"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." ~ Patrick Henry
My Professor Doctor Nephew recently wrote on his Facebook page, "I want to live in a country that believes that health care is a right, not a privilege, and I'd really like it if that country were the United States. And I'd be willing to pay my dues to such a country in the form of higher income tax."
I ignored the statement initially because he is family, and I've always believed family trumps ideological differences. But it's getting harder and harder to resist the urge to directly challenge him on what I consider wrong-headed thinking.
So, after a particularly disturbing dream about my aged mother that left me sleepless, I lay awake in my bed thinking of other unrelated and diverse things, which unfortunately disturbed me even more.
One of these things was the aforementioned statement by my highly educated relative.
I have often said health care is not a right and here I see my own blood relative advancing the idea that if it isn't a right already, it certainly should be, even to the point where he is willing to pay higher taxes to attain that perceived right.
As far as taxes are concerned, I am of the opinion that we will have taxes regardless, and since I am poor, I pay very few taxes, if any. Therefore, it is not a personally important issue to me, although I hardly think it's fair to tax wealthier (than me) people a larger percentage. So, I won't comment on that part of his statement. Wealth is relative, anyway.
I've thought about that phrase, "health care is a right", and now, I am thinking perhaps I don't completely understand what constitutes a "right". It would also appear, that unless we make that definition understood, the health care debate will never be settled.
So, with both of my reader's indulgence, I am going to try to think this point out right here, on my web log.
First of all, when we say "right", to what kind of right are we referring? A Constitutional right? A human right? Are there any other kinds of rights? (That's not a rhetorical question. I really want to know)
Since health care has become a political issue, and because his phraseology indicates he doesn't believe health care is a right as of yet, I am going to assume Doctor Kevin is referring to a Constitutional right.
The Constitution confers upon every American the basic rights of life, liberty, and property.
But is Health Care a Constitutional right? And, if not, should it be? Does health care fall under the sub-division of the right to life, or of liberty, or of property? Does it fall under any of those?
Health Care itself, is a service. It is a service we have all come to expect when we need it, but can a service be considered a right? Can an expectation of a service be considered a right? And, why should we expect it in the first place?
I think Health Care service can be a right if we voluntarily make arrangements to compensate a provider of health care service. Or more simply, If we pay for it, we have the right to expect it. But isn't that more of a right to an expectation than a right to the service?
And, should we be compelled to pay for health care service?
In every transaction there is an exchange. If you buy a car, you exchange money for the car. If you barter, you are exchanging goods or services for other goods or services.
If the government supplies the health care, what will the government expect in exchange?
When we allow the government to provide us health care, or mandate that all of us have health insurance, we are surrendering our basic right to liberty. Mainly, the liberty to choose the health care provider we prefer. And, the liberty to choose how we want to pay for health care. And, the liberty to refuse health insurance if one so chooses.
As has been pointed out, of the mythical 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, millions simply choose not to have insurance for various reasons.
Now, whether this is a wise decision is contingent on whether the individual has the money to pay for his own health care independent of insurance providers, or if the individual prefers to take a chance that he will not need health insurance until later, or yes, even if the individual believes he cannot afford health insurance.
But refusing to have health insurance is every individuals Constitutional right!
So, if the government assumes control over the health care industry, does it also assume the right to dictate what health insurance we can own? Or if an insurance corporation has the right to exist? If not, what would be the point of assuming control in the first place?
It would seem to follow, that once the government controls the industry, we exchange our individual freedoms for the so-called right to health care, does it not?
Don't those scenarios constitute the denial of our individual right to Liberty?
Is that not Governmental intrusion?
Barack Hussein Obama has been quoted as saying "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
But that is exactly what the framers intended. The Constitution was intended to protect the people from the Government, not to protect the government from the people. The Federal government does not have an obligation to provide us health care.
There is an old adage that states, "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose".
A mythical right to health care is the fist that government swings and my individual right to liberty is the end of my nose.
Our Constitutional right of Liberty trumps the governments right to intrude upon our liberties every time.
Therefore, It is my conclusion that we do not have an inherent right to health care.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama Reacted Stupidly
"Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall."--Proverbs 16:18
There really isn't much I can add to the latest Obama outrage, that of him calling the Cambridge Police Department stupid. Pretty much anything I can say has already been said by Conservative bloggers and columnists and talk show hosts.
One thing I haven't seen on any blogs is the actual police report submitted by the arresting officer, Sergeant James Crowley and Officer James Figueroa. (not that no blogs have published it)
I found the entire Police report here.
Keep in mind that filing a false police report is one of the most egregious offenses of Police Department policies. It is grounds for immediate dismissal and/or imprisonment. It is highly unlikely that a police officer would lie about what happened, especially in this case, considering the number of eyewitnesses, including both civilian and police personnel.
Plus, a police report has to be filed as soon after the incident as possible, which hardly gives Sergeant Crowley time to come up with some kind of credible fabrication.
No, Sergeant Crowley's version is undoubtedly accurate.
Now. There are a few things about this case that are glaringly obvious:
1. Henry Louis Gates is a racist bigot.
2. This is one more example of a black man shamelessly playing the proverbial race card in an effort to procure special favors or treatment.
3. Obama showed himself to be equally as despicably racist as Henry Gates.
On this last point, I would add, it's really pretty stupid to speak out in this knee-jerk fashion before all the facts are revealed. If Obama had simply said, "I have no comment at this time", he would have saved himself a lot of embarrassment.
Of course, that goes without saying.
But, instead, he stupidly assumed that a white police officer was racist because one of his racist friends said so.
That's right I said it! Obama reacted stupidly!
This is one of those cases when discretion on Obama's part would have been the wiser choice. It would have been more prudent for him to allow himself to be brought up to date on the particulars of the situation before making comment.
But that is not in Obama's nature. Obama is too arrogant.
Arrogance, as I once pointed out, is not necessarily a bad thing. Arrogance is an important trait in salesmen, for instance. It helps a salesman to believe he can close any sale regardless of the difficulty. That requires a certain amount of arrogance.
We've all seen this attitude in friends, co-workers, and enemies many times in our lifetimes, and we will continue to see it until the end of time.
But Obama's arrogance is an entirely different brand of arrogance.
This is evident in his absolute refusal to admit he was wrong to say the Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly in the arrest of Henry Gates. Pathological narcissists such as Obama would never admit fallibility in even the most innocuous matters.
What stubbornly arrogant people like Obama do when proven to be wrong about someone, is, rather than apologize, which normal people would do, simply make some kind of overture, in hopes that the offense will just go away.
And now, what do we see Obama doing?
He has offered to have a friendly little sit-down with Sergeant Crowley, Henry Gates, and himself, over a beer.
This is the typical attempt at apology exemplified by stubbornly arrogant people. It is his way of apologizing.
This offer of a meeting is simply wordplay utilized in an attempt to stem the tide of outrage over Obama's embarrassing remark. He doubtless has no intention of actually following through with his gesture.
But, assuming he would actually follow through with the invitation, which is doubtful, it will be too little, too late for Obama.
He has shown himself to be the small-minded racist bigot most of us believed him to be, and the gloss is beginning to wear off.
There really isn't much I can add to the latest Obama outrage, that of him calling the Cambridge Police Department stupid. Pretty much anything I can say has already been said by Conservative bloggers and columnists and talk show hosts.
One thing I haven't seen on any blogs is the actual police report submitted by the arresting officer, Sergeant James Crowley and Officer James Figueroa. (not that no blogs have published it)
I found the entire Police report here.
Keep in mind that filing a false police report is one of the most egregious offenses of Police Department policies. It is grounds for immediate dismissal and/or imprisonment. It is highly unlikely that a police officer would lie about what happened, especially in this case, considering the number of eyewitnesses, including both civilian and police personnel.
Plus, a police report has to be filed as soon after the incident as possible, which hardly gives Sergeant Crowley time to come up with some kind of credible fabrication.
No, Sergeant Crowley's version is undoubtedly accurate.
Now. There are a few things about this case that are glaringly obvious:
1. Henry Louis Gates is a racist bigot.
2. This is one more example of a black man shamelessly playing the proverbial race card in an effort to procure special favors or treatment.
3. Obama showed himself to be equally as despicably racist as Henry Gates.
On this last point, I would add, it's really pretty stupid to speak out in this knee-jerk fashion before all the facts are revealed. If Obama had simply said, "I have no comment at this time", he would have saved himself a lot of embarrassment.
Of course, that goes without saying.
But, instead, he stupidly assumed that a white police officer was racist because one of his racist friends said so.
That's right I said it! Obama reacted stupidly!
This is one of those cases when discretion on Obama's part would have been the wiser choice. It would have been more prudent for him to allow himself to be brought up to date on the particulars of the situation before making comment.
But that is not in Obama's nature. Obama is too arrogant.
Arrogance, as I once pointed out, is not necessarily a bad thing. Arrogance is an important trait in salesmen, for instance. It helps a salesman to believe he can close any sale regardless of the difficulty. That requires a certain amount of arrogance.
We've all seen this attitude in friends, co-workers, and enemies many times in our lifetimes, and we will continue to see it until the end of time.
But Obama's arrogance is an entirely different brand of arrogance.
This is evident in his absolute refusal to admit he was wrong to say the Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly in the arrest of Henry Gates. Pathological narcissists such as Obama would never admit fallibility in even the most innocuous matters.
What stubbornly arrogant people like Obama do when proven to be wrong about someone, is, rather than apologize, which normal people would do, simply make some kind of overture, in hopes that the offense will just go away.
And now, what do we see Obama doing?
He has offered to have a friendly little sit-down with Sergeant Crowley, Henry Gates, and himself, over a beer.
This is the typical attempt at apology exemplified by stubbornly arrogant people. It is his way of apologizing.
This offer of a meeting is simply wordplay utilized in an attempt to stem the tide of outrage over Obama's embarrassing remark. He doubtless has no intention of actually following through with his gesture.
But, assuming he would actually follow through with the invitation, which is doubtful, it will be too little, too late for Obama.
He has shown himself to be the small-minded racist bigot most of us believed him to be, and the gloss is beginning to wear off.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Upside To Obama's Presidency
"Don't be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid." ~ John Keats
Barack Hussein Obama's feverish rush to get his health care legislation passed before the August recess could turn out to be his undoing.
If the bill passes both the House and Senate before the August recess, that means, I believe, that we could see the implementation of Government run health care as early as January first of 2010.
The next Presidential election will take place in November of 2012, almost two full years after Obamacare becomes the established law of the land.
If that's the way the scenario is played out, two years may be plenty enough time for even the most avid supporters of Obama to see the folly of his over ambitious plan.
Plenty of time for Obama's followers to watch their loved ones suffer and die, while waiting for procedures and surgeries that are too little, too late.
Plenty of time for them to experience first hand the interminable waiting lines and crowded waiting rooms.
Plenty of time for his worshipers to realize that medical professionals are hopelessly undermanned and underfunded.
Plenty of time for Obama's devotees to see how Obama's grandiose plans for so-called free health care in America have withered and died.
It may not be enough time for Republicans to win enough seats in Congress to regain a majority in the 2010 elections, but the Congress will be undoubtedly already facing increased dissension over the economic recession, higher unemployment numbers, rampant inflation, little or no choice of health insurance, and inadequate health care.
Not to mention a near revolution against intrusive Government regulations regarding the first and second amendments.
In fact, Obama's big hurry to pass all sorts of legislative changes could well seal not only his fate, but the fate of the Democrat lawmakers who support him, as well. Obama's rambunctiousness may well insure no Democrats except Conservative Democrats will be elected to office for decades to come.
I met a young man a couple of days ago who confided in me that up until recently he had no interest in politics at all. But, he said, all that changed when Obama began taking over banks, auto makers, insurance companies, etc. He began to see how dangerous it would be to allow this man to grasp and hold that much power and control over Americans.
Gradually, he came to the realization that America, as he once knew it, had ceased to exist, and he fears now for the safety of his children and his children's children.
This is what he said to me:
How many Democrats have become Republicans thanks to Obama?
How many Liberals are no longer Liberals?
I guess it's true:
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Barack Hussein Obama's feverish rush to get his health care legislation passed before the August recess could turn out to be his undoing.
If the bill passes both the House and Senate before the August recess, that means, I believe, that we could see the implementation of Government run health care as early as January first of 2010.
The next Presidential election will take place in November of 2012, almost two full years after Obamacare becomes the established law of the land.
If that's the way the scenario is played out, two years may be plenty enough time for even the most avid supporters of Obama to see the folly of his over ambitious plan.
Plenty of time for Obama's followers to watch their loved ones suffer and die, while waiting for procedures and surgeries that are too little, too late.
Plenty of time for them to experience first hand the interminable waiting lines and crowded waiting rooms.
Plenty of time for his worshipers to realize that medical professionals are hopelessly undermanned and underfunded.
Plenty of time for Obama's devotees to see how Obama's grandiose plans for so-called free health care in America have withered and died.
It may not be enough time for Republicans to win enough seats in Congress to regain a majority in the 2010 elections, but the Congress will be undoubtedly already facing increased dissension over the economic recession, higher unemployment numbers, rampant inflation, little or no choice of health insurance, and inadequate health care.
Not to mention a near revolution against intrusive Government regulations regarding the first and second amendments.
In fact, Obama's big hurry to pass all sorts of legislative changes could well seal not only his fate, but the fate of the Democrat lawmakers who support him, as well. Obama's rambunctiousness may well insure no Democrats except Conservative Democrats will be elected to office for decades to come.
I met a young man a couple of days ago who confided in me that up until recently he had no interest in politics at all. But, he said, all that changed when Obama began taking over banks, auto makers, insurance companies, etc. He began to see how dangerous it would be to allow this man to grasp and hold that much power and control over Americans.
Gradually, he came to the realization that America, as he once knew it, had ceased to exist, and he fears now for the safety of his children and his children's children.
This is what he said to me:
"I guess I have to thank Obama for getting me involved in politics".I wonder how many Conservatives Obama has created with his Marxist policies.
How many Democrats have become Republicans thanks to Obama?
How many Liberals are no longer Liberals?
I guess it's true:
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Half Full Of Ideological Stereotypes And The Health Care Debate
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, that are dreamt of in your philosophy" ~ William Shakespeare
Am I the only one that will make an extra effort to pull up alongside another driver to "see what a bonehead looks like"?
I do that a lot. Some would probably say too much.
Some idiot makes some nonsensical driving maneuver, and I just have to speed up to pull alongside to look at the offending driver. Invariably, the driver looks pretty much like everyone else.
So, I don't know why I bother. It serves no practical purpose at all. I guess it is a habit, because I just can't seem to resist the urge.
Anyway, a couple of days ago, I was stopped at an unbelievably long traffic light, and noticed the bumper stickers affixed to the car in front of me.
The one on the left said,
It was an attractive young black woman.
I thought that was --well--special.
Switching gears now-- have you ever heard the expression, "Is your glass half full or half empty?"
I understand it's supposed to be good when one refers to a glass of some beverage as half full and not so good when it is referred to as being half empty. I think it's supposed to be some clever psychological test of attitude.
Yesterday, my wife inquired of me why I hadn't yet taken the garbage out. I replied, "Because the trash can isn't full yet. Its only half full". And then, an epiphany struck me, right there in the half opened (heh) front door. "Or, maybe it's half empty. What do you think?"
How does it affect your attitude when we're talking about garbage? Is a half full garbage can good or bad? Seems to me, a half full garbage can is not a good thing, which totally explodes the previous psychological theory. Right?
And then, as if that psychological dilemma weren't enough to keep me occupied for the rest of the week, this morning, I encountered a half full (or half empty) glass of unfinished cola in the kitchen sink, half suspended in dish water.
I am of the opinion that a half full glass of flat cola about to spill it's contents into a clean sink full of hot dishwater isn't necessarily a good thing. So, in this case, what does this say about your attitude if you continue to believe a half full glass is evidence of a positive attitude? Isn't it better, in this case, to refer to it as half empty? Hmmm?
Changing the subject yet again, AOL (America Online) , which is a pretty poor, but excessively Liberally-biased internet service provider, posted a poll the other day asking subscribers their opinion on Obama's health care proposal.
The result, the last time I checked, was something like 77% of AOL subscribers opposed Obamacare.
77%!
Facebook also posted a poll asking the same question. Their results were 74% opposed. I don't know whether Facebook is Liberally biased or not, but it doesn't appear to make a difference in this case.
Even Liberals can't spin this stupidity to make it look good!
One would think this would send a message to Obama, but of course, he has already proven he doesn't care what the majority of American people think about his plans.
As long as we don't interfere with his eventual coronation as King of the World.
I could go on and on all day, but I think I'll just stop here.
Am I the only one that will make an extra effort to pull up alongside another driver to "see what a bonehead looks like"?
I do that a lot. Some would probably say too much.
Some idiot makes some nonsensical driving maneuver, and I just have to speed up to pull alongside to look at the offending driver. Invariably, the driver looks pretty much like everyone else.
So, I don't know why I bother. It serves no practical purpose at all. I guess it is a habit, because I just can't seem to resist the urge.
Anyway, a couple of days ago, I was stopped at an unbelievably long traffic light, and noticed the bumper stickers affixed to the car in front of me.
The one on the left said,
How's that hope and change working out for you now?I've seen that one before. But the one on the right had a new, unique message. I just had to share it with my readers:
That Obama sticker on your car might as well say, "Yes, I'm stupid."I thought that was funny, and I felt the urge to speed up after the light turned green and pull up alongside the "old, rich, white man" to look at him, possibly smile at him, and/or greet him with words of appreciation. So I sped up and pulled up. And looked.
It was an attractive young black woman.
I thought that was --well--special.
Switching gears now-- have you ever heard the expression, "Is your glass half full or half empty?"
I understand it's supposed to be good when one refers to a glass of some beverage as half full and not so good when it is referred to as being half empty. I think it's supposed to be some clever psychological test of attitude.
Yesterday, my wife inquired of me why I hadn't yet taken the garbage out. I replied, "Because the trash can isn't full yet. Its only half full". And then, an epiphany struck me, right there in the half opened (heh) front door. "Or, maybe it's half empty. What do you think?"
How does it affect your attitude when we're talking about garbage? Is a half full garbage can good or bad? Seems to me, a half full garbage can is not a good thing, which totally explodes the previous psychological theory. Right?
And then, as if that psychological dilemma weren't enough to keep me occupied for the rest of the week, this morning, I encountered a half full (or half empty) glass of unfinished cola in the kitchen sink, half suspended in dish water.
I am of the opinion that a half full glass of flat cola about to spill it's contents into a clean sink full of hot dishwater isn't necessarily a good thing. So, in this case, what does this say about your attitude if you continue to believe a half full glass is evidence of a positive attitude? Isn't it better, in this case, to refer to it as half empty? Hmmm?
Changing the subject yet again, AOL (America Online) , which is a pretty poor, but excessively Liberally-biased internet service provider, posted a poll the other day asking subscribers their opinion on Obama's health care proposal.
The result, the last time I checked, was something like 77% of AOL subscribers opposed Obamacare.
77%!
Facebook also posted a poll asking the same question. Their results were 74% opposed. I don't know whether Facebook is Liberally biased or not, but it doesn't appear to make a difference in this case.
Even Liberals can't spin this stupidity to make it look good!
One would think this would send a message to Obama, but of course, he has already proven he doesn't care what the majority of American people think about his plans.
As long as we don't interfere with his eventual coronation as King of the World.
I could go on and on all day, but I think I'll just stop here.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
It's Not My Problem...Or Is It?
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." ~ Thomas Jefferson
As much as I dislike insurance companies, I dislike what I am hearing about Obama's health care plan even more.
As a Conservative, it disturbs me deeply whenever I hear of any government plan that essentially denies anyone their Constitutional right to liberty.
Obama's health care plan will virtually outlaw insurance companies.
Additionally, it will force Americans into a Government run health care system whether they would personally choose such a system for themselves and their families or not.
This, as I say, is blatantly unconstitutional.
This is a perfect example of the classic Liberal notion that we American citizens are too stupid to know what's best for us, so the Government must make that decision for us.
I have mentioned my dislike for insurance companies before, but even I would not think of denying them the right to exist.
I don't even like the government requiring me to buy car insurance under penalty of law, so one can imagine how opposed I would be to any kind of national health insurance.
It's not that I don't think auto insurance is a necessity. I do, but mandating the purchase of it, in my opinion, violates basic human rights outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
I could do a whole blog post on the subject. In fact, I have. And here, also.
And so, I admit I have mixed feelings about this health care plan. On the one hand, I would personally like access to free health care. And, I'm not so sure Obama's plan wouldn't work, even though efforts to implement such plans have always failed when attempted elsewhere. Perhaps those who engineered the plan for him have managed to perfect the system, although, if Obama's history of choosing incompetent advisors and aides is any indication, they haven't.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong about his plan to outlaw private insurance, take notice. As early as page 16 of the health care bill now being debated, is this paragraph:
That's legislature speak for: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
The linked article goes on to say:
Stepping away from my own self interest, I have to say:
No one, not even Government, has the right to take away any free market business' right to operate their business as they see fit.
Stepping back to my self interest, I don't want anyone, not even the government, telling me how I should choose to spend my health care dollar.
They don't even have the right to deny me my right to be stupid, if I want to be stupid. I reserve the right to refuse health care. If I want to suffer and die without ever seeing any medical professional, that is my Constitutional right.
This isn't about whether we have a right to health care or not, which, by the way, we don't.
It's about our inherent and constitutional right to choose how we want to live our individual lives.
Then, there is the point about the natural consequences of free health care for all, which I mentioned in a recent post:
Crowded waiting rooms and long waits for treatment, among other things. Not to mention the increased likelihood of misdiagnosis, due to rushing through examinations because of time constraints on the medical professionals.
More patients, less time to be thorough.
Personally, I am quite healthy, although I have some health issues with which I will eventually have to deal. Some day, I will need immediate health care.
Right now, I can wait for medical examinations. I don't have an immediate need for any prescriptions. I will not suddenly drop dead for lack of immediate health care. Knock wood.
Many people, notably senior citizens, don't have that option. They need care immediately.
Then, there's this, from Obama's own black heart:
Did you hear and understand what Obama said in this video? "Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe, you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killers."
He wants the government to decide who lives and dies.
Is this what you want for your grandparents? Is this what you want for yourself should you reach the point when Obama determines you have outlived your usefulness?
Obama has made it clear that he believes senior citizens, and those younger people with terminal diseases are, due to their advanced age and stages, past the point of saving. Therefore, he has suggested the government will save some money by simply not treating the aged and infirmed, except to dull the pain with pain killing drugs.
In other words, he believes saving the lives of some people isn't worth the cost and effort needed to do so.
Euthanasia is just around the corner. How could it not be?
He has yet to specify at what age we officially outlive our usefulness to society, but I'm sure eventually, once his plan is adopted into law, he will make his wishes known on that subject.
But, as I said, that doesn't specifically concern me personally. Yet. But, I'm not getting any younger.
But that leads me to ask, "What's next?" Eliminate the mentally challenged? How about those with Down's Syndrome? Is Sarah Palin's baby in danger?
Will Obama make "Welcome to the Monkey House", and "Soylent Green" a reality?
We already know he plans to grant late term abortion rights, on demand, to anyone who feels the least bit inconvenienced by an unexpected, and/or unwanted baby.
What were his words? Oh yes. "Punished with a baby".
Now, it seems simply being old or chronically sick will be justification enough for these Mengele-worthy "progressive" changes.
OK. Those are just a couple of thoughts I have about Obamacare.
But, what all this boils down to, whether the information we have about it so far is accurate or not, is this:
This is undoubtedly an unprecedented reach for power and control on the part of Obama.
It really isn't about a "failing health care system". It really isn't about "leveling the playing field". It isn't even about making sure all Americans have affordable health care.
Obama and his lackeys in Congress don't really care about Americans health or ability to pay for health care.
It is really all about a Marxist control of Government which will ultimately lead to the destruction of a free America.
As much as I dislike insurance companies, I dislike what I am hearing about Obama's health care plan even more.
As a Conservative, it disturbs me deeply whenever I hear of any government plan that essentially denies anyone their Constitutional right to liberty.
Obama's health care plan will virtually outlaw insurance companies.
Additionally, it will force Americans into a Government run health care system whether they would personally choose such a system for themselves and their families or not.
This, as I say, is blatantly unconstitutional.
This is a perfect example of the classic Liberal notion that we American citizens are too stupid to know what's best for us, so the Government must make that decision for us.
I have mentioned my dislike for insurance companies before, but even I would not think of denying them the right to exist.
I don't even like the government requiring me to buy car insurance under penalty of law, so one can imagine how opposed I would be to any kind of national health insurance.
It's not that I don't think auto insurance is a necessity. I do, but mandating the purchase of it, in my opinion, violates basic human rights outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
I could do a whole blog post on the subject. In fact, I have. And here, also.
And so, I admit I have mixed feelings about this health care plan. On the one hand, I would personally like access to free health care. And, I'm not so sure Obama's plan wouldn't work, even though efforts to implement such plans have always failed when attempted elsewhere. Perhaps those who engineered the plan for him have managed to perfect the system, although, if Obama's history of choosing incompetent advisors and aides is any indication, they haven't.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong about his plan to outlaw private insurance, take notice. As early as page 16 of the health care bill now being debated, is this paragraph:
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
That's legislature speak for: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
The linked article goes on to say:
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
Stepping away from my own self interest, I have to say:
No one, not even Government, has the right to take away any free market business' right to operate their business as they see fit.
Stepping back to my self interest, I don't want anyone, not even the government, telling me how I should choose to spend my health care dollar.
They don't even have the right to deny me my right to be stupid, if I want to be stupid. I reserve the right to refuse health care. If I want to suffer and die without ever seeing any medical professional, that is my Constitutional right.
This isn't about whether we have a right to health care or not, which, by the way, we don't.
It's about our inherent and constitutional right to choose how we want to live our individual lives.
Then, there is the point about the natural consequences of free health care for all, which I mentioned in a recent post:
Crowded waiting rooms and long waits for treatment, among other things. Not to mention the increased likelihood of misdiagnosis, due to rushing through examinations because of time constraints on the medical professionals.
More patients, less time to be thorough.
Personally, I am quite healthy, although I have some health issues with which I will eventually have to deal. Some day, I will need immediate health care.
Right now, I can wait for medical examinations. I don't have an immediate need for any prescriptions. I will not suddenly drop dead for lack of immediate health care. Knock wood.
Many people, notably senior citizens, don't have that option. They need care immediately.
Then, there's this, from Obama's own black heart:
Did you hear and understand what Obama said in this video? "Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe, you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killers."
He wants the government to decide who lives and dies.
Is this what you want for your grandparents? Is this what you want for yourself should you reach the point when Obama determines you have outlived your usefulness?
Obama has made it clear that he believes senior citizens, and those younger people with terminal diseases are, due to their advanced age and stages, past the point of saving. Therefore, he has suggested the government will save some money by simply not treating the aged and infirmed, except to dull the pain with pain killing drugs.
In other words, he believes saving the lives of some people isn't worth the cost and effort needed to do so.
Euthanasia is just around the corner. How could it not be?
He has yet to specify at what age we officially outlive our usefulness to society, but I'm sure eventually, once his plan is adopted into law, he will make his wishes known on that subject.
But, as I said, that doesn't specifically concern me personally. Yet. But, I'm not getting any younger.
But that leads me to ask, "What's next?" Eliminate the mentally challenged? How about those with Down's Syndrome? Is Sarah Palin's baby in danger?
Will Obama make "Welcome to the Monkey House", and "Soylent Green" a reality?
We already know he plans to grant late term abortion rights, on demand, to anyone who feels the least bit inconvenienced by an unexpected, and/or unwanted baby.
What were his words? Oh yes. "Punished with a baby".
Now, it seems simply being old or chronically sick will be justification enough for these Mengele-worthy "progressive" changes.
OK. Those are just a couple of thoughts I have about Obamacare.
But, what all this boils down to, whether the information we have about it so far is accurate or not, is this:
This is undoubtedly an unprecedented reach for power and control on the part of Obama.
It really isn't about a "failing health care system". It really isn't about "leveling the playing field". It isn't even about making sure all Americans have affordable health care.
Obama and his lackeys in Congress don't really care about Americans health or ability to pay for health care.
It is really all about a Marxist control of Government which will ultimately lead to the destruction of a free America.
Friday, July 17, 2009
O.M.G!
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" ~ William Shakespeare
What hath the Minnesota Supreme Court wrought?
How fate loves a jest!
Senator Al Franken.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?
Relevance?
God help us.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
h/t: Lone Ranger, through Joe.
What hath the Minnesota Supreme Court wrought?
How fate loves a jest!
Senator Al Franken.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?
Relevance?
God help us.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
h/t: Lone Ranger, through Joe.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
That's Outrageous!
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The last blog entry I posted, entitled "Congressman King Is Called A Racist" was perhaps the worst piece I ever wrote. I know what I was trying to say, but I was so angry. I just couldn't find the words.
I am still angry.
Why isn't everybody as enraged as I am? How long are we going to allow these race baiters and bigots to infect our culture with their hate and bigotry?
I am sick and tired of these jerks.
Do you understand what happened here? Let me remind you:
Congressman Pete King of New York posted a video wherein he exercised his first amendment right to free speech, and was mercilessly attacked for it.
He was apalled, as most of us sane citizens are, with all the fervor surrounding the death of Micheal Jackson, a man (and I use the term loosely) who's sole positive accomplishment in his 50 years was recording rhythmic, catchy, tunes for profit.
And also, for easier access to young boys for the purpose of sexual abuse.
OK. So maybe Jackson was a musical genius. If one wants to make that claim, I'll acquiesce to that. Perhaps he was extraordinarily brilliant at musical and video production. I'll grant you that as well.
But, as one commentator wrote, all those accomplishments are negated by his perversion.
Pete King was attacked and vilified for stating the truth.
I understand Michael Jackson's fans may have felt insulted by what Mr King said, and they have every right to voice objections to Kings portrayal of Jackson as a pedophile. After all, Jackson was acquitted of those charges. Some people accept that, and that's their perogative.
And, if Jackson's devotees had simply stopped at that, I wouldn't be writing this post.
But the racists and race baiters and bigots just had to stir the pot, and throw in charges of racism as well.
This is wholly unacceptable behavior.
Pete King said nothing about race, or color, or even any physical difference between blacks and whites during his rant. He made no reference whatsoever to stereotypical behavior of any race color or creed. He did not draw any similarities between race and pedophilia.
He did not say Jackson was a pedophile because he was a black man.
In short, nothing Pete King said had anything to do with race issues.
None. Zip. Nada.
When are we going to speak up and stop these people from disrupting and dividing our culture?
If not for these so-called black leaders and professional racists, there would be no racism anymore.
But they just have to keep the anger seething, don't they?
Ask yourself: What are they trying to accomplish? Racial equality?
Hardly. We have, for the most part, achieved that now. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr won equality for blacks through his campaign of non-violence back in the 60's.
Yes, we are still a work in progress today, but really, how much further would we be toward that goal of true racial equality without certain people (on both sides admittedly) continually antagonizing the others?
The white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan have been effectively neutralized. They have become insignificant.We pretty much ignore them and discount them as just a bunch of nuts, now. And nuts they are.
The only real racists and bigots that have any influence now are the black racists.
Are blacks still relegated to the back of the bus, banned from lunch counters, forced to drink from specially labeled drinking fountains?
Does our white culture still prevent blacks from attending all white schools, bar them from jobs they are qualified for, or otherwise "keep them in their place"?
No I say. No, no, and a thousand times no.
The fact is, blacks have more opportunity to all these things, and more today. Their leaders agitated for affirmative action and they got it.
Now, the pendulum has swung the other direction. Whites are now discriminated against regularly in schools, businesses, and everyday culture.
Do you think I'm overstating the problem?
Ask Frank Ricci.
Or, on your next visit to the Walmart, or the supermarket, or any place where the customer service people don't get paid on tips. Pay attention. Pay attention to the difference in how the black customers and white customers are treated by black customer service workers.
And still, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Lewis Farrakhan, Hazel Dukes, Charles Rangel, Barack Hussein Obama, and so many other so-called black leaders continue to agitate, antagonize, bully, accuse, vilify, and intimidate white people into keeping their mouths shut, and allowing black leaders to set public policies and agendas.
Believe it or not, these racist bigots actually get paid to incite division and hatred! They get paid to hate! Someone (and in many cases, it's the taxpayers), is paying these scumbags to spread hatred and division among the races.
This outrage has to be stopped. These so-called black leaders need to be fired. They are systematically destroying the fabric of our multi-racial culture.
We need to get angry. We need to stand up for true racial equality. We need to find our voices, and we need to use them to affect real change.
We need to treat everyone with respect and dignity, regardless of their race, color, or creed.
Everyone, that is, that deserve equal treatment. Not the scheming, cheating, lying race baiters and hate merchants.
We need to treat them as they would treat others.
That is what they deserve.
The last blog entry I posted, entitled "Congressman King Is Called A Racist" was perhaps the worst piece I ever wrote. I know what I was trying to say, but I was so angry. I just couldn't find the words.
I am still angry.
Why isn't everybody as enraged as I am? How long are we going to allow these race baiters and bigots to infect our culture with their hate and bigotry?
I am sick and tired of these jerks.
Do you understand what happened here? Let me remind you:
Congressman Pete King of New York posted a video wherein he exercised his first amendment right to free speech, and was mercilessly attacked for it.
He was apalled, as most of us sane citizens are, with all the fervor surrounding the death of Micheal Jackson, a man (and I use the term loosely) who's sole positive accomplishment in his 50 years was recording rhythmic, catchy, tunes for profit.
And also, for easier access to young boys for the purpose of sexual abuse.
OK. So maybe Jackson was a musical genius. If one wants to make that claim, I'll acquiesce to that. Perhaps he was extraordinarily brilliant at musical and video production. I'll grant you that as well.
But, as one commentator wrote, all those accomplishments are negated by his perversion.
Pete King was attacked and vilified for stating the truth.
I understand Michael Jackson's fans may have felt insulted by what Mr King said, and they have every right to voice objections to Kings portrayal of Jackson as a pedophile. After all, Jackson was acquitted of those charges. Some people accept that, and that's their perogative.
And, if Jackson's devotees had simply stopped at that, I wouldn't be writing this post.
But the racists and race baiters and bigots just had to stir the pot, and throw in charges of racism as well.
This is wholly unacceptable behavior.
Pete King said nothing about race, or color, or even any physical difference between blacks and whites during his rant. He made no reference whatsoever to stereotypical behavior of any race color or creed. He did not draw any similarities between race and pedophilia.
He did not say Jackson was a pedophile because he was a black man.
In short, nothing Pete King said had anything to do with race issues.
None. Zip. Nada.
When are we going to speak up and stop these people from disrupting and dividing our culture?
If not for these so-called black leaders and professional racists, there would be no racism anymore.
But they just have to keep the anger seething, don't they?
Ask yourself: What are they trying to accomplish? Racial equality?
Hardly. We have, for the most part, achieved that now. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr won equality for blacks through his campaign of non-violence back in the 60's.
Yes, we are still a work in progress today, but really, how much further would we be toward that goal of true racial equality without certain people (on both sides admittedly) continually antagonizing the others?
The white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan have been effectively neutralized. They have become insignificant.We pretty much ignore them and discount them as just a bunch of nuts, now. And nuts they are.
The only real racists and bigots that have any influence now are the black racists.
Are blacks still relegated to the back of the bus, banned from lunch counters, forced to drink from specially labeled drinking fountains?
Does our white culture still prevent blacks from attending all white schools, bar them from jobs they are qualified for, or otherwise "keep them in their place"?
No I say. No, no, and a thousand times no.
The fact is, blacks have more opportunity to all these things, and more today. Their leaders agitated for affirmative action and they got it.
Now, the pendulum has swung the other direction. Whites are now discriminated against regularly in schools, businesses, and everyday culture.
Do you think I'm overstating the problem?
Ask Frank Ricci.
Or, on your next visit to the Walmart, or the supermarket, or any place where the customer service people don't get paid on tips. Pay attention. Pay attention to the difference in how the black customers and white customers are treated by black customer service workers.
And still, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Lewis Farrakhan, Hazel Dukes, Charles Rangel, Barack Hussein Obama, and so many other so-called black leaders continue to agitate, antagonize, bully, accuse, vilify, and intimidate white people into keeping their mouths shut, and allowing black leaders to set public policies and agendas.
Believe it or not, these racist bigots actually get paid to incite division and hatred! They get paid to hate! Someone (and in many cases, it's the taxpayers), is paying these scumbags to spread hatred and division among the races.
This outrage has to be stopped. These so-called black leaders need to be fired. They are systematically destroying the fabric of our multi-racial culture.
We need to get angry. We need to stand up for true racial equality. We need to find our voices, and we need to use them to affect real change.
We need to treat everyone with respect and dignity, regardless of their race, color, or creed.
Everyone, that is, that deserve equal treatment. Not the scheming, cheating, lying race baiters and hate merchants.
We need to treat them as they would treat others.
That is what they deserve.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Congressman King Is Called A Racist
"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest." ~ Hermann Hesse
New York Congressman Pete King is right. Michael Jackson was a pedophile freak. Not a hero. He did nothing to help out his fellow man. Nothing but record music and make videos. He has no record of altruism. No record that he ever helped anyone but himself.
Next comes the inevitable attacks on Congressman King. He must have known he would be attacked. But I wonder if he could have imagined he would be labeled a racist?
Hazel Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, said King's remarks are "racist," adding "Sometimes you think you know people... I thought at least he was a decent person. He is like Jim Crow Jr., the way it came out."
Excuse me? Just where in Congressman King's rant did he mention race, or color, or anything even remotely associated with racism?
How is he racist? Michael Jackson could conceivably be called more of a racist than King.
After all, he is the one who spent millions of dollars changing his skin color and facial features, so he wouldn't look black. Seems to me, Jackson hated black people more than the average white racist.
Then there are those who insist Michael Jackson was falsely accused of being a pedophile.
But does anyone remember how Jackson admitted to sleeping with children who weren't his own?
That's pretty sick in and of itself, but wait! There's more! According to the Smoking Gun website:
King was right. Jackson was a pedophile, a child molester, a pervert.
King might be a racist. I don't know. But there is nothing in his rant that indicates he is anything but a man who despises pedophiles and perverts.
New York Congressman Pete King is right. Michael Jackson was a pedophile freak. Not a hero. He did nothing to help out his fellow man. Nothing but record music and make videos. He has no record of altruism. No record that he ever helped anyone but himself.
Next comes the inevitable attacks on Congressman King. He must have known he would be attacked. But I wonder if he could have imagined he would be labeled a racist?
Hazel Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, said King's remarks are "racist," adding "Sometimes you think you know people... I thought at least he was a decent person. He is like Jim Crow Jr., the way it came out."
Excuse me? Just where in Congressman King's rant did he mention race, or color, or anything even remotely associated with racism?
How is he racist? Michael Jackson could conceivably be called more of a racist than King.
After all, he is the one who spent millions of dollars changing his skin color and facial features, so he wouldn't look black. Seems to me, Jackson hated black people more than the average white racist.
Then there are those who insist Michael Jackson was falsely accused of being a pedophile.
But does anyone remember how Jackson admitted to sleeping with children who weren't his own?
That's pretty sick in and of itself, but wait! There's more! According to the Smoking Gun website:
Jackson is a textbook pedophile, a 46-year-old predator who plied children with wine, vodka, tequila, Jim Beam whiskey, and Bacardi rum. A man who gave boys nicknames like Doo Doo Head and Blowhole and then quizzed them about whether they masturbated and if "white stuff" came out. A man who conducted drinking games with minors and surfed porn with them on a laptop in his Neverland Ranch bedroom, noting that if anyone asked what they were looking at, the kids should just say they were watching "The Simpsons." A man who frequently talked sex with his little companions and explained that "boys have to masturbate or they go crazy." A man who told one pajama-clad boy that he wanted to show him how to "jack off." When the tipsy child declined the demonstration, Jackson announced, "I'll do it for you," and buried his hand in the boy's Hanes briefs, size small. And a man who emphasized to his little friends that these activities were "their little secret" and should not be disclosed to anyone, even if a gun was at their head.
King was right. Jackson was a pedophile, a child molester, a pervert.
King might be a racist. I don't know. But there is nothing in his rant that indicates he is anything but a man who despises pedophiles and perverts.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Fun With Numbers
"Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from." ~ Al Franken
In a previous post about Minnesota's new Senator, Al Franken, I made this statement in the comment thread:
"[I]n many counties in Minnesota, there were more votes counted for Franken than there were registered voters".
My resident Liberal, Jim, who I have yet to run off (nor do I want to), pounced on that statement, and demanded I supply citation or shut up. Actually, to be fair to Jim, his comment was, "Cite it, prove it, or shove it".
So, despite the fact that I really don't like to do research, I began googling the words, "more votes for Franken than registered voters", and found, to my surprise, there wasn't any concrete evidence that my statement was true.
I wrote it because I had read it on some other blogs, and never considered it might not be supportable.
So, I shoved it, figuratively speaking.
I did find the original article that made the charge. It was from the Wall Street Journal, and I published the appropriate link in my next thread comment.
The singular statement made by the WSJ, which spawned all the other references to counties with more votes for Franken than registered voters was, "This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote", yet the WSJ, nor any of their affiliates have provided any citation in support of that statement.
But, I did find some interesting information regarding how Franken could have ended up with more votes than Coleman despite the fact that Coleman had, when the votes were counted on election night, 775 votes more than Franken. By Minnesota law, that is grounds for an immediate recount, since the final vote tallied at less than 1% difference between candidates.
Al Franken didn't demand the first recount. He didn't need to, although, if not for Minnesota state law, he probably would have. It is Minnesota law that elections that close have to be recounted.
Nevertheless, the first recount showed Coleman still led Franken by 215 votes. This should have been final, but then Franken demanded another recount. And another. And another, until the results were more to his liking.
Here's what happened:
According to the WSJ, "Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots".
But, they didn't segregate the original ballots, as required, but instead, added the total of duplicate ballots counted to the total of original ballots.
For example, say one precinct had 100 ballots originally cast for Franken and 90 cast for Coleman. By law, the election commission should figuratively throw out the original ballots (because they are damaged) and only count the duplicates. But, instead, they counted the duplicates, and then added the total of duplicate ballots to the total of original ballots. Now, Franken has 200 votes and Coleman, 180.
That results in an increase of 10 votes more for Franken than for Coleman. Now, recount again, and this time add the newest totals, once again, to the earlier totals, instead of throwing the original ( the first recount results) away.
The new results? 300 for Franken and 270 for Coleman. That's 20 more votes for Franken than were actually cast.
And, that's only in one precinct!
This method of recounting could conceivably go on forever, or until some one stops the process, whichever comes first.
But, now, consider that this same odd method of recounting ballots may have taken place in other precincts, all precincts that traditionally vote Democratic. This creative recounting, in the end, netted Franken 225 votes more than Coleman, and Franken won the election.
It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe precincts that traditionally vote Republican recounted the ballots the right way, with the final tally probably not much different than the original, if different at all.
Liberal Jim makes the point, "Why didn't Coleman charge this in any of his lawsuits?", which is a very good question, but one I'd have to direct to Coleman, as I don't know.
But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say because Norm Coleman knew in advance how the Liberally-biased Minnesota Supreme court would decide, and refused to waste his valuable time and resources.
In a previous post about Minnesota's new Senator, Al Franken, I made this statement in the comment thread:
"[I]n many counties in Minnesota, there were more votes counted for Franken than there were registered voters".
My resident Liberal, Jim, who I have yet to run off (nor do I want to), pounced on that statement, and demanded I supply citation or shut up. Actually, to be fair to Jim, his comment was, "Cite it, prove it, or shove it".
So, despite the fact that I really don't like to do research, I began googling the words, "more votes for Franken than registered voters", and found, to my surprise, there wasn't any concrete evidence that my statement was true.
I wrote it because I had read it on some other blogs, and never considered it might not be supportable.
So, I shoved it, figuratively speaking.
I did find the original article that made the charge. It was from the Wall Street Journal, and I published the appropriate link in my next thread comment.
The singular statement made by the WSJ, which spawned all the other references to counties with more votes for Franken than registered voters was, "This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote", yet the WSJ, nor any of their affiliates have provided any citation in support of that statement.
But, I did find some interesting information regarding how Franken could have ended up with more votes than Coleman despite the fact that Coleman had, when the votes were counted on election night, 775 votes more than Franken. By Minnesota law, that is grounds for an immediate recount, since the final vote tallied at less than 1% difference between candidates.
Al Franken didn't demand the first recount. He didn't need to, although, if not for Minnesota state law, he probably would have. It is Minnesota law that elections that close have to be recounted.
Nevertheless, the first recount showed Coleman still led Franken by 215 votes. This should have been final, but then Franken demanded another recount. And another. And another, until the results were more to his liking.
Here's what happened:
According to the WSJ, "Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots".
But, they didn't segregate the original ballots, as required, but instead, added the total of duplicate ballots counted to the total of original ballots.
For example, say one precinct had 100 ballots originally cast for Franken and 90 cast for Coleman. By law, the election commission should figuratively throw out the original ballots (because they are damaged) and only count the duplicates. But, instead, they counted the duplicates, and then added the total of duplicate ballots to the total of original ballots. Now, Franken has 200 votes and Coleman, 180.
That results in an increase of 10 votes more for Franken than for Coleman. Now, recount again, and this time add the newest totals, once again, to the earlier totals, instead of throwing the original ( the first recount results) away.
The new results? 300 for Franken and 270 for Coleman. That's 20 more votes for Franken than were actually cast.
And, that's only in one precinct!
This method of recounting could conceivably go on forever, or until some one stops the process, whichever comes first.
But, now, consider that this same odd method of recounting ballots may have taken place in other precincts, all precincts that traditionally vote Democratic. This creative recounting, in the end, netted Franken 225 votes more than Coleman, and Franken won the election.
It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe precincts that traditionally vote Republican recounted the ballots the right way, with the final tally probably not much different than the original, if different at all.
Liberal Jim makes the point, "Why didn't Coleman charge this in any of his lawsuits?", which is a very good question, but one I'd have to direct to Coleman, as I don't know.
But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say because Norm Coleman knew in advance how the Liberally-biased Minnesota Supreme court would decide, and refused to waste his valuable time and resources.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Support For Life Is Inappropriate
"Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes" ~ Norman Douglas
Last night when I opened the AOL start page, I noticed this story.
Then, I got angry. Or rather, righteously indignant. Again. As I often do when I see blatant abuses of the first amendment by those who say they respect it's principles.
Mrs. Amador alleges the school 's administrators grabbed her daughter's arm in a "vice-like grip" while escorting her to the principle's office.
Some might become enraged over the alleged rough treatment of the child, and I can understand that. Teachers and school administrators are, after all, human, and prone sometimes, to over zealousness.
But that could also be an exaggeration by an overly protective mother. We've all seen that happen on occasion.
I can see where she might have some trouble convincing a jury or a judge that the school officials overstepped their bounds when they physically compelled her to walk to the principals office.
With that acknowledged, what I can't understand is the school's definition of the word, "inappropriate".
According to School district officials,
But sanctity of life? That is inappropriate?
It's inappropriate to champion a pre-born baby's right to life? What kind of convoluted logic is that?
It can't be the images depicted on the shirt that are inappropriate. Those very same images are found in the pages of the school's text books.
I'll bet the school allows T-shirts that promote death metal bands, and obscene rappers, and pedophiles (like Michael Jackson), and Charles Darwin, and gay rights, and abortion on demand, and anarchy, and any one of dozens of Liberal and/or anti-Christian messages.
Last night when I opened the AOL start page, I noticed this story.
Anna Amador says the principal at McSwain Elementary School, a K-8 school in Merced, Calif. ordered her daughter to take off the T-shirt she wore to school on "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day" in April 2008. The shirt displays two graphic photos of a fetus in the womb with the word "growing" under the images. A third box is black, and features the word "gone."
Then, I got angry. Or rather, righteously indignant. Again. As I often do when I see blatant abuses of the first amendment by those who say they respect it's principles.
Mrs. Amador alleges the school 's administrators grabbed her daughter's arm in a "vice-like grip" while escorting her to the principle's office.
Some might become enraged over the alleged rough treatment of the child, and I can understand that. Teachers and school administrators are, after all, human, and prone sometimes, to over zealousness.
But that could also be an exaggeration by an overly protective mother. We've all seen that happen on occasion.
I can see where she might have some trouble convincing a jury or a judge that the school officials overstepped their bounds when they physically compelled her to walk to the principals office.
With that acknowledged, what I can't understand is the school's definition of the word, "inappropriate".
According to School district officials,
[T]he T-shirt violated the school's dress code, which forbids any clothing advertising "inappropriate subject matter" like tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity or vulgarity.
But sanctity of life? That is inappropriate?
It's inappropriate to champion a pre-born baby's right to life? What kind of convoluted logic is that?
It can't be the images depicted on the shirt that are inappropriate. Those very same images are found in the pages of the school's text books.
I'll bet the school allows T-shirts that promote death metal bands, and obscene rappers, and pedophiles (like Michael Jackson), and Charles Darwin, and gay rights, and abortion on demand, and anarchy, and any one of dozens of Liberal and/or anti-Christian messages.
"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," says Becker, a First Amendment attorney. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message."Funny how the Libs respect the first amendment right to free speech except when they disagree with the message.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The Newest Senator From Minnesota
"Truth is often said in jest." ~ Proverb
Introducing the new Senator from the great state of Minnesota, Al Franken. This is the kind of upstanding values you Liberals voted for.
You must be very proud.
Warning: Extremely Offensive Explicit Language!
And so respectful to his parents, too!
OK. I know it is intended to be funny, but I would never, ever talk to my parents that way.
Not even as a joke.
If he's that disrespectful of his family and colleagues, why should we expect him to be respectful of our country?
Introducing the new Senator from the great state of Minnesota, Al Franken. This is the kind of upstanding values you Liberals voted for.
You must be very proud.
Warning: Extremely Offensive Explicit Language!
And so respectful to his parents, too!
OK. I know it is intended to be funny, but I would never, ever talk to my parents that way.
Not even as a joke.
If he's that disrespectful of his family and colleagues, why should we expect him to be respectful of our country?
Obama A Student Of History?
"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." ~ Ronald Reagan
Obama is doing it again. What is he doing? You might well ask.
He is sitting down with a world leader, this time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, trying to broker a deal with Russia, a mutual agreement to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weaponry by both countries.
This has been tried before. When the Soviet Union agreed to reduce nuclear weapons back in the 60's, they lied to America. They didn't reduce. Now, Obama apparently thinks this time, they will be honest.
Well, maybe they will be. After all, this is no longer the Soviet Union of the 50's.
But that's not the point.
The point is, these continual negotiations with other countries to ostensibly make the world safer, do nothing to convince terrorists of the United States' willingness to defend ourselves against our enemies.
This overeager willingness to negotiate peace by lessening our effectiveness is seen as a sign of weakness to the rest of the world.
Is Obama simply naive, as Sean Hannity believes, or is he intentionally trying to leave us open to future attacks on America?
This will no doubt show the rest of the world that he has not learned from history.
What it shows to me is, he is willing to sacrifice Americans so that he can make overtures to our enemies in the Muslim world.
I think he has learned from history, which, if I am right, makes him that much more subversive than even our most conspiracy minded pundits have considered.
Here is what Obama knows:
Terrorists do not respond positively to negotiations. They interpret a willingness to talk peace as weakness. They will exploit weakness every chance they get. They will attack at the slightest hint of vulnerability.
This is undoubtedly what Obama and the terrorists know. History has proven it to be true. If he truly doesn't know this, he is too naive to be a world leader, and especially President of the United States.
But I don't think he's naive.
The longer he remains President, and the more he demonstrates to the world his weakness, the more I believe he may be a closeted Muslim intent on bring the United States to destruction.
Obama is doing it again. What is he doing? You might well ask.
He is sitting down with a world leader, this time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, trying to broker a deal with Russia, a mutual agreement to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weaponry by both countries.
This has been tried before. When the Soviet Union agreed to reduce nuclear weapons back in the 60's, they lied to America. They didn't reduce. Now, Obama apparently thinks this time, they will be honest.
Well, maybe they will be. After all, this is no longer the Soviet Union of the 50's.
But that's not the point.
The point is, these continual negotiations with other countries to ostensibly make the world safer, do nothing to convince terrorists of the United States' willingness to defend ourselves against our enemies.
This overeager willingness to negotiate peace by lessening our effectiveness is seen as a sign of weakness to the rest of the world.
Is Obama simply naive, as Sean Hannity believes, or is he intentionally trying to leave us open to future attacks on America?
This will no doubt show the rest of the world that he has not learned from history.
What it shows to me is, he is willing to sacrifice Americans so that he can make overtures to our enemies in the Muslim world.
I think he has learned from history, which, if I am right, makes him that much more subversive than even our most conspiracy minded pundits have considered.
Here is what Obama knows:
Terrorists do not respond positively to negotiations. They interpret a willingness to talk peace as weakness. They will exploit weakness every chance they get. They will attack at the slightest hint of vulnerability.
This is undoubtedly what Obama and the terrorists know. History has proven it to be true. If he truly doesn't know this, he is too naive to be a world leader, and especially President of the United States.
But I don't think he's naive.
The longer he remains President, and the more he demonstrates to the world his weakness, the more I believe he may be a closeted Muslim intent on bring the United States to destruction.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
How Low Can You Go?
- "Anger at lies lasts forever. Anger at truth can't last" ~ Greg Evans
The facts are:
Sarah Palin has announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska. She no doubt has her reasons, but she didn't specify the main reason that prompted her decision to resign. She did mention several possibilities, but no one specific reason emerged.
Now, This "columnist" takes advantage of the opportunity to pile further garbage on Palin, instead of posting a respectful portrayal of a Governor who was probably the most effective and popular Governor of any state to come along in decades.
In her first paragraph, Henneberger writes:
"Another week, another on-camera breakdown by a Republican governor: In a rambling, borderline bughouse decoupage of sports metaphors and intimations that the forces of darkness were running her out of public life, Sarah Palin announced Friday that she had decided to step down as Alaska's governor, and would be leaving office on July 26".
Not only did "Politics Daily" run this insulting article, but they included the most unflattering photo of Palin they could find. Which, probably to their consternation, isn't really very unflattering.
This is what the Libs consider unflattering.The article is not only disgusting and deplorable, it doesn't even approach any semblance of intellectual honesty.
"Another on-camera breakdown?" Apparently Ms. Henneberger was watching a different speech than the one I saw. While I was listening to Governor Palin's speech I was thinking, "She sounds much more natural and relaxed than she did in any of the great speeches she made while running for the office of Vice-President". Obviously, the speeches she made at the time were written for her, and while she delivered them well, her resignation speech was heart felt, and it appeared to me, she was delivering it off-the-cuff, without notes or teleprompters.
But "breakdown"? I don't see that. I don't see that at all.
Perhaps she was listening to Democrat Governor Elliot Spitzer's speech instead of Palin's.
Someone get Ms Henneberger the right transcript, please.
"Borderline bughouse"? Again, who's speech was she watching? Never have I heard Sarah Palin speak more calmly and intelligently.
"Intimiations that the forces of darkness were running her out of public office?" Hardly. Unless Ms Henneberger is referring to the shameless way the Media swarmed upon the State of Alaska as soon as McCain announced his choice for a Vice Presidential running mate, looking to dig up dirt--any dirt---any dirt at all--on Palin in their efforts to destroy and denigrate her candidacy.
And, do you know what's really funny about that?
They couldn't find anything. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
Sarah Palin is the most incorruptible, most ethical politician, possibly in the history of the world. During the Liberally biased news media's search for improprieties and evidence of corruption, fifteen frivolous, and baseless investigations were launched with the sole purpose of impugning her dignity and her competence.
Fifteen(15).
All fifteen were dismissed.
All of them.
Dismissed.
Funny how the media didn't mention that fact.
Even now, that Palin has tendered her resignation, more allegations of corruption and malfeasence have emerged, which the FBI has refuted.
Refuted.
But, the absolutely most shameful attacks weren't on Palin, personally. They were visited upon her children.
First, they suggested Palin's baby wasn't hers, but instead was her daughter's. Then, they hounded and pursued Palin's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, until, under the pressure of a shameless and unrelenting press, the two broke up.
More recently, a Democrat blogger shamelessly altered a photo of Palin's Down syndrome affected baby, prompting an outcry of righteous indignation from many people, including many Democrats. Sarah, though egregiously insulted, nevertheless handled the entire sordid incident with grace and aplomb.
And Barack Hussein Obama said "children are off limits". Apparently, that admonition only applies when it comes to Democrats. Republican's children are fair game.
OK. Since the Liberals have set the bar, the first time I hear of anything that can be even remotely construed as dirt on Sasha and Malia, I am going to attack mercilessly.
"Running her out of office"? OK. If one thinks she's running rather than simply resigning for a myriad of sound, sensible reasons, which she artfully articulated in her speech, go ahead. You have the right to your opinion. You also have the right to be wrong.
My personal opinion is that she resigned to protect her children from the continual harassment and lies emanating from the hateful, Liberally biased, state-run media dogs.
Imagine. There were 15 investigations launched against Palin herself in a concerted effort to undermine her character and her candidacy. Imagine what lengths the press would be willing to go to attack her children.
I believe Palin could have handled those personal attacks on herself, but she draws the line when they come after her children. As any good parent would.
Any person, male or female, who is a parent, can sympathize with Sarah Palin.
No child should have to undergo so many hateful, egregious attacks on their parent or themselves.
It's shameless.
Or, perhaps Ms Henneberg actually hit on the real reason for Sarah's resignation, when she sarcastically opined, "she seemed to be saying that she was being forced out for being too effective"
While considering my response to this poison pen article, I tried to think of the reasons the Liberals hate Sarah Palin so much. She certainly hasn't done or said anything that inspires such undeserved rancor and hysteria. So why do they have such objections to her mere presence on this earth?
I believe Ms. Henneberg was correct for once:
She's too effective. Liberals hate that.
Friday, July 03, 2009
My Favorite Restaurant Is A Gas Station
"Health food makes me sick." ~ Calvin Trillin
In my humble but expert opinion, the best Barbeque restaurant in the world is a gas station.
Nestled snugly on the corner of Mission Road and County Line Road in Kansas City, Kansas, is a convenience store which boasts gas pumps on the outside. On the inside of the store is Oklahoma Joe's Barbeque restaurant. Just a few short blocks from the Missouri line.
My wife often sends away for literature from resorts, and interesting tourists spots from around the United states. Recently, we received one from Kansas, my home state.
Last summer, we drove to Kansas to visit my elderly mother, some of my siblings, and my kids in Wichita.
Although she wasn't feeling too well through much of the journey, I made it a point to take her to Oklahoma Joe's when we went through Kansas City.
After sampling the fare, she agreed it was the best Barbeque she ever had.
So imagine my delight when I found actual recipes for Oklahoma Joe's ribs, Barbeque sauce, and brisket in the tourist's guide to Kansas!
As many of you know, I own a smoker, and enjoy smoking meat at home. I use my own recipes for rubs and sauces. I am pretty good, but I don't compare with Oklahoma Joe's. I've always had a problem with getting my ribs "fall-off-the-bone" tender. Perhaps this strange mustard rub of Joe's will solve that problem for me.
Here is a picture of one of my briskets on the smoker:
It looks dry in the photo, but trust me, it isn't.
I was going to post the recipes, but just now decided against it, due to concerns of copyright or patent infringement.
But tomorrow, on Independence day, my family and friends are going to enjoy genuine Oklahoma Joe's barbeque ribs and brisket, cooked by yours truly!
In my humble but expert opinion, the best Barbeque restaurant in the world is a gas station.
Nestled snugly on the corner of Mission Road and County Line Road in Kansas City, Kansas, is a convenience store which boasts gas pumps on the outside. On the inside of the store is Oklahoma Joe's Barbeque restaurant. Just a few short blocks from the Missouri line.
My wife often sends away for literature from resorts, and interesting tourists spots from around the United states. Recently, we received one from Kansas, my home state.
Last summer, we drove to Kansas to visit my elderly mother, some of my siblings, and my kids in Wichita.
Although she wasn't feeling too well through much of the journey, I made it a point to take her to Oklahoma Joe's when we went through Kansas City.
After sampling the fare, she agreed it was the best Barbeque she ever had.
So imagine my delight when I found actual recipes for Oklahoma Joe's ribs, Barbeque sauce, and brisket in the tourist's guide to Kansas!
As many of you know, I own a smoker, and enjoy smoking meat at home. I use my own recipes for rubs and sauces. I am pretty good, but I don't compare with Oklahoma Joe's. I've always had a problem with getting my ribs "fall-off-the-bone" tender. Perhaps this strange mustard rub of Joe's will solve that problem for me.
Here is a picture of one of my briskets on the smoker:
It looks dry in the photo, but trust me, it isn't.
I was going to post the recipes, but just now decided against it, due to concerns of copyright or patent infringement.
But tomorrow, on Independence day, my family and friends are going to enjoy genuine Oklahoma Joe's barbeque ribs and brisket, cooked by yours truly!
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
My Response To A Liberal's Comment
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Martin Luther King Jr
In a previous post, I commented on the Ricci vs Stephano case, in which The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Obama's recent Supreme Court Justice nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Jim, a Liberal commenter, who I haven't managed to run off yet, (nor do I want to, yet) made this comment:
"Actually, your activist judges didn't reverse Sotomayor and the District Court. They reversed the Supreme Court. The District Court ruled based on Supreme Court precedent, as they should. In this decision, this court has changed its own rules. Read the ruling."
To which I replied, "Jim, I won't argue that point. But I will question your employment of the term, "activist judges.
I would argue that the Supreme Court simply applied the civil rights act of 1964, and applied it correctly."
Then, I asked him some pertinent questions regarding what he considers is the definition of racist discrimination. You may read the entire thread, if you're so inclined, here.
But then, after re-reading his comment, I write the following, in response:
I changed my mind, Jim. I will argue that point.
A columnist (his name doesn't matter), who once worked for Sotomayor, and now writes for The Washington Post, a Liberally biased newspaper, wrote "Of course, the fact that Judge Sotomayor or any judge was overruled by the Supreme Court..."
A columnist (Again, name doesn't matter) at The National Review, a Conservative biased magazine wrote,
"although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven."
Actually, that statement isn't accurate, but stay tuned.
From an update to that same article, the writer quotes Justice Ruth Ginsburg, possibly the most Liberal Justice on the SCOTUS, saying, "Ginsburg believes that Sotomayor and the other judges below applied the wrong standard: “The lower courts focused on respondents’ ‘intent’ rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act.”"
From Salon.com, another Liberally biased website: "the Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 ruling, reversed the decision of a unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel (which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor)..."
Apparently, and according to most experts, Sotomayor's decision was indeed reversed by the SCOTUS.
Now, let me add, also, that all of the arguments presented in support of the District court's (including Sotomayor) ruling focused on the cities decision to throw out the test results because no black firefighter qualified for the promotion.
But their race (or color) is not the reason why the black firefighters were disqualified.
They were disqualified for promotion because none of them scored high enough to qualify for promotion to one of only eight openings.
15 firefighters, including Ricci, passed the test, with a high enough score to earn a promotion, and only the top 8 scores were to be rewarded with a promotion, which is how it should be, regardless of race.
The one fact that cannot be ignored is this:
No black firefighters scored high enough on this particular administration of the test to earn a promotion.
That's why the city of New Haven threw out the test scores. They were afraid that some black firefighter would charge them with racial discrimination. It's as simple as that. What does that say about the enabling of inequality in America?
Surprise!
We have achieved racial equality in this country, but certain people (such as Judge Sonia Sotomayor) apparently feel racial discrimination is fair, as long as we only discriminate against white people.
Here's the wrap (with apologies to Kevin Jackson):
This isn't about racism or discrimination. It is about qualifications based upon a standardized test. If any one of the black applicants had earned one of the eight top scores, the test scores would not have been thrown out, and the lawsuit would not have been necessary.
My unsolicited advice offered to any so-called minority who wants to get promoted, and that promotion is predicated upon scores of a standardized test is this:
Study hard to score the highest, and if you don't score high enough, study harder next time.
In a previous post, I commented on the Ricci vs Stephano case, in which The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Obama's recent Supreme Court Justice nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Jim, a Liberal commenter, who I haven't managed to run off yet, (nor do I want to, yet) made this comment:
"Actually, your activist judges didn't reverse Sotomayor and the District Court. They reversed the Supreme Court. The District Court ruled based on Supreme Court precedent, as they should. In this decision, this court has changed its own rules. Read the ruling."
To which I replied, "Jim, I won't argue that point. But I will question your employment of the term, "activist judges.
I would argue that the Supreme Court simply applied the civil rights act of 1964, and applied it correctly."
Then, I asked him some pertinent questions regarding what he considers is the definition of racist discrimination. You may read the entire thread, if you're so inclined, here.
But then, after re-reading his comment, I write the following, in response:
I changed my mind, Jim. I will argue that point.
A columnist (his name doesn't matter), who once worked for Sotomayor, and now writes for The Washington Post, a Liberally biased newspaper, wrote "Of course, the fact that Judge Sotomayor or any judge was overruled by the Supreme Court..."
A columnist (Again, name doesn't matter) at The National Review, a Conservative biased magazine wrote,
"although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven."
Actually, that statement isn't accurate, but stay tuned.
From an update to that same article, the writer quotes Justice Ruth Ginsburg, possibly the most Liberal Justice on the SCOTUS, saying, "Ginsburg believes that Sotomayor and the other judges below applied the wrong standard: “The lower courts focused on respondents’ ‘intent’ rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act.”"
From Salon.com, another Liberally biased website: "the Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 ruling, reversed the decision of a unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel (which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor)..."
Apparently, and according to most experts, Sotomayor's decision was indeed reversed by the SCOTUS.
Now, let me add, also, that all of the arguments presented in support of the District court's (including Sotomayor) ruling focused on the cities decision to throw out the test results because no black firefighter qualified for the promotion.
But their race (or color) is not the reason why the black firefighters were disqualified.
They were disqualified for promotion because none of them scored high enough to qualify for promotion to one of only eight openings.
15 firefighters, including Ricci, passed the test, with a high enough score to earn a promotion, and only the top 8 scores were to be rewarded with a promotion, which is how it should be, regardless of race.
The one fact that cannot be ignored is this:
No black firefighters scored high enough on this particular administration of the test to earn a promotion.
That's why the city of New Haven threw out the test scores. They were afraid that some black firefighter would charge them with racial discrimination. It's as simple as that. What does that say about the enabling of inequality in America?
Surprise!
We have achieved racial equality in this country, but certain people (such as Judge Sonia Sotomayor) apparently feel racial discrimination is fair, as long as we only discriminate against white people.
Here's the wrap (with apologies to Kevin Jackson):
This isn't about racism or discrimination. It is about qualifications based upon a standardized test. If any one of the black applicants had earned one of the eight top scores, the test scores would not have been thrown out, and the lawsuit would not have been necessary.
My unsolicited advice offered to any so-called minority who wants to get promoted, and that promotion is predicated upon scores of a standardized test is this:
Study hard to score the highest, and if you don't score high enough, study harder next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
