BBC: What's the Matter With Americans?

The BBC has a snobby and biased piece up basically whinging that, in rejecting Obamacare, Americans are voting "against their interests."

The piece spends a great deal of time telling the reader that American health care is soooo expensive (without explaining why) and that Americans must be crazy not to want rationing. Well, that's my take on it, anyway.

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%...

Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?

It would have been nice if the BBC had actually talked to those who oppose Obamacare, rather than just generalizing about them, insinuating that they're stupid or "just angry" if they don't think a government run system is in their best interests.

Protein Wisdom notes that " in other countries, people demonstrate for the government to do more things for them. Only Americans would turn out in the streets for huge demos, demanding that the government leave them the hell alone." Those silly Americans!

More analysis here.

Thank God Howard Zinn Is Dead

If only it had happened sooner, we wouldn't have generations of Americans believing his hateful anti-American view of American history.

I wouldn't usually hope someone was rotting in hell, but if I did, Howard Zinn would be the person. His unbelievable propaganda has been spoonfed to our children for decades, and we now spend far too many hours trying to deprogram them from the crap that man unleashed. Look at this:

This melodrama depends on simplistically dividing mankind into two groups – and only two: oppressors and oppressed. This is how Zinn describes and utterly distorts the early settlement of North America. The Pequot War serves as his example, as it will ours.

The war was climaxed when the Pequot stronghold in Fort Mystic was burned in battle and all its inhabitants incinerated in May of 1637. Finding themselves severely outnumbered the attackers had set fire to the Pequot compound. This is a tragic enough story, but Zinn won’t be satisfied until it becomes a story of native American innocence and victimhood versus rapacious and evil white settlers.

Thus the Pequot violence against whites that led to the war is almost entirely absent from the text. The most Zinn can bring himself to admit is that “Massacres took place on both sides.” In fact, the author details only the atrocities committed by one side: the Puritans. While graphic descriptions of Puritan violence are highlighted, Pequot atrocities are brushed aside. Here are some examples not to be found in Zinn::“[T]hey took two men out of a boat, and murdered them with ingenious barbarity, cutting off first the hands of one of them, then his feet,” writes 19th century historian John Gorham Palfrey about the Pequots’ assaults upon settlers. “Soon after, two men sailing down the river were stopped and horribly mutilated and mangled; their bodies were cut in two, lengthwise, and the parts hung up by the river’s bank. A man who had been carried off from Wethersfield was roasted alive. All doubt as to the necessity of vigorous action was over, when a band of a hundred Pequots attacked that place, killed seven men, a woman, and a child, and carried off two girls.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why the settlers might have decided to resort to violent means to deal with the Pequots. But it does take someone more honest than Zinn.

The author mentions only briefly the atrocity the precipitated the war, which was the killing of a settler named John Oldham. Zinn morally justifies the murder by labeling the victim a “trader, Indian-kidnapper, and troublemaker.” This loaded account helps Zinn persuade his readers that it was the white man’s greed that led to the Pequot War. The settlers, writes Zinn, “wanted [the Pequots] out of the way; they wanted their land.”

Also absent from Zinn’s devious narrative are the atrocities that the Pequots committed against other Indians of the Connecticut Valley. The Pequots not only waged war on whites, but on their fellow native Americans as well. They were a belligerent people feared by weaker tribes.

Consequently, while Zinn portrays the Pequot War as a Puritan-versus-Indian conflict, the fact is that both Puritans and Indians fought against the Pequots, nothing could be further from the truth. Indian tribes—for example, the Narragansett—repeatedly urged the English newcomers to attack their enemies, namely the Pequots. Zinn writes that “Indian tribes were used against one another” by the Puritans when, in fact, the reverse was true. Indian tribes used the Puritans and their superior firepower to eradicate their fellow Indians who posed a threat to them.

In fact Indians were the majority in the attacking force at Fort Mystic, and by a vast margin. Whites comprised less than 15 percent of the 500-plus men who attacked the Pequot stronghold and burned it to the ground. After the horrific conflagration ended, it was the Mohegans who executed the Pequots’ captured chief.

Zinn’s account of the Pequot war is a microcosm of his book as a whole which is little more than an 800-page libel against his country.

What an evil man.

The Most Unprofessional President Ever

Obama Misrepresents the Citizens United Decision

The Supreme Court is not — and certainly should not — be above criticism. President Bush made it a point not to criticize the Court’s detainee decisions in Hamdan and Rasul — and probably missed a political opportunity. But he apparently considered it unpresidential to attack Court rulings.

By contrast, President Obama displayed an utter lack of tact in his criticism of the Court’s decision in Citizens United. Obama preened for political applause while members of the Court had to sit stoically on their hands. That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable — and not simply because he’s from New Jersey, as my South Jersey wife said. In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling. Citizens United is a 57-page opinion that most Americans wouldn’t have a good reason to read – and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t blame them for not reading it. Obama understands that most Americans are susceptible to misleading comments about the decision. In claiming that the Court had opened the floodgates to foreign corporations’ spending without limit in our elections, he sought to take political advantage of that susceptibility.

The man is a charlatan and has no respect for people who don't rubber-stamp his ideas.

Politics Are Only for Republicans, Right?

Rightwingsparkle explains why the same bill can get unanimous support one week after being "controversial" the previous one.

Quote of the Day

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802

More Polls to Make Lefty Heads Explode

Their campaign against Fox News seems to have backfired.

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

More Republicans trust Fox News than Democrats, and Democrats trust NBC more than any other outlet. These results aren't surprising and probably reflect a bit of the "echo chamber" mentality of the hard core of both parties. The interesting question becomes what do the mushy middle think of our media?

And interestingly enough, more people trust Fox News precisely because they think it isn't neutral and objective. As the press release says, it tells you where the future of news is heading; that is, that people no longer expect media people to be "objective" and would rather the biases be honest and upfront. I've thought for a long time that it's better to admit your bias (a la Keith Olbermann) and let the grownups determine for themselves what news they accept and what they reject, rather than trying to fool The People that you are completely objective and have no hidden viewpoints. Anyone who worked for their high school newspaper knows reporters and editors have viewpoints and frequently use the power of the press to push it (think civil rights, environmental issues, Watergate). Regardless of whether you thought Valerie Plame was newsworthy, it's arguable that pursuit of that story till somebody got convicted amounted to advocacy, not objectivity.

More Evidence of "Change"

Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

Remember when it was only those greedy Republicans who did shady things like no bid contracts? Democrats were really gonna clean up that mess.

Leftwing Speech Supporters Press CBS Not to Air Tim Tebow Pro-Life Ad

Yet another affirmation of their free speech bonifides here as leftwing groups pressure CBS not to air Tim Tebow's ad supporting life.

I guess when you can't come up with a pro-abortion message that doesn't sound like, "Yes, kill your baby because it's your choice," the only option you have available is to try to stop those supporting the babies from speaking out.

Quote of the Day

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

Sexist Pigs Elected Scott Brown

That's what the New York Times is saying.

The defeat of Martha Coakley in last week’s special election to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy has reignited the debate over whether there is a glass ceiling for women in Massachusetts politics.

It seems hard to argue that the biggest problem with Martha Coakley's campaign was her vagina. Ineptitude, arrogance, Obamacare and the general contempt that Democrats seem to have for voters are more likely reasons for her defeat.

Quote of the Day

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow." --Federalist No. 62

Olbermann Says Citizens United Is Worse than Dred Scott

Maybe Democrats have good reason to assume that democracy will disappear, since they can't succeed within the rules.

Here's a Good Explanation of Today's SCOTUS Decision

A Great Day for Free Speech

The Supreme Court rules that you can't discriminate against speakers just cuz you don't like the political message.

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Liberals dislike free speech. But free speech is good, especially when consumers reject liberal ideas.

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.
The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a "perfect storm" in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

From Hot Air:

Brown wins, ObamaCare’s on life support, McCain/Feingold gets gut-punched by SCOTUS, now this. What happens tomorrow? Does Rupert Murdoch buy the Times or something?

It's a good week to be a conservative.

Coming to a blubonnet Comment Near You...

Hugo Chavez Mouthpiece Says U.S. Hit Haiti With 'Earthquake Weapon'

The United States apparently possesses an "earthquake weapon" that set off the catastrophic quake in Haiti and killed 200,000 innocents. Don't believe it's true? Just ask Hugo Chavez.

Citing an alleged report from Russia's Northern Fleet, the Venezuelan strongman's state mouthpiece ViVe TV shot out a press release saying the 7.0 magnitude Haiti quake was caused by a U.S. test of an experimental shockwave system that can also create "weather anomalies to cause floods, droughts and hurricanes."

The station's Web site added that the U.S. government's HAARP program, an atmospheric research facility in Alaska (and frequent subject of conspiracy theories), was also to blame for a Jan. 9 quake in Eureka, Calif., and may have been behind the 7.8-magnitude quake in China that killed nearly 90,000 people in 2008.

What's more, the site says, the cataclysmic ruin in Haiti was only a test run for much bigger game: the coming showdown with Iran.

The crazies have to assume American malfeasance; the idea that generous Americans help out willingly after natural disasters (not out of guilt) is too much for them to bear.

Teenagers Will Be Teenagers

Via Patterico's Pontification, we have the class prank.

A spelling prank in a class photo for more than 600 seniors at Cypress Ridge High School led to the suspension of three students.

Some students wore T-shirts spelling out “CLASS” as part of “Class of 2010” in a formal shot.

But in a later informal shot, students representing “C” and “L” moved from the front row, leaving behind a different three-letter word.

Administrators at Cy-Ridge cited the school's code of conduct and suspended the three students for three days. The penalty began Tuesday.

Senior Austin Knight says “C and L ran off” and it's not the fault of the other three students, who also were fined $135. The money will help pay the cost of retouching the photo.

Senior Raymond Carrigan says the students were “ignorant and disrespectful.”

Or just teenagers.

Health Care Reform We Can Believe In

Obama Retreats on Health-Care Bill

President Barack Obama expressed support for scaling back a health bill to "core elements," the first indication that the White House might be backing away from the type of broader overhaul that Congress had been working on.

Mr. Obama told ABC News that lawmakers should "move quickly to coalesce around" parts of the health-care bill that both parties can agree on, "core elements" that include insurance reform.

It's not clear why President Obama was hellbent on alienating Republicans from the process when he promised to be the President of All of Us.

What Scott Brown's Election Means...and Doesn't

There's a lot of hoopla out there today about what the Massachusetts miracle means.

Amanda Marcotte is crying, crying, crying deliciously tasty tears of bitter, stubborn stupidity, unwilling to honestly look at why so many liberals would vote for a Republican rather than the Democrat. Of course, she complains that Democrats won't do anything when they have this big majority, and is weirdly confused that Barack Obama and his Democrat-led Congress are so ineffectual in the face of a tiny Republican minority.

I wish Amanda would put asidde her liberal-colored glasses long enough to honestly think about why Republicans were more effective with smaller majorities and why Democrats just look like creepy clowns. To start with, when liberals want to point out how "Republicans got things done with smaller majorities," they never examine the legislation that those majorities passed. That legislation included security issues (such as FISA), tax cuts (which helped everyone), Medicare Part D (which Democrats support), and other moderate legislation. Moderate being the operative word.

Liberal Democrats misread the elections of 2006 and 2008 as being a mandate for their most radical agenda items, including socializing medicine. At a time when Americans are far more concerned about unemployment, Barack Obama and the Democrats frittered away their (and our) time on issues Americans don't care about. The truth is that Americans were simply tired of George W. Bush and the tone-deaf Republicans running Congress. That doesn't mean they suddenly wanted government seizing control of 1/6 of the economy, wrecking people's healthcare, livelihoods and choices.

If Democrats get anything from the Massachusetts miracle, one would hope it would be to temper their liberal excesses and aim for more centrist policies, the sort of thing Obama fooled voters into believing he supported. And Scott Brown may be just the Senator to do that.

Brown isn't a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He's pro-choice. He's an environmental activist. He says he would have voted for Sonia Sotomayor. But he supports the military and lower taxes. He's against the culture of corruption fostered by the Democrats. And, more importantly to me, he brings some ideological diversity to the GOP, which is likely to make it more appealing to independent voters.

I fully expect Brown to vote with Democrats on some issues and with Republicans on others. He won't be a reliable vote for either party.

Quote of the Day

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson

Massachusetts Voters Show Some Sense and Elect Scott Brown

It's a great day in Massachusetts and in America. But liberals are whining that Democrats should cram through Obamacare even as Brown's victory repudiates the last year of Democrat rule.

The nuclear optionis in the Democrats' playbook because, of course, they are sore losers and they don't give a damn what you want. How many times do you have to hear that before you recognize their arrogance and stupidity?