This is just too good not to share:
Tim Hawkins' 'The Government Can!'
WARNING: You'll be singing it all day!
Enjoy!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A LEGACY OF SPIN
I've been thinking of what to write about Sen. Ted Kennedy and the media's reaction to his life and death, and actually had considered not blogging about him at all, considering the wealth of ink spilled over him this past week. But then I read this article from Hot Air's Greenroom, and I decided to let Hot Air's Doctor Zero do the talking:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/30/my-disagreement-with-the-kennedy-narrative/
I couldn't say it any better myself.
I will close with this clip:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/of-course-dems-push-for-obamacare-at.html
Political opportunist being used as a political opportunity, all wrapped up in the unimpeachable guise of a grieving child.
Liberal Poetry.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/30/my-disagreement-with-the-kennedy-narrative/
I couldn't say it any better myself.
I will close with this clip:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/of-course-dems-push-for-obamacare-at.html
Political opportunist being used as a political opportunity, all wrapped up in the unimpeachable guise of a grieving child.
Liberal Poetry.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
WHERE ARE THE CONSERVATIVE PROPOSALS?
In all of the sturm and drang of the health care debate, the Republican party has been accused of being the 'party of no' and criticizing but not offering alternatives. Now, I'm no politician by any means, but in this hostile environment, if I were in the opposition, I would certainly have a plan ready for just such an accusation. So the big question is, are the democrats right, or do the republicans have a plan? The answer is surprising.
It turns out they have three.
The first, offered way back in May, is a bicameral effort called the 'Patient's Choice Act of 2009'. There are two versions submitted - one for the Senate (S.1099) and one for the House (H.R.2520). This bill, which has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, would, in the words of Sen. Coburn (R-OK), "provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt or waiting lines".
Then, in June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered up the 'Health Care Freedom Plan' (S.1324), which, according to the Heritage Foundation, could reduce the number of uninsured Americans by over 22 million over five years. It also contains provisions for pre-existing conditions and health savings accounts. This bill has also been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
And, finally, in July Rep. Tom Price offered up the 'Empowering Patients First Act' (H.R.3400). Rep. Price (R-GA) is a practicing physician whose budget neutral bill would emphasize preventive medicine, overhaul existing government health care offerings (IHS and VA -both in desperate need of restructuring), reduce fraud and abuse, and offer tax credits, as well as prohibit federal funding of abortions (something already in place - the Hyde Amendment- that would be overridden by the democrat health care plans). This bill has been referred to the Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce Committees, as well as the Judiciary, Rules, Budget and Appropriations Committees.
The only thing I don't see in these bills is Tort Reform, which is something desperately needed. Oh, and if you are wondering why tort reform isn't included in any of the democrat plans, former DNC Chairman Howard Dean explained it at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.
I personally advocate for streamlining the existing governmental medical entitlements (MediCare/Aid, IHS, VA) to cut down on fraud and waste, allow purchase of insurance across state lines, non-employer based availability and tort reform. The last three are vital to bringing down costs, which, in turn, would make insurance more affordable for more people, thus more would be insured, and all would have a huge range of options. This country does not lack choice - there are literally thousands of private insurance companies out there. But due to regulations on interstate commerce and employer based policies, accessability to this vast pool is limited. Opening up state lines would increase competition, resulting in more competitive costs and better coverage options. Uh-oh! There are those naughty free-market principles, rearing their ugly heads again!
So why don't the democrats acknowledge the republicans plans? Two reasons.
1) Keeping them as the party of no and refusing to aknowledge any conservative plans helps the democrats implement the Alinsky Rule #13 - 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Making them the party of no casts them as the villain (a necessary component of rule #13), not caring that the American people are suffering, only interested in blocking the democrats for purely political reasons. Conservatives have not fought these allegations very strenuously and liberals often mistake silence for acquiescence, thus their impression of winning the point. This perception is reinforced by the liberal echo chamber the MSM has become, who are not reporting the conservative proposals being offered up and are happily parroting the liberal talking points of 'party of no'. This tactic, however, does not distract attention enough to keep their own public approval ratings from dropping. The dog and pony show is doing another job, though - keeping attention off the republican options makes their bill the only option, and, after all, 'we have to do something!' right?
2)These plans would actually reform, not subject the insurance and health care industries to government control. And, let's face it, when it comes to ObamaCare (or is it KennedyCare now? rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!) it's all about control.
I don't know what is going on with the GOP lately - either they lack testicular fortitude, or they are hunkered down while the democrats tear themselves apart, writing (hopefully) sensible legislation. I'm hoping for the latter.
Considering there are three separate bills on the table, perhaps my hope isn't unfounded.
It turns out they have three.
The first, offered way back in May, is a bicameral effort called the 'Patient's Choice Act of 2009'. There are two versions submitted - one for the Senate (S.1099) and one for the House (H.R.2520). This bill, which has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, would, in the words of Sen. Coburn (R-OK), "provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt or waiting lines".
Then, in June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered up the 'Health Care Freedom Plan' (S.1324), which, according to the Heritage Foundation, could reduce the number of uninsured Americans by over 22 million over five years. It also contains provisions for pre-existing conditions and health savings accounts. This bill has also been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
And, finally, in July Rep. Tom Price offered up the 'Empowering Patients First Act' (H.R.3400). Rep. Price (R-GA) is a practicing physician whose budget neutral bill would emphasize preventive medicine, overhaul existing government health care offerings (IHS and VA -both in desperate need of restructuring), reduce fraud and abuse, and offer tax credits, as well as prohibit federal funding of abortions (something already in place - the Hyde Amendment- that would be overridden by the democrat health care plans). This bill has been referred to the Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce Committees, as well as the Judiciary, Rules, Budget and Appropriations Committees.
The only thing I don't see in these bills is Tort Reform, which is something desperately needed. Oh, and if you are wondering why tort reform isn't included in any of the democrat plans, former DNC Chairman Howard Dean explained it at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.
I personally advocate for streamlining the existing governmental medical entitlements (MediCare/Aid, IHS, VA) to cut down on fraud and waste, allow purchase of insurance across state lines, non-employer based availability and tort reform. The last three are vital to bringing down costs, which, in turn, would make insurance more affordable for more people, thus more would be insured, and all would have a huge range of options. This country does not lack choice - there are literally thousands of private insurance companies out there. But due to regulations on interstate commerce and employer based policies, accessability to this vast pool is limited. Opening up state lines would increase competition, resulting in more competitive costs and better coverage options. Uh-oh! There are those naughty free-market principles, rearing their ugly heads again!
So why don't the democrats acknowledge the republicans plans? Two reasons.
1) Keeping them as the party of no and refusing to aknowledge any conservative plans helps the democrats implement the Alinsky Rule #13 - 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Making them the party of no casts them as the villain (a necessary component of rule #13), not caring that the American people are suffering, only interested in blocking the democrats for purely political reasons. Conservatives have not fought these allegations very strenuously and liberals often mistake silence for acquiescence, thus their impression of winning the point. This perception is reinforced by the liberal echo chamber the MSM has become, who are not reporting the conservative proposals being offered up and are happily parroting the liberal talking points of 'party of no'. This tactic, however, does not distract attention enough to keep their own public approval ratings from dropping. The dog and pony show is doing another job, though - keeping attention off the republican options makes their bill the only option, and, after all, 'we have to do something!' right?
2)These plans would actually reform, not subject the insurance and health care industries to government control. And, let's face it, when it comes to ObamaCare (or is it KennedyCare now? rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!) it's all about control.
I don't know what is going on with the GOP lately - either they lack testicular fortitude, or they are hunkered down while the democrats tear themselves apart, writing (hopefully) sensible legislation. I'm hoping for the latter.
Considering there are three separate bills on the table, perhaps my hope isn't unfounded.
Friday, August 21, 2009
GOD BLESS AIR AMERICA!
No, I haven't lost my mind, and no, I'm not saying that because I know it will irritate the heck out of those liberal atheists over there (although it IS a nice little added perk). Once you see this, you will be saying the same thing (via RedState).
These are hard-core lefties, the base of his base. I never thought I would see the day when I would agree with anything said on this network - could this be another sign of the Apocalypse?! No, no, it's just the sunshine of sanity and reason reaching into the deep, dark depths of liberalism.
This may be the final straw for many of his idealistic die-hard supporters. In seven short months, Obama has broken promises on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage, lobbyists, transparency, earmarks, the list goes on. But this backroom dealing is a level of shadiness that, until now had been, to them, a singularly republican thing. How this turn of events could be surprising to them is beyond me, considering the man cut his teeth on Chicago machine politics, but I have learned that naivete can be found in the most unusual places. Even so, for the ultra-left to turn on him was seemingly inconceivable, and the language they used, "charming liar" and "fascist", is just mind-boggling. I watched the clip a few times, just to make sure I heard what I thought I heard.
Is this a watershed moment for the administration? It's going to be remarkably difficult for even the die-hard supporters to shrug this off. Will they attack Air America? It's difficult to say. Let's face it, Air America is the last great bastion of liberalism - even HuffPo has a conservative thought or two. Not Air America. Will they call it a smear, if it's from deep within their own ranks?
Will he be this generation's Nixon, piercing the bubble of naivete surrounding the ranks of his most fervent ideologues?
So many of his supporters adored him because he projected himself as above the political fray, a new type of politician. One who deserved our trust; free of muck and imbued with an unimpeachable integrity. They held him to a higher standard when they brought him up, will they do the same as they cast him down? One can hope the MSM will pick this up, since the deal as well as the reaction are major stories, but the jury is still out. We all know by now how selective the 'press' can be when it comes to the Obama administration. They may very well try to marginalize this issue and Air America, because the press is nothing if not cannibalistic by nature.
Still, this must be quite a dilemma.
I think the left is coming to a crossroads. The hypocrisy is so blatant and the corruption so obvious and widespread that at some point they will have to face facts. In this age of information, it's getting harder and harder to turn a blind eye to them. If the administration continues on it's current path, it's hard to believe they won't eventually turn on him completely.
THAT backlash will make the town halls look like love-ins.
These are hard-core lefties, the base of his base. I never thought I would see the day when I would agree with anything said on this network - could this be another sign of the Apocalypse?! No, no, it's just the sunshine of sanity and reason reaching into the deep, dark depths of liberalism.
This may be the final straw for many of his idealistic die-hard supporters. In seven short months, Obama has broken promises on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage, lobbyists, transparency, earmarks, the list goes on. But this backroom dealing is a level of shadiness that, until now had been, to them, a singularly republican thing. How this turn of events could be surprising to them is beyond me, considering the man cut his teeth on Chicago machine politics, but I have learned that naivete can be found in the most unusual places. Even so, for the ultra-left to turn on him was seemingly inconceivable, and the language they used, "charming liar" and "fascist", is just mind-boggling. I watched the clip a few times, just to make sure I heard what I thought I heard.
Is this a watershed moment for the administration? It's going to be remarkably difficult for even the die-hard supporters to shrug this off. Will they attack Air America? It's difficult to say. Let's face it, Air America is the last great bastion of liberalism - even HuffPo has a conservative thought or two. Not Air America. Will they call it a smear, if it's from deep within their own ranks?
Will he be this generation's Nixon, piercing the bubble of naivete surrounding the ranks of his most fervent ideologues?
So many of his supporters adored him because he projected himself as above the political fray, a new type of politician. One who deserved our trust; free of muck and imbued with an unimpeachable integrity. They held him to a higher standard when they brought him up, will they do the same as they cast him down? One can hope the MSM will pick this up, since the deal as well as the reaction are major stories, but the jury is still out. We all know by now how selective the 'press' can be when it comes to the Obama administration. They may very well try to marginalize this issue and Air America, because the press is nothing if not cannibalistic by nature.
Still, this must be quite a dilemma.
I think the left is coming to a crossroads. The hypocrisy is so blatant and the corruption so obvious and widespread that at some point they will have to face facts. In this age of information, it's getting harder and harder to turn a blind eye to them. If the administration continues on it's current path, it's hard to believe they won't eventually turn on him completely.
THAT backlash will make the town halls look like love-ins.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A NEW LEVEL OF IRRESPONSIBILITY Updated
I'm not a fan of MSNBC by a long shot. Chris 'Tingles' Matthews, Keith 'Ego' Olbermann, Rachel 'The Teabagger' Maddow are three of the main reasons why. I know I'm not alone in my assessment, because I've seen their ratings.
But I've never really had much issue with their hard news departments, aside from their rather selective reporting. Today they have managed to sink to a new low. It's breathtaking, really. From Ace of Spades HQ:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/291110.php
Trying to gin up racial tension and paint the protesters as racists out to kill the president is beyond the pale, and whoever was responsible for editing and playing that clip, as well as the three useless idiots on camera crying racism should all be fired.
Our press have officially jumped the shark from news reportage to propaganda. There's no denying it now.
Oh, and you might not want to continue reading Ace's post after the second video clip. He goes off on a rather questionable rant about Contessa Brewer and her sexual proclivities. Needless to say, Ace is rather perturbed. Just a word of warning.
Exit Question: Did they really think no one would figure out the ruse?
I personally can't wait to see how they try to squirm out of this one....
UPDATE: The 'spin' is lamer than I thought it would be (via HotAir):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/20/msnbc-on-race-baiting-gun-segment-um-we-were-speaking-generally/
I will say it again, heads should roll for this - both behind the scenes and in front of the cameras. If MSNBC won't do it themselves, the FCC should investigate.
But I've never really had much issue with their hard news departments, aside from their rather selective reporting. Today they have managed to sink to a new low. It's breathtaking, really. From Ace of Spades HQ:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/291110.php
Trying to gin up racial tension and paint the protesters as racists out to kill the president is beyond the pale, and whoever was responsible for editing and playing that clip, as well as the three useless idiots on camera crying racism should all be fired.
Our press have officially jumped the shark from news reportage to propaganda. There's no denying it now.
Oh, and you might not want to continue reading Ace's post after the second video clip. He goes off on a rather questionable rant about Contessa Brewer and her sexual proclivities. Needless to say, Ace is rather perturbed. Just a word of warning.
Exit Question: Did they really think no one would figure out the ruse?
I personally can't wait to see how they try to squirm out of this one....
UPDATE: The 'spin' is lamer than I thought it would be (via HotAir):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/20/msnbc-on-race-baiting-gun-segment-um-we-were-speaking-generally/
I will say it again, heads should roll for this - both behind the scenes and in front of the cameras. If MSNBC won't do it themselves, the FCC should investigate.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"COMMUNITY MAKEOVER PLANS" Updated
The Senate's version of health care legislation, just approved by the HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee, is quite a doozie.
All I can say is HOW DARE THEY?!
In a section entitled "Community Transformation Grants" (pp. 382-387) of the Bill, they will be granting an as yet unnamed "national network of community-based organizations" to "promote healthy living".
And how will they do this, you ask?
According to CNSNews, not only will they be targeting our children with programs to increase healthy food choices at school, as well as physical activities (both of which I agree with - school food is gross, and most kids get P.E. once a week and no recess right now). They are also talking about education programs on nutrition and healthy lifestyles, as well as activities to prevent chronic diseases - whatever that is. As long as it doesn't entail teaching my 9 year old how to put a condom on a banana, it can't be too bad.
The part of the bill that really gets my goat and gives me a MAJOR case of Big Brother heebie-jeebies is this:
In a section entitled, “Community-Based Prevention Health Activities," the bill calls on grant recipients (community organizers) to measure weight loss, physical activity, smoking and other activities of people in the neighborhood."In carrying out subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure--"(i) decreases in weight;"(ii) increases in proper nutrition;"(iii) increases in physical activity;"(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;"(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and "(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].” The proposed law further says that the CDC director “shall provide appropriate feedback and technical assistance to grantees to establish community makeover plans.”
This is truly frightening. This is the most blatant example of Nannystate micro managing Big Brother-ness I've ever heard of. I read about it, in books like 1984, but I figured that was just fiction. Apparently not.
So will we now have to line up weekly and get weighed and lectured? Are we going to have to submit our food diary? Or are they going to set up a snitch line for food cheats? Maybe a wrist monitor that tracks our caloric intake? Maybe they could just send a community organizer with us to do our grocery shopping each week, cook our meals and spoon feed them to us. Are they going to test us for tobacco products? Make sure we take our prescriptions? Will we have to wear pedometers or get notes from the gym that we did our required workouts?
Who the HELL do these people think they are?
It's not just at home and school that they will monitor us:
The language of the bill says, "Activities within the plan shall focus on (but not be limited to) ... (iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives; (v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues; (vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social determinants of health..."
This is a TOTALITARIAN STATE, hidden in the guise of health care reform.
I encourage you all to read the CNSNews article: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/52623
UPDATE: Here's how they are going to try to spin it. According to Page 385, section 4 paragraph A (emphasis mine):
(4) EVALUATION.—
19 (A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity shall
20 use amount provided under a grant under this
21 section to conduct activities to measure changes
22 in the prevalence of chronic disease risk factors
23 among community members participating in
24 preventive health activities
They will say this is only for "community members participating in preventive health activities", not for everyone.
But, if this really is single-payer in disguise (or public option or co-op or whatever they are calling it this week - I prefer Frank Luntz's "government option") won't we all be participants eventually? And isn't one of the supposed selling points of ObamaCare 'saving money through preventive health care', thus implying ALL will participate in preventive care? If all, perforce, are included in preventive care, all are then eligible for the stated measures, right?
All I can say is HOW DARE THEY?!
In a section entitled "Community Transformation Grants" (pp. 382-387) of the Bill, they will be granting an as yet unnamed "national network of community-based organizations" to "promote healthy living".
And how will they do this, you ask?
According to CNSNews, not only will they be targeting our children with programs to increase healthy food choices at school, as well as physical activities (both of which I agree with - school food is gross, and most kids get P.E. once a week and no recess right now). They are also talking about education programs on nutrition and healthy lifestyles, as well as activities to prevent chronic diseases - whatever that is. As long as it doesn't entail teaching my 9 year old how to put a condom on a banana, it can't be too bad.
The part of the bill that really gets my goat and gives me a MAJOR case of Big Brother heebie-jeebies is this:
In a section entitled, “Community-Based Prevention Health Activities," the bill calls on grant recipients (community organizers) to measure weight loss, physical activity, smoking and other activities of people in the neighborhood."In carrying out subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure--"(i) decreases in weight;"(ii) increases in proper nutrition;"(iii) increases in physical activity;"(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;"(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and "(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].” The proposed law further says that the CDC director “shall provide appropriate feedback and technical assistance to grantees to establish community makeover plans.”
This is truly frightening. This is the most blatant example of Nannystate micro managing Big Brother-ness I've ever heard of. I read about it, in books like 1984, but I figured that was just fiction. Apparently not.
So will we now have to line up weekly and get weighed and lectured? Are we going to have to submit our food diary? Or are they going to set up a snitch line for food cheats? Maybe a wrist monitor that tracks our caloric intake? Maybe they could just send a community organizer with us to do our grocery shopping each week, cook our meals and spoon feed them to us. Are they going to test us for tobacco products? Make sure we take our prescriptions? Will we have to wear pedometers or get notes from the gym that we did our required workouts?
Who the HELL do these people think they are?
It's not just at home and school that they will monitor us:
The language of the bill says, "Activities within the plan shall focus on (but not be limited to) ... (iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives; (v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues; (vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social determinants of health..."
This is a TOTALITARIAN STATE, hidden in the guise of health care reform.
I encourage you all to read the CNSNews article: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/52623
UPDATE: Here's how they are going to try to spin it. According to Page 385, section 4 paragraph A (emphasis mine):
(4) EVALUATION.—
19 (A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity shall
20 use amount provided under a grant under this
21 section to conduct activities to measure changes
22 in the prevalence of chronic disease risk factors
23 among community members participating in
24 preventive health activities
They will say this is only for "community members participating in preventive health activities", not for everyone.
But, if this really is single-payer in disguise (or public option or co-op or whatever they are calling it this week - I prefer Frank Luntz's "government option") won't we all be participants eventually? And isn't one of the supposed selling points of ObamaCare 'saving money through preventive health care', thus implying ALL will participate in preventive care? If all, perforce, are included in preventive care, all are then eligible for the stated measures, right?
PROTEST ARGUMENT PROVED
This comes from MSNBC's Morning Joe:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#32459067
I'm sure Obama will be putting A LOT of distance between himself and this, well, Weiner.
I just love when the host starts talking about how Rep. Weiner (D-NY) is supporting the protester's arguments - he seems so offended that those 'crazies' have just been proven right!
BTW, he keeps asking what insurance brings to the table for their billions in profits. Any idiot knows the whole point of insurance is to insure one from catastrophic illness by paying small amounts each month. They bring to the table...insurance.
The reason Medicare has a 4% overhead, as Mr. Weiner states, is because they don't need to advertise or make big profits. Why is this? Because they are government run!!! Medicare doesn't compete with anyone, everyone knows what it is, and they don't need profits because if they have a budget shortfall, we the taxpayers will pick up the slack. Who cares if the system is a failure?
It's better than free market capitalism - if you're a friggin' SOCIALIST!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#32459067
I'm sure Obama will be putting A LOT of distance between himself and this, well, Weiner.
I just love when the host starts talking about how Rep. Weiner (D-NY) is supporting the protester's arguments - he seems so offended that those 'crazies' have just been proven right!
BTW, he keeps asking what insurance brings to the table for their billions in profits. Any idiot knows the whole point of insurance is to insure one from catastrophic illness by paying small amounts each month. They bring to the table...insurance.
The reason Medicare has a 4% overhead, as Mr. Weiner states, is because they don't need to advertise or make big profits. Why is this? Because they are government run!!! Medicare doesn't compete with anyone, everyone knows what it is, and they don't need profits because if they have a budget shortfall, we the taxpayers will pick up the slack. Who cares if the system is a failure?
It's better than free market capitalism - if you're a friggin' SOCIALIST!!!
WHO SAYS SCIENCE ISN'T FUN?
This is a totally awesome scientific study:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6049924/Zombies-would-most-likely-wipe-out-humanity-if-they-really-existed-claim-scientists.html
Hmmmm...and to think we here in America are worried about nukes from Iran or N. Korea bringing about the apocalypse - silly Americans!
Well, at least we won't have to waste our tax dollars and coming public option on curing them. Do the undead count as Americans, or is that only in Chicago, where they have been valued voters for decades?
Swine Flu, zombies - same diff!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6049924/Zombies-would-most-likely-wipe-out-humanity-if-they-really-existed-claim-scientists.html
Hmmmm...and to think we here in America are worried about nukes from Iran or N. Korea bringing about the apocalypse - silly Americans!
Well, at least we won't have to waste our tax dollars and coming public option on curing them. Do the undead count as Americans, or is that only in Chicago, where they have been valued voters for decades?
Swine Flu, zombies - same diff!
AN INCONVENIENT REBUTTAL
From CNSNews:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52543
I can't wait to see it. Hopefully it will have some totally awesome slides like Gore's flick. Except factual. Do you think this will get any attention at all? After all, it sounds all scientific-y and stuff.
Not to mention HERETICAL!!
How dare they attack the Super Duper Totally Holy Church of Global Warming?
They must hate the planet!
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52543
I can't wait to see it. Hopefully it will have some totally awesome slides like Gore's flick. Except factual. Do you think this will get any attention at all? After all, it sounds all scientific-y and stuff.
Not to mention HERETICAL!!
How dare they attack the Super Duper Totally Holy Church of Global Warming?
They must hate the planet!
Monday, August 17, 2009
GET A GRIP
I read this article in Breitbart.com today:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A4SU8G1&show_article=1
This is just too much. Yes, the Second Amendment provides for Americans rights to bear arms. However, as in most things, discretion is required. I am a gun enthusiast, and I understand people's fears of having their second amendment rights taken away from them. But behavior like this takes us all one step closer to that happening.
No matter how much of an enthusiast you are, show a little common sense. You simply DO NOT take a gun to a presidential event. Especially when said event is a volatile town hall meeting. Emotions are running high, and tempers flare at the drop of a hat. To bring firearms into the mix is a terrible decision.
Our Secret Service members have a tough enough job to do without this kind of behavior, first of all. You potentially risk your life and those around you with this irresponsible action. Like him or not, you must realize that the Secret Service is already on high alert due to the tensions of the people assembled as well as the numerous death threats already made against Obama, and if tempers between the pro- and anti- protesters were to flare, events could potentially unfold that would be devastating to all.
Second, but just as important, HOW DOES THIS HELP THE PROTESTERS? They are already facing an uphill battle for legitimacy; all this does is drag the cause down. I am cringing at the thought of the coverage this will be getting over the next week in the MSM. They already call the protesters unhinged mobs - how does this change that perception?
Come on, people! Use your heads! If they try to legislate away our second amendment rights, THEN you bring your gun to a rally. Not for health care!! How do guns forward the health care agenda? Get a grip! I don't care if it's allowed in Arizona, I don't care if you hate Obama, his agenda or the health care legislation, there is simply no excuse for such behavior, and I hope to God this is the last we see of it.
We're better than this. You only serve the left agenda and reinforce their 'angry mob' argument.
Take a breath, get a grip, and THINK for a minute!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A4SU8G1&show_article=1
This is just too much. Yes, the Second Amendment provides for Americans rights to bear arms. However, as in most things, discretion is required. I am a gun enthusiast, and I understand people's fears of having their second amendment rights taken away from them. But behavior like this takes us all one step closer to that happening.
No matter how much of an enthusiast you are, show a little common sense. You simply DO NOT take a gun to a presidential event. Especially when said event is a volatile town hall meeting. Emotions are running high, and tempers flare at the drop of a hat. To bring firearms into the mix is a terrible decision.
Our Secret Service members have a tough enough job to do without this kind of behavior, first of all. You potentially risk your life and those around you with this irresponsible action. Like him or not, you must realize that the Secret Service is already on high alert due to the tensions of the people assembled as well as the numerous death threats already made against Obama, and if tempers between the pro- and anti- protesters were to flare, events could potentially unfold that would be devastating to all.
Second, but just as important, HOW DOES THIS HELP THE PROTESTERS? They are already facing an uphill battle for legitimacy; all this does is drag the cause down. I am cringing at the thought of the coverage this will be getting over the next week in the MSM. They already call the protesters unhinged mobs - how does this change that perception?
Come on, people! Use your heads! If they try to legislate away our second amendment rights, THEN you bring your gun to a rally. Not for health care!! How do guns forward the health care agenda? Get a grip! I don't care if it's allowed in Arizona, I don't care if you hate Obama, his agenda or the health care legislation, there is simply no excuse for such behavior, and I hope to God this is the last we see of it.
We're better than this. You only serve the left agenda and reinforce their 'angry mob' argument.
Take a breath, get a grip, and THINK for a minute!
RETREATING FROM THE RETREAT
Wow. Not even 24 hours after leading democrats backed away from the public option, suddenly it is creeping back onto the table. Sounds like they are being pressured by their far-left base. I haven't seen so many flip-flops since my last trip to the beach!
I'm not surprised, though. The public option is the entire reason d'etre for the health care reform package. The whole point is to get to a single-payer program, according to statements Obama has made in the past, and that can only be accomplished with a public option. They are getting backlash from their base, though, and so are walking back from their walking back.
Something to be wary of - they are testing the waters on a 'co-op' plan. I mentioned it in my last post. It might be a good idea, but it might possibly be a public option in disguise. I will be keeping tabs on it, for sure.
Remember, the democrats are masters of 'rebranding'. Single-payer raised alarm bells? Call it a 'public option'. Wise to the public option thing? Call it a co-op. Sounds very collectivist and trendy, doesn't it? So harmless, so...for the people.
We must continue to bring pressure to bear on them about their plans to steer us into their ultimate goal of single payer health care. We must be ever more vigilant, because our opponents are slippery and have a habit of changing the rules to suit their purposes. In the bizzarro world of the liberal elites, up is down, good is bad, wrong is right. Words are things to be manipulated, meanings changed, definitions redefined.
According to the House, only the Senate has removed the public option - the word is that the House bill won't pass without it. So was the Senate walk-back a red herring? Testing the waters to see what the base's backlash will be like?
Or is it just that the level of tone-deafness on the part of the House, and most notably Speaker Pelosi, is so high that they still think the push-back on public option is mere astroturf by a minority of insurance industry funded 'fringe' groups?
Perhaps they simply don't care what the majority of the public wants. Perhaps she is so drunk with power that she feels she doesn't need to pay attention to the obvious mandate by the people against it. Interesting how, back in November, a 53%-46% vote was depicted as an 'overwhelming mandate from the people', but 54% of voters polled recently who would prefer NO health care reform over the 35% who want reform is nothing to pay attention to.
Talk about selective hearing!
It's time to start telling them what we WANT, not just what we don't want. Scrap the bills. Tort reform. Streamline Medicaid/Medicare. Regulate insurers and require them to allow portability, access without employment and eliminate pre-existing conditions.
We're making progress, without a doubt. Every attack they've made against us has backfired on them. We must press our advantage, not sit back on our laurels. This isn't just health care that we are fighting for - it's 1/6th of the largest economy in the history of the world. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said:
"A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."
Remember, too, the nine scariest words in the English language, according to Ronald Reagan:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
I'm not surprised, though. The public option is the entire reason d'etre for the health care reform package. The whole point is to get to a single-payer program, according to statements Obama has made in the past, and that can only be accomplished with a public option. They are getting backlash from their base, though, and so are walking back from their walking back.
Something to be wary of - they are testing the waters on a 'co-op' plan. I mentioned it in my last post. It might be a good idea, but it might possibly be a public option in disguise. I will be keeping tabs on it, for sure.
Remember, the democrats are masters of 'rebranding'. Single-payer raised alarm bells? Call it a 'public option'. Wise to the public option thing? Call it a co-op. Sounds very collectivist and trendy, doesn't it? So harmless, so...for the people.
We must continue to bring pressure to bear on them about their plans to steer us into their ultimate goal of single payer health care. We must be ever more vigilant, because our opponents are slippery and have a habit of changing the rules to suit their purposes. In the bizzarro world of the liberal elites, up is down, good is bad, wrong is right. Words are things to be manipulated, meanings changed, definitions redefined.
According to the House, only the Senate has removed the public option - the word is that the House bill won't pass without it. So was the Senate walk-back a red herring? Testing the waters to see what the base's backlash will be like?
Or is it just that the level of tone-deafness on the part of the House, and most notably Speaker Pelosi, is so high that they still think the push-back on public option is mere astroturf by a minority of insurance industry funded 'fringe' groups?
Perhaps they simply don't care what the majority of the public wants. Perhaps she is so drunk with power that she feels she doesn't need to pay attention to the obvious mandate by the people against it. Interesting how, back in November, a 53%-46% vote was depicted as an 'overwhelming mandate from the people', but 54% of voters polled recently who would prefer NO health care reform over the 35% who want reform is nothing to pay attention to.
Talk about selective hearing!
It's time to start telling them what we WANT, not just what we don't want. Scrap the bills. Tort reform. Streamline Medicaid/Medicare. Regulate insurers and require them to allow portability, access without employment and eliminate pre-existing conditions.
We're making progress, without a doubt. Every attack they've made against us has backfired on them. We must press our advantage, not sit back on our laurels. This isn't just health care that we are fighting for - it's 1/6th of the largest economy in the history of the world. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said:
"A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."
Remember, too, the nine scariest words in the English language, according to Ronald Reagan:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
SCORE ONE FOR DEMOCRACY!
Congratulations, people of America! You just scored a major victory, proving that democracy is alive and well in our beloved Republic. The administration is doing two things, due to pressure from the American people:
1) The public option seems to be off the table. The free market is sighing in relief, I'm sure. Instead, they are eyeing co-ops, which will be examined more in-depth as the week goes on. This is a HUGE win, absolutely huge. The fight isn't over yet, though, because it still has to go through committee, where all sorts of interesting things happen to bills.
2)Doctors will no longer get paid to suggest end-of-life counselling (for those 'death panels' that the administration said didn't exist...well, until they took them out). They can still offer it, of course, and there are times when it is necessary. But to offer cash incentives is to open up the possibility of abuse. After all, President Obama himself has told us that doctors are willing to lop off limbs and yank tonsils all the time for the cash, right? What's a little counselling?
Yes, the exchange got heated for a while, and probably will remain so, since there are so many other questionable things still in the bill, but this is a wonderful victory, and something to savor.
Mmmmmm, delicious! Soooo satisfying....
Okay, enough savoring!
Now it's time to get them to take out the access to our bank accounts, reverse the White House deal with big PhRMA so that certain Plan B drugs can be moved to Plan D, saving seniors money - oh, and don't forget the tort reform and insurance regulation allowing it to be transportable and not employer-dependent!
It's unfortunate that we had to shout so loudly (and, apparently, offensively) and take a few shots, both verbal and physical, before they would listen, but at least we finally got their (breathtakingly tone deaf) ear.
Now, let's see if they keep listening.
1) The public option seems to be off the table. The free market is sighing in relief, I'm sure. Instead, they are eyeing co-ops, which will be examined more in-depth as the week goes on. This is a HUGE win, absolutely huge. The fight isn't over yet, though, because it still has to go through committee, where all sorts of interesting things happen to bills.
2)Doctors will no longer get paid to suggest end-of-life counselling (for those 'death panels' that the administration said didn't exist...well, until they took them out). They can still offer it, of course, and there are times when it is necessary. But to offer cash incentives is to open up the possibility of abuse. After all, President Obama himself has told us that doctors are willing to lop off limbs and yank tonsils all the time for the cash, right? What's a little counselling?
Yes, the exchange got heated for a while, and probably will remain so, since there are so many other questionable things still in the bill, but this is a wonderful victory, and something to savor.
Mmmmmm, delicious! Soooo satisfying....
Okay, enough savoring!
Now it's time to get them to take out the access to our bank accounts, reverse the White House deal with big PhRMA so that certain Plan B drugs can be moved to Plan D, saving seniors money - oh, and don't forget the tort reform and insurance regulation allowing it to be transportable and not employer-dependent!
It's unfortunate that we had to shout so loudly (and, apparently, offensively) and take a few shots, both verbal and physical, before they would listen, but at least we finally got their (breathtakingly tone deaf) ear.
Now, let's see if they keep listening.
ANOTHER CONGRESSIONAL WINNER
I'm joking, of course.
In a story reported by FoxNews.com, it seems the Cash for Clunkers program has hit another pothole. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/?test=latestnews
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), in a letter to President Obama, points to the fact that only 2% of participating auto dealers have received reimbursement, with fully four out of five applications having been "rejected for minor oversight".
Car dealers, needless to say, are rather irate and are beginning to voice their discontent.
All told, Congress approved $3 billion for the program. 338,659 requests have been submitted.
Quite a large operation, yes?
Congress, in all of their wisdom, has assigned all of 225 people to handle the paperwork. Rep. Sestak is calling for 1,000 processors be assigned to handle the claims.
Governmental inefficiency is nothing new, of course, but the "Just throw money at it" attitude lately is getting really old. Throwing money at a problem just makes it an expensive problem. All we ask is that somebody please COME UP WITH A PLAN before you fund something!! For Heaven's sake, it's just common sense!
This could potentially have a major impact on dealerships. The longer it takes to process the paperwork, the more rejections there are, the harder the dealerships are hit. Layoffs may ensue, as well as closings. The program has failed again.
But that seems to be par for the course, lately.
In a story reported by FoxNews.com, it seems the Cash for Clunkers program has hit another pothole. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/?test=latestnews
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), in a letter to President Obama, points to the fact that only 2% of participating auto dealers have received reimbursement, with fully four out of five applications having been "rejected for minor oversight".
Car dealers, needless to say, are rather irate and are beginning to voice their discontent.
All told, Congress approved $3 billion for the program. 338,659 requests have been submitted.
Quite a large operation, yes?
Congress, in all of their wisdom, has assigned all of 225 people to handle the paperwork. Rep. Sestak is calling for 1,000 processors be assigned to handle the claims.
Governmental inefficiency is nothing new, of course, but the "Just throw money at it" attitude lately is getting really old. Throwing money at a problem just makes it an expensive problem. All we ask is that somebody please COME UP WITH A PLAN before you fund something!! For Heaven's sake, it's just common sense!
This could potentially have a major impact on dealerships. The longer it takes to process the paperwork, the more rejections there are, the harder the dealerships are hit. Layoffs may ensue, as well as closings. The program has failed again.
But that seems to be par for the course, lately.
OBAMA'S NYT OP-ED
Dear Leader wrote an op-ed in this Sunday's New York Times on health care reform. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 As usual, he nails the great rhetoric, but fails on the facts. Let's break it down, shall we?
The first whopper is, yet again, the number of uninsured. He uses the number 47 million Americans for this piece. Let's break it down. First of all, the real number of uninsured Americans is roughly 35 million. So how does he come up with the number 47? Well, that includes the roughly 10 million illegal immigrants that are living in the country today. Due to their illegal status, they a) do not count as Americans and b) should not be eligible for national healthcare. Aside from about 8 million legitimately uninsured, the rest of the 47 million number is made up of people who can afford insurance but opt out (the 'invincibles', usually between 18-34 yrs old who are in great health and feel insurance is an unneccesary expense), people who are eligible for governement healthcare but choose not to enroll for various reasons. So, basically, this healthcare overhaul is for about 3% of Americans. Oh, and 10 million illegals.http://fyiblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/about-those-45-million-uninsured-americans/
He states that the reform will bring skyrocketing costs under control. How, exactly, when the cheapest proposal so far is over $1 trillion? He also states that the reform will bring down senior's prescription drug prices. He's right on this one, sort of. According to the leaked emails on the White House's secret deal with PhRMA, seniors will save a whopping 2% on their drugs. But, when you combine that with another portion of the deal which keeps some Part B drugs from moving to Part D, where they would be much, much cheaper, that 2% savings pretty much disappears. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
He discusses having insurance that is portable and will stay with you no matter if you change jobs, lose your job, or move out of state. I'm all for that, for sure. It would increase competition and thus, true to free-market principles, would reduce costs. However, I think that goal would be easier to achieve with reglation, not by creating a cumbersome public option that will eventually drive the private sector out of business.
I also agree with the need for Medicare/Medicaid overhaul. The first order of business? Removing illegals from the rolls. After that, streamlining through regulation, using the technological assets at our fingertips to make both entitlements leaner and more efficient should definitely be undertaken. But not by creating a whole new entitlement. Fix what is broken, don't create a new mess.
I think he's right, too, that the insurance companies discriminating due to pre-existing conditions is bad, bad, bad. But, again, the clear answer for this is regulation, not creating a new bureaucracy.
He says that "Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care." Absolutely, Mr. President. And that is done through regulation, not by governement takeover of (another) entire industry.
He also remarks "But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing." Interesting. According to a new Rasmussen poll, 54% of Americans believe that passing NO reform is better than the current Congressional offering. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan
He then states: "If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." Um, how many of those Americans have lost their insurance due to losing their jobs because of the 9.4% unemployment rate we have enjoyed under his watch?
He also maintains that this is not a political debate. What? Are you kidding? Truly, that doesn't even deserve an answer, it's so snort-worthy.
I suppose it wasn't a political decision to ignore the desperate need for tort reform? If you look at this chart, you will see that he has 43 million reasons to ignore tort reform: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFEgVnlg2UUHgm_bW_qXPB5dye6HNyOpQgTz0cJNlMpFTnxNyuVJhu4hDQeTRC7bh91jLi9q7nRX59qkYOqL4m-rMKJPaMrDI1aSTlGMdxr56nsiwq2o8OzORZgitIBmypHnw-RGrQZ64/s1600-h/lawyers.jpg
In closing, most of the things he said needed to be done in this article can be done with regulation. So why isn't that what we're discussing? Why are they trying to force a whole new entitlement program on us? Simple.
Power and control.
It is the foot in the door. As Lenin once said, "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state." Taking over the health care industry would firmly put the federal government in control of 1/6th of our economy. Add that to their takeover of the car industry, the banking industry and their grab at the energy industry, and there is a very scary picture emerging.
Mr. Obama is a very persuasive man, until one looks at the facts. Then his straw man arguments fall apart.
In my opinion, this op-ed is nothing BUT straw men.
The first whopper is, yet again, the number of uninsured. He uses the number 47 million Americans for this piece. Let's break it down. First of all, the real number of uninsured Americans is roughly 35 million. So how does he come up with the number 47? Well, that includes the roughly 10 million illegal immigrants that are living in the country today. Due to their illegal status, they a) do not count as Americans and b) should not be eligible for national healthcare. Aside from about 8 million legitimately uninsured, the rest of the 47 million number is made up of people who can afford insurance but opt out (the 'invincibles', usually between 18-34 yrs old who are in great health and feel insurance is an unneccesary expense), people who are eligible for governement healthcare but choose not to enroll for various reasons. So, basically, this healthcare overhaul is for about 3% of Americans. Oh, and 10 million illegals.http://fyiblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/about-those-45-million-uninsured-americans/
He states that the reform will bring skyrocketing costs under control. How, exactly, when the cheapest proposal so far is over $1 trillion? He also states that the reform will bring down senior's prescription drug prices. He's right on this one, sort of. According to the leaked emails on the White House's secret deal with PhRMA, seniors will save a whopping 2% on their drugs. But, when you combine that with another portion of the deal which keeps some Part B drugs from moving to Part D, where they would be much, much cheaper, that 2% savings pretty much disappears. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
He discusses having insurance that is portable and will stay with you no matter if you change jobs, lose your job, or move out of state. I'm all for that, for sure. It would increase competition and thus, true to free-market principles, would reduce costs. However, I think that goal would be easier to achieve with reglation, not by creating a cumbersome public option that will eventually drive the private sector out of business.
I also agree with the need for Medicare/Medicaid overhaul. The first order of business? Removing illegals from the rolls. After that, streamlining through regulation, using the technological assets at our fingertips to make both entitlements leaner and more efficient should definitely be undertaken. But not by creating a whole new entitlement. Fix what is broken, don't create a new mess.
I think he's right, too, that the insurance companies discriminating due to pre-existing conditions is bad, bad, bad. But, again, the clear answer for this is regulation, not creating a new bureaucracy.
He says that "Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care." Absolutely, Mr. President. And that is done through regulation, not by governement takeover of (another) entire industry.
He also remarks "But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing." Interesting. According to a new Rasmussen poll, 54% of Americans believe that passing NO reform is better than the current Congressional offering. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan
He then states: "If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." Um, how many of those Americans have lost their insurance due to losing their jobs because of the 9.4% unemployment rate we have enjoyed under his watch?
He also maintains that this is not a political debate. What? Are you kidding? Truly, that doesn't even deserve an answer, it's so snort-worthy.
I suppose it wasn't a political decision to ignore the desperate need for tort reform? If you look at this chart, you will see that he has 43 million reasons to ignore tort reform: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFEgVnlg2UUHgm_bW_qXPB5dye6HNyOpQgTz0cJNlMpFTnxNyuVJhu4hDQeTRC7bh91jLi9q7nRX59qkYOqL4m-rMKJPaMrDI1aSTlGMdxr56nsiwq2o8OzORZgitIBmypHnw-RGrQZ64/s1600-h/lawyers.jpg
In closing, most of the things he said needed to be done in this article can be done with regulation. So why isn't that what we're discussing? Why are they trying to force a whole new entitlement program on us? Simple.
Power and control.
It is the foot in the door. As Lenin once said, "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state." Taking over the health care industry would firmly put the federal government in control of 1/6th of our economy. Add that to their takeover of the car industry, the banking industry and their grab at the energy industry, and there is a very scary picture emerging.
Mr. Obama is a very persuasive man, until one looks at the facts. Then his straw man arguments fall apart.
In my opinion, this op-ed is nothing BUT straw men.
TRANSPARENCY?
The White House is busily creating an $18 million website to shine transparency on the disbursal of stimulus funds. Quite a sum, just for creating a website, right? I bet you're curious to see what $18 million buys, aren't you? Well, you're not alone. An organization called ProPublica has sought the contract through FOIA. They were finally successful - sort of:
http://documents.propublica.org/recovery-gov-contract-documents/page/56#p=57
The contract is a 59 page technical proposal. Of those 59 pages, 25 are completely blacked out (redacted). Another 14 pages are more than half redacted. The key pieces that are redacted are (from the blog 'The Raw Story'):
the project’s management structure;
something called the “Strategic Advisory Council”;
quality assurance procedures;
five pages on user experience;
site navigation ;
four unidentified pages on which everything, even section headings, have been redacted;
every single piece of information in the document’s pricing table, including function, vendor, model, part ID, detail and quantity;
the contract’s warranty agreement.
Isn't it a little ominous that the contract to create the transparency website isn't transparent? It certainly doesn't bode well, in my opinion.
What are they trying to hide (especially as far as the pricing and key personnel goes)?
To take a page from the book of the great anchorman Ron Burgundy, 30% of the time, it's transparent all the time!
http://documents.propublica.org/recovery-gov-contract-documents/page/56#p=57
The contract is a 59 page technical proposal. Of those 59 pages, 25 are completely blacked out (redacted). Another 14 pages are more than half redacted. The key pieces that are redacted are (from the blog 'The Raw Story'):
the project’s management structure;
something called the “Strategic Advisory Council”;
quality assurance procedures;
five pages on user experience;
site navigation ;
four unidentified pages on which everything, even section headings, have been redacted;
every single piece of information in the document’s pricing table, including function, vendor, model, part ID, detail and quantity;
the contract’s warranty agreement.
Isn't it a little ominous that the contract to create the transparency website isn't transparent? It certainly doesn't bode well, in my opinion.
What are they trying to hide (especially as far as the pricing and key personnel goes)?
To take a page from the book of the great anchorman Ron Burgundy, 30% of the time, it's transparent all the time!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The 'Obama as Joker' poster has gotten a lot of press lately, and, when there was not a hue and cry against it, Obama's supporters turned to their old friend, the race card. If you don't see anything wrong with this poster, you are a racist. If you protest that you are not, you are a subconscious racist. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/14/la-weekly-if-you-object-to-calling-the-obama-joker-poster-racist-youre-probably-racist/#comment-2573585 Here's an exerpt: ""No, dude, it’s all about race. Racial anxiety and racism are social pathologies that adapt to changing conditions and evolve over time. Conservatives don’t burn crosses at their rallies - contemporary political theater and its language have moved on with the times. Still, I remember that even back in the days when cross burnings were in vogue — and when it seemed that civil rights workers were being killed every month in the Deep South — even then you would rarely find a segregationist proclaiming, on television at least, that he was a racist and believed blacks were inferior. Instead, the racist argument was usually couched in terms of “state’s rights,” “mutual benefits,” of how Negroes themselves didn’t want race-mixing, that they were basically good, hard-working people who were being duped by Communists…""
I have had it up to here with the racial accusations by democrats about republicans. It is ridiculous. I know that they have been busily rewriting history in their textbooks and college classes, but that doesn't change the truth. Here's the truth:
The DEMOCRAT party was the party of southern white slaveholders.
It was DEMOCRATS who started the KKK after the Civil War as a way to keep the black population under the boot.
It was DEMOCRATS who burned crosses and hung black men for such minor things as looking at a white woman and killed civil rights workers like Medgar Evers (Byron De La Beckwith, Evers' murderer, was a lifelong KKK member who later in life attempted a run for the democratic nomination to be Lt. Governor of Mississippi.)
It was DEMOCRATS who expanded and then fought to keep the Jim Crow laws.
It is DEMOCRATS who rely, to this day, on the politics of race to keep this country separated and fighting amongst itself.
The REPUBLICAN party was created in the 1850’s specifically to oppose slavery and the induction of pro-slavery states into the Union.
REPUBLICANS fought and died to free the slaves - it's called the Civil War.
REPUBLICANS supported civil rights and fought to get rid of Jim Crow laws.
REPUBLICANS include Matin Luther King Jr., Homer Plessy (who’s lawsuit, Plessy v. Ferguson, which he lost, ushered in the Jim Crow laws), Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells (founder of NAACP), Sojourner Truth, Jackie Robinson, James Meredith (civil rights leader), Alveda King, James L. Farmer Jr.(civil rights leader), Charles Evers (civil rights leader and brother of Medgar Evers), Eldridge Cleaver (civil rights leader), the list goes on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_American_Republicans
Look them up. Please. Information is power.
Many black civil rights leaders were republicans, because they were fighting against democrats. While you're at it, you should also check out the early years of the Progressive (liberal) party. Quite an eye opener. Look into Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) and her belief in eugenics - she used to speak on the subject at KKK rallies. I will be writing more about her and the Progressive movement in the future.
They can try to project the crimes of the Democrats onto the Republicans, but history proves them wrong, time after time.
RETREAT?
This is a very interesting comment:
"“‘She said we’re going to have it before we left,’ Murtha said. ‘We said, ‘No, no, we want some time to think about this.’ We’re taking some time to make sure it’s done right. I don’t know that we’ll get something done before January, and even then we may not get it done. We’re going to do it right when it’s finally done.’”
This comes from an interview with CNN. Is this the first sign of retreat, scrap and start over?
More importantly, are the winds of change a blowin' for Speaker Pelosi? Seems like her peers are starting to distance themselves and argue that their support was strictly due to arm twisting. Of course, the jury's still out on whether Murtha himself will be around much longer, be it from scandal or voters.
One wonders if, having already made a mess of one (okay, four, but who's counting) major bill, she will get a chance to do it again.
Could it possibly be that Pelosi is going to be the next casualty to feel the wheels of the bus go thump, thump, thump?
"“‘She said we’re going to have it before we left,’ Murtha said. ‘We said, ‘No, no, we want some time to think about this.’ We’re taking some time to make sure it’s done right. I don’t know that we’ll get something done before January, and even then we may not get it done. We’re going to do it right when it’s finally done.’”
This comes from an interview with CNN. Is this the first sign of retreat, scrap and start over?
More importantly, are the winds of change a blowin' for Speaker Pelosi? Seems like her peers are starting to distance themselves and argue that their support was strictly due to arm twisting. Of course, the jury's still out on whether Murtha himself will be around much longer, be it from scandal or voters.
One wonders if, having already made a mess of one (okay, four, but who's counting) major bill, she will get a chance to do it again.
Could it possibly be that Pelosi is going to be the next casualty to feel the wheels of the bus go thump, thump, thump?
Friday, August 14, 2009
FCC'S NEW VERSION OF 'FAIRNESS'
If you think the Fairness Doctrine is unfair, check this out:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52435
Okay, so let me get this straight - Lloyd is proposing that licensing fees for private (read: conservative) broadcasting companies be equal to an entire year's worth of operating costs. The fees will then be given to public broadcasting companies - I'm assuming because the $400 million they received last year alone from federal subsidies (read: taxpayer dollars) just wasn't enough.
I have two questions:
1) When are MSNBC, NBC and CNN going to change their organizations to PBC's?
2) How long do you think it will be before they trot out Cookie Monster, Grover et al to tug at our heartstrings (how can you deny the kids!) to get this passed?
Oh, and don't forget that on top of this atrocity, they also want to impose the watering down of content for private broadcasting by forcing them to air local, daily and public news, as well as a 'diversity' of views (read: liberals must have equal time).
I love the phrase "required to encourage". How do you enforce encouragement?
And we thought the Fairness Doctrine was bad - at least one didn't have to pay for the priviledge of losing viewers/listeners.
Hopefully this is so outrageous that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, but these days you just never know.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52435
Okay, so let me get this straight - Lloyd is proposing that licensing fees for private (read: conservative) broadcasting companies be equal to an entire year's worth of operating costs. The fees will then be given to public broadcasting companies - I'm assuming because the $400 million they received last year alone from federal subsidies (read: taxpayer dollars) just wasn't enough.
I have two questions:
1) When are MSNBC, NBC and CNN going to change their organizations to PBC's?
2) How long do you think it will be before they trot out Cookie Monster, Grover et al to tug at our heartstrings (how can you deny the kids!) to get this passed?
Oh, and don't forget that on top of this atrocity, they also want to impose the watering down of content for private broadcasting by forcing them to air local, daily and public news, as well as a 'diversity' of views (read: liberals must have equal time).
I love the phrase "required to encourage". How do you enforce encouragement?
And we thought the Fairness Doctrine was bad - at least one didn't have to pay for the priviledge of losing viewers/listeners.
Hopefully this is so outrageous that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, but these days you just never know.
WOW!!! (Updated)
Just when you think they can't sink any lower:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/14/rep-melissa-bean-charging-25-entrance-fee-to-town-hall/
And what state is she from?
The land of Obama and Rahm, of course!
Update: They must have gotten a lot of flack for this, so now they've changed it to a "Town Hall Breakfast" with Rep. Bean: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/16/pretty-sneaky-congresswoman-bean/ I suppose they're hoping the smell of the pancakes and bacon will cover up the smell of desperation?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/14/rep-melissa-bean-charging-25-entrance-fee-to-town-hall/
And what state is she from?
The land of Obama and Rahm, of course!
Update: They must have gotten a lot of flack for this, so now they've changed it to a "Town Hall Breakfast" with Rep. Bean: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/16/pretty-sneaky-congresswoman-bean/ I suppose they're hoping the smell of the pancakes and bacon will cover up the smell of desperation?
ERRRRRGGGGHH!!
Just a little note to say how upset I am that my beloved Eagles have apparently lost their collective minds. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they signed Michael Vick as backup QB, but I can imagine there are some pretty pissed off fans out there, myself and my cousin among them.
And trust me, you don't want to tick off Jay (or Philly fans in general)!
Here's hoping this doesn't turn around and bite us in the ass like the Terrell Owens fiasco did. I'm trying to be optimistic and give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just so disgusted by his crimes that I'm having a hard time.
But, to be fair, everyone deserves a second chance, right?
I just wish it were another team offering him that chance - like, say, Dallas.
And trust me, you don't want to tick off Jay (or Philly fans in general)!
Here's hoping this doesn't turn around and bite us in the ass like the Terrell Owens fiasco did. I'm trying to be optimistic and give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just so disgusted by his crimes that I'm having a hard time.
But, to be fair, everyone deserves a second chance, right?
I just wish it were another team offering him that chance - like, say, Dallas.
LIBERAL MEDIA SHENANIGANS
I have a few things from NewsBusters I wanted to share with you. The first is from an MSNBC interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He is a self proclaimed Socialist, and spends a lot of time attacking FoxNews and calling for more liberal voices:
""I'll tell you what else we need to do," Sanders said. "We need to understand that it is very, very hard for the president or anybody else to take on not just the Republican Party, that's the easy part - to take on all of right-wing talk radio, which covers 90 percent of talk show hosts, a whole Fox network which is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party and the Democrats got to think long term. Why is there not a progressive television network? Why aren't we supporting good and effective personalities on radio as well and building up a network there so that we can that kind of political consciousness-raising that the Republicans, in fact, are doing so well right now.""
Where to begin?
Okay, first of all, FoxNews and conservative radio are doing well because their content appeals to viewers/listeners. That's the formula for success that the liberals apparently just can't seem to grasp. Pretty simple, and yet, they just don't get it.
They desperately want this to be a far-left country, but it isn't. FoxNews, aside from some conservatively biased prime-time hosts (as CNN and MSNBC have liberally biased primetime hosts) really is fair and balanced. The liberals will fight you to the death on that notion, but there have been independent studies that prove that fact. They try very hard to give both sides of the debate, and the viewer can take from it what they want. They trust that the viewer knows their own mind, something the liberal channels don't - they are of the mindset that information must be spun and then spoon-fed in order for the idiots out there in T.V. land to understand it. Talk down to your audience and you tend to lose them.
Secondly, there IS a liberal talk radio network - AirAmerica.
It has had major issues both financially and with lack of listeners. It went bankrupt back in 2006, but, like (Al) Frankenstein's Monster, it just won't seem to die, even though most people think it has. Why does it have such issues when, according to people like Sen. Sanders, the American public is craving lefty radio? Well, mostly because it sucks. I can't imagine why, what with shining stars such as Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes and Al Franken...oh, okay, I just proved my point.
Anyhoo....As for a 'Progressive television network', isn't that MSNBC? Or maybe NBC, the National Barack Channel - all Barack, all the time, all positive spin? What about CNN? I suppose he means channels people actually watch, which would rule out all three. Thus his dislike of FoxNews, because people really do actually watch it, and in record numbers, no less.
In the same vein, there is this little gem:
"Matt Cover at the Media Research Center's News Division, CNSNews.com, has a piece out today entitled "FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting."
This is insane. The "Chief Diversity Officer" in question, Mark Lloyd, is calling for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee (tax) they pay for their broadcast license for the year, with the monies going to the always liberal public stations. With whom they then must compete for listeners. "
Since they can't seem to make successful stations on their own, they are going to try to rape and pillage successful (read: conservative) radio stations.
By hook or by crook, huh?
""I'll tell you what else we need to do," Sanders said. "We need to understand that it is very, very hard for the president or anybody else to take on not just the Republican Party, that's the easy part - to take on all of right-wing talk radio, which covers 90 percent of talk show hosts, a whole Fox network which is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party and the Democrats got to think long term. Why is there not a progressive television network? Why aren't we supporting good and effective personalities on radio as well and building up a network there so that we can that kind of political consciousness-raising that the Republicans, in fact, are doing so well right now.""
Where to begin?
Okay, first of all, FoxNews and conservative radio are doing well because their content appeals to viewers/listeners. That's the formula for success that the liberals apparently just can't seem to grasp. Pretty simple, and yet, they just don't get it.
They desperately want this to be a far-left country, but it isn't. FoxNews, aside from some conservatively biased prime-time hosts (as CNN and MSNBC have liberally biased primetime hosts) really is fair and balanced. The liberals will fight you to the death on that notion, but there have been independent studies that prove that fact. They try very hard to give both sides of the debate, and the viewer can take from it what they want. They trust that the viewer knows their own mind, something the liberal channels don't - they are of the mindset that information must be spun and then spoon-fed in order for the idiots out there in T.V. land to understand it. Talk down to your audience and you tend to lose them.
Secondly, there IS a liberal talk radio network - AirAmerica.
It has had major issues both financially and with lack of listeners. It went bankrupt back in 2006, but, like (Al) Frankenstein's Monster, it just won't seem to die, even though most people think it has. Why does it have such issues when, according to people like Sen. Sanders, the American public is craving lefty radio? Well, mostly because it sucks. I can't imagine why, what with shining stars such as Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes and Al Franken...oh, okay, I just proved my point.
Anyhoo....As for a 'Progressive television network', isn't that MSNBC? Or maybe NBC, the National Barack Channel - all Barack, all the time, all positive spin? What about CNN? I suppose he means channels people actually watch, which would rule out all three. Thus his dislike of FoxNews, because people really do actually watch it, and in record numbers, no less.
In the same vein, there is this little gem:
"Matt Cover at the Media Research Center's News Division, CNSNews.com, has a piece out today entitled "FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting."
This is insane. The "Chief Diversity Officer" in question, Mark Lloyd, is calling for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee (tax) they pay for their broadcast license for the year, with the monies going to the always liberal public stations. With whom they then must compete for listeners. "
Since they can't seem to make successful stations on their own, they are going to try to rape and pillage successful (read: conservative) radio stations.
By hook or by crook, huh?
ETIQUETTE GUIDE FOR RIGHT WING RADICALS
This piece is directly from Michelle Malkin's blog. I just had to link it here because it's a must-read for anyone who plans on going to a town hall in the near future:
http://michellemalkin.com/
Thanks, Michelle Manners! Don't know what we'd do without you!
Now, be good Un-Americans and study your guide!
http://michellemalkin.com/
Thanks, Michelle Manners! Don't know what we'd do without you!
Now, be good Un-Americans and study your guide!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
DEATH PANEL REDUX (Updated)
Last week, Sarah Palin wrote on her FaceBook page about a provision in HR3200, calling them 'Death Panels'. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
This phrase caused an uproar amongst supporters of the bill, and some thoughtful consideration on the part of opposition. Had she gone too far? Has she lost her mind? There was much debate, both for: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html
and against: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019420.php .
Finally, in his NH town hall this week, President Obama referenced her comments and attempted to make light of them. After all, there's no truth to the crazy stuff she was spouting, right? Well, Mrs. Palin has made another statement on her FaceBook page today in support of her statements, complete with footnotes. http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
I'm glad she reiterated that the 'totally voluntary' nature of the legislation is a complete fallacy - when you pay someone to recommend something (like end-of-life counselling), they will recommend it frequently. After all, didn't our own President twice say that doctors perform unnecessary operations in order to make more money? Wouldn't it be far easier to make that money by suggesting counselling than by ripping out some poor kids' perfectly healthy tonsils or lopping off random limbs, as Dear Leader has accused? Not to mention I hardly think mandatory counselling every 5 years or if you are diagnosed with a serious illness can be considered 'voluntary'.
Let us consider, too, the concept of rationing. The administration insists there will be absolutely NO rationing. I beg to differ. According to their estimates, they will be adding 47 million people to the insurance rolls, but we are currently experiencing a shortage of both nurses AND doctors. These are not jobs that you can fill with unskilled workers, and we all know it takes years to train new doctors and nurses. So right out of the gate, there will be a shortage of care due to a shortage of health care workers.
Now lets consider what else might cause rationing. Well, with so many people on board, the costs are going to skyrocket. Especially if, as many maintain, businesses decide it's cheaper to have their staff on the public option, and people start abandoning the private sector for the cheaper public option. According to many in the administration, a single payer option is the ultimate goal, and if they have to take it step by step over a decade, so be it, as long as the goal is reached. Once that goal is reached, the cost of the program will become prohibitive, and cost-cutting solutions will start to be enforced.
Add to that the possibility of an economic crisis - caused, say, by the FED pumping unbacked trillions of dollars into the marketplace, causing the dollar to lose value and interest rates to soar. That would cause a major shortage of tax revenue to pay for massive entitlement programs, and would necessarily provoke rationing to save the bureaucracy from collapse.
Am I saying there will be Orwellian-style 'Death Panels'? Well, first of all, I'm sure they won't call them that. They'll probably use a harmless sounding acronym like the British have http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html . NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has decided that a human life is worth around $45,000 per year. If your health care is going to cost more than that, due to expensive procedures or drugs, they consider your life not worthy of prolonging. Was it a panel of doctors who decided that? No. It was a panel of bureaucrats, crunching the numbers. And here's the kicker - if you decide to pay for the drugs/procedures out of your own pocket, the State will refuse to pay for the rest of your care.
Would you call that a death panel?
Yes, her phrasing was a bit over the top, evoking Orwellian images of standing before faceless bureaucrats, but, truly, is it that far off the mark? Really the only difference right now in Britain is that the bureaucrats don't actually see you - there is no face to your case for them, you are merely a number. Which, if you think about it, is even scarier, because it removes all humanity from the decision.
I DO disagree with her on one thing from her original statement. She states that both her senior parents AND her Down's syndrome child would face the panel. I think poor Trig wouldn't even make it that far. According to the beliefs of both our Science Czar, John Holdren, and Obama's health care advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, a fetus with Down's Syndrome would be a non-productive drain on the system, and would necessarily be terminated (in the case of Holdren, even if it is involuntary termination). Heck, Holdren believes that a born baby will "ultimately develop into a human being". He doesn't really specify at what age they miraculously become human, but it is far past the time of birth, and requires two things - nourishment and socialization in the 'crucial early years after birth'. Yeah, but Palin's the crazy one. If you'd like to read more about Mr. Holdren's beliefs check out his manifesto, called EcoScience. It was published in the '70's, but he has NEVER ONCE refuted his positions.
What we all need to keep in mind when it comes to this bill and others, is the concept of a 'foot in the door'. I think that, ultimately, that is what Sarah Palin is trying to illustrate with her '1984'-like imagery of Death Panels.
By small increments are we brought to a new reality.
UPDATE: Looks like the sunshine Mrs. Palin turned on this subject has done it's job:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/breaking-finance-committee-drops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!
This phrase caused an uproar amongst supporters of the bill, and some thoughtful consideration on the part of opposition. Had she gone too far? Has she lost her mind? There was much debate, both for: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html
and against: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019420.php .
Finally, in his NH town hall this week, President Obama referenced her comments and attempted to make light of them. After all, there's no truth to the crazy stuff she was spouting, right? Well, Mrs. Palin has made another statement on her FaceBook page today in support of her statements, complete with footnotes. http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
I'm glad she reiterated that the 'totally voluntary' nature of the legislation is a complete fallacy - when you pay someone to recommend something (like end-of-life counselling), they will recommend it frequently. After all, didn't our own President twice say that doctors perform unnecessary operations in order to make more money? Wouldn't it be far easier to make that money by suggesting counselling than by ripping out some poor kids' perfectly healthy tonsils or lopping off random limbs, as Dear Leader has accused? Not to mention I hardly think mandatory counselling every 5 years or if you are diagnosed with a serious illness can be considered 'voluntary'.
Let us consider, too, the concept of rationing. The administration insists there will be absolutely NO rationing. I beg to differ. According to their estimates, they will be adding 47 million people to the insurance rolls, but we are currently experiencing a shortage of both nurses AND doctors. These are not jobs that you can fill with unskilled workers, and we all know it takes years to train new doctors and nurses. So right out of the gate, there will be a shortage of care due to a shortage of health care workers.
Now lets consider what else might cause rationing. Well, with so many people on board, the costs are going to skyrocket. Especially if, as many maintain, businesses decide it's cheaper to have their staff on the public option, and people start abandoning the private sector for the cheaper public option. According to many in the administration, a single payer option is the ultimate goal, and if they have to take it step by step over a decade, so be it, as long as the goal is reached. Once that goal is reached, the cost of the program will become prohibitive, and cost-cutting solutions will start to be enforced.
Add to that the possibility of an economic crisis - caused, say, by the FED pumping unbacked trillions of dollars into the marketplace, causing the dollar to lose value and interest rates to soar. That would cause a major shortage of tax revenue to pay for massive entitlement programs, and would necessarily provoke rationing to save the bureaucracy from collapse.
Am I saying there will be Orwellian-style 'Death Panels'? Well, first of all, I'm sure they won't call them that. They'll probably use a harmless sounding acronym like the British have http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html . NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has decided that a human life is worth around $45,000 per year. If your health care is going to cost more than that, due to expensive procedures or drugs, they consider your life not worthy of prolonging. Was it a panel of doctors who decided that? No. It was a panel of bureaucrats, crunching the numbers. And here's the kicker - if you decide to pay for the drugs/procedures out of your own pocket, the State will refuse to pay for the rest of your care.
Would you call that a death panel?
Yes, her phrasing was a bit over the top, evoking Orwellian images of standing before faceless bureaucrats, but, truly, is it that far off the mark? Really the only difference right now in Britain is that the bureaucrats don't actually see you - there is no face to your case for them, you are merely a number. Which, if you think about it, is even scarier, because it removes all humanity from the decision.
I DO disagree with her on one thing from her original statement. She states that both her senior parents AND her Down's syndrome child would face the panel. I think poor Trig wouldn't even make it that far. According to the beliefs of both our Science Czar, John Holdren, and Obama's health care advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, a fetus with Down's Syndrome would be a non-productive drain on the system, and would necessarily be terminated (in the case of Holdren, even if it is involuntary termination). Heck, Holdren believes that a born baby will "ultimately develop into a human being". He doesn't really specify at what age they miraculously become human, but it is far past the time of birth, and requires two things - nourishment and socialization in the 'crucial early years after birth'. Yeah, but Palin's the crazy one. If you'd like to read more about Mr. Holdren's beliefs check out his manifesto, called EcoScience. It was published in the '70's, but he has NEVER ONCE refuted his positions.
What we all need to keep in mind when it comes to this bill and others, is the concept of a 'foot in the door'. I think that, ultimately, that is what Sarah Palin is trying to illustrate with her '1984'-like imagery of Death Panels.
By small increments are we brought to a new reality.
UPDATE: Looks like the sunshine Mrs. Palin turned on this subject has done it's job:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/breaking-finance-committee-drops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
DEEP IN THE DEPTHS OF MSNBC
From MSNBC's FirstRead (second to last entry):
"*** 'Disrupting for the sake of disrupting': Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky noted that there has been an uptick in the vocal opposition in the past couple of weeks. She said two weeks ago, the senator held a town hall in Prince George's County that she described as a "tough night, but respectful." But now, she said, the rhetoric has been stepped up and some folks are "disrupting for the sake of disrupting." It's what happened Monday night at a town hall at Towson University, outside Baltimore. Some have even sent e-mails to the local Hagerstown newspaper, Walitsky said, claiming to be from Cardin's office and giving wrong information about the event -- either that it had been canceled or moved or changed times. Cardin's office found out about them only when the paper would call their office to try and verify the fake emails. "There is a more deliberate campaign than coordinated," Walitsky said."
So...there's an 'uptick' in vocal opposition and some people are 'disrupting for the sake of disrupting'. And this change is just within the past couple of weeks.
Hmmm...I can't imagine who has been called to mobilize lately...
Now why, do you think, would conservatives send out emails to conservatives trying to keep them from attending a town hall? Because, after all, when we are talking about 'Angry Mobs', of course we are talking about those crazy conservatives!
What other mobs could there be?
I suppose we should just take this and be grateful for it (emphasis mine):
"*** The sign war: By the way, for those wondering, it was a peaceful demonstration on the outside with the pro- and anti-side split about evenly. Interestingly, the PRO-Obama side had more pre-printed signs and we saw evidence of NEA, SEIU, and AFL-CIO organizing. On the anti-side, everything was handmade with many folks telling us they received an email from a friend or friend of a friend to show up."
'Interestingly', indeed...seems the pro-'s are really Pro's, huh?
Our stimulus dollars at work!
"*** 'Disrupting for the sake of disrupting': Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky noted that there has been an uptick in the vocal opposition in the past couple of weeks. She said two weeks ago, the senator held a town hall in Prince George's County that she described as a "tough night, but respectful." But now, she said, the rhetoric has been stepped up and some folks are "disrupting for the sake of disrupting." It's what happened Monday night at a town hall at Towson University, outside Baltimore. Some have even sent e-mails to the local Hagerstown newspaper, Walitsky said, claiming to be from Cardin's office and giving wrong information about the event -- either that it had been canceled or moved or changed times. Cardin's office found out about them only when the paper would call their office to try and verify the fake emails. "There is a more deliberate campaign than coordinated," Walitsky said."
So...there's an 'uptick' in vocal opposition and some people are 'disrupting for the sake of disrupting'. And this change is just within the past couple of weeks.
Hmmm...I can't imagine who has been called to mobilize lately...
Now why, do you think, would conservatives send out emails to conservatives trying to keep them from attending a town hall? Because, after all, when we are talking about 'Angry Mobs', of course we are talking about those crazy conservatives!
What other mobs could there be?
I suppose we should just take this and be grateful for it (emphasis mine):
"*** The sign war: By the way, for those wondering, it was a peaceful demonstration on the outside with the pro- and anti-side split about evenly. Interestingly, the PRO-Obama side had more pre-printed signs and we saw evidence of NEA, SEIU, and AFL-CIO organizing. On the anti-side, everything was handmade with many folks telling us they received an email from a friend or friend of a friend to show up."
'Interestingly', indeed...seems the pro-'s are really Pro's, huh?
Our stimulus dollars at work!
HYPOCRISY IS THE NEW GREEN
I was going to add this as an update to the 'Hold the Phone' entry, but I think it truly deserves it's own post:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/11/cant-make-it-dem-rep-who-opposes-photo-id-vote-requiring-photo-id-town-h
One simply has to wonder if he is so unconcerned about offending his constituents because he's hoping he will be replacing them with all of those illegal alien votes he is trying to make possible.
And then there's this:
http://www.wftv.com/news/20362245/detail.html
Clermont, FL is just 20 minutes down the road. Lovely little place, I have friends and family who live there. It's interesting to see this popping up there. It's also interesting the outrage and disdain this is generating.
It makes the hypocrisy post because said outrage and disdain was completely missing when Vanity Fair ran a cover of Bush as the Joker last year: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
Hmmm...so let me get this straight - when it's Bush, it's an apt portrayal, done in an edgy, timely fashion, and when it's Obama, it's flat out racism and 'mean, gruesome and evil', not to mention 'crude' and 'extreme'.
Apparently it's going too far when Dear Leader is painted with the same brush of criticism that Bush was subjected to.
No hypocrisy there!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/11/cant-make-it-dem-rep-who-opposes-photo-id-vote-requiring-photo-id-town-h
One simply has to wonder if he is so unconcerned about offending his constituents because he's hoping he will be replacing them with all of those illegal alien votes he is trying to make possible.
And then there's this:
http://www.wftv.com/news/20362245/detail.html
Clermont, FL is just 20 minutes down the road. Lovely little place, I have friends and family who live there. It's interesting to see this popping up there. It's also interesting the outrage and disdain this is generating.
It makes the hypocrisy post because said outrage and disdain was completely missing when Vanity Fair ran a cover of Bush as the Joker last year: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
Hmmm...so let me get this straight - when it's Bush, it's an apt portrayal, done in an edgy, timely fashion, and when it's Obama, it's flat out racism and 'mean, gruesome and evil', not to mention 'crude' and 'extreme'.
Apparently it's going too far when Dear Leader is painted with the same brush of criticism that Bush was subjected to.
No hypocrisy there!
HOLD THE PHONE (Updated)
My first post on this blog was about why the ObamaCare protesters are so angry and shout their representatives down. I think that this perfectly illustrates the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU
If no one is listening to you, you tend to shout. Please note the lady asking the question remained polite and just kept trying to get her question heard.
(BTW - Did anyone else notice that Ms. Jackson-Lee was speaking into the top of her phone, the earpiece, not the bottom, the mouthpiece, where you're supposed to speak? She can't figure out how to use her phone properly, but we're supposed to believe that she can fix our healthcare system?!)
The democrats are demanding civility, and yet refuse to show any common courtesy.
This is another example of why people are so angry:
http://www.breitbart.tv/town-hall-goers-to-senator-mccaskill-we-dont-trust-you/
I don't know what's more offensive - her condescension and disdain or her threat to use her 'Mom voice'. Hey Claire, they may respond better if you actually listen to and answer their questions instead of just spewing the same tired old talking points. Stop hiding behind your podium, talking down to the peons. It's obvious you don't want to have to deal with them - do you think they don't pick up on that?
Stop talking AT your constituents and start talking TO them. Like Arlen Specter, you might just be surprised at how well informed they are.
BTW I was struck by how well his TH went, once he started to truly engage his audience. Yes, they were passionate, but they were also, for the most part, respectful, once he really started to listen to them. His tactic of walking to each speaker and making eye contact gives the impression of respect and interest in what they have to say. The crowd responded positively
They just want to be heard.
UPDATE: This might be another reason why people are angry:
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html
Queen Pelosi put out the Nazi accusation, now the army of 'bot's are making sure she is proved right. Aren't they subtle? Good thing we are too stoopid to figure it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU
If no one is listening to you, you tend to shout. Please note the lady asking the question remained polite and just kept trying to get her question heard.
(BTW - Did anyone else notice that Ms. Jackson-Lee was speaking into the top of her phone, the earpiece, not the bottom, the mouthpiece, where you're supposed to speak? She can't figure out how to use her phone properly, but we're supposed to believe that she can fix our healthcare system?!)
The democrats are demanding civility, and yet refuse to show any common courtesy.
This is another example of why people are so angry:
http://www.breitbart.tv/town-hall-goers-to-senator-mccaskill-we-dont-trust-you/
I don't know what's more offensive - her condescension and disdain or her threat to use her 'Mom voice'. Hey Claire, they may respond better if you actually listen to and answer their questions instead of just spewing the same tired old talking points. Stop hiding behind your podium, talking down to the peons. It's obvious you don't want to have to deal with them - do you think they don't pick up on that?
Stop talking AT your constituents and start talking TO them. Like Arlen Specter, you might just be surprised at how well informed they are.
BTW I was struck by how well his TH went, once he started to truly engage his audience. Yes, they were passionate, but they were also, for the most part, respectful, once he really started to listen to them. His tactic of walking to each speaker and making eye contact gives the impression of respect and interest in what they have to say. The crowd responded positively
They just want to be heard.
UPDATE: This might be another reason why people are angry:
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html
Queen Pelosi put out the Nazi accusation, now the army of 'bot's are making sure she is proved right. Aren't they subtle? Good thing we are too stoopid to figure it out!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
MOORE OF AN IDIOT THAN WE THOUGHT
Proving once again that filmmaker Michael Moore needs to just shut the heck up, there's this:
http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/1393
At least it's in conservatives favor this time!
There is a glorious irony in the fact that this pompous ass handed Obama opponents the true agenda on a silver platter. Mr. Conspiracy has just proved the conspiracies many have been called crazy and marginal for believing in.
I'd laugh...if I wasn't so frightened.
http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/1393
At least it's in conservatives favor this time!
There is a glorious irony in the fact that this pompous ass handed Obama opponents the true agenda on a silver platter. Mr. Conspiracy has just proved the conspiracies many have been called crazy and marginal for believing in.
I'd laugh...if I wasn't so frightened.
BEYOND THE PALE
This is simply too much. Tea Party protesters and Obamacare protesters have been accused of being AstroTurf; paid mercenaries, doing the bidding of the RNC, insurance companies, and other shadowy special interests. I have a question for those who make these accusations - where's your proof?
It seems to me that all of these accusations spell one thing - projection. In psychology circles, projection is a term used to describe a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own thoughts, motives or actions to others.
I mention this, and demand proof of their projected accusations, because there is overwhelming proof of astroturfing on the part of the DNC and the Obama Administration and I have yet to see any credible proof of astroturfing on the part of their opposition. And spare me the story of the guy in Connecticut who runs the blog 'Right Principles' and has a following of a whopping 28 people.
On the side of the Administration's supporters, we have memos from the White House, mobilizing their troops in Organizing for America and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calling her 'brothers and sisters' in the SEIU to congratulate them after the fiascos in Tampa and St. Louis. We all know about MoveOn.org and ACORN by now, and the list goes on. But these true astroturfers have sunk to a new low, and here it is, straight from the pages of Craigslist:
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/npo/1315447872.html
Now combine it with this little tidbit:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/george-soros-pledges-5-million-to-bankroll-health-care-reform-push-group-says/
I don't know about you, but I'd say this ends the astroturfing debate once and for all.
It seems to me that all of these accusations spell one thing - projection. In psychology circles, projection is a term used to describe a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own thoughts, motives or actions to others.
I mention this, and demand proof of their projected accusations, because there is overwhelming proof of astroturfing on the part of the DNC and the Obama Administration and I have yet to see any credible proof of astroturfing on the part of their opposition. And spare me the story of the guy in Connecticut who runs the blog 'Right Principles' and has a following of a whopping 28 people.
On the side of the Administration's supporters, we have memos from the White House, mobilizing their troops in Organizing for America and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calling her 'brothers and sisters' in the SEIU to congratulate them after the fiascos in Tampa and St. Louis. We all know about MoveOn.org and ACORN by now, and the list goes on. But these true astroturfers have sunk to a new low, and here it is, straight from the pages of Craigslist:
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/npo/1315447872.html
Now combine it with this little tidbit:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/george-soros-pledges-5-million-to-bankroll-health-care-reform-push-group-says/
I don't know about you, but I'd say this ends the astroturfing debate once and for all.
Monday, August 10, 2009
WHY THEY ARE SHOUTING
The media has been full of stories over the past few weeks of unruly mobs rudely shouting down their government officials. These supposed roaming hordes of terrorists, flowing like an AstroTurf river across the country, are being painted as evil, vicious, racist, paid mercenaries, out to stifle debate, uninterested in the facts. Hmmm...
Really?
Come on - we've all seen the videos of these people. They aren't a mob, they are We the People -- concerned mothers, fathers, grandparents, doctors, nurses, small business owners. Yes, they're angry - really, really, really angry. Yes, they are shouting down their Representatives and being, well, downright rude sometimes. Yes, they are 'getting in their faces', as our esteemed President urged his own supporters to do. Let us remember, though, that they were peaceful up until the DNC mobilized it's ranks of paid opposition. Now there are beatings and arrests overshadowing the issue. Thanks, SEIU!
I have a novel request for those in government - our oh so empathetic, hyper educated nannies, who are so baffled by such temper tantrums from the normally silent masses.
Let's take a step back from the ledge for a moment and try to assess how we've gotten to where we are.
The journey to rabblehood began in Sept. 2008 with the passing of TARP. There was a lot of alarm over the speed of the legislation, not to mention the price tag. Hmmm, the People mused, maybe there should be more oversight....
No! No! No! Crisis, crisis, crisis! Big Government cried.
Oh, well, since you put it that way... but, first, let's just put in a few regulations...
Collapse, mayhem, emergency!! Hold your nose, the medicine's going down whether you like it or not - we can make rules later! Crisis, crisis, crisis!!!
Then came the beast that was Porkulus. We should all get a big kiss from Big Government for being forced to bend over for that one.
Cirisis, Crisis, Crisis, Big government hollered - jobs, jobs, that wonderful three letter word! Millions employed, both created and saved! Shovel ready, shovel ready, rah, rah, rah!
Who will pay for it? the People cried, aghast at the cost. It seems to be kinda earmarked-up, too, are you sure this is going to be targeted enough? And, um, how, exactly, do you calculate jobs saved? And what's this about most of the funds not going out until 2010? If this is a crisis, shouldn't the money be available immediately? What oversight is there?
Joe, Joe, he's our man, if he can't do it...well, trust us, NO ONE messes with Joe!
Yeah, but what about...
Did we mention this is a crisis?!
Yeah, but...
Why are you asking so many questions? Just put down those signs, you radicals! How dare you question our plans? Who do you think you are?! Are you...are you protesting? How quaint!
Have you read the bill? We'd like to see it before you vote on it, please, like you promised....We don't think you should--
No need to read it, no need to release it to the general public for debate. It's far too complicated for you peons to understand, anyway. And besides, trust us! We're just thinking of you, after all, trying our level best to preserve this wonderful (yet deeply flawed) country. By the way, we have a new budget for 2010.
WHOA!! $3.6 TRILLION? We're a little nauseous, give us a minute...
Don't worry, it's passed. Trust us, this is totally necessary. Did we mention we are in a crisis? While we're at it, we have a little Omnibus Spending bill we need to take care of.
Nonono!!
Well, if you don't want this to pass, you are obviously out to destroy this country. Hey, what are you doing over there? You're having a Tea Party? That's stupid of you. We're just going to sit here and make fun of you with our buddies in the MSM. I hear there's this weird teabag thing...gross but funny - just ask Maddow, Matthews and Cooper - hilarious!! Did we mention we think you're stupid? Speaking of stupid, we have this fantastic plan to bail out the car companies! Crisis, crisis, crisis - too big to fail! Too big to fail!!
But, wait, where will the money come from? Can we afford--
TARP!!!
TARP?! But isn't that to rescue banks?
Oh, shut up and let us do our thing! Done and done! See, that wasn't so bad, was it? It's not like we wanted to do it, of course - it HAD to be done! Speaking of something having to be done, we've cooked up this great scheme -er, bill, for something called Cap and Trade. It's fabulous, trust us. Green jobs everywhere, just like in Spain!
Um, didn't Spain warn us to not use their model because for every 'green job' created, there are 2 regular jobs lost?? We're not even sure we believe in man-made global warming. There seems to be a lot of science that disproves the theory. And besides, can we afford this--
Crisis, crisis, crisis!! We're all going to burn in the fiery inferno that the Earth will become in the next decade! Panic, death, destruction! Stop questioning our authority! You must just really hate this planet, you heretic.
No, no, we love the planet, but maybe we could wait....
No! Now! It is our moral imperative!
To what, ruin our economy?
Peons, you know nothing. Which is why you're going to love our new healthcare reform.
Really, we need to wait on this. This plan looks huge and expensive. Maybe if we wait until the economy gets back on tr--
No, NOW! Don't you know, it's a --
Wait, wait, let us guess -- it's a crisis. Yawn.
Yes, yes, you're finally getting it! It's a crisis! So let's just pass this baby before we even have a specific bill....
WHAT?! Hell no!!! We don't want this - look at the polls!
Polls, schmolls. You just don't know what's good for you.
HOLD IT!! ENOUGH!!! Are you going to listen to what we want, as our duly elected officials? This bill is really scary! Look at all of this stuff in here! And the COST!! How can it be free if it costs so much! And what is this about 'End of life counselling'? Are you really going to pay doctors to suggest said counselling? And taxpayer paid abortions? Single payer? Hey, why do you need access to our bank accounts? Take your fingers out of your ears and--
Lalalalalala, we can't hear you! You don't support the plan? Let us regurgitate our tired old talking points for you, because you obviously aren't getting it, you morons. Well, you surely must be racist, then. Hey, what are you doing? What - hey, get out of my face! Are you...are you questioning me? How dare you! Don't you know that this sort of radical dissent is unAmerican? You people are terrorists! How dare you demand that we listen to you! Who do you think you are? Who's paying you?! AstroTurfers!! The nerve of some people!! MSM! Here boy, good doggie! Now sic 'em! What? Youtube? You're using OUR internet against us?! SEIU -- you're up! If reason and disinformation won't work, muscle usually will. They'll show you how it's done, you obnoxious, crazy, radical, unAmerican terrorists!
And that brings us to where we are today.
So which is the truth - that the People are going off half cocked, angry for no reason whatseover? Or is it more honest to say that the People have asked to be heard over and over again, and instead have been ridiculed, threatened, talked down to and demeaned? Eventually, even the most even-tempered, calm, rational person will rise up and demand to be heard.
Calling them 'UnAmerican' is simply pouring fuel on the fire. Peaceful dissent is uniquely American. And opposition to the Administration's plans is NOT racist. Legislation has no race. The tattered old racism card is played out. Drop it.
The American people have the right to speak out, both for AND against. Stop doubting their authenticity - just because you have to pay your protesters doesn't mean that all who raise their voices are cashing a check to do so.
You were elected to do the bidding of the majority of your constituents, not marginalize and insult them.
Be careful what you sow, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, et al. You may just end up reaping the whirlwind in 2010 and 2012.
Really?
Come on - we've all seen the videos of these people. They aren't a mob, they are We the People -- concerned mothers, fathers, grandparents, doctors, nurses, small business owners. Yes, they're angry - really, really, really angry. Yes, they are shouting down their Representatives and being, well, downright rude sometimes. Yes, they are 'getting in their faces', as our esteemed President urged his own supporters to do. Let us remember, though, that they were peaceful up until the DNC mobilized it's ranks of paid opposition. Now there are beatings and arrests overshadowing the issue. Thanks, SEIU!
I have a novel request for those in government - our oh so empathetic, hyper educated nannies, who are so baffled by such temper tantrums from the normally silent masses.
Let's take a step back from the ledge for a moment and try to assess how we've gotten to where we are.
The journey to rabblehood began in Sept. 2008 with the passing of TARP. There was a lot of alarm over the speed of the legislation, not to mention the price tag. Hmmm, the People mused, maybe there should be more oversight....
No! No! No! Crisis, crisis, crisis! Big Government cried.
Oh, well, since you put it that way... but, first, let's just put in a few regulations...
Collapse, mayhem, emergency!! Hold your nose, the medicine's going down whether you like it or not - we can make rules later! Crisis, crisis, crisis!!!
Then came the beast that was Porkulus. We should all get a big kiss from Big Government for being forced to bend over for that one.
Cirisis, Crisis, Crisis, Big government hollered - jobs, jobs, that wonderful three letter word! Millions employed, both created and saved! Shovel ready, shovel ready, rah, rah, rah!
Who will pay for it? the People cried, aghast at the cost. It seems to be kinda earmarked-up, too, are you sure this is going to be targeted enough? And, um, how, exactly, do you calculate jobs saved? And what's this about most of the funds not going out until 2010? If this is a crisis, shouldn't the money be available immediately? What oversight is there?
Joe, Joe, he's our man, if he can't do it...well, trust us, NO ONE messes with Joe!
Yeah, but what about...
Did we mention this is a crisis?!
Yeah, but...
Why are you asking so many questions? Just put down those signs, you radicals! How dare you question our plans? Who do you think you are?! Are you...are you protesting? How quaint!
Have you read the bill? We'd like to see it before you vote on it, please, like you promised....We don't think you should--
No need to read it, no need to release it to the general public for debate. It's far too complicated for you peons to understand, anyway. And besides, trust us! We're just thinking of you, after all, trying our level best to preserve this wonderful (yet deeply flawed) country. By the way, we have a new budget for 2010.
WHOA!! $3.6 TRILLION? We're a little nauseous, give us a minute...
Don't worry, it's passed. Trust us, this is totally necessary. Did we mention we are in a crisis? While we're at it, we have a little Omnibus Spending bill we need to take care of.
Nonono!!
Well, if you don't want this to pass, you are obviously out to destroy this country. Hey, what are you doing over there? You're having a Tea Party? That's stupid of you. We're just going to sit here and make fun of you with our buddies in the MSM. I hear there's this weird teabag thing...gross but funny - just ask Maddow, Matthews and Cooper - hilarious!! Did we mention we think you're stupid? Speaking of stupid, we have this fantastic plan to bail out the car companies! Crisis, crisis, crisis - too big to fail! Too big to fail!!
But, wait, where will the money come from? Can we afford--
TARP!!!
TARP?! But isn't that to rescue banks?
Oh, shut up and let us do our thing! Done and done! See, that wasn't so bad, was it? It's not like we wanted to do it, of course - it HAD to be done! Speaking of something having to be done, we've cooked up this great scheme -er, bill, for something called Cap and Trade. It's fabulous, trust us. Green jobs everywhere, just like in Spain!
Um, didn't Spain warn us to not use their model because for every 'green job' created, there are 2 regular jobs lost?? We're not even sure we believe in man-made global warming. There seems to be a lot of science that disproves the theory. And besides, can we afford this--
Crisis, crisis, crisis!! We're all going to burn in the fiery inferno that the Earth will become in the next decade! Panic, death, destruction! Stop questioning our authority! You must just really hate this planet, you heretic.
No, no, we love the planet, but maybe we could wait....
No! Now! It is our moral imperative!
To what, ruin our economy?
Peons, you know nothing. Which is why you're going to love our new healthcare reform.
Really, we need to wait on this. This plan looks huge and expensive. Maybe if we wait until the economy gets back on tr--
No, NOW! Don't you know, it's a --
Wait, wait, let us guess -- it's a crisis. Yawn.
Yes, yes, you're finally getting it! It's a crisis! So let's just pass this baby before we even have a specific bill....
WHAT?! Hell no!!! We don't want this - look at the polls!
Polls, schmolls. You just don't know what's good for you.
HOLD IT!! ENOUGH!!! Are you going to listen to what we want, as our duly elected officials? This bill is really scary! Look at all of this stuff in here! And the COST!! How can it be free if it costs so much! And what is this about 'End of life counselling'? Are you really going to pay doctors to suggest said counselling? And taxpayer paid abortions? Single payer? Hey, why do you need access to our bank accounts? Take your fingers out of your ears and--
Lalalalalala, we can't hear you! You don't support the plan? Let us regurgitate our tired old talking points for you, because you obviously aren't getting it, you morons. Well, you surely must be racist, then. Hey, what are you doing? What - hey, get out of my face! Are you...are you questioning me? How dare you! Don't you know that this sort of radical dissent is unAmerican? You people are terrorists! How dare you demand that we listen to you! Who do you think you are? Who's paying you?! AstroTurfers!! The nerve of some people!! MSM! Here boy, good doggie! Now sic 'em! What? Youtube? You're using OUR internet against us?! SEIU -- you're up! If reason and disinformation won't work, muscle usually will. They'll show you how it's done, you obnoxious, crazy, radical, unAmerican terrorists!
And that brings us to where we are today.
So which is the truth - that the People are going off half cocked, angry for no reason whatseover? Or is it more honest to say that the People have asked to be heard over and over again, and instead have been ridiculed, threatened, talked down to and demeaned? Eventually, even the most even-tempered, calm, rational person will rise up and demand to be heard.
Calling them 'UnAmerican' is simply pouring fuel on the fire. Peaceful dissent is uniquely American. And opposition to the Administration's plans is NOT racist. Legislation has no race. The tattered old racism card is played out. Drop it.
The American people have the right to speak out, both for AND against. Stop doubting their authenticity - just because you have to pay your protesters doesn't mean that all who raise their voices are cashing a check to do so.
You were elected to do the bidding of the majority of your constituents, not marginalize and insult them.
Be careful what you sow, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, et al. You may just end up reaping the whirlwind in 2010 and 2012.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)