Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Joe Wilson Was Right!

Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare

The only reason to reject an identification requirement is so illegal immigrants can be part of the system.

And, of course, we've been told that Obamacare would not provide taxpayer funding for abortion, so it's a bit surprising that an amendment specifying this would get shot down.

Democrats on the committee, along with pro-abortion-rights Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) rejected Hatch's argument, saying it would be unfair to require women to purchase separate insurance coverage for abortion services. Such a requirement, Snowe said, would raise privacy issues by asking women to anticipate their need for abortion coverage.

How does this raise a "privacy issue"? If you want an abortion, you pay for it. That's your privacy for you. You don't get to use my tax money to pay for your "choice."

If Democrats were serious about these issues, they would pass the amendments. That they don't want them illuminates their goal: to give illegal immigrants health care free of charge and to have taxpayer funding of abortion.

More Independents Lean GOP; Smallest Gap since 2005

The results of the latest Gallup Poll are unsurprising, really, given the many mistakes and missteps by Barack Obama and the Congress-running Democrats, but it's still instructive.

"Since Barack Obama took office as president in January, the Democratic advantage in leaned party identification has shrunk each quarter, from 13 points in the first quarter (52% to 39%) to 9 points in the second quarter (49% to 40%) and 6 points in the most recent quarter (48% to 42%)."

As Americans discover what HopeNChange really means (higher taxes, more government control), they seem to like it less and less. This doesn't mean they are embracing the GOP--there's still plenty of antipathy for Republicans out there--but independents are having a little buyer's remorse in giving Democrats too much control.

Most Americans like divided government because it prevents wholesale changes policies which affect people and also because any changes made have a patina of bipartisanship. Democrats have done a terrible job in this regard; they truly don't want to compromise on legislation to bring a substantial number of Republicans on board (and by substantial, I mean more than Olympia Snowe). Every major piece of legislation proposed, voted on and enacted this year was done with no or nearly no support from the minority party. Democrat party faithfuls like it this way; they think that their majorities mean they should be allowed to steamroller over opponents. But average citizens don't see it that way. They see a Democrat Congress less interested in creating legislation that is palatable to everyone than in scoring political points.

Leftwingers clearly identify with this approach. For them, the mandates they received last November were to enact every extremist policy they desire without opposition, from the massive Porkapalooza bill to cap and trade to socialized medicine. What they seemingly forgot (or never wanted to admit) is that their majorities were largely built by electing moderate or conservative Democrats from Republican-leaning areas filled with voters who don't want any of those things. These are the independents they are now losing, the same voters crucial to the elections next year.

Proving, Yet Again, That the Far Left and Far Right Have More In Common Than Folks Want to Admit

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

Yesterday, I noted yesterday that the nuts need to stop with suggestions about assassinations, impeachments and coups. That opinion was aimed at idiots on the right. Today, we have idiots on the Left fantasizing about the same thing, proving, yet again, that the Far Left and Far Right are much closer in their thinking than either party (and their bloggers) like to admit.

I'm always a little fascinated with those who dream about violent takeovers of the government from either their own political side or the other side. I guess it satisfies these people's inner Bolshevik or something. But Americans have never really shown much interest in that sort of thing, and I don't think there are enough nutters out there to pull off a coup. Why bother? We have elections in about 16 months and you can throw out a whole bunch of the idiots you dislike then. It's not a monarchy, after all.

Dr. Melissa Clouthier recommends that everyone just chill. Ed Morrissey shows that both sides have their nuts.

Messages Matter

The usual numbnuts are misreading the results of this poll on public opinion about health care reform.

Cassandra at Delaware Liberal claims the results are "pretty good actually." If "our poll numbers aren't plummeting" means "pretty good actually," then maybe she has a point. But as the spin guys at DL usually do, she doesn't bother reading beyond the chart.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans now believe that tackling health care reform is more important than ever -- up from 53 percent in August. The proportion of Americans who think their families would be better off if health reform passes is up six percentage points (42% versus 36% in August), and the percentage who think that the country would be better off is up eight points (to 53% from 45% in August).

That does sound pretty good, doesn't it? Unfortunately, those "pretty good" results all depend on the questions asked. Most people say they are satisfied with their plans. And they also say that health care costs too much. And they say they like their doctors. And they say they want everything available to everyone. And, and, and.

You get the picture.

When either side simply quotes some poll with favorable results, it's designed to simply satisfy themselves.

Let's go back to that Kaiser poll that Cassandra was happy about. She quotes this section of it to show how bad things are for those opposed to Obamacare:
Republicans and political independents became markedly more pessimistic about health reform in August, but those viewpoints softened in September. While 49 percent of Republicans say their family would be worse off if health reform passes, this is down from 61 percent in August. The percentage of independents saying they would be worse off fell from 36 percent in August to 26 percent this month. [...]

Fifty-seven percent of the public — including 56% of independents — say the GOP is opposing reform plans more for political reasons than because they think reform will be bad for the country. [...]

Fifty-seven percent of the public say they would support “having health insurance companies pay a fee based on how much business they have” and 59 percent would support “having health insurance companies pay a tax for offering very expensive policies.” In both cases, Republicans are evenly divided while Democrats and political independents tilt in favor. [...]

Seniors are still less convinced than others that health reform will benefit them, but they too have become less pessimistic since August. The share of seniors who think their family would be better off if reform passes climbed 8 percentage points from August, from 23 percent to 31 percent. Twenty-eight percent thought they would be worse off, and 33 percent said it wouldn’t make a difference. Fifty-five percent of seniors said they were ‘confused.”[...]

Even I would support these ideas in theory, if I was a "stickin' it to the rich" kinda gal. But phrase those questions differently, and you would get different results.
1. Do you think Democrats are playing politics with health care reform by insisting on including a public option (considered a deal-breaker for many) rather than compromising with Republicans and independents to create a bipartisan bill?

2. Do you favor paying higher premiums and copays for your same health insurance plan if Democrats pass new taxes on to insurers?

3. Do you think it's likely that Democrats can cut $500 billion from Medicare and cut fees to doctors and hospitals without reducing the quality of care seniors receive?

My guess is that these questions would get rather different results from the ones Cassandra is hopeful about.

The strangest opinion Cassandra voices in her post is this one:
If anything, this indicates that Democrats do not need to be overly cautious here, and getting something done in November ought to be possible.

Well, no, it doesn't. In the third paragraph of the linked poll results, the Kaiser Foundation states:
Despite the uptick, a substantial share of the public (47%) favors taking longer to work out a bipartisan approach to health reform, compared to 42 percent who would prefer to see Democrats move faster on their own.

Emphasis mine.

The only reason to rush through a health care reform bill is to prevent debate and compromise. Let's be blunt here: the people pushing these "reforms" don't want Americans to voice disagreement with their plans. Elections have consequences, remember?

Cutting Ties

Yorkshire at Common Sense Political Thought has a post up about cleaning out and selling his parents' house, one that had been in the family for more than 80 years.

It's hard for me to imagine keeping a house in the family for 80 years, given the American tradition of moving up and out. Such a phenomenon would have been impossible with my own parents; my mother was from England, transplanted here when she married her Yankee husband, and my father was raised in various coal mining camps all over rural southern West Virginia. My grandfather never even owned a house until he was 70 years old.

The house I grew up in was a tiny 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom house (no garage) that was approximately 1,100 square feet. My sister and I shared a bedroom, and my brother occupied the one next to us. Our parents had the bedroom down the hall, across from the bathroom that we all shared.


View Larger Map

We three kids loved this house. We didn't really notice how tiny and cramped it was, unless we had relatives coming or something (there was a summer that we had 12 people in that house, all using the one bathroom). We were sad when my parents decided to sell it and buy a bigger home. At the time, it made no sense to me why my parents were moving from the home they had raised us in to a bigger one at a time when their brood's size was reducing. Of course, I had no way of realizing that my mother had always dreamed of owning a brick home and that it wasn't important to her if the house was functional for the rest of us or not.

My parents moved into this home in 1987 on the day I graduated from college. I did not attend my college ceremonies (call it youthful snottiness, if you will), but instead, went to work and to play with friends until the wee hours. I came home to find the house completely cleaned out with the exception of my own belongings and a few bits and pieces scattered in the other rooms. So, I spent the last night in that house alone.

View Larger Map
The new house was very nice, although the bedrooms were not as big as the ones my siblings and I had shared in the old one. But in some strange ways, the new house became home for we kids in ways the old house had not.

My family had a tradition of getting together on Sundays, not unlike the one described in this Darryl Worley song. We would meet at Mom and Dad's early in the afternoon. Dad would cook hamburgers, and we would eat, talk, compare notes and argue politics. We'd watch whatever sport was in season on TV. We'd play Scrabble. We'd put our kids down for naps or watch them splash around in the wading pool my sister bought for them, or see them playing in the dollhouse my dad bought for the girls.

Cleaning out that house was more difficult than I'd imagined, not just because my fahter was a packrat and never threw anything away, but because all the memories got in the way. Over the course of a month, we managed to discard what we could and pack up the rest, dividing most of it and hording what was left. After a while, you become numb to the ache of nostalgia as you find yet another Polaroid of a family barbecue or another bit of Mom's unfinished knitting. But it took a while to get to that point.

Yorkshire described cleaning out and selling his parents' house as "cutting loose" from the past, and that's a very accurate description. Unfortunately (or fotunately, depending on your POV), we drag that anchor around in our lives.

14-Year-Old Girl Dies After Receiving Cervical Cancer Vaccine

Ann Althouse, links to this story.

Britain's publicly owned National Health Service began offering the Cervarix vaccine to teenage girls last year, and over 1.4 million doses of the vaccine have been given out so far under the program. The virus is often transmitted through sexual intercourse and authorities wanted to give the vaccine to girls as young as 13 so they are protected by the time they become sexually active.

Althouse makes the point I've made before:
Isn't it strange how we are completely outraged by a man having sex with a 13-year-old girl and at the same time we've given up on keeping 13-year-old girls from having sex?

Cervical cancer is a serious disease, but it's not something that suddenly strikes children like polio or whooping cough. There is some conscious mind involved in the decision to have sexual intercourse. Why must the vaccine be foisted at such an early age on girls who might prefer to avoid sexual intercourse with multiple partners, at least until they are older, and who can make a decision when they are 18 whether they want the vaccine or the risk of cancer? I don't see the justification for treating young girls this way.

Leftwingers could tell you the justification. They're going to have sex anyway, so we need to give them "information" that helps them have sex. It's a perverse way of looking at it, but certainly no more perverse than Amanda Marcotte's, the barren woman who thinks the only reason parents don't want their children given an unnecessary vaccine is because they don't want to admit their kids might have sex.

Althouse is right that we're all up in arms that a 44-year-old man raping a 13-year-old is being treated as a civil rights issue by Hollywood morons, but you have to wonder if the same people would have also been ok with giving that 13-year-old Gardasil. Because, you know, they're gonna do it anyway.

WaPo Reporter Makes Up Quote in ACORN-gate

And they wonder why people question the objectivity of the media.
29
CommentsWashington Post Admits to Bogus Quote

Veteran Washington Post reporter Daryl Fears, part of a two-person writer team, unmistakably wrote that filmmaker John O'Keefe had “said” he “targeted” ACORN, the advocacy group, for his candid-camera expose, because it registered voters to defeat Republicans.

O'Keefe said no such thing. It was a non-quote made out of whole cloth by reporter Fears, and published as fact on Sept. 17. Making the falsehood exponentially worse, the Post story then was retailed worldwide by the Associated Press.

Interviewees can be soooo uncooperative. Imagine, not saying what you want them to say! You see, there's a new course budding reporters are required to take in J-school: Mental Telepathy 101. Because, you know, Republican operative won't say they're racists, even though everybody knows it.

More on media bias here.

Is the Public Option Finally Dead?

Senate panel rejects health ‘public option’.

See here for more.

Hilarious reaction here.

Chuck Schumer and Max Baucus just said that there were not 60 votes for the public option in the Senate.

The Public Option doesn't need 60 votes. It needs 51. That is, unless the GOP filibusters it. What Baucus and Schumer are saying -- explicitly -- is that there are Democrats who would support a GOP filibuster to keep the public option from having an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. They are saying that there are Democrats who would vote with the GOP to block a vote on something that the President says he supports -- a public option.

That is a very serious charge. It's tantamount to party treason. Schumer and Baucus need to say who these members are immediately.

"Party treason"? Who knew that doing the will of the voters in your district amounts to "party treason"?

These dimwits need to recognize some inconvenient facts. The public option may not get Nancy Pelosi voted out of office, but freshmen Democrats in largely Republican districts will lose if they vote for this. And that will mean that Republicans will replace those Democrats, ending any possibility of Democrats pushing through the rest of their idiotic agenda. No filibuster-proof Senate. Get it?

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

OK, People, Stop With the Assassination Suggestions and Calls for Coups


Yes, yes, I know that there were movies fantasizing about assassinating George W. Bush, as well as Nobel peace prize winners stating they wanted to "kill Bush." And let's not forget the T-shirts advocating presidential assassination.

But it has to stop somewhere, so let's stop it here. Advocating a coup d'etat is not ok. Neither are polls questioning Americans as to whether President Obama should be assassinated.

It wasn't ok when the left did it and it isn't ok now. Decent people have to draw the line somewhere and this really is it.

Where Are the Photographers?

Not at Dover. Not since George W. Bush is no longer president.

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided..."

But these days, the press hordes that once descended on Dover are gone, and there's usually just one organization on hand. The Associated Press, which supplies photos to 1,500 U.S. newspapers and 4,000 Web sites, has had a photographer at every arrival for which permission was granted. "It's our belief that this is important, that surely somewhere there is a paper, an audience, a readership, a family and a community for whom this homecoming is indeed news," says Paul Colford, director of media relations for AP. "It's been agreed internally that this is a responsibility for the AP to be there each and every time it is welcome."

The Left is no longer concerned about American casualties. George W. Bush is no longer president.

Appeals Court Tosses Dan Rather's Suit

But Rather vows to appeal. Why not? He's not out of money yet.

From the L.A. Times:

In its ruling, issued more than five months after the parties argued the case before the appellate division, the court reversed Judge Ira Gammerman’s decisions on the case.

“This Court finds that the motion court erred in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and therefore we find the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety,” the ruling said.

The appellate division found that Gammerman should have dismissed Rather’s breach of contract claim against CBS, rejecting the anchor’s argument that he was warehoused by the network constituted a violation of his deal.

“This claim attempts to gloss over the fact that Rather continued to be compensated at his normal CBS salary of approximately $6 million a year until June 2006 when the compensation was accelerated upon termination, consistent with his contract,” the court wrote. Rather’s contract did not require “that CBS actually use Rather's services or broadcast any programs on which he appears, but simply retains the option of accelerating the payment of his compensation under the agreement if he is not assigned to either program.”

The appellate division found that Rather failed to support his claim that CBS damaged his future business opportunities, saying “it would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his market value at that time.” And the appeals judges wrote that he could not sue for breach of fiduciary duty because CBS did not owe Rather a fiduciary duty.

The appellate division wrote that Rather had no grounds on which to claim fraud, dismissing his argument that he is making substantially less money at his current job at HDNet than the $4 million annually he believed he could have made at CBS as speculative and irrelevant. And the anchor failed to prove that the fall-out from CBS’ handling of the Bush story curtailed other job prospects.

“As to lost opportunities in the trade, while Rather has shown his own track record of earnings and the earnings of other trade professionals, his future earnings are speculative, because there is no basis to conclude that his employment status would not have changed, regardless of CBS's actions, once he determined to make the broadcast,” the ruling said. “Rather never identified a single opportunity with specified terms that was actually available to him and which he declined to accept because of CBS' actions.”

Ouch. Hard to spin this as anything but a total vindication for CBS.

You cannot lay claim to the best health care in the world if massive numbers of your citizens have to wait for a British charity to provide that care.

More bullshit from the nutjobs who think that people who go to a free clinic "can't afford" dental care or health care.

Guess what? Most can and choose not to. And worse, Obamacare, at least the Max Baucus variety, would require individuals to spend up to 20% of their income on health insurance.

There are free clinics all over the U.S., for literally any type of need. But the idiot left would rather argue for bigger taxes and fewer options for all of us.

Why Should They Be Honest About Passing Obamacare?

Democrats know most Americans don't want Obamacare, which is why you get ideas like this:

The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.

The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.

More at the link. Call your senators now and tell them to vote "no" to any of these crackpot bills.

New Obama Czar Scandal: Underage Rape

Via Conservative Dallas, another Czar-uption:

The latest news on yet another Obama Czar with problems is Kevin Jennings the ’safe school czar’. The Washington Times is reporting that Mr. Jennings, as a high school teacher, learned a 15-year old student was having sex with an “older man”. At the time, the law required that he report the incident – at the very least the student was the victim of statutory rape. Jennings described the event to another teacher explaining “the 15-year-old boy met the “older man” in a “bus station bathroom” and was taken to the older man’s home that night.” Jennings’ peer begged him to report the incident and when Jennings’ refused the teacher called his failure to report the statutory rape “unethical”. Jennings’ threatened to sue the teacher for defamation claiming he had no evidence any sort of sexual act took place. However, according to the Times story, Jennings clearly knew the student was having intercourse with the older man in his book, “One Teacher in 10″ and then in various speeches the latest of which in 2000 to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

What is wrong with these people? The reason teachers are required to report possible sexual abuse is because it prevents them from making poor decisions about these issues. We don't want teachers deciding abuse is ok. And we really don't need a guy with such poor decision-making skills as the "safe school czar."

Hollywood Supports Pedophiles

It was a bit nausea-inducing to read about Hollywood creatures ginning up support for pedophile Roman Polanski, who might actually be forced to face trial for rapind and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl here in the States.

Well, why should they care about Polanski's private life, right? It's his "choice," isn't it? We really should keep the courts out of the bedroom, after all.

Or, better yet, Let's blame the mothers for Polanski's monstrous behavior. I mean, if a mother "thrusts" her child at him, why should Polanski show any restrait and recognize that 13 is way too young for a 44-year-old man to have sex with?

The Left, apparently, isn't bothered by child rape, but more concerned about the L.A. district attorney pursuing the case at a time of budget cuts. Because, you know, f*cking your 13-year-old was just consensual sex, I suppose.

UPDATE: Mollie at GetReligion adds this to the rape apologists:

There’s this odd clip from The View where Whoopi Goldberg tries to explain that Polanski merely raped the girl, not “raped-raped” her. Because apparently giving a 13-year-old alcohol and Quaaludes and repeatedly refusing to comply with her demands that you stop orally, vaginally and anally raping her isn’t “rape-rape.”

This reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton's "it wasn't sex" defenders.

UPDATE x2: Smitty at The Other McCain points out the similarities in defense of Polanski and Ted Kennedy.

UPDATE x3: Here is Patterico's post on Whoopi Goldberg's declaration that anally raping a 13-year-old child isn't "rape-rape," plus a transcript of the 13-year-old's testimony.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Banned Book Week Sham


The American Library Association has released it's list of supposedly banned books for 2009. I say "supposedly," because typically, the books haven't been "banned" in any normal sense of that word.

When the ALA uses "banned," it means "complained about." As in, parents who don't like their 5-year-olds having And Tango Makes Three read aloud to them (particularly since gay penguins do change their minds). But "Complained Books Week" doesn't have the same Nazi ring to it, so the ALA would rather lie about what is actually happening in school libraries.

And, in fact, the number of complaints for the Top 10 Complained books doesn't seem to be all that many, if you ask me. Just 4,016 complaints have been lodged on areas ranging from "sexually explicit material" to "violence" in the past seven years. That averages to 573 complaints a year, which is far less than libraries receive for not having enough computers for the homeless to look at porn or enough issues of Cosmopolitan available.

How on earth can anyone take the whole "banned" book thing seriously when books aren't, in fact, banned in the U.S. at all? It's not like you can't get a copy of Uncle Bobby's Wedding at Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble. But the same people screaming about censorship have no problem with conservative books being unavailable.

"Our experience has shown that when they don't like your book, they do not hesitate to make sure that that book never makes it to their library or bookstore," (Spence Publishing Company executive Mitch Muncy) asserts, "only they don't call that banning books. They refer to that as 'selection criteria.'"

Complained About Book Week is a publicity stunt by the ALA to persuade Americans that, somehow, books are being taken out of libraries for their "objectionable" content by zealots. But the truth is that you can find The Perks of Being a Wallflower and Bless Me Ultima everywhere, and if your library doesn't have its own copy, I'm sure there's some PBS viewer ready to donate.

Obamacare: Taxes for Everyone!

This column by Dick Morris outlines the way every American will be faced with taxes to subsidize Obamacare.

Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program — the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in...

Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on “gold-plated” policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically...

And then there is the final piece of the puzzle — the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill.

It's hard to believe there are people who honestly think they will get healthcare for free.

My Own Swine Flu Story

Yesterday afternoon, we received the sort of phone call that ties a big knot in the pit of a parent's stomach. It was from the father of one of the boys in my son's Boy Scout troop. His son had the swine flu. Unlike those who merely claimed to have it, or to pass along rumors of swine flu, these parents had taken their son to a clinic and had it confirmed.

Last spring, there was another swine flu hysteria that hit our neighborhood and much of the nation. The Fort Worth ISD closed for a week based on one case, as did dozens of school districts in the area. Public events in Denton and Tarrant Counties, including the very popular Mayfest in Fort Worth, were cancelled. The local Girl Scout Council cancelled all activities, from planned service projects to camping trips. The mere threat of swine flu literally shut down Tarrant County, population 1.6 million.

After the overreaction last spring, we've all been rolling our eyes about the predicted swine flu epidemic for the fall. Is it really expected that half of all Americans could end up with swine flu? I'm still skeptical of that figure, but it has struck our neighborhood.

Our family knows of at least six children in my son's class to have contracted swine flu, including two other boys in my son's scout troop. So, when we received the call about one more sixth grader with swine flu, we headed over to a 24-hour clinic for testing.

The test they conduct takes about 15 minutes to determine if a person has influenza "A" or influenza "B" or nothing. The nurse told us that no one is conducting swine flu tests on people unless that person is already very sick and in the hospital or has a severely compromised immune system. So, what we know for certain is that our son has influenza "A."

Swine flu is a branch off of influenza "A." Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are assuming that anyone who tests positive for influenza "A" right now has swine flu, because it's too early for the yearly flu season.

My son had a low-grade fever (about 99.5), a headache, and a nonproductive cough. His sister had only a low-grade fever (about 99.4).Here is a good place for information on swine flu.

After the doctor's visit, I went to fill the prescriptions and grab some food while my husband took the kids home. I had to go to two different pharmacies before I found one that had Tamiflu, the medication for influenza. The wait time for service was two hours, including a foul-up by the pharmacist. I was home by 11 p.m. and had everyone medicated and in bed by midnight.

The cost of my evening was approximately $150 for two kids. That's with good insurance.

Money has been tight around our house during the last month, because of car repairs, an unexpected replacement of glasses for my son, and a couple of non-emergency outings. So, I paid for the doctor and pharmaceuticals with my emergency checking account, draining most of what was there.

I had plenty of time to think about the young woman that the Left has been exclaiming died because she lacked health insurance. And, honestly, the more I thought about it, the angrier I became.

These idiots either have forgotten what it's like to be 23 or they are so despicable that death is only meant to be exploited to them. As it turns out, the young woman died of pneumonia, not swine flu, and had been sick for two weeks. If our experience means anything (and I realize it is anecdotal, but still), it is that you have to seek medical attention early to prevent greater or even fatal complications. Oddly enough, most people, even the poor, recognize this and seek treatment. Young people who tend to think nothing bad will happen to them? Not so much.

I jokingly told my husband that last night's experience almost made me change my mind about Obamacare. But then, I started thinking about what would have happened had Obamacare been in effect.

There probably wouldn't have been the 24-hour clinic close to our house because many doctors would have retired. That would have meant either a trip to the emergency room and a very long wait or waiting until the morning, when my son's condition would have been worse. Even if we'd gotten in to see a doctor, there's a good chance that the testing we needed would have been in short supply. We might have been told to go home until symptoms were worse. And even if we'd seen a doctor and been tested for swine flu, there's a good chance there would have been a shortage of Tamiflu.

Why do I say these things? Because rationing of testing and treatment already takes place in countries with socialized medicine.

I was happy with the health care we received through the American health care system. I'd hate to see what might have happened if Obamacare goes through.

Why Should We Question Their Impartiality?

Top Washington Post editor closes Twitter account.

A few weeks ago Washington Post Managing Editor Raju Narisetti rued in this tweet via his Twitter account: “We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not. But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.” Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander cited the tweet in a Friday night blog post about how the newspaper has issued new guidelines, on the use of social network sites, which state “nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment...”

On his defunct Twitter page, as captured by Google, Narisetti declared, as if he'd buy this contention from any politician (say, Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell and his 1989 college thesis over which the Post has obsessed): “My tweets have nothing to do with my day job.”

The Washington Post relentlessly dogged George Allen over his use of the word "macaca," and are similarly trying to smear Bob McDonnell for a paper he wrote 20 years ago. When left on their own, these same people bash conservatives and espouse liberal ideology. Why should the public assume their reporting is separate from their personal beliefs?

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Poster Child for Obamacare Wasn't Killed by Not Having Insurance

Despite what this Think Progress post says, the "victim" was not killed because she didn't have insurance. Kimberly Young died because she didn't seek medical attention.

Even those without insurance can get medical care. Period. You can get it from a hospital emergency room. Or you can pay any doctor and he will treat you. Without looking into Young's financial life, it's hard to accept the claim that she "couldn't afford" to get treated. That's just the sort of argument 20-somethings make so they don't have to try to care for themselves the way adults must do. To repeat: it is your responsibility to get medical care when you need it. You can wrangle with the billing department once you are there. Or you can put money aside to pay for your care. But arguing that we should pay $1 trillion so that this person could get care for free is bogus, because there is a network of free clinics Young could have used. Instead, her death is exploited by the Left.

Humor: No Treats from Obama

Friday, September 25, 2009

Democrats P.R. Nightmare: Jailing People Who Don't Buy Health Insurance

You knew there had to be a catch to Obamacare, and here it is:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

Jailing people who don't want to buy insurance is a public relations nightmare for the Democrats.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

For All Those Punctuation Sticklers Out There...

Happy Punctuation Day!

Netanyahu Speaks the Truth

Oh, if we only heard a speech like this from President Obama:

Today's Health Care News Round Up


Lots of news today related to the great Obamacare debate.

In a press conference today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot down a "public option trigger," which moderate Democrats deem necessary for their support.

“I don't even want to talk about a trigger,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. She said the “attitude” of her fellow Democrats is that “a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything.”

Pelosi can get re-elected from uber-liberal San Francisco with the public option, but she could lose control of the House pushing this agenda. Apparently, she doesn't care, taking the philosophy that she's in charge now and we better all like it.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick names a Kennedy sycophant to fill the official Kennedy seat. This is because it's more important to cram through Obamacare than follow their own state laws, the one put in place by the dead Kennedy.

Bickering continues on Max Baucus's committee as Republicans try to prevent Democrats from cutting Medicare benefits.

Conservatives vs. Liberals

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.
If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Stop Obamacare

Democrats are pushing for all Democrats to vote for cloture, staving off a filibuster of Obamacare.

Buoyed by news of a temporary replacement for the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Democratic leaders are launching a renewed effort to get all 60 members of their caucus -- even those who might eventually vote against health care legislation -- to at least commit to blocking a Republican filibuster.

After that, the bill itself could win passage with only a simple majority.

Bluntly, Democrats don't give a shit if Americans don't want Obamacare. They're gonna ram it down your throats if you don't call your Democrat Senators now and tell them "no."

Propaganda for Your Schools

CBO: Cuts in Medicare Would Reduce Benefits

Duh.
You'd have to be a Democrat to be dumb enough to think you could cut 12% from expenditures without affecting services.

"The Obama mantra appears to be – ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to atone for your country."

Nile Gardiner writes a scathing--but accurate--description of why the United Nations loves Barack Obama.

The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak

The latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey of international confidence in Obama’s leadership on foreign affairs shows strikingly high approval levels for the president in many parts of the world – 94 percent in Kenya, 93 percent in Germany, 88 percent in Canada and Nigeria, 77 percent in India, 76 percent in Brazil, 71 percent in Indonesia, and 62 percent in China for example. The Pew survey of 21 countries reveals an average level of 71 percent support for President Obama, compared to just 17 percent for George W. Bush in 2008.

As the figures indicate, Barack Obama is highly likely to receive a warm reception when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly today, whereas his predecessor in the White House was greeted with undisguised contempt and stony silence.

It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits the president at Turtle Bay. Obama’s popularity at the UN boils down essentially to his willingness to downplay American global power. He is the first American president who has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States, which he has done on numerous occasions on foreign soil, from Strasbourg to Cairo. The Obama mantra appears to be – ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to atone for your country. This is a message that goes down very well in a world that is still seething with anti-Americanism.

This president is an embarassment.

More analysis from John Bolton who says it was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”
“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”

This, of course, would be a disaster for the Israelis, who legitimately won the Yom Kippur war, a despicable mess started by the surrounding Arab states to crush Israel. When they got their asses kicked, suddenly, they wanted to go back to the 1967 borders. Why the hell should the Israelis do that???

Useful idiots think the speech was wonderful! (her exclamation point, not mine). Don't read that link after a meal though. You might be making a hasty trip to the bathroom.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Democrats Never Meant What They Said About Afghanistan

From Hullabaloo:

Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat (sic) the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

Emphasis mine.

You aren't going to see that put bluntly anywhere else, probably, but Digby is completely honest.

Democrats lie because the truth causes voters to support other candidates. This is the lesson Democrats learned from Walter Mondale's disasterous 1984 campaign for the presidency, when he told voters he was going to raise their taxes. Since then, Democrats have constantly promised not to raise taxes then raised them anyway and done all sorts of things Americans don't want them to do. Apparently, moonbats don't even think it necessary to keep this truth under wraps anymore.

This revelation helps us unwrap other Democrat lies in short order. It's why Obama flip-flops with impunity on every issue he campaigned on. He didn't really mean Americans would have the same health care options as Congressmen. He didn't really mean he wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. He didn't really mean proposed laws would be posted online for 5 days before Obama took action on them. And so on.

The mask has slipped and we've now seen the ugly face of the Democratic Party, one that doesn't mind lying to voters when they know the truth could damage them. But will Americans remember this in 2010?

H/T: National Review.

Health Care Myth: Americans Don't Live as Long as Others Because of Our Health Care System

John Tierney has a good column on why Americans don't live as long as the Europeans...and it's not necessarily due to our health care system.

This longevity gap, Dr. Preston says, is primarily due to the relatively high rates of sickness and death among middle-aged Americans, chiefly from heart disease and cancer. Many of those deaths have been attributed to the health care system, an especially convenient target for those who favor a European alternative.

But there are many more differences between Europe and the United States than just the health care system. Americans are more ethnically diverse. They eat different food. They are fatter. Perhaps most important, they used to be exceptionally heavy smokers. For four decades, until the mid-1980s, per-capita cigarette consumption was higher in the United States (particularly among women) than anywhere else in the developed world. Dr. Preston and other researchers have calculated that if deaths due to smoking were excluded, the United States would rise to the top half of the longevity rankings for developed countries.

I've long argued that the longevity gap arguments are more ideological than scientific. When you point out that Americans are far more heterogeneous than Europeans, that they travel much greater distances more frequently (thereby being susceptible to car accidents more than Europeans), that we consume more and are fatter, the naysayers complain that we should "do something" about that, too. Maybe "fat taxes" on sodas, chips or sugary desserts would do the trick. But I have news for them; the main reason Americans are fatter isn't just about food consumption. It's about exercise. We are more sedentary and don't work as our agrarian forefathers did. I suspect we'll soon see legislation mandating we all workout, if Democrats have their way.

Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy


Most of us grew up with parents and don't really want the U.S. government taking their place.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

We've been told for years how impoortant conservation is. We get it. We don't want or need the federal government treating us like kids. What are they going to do? Send us to our rooms without supper?

From Hot Air:
This is nothing more than a slightly more honest look at the attitude of the Left when it comes to governance. It’s all about paternalism and condescension, and the belief that a group of elites should be appointed to rule over the unwashed and unschooled masses for their own good. That has never been consonant with the American experience, which allows the individual to make his own choices and live with the consequences. Chu gives us a good look at the liberal soul, and most Americans will not like what they see.

And, as Ed Morrissey notes, if the Democrats have this attitude towards environmentalism, what will they do to health care?

He Says This Like It Would Be a Bad Thing...

Biden on 2010: If GOP Succeeds, It’s ‘The End of the Road for What Barack and I Are Trying to Do’

When 66% of Americans are angry at government, maybe doing less is doing more.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Another Argument Against Taxpayer Subsidized Art

White House uses National Endowment for the Arts to push partisan agenda (complete with audio).

Hard to argue that the NEA was not trying to get artists to shill for Obamacare, education and the environment, particularly when groups getting NEA grants released press releases praising health care "reform" just three days after the conference call.

The $64,000 question is: was it legal? As Ed Morrissey notes, it may be legal but certainly smells wrong.

We do not fund the NEA for it to produce Leni Riefenstahl-type art. If the NEA wants to go into policy activism, then it should become a private foundation with private funding, and Congress should cut it loose.
The NEA was bad enough when it was using tax dollars to fund such memorable art as placing a crucifix in a jar of urine. Congress should completely defund the NEA at this juncture and tell the Obama administration to end its attempts to build propaganda machines in the executive branch.

Republicans should begin arguing for the defunding of the NEA as a partisan political organization. I agree that it's fine for artists to do political work, but not at taxpayer expense.

McChrystal: Give Us More Troops Or We Lose in a Year

From the Washington Post comes some tough love about the "good war" in Afghanistan:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

President Obama argued during the campaign that we should leave Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan, the war he thought we should have been fighting. As president, Barack Obama has continued backing our efforts with the Afghans, much to the chagrin of the Left and the applause of the Right. But Obama isn't know for sticking his neck out for a cause (well, unless it's killing babies before or after birth). As Ed Morrissey notes, it leaves Teh One in an untenable situation.
The left wing of his party wants to retreat from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and this report gives them the bright line in the sand they need. The GOP have been very supportive on Afghanistan, with a few notable exceptions (George Will being the most prominent). The center bought Obama as something other than a typical liberal shrinking violet on American power based on his campaign pledges to fight and win in Afghanistan. A retreat might lose the GOP, which he never had except on this issue, and win back his left wing, but it will absolutely undermine his credibility with the center and further erode his political standing.

Morrissey argues that Obama will probably continue to do little more than give lip service to the war in Afghanistan, hoping that somehow, the situation will just fix itself. I doubt this approach will satisfy either end of his support: the Left will begin screaming about body bags and counts and the Right will argue about the futility of half-assedly fighting a war. And don't even bother with the center, many of whom want us to win without the commitment needed. This isn't even discussing the costs of escalating the war at a time when Democrats are calling the credit cards trying to get increased spending limits for goodies we can't afford and a sizable portion of us don't want.

In short, Obama has the worst of worlds here. If he were smart, he would hope McChrystal can be the new General Petraeus, figuring out how to solve the Afghan problem and settling things down within a few months. But Obama's never shown any ambition for such gambling, and the leftwing nuts leading his party are unlikely to support doing much more than we are already doing. Could Afghanistan be Obama's Waterloo?

Sunday, September 20, 2009

"(T)here's nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained"

Who said that? Was it:

(a) A racist Republican (redundant, I know)

(b) Reverend Jeremiah Wright

(c) Jimmy Carter


The correct answer is c. Yes, then presidential candidate Jimmy Carter uttered that sentence to Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1976.
Carter incensed Jackson during his 1976 presidential campaign when the former Georgia governor declared "there's nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained" in a neighborhood. It was as jarring a phrase then as it is now, but Carter was in search of votes among the white ethnic urban Democratic primary voters hostile to government housing programs that brought racial integration.

Pressed to explain, Carter's venomous piety nearly ended his campaign. According to Time magazine, "Carter's face reddened with anger, and he began to sweat. Instead of softening his language, he spoke of housing policies in terms of 'black intrusion,' of 'alien groups' and of 'a diametrically opposite kind of family.'"

Carter managed to apologize before the all-important Pennsylvania primary and Democrats, being both duplicitous and hypocritical, forgave Carter and went on to elect him, giving us possibly the worst president of the 20th century.

You'd think Carter would be a little more careful when slinging around charges of racism, but Carter, at 85, is a bitter, twisted, nasty individual who should be the first volunteer for the death panels. Yes, I said that.

I'm sick of Democrats charging that Republicans want to kill the president, hate poor children and want to destroy America, while Republicans are excoriated for "wanting Obama to fail." So, I'll just say it. If Jimmy Carter thinks Obamacare is good enough for the rest of us, then he should refuse his Cadillac health plan and get stuck with the plan he thinks everybody else should live with.

Thin-Skinned President Obama Is Afraid of Fox News


We have a crybaby president who wants to punish Fox News for not showing his health care yawner.

"We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC News.

That's a reference to the program the Fox network aired at 8 p.m. on Sept. 9, when other major broadcast networks were airing the president's speech to the joint session of Congress.

The idea of punishing Fox for not airing the president's speech didn't sit well with Chris Wallace, the anchor of Fox News Sunday.

"They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington," Wallace said on the Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor."

I'd call it unprofessional, but it's becoming de rigeur for this administration to punish those who dare not to tow the party line.

The usual nuts are cackling with glee. Ha ha ha! That'll show those stupid Fox News viewers for not buying our bullshit about taxes, global warming, deficit spending and health care! How dare Chris Wallace "whine" because the POTUS doesn't have the balls to take tough questions!

The "smart set" think it's a smart move. And why not? They have nothing else to use to sell this plan, certainly not facts or figures.

LOL of the Day

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Are You a Racist?



Stolen from PowerLine.

Who Knew That Lee Harvey Oswald Was a Right Winger?


With columns like this, how could anyone consider Media Matters a serious source?

As Allahpundit points out,

And we all remember what happened when a certain radical right-winger — who defected to the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman, and tried to assassinate a far-right anti-communist American general — got JFK in the crosshairs in Dallas.


Boehlert can't bring himself to say "Lee Harvey Oswald," and that omission can't be accidental. Because if he actually mentioned Oswald, the house of cards he weaves in the column would fall apart. Oswald wasn't a Bircher, a rightwing kook. Oswald was a communist. And Oswald's actions had nothing to do with rightwing extremists or those who disliked John Kennedy.

Like numerous liberal blogs and media sources, Boehlert seems to--dare I say it?--want someone to try to kill President Obama. This isn't an isolated rant; it's quite common in the moonbatosphere, and their willing accomplices in the MSM. That's why there are so many hand-wringing pieces in the MSM about the rise of rightwing extremism. Because if they were honest about who has committed most of the violence in the U.S. in the last century, they'd have to admit that it is the left that has been radical, hateful, and violent.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Food for Thought

Reinterpreting racism.

We've seen a rise in the use of the terms "racist" and "racism" in the last 15 years, and many of us have seen it as a way to cut off debate when liberals don't like certain critics or criticism. The linked article makes some interesting points, particularly this one:

This infinite loop is the inevitable result of years of black identity politics, which created a blueprint for whites who feel threatened by America's changing demographics, says Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of "The New White Nationalism In America."

"We need to rethink what is racist and who can legitimately call whom racist," Swain said, citing the argument that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power.

"With a black president, a black attorney general, and blacks holding various power positions around the country, now might be a time when we can concede that anyone can express attitudes and actions that others can justifiably characterize as racist."

It would be no small feat to ween liberals from this smear, since they clearly think crying wolf is a winning strategy to any debate. But once we reach the point where, by their own definition, anyone can be a racist, doesn't the word become meaningless?

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Nancy Pelosi's Politics of Fear

Remember how Al Gore screamed that George W. Bush played on our fears, lying to us in order to start a War in Iraq? That was really hot news in 2004, and I don't know how many blog posts I have read by liberal bloggers over the years about how conservatives play on our fears in order to get elected and re-elected.

But, frankly the "conservatives are fear mongers" meme has picked up steam since Barack Obama's inauguration (see here, here and here). And now, we have Nancy Pelosi choking up at the thought of conservative violence because someone somewhere spoke his/her mind.

Pelosi is referring to the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by Dan White, who was, in the words of Ed Morrissey a lunatic.

At his trial, White tried to evade responsibility for his acts in part through arguing that he had a diminished capacity caused in part by his diet, which led to it being ridiculed as “the Twinkie defense.” White only got sentenced to a short term in prison, which was a grave injustice. He should have gotten two life terms for the murders, which was a good argument for a better approach in California to law and order.

White was also a registered Democrat and a moderate.
He assassinated Moscone after the mayor refused to reappoint him as supervisor, a post White had resigned but then regretted leaving. He shot Milk five times on the way out of City Hall after personal animosity between the two had erupted earlier over a zoning dispute.

This is simply an attempt to silence critics of President Obama's disasterous policies because Pelosi has lost every argument of the last nine months. Trying to insinuate that somehow, Dan White was motivated by a Rush Limbaugh-style talker is a new low even for Pelosi.

I Feel Safer Already

U.S. Changes Course on Eastern European Nuclear-Missile Shield

The White House is scrapping a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile-defense shield, saying a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles.

This is probably more about appeasing the Russians than about safety and security from Iranian missiles. What an appropriate date.
President Obama celebrates the 70th anniversary of the fruition of the famous non-aggression pact … the Sept. 17, 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland* … with a big present for Stalin wannabe Vladimir Putin.

It's also Constitution Day, a propos of nothing.
This is a much better deal for the neo-Stalinists than the Molo-’Trop was. Cutting deals with Hitler was a predictably dodgy game, destined to end badly … as any fool could see given what Hitler was doing with the Munich Agreement. So the Obama-Putin Iranian Nuclear Disarmament/Eastern European Betrayal Pact is more like if Stalin had cut a deal with Chamberlain on, say, Sept. 2, 1939, to help contain Hitler. Or maybe like Hitler cutting a deal with Chamberlain to keep Mussolini in line.

But we don't really need this since Vice President Joe Biden assures us Iran isn't a threat.

I feel so much better, don't you?

UPDATE: I feel even safer.AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb.

Biggest Churches are Evangelical and Contemporary

And use drums.

The study was conducted by a multi-faith coalition hosted by the Hartford Seminary's Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Hartford, Conn. Institute Director David Roozen sees a "slow downward trickle" in measures of "spiritual vitality" such as participation in devotional practices, church attendance and satisfaction with the quality of worship.

The congregations that do well, Roozen says, are participatory, involve lay leadership, and have a "strong, clear sense of their purpose."

And drums. Churches with contemporary worship music grew while those with traditional music stalled.

My church has a traditional service Sunday mornings and a contemporary service Saturday evenings. I've been advocating a switch to 8:30 a.m. traditional and 11 a.m. contemporary services on Sunday. Maybe a Saturday evening service if they wish. But since survival and growth of the church is dependent on attracting enough young people, churches have to provide attractive bonuses--like music with drums--to get them to come.

Yes, Virginia, Cap and Trade Will Cost Every Taxpayer A Lot of Money

Didn't know you all earn $250k per year, did you? Now we know President Obama knew cap and trade would affect average Americans big time.

As Erick Erickson notes, President Obama knew this back in November, yet chose to propose the legislation anyway. And he knew it would bite far worse during an economic downturn. What do we call those who pursue radical goals despite the harsh results for citizens? Fanatics.

Many have been chastized for calling Teh One "radical," but the more we learn about his policies and ideas, it becomes inescapable to conclude that he truly is a radical, hellbent on achieving his goals regardless of the will of those who elected him. The President of All of Us is looking suspiciously like a guy who believes in the Divine Right of the POTUS these days.

"No Democrat is ever shamed out of public life; they’re merely transferred to a less visible position from which to continue the same subversion."

That's from RedState, regarding Van Jones's firing then rehiring at George Soros's Center for American Progress.

CAP is not just *any* old think tank. It is Soros-backed and operated by Clintonista John Podesta. It has a 180-person staff, including at least 10 full-time bloggers, and a $27 million budget. Podesta ran Obama’s transition team. CAP holds policy briefings that are reportedly packed full of reporters and lobbyists who want to get a feel of where the administration is going. They write policy that ends up in these 1,000 page bills Obama keeps trying to shove down our throats.

It is hard to tell where the Obama administration stops and Center for American Progress starts, no? The sad, sick truth is that this nut-job America-hating 9/11 truther will be allowed to influence policy and legislation probably no less than from his position as Green Jobs Czar.

Of course, he's now not proposing his whacked out ideas on the taxpayer's dime. But Americans should keep a close eye on the influence CAP has on the Obama administration. It's a lot.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Even Jon Stewart Gets It

Via Hot Air comes Jon Stewart's monologue ripping the MSM for ignoring the ACORN story for so long.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

Death Panels

Democrats have pooh-poohed "death panels" as just so much hyperbole. But anyone with disabled friends or family members know how tenuous is the thread between health and illness, life and death. Take Representative Trent Franks's story.

“But I would cite just one (story) that has a personal connection to me,” Franks said. The story involved an “old man” and his firstborn son, who was born with deformities of the mouth – a “missing pallet” and other issues, Franks said.

“And the doctors at that time in the small hospital said, ‘Well you can’t breast feed this child, you can’t feed him. So the best thing to do is to do away with him in a merciful manner.’

“Well, the man said ‘No, this is my first child, we’re going to take him home and do the best we can. We’ll make a machine to feed him.’

“The machine turned out to be an eyedropper and a pill cup,” Franks said. “And the child grew up to be big and strong. And of course I’m thankful to that old man, because he was my dad.”

Franks said he had 11 surgeries before he was 9 years old.

It isn't about scare tactics. It's simply that once the government is determining which procedures can be afforded and which cannot, the disabled and elderly will be the first expendable souls. Our system is expensive because doctors and hospitals and organizations for the disabled work to provide the best care available.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

George Bush's Conservative Credentials


Questions about Bush's conservative principles

Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror -- to use that outlawed phrase -- and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn't with them.

George Bush wasn't a conservative in the Ronald Reagan mold we've come to expect conservatism to look like. Bush was a centrist accommodator as governor of Texas, and he brought that same style to Washington as president.
But starting in 2002, we began to figure out that Bush was no conservative on domestic policy, but instead at best a centrist, and probably more of a Rockefeller Republican, with one big exception: abortion. It started with his partnership with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, especially when he threw away school vouchers to keep Kennedy on board, and again with Medicare Part D, a brand new entitlement on an already sinking program.

This doesn't even address Bush's attempt at immigration reform, which rankled conservatives until they could remain speechless no longer. Despite what the nutjobs will say, Republicans applauded GWB because he understood the nature of our enemy and refused to be bullied into backing down in our fight against them. Regardless of the names, pictures, accusations and assassination fantasies of the left, President Bush continued persuing policies which kept Americans safe at home and abroad.

But being pro-America on foreign policy isn't the only mark of conservatism, and this is where President Bush fails. He was a big government guy, but he wanted a big government that looked GOP-ish. Conservatives think a big government run by Republicans isn't a whole lot better than a big government run by Democrats (except for the higher taxes and abortion until after birth that comes with Democrats).

Why are people now speaking out against George Bush? First, it's easy enough to criticize a president once he leaves office. His policies can be examined and re-examined in the light of that 20/20 hindsightitude. But it's also because Democrats have spent so much time trying to tell conservatives that George Bush was their man and, therefore, they have no right to criticize the even worse spending record of the Donkeys. This is a stupid argument, but it doesn't stop jerks like John Coleman from making them.

Ok, Democrats, Enough with the Vilification of Joe Wilson

The Media's Pathetic Double Standard

I think Joe Wilson is a boor (both Joe Wilsons, for that matter, the Republican House member from South Carolina and the former diplomat). I can't watch Glenn Beck for two minutes without being repulsed by his equal parts maudlin and pompous shtick. But members of Congress who are strangers to decorum and polite discourse, unfortunately, inhabit both parties' caucuses, in roughly equal numbers. President Bush labored through his state of the union addresses through loud and persistent boos by Democrats. Maxine Waters recently called some senators "Neanderthals," a term she reserved for moderate members of her own party. She's considerably less charitable to her Republican colleagues. And the ratings wars on cable television are won by self-aggrandizing, close-minded, loudmouthed conservatives and liberals, unless one thinks Keith Olbermann built his audience share on the strength of his good manners and tolerance.

Incivility by the left is treated differently in the press than incivility on the right. That's old news. When Bill Clinton was accused of having Vince Foster murdered, liberals went nuts blasting every conservative as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Yet constant attacks on President Bush, including the disgusting claims that he (a) knew about 9/11 before it happened and let it happen to consolidate power, (b) led a war for oil, (c) wanted to jail dissidents and (d) pick your favorite nutjob argument, were considered simply being "energetic" and even informed.

Salter gives a variety of examples of the media's double standard when treating conservatives and liberals, but it allcomes down to this: if liberals protest, namecall, prosecute, slime, smear and blame Republicans for things, it's because they deserve it. If conservatives do any or all of the same, it's because they themselves are racists/xenophobes/haters/selfish/homophobes.

We have a word for this double standard here: Democrisy.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Pandagon Watch: Amanda Marcotte Misses the Point...Again

It's become a normal part of any day: read Pandagon and count the number of times the Pandagonidiots mischaracterize conservatives/religious people/straight people/suburbanites and Amanda Marcotte misses the point of any article she links to.

In this case, Amanda links to this Nate Silverman post, in which he contends that the exaggerations of the 9/12 rally in Washington are wrong and not uncommon. But the salient point about the rally comes at the end of his post:

Mock the protesters at your peril: business as usual suddenly isn't so good for Democrats these days, and the sentiments of the 70,000 people who marched on Washington surely mirror those of millions more sitting at home.

For Amanda, of course, the march is about what else? Racism. And what better example of racism than the idea that conservatives clean up after themselves.

This is the first place that Amanda gets it wrong. Cleanliness isn't necessarily a conservative value, although self-sufficiency is. It is a working class value. Being a pig and expecting others to clean up after you is an attitude of the wealthy. But in Amanda's world, it's just another example of how racist conservatives are.
The “we don’t leave trash” thing is a way of saying that their shit don’t stink...

A lot of bloggers made fun of the teabaggers for not having coherent policy ideas, but they’re way beyond that even being a possibility. They just want to shut it down, at any cost. They don’t want to share health care with the Unclean People. The abortion example is a really good one, and I’ve noted before that they’re bone scared of having to share medical facilities with the Unclean. That’s why Joe Wilson nearly had a heart attack at hearing about illegal immigrants getting care. Yes, he heard it in the context of this being denied, but he was forced to picture it: Mexican immigrants, the sort he would let work on his yard but not use his bathroom, sitting right there in the hospital next to you! Taking this attitude into account, you can really see why a lot of them are just as motivated by the fear of abortion, which they associate with dirty girls---there’s a genuine fear of having to share medical facilities with sluts, I guess. It’s catching, particularly if you have to wear a hospital gown.

Never mind, of course, that all the Unclean People already share their medical facilities. Maybe they don’t realize this, because generally speaking when you go to the doctor, you only see a minuscule fraction of the patients he’s got in the waiting room. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that the Unclean People are kept out from lack of insurance. Sadly, many of us are, but certainly not all or even most. We’re already sharing their facilities.

Again, Amanda mischaracterizes the views of conservatives and 9/12 protesters. The problem with giving health care to illegal immigrants isn't because they're Brown; it's because they're breaking the law.

My sincere hope is that at some point in the next four years, the charge of racism will have been so overused that it becomes meaningless. Surely charging that every objection to Democrats' overreaching and usurpation of individual liberty is because of racism has to become ridiculous at some point.

H/T: Chuck Serio for the Pandagon link.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

"One of the greatest threats to mankind today is that the world may be choked by an explosively pervading but well camouflaged bureaucracy."

That's from Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, who died at the age of 95.

In the late 1960s, most experts were speaking of imminent global famines in which billions would perish. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," biologist Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb. "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." He insisted that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."

But Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of crash program that Ehrlich declared wouldn't work. Their dwarf wheat varieties resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the traditional varieties. In 1965, they had begun a massive campaign to ship the miracle wheat to Pakistan and India and teach local farmers how to cultivate it properly. By 1968, when Ehrlich's book appeared, the U.S. Agency for International Development had already hailed Borlaug's achievement as a "Green Revolution."

Contrary to Ehrlich's predictions, we haven't suffered huge famines. Food is actually more abundant and cheaper than ever in history. The world has truly lost a great man.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Washington 9/12 Rally Draws 2 Million?

2 million Americans marched on Washington today giving a new meaning to community activism.

It’s been an unprecedented year for limited government activism. It would never have been possible without the early initiative of grass-roots leaders in the #tcot community on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics #DontGo — and concerned moms like Keli Carender and Amanda Grosserode who stood up in their communities against reckless spending in Washington before anyone was listening. Before the cable news was paying attention. Before it became fashionable for politicians to latch on.

Activists were derided as amateurs who couldn’t turn out a crowd. Then they were smeared as corporate shills. They were criticized for not having a coherent message. Then they were mocked for ideological single-mindedness. They are resented by professional strategists who accuse them of organizing empty protests that won’t translate into electoral gains. But the movement has given birth to a new generation of movers and shakers who have rejected establishment partisan politics for nimble, Internet-facilitated, issues-based advocacy.

There's some dispute about numbers, but regardless, there were a bunch of people there. And it's difficult to argue that this is a "fringe" or "mob," as the Left and MSM have tried to characterize them.

We Need Squelch Free Speech Since Pro-Choicers Are Violent

Well, no, that's not really true. But if I were using the logic of the pro-abortion crowd whenever an abortion doctor is killed, I'd be calling them terrorists after a lunatic gunned down a pro-life supporter.

Shockingly, I'm not seeing any postings on this event on feminist blogs or even the major leftwing blogs like Daily KOS. But that's ok, because they didn't cover the killing of an abortion doctor either. Riiight.

Like others, I'm not arguing that one death is more important than another. But watching the total blackout on the left of this news is telling. Kill an abortion doctor? That's a tragedy and it should be covered extensively. Kill a pro-life supporter? Not news.

UPDATE: Majikthise has actually created a post about the shooting, but, well, let's say it doesn't come across as nearly as angry she was about the killing of Tiller. And now there's this post that offers dual explanations: the killing may not be related to abortion at all! and "He was asking for it!"