Now We Are Political Terrorists
Aug 7, 2009 Political
First they published a memo calling all people who have conservative values Right Wing Extremists. The chilling report labeled people with single issues like opposition to abortion, as extremists. It was distributed to police agencies so they could be on the look out for us. Though that met stiff opposition and was reportedly quashed, I would not be surprised if those sentiments were still held and we are all being observed under the radar.
Then came the snitch campaign where the Obama White House wants people to report anyone who says something about the health care plan that might be “fishy.” There is an email address that people can forward such things to. This means if you send an email to a friend and it gets passed on to the White House, you will be in a database of opponents. This is reminiscent of the Nazi campaign to snitch on neighbors, particularly to rat out Jews. Is it any wonder that someone would feel compelled to carry a swastika to a protest event. Yes, it appears that two were seen at different events. All the other signs were ignored and the swastika was the focus of attention. I challenged Pelosi to find one and one of her lap dogs did. I am willing to bet there were more of them at one anti Bush rally than have been at all the protests combined. Why would they feign indignation now when they were not bothered then. It is because they are trying to paint all protesters as right wing radicals rather than the diverse group that includes Democrats, liberals, Republicans and conservatives. They want you to believe that only Republicans and conservatives are involved and they are radicals who have, gasp, a swastika. How dare they insult Herr Obama?
Now we have a columnist at the Washington Post chiming in. He has labeled those who are voicing opposition to the plan as political terrorists. Steven Pearlstein says:
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems. [emphasis mine]
So Steven, what were the Democrats and Obamadinejad when they opposed more than a half a dozen bills that would have reformed health care? If they were concerned about this serious domestic problem then why did they all oppose items that would have provided reform without a complete overhaul in order to cover a small percentage who have no insurance?
The claim by Mr. Pearlstein is that Republicans are making claims that this will result in a government takeover of health care and he contends that there is no way to read what has been proposed and conclude that. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, the words of Obama saying that he wanted a single payer system and of Barney Frank saying the way to get there was by first passing a government run plan are clear indications of what they want and what they have in mind. The claims that the opposition is being misleading or disingenuous are funny considering that those who are pushing the plan are misleading and disingenuous.
This is another example of someone presenting two options. Obama has said it a number of times. People who oppose this want to keep things they way they are. This straw man argument is designed to make people believe there are only two options. The reality is that many members of Congress have introduced legislation to reform and those items did not involve the complete overhaul of our system. Democrats opposed these because they want to control it all.
There are plenty of options as I have discussed in the past. We can drop the mandates in coverage. States require a number of things to be in a plan before it can be offered. Some companies do not want to put those plans out so only a few are allowed to offer. This means less competition. Insurance should be like a cable plan. There are items that are essential such as catastrophic care, emergency care, dental care, vision care, surgical care and any preventive care that involves more than a routine office visit. Then other items can be offered if the consumer desires them. It makes no sense to force a single male to pay for a plan that includes abortion services or OB/GYN. It is nonsensical to force people who do not drink or do drugs to pay for substance abuse treatment. Some people might like aroma therapy but others see no benefit. Allow those who want it to add it on and pay for it and those who do not to pass on it. Just like cable TV, you have a basic package and you add on the extras that you want. People should also pay for wellness visits. We have car insurance but that does not pay for routine maintenance. Why should people not pay for their routine care?
We should also remove restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. If a person likes a plan offered in another state then he should be able to buy it. Restricting to in state companies stifles competition and drives costs up.
I also think Doctors should be given tax credits for seeing people with no health insurance. I heard Congressman Ron Paul’s son discuss this and I think it is a great idea. Rand Paul is a doctor (Ophthalmologist) and he is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He believes that doctors should see those without insurance and receive a tax credit for doing so. This will provide care to those who need it and compensate the doctors providing the care. Of course there will need to be oversight or some will abuse the system but I think it will provide incentive for doctors to see those who truly cannot pay.
These are but a few ideas that would help to reform the system and they would make health care more affordable. People will still have to pay but it will not cost as much. I am sure if they can afford a cell phone, two cars, high speed internet and cable TV with the premium channels they can squeeze in health insurance.
For the absolute destitute among us, we still have government plans that will cover them.
No, I am not a political terrorist for opposing the health care scheme and wanting less government regardless of what any reporter says. I do wonder though, where this guy was when the left was using similar tactics to oppose Bush? Has he called the Code Pink morons who harassed Marines in Berkeley political terrorists?
The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Opposing health care or any other plan in a peaceful fashion is not political terrorism, it is an exercise of our Constitutional rights.
Those who cannot see that or would work to oppose it, are the real political terrorists.
Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, debate, health care, political terrorist, rand paul, rights, Steven Pearlstein
Al Gore; Silly To Keep Debating It
Mar 8, 2009 Political
Al Gore has led the crusade against the catastrophic event known as Man Made Global Warming. He has a PowerPoint slide show and he goes around talking about all the calamities that will occur if we don’t spend untold (but no doubt huge) sums of money correcting the problem. Gore, who uses more energy in a month than most people use in a year, stands to profit greatly from his scheme. The problem is, selling it.
The way Gore sold it was to get a bunch of scientists who agree with him (many of whom receive government money to do the research) together, ignore the large numbers of those who disagree and then claim the science was settled. The “scientist” Al Gore claimed that the science was settled even though there has been no proof (only evidence) provided by the scientific community that he claims is on board.
Gore was at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California and he was confronted by a skeptical Danish environmentalist named Bjorn Lomborg who challenged Gore to debate the issue. Gore’s response was typical:
“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he added. WSJ
First of all I reject the claim that the science is settled. Gore however, feels that it is settled and should not be debated because the experts have said it is so.
Now, let’s go back to the 2000 election which should not be too difficult because my friends on the left live there. They cite Florida as an example of how Republicans steal elections (while ignoring places where they are really stolen by Democrats) and they have always referred to Bush as an illegitimate president. There were a number of recounts after the election and every one showed that George Bush won. The vote count and the election ARE settled but that has not stopped the left from continuing to debate it.
Al Gore refers to himself as a person who was once the next president of the United States.
Perhaps it is time for Al and his minions on the left to pay heed to their own advice. Or to put it in Al’s language:
“I want to be polite to you,” sayeth the Big Dog. But, no [we don’t want to debate the 2000 election]. “The media have gone through this chapter and verse and counted and counted. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hanging chad, on the other hanging chad’ issue,” he sayeth. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake, Al, you lost”
Unlike the 2000 election, global warming is far from settled. However, if liberals are concerned they can participate in my carbon offset plan.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 2000 election george bush, debate, global warming, gore
What President Is Obama Like?
Mar 5, 2009 Political
We have heard references to Lincoln who I heard is Obama’s favorite president. Obama swore in on Lincoln’s Bible, which was purchased the day of his [Lincoln’s] inauguration because he did not have his family Bible. I have heard the comparisons to FDR and given that Obama has spent a trillion dollars to pay off political favors I would say that he is like FDR except he spent a hell of a lot more. I have compared Obama to Carter because he is doing some of the things Carter did that hurt us for a long time. But I think Obama has demonstrated that he is more like Richard Nixon right about now.
Obama is following in Nixon’s footsteps in that he has an enemies list consisting of people in the media. Before some liberal gets his panties in a bunch, it only has to be a list committed to memory, not written down. However, since Obama’s henchmen have been plotting to go after one of these people since the latter part of last year, I think it is safe to say that this is a tactic and not a passing fancy.
The people on the list, so far, are Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli, and Rush Limbaugh. It would seem that every time a personality on radio or TV has something to say about The Evil One, that person is called out by the petty players in the White House.
Limbaugh is on the list because the Democrats think they can make a case that he leads the Republican party and that he wants America to suffer financial ruin. None of this is true and the Democrats are taking him out of context. They think they can get the best of him but he can gin up quite a bit of support for a lot of things.
Limbaugh will make them look like fools when all is said and done. The White House is all bluster and even though nobody messes with Joe and Obama, the metrosexual, talked tough about being ready for a fight nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama plays Chicago politics and would rather have someone cap you in an alley than confront you head on.
Limbaugh has already fired a response salvo. He challenged Obama to a debate at his studio, on his radio program, at a time convenient for Obama. Rush offered to send his private jet for Obama, send a caravan of SUVs to pick him up, put him up in a 5 star hotel and to have that $100 a pound steak Obama likes flown in. Limbaugh said he would foot the bill for it all so that it cost no taxpayer money (except obviously the routine expenses like Secret Service) if Obama would come to debate him.
Limbaugh made a good point when he said that if Obama debates and wins he will have the country to himself. Of course, I doubt Obama could debate Limbaugh in the arena of ideas and even come close to winning. This would be especially true since Limbaugh said just you and me. No advisors, no teleprompters, no note cards, no nothing but the two of them.
There is no way Obama will accept this offer. He knows he has more to lose than to gain. Yes, he would have the country in his hand if he won but if he lost he would be toast. By doing nothing he stays above the fray (well, he does that anyway by having his henchmen do the assaulting) and he does not have to worry.
I think it was a tactical blunder for the Obama folks to directly attack people in the media, especially Rush Limbaugh. When this is all said and done Limbaugh will have made them look foolish as he has done time and again.
Anyway, all the talk about who Obama is like is moot now. With his enemies list he is like Nixon.
Barack Milhous Hussein Obama.
Wonder if he has the place bugged…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cramer, debate, enemies list, fdr, Limbaugh, lincoln, nixon, Obama, santelli
Obama Has to Win The Election First
Oct 15, 2008 Political
Barack Obama’s spiritual adviser and inspiration for his book, Jeremiah Wright, has told his congregation (which included Obama) that the chickens have come home to roost. Looks like now Barack Obama is counting them before they have hatched as are his fellow Democrats.
Obama and the Congressional Democrats are working behind the scenes to craft legislation that includes billions of dollars in spending that they will try to ram through during the lame duck session of Congress and the Bush administration. They are starting Obama’s first 100 days a bit prematurely but they are waiting until after the election so as not to tick off voters who might not be too happy with all the additional spending. The Democrats say that this legislation is important and Obama says it should happen now but now to them means after they have safely avoided the wrath of voters.
It seems a bit premature to have Obama and the Democrats working on things for would be president elect Obama since he has not actually won the election. Yes, he is up by 6-8 points nationally and leads the electoral votes but these polls are small samples (and might not be weighted correctly) so they might not be an accurate portrayal of how the events will unfold. Besides, anything can happen in three weeks.
Barack Obama, or any Democrat for that matter, should be up by a substantial margin given all that has taken place. Hillary Clinton would probably be walking away with this election had she not been slighted by her party. The polls look good for Obama but there is a nagging fear among Democrats that things could change. That fear is not so overwhelming as to keep them from planning for the win.
This might all be part of a coordinated effort among the Democrats, the Obama campaign and the media. For several weeks they have used this manufactured economic crisis (which should have been left to self correct) as a bat with which to beat McCain and the Republicans. The media and the Democrats have been reporting that the race is all but over, Obama is way ahead, McCain has gone negative because he has nothing left to lose and leaving us with the impression that the election is a mere formality. It would not surprise me to find out the MSM is manipulating poll data to favor Obama especially when one sees such differing results. Only time will tell but the media lost all credibility this election cycle when they stopped reporting news and started being cheerleaders for Obama.
This might be by design in order to dampen the spirits of Republicans and to keep them from showing up at the polls. This could be part of a Chicago style assault in order to so disparage the Republican party that they throw in the towel and concede defeat. Given that Obama won his state and federal seats by unscrupulous tactics, it is not beyond the pale that his campaign and the media would work together to steal another election.
The Obama campaign has already put out talking points for tonight’s debate to highlight The One and to discredit John McCain. This, as I see it, is a preemptive strike to take the fire out of John McCain who has vowed to kick Obama’s rear in this debate. Obama has provided his allies in the media with ammunition to help ward off blows from McCain.
He is a slick little politician but he is not change. He is typical Chicago politics and he will say or do anything to win.
My friend Eric has a good primer for John McCain and it is worth the read for all others. It lays out the questions Obama has failed to answer and that the media failed to investigate.
The Debate Was Boring
Oct 8, 2008 Political
The Second Debate was boring and the moderator spent more time worrying about theatrics than letting them engage. Of course, that was his job and they did agree on a format but it seemed that the format was not going to work right out of the gate. I don’t know if there were other lights but the ones I saw were on the floor so it might have been hard for them to see the lights while looking at the people.
John McCain was strong on economic issues and he made Obama look like a child on foreign policy. Obama held his own but he kept spewing falsehoods or half truths. He said that John McCain voted against alternative energy (some number times) and that he now wants it. McCain voted against energy bills loaded with lard.
Obama is not able to tell the difference because when McCain pointed out that Obama had requested almost 1 million dollars for each day he has been in the Senate for pork, Obama said pork was only about 18 billion dollars so we should not really worry about it that much. For McCain’s part, he said we had to reign in foolish spending and then said we were going to buy down debt in the housing market. I don’t know what possessed him to say that but I hope whatever he is talking about is a good, well thought plan.
Though I think that McCain laid the groundwork for the weeks ahead by putting out a theme, I don’t think he changed any minds (or very few) and I don’t think Obama did either. People who supported McCain going in probably still do and those supporting Obama going in have not changed. Undecideds are probably still undecided and want to see the next debate and what happens in between.
It is too bad that most of this sounded like rehashed campaign stump speeches (from both of them) than a real debate of the issues.
I do agree with McCain and think people should look at the records of each man. I know Obama has a thin record but look at it anyway. Look at both of them and learn before you vote. No matter who you vote for you will be able to say you were informed. It is your choice but remember that not long ago a young, charismatic Democrat promised to only raise taxes on those making over 200k. His name was Bill Clinton and once he was in office it took him fewer than 2 months to decide things were terrible and that he had to raise taxes on everyone.
Barack Obama will do the same. There is no free lunch people and in order for him to give something he has to take something and that is not right. Don’t let Obama pull a Clinton on you because then we all have to suffer for your ignorance.
Yep, the debate was boring and no surprises. The liberal media will claim Obama won, the right will say McCain did and they will all spin it that way for a few days.
It was boring. Some of the after debate interviews had more action. Mitt Romney being told by Claire McCaskill that she spit on the earpiece that she handed to him to use. She should have been punched in her mouth. Last thing Romney needed was her saliva on the earpiece. She is a liberal, no one knows where that mouth has been.
Perhaps at the next debate they can do something to keep people awake.