) To foster creation of healthier communities, the Senate Committee bill would provide federal community transformation grants to state and local governments. However, the legislation offers only broad guidelines as to where the money can go and does not limit the size of the grant. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of grant money to build and maintain sidewalks, parks, bike paths, or street lights. Other federal programs already direct money toward these projects. Dollars designated for improving the health care system, Coburn argued, could be spent on far more constructive areas, such as increasing access to health care. Remarkably, Coburn’s amendment failed on a straight party-line vote, meaning taxpayers’ hard earned dollars can wastefully go towards projects that are already funded by the federal government.

Keep watching for more details. The Left is very "creative" when it comes to spending your money.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Barbara Boxer and Democrat Racism Exposed By Black Chamber of Commerce CEO

Kalifornia Senator Barbara Boxer is one dumb broad. Really, no pretense of respect for the person or her position is necessary. She is one ignorant, simple-minded bubblehead. Today, she was humiliated (though she is likely too stupid to realize it) by Harry Alford, President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. During a Senate hearing, she did what comes naturally to Statist-Leftist-Liberals: she condescended to a Black man because, well, racial identity is the only thing that matters to "those people." Or at least she thought.

Oh my! Mr. Alford wants to be treated like an intelligent, accomplished HUMAN BEING rather than just a representative of "some Black group." You see, Democrats, who claim to have the high ground on issues of race, do not entertain the possibility that a Black man could debate an issue unless he focuses on race. Not all Blacks are Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton. Most Blacks folks are, well, just regular people. In whatever profession they occupy they are capable of discussing concepts, ideas, data, and analysis independently of their skin color. What, Senator Airhead, does being Black have to do with "green technology?"

Alford's response shocked Boxer. Many Black leaders accept the condescension and belittlement in return for a place at the table. They gain from their relationship with the Democrat party, so they do not quibble with being treated as a sub-class of Americans. I don't know Harry Alford's politics, but it was great to see a Black man sit in the U.S. Senate and tell an arrogant buffoonette that she was playing race games rather than dealing with the issue at hand. Let's hope more folks of color begin standing up to this nonsense.

Obama Health Care Promotes Drug Use, But Tough On Cigarettes...It's All Smoke And Mirrors

The details are coming to the service as Congress prepares to put you and your family's health care in the hands of government bureaucrats. Under Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's plan, tobacco use is the only vice that can result in an increase in insurance rates. Reckless sexual behavior? Smoking crack cocaine? Shooting heroin? No, an insurance company must insure those behaviors. In other words, deadlier behavior that can kill or leave a person with long-term physical ailments AND are completely the responsibility of the individual MUST be covered by insurance companies at the same premium as people who do not engage in such obvious risks. But, cigarette smokers are fair game.

From a financial or medical point of view, this makes no sense. But, none of this is about cost or appropriate medical treatment, is it? Tobacco companies have been painted as the "great Satan," so this is presented as a smackdown of the evil tobacco interests rather than of the smoker, who is typical lower middle class or poor. Of course, when that person can't afford coverage or their employer can't pay for insuring their smokers, who will be waiting with open arms? Why, our benevolent Imperial National Government will take them in.

There is more than one path to the Left's Utopian ideal of the government controlling your health decisions. What happens to insurance rates if they cannot charge premiums for those who insurees who are greater risks? They have to raise everyone's rates, so that those people are not "discriminated against." That means more people will not be able to afford their own and employers will not be able to pay for health benefits. Who picks up the pieces? Barry ObamAlinsky and his Brown Shirts will take care of you.

Understand, this is what Obama and the ruthless Left meant by the government creating "competition" for the health care industry. Never mind the obvious point that there are many health care companies competing with each other already (and more would enter the market if the government reduced its current regulatory barriers), the government would provide "competition." In LeftSpeak, "competition" means a new competitior with guns makes rules that apply only to the existing companies and that the new government entity does not have to follow and can change at its whim.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Random All-Star Game Musings

I still love the Major League Baseball All-Star game. When I was growing up in the 1970s, the game was my favorite television broadcast. In those days, those of us outside the major television markets saw the NBC Game of the Week and ABC's Monday Night Baseball (and where I live our closest ABC affiliate was a little dicey depending on the weather). The networks were heavy on Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, and Reds. For a kid who ate, slept and breathed baseball, the All-Star game was your one chance to see some of the guys on your baseball cards come to life: Nate Colbert of the Padres, Amos Otis of the Royals, Cesar Cedeno of the Astros, Nolan Ryan of the Angels and Sal Bando, Joe Rudi, Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter and Rollie Fingers of my favorite team, the Oakland A's. Of course, I would get to see my Athletics in October, but those other players were in action once a year on my television.

As always, there will be some great stories to keep my interest when the 80th All-Star game is played tonight:

  • Where does Albert Pujols rank among the all-time greats? Tonight, he plays in his 8th All-Star game, but first in front of his hometown St. Louis fans. Tell your kids they are watching one of greatest pure hitters ever.
  • Less than four years ago, Hunter Pence was called up to the High-A Salem Avalanche, the Houston Astros' then-affiliate in the Carolina League. I probably saw him play six or seven games that summer. There are some guys who just look like Major Leaguers. It was obvious watching his skills and the way he handled himself that he was on the fast track for the Major Leagues. By 2007, he was in the Show and in 2009 he is an All-Star.
  • Tim Lincecum vs. Roy Halladay. This is the best match up of starting pitchers since the AL sent Roger Clemens to the mound against the NL's Randy Johnson. Halladay looks like he is on the way to a Hall of Fame career and Lincecum's first two years in the Majors are among the best entrance of any pitcher in recent memory.
  • Pitcher Tim Wakefield will make his All-Star debut at the age of 42! Only the legendary Satchel Paige was older in his first All-Star game (46), but he the color line prevented him from reaching the Show until he was 42. Wakefield is not only a great story for his perseverance, but he is another former Salem minor leaguer. He started his minor league career as a shortstop, but was moved to the mound full-time in Salem in 1990.
  • How about two more former Salem Avalanche players in the All-Star game? AL reserve Ben Zobrist of the Tampa Bay Rays played in Salem when he was in the Houston organization. Colorado Rockies outfielder Brad Hawpe was a star outfielder with the Avalanche when they were affiliated with the Rockies.
  • Normally, I would be critical of the fan election of Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton because his 2009 numbers are clearly undeserving. However, this is a special case. Hamilton's breakthrough season in 2008 was great in baseball terms, but the inspirational story of how he fought battles with addiction on the way to that great season struck a nerve which made him more than a ballplayer. He has fought injuries for much of this season, but I would love to see him make a big play in tonight's game.
  • The 1971 All-Star game featured 20 future Hall of Famers. In 1967, 22 future enshrinees were on the All-Star rosters. This year's game may not yield that bounty of greatness, but there are some surefire future Hall of Famers in this game: Derek Jeter, Ichiro, Pujols, Mariano Rivera, and Trevor Hoffman have already punched their tickets to Cooperstown. Halladay and Johan Santana seem to be on the way. Which young stars will join the all-time elites and which will fall short? Prince Fielder, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, David Wright, and Hanley Ramirez are all off to impressive starts. Who will be the Hall of Famers out of that group?
  • One thing I would like to see: all-time greats should be included on All-Star rosters regardless of their season stats. I don't know how to set it up objectively, but if I were commissioner I would place Ken Griffey Jr. on the AL roster and Randy Johnson (though he is injured) on the NL roster. Who would you rather see in the 9th inning? Zach Duke pitching to Adam Jones or the Big Unit staring down Junior?

I think I'm going to go through my complete set of 1973 Topps baseball cards while watching the game tonight.

Liberty Summer Book of the Week: "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

If you are tired of business as usual in Washington, D.C., Professor Thomas Woods has provided fuel for the fire. In his latest book, "Meltdown," Woods does not nibble around the edges of our bloated federal government to find the answers to our current (and future) economic problems. Instead, he stabs the beast right in the heart.
Throughout the last election cycle, especially with the disastrous economic news that began hitting in September, Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama bemoaned the failure of the free market. Government needed to take a greater role in the economy. Free market actors are all rogues, but government is the Lone Ranger, Superman, Santa Claus, and Mother Teresa rolled into one benevolent problem solving panacea. Sadly, his GOP counterpoint John McCain differed little from Amerika's First Marxist President when it came to allure of government solutions.
"Meltdown" exposes the underlying problems that brought on the current crisis and that will insure that any recovery will be small and temporary. It's the government, stupid. Woods' economic analysis is heavily influence by the Austrian School and, particularly, Friedrich Hayek.
Woods examines Congressional misfires of recent decades. He is equally willing to criticize Republicans as Democrats. After all, from 2003-2006, the GOP held the White House and both Houses of Congress, but did nothing to rein in Leviathan. Yes, I know Democrats accused every reform proposition as being code of racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah. A note to the GOP if they ever regain control: "Grow a pair!"
While most Conservatives are well aware of the violence the legislative and executive branches do to the economy, Woods has scathing words for an institution that is always on the periphery of the argument, but receives little real criticism from either side of the political equation: the Federal Reserve. Did you realize that the United States became a world economic power WITHOUT the Federal Reserve? It is a fact of history that American expanded and strengthened for over 130 years without the Fed. The shenanigans were almost immediate. Many economists have come to conclude that the Fed was the key culprit in the 1929 depression (though Hoover and FDR did their level best to keep the depression going). Fed policy and pronouncements on the economy over the last two decades are shown to have played a significant role in the current collapse.
For those who accept the premises of supreme federal authority over all aspects of the economy, Thomas Woods' "Meltdown" will seem extreme. However, if you believe in federalism and the U.S. Constitution, you should be willing to put everything on the table in coming to terms with our current situation. The Federal Reserve needs to be examined, as does the conventional wisdom we are taught about the nature of depressions and recessions.
Ron Paul introduced HR 1207 which would audit the Federal Reserve. The bill has 261 co-sponsors--that is over half of the members! The bill has languished in the House Committee on Financial Services since late February where Chairman Bahney Fwank will likely do his best to kill it. A Senate version (S604) is also bogged down in committee. Let's see if the most ethical Congress and the most transparent President are willing to open up the books of the shadowy agency that is increasingly taking control of the American economy.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Roanoke Times Lauds Leftist Virginia Organizing Project

The Left-leaning Roanoke Times kicked off the week with a front-page, feel-good story about two girls working locally for the Virginia Organizing Project. Back on June 3, I wrote about my visit from the VOP. The Roanoke Times, being loyal members of the State media, did not bother to point out that the "community organizers" are part of a Leftist coalition that pretends to be non-partisan while promoting issues like nationalized health care and the religion of global warming. If they come to your door, ask them who funds their organization. They are "trained" to simply say private donations (you know, ACORN, Media Matters, George Soros, etc.).

Subtle propaganda is so much fun. From the Roanoke Times article:

So far this year, canvassers have found that 78 percent of people say health care is a very important or the most important issue in their lives.
Now, that can mean a lot of things. For instance, I told them it is important that health care remain a free market concern and that Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama does not Chief Doctor. Of course, health care is important. However, this group uses an overly simplified question to claim that 78% of their interviewees want the federal government to make their medical choices. Check out the list of groups affiliated with VOP:

ACLU Of Virginia
Advancement Project
BoatPeople SOS
Central Virginia APRI
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Clean Water Fund
Democracy South
Equality Virginia Education Fund
Environment Virginia Policy and Research Center
Fair Elections Legal Network
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Project Vote
Tenants and WorkersUnited
Virginia AFL-CIO
Virginia Association of Personal Care Assistants
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia Education Association
Virginia Interfaith Center For Public Policy
Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
Virginia Organizing Project
Virginia Poverty Law Center
Virginia Sierra Club
Voice of Vietnamese Americans
Women's Voice, Women's Vote
Working America

Some are well known proponents of every Leftist ideology around. The ones that are lesser known are often even more Marxist in their goals.

The amount of money that has been spent and that is being spent around the country to create a government mandated health care trap could have been used to create a corporation that provides insurance to those who fall through the cracks. Instead, the plight of 15% of the population is being used to destroy the health care enjoyed by the other 85%. For young, bright-eyed college kids "giving" health care to everyone sounds like something only a soul-less cretin would oppose. The reality is that the health care issue is much more complicated. In fact, like banking, credit, housing, and automobiles, health care is already heavily regulated. Government, through regulation and judicial abuse, is a prime culprit in the high prices of medical care. The HMO system that is now the great villain was the creation of Congress in the 1970s with Senator Teddy Kennedy being the primary architect.

Plenty of Leftists have the means to create a privately-funded corporation to market low-cost health care. But, that isn't their goal. Statists like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Virginia Organizing Project are anti-liberty and want the State to literally determine who lives and who dies.

The non-scientific statistics in this article are indicative of the VOP's functioning as a propaganda tool.

During last year's canvass, Virginia Organizing Project found that 64 percent of
people they talked to identified health care as the most important issue.
Really? In a November AP-GfK poll it was reported that national health care ranked seventh among the priorities for the new President. A USA Today/Gallup poll from November 7-9 asked which of five issues should be President Obama's top priority. Health care ranked 5th out of 5, just ahead of the category "something else." A September Newsweek poll ranked health care seventh out of seven listed issues.

I wonder if the VOP canvassers are asking folks if they are comfortable with their older relatives being denied care by the government because they are a waste of resources. I wonder if they know doctors will be treated as criminals if they administer treatment outside of government approval. I wonder if they even know the problems with health care rationing and long waits for care in Canada, Great Britain, France, and other countries with socialized medicine. I wonder if they have even thought about the big picture.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Why Is Mitt Romney A Solid Contender, But Sarah Palin A Liability?

Even before Sarah Palin's surprise resignation, Republican elites kept echoing basically the same line that the vile Left was spewing: Sarah Palin is a lightweight. Unable to discount her popularity among the party base, the Beltway Republicans kept telling us how she has potential. If she studies up on the issues she could someday be a player. Look, I am a dude and one is isn't particularly sensitive to the whines of modern feminism. However, the "Sarah needs to study" mantra is nothing but sexism. I have never heard such comments made about any male candidate who aspired to the Presidency, no matter how idiotic and asinine they were. She has accomplished more and has more executive experience than our current President and could read a teleprompter if that is the sign of being informed.

Mitt Romney is the name most often mentioned as the GOP front runner in 2012. Therein lies the disconnect between what Republicans say and what Republicans do. Currently, the GOP is fighting like mad to stop ObamaCare from being passed by the Congress this summer. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a Friday editorial, Romney left an absolute mess in Massachusetts with his version of government-run health care which is eerily similar to the plan being pushed by congressional Democrats.

So, we have Palin who was a source of energy for an impotent McCain campaign and who is an inspirational leader in the Conservative tradition. Then, we have Romney who looks like a President and appears to lack sweat glands. He had several conversions "on the road to Des Moisnes," as candidate Mike Huckabee pointed out, which made him palatable to Conservatives. His record as governor does not appear to be impressive and he built a state-run health care fiasco that should petrify potential voters. But, Palin is a Barbie doll who needs to bone up on serious things and Romney is a front runner.

We don't need another country club establishment stuffed shirt taking the party over the cliff. Bush 41 blew a second term by abandoning Reagan. Bob Dole got his turn and no amount of Viagra could have put life into his campaign. Dubya won twice, but embraced much of the Left's Statist ideology and did much damage to the country and to the GOP by giving them what they wanted so that they could run on the right side of the fiscal responsibility debate. Sure, they are phonies, but they could legitimately smack the Republicans with eight years of their own spending foolishness. If the GOP had been fiscally responsible and respected federalism, 2006 and 2008 would not have been so unpleasant. Then, it was John McCain. Or was that Bob Dole redux? A tired old Senator who had no political core. In fact, his lack of a political anchor was his greatest selling point. Mr. Bipartisan. Mitt Romney is an ex-governor, not a Senator, but he is still 100% establishment.

I don't know if Palin is the right candidate for 2012 or not. I do know that many of the arguments used against her would not be used against a man. It is also clear that a charismatic Conservative like Palin is much more likely to energize the party and draw in Conservative Democrats than will a central casting politician like Mitt Romney. If you start thinking Mitt is the guy for 2012, just look at the health care debacle he created in Massachusetts and ask yourself if this is really the guy to lead the resurgence of Conservatism.

Friday, July 10, 2009

It Is Time To Bury Al Sharpton's Brand of Racist Demagoguery

In the midst of the fawning media coverage over Michael Jackson's life and death, the loudest and most belligerent voice was that of the Most Hateful Man in America, Al Sharpton. Beginning with the tribute at the Apollo Theatre, Sharpton demonstrated that he does not have the capacity to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Michael Jackson (or of anyone else, for that matter). His purpose at that tribute was the same as every word that comes out of his sleazy, vile pie hole. It was an opportunity to stoke the fires of racial division and convince Blacks that they are always only one step ahead of the lynch mob. It was also another chance to apply another layer of White guilt.

Rolling Stone covered Sharpton's diabolical hatefest, masked as tribute.

“It was absolutely disgraceful. If you look at how they deal with Michael’s so-called shortcomings and then the shortcomings of Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley, it’s nowhere in the same world.”

By the way, the "so-called shortcomings" that Jackson was most disparaged for involved child molestation. I've never heard that Sinatra or Elvis diddled with little boys during sweet little sleepovers. To be honest, I'm not sure that Sinatra was in any way comparable in any "shortcomings." I do know that to anyone born after 1970, Elvis Presley seems like a punch line. Skinny Elvis vs. Fat Elvis. Elvis sightings. The Jungle Room. Elvis on drugs. Elvis' bad movies. If Sharpton wants to accuse "White America" of protecting the memory of Elvis he is as clueless as he is vicious. In truth, Presley's greatness as a performer has been turned into a pathetic caricature. And, adult Elvis didn't sleep with little boys and put on music and give them milk and cookies while they laid in bed. Elvis, Frank and most Americans do not agree with Michael that such behavior is "charming."

“There’s been an unprecedented allowance of negative, exaggerated and scandalous stories told about Michael Jackson and the Jackson family… In the temple of black entertainment on the stage that produced the Sarah Vaughns and the Ella Fitzgeralds, and the Jackie Wilsons and the James Browns we want to send a message around the world that you can write what you want and say what you want, Michael Jackson was ours and we are Michael Jackson and we love Michael Jackson!”

Jacko's oddities were no more scandalized than any other celebrity. Sharpton is clearly making this a black vs. white issue. Is he saying that Black people support pedophilia? That is the biggest criticism Jackson received. Is he saying that is a non-issue for Blacks? I'm pretty sure a large percentage of Black parents would not have allowed their children to spend the night with Michael Jackson no matter how much they admired his music.

“The reason we don’t listen to what you tell us on the news is we Remember the Time when nobody heard our culture, nobody would listen to our words…. You can scandalize him but we know better! Michael wasn’t no freak. Michael was a genius. Michael was an innovator. You can’t take someone with extraordinary skill, extraordinary talent and make them an ordinary person.”

Chuck Berry? Fats Domino? the Temptations? Wilson Pickett? the Four Tops? Diana Ross and the Supremes? Little Richard? Ray Charles? Charley Pride? Otis Redding? Aretha Franklin? Smokey Robinson and the Miracles? Nat King Cole? These are just a few of the Black artists who were superstars before Michael Jackson appeared. Yes, he was an outstanding performer and worldwide phenomenon, but he was hardly the Jackie Robinson of pop music.

It would have better to just celebrate Michael Jackson the entertainer. But, that sweaty, smarmy cretin Al Sharpton does not have such joy in his dark soul. Jackson was a gifted performer, but one with deep personal issues that range from his deranged father, the pitfalls of uber-fame, and the inappropriate behaviors that marked his relationships with children. The Apollo tribute and the funeral would have been a great opportunity to tune out the troubled person and focus on the performer. Instead, the lowlife punk threw pedophilia into America's face and essentially said "if you think that is odd, you are a racist!"

From Sharpton's rambling eulogy at Jackson's memorial service:

It was Michael Jackson that brought blacks and whites and Asians and Latinos together! It was Michael Jackson that made us sing "We are the World" and feed the hungry long before Live Aid!

Because Michael Jackson kept going, he created a comfort level where people that felt they were separate became interconnected with his music. And it was that comfort level that kids from Japan and Ghana and France and Iowa and Pennsylvania got comfortable enough with each other to, later, it wasn't strange to us to watch Oprah on television. It wasn't strange to watch Tiger Woods golf.

Those young kids grew up from being teenage comfortable fans of Michael's to being 40years old and being comfortable to vote for a president of color to be the president of the United States of America.

Michael did that! Michael made us love each other! Michael taught us to stand with each other!...

...Michael rose to the top. He out-sang his cynics. He out-danced his doubters. He outperformed the pessimists.

I thought Coca-Cola taught the world to sing in perfect harmony? This was so over the top it became comical rather than inspirational. People of the world get along better because of Michael Jackson? Gimme a break. Sharpton's total dismissal of other great Black artists is insulting to dozens of great performers who sold millions of records worldwide and broke down barriers. What did Michael Jackson have to overcome? In the early 1970s, there were the Osmonds and the Jackson Five. Pre-teen girls and little old ladies preferred Donny and the boys, but the rest of America, white and black, was much more into the Jackson Five. We didn't need a speech from a hateful demagogue or to have Black music explained. It was good. We got it.

I also don't remember any cynics when Michael went solo. As I recall, his music was all over the radio and he was everywhere. I was a teenager at the time and I don't recall anyone saying, "don't listen to that Michael Jackson stuff, he's Black, you know. Let's push Leif Garrett up the charts!" His ascendency to mega-stardom coincided with the growth of MTV and the video craze of the 1980s. Was there agitation to keep Jacko's music and videos off the air? Quite the contrary, he was huge. People only cared about the talent. He didn't have to fight "the Man" to get ahead. "The Man" was too busy doing his own clumsy imitation of the moon walk.

The worst thing about Sharpton's loud and disgraceful call to racial disunity during the Jackson mourning period was that the media once again made him the voice of Black America. I've never known a Black person as hateful as Al Sharpton. His existence and his wealth (by the way, where does he get his money?) depend on fomenting racial suspicion and distrust. Yet, there was Bill O'Reilly once again providing a forum to this scumbag. Sharpton has nothing to offer except an ability to loudly divide Americans. Michael Jackson is being laid to rest. It is also time we lay to rest Al Sharpton's bully pulpit as a racist rabblerouser.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

FCC Discussing Ways To "Reform" Free Speech and Free Press

According to a CNSNews report, the FCC is having internal discussions about ways in which they can further manage the transmission of information in American society. Funny, but that sounds more like something a government agency in China, Venezuela or Russia would be involved with. I can't find a place in the U.S. Constitution that mentions the Federal Communications Commission, much less give it the power to determine winners and losers in the telecommunications industries.

The FCC was created to manage the finite number of radio frequencies available when that technology was new. Today, there are infinite sources for news and entertainment through a plethora of media. The FCC's purpose was technical, but today it believes itself to have the power to program media outlets and even use the tax code to save those who cannot make it in the free market.

According to an FCC official, who spoke with on background because the report has yet to be made public, the document focuses on the availability of news and information to the American public.

The official said the report examines the decline of broadcast journalism over the past several years and tries to explain why traditional forms of journalism have declined while other, newer forms have been on the rise.

The report also examines the different business models used by different types of media outlets, comparing Internet and broadcast and print business models, the official said. The report looks at which business models seem to be succeeding and which ones are not.

The decline of traditional print and broadcast outlets is the primary focus of the report, which analyzes which new outlets are picking up the slack -- and why they might be eclipsing traditional news outlets.

Journalistic quality also is an issue, according to the official, who said the report would look at whether the Internet and other news sources have been able to fill the gap in journalism left by the declining print and broadcast outlets.

Note to FCC: those things are truly none of your business. We have something called the free market in America. "Traditional" outlets have declined because of competition and an unwillingness to meet the needs of their customers. Individuals do not need the approval of a committee of arrogant bureaucrats to decide if they are able to "fill the gap." Media consumers will make that call.

The second part of the report examines possible ideas for addressing these issues. Among the ideas discussed in the report are things like a potential government response to the decline of older media outlets.

Another idea examined in the report is whether the federal government could possibly use the tax code to aid struggling outlets, giving them tax breaks to help them survive.

A major issue the report details is the possibility of “behavioral rules” for broadcasters, according to the official. Behavioral rules might include guidelines that broadcasts serve the public interest.

Bringing back Cold War-era guidelines mandating that broadcasters do “non-entertainment” programming is another idea being examined, according to the official.

So, the FCC will decide what media outlets are "legitimate." And how will they do that? And what gives five bureaucrats that power? "Public interest" is a verbal distortion. That is a term used by a ruling class to decide what information they want people to receive. The only public interest that matters in a democratic republic is the ratings book. The result may be garbage, however I would rather endure free market trash than propaganda regulated and improved by the Kremlin on the Potomac.

Media and journalism are personal issues for Michael Copps (FCC commissioner), who has publicly lamented the rise of “infotainment,” blogging, and the disappearance of “investigative” journalism.
So, does that mean he would forbid networks from spending a week and a half covering a celebrity funeral? Copps is a Leftist in a powerful position. News networks and newspapers have the freedom to do investigative journalism if they choose. They choose not to do so. It is often the bloggers Copps so laments who do the real analysis and in-depth research he claims to desire. Remember, Rathergate? It was bloggers who uncovered Dishonest Dan's phony letter that he was using to influence the 2004 campaign. It was bloggers who helped expose some of the more unpleasant aspects of Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's background. Could that be the real problem? That bloggers are bringing information to light that the "traditional media" ignores?

“Reform is never on auto-pilot, and in spite of all the marvels of twenty-first century technology, there is no GPS system that can deliver us to a new, progressive promised land,” Copps said on May 14 to the liberal group Free Press. “In communications, will ‘old media’ stalwarts like newspapers and broadcasting simply disappear—or will they adapt and survive?

“How about journalism?” asked Copps. “Will anyone figure out a business model to support in-depth, investigative journalism – or must we develop something completely new, perhaps based on philanthropy, non-profit models or public media?”

"Reform?" "We?" Is he referring to the FCC or the radical Left? What happens to the "old media" should happen organically. They have no presumptive right to survive if they do not provide a service that people will pay for. Maybe ACORN can run NBC; I doubt the news coverage would be different.

“We're not only losing journalists, we may be losing journalism,” he said. “Some blame the Internet and bloggers, and that's certainly a part of the story. All that consolidation and mindless deregulation, rather than reviving the news business, condemned us to less real news, less serious political coverage, less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership, less investigative journalism and fewer jobs for journalists.”
Journalism has committed suicide by becoming Leftwing partisans. Is Mr. Copps concerned that over 80% of journalists vote Democrat or is his plan to push the percentage over 90? The internet and bloggers are the solution, not the problem. They do the job "professional journalists" refuse to do. All the identity politics psychobabble tells us Mr. Copps is a dedicated Leftist who plans to use his position to attack free speech in America.

Take his complaints individually:

  • "less real news"- That is the choice of the media. Does anyone really believe Mr. Copps intends to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS to stop spending so much time on celebrity news? Pure subterfuge.
  • "less serious political coverage"- Does that mean he is critical of the "traditional media's" one-sided political coverage? After all, the positive Obama stories doubled the positive McCain stories. Is Copps concerned about that? Yeah, right.
  • "less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership"-This is not about the media's Leftist slant. This is a shot over the bow at the one corner of the media in which Conservatives have dominated: talk radio. "Diversity of ownership" is the new linguistic shroud for what was once known as the Fairness Doctrine.

Michael Coops if a Leftwing propagandist, pure and simple. He isn't worried that people don't have access to information; he is worried they have too much. This means the state-run media has to endure competition and Leftist politicians much face an electorate that is more fully informed. We can't have that, now can we? Keep an eye on this bureaucratic weasel. It is clear he plans to use the government to restrict free speech, free press and access to information. Mr. Coops radical agenda is clearly NOT in the public interest.