Tuesday, August 18, 2009

[F]astened on the word “hope”, they should have highlighted “audacity.” ::: Obama on the flying trapeze:The dazzling hubris of the U.S. President

We've been watching over the past two weeks, willingly or not, the wrong icon. Michael Jackson's a distraction. Barack Obama is the superstar of the world, the real celebrity. And because he's President of the world's foremost power (for now), his actions have real, not just symbolic, meaning.

We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past. He wouldn't, in other words, have beaten a bad-tempered, egotistical spoiler.

We have also seen enough to make some observations on the observations of his once and now-no-more mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You will remember when the ravings of Mr. Wright finally got too much for the candidate, when the more pacific words of the “great speech” on race that he could “no more disown him than I can my white grandmother” were rendered inoperative by Mr. Wright's persistently obnoxious presence. Mr. Obama pushed him aside.

The pastor had one last shot of his own about his onetime “son.” That was the line, “He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do.” We know what he meant by “politician”: one who is “forced” to say one thing to get elected, and do another; a person who conceals an agenda under cloudy rhetoric, a person whose calling – politics – is implicitly, essentially, deceptive.

The description is faithful to the commonplace understanding of “politician” today. It matches the stereotype, because the stereotype is a match for (most) of the reality. Mr. Wright may have been wrong in very much, but he knew his “son.” Mr. Obama is a politician, and very much a politician in that harsh, unflattering and somewhat cruel understanding Mr. Wright gave the term.

Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet. The first expenditure, which began under George Bush's tenure, was large, but it was very specific. The financial “infrastructure” of America's economy was about to be exploded, and it was argued that government “had no choice” but to shore up the financial institutions without which there would be utter chaos in the overall economy. That was the genesis of the so-called bank bailout. After that came the stimulus package, the attempt to kick-start jobs, to get those “shovel ready” projects “out the door.” Both had to be done immediately. There was no time for review or oversight.

These initiatives, however, were almost instantly overlaid with the Obama agenda of massive government expansion, or attempted expansion, into everything from the auto industry to health care - all of them sold with cries of urgency and executed with reckless haste. Massive bills were passed before there were even copies of them to read. The U.S. government's debt is being swollen beyond all previous records.

It is inconceivable that these ideas occurred to Mr. Obama postelection. His agenda is of such scale and particularity that it is evidence of design and previous contemplation. He knew what he wished to do when he was campaigning, but he was not going to whisper the scale and range of his designs while the campaign was on. It would have scared off people.

But daring is Barack Obama's real middle name. When he borrowed the phrase “the audacity of hope” from his frightful mentor, most people fastened on the word “hope.” They should have highlighted “audacity.” With the smoothest and most finished ease of any candidate since John Kennedy, Mr. Obama glided through the primaries, and barely broke stride passing his hapless opponent, Senator John McCain, on the way to the White House.

He's flying high in dazzling hubris. The American economy is not yet fixed. It may get worse. And it is in this parlous and critical context that Mr. Obama has launched history-making expenditures and a reordering of American governance.

Daring? Daring - if you believe in it. Reckless – to the point of real danger if you do not.

This is the greatest trapeze act in the history of North American politics.

Rex Murphy is a commentator with The National and host of CBC Radio's Cross-Country Checkup .


Obama on the flying trapeze - The Globe and Mail

Muslims must unite [against Israel and U.S.] for Islam's savior: Iran [Ayatollah]

Bring it, suckers.

The spokesman of Iran's Supreme Leader called on neighboring countries to mobilize their forces in preparation for the coming of the savior of Islam and to unite with the Islamic Republic in paving the way for his arrival, an Iranian news agency reported Sunday.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's spokesman, Ali Saeedi, said countries like Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan should gather together all their forces in order to make drastic changes to prepare for the coming of al-Mahdi al-Montazar, Arabic for "the awaited guided one."

"We still have a long way to go in order to achieve this. We have to train honest forces that can stop the obstacles that may hinder the coming of the Mahdi like the United States and Israel," Saeedi said in statement posted by the Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA).

Saeedi also said that the supreme leader of Iran is the direct representative of the Mahdi and that obeying him is like obeying the "guided one," who is the prophesized savior of Islam.


"Since the armed forces are commanded by the Supreme Leader, they are thus obeying the orders of the awaited Mahdi," Saeedi said, adding "the Revolutionary Guards and the armed forces in Iran hold religious authority to prepare for the appearance of the Mahdi."

The Mahdi is believed by Muslims to be arriving before Judgment Day to rid the world of injustice. Although present in both major Islamic schools of thought, the Mahdi is more prominent in the Shiite doctrine than the Sunni one.

News | Muslims must unite for Islam's savior: Iran

Adorable Dog, but WTH? Just Bizarre ::: No Treats From Obama




YouTube - No Treats From Obama

John Mackey’s Wall Street Journal Op-ed Encourages Health-care Conversation / WSJ.com

A great piece, which leaves little in the way for me to add.

I'm encouraged that the debate continues, and that, hopefully, more people will read John Mackey's original, thoughtful, cogent, and intelligent alternative to the tyrannical boondoggle being whipped around by Congress and the present administration.

August is the slowest month for political bloggers, so to chase away the summer doldrums, several on the left have decided to gin up a retail boycott. The object of their wrath: Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's op-ed in these pages last week, presenting alternative ideas for health-care reform.

Perish the thought. The response to the piece on liberal Web sites has been frothy, with bloggers lining up to reproach Mr. Mackey for his transgression against progressive orthodoxy. A post on the Web site DailyKos called Mr. Mackey a "right-wing zealot," and his opinions "asinine."

To punish the op-ed offense, bloggers encouraged shoppers to stay away from Whole Foods and to spread the word through Facebook groups and store-front protests.

Those who actually read Mr. Mackey's piece may find the racket puzzling. The CEO suggests ways to reform health care without a new deficit-busting entitlement. He'd equalize tax laws between individual and employer-provided health insurance, make health costs more transparent and let people check off a form on their taxes to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to people who have no insurance. "Like food and shelter," Mr. Mackey wrote, health care is "best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges."

These are views held by plenty of voters, but no matter; the hardest cases on the left have had it in for the Whole Foods CEO for a while. Mr. Mackey drew the left's ire for his position against unionization in Whole Foods stores. Instead, the company adopted a raft of its own progressive employee policies, such as letting workers vote on their own benefits packages, including health savings accounts.

Too often, business leaders who have useful contributions on a public issue are too fearful or self-interested to say what they really think. Detroit CEOs paid lip service to fuel-mileage standards even as the rules destroyed their business. The pharmaceutical industry after years of defending its business model hopped quickly into line for the Administration's health-care reform.

Whole Foods is a publicly traded company, so the effects of a real boycott would mainly damage the pocketbooks of those nice Whole Foods employees and its stockholders. They may have little to worry about. Summer is nearly over and when the weekend farmers markets close, a real protest would require the store's hyperprogressive customers to withdraw forever from the Whole Foods community to get their artisanal foods at the supermarket chain down the block.

Meantime, Mr. Mackey's piece has stirred a conversation about health care among people whose first instinct isn't political thuggery. Whole Foods' Web site has its share of angry customers, but they have been joined by many supporting Mr. Mackey's position. His piece has been among the most emailed articles in this paper the past week.

Mr. Mackey wrote his op-ed to join a national debate on a subject that will affect his company and employees. He deserves credit for exercising his right to free speech, no matter the risk this currently entails in our politics.



John Mackey’s Wall Street Journal Op-ed Encourages Health-care Conversation - WSJ.com

Obama's Tyrant Love ::: Anti-American Amigos / WSJ.com

Excerpt:

Hugo Chávez took a break last week from lobbying Washington on behalf of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to travel to Quito, Ecuador, for a meeting of South American heads of state.

There he launched a virulent assault on the U.S. military, reiterated his commitment to spreading revolution in the region, and threatened the continent with war. Mr. Zelaya was by his side.

The Venezuelan's tirade against the U.S. and its ally Colombia raised the question yet again of what the U.S. could possibly be thinking in pushing Honduras to reinstate Mr. Zelaya. He was removed from office by the Honduran Congress in June because he violated the country's constitution and willfully incited mob violence.

But that's not the only thing that made him unpopular at home. He also had become an important ally of Mr. Chávez and was quite obviously being coached to copy the Chávez power grab in Venezuela by undermining Honduras's institutional checks and balances.

If Honduras has been able to neutralize Mr. Chávez, it's something to celebrate. A Chávez-style takeover of institutions in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua has quashed political pluralism, free speech and minority rights in those countries. There is now a heavy presence of Cuban state intelligence throughout the Venezuelan empire. Mr. Zelaya literally has become a fellow traveler of Mr. Chávez, leaving no doubts about the course he would put Honduras on if given the chance.

Among the theories making the rounds about Mr. Obama's motivations in trying to force Honduras to take Mr. Zelaya back, there is the hypothesis that this administration is tacking hard to the left. Mr. Obama has expressed the same views on Honduras as Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), who holds that the interim government must be forced to reinstate Mr. Zelaya and who has, over more than two decades in office, consistently allied himself with socialist causes in Latin America.

As a U.S. senator, Mr. Kerry has the luxury of treating Latin America like his playground, as Democrats have done for decades, foisting on it ideas that Americans reject. Venezuelans still recall how Connecticut's Chris Dodd played the role of chief Chávez cheerleader in the Senate while the strongman was consolidating power.

But Mr. Obama is the president and commander in chief, and millions of people in this hemisphere are counting on the U.S. to stand up to Venezuelan aggression. Playing footsie under the table with Mr. Chávez on Honduras while the Venezuelan is threatening the peace isn't going to fly in a hemisphere that prefers liberty over tyranny.


Read the rest here:

Anti-American Amigos - WSJ.com

Why 'Obama-care' is failing / Jonah Goldberg / latimes.com

Excerpt:

Imagine if President George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the "time for talking is over." Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails, in the pursuit of "fishy" dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) derided critics as "evil-mongers" the way Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently described town hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) had called vocal critics "un-American" the way Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.

Now I'm not asking you, dear reader, to do this so that you might be able to see through the glare of Obama's halo or the outlines of the media's staggering double standard when it comes to covering this White House. Rather it is to grasp that the Obama administration has been astoundingly incompetent.

Lashing out at the town hall protesters, playing the race card, whining about angry white men and whispering ominously about right-wing militias is almost always a sign of liberalism's weakness -- a failure of the imagination.

The left, broadly speaking, has been attacking conservative talk radio and all it allegedly represents for the better part of 20 years now. When Bill Clinton needed a convenient villain, he attacked Rush Limbaugh. When Bush emerged victorious from the Florida recount, liberals concluded that what they really needed was their own version of Limbaugh. Last March, at the first sign of resistance from congressional Republicans, Obama immediately complained that the GOP was Limbaugh's lap dog, and both the White House and much of the press corps went into anti-Limbaugh campaign mode.

It's funny how these supposed champions of the Enlightenment can't grasp that people can disagree with them for honest reasons. Instead, we simply must be Limbaugh's automatons, which is to say racist, fascist thugs.

In addition to the slander, such complaints are monumentally, incandescently lame coming from a party that controls Washington. Indeed, according to liberals themselves, these evil-mongers are a tiny minority, a bunch of "Astro Turf" frauds. So why not ignore them and get on with the work you were elected to do?

Well, because they can't -- or won't.

One of the reasons the term "Obama-care" has become a journalistic convention is that there is no bill. You can't talk about Obama's actual healthcare plan because there isn't one. There are a bunch of competing bills, proposals, ideas swirling around the halls of Congress like flotsam in a sewer. As even Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor secretary, recently conceded, the failure to put forward a concrete proposal allows opponents to pick from a menu of scary ideas and possibilities, all of which can be labeled Obama-care.

Suspicion of bad motives are only reinforced by Obama's determination to steamroll to victory. Indeed, Democratic dudgeon that the town hall protesters don't want the civil debate we desperately need is hysterical, given that Obama wanted this over before the August recess. No wonder the president who thought the time for talk was over long ago now doesn't like the talk he's getting.

Read the rest here:
Why 'Obama-care' is failing -- latimes.com

Great Stuff Here ::: On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study (MIT)



1: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department, MIT.
2: Media Laboratory, MIT.

Abstract:
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.


Read it in all its deliciousness here.

Zing! ::: Obama Poster Artist Throws a Joker in the Racial Profiling Deck

=)


By Johnny Simpson
According to MSNBC, LA Weekly, the SF Chronicle and the Washington Post, the mystery artist who created the sensational Obama Joker image was a racist hood-wearing Darth Cheney-like Klansman. How about a young liberal Palestinian-American Kucinich fan?
I'm sure you're all aware now of the unmasking of the infamous Obama Joker poster artist. But before we get back to Faris Alkhateeb, the liberal Dennis Kucinich-admiring twenty-year-old Palestinian-American history major now attending the University of Illinois in the President's own backyard, and who created that sensational image out of pure boredom and mischief, let us take a walk down Memory Lane and address the Lefty Myths and Urbane Legends. First up, mythmaker Steve Mikulan of the LA Weekly, who saw Republicans "in the throes of political orgasms" and ropes below the makeup: "The only thing missing is a noose." No, Steve. The only thing missing is a keffiyeh. Curious. Will this revelation of the Palestinian aspect of Mr. Alkhateeb's identity have liberal Lefty ObamaBots rethinking the dreaded "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" axiom? Perhaps even consider cutting off stimulus spending for Hamas and Gaza? Don't laugh. Hell Hath No Fury like a Liberal Lefty scorned. But I DO believe Mr. Mikulan, who also went on at length and off the rails with his follow-up "It's All About Race" owes both Cheney and the Klan an apology. It wasn't all about race after all. God only knows what secret Death Star hideaway Mr. Mikulan can find Darth Cheney. But I do believe the Klan is well represented in Congress by Sen. Robert C. Byrd. Perhaps Mr. Mikulan can start his Apology Tour there. Next up, Mr. Philip Kennicot of the Washington Post, from whom Bad Whitey emanations regarding the sinister Obama Joker artist flowed like wine all the way to MSNBC from his "Racial Fear's Ugly Face" oped:
The new Obama poster has two basic thrusts. Obama is a socialist, or a crypto-socialist. And Obama is somehow like the Joker, unpredictable and dangerous. But joining these two messages together yields more questions and contradictions than good poster art can sustain.
Curiously, Mr. Kennicott saw a Bush Joker poster drawn by Drew Friedman as not only sustainable art, but "a view of Bush popular among his detractors, that the former president was unpredictable and fast on the draw when it came to geopolitics." Could not one argue that President Obama is being fast on the draw when it comes to Socialism? The rest of Mr. Kennicot's lengthy essay on stoking racial fear in politics is quite a read, knowing what we know now about the Obama Joker artist's true multicultural identity. If you throw in the San Francisco Chronicle's Rich Lieberman and his racial slamming of the Obama Joker artist (as well as the usual Lefty equivocations for similar Bush art), I'd say they got this whole Closet KKK Boogeyman Propagandist Thing about as wrong as they could get it. In fact, given the startling revelation, hasn't the Obama Joker poster been a veritable psychological Rorschach Test for Lefty yellow journalists? A projection onto the mystery artist of their own unreasonable and deep-seated prejudices and biases toward hated white conservatives? And make no mistake, they ARE deep-seated. In fact, they're endemic.


Read the rest here:
Opinion: Obama Poster Artist Throws a Joker in the Racial Profiling Deck

Monday, August 17, 2009

Excellent ::: PJTV: The Power & Danger of Iconography

Obama's O... it's power, and its potential to be hoisted by its own petard.




YouTube - PJTV: The Power & Danger of Iconography

Mark Lloyd, Another Neo-Fascist In The Obama Admin ::: Obama launches frontal attack on conservative talk radio

By Anthony G. Martin:

We knew this was coming. We told you it would happen as far back as last year during the campaign.

It is now official. Barack Obama has launched a full, frontal attack on conservative talk radio, and he is doing it without re-implementing 'the Fairness Doctrine.'

But first, a bit of background.

Back in the days when radio was young and there were only a few stations, the Fairness Doctrine insured that listeners received a full array of political opinion in the interest of balance. As the years went by and as radio grew, so did other forms of media. Eventually there was television and then the Internet. And let's not forget that this was the era when newspapers dominated the media.

During Ronald Reagan's Presidency it was determined that 'the Fairness Doctrine' was no longer needed. Thus, the FCC dropped it. Shortly thereafter came conservative talk radio that gave citizens something they had been missing in most newspapers and in ALL of the 3 network news broadcasts--a conservative point of view in the media.

As conservative talk radio grew and began to dominate radio airwaves, the TV networks took a decidedly Leftward turn--much more so than they had already been. For example, anyone who watches MSNBC knows that the network is decidedly liberal in its bias and serves as a cheerleading squad for Barack Obama.

Newspapers, or at least the ones that have managed to stay in business, also turned decidedly Leftward, as we see in the New York Times, which can no longer be considered a reliable source of unbiased news.

This has served to make conservative talk radio even stronger, much to the chagrin of Democrats and liberals who wish to completely dominate ALL of the media. In spite of the fact that their point of view is given preference on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc., it grates on their nerves that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck dominate radio.

Thus, the liberal have stated that if they ever retake Congress and the White House a top priority would be to bring back 'the Fairness Doctrine' in order to reign in conservative talk radio and marginalize the voices of Limbaugh and Beck.

However, with this President, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is totally unnecessary. Obama can accomplish his goals by simply appointing a czar that isn't accountable to anyone but him.

He has done exactly that with the radio issue.

Obama recently appointed to the FCC an officer that we have never had before in America. It is called the 'Chief Diversity Officer,' the goal of which is to make sure that on radio there is a broad diversity of opinion. Nevermind that there is no such diversity in the mainstream media, i.e., TV and newspapers.

The man that Obama appointed to be the 'content czar' for talk radio is Mark Loyd. Loyd wrote a book in 2006, published by the University of Illinois Press, entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, in which he proposes, among other things, that private radio broadcasters be required to pay a sum equal to their total operating costs in order to benefit public radio broadcasting.

Forget for a moment that no business can survive by paying some other entity a sum equal to their total operating expenses. This, of course, would drive private broadcasters out of business. But look at what he is proposing. He wants public broadcasting to be funded totally on the backs of private broadcasters, many of whom operate in the red.

Such idiotic, mutton-headed notions would be laughable were they not dead serious.

And that's not all.

Loyd stated in a report he authored in 2007 called 'The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio' that 91% of talk radio is conservative and 9% is 'progressive.' Further, he contended that large private broadcast corporations had driven liberals off the air and that there was a dire need for 'diversity of ownership.'

Of course, Loyd conveniently ignores the fact that of the 3 major television broadcast news organizations, 100% are 'progressive' and 0% are conservative. Among the major cable news networks, 75% are progressive while only 25% (Fox News) is conservative. This is the percentage one gets when considering CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox News.

But let's get back to the primary issue at hand. Loyd's appointment to the FCC is ominous proof that Barack Obama has declared open war on conservative talk radio. It is clear he wants all of radio to be just like ABC News, which set up its operation inside the White House so that Obama could push his government takeover of healthcare. ABC is his lapdog as are the other major networks.

Why would government officials want to launch such an assault on conservative talk radio when they practically have all of the rest of the media in their hip pocket?

The answer is chilling. Only tyrannical governments wish to silence the voices of dissent and totally dominate communications and media.

Make no mistake about this, my friends. This is an open assault on free speech, the First Amendment, and private enterprise.

Source: CNS NEWS



Obama launches frontal attack on conservative talk radio

LOL ::: Hot Air / Did the White House lower the flag@whitehouse.gov?

This is only kind of great mind you... they really cannot be allowed to sweep this fascist insanity under the rug. 'Course the mainstream media will comply with the burial.

=(


posted at 12:05 pm on August 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Almost two weeks after the White House launched its Snitch Central in order to get reports on political dissent over ObamaCare, it appears that the Obama administration and its chief propagandist have quietly thrown in the towel. Matt Drudge reported this morning that all e-mails to flag@whitehouse.gov have begun bouncing back as undeliverable. Tom Maguire ran a test, as did I earlier this morning. This is what I got in return:

A message that you sent could not be
delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error.
The following address(es) failed:

flag@whitehouse.gov
SMTP error from remote mail server after
RCPT TO::
host mailhub-wh2.whitehouse.gov
[63.161.169.140]:
550 5.2.1 ...
The email address you just sent a
message to is no longer in service.
We are now accepting your feedback
about health insurance reform via:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck

Hmm. OK, let’s take a look at the website again, and its contact form:

If you have questions about health insurance reform or suggestions on what topics we should address next, please let us know.

Please refrain from submitting any individual’s personal information, including their email address, without their permission.

I think the entire effort is a “permanent error.” Unfortunately, if it passes, our money and our choices in health care won’t bounce back to us like this once it fails, as it will surely do.



Hot Air � Blog Archive � Did the White House lower the flag@whitehouse.gov?

LOL ::: PJTV: Silencing Dissent? There's an App for That




YouTube - PJTV: Silencing Dissent? There's an App for That

So I Went To Whole Foods To See How The Boycott Was Working Out...

Apparently there had been a few protesters there earlier that I had missed while I was at church. Hey, they have their religion and I have mine...

=)

Anyway, I got to talk to the concierge. I had also missed a bunch of "the brass" that had also been on hand to make sure that things didn't get too hairy.

Concierge was a doll. Said they'd prefer I didn't take pictures, but since I already had... well... I already had.

I'm still working on putting a video together of all facets of John Mackey's brilliant OpEd of last week and its aftermath, but, suffice it to say, for all of the leftists' wailing over the Whole Foods CEO's promoting of limited government, capitalism and personal responsibility, their supposed boycott of Whole Foods Market doesn't seem to be going quite as planned.

Yep... packed as always.






New Book Alert ::: Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them

From Amazon:


Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them

Product Description
Everywhere you look, everything is going green. But soon, this trendy green lifestyle wont be voluntaryit will be mandatory. Milloy shows how the government will soon have you under its green thumb. --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.

From the Inside Flap
Big Brother Has Turned Green

The environmental movement has cultivated a warm and fuzzy public image, but behind the smiley-face rhetoric of "sustainability" and "conservation" lies a dark agenda. The Greens aim to regulate your behavior, downsize your lifestyle, and invade the most intimate aspects of your personal life.

In this stunning exposé, Steve Milloy unveils the authoritarian impulse underlying the Green crusade. Whether they're demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial, the Greens are envisioning a grim future for you marked by endless privation.

Steamrolling nearly all opposition with its apocalyptic predictions of environmental doom, the Green movement has gained influence throughout American society--from schools and local planning boards to the biggest corporations in the country. And their plans are much more ambitious than you think, says Milloy. What the Greens really seek, with increasing success, is to dictate the very parameters of your daily life--where you can live, what transportation you can use, what you can eat, and even how many children you can have.

Citing the tactics and goals of Green groups as explained by their own activists and leaders, Green Hell demonstrates:

* How Green pressure campaigns threaten the safety of your home and your car, and public health overall
* Why the election of President Obama portends a giant leap forward for coercive Green policies
* Why Greens obstruct the use of all forms of energy--even the renewable sources they tout to the public
* How wealthy Green elites stand to profit fabulously from the restrictions and regulations they seek to impose on the rest of us
* How Green pressure campaigns are hamstringing the military and endangering our national security
* Why big business is not only knuckling under to the Greens, but is aggressively promoting the green agenda to the detriment of its own stockholders
* What you can do to help stop the great Green machine

A one-of-a-kind, comprehensive takedown of the entire environmental movement, Green Hell will open your eyes to a looming threat to our economy, our civil liberties, and the entire American way of life.


Amazon.com: Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them (9781596985858): Steven Milloy: Books

Our Troops Are Dying For This Crap? ::: Afghan husbands allowed to starve their wives if she refuses sex

An Afghan bill permitting a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has become law as the country's president, Hamid Karzai, looks to seal victory in this Thursday's election.

The bill sparked international outrage when it was first introduced earlier this year, forcing Mr Karzai to back down.

But critics say the amended version of the law, brought into effect on July 27, remains highly repressive.

They accuse Mr Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support ahead of the presidential vote.

Female supporters of presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah,

Female supporters of presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah, seen in poster at right, attend a campaign rally in Kabul, Afghanistan

Afghan presidential candidate and former foreign minister Dr Abdullah Abdullah

Afghan presidential candidate and former foreign minister Dr Abdullah Abdullah releases helium filled balloons into the stadium during the last day of campaigning at a rally in Kabul

The law governs family life for Afghanistan's Shia minority, which make up about 15 per cent of the 30million population.

It allows a husband to withhold food from his wife if she refuses to submit to his sexual demands.

In the original version, Shia women were ordered to have sex with their husbands every four days.

It also removed the need for consent to sex within marriage, effectively condoning marital rape.

Now in the amended version of the same bill, a wife must also get her husband's permission to work. Fathers and grandfathers have also been awarded exclusive custody of the children.

President Hamid Karzai is said to have approved the 'marital rape' laws to win over Shia supporters

President Hamid Karzai is said to have approved the 'marital rape' law to win over Shia supporters

The bill was passed quietly with the apparent approval of Mr Karzai.

The Afghan president's government has also agreed local 24-hour ceasefires with the Taliban ahead of the elections where he is the clear front runner with 45 per cent of the vote.

It is hoped the truces will let people vote and could even form the basis of permanent peace talks with the Taliban, the man in charge of reconciliation has said.

But ambushes and explosions are likely to continue until midnight on Wednesday.

Today security guards for Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's former foreign minister and his main presidential rival, beat back enthusiastic supporters with rifle butts at the rally in Kabul's National Olympic Stadium, notoriously once used by the Taliban as an execution ground.

Several thousand supporters waved blue flags and cheered as Abdullah gave a passionate address, whipping some in the crowd into a frenzy.

A makeshift platform used by television journalists collapsed in the crush, lightly injuring several.

Supporters stampeded through gates and shattered glass doors to get closer to Abdullah, an urbane eye doctor, while others clung precariously to a light tower.

One of Afghanistan's most notorious militia leaders threw his support behind Karzai today, the final day of campaigning for this week's tense election.

Thousands gave a rapturous welcome to former Uzbek militia chief General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who jetted back to Afghanistan on Sunday from exile in Turkey.

'We need to go with Hamid Karzai into the future,' Dostum told cheering supporters in Shiberghan, his dusty home city.

Read the rest here:
Afghan husbands allowed to starve their wives if she refuses sex | Mail Online

Drudge Headline: OBAMA PULLS PLUG ON FLAG@WHITEHOUSE.GOV... EMAILS BOUNCE BACK

Well, that does seem rather...

http://www.blurtit.com/var/mypictures/G/Gog/funny_fish.jpg


http://clientcarecards.com/images/catalog_images/1255.gif


http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00403/SNN1221AN_682_403077a.jpg


http://www.endlesssimmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin-fish.jpg


...fishy.



http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-unhappy-puffer-fish.jpg

Silly Funny Knock-Knock Joke for Obama

Knock Knock!
Who’s there?
Kenya!
Kenya who?

KENYA SHOW ME YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

“Punch back harder” has replaced “Yes, we can.” ::: What Went Wrong / Victor Davis Hanson / NRO

A great piece - unsurprisingly, considering the author.

Excerpts:

We are witnessing one of the more rapid turnabouts in recent American political history. President Obama’s popularity has plummeted to 50 percent and lower in some polls, while the public expresses even less confidence in the Democratic-led Congress and the direction of the country at large. Yet, just eight months ago, liberals were talking in Rovian style about a new generation to come of progressive politics — and the end of both the Republican party and the legacy of Reaganism itself. Barack Obama was to be the new FDR and his radical agenda an even better New Deal.

What happened, other than the usual hubris of the party in power?

First, voters had legitimate worries about health care, global warming, immigration, energy, and inefficient government. But it turns out that they are more anxious about the new radical remedies than the old nagging problems. They wanted federal support for wind and solar, but not at the expense of neglecting new sources of gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power. They were worried about high-cost health care, the uninsured, redundant procedures, and tort reform, but not ready for socialized medicine. They wanted better government, not bigger, DMV-style government. There is a growing realization that Obama enticed voters last summer with the flashy lure of discontent. But now that they are hooked, he is reeling them in to an entirely different — and, for many a frightening — agenda. Nothing is worse for a president than a growing belief among the public that it has been had.

Second, Americans were at first merely scared about the growing collective debt. But by June they became outraged that Obama has quadrupled the annual deficit in proposing all sorts of new federal programs at a time when most finally had acknowledged that the U.S. has lived beyond its means for years. They elected Obama, in part, out of anger at George W. Bush for multi-billion dollar shortfalls — and yet as a remedy for that red ink got Obama’s novel multi-trillion-dollar deficits.

Third, many voters really believed in the “no more red/blue state America” healing rhetoric. Instead, polls show they got the most polarizing president in recent history — both in his radical programs and in the manner in which he has demonized the opposition to ram them through without bipartisan support. “Punch back harder” has replaced “Yes, we can.”

Fourth, Americans wanted a new brand — youthful, postracial, mesmerizing abroad. At first they got that, too. But after eight months, their president has proven not so postracial, but instead hyper-racially conscious. Compare the Holder “cowards” outburst, the Sotomayor riff on innate racial and gender judicial superiority, and the president’s Cambridge police comments. All that sounds more like Jesse Jackson than Martin Luther King Jr. Demagogues, not healers, trash their predecessors at the beginning of every speech. When a once-eloquent president now goes off teleprompter, the question is not whether he will say something that is either untruthful or silly, but simply how many times he might do so at one outing. Some once worried that George W. Bush could not articulate our goals in Iraq; far more now sense that Obama is even less able to outline his own health-care reform.

Fifth, even skeptics are surprised at the partisan cynicism. A year ago, Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama praised organizing, dissidents, and protest. Today they have become near-Nixonian in demonizing popular resistance to their collectivized health-care plans as mob-like, inauthentic, scripted, Nazi-like, and un-American. There are still ex-lobbyists in the government. High officials still cheat on their taxes. Hacks in the Congress still profit from their office. The public is sensing not only that Obama has failed to run the most ethically clean government, as promised, but indeed that he is not running as ethically clean a government as the predecessor whom he so assiduously ridiculed.


And:

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs makes Scott McClellan sound like a Cicero by comparison.


And:

Ninth, Democratic populism turned out to be largely aristocratic elitism. Obama spends more money on himself than did Bush. The liberal Congress has a strange fondness for pricy private jets. Those environmentalists and racialists who lecture us about our ecological and ethical shortcomings prefer Martha’s Vineyard and country estates to Dayton and Bakersfield. Offering left-wing populist sermonizing for others while enjoying the high life oneself is never a winning combination.

Read it all here:
What Went Wrong by Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online

Dialysis for 80 [Illegal] immigrants drives Nev. hospital deep into debt

LAS VEGAS — A Las Vegas hospital providing emergency dialysis services to 80 illegal immigrants says that accounts for much of its operating deficit.

The University Medical Center says the treatment will cost it about $24 million this fiscal year, aggravating a budget deficit that is expected to approach $70 million.

UMC's chief operating officer, Brian Brannman, said the hospital is required by federal law to treat anyone who shows up in an emergency but receives no reimbursement from federal, state or local governments for doing it.

"Our people are really torn," Brannman told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "We want to take care of people who are ill. We're proud that we can save lives. But our employees are also worried about the survival of UMC. They know that the appetite of taxpayers for helping undocumented immigrants is limited."

The cost of providing dialysis to illegal immigrants doubled last year, with twice as many seeking the treatment two or three times a week, officials said.

One patient said she had nowhere else to turn.

"I am so thankful to this hospital for doing this for someone who is not a citizen," Marta Berrera told the newspaper through an interpreter. "Without this help, I would die and my four children would be without a mother."

UMC professionals say taxpayer-supported hospitals are strained to the breaking point and need to be part of the discussion on how to reform the nation's health care system. If this problem isn't solved, they say, others can expect to wait longer or pay more for their own emergency services.

"There's no question that these illegals who come for dialysis treatment at emergency rooms back everything up," said Dr. Dale Carrison, UMC's head of emergency services. "And there's also no question that they need help. But this isn't how emergency rooms were meant to be used."

Comments here (and they're exactly what one would expect...):

Dialysis for 80 immigrants drives Nev. hospital deep into debt | Immigration | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Friday, August 14, 2009

Just Insane ::: School prayer charges stir protests

I'm excerpting the first page here, and will end it with one of the hundreds of outraged comments.

Students, teachers and local pastors are protesting over a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer.

There have been yard signs, T-shirts and a mass student protest during graduation ceremonies this spring on behalf of Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and school athletic director Robert Freeman, who will go on trial Sept. 17 at a federal district court in Pensacola for breaching the conditions of a lawsuit settlement reached last year with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I have been defending religious freedom issues for 22 years, and I've never had to defend somebody who has been charged criminally for praying," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that is defending the two school officials.

An ACLU official said the school district has allowed "flagrant" violations of the First Amendment for years.

"The defendants all admitted wrongdoing," said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for its freedom of religion program. "For example, the Pace High School teachers handbook asks teachers to 'embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.'"

The fight involving the ACLU, the school district and several devout Christian employees began last August when the ACLU sued Santa Rosa County Schools on behalf of two students who had complained privately to the group's Florida affiliate, claiming some teachers and administrators were allowing prayers at school events such as graduations, orchestrating separate religiously themed graduation services, and "proselytizing" students during class and after school.

In January, the Santa Rosa County School District settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several things, including a provision to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored events.

Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.

"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said.

Reader comment:

Pericles:

It is astounding that in a country that invokes multiple references to God in its founding documents, swears in its elected officials on the Bible, begins its legislative sessions with a prayer, names God on its currency, and has presidents who customarily say "God bless America," that a student can be kept from speaking because she might mention God. Sad.

Read it all here:
School prayer charges stir protests - Washington Times

Like a complete unknown: Bob Dylan frogmarched to collect ID after rookie policewoman fails to recognise [him]

Back in 1965 Bob Dylan sang: 'How does it feel to be on your own, with no direction home, like a complete unknown?'

Now, 44 years later, the world-famous musician got his answer when he was stopped by a police officer who didn't know who he was.

The 22-year-old officer asked the 'eccentric-looking old man' for identification papers after stopping him in the U.S. seaside town of Long Branch, New Jersey.

Bob Dylan

Music legend: Bob Dylan had been taking an afternoon stroll when residents of Long Branch, New Jersey complained of a man 'acting suspiciously'

Not recognising his name, the officer ordered him into the back of her police car, driving him back to his hotel to check his story.

It was not until she radioed her colleagues at the station to ask who he was, did she learn of her error.

The 68-year-old singer had been in town for a concert with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp.

He was taking an afternoon stroll through the town’s Latin quarter when town's police station received a call complaining that a man was acting suspiciously.

Police officer Craig Spencer said: 'Residents called to complain there was an old scruffy man acting suspiciously.

'It was an odd request because it was mid-afternoon, but it’s an ethnic Latin area and the residents felt the man didn’t fit in. Lets just say he looked eccentric.

'We dispatched a young woman officer. She is 22 and unfortunately she had no idea who Bob Dylan was.

'He was on a walkabout but she wasn’t entirely convinced of his innocence.

'She took him back to the hotel to check his papers, then she called us to check who Bob Dylan was.

'I’m afraid we all fell about laughing. If it was me, I’d have been demanding his autograph not his photo ID.

'The poor woman has taken rather a lot of abuse from us,' he added.

'I offered to bring in some of my Dylan albums, but unfortunately she doesn’t know what vinyl is either.'

This is not the first time that the notoriously reclusive singer has been spotted out alone.

He shunned his chauffeur-driven car after a concert in Belfast in 1991, and was captured by a television crew waiting at a bus stop instead.

The music legend once told an interviewer: 'Being noticed is a burden. Jesus got himself crucified because he got himself noticed. So I disappear a lot.'

Dylan’s 1960s anthem The Times They Are a-Changin’ signalled the start of America’s youth protest movement. Given yesterday's incident, it seems he was right.



Like a complete unknown: Bob Dylan frogmarched to collect ID after rookie policewoman fails to recognise scruffy music legend | Mail Online

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama

CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.



News from the American College of Surgeons: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama

A Warning From Beyond The Grave ::: Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Eerie. Brilliant.



YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Some Chuckles ::: Jon Stewart On The Town Halls

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
PR
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorSpinal Tap Performance


Jon Stewart Goes After Angry Town Hallers & The Networks That Give Them Airtime (VIDEO)

I Love This Stuff ::: SPACE.com/Black Hole Strikes Deepest Musical Note Ever Heard

Astronomers have detected the deepest note ever generated in the cosmos, a B-flat flying through space like a ripple on an invisible pond. No human will actually hear the note, because it is 57 octaves below the keys in the middle of a piano.

The detection was made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and announced at a press conference today.

The note strikes an important chord with astronomers, who say it may help them understand how the universe's largest structures, called galaxy clusters, evolve.

The sound waves appear to be heating gas in the Perseus galaxy cluster, some 250 million light-years away, potentially solving a longstanding mystery about why the gas surrounding this cluster and others does not chill out as existing theory predicts.

The gas is apparently dancing excitedly to the eons-long drone of a deep B-flat.

Black hole music

Astronomers were not surprised to find the supermassive black hole making a strong sub-bass sound. Though these greatest known matter sinks are by nature dark and invisible, they create bright and chaotic environments in which many forms of radiation -- from radio waves to visible light to X-rays -- have been recorded. These electromagnetic waves all travel at the speed of light.

Sound waves are similar, but they travel far more slowly and are more physical in nature. Sound you hear, for example, can be produced by the visible compression and expansion of a stereo speaker. The waves physically compress the stuff through which they move, be it air, water, or hot interstellar gas.

Other studies have shown that the riotous activity around black holes -- where gas is accelerated to nearly light-speed -- produces many notes that are, all together, much like music. Collectively, the cosmos produce, scientists believe, a cacophonic symphony of inaudible tunes.

Musical production appears to be ubiquitous in Nature. Scientists often call it flicker noise, and it has also been detected in the X-ray outputs of magnetic fields within our solar system. Even Earth hums its own tune. Musical analogies are found in everything from seascapes to brainwaves.


Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

SPACE.com -- Black Hole Strikes Deepest Musical Note Ever Heard

Also, a favorite:
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Astronomers hear 'music of creation'

Sarah Palin... Still Naming Names and Kicking Tail ::: Facebook: Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan

Yes, she's happy the "death panel" provision was cut, but she ain't done yet. (This woman is doing more with her Facebook page than all the Rs in Congress. LOL.)

Let's go:
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.

The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:

“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.

- Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html


Facebook | Sarah Palin: Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan

ROTF ::: Rush Limbaugh inspired clothing: MOBWEAR

FReeper rlmorel is going to town on his new Rush-inspired t-shirt/decal/sticker idea, and the original image, posted below, is being constantly updated as more ideas for subtitles come in. Hilarious stuff.

Here's the original:




Hit this thread and scroll down for all the offshoots:
Rush Limbaugh inspired clothing: MOBWEAR

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Quote of The Day... Rush at His Best ::: "Obama ultimately wants to play God..."

"Obama ultimately wants to play God. We conservatives don't pretend to know what treatments or medicines should be offered in every situation. We believe this must be left to individuals and the highly trained specialists in the field who have gone to school to learn about this. And I don't think Obama's ever been to med school, and if he has, we'll never see the records." -Rush


RushLimbaugh.com Home

LOL... Guess Sarah Palin Scared 'Em Straight ::: Finance Committee drops end-of-life provision

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after being derided as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia by conservatives.

"On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."

The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee to not report out a preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day.

Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in the House, which he asserted were "poorly cobbled together."

"The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund health care subsidies for illegal immigrants," Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to "advise patients about end of life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care."

"Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can't," Grassley added.



The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room � Finance Committee drops end-of-life provision

Rush Limbaugh ::: A Duke Professor Explains What the Health Care Bill Actually Says

Excerpt:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, what I have here is very long.
I cannot read the entire thing. But there are summaries that I can read.
This is a piece entitled, and it was put together by John David Lewis.
It is from the website Classical Ideals.
John David Lewis is a professor of classics at Duke University,
and here is how he introduces his analysis:
    "What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,' actually say about major health care issues?
    I here pose a few questions in no particular order,
    citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

    "This bill is 1017 pages long.
    It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws.
    I have only touched pieces of the bill here.
    For instance, I have not considered the establishment of
      (1) 'Health Choices Commissioner' (Section 141);
      (2) a 'Health Insurance Exchange,' (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity;
      (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
    This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional.
    I am citizen, concerned about this bill's effects on my freedom as an American.
    I would rather have used my time in other ways
      -- but this is too important to ignore.
    We may answer one question up front:
      How will the government ... pay for all this?

    "Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services
    -- there are no other options.
    We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government 'option' or not."
So, when we talk about how we're going to pay for it,
    "How will the government ... pay for all this?"
it's all of the following:
    "Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services
    -- there are no other options"
    to pay for it.
    "We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government 'option' or not."
The first question that he wanted to discover here is:
    "Will the plan ration medical care?"
Then he cites the relevant passages from the bill
and then evaluates the passages in real language,
not the legalese that he found.
This section, rationing medical care:

    "1. This section amends the Social Security Act.
    2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an 'applicable [medical] condition.'
    3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
    4. This determination will be made by statistics:
      when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted."
In other words, there's nothing personal about this.
That's why Obama's answer to the woman with the 100-year-old mother,
    "Are you gonna take into account the spunk and spirit, the will to live?"
was,
    "I don't think we can do that."
It's going to be statistic based.
    "5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up."

There is no other way to analyze this section of the bill.
    "6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts."
All this language is in this piece.
The language from the bill is from the piece.
I'm not just going to read that to you.
I'm reading his evaluation, stripping away the legalese, what it all means.
    "7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission:
      page 317-318."
The next question that the classics professor at Duke researched is:
    "Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?"
and then he gives the relevant portions from the bill as it's written
followed by his evaluation.
Number one... Remember the question here is:
    "Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
      ... 1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
      "2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax."
Now, this we know.
We've seen this ourselves.
    "3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan,"
as written in this bill.
The IRS will be a major enforcer.
The next section that he analyzed:
    "What constitutes 'acceptable' coverage?"
Because, in the previous passage the bill said:
    "Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax"
So, what is "'acceptable' coverage"?
Here are the relevant passages, sentences from the bill.
    "Evaluation of the passages.
      1. The bill defines 'acceptable coverage' and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
      2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits,
      the bill makes health plans in which
        individuals pay for routine services,
        but carry insurance only for catastrophic events,
        (such as Health Savings Accounts)
      illegal."

Let me read that again:
    "1. The bill defines 'acceptable coverage' and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
    2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits,
      the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services"
      out of their own pockets,
        "but carry insurance only for catastrophic events ... illegal."
That is one of the solutions to the problem we have now.
    Pay for what you want
      -- a standard checkup, a standard visit to the doctor
    -- and catastrophic insurance for when that could break your bank.
Doing that will be illegal in the House bill.
In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services
but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal.

The next section that our classics professor, an average citizen, was curious about:
    "Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?"
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year.
    (The bill uses 'contribution' to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)

    "Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE,"
      and then the relevant passages from the bill.
Here is the evaluation of those passages.
Again, what we're talking about here is:
    "Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?"
      "1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
      2. Small businesses -- with say 8-10 employees -- will either have to provide insurance to federal standards,
      or pay an 8% payroll tax.

      Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs.
      Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan
      will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government 'option.'"
Now, let me explain this.
    Small businesses, say eight-to-ten employees, will either have to provide insurance up "to federal standards."
    If they don't, they will pay an ADDITIONAL 8% payroll tax.

    "Business costs for health care are higher than [what will be charged], especially considering administrative costs.
    Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan
    will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government 'option.'"
If they go to the government option, they're fine.
If you don't and you stay private, you're going to pay a penalty.
The penalty will make it ridiculous and stupid business-wise to stay with your private plan.

Therefore, you will -- your small business will -- be forced out of private insurance onto the government option.
    "3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous,"
the financial pressure, the business pressure.
    "4. With employers ending plans,
    millions of Americans will lose their private coverage,
    and fewer companies will offer it."


Now, none of this is anything new.
Everybody showing up at these town halls knows this.
This is nothing that has already been learned when discussing it.
That's why when Obama is saying,
    "If you like your plan you can keep it",
it's not true,
because the meat and potatoes of the bill is going to make it impossible.

If your private plan is from an employer,
your employer is going to find it very difficult
to hold onto private insurance and remain competitive with businesses
that opt out and go in the government option.

When Barney Frank or Obama himself says,
    "We can't do this immediately.
    It's going to take 10 to 15 years,"
this is what they're talking about:
    Eventually forcing small businesses and others out of private insurance
    because they won't be able to remain competitive with competitors
    who go the public option.

    Read the rest here:
    A Duke Professor Explains What the Health Care Bill Actually Says

    Good Grief ::: ALG Finds Details on "Right-Wing" Threat Assessment (DHS Used Google, FGS!)

    So 50% of the nation was labeled, in some way or other, "right-wing-extremists" based on trolling the web, including angry lefty sites. Awesome.

    The genius level of fedgov bureaucrats never ceases to amaze me. When the toads at the Southern Poverty Law Center are used as an authority on anything, it's time to demand a little common sense. Thank goodness we were screaming for the repeal of the report even before we realized how really really retarded it was.

    Yeesh.

    Americans for Limited Government, which is the parent group of NetRight Nation, had it's Research Department do some digging on the right-wing threat assessment released from the Homeland Security Department. What they turned up was very interesting.

    The sources for the potential threats were actually from websites as well as some blogs. Essentially, this Homeland Security threat assessment was not based on any intelligence but on what someone found in doing some Google searches.


    Go here for the intelligence gathering... I mean site links:
    ALG Finds Details on "Right-Wing" Threat Assessment

    John Mackey Rocks ::: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

    Why? Well, because first he starts off with one of my favorite quotes:

    "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

    —Margaret Thatcher

    And also because he makes a lot of sense.

    (Plus, he's my homeboy.)

    Excerpt:

    • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

    • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

    • Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

    • Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

    • Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

    • Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

    Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

    Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

    Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

    Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.


    Read it all here:

    John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com


    Videos

    :: Rebel Evolution ::

    2005 Liberty Film Festival Short-Doc Nomination: :: Sealed For Your Protection ::

    :: Boomerang ::

    :: Fort Hood Documentary

    Remembering A Massacre
    ::

    :: Sarah Palin Rocks Texas

    for Governor Perry
    ::

    :: Texas Starts with T

    The Tea Party in 12 Easy Minutes
    ::



    Clips and Interviews

    :: Governor Rick Perry:

    On the Tea Party Movement, Senator Hutchison, and Debra Medina
    ::

    :: Breitbart's Challenge to New Media:

    Destroy Those Who Would Destroy You
    ::

    :: Andrew Breitbart:

    Time To Start Returning The Punches of the Bully Media
    ::

    :: Rick Perry / Austin Tea Party

    On Secession and "Right Wing Extremism"
    ::











    :: Follow me on Twitter ::



    :: Unspun with AnnaZ on BlogTalkRadio ::

    :: Unspun podcast on iTunes ::