Something's Fishy

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The above paragraph was issued on the Whitehouse blog. The executive branch of our federal government is now asking us to report fellow Americans who disagree with a healthcare proposal. Health care! Not a terrorist plot, but health care!! Kids if your mommy or daddy disagree with the president on healthcare--REPORT THEM!!! If your grandparents are worried that government run health care will deny them services they need--LET BIG BROTHER KNOW!!! We're talking about HEALTH CARE!!! Please Mr. President, release terrorists from Guantanamo, but don't let senior citizens disagree with you on health care!!! Give me a break.

Can all you folks who voted for Obama and still support him please say a few words--Gestapo and KGB.

Paul Krugman Conducts a Bad Poll For Liberals but a Good Poll for Reality

NYT's Krugman Conducts Informal Canadian Health Care Poll; Result: 'Bad Move On My Part'

July 28, 2009 - 11:39 ET The New York Times' Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and staunch champion of government medicine a la the Canadian model of our neighbors to the north.

Just this past Saturday in "Toyota, Moving Northward" he flogged the advantages of the single-payer system Canada offers. He postulated that one reason why the Japanese auto maker is locating its new RAV4 plant in Ontario is their government medicine:
Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

Suddenly Krugman the Leftist is all for huge government subsidies for big business.
Krugman's Nobel-prize winning economic mind then offers up:
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.

Really? Adding workers brought in from outside Canada to the government rolls won't increase government spending? A little of Krugman's new math: X plus 5,000 still somehow equals X.

On January 9th, 2008 Krugman defended Canadian (as well as French and British) government medicine from an assessment of it by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in "A health care system to die for."
Rudy Giuliani warned us about what would happen if a Democrat wins:
You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British healthcare.

And that would be a terrible thing:
In "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis" (Health Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2008), Ellen Nolte, Ph.D., and C. Martin McKee, M.D., D.Sc., both of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, compared international rates of "amenable mortality"-that is, deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care.
The key words being "timely" and "effective" - two words never associated with government medicine.

Just ask Shona Holmes, a Canadian government medicine escapee alive today only because she had an American free market health care system in which to take refuge. The system Krugman wants to see shut down. The four and six month waits for initial diagnoses of her condition to which Canadian (be) patient care had consigned her would have killed her.

And Ms. Holmes' life-and-death waiting game at the hands of government medicine is the rule rather than the exception. Most Canadians and Europeans - subject to the system - aren't as fond of it as is Krugman, who isn't.

Something Dr. Krugman could, should he be at all interested, find out with a little due diligence and some rudimentary research.
Of which he got a taste here with his informal poll. Oops.

—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.

Below is a link to Krugman's embarassing impromptu poll. In his defense, at least he admits that he screwed up this time. He might try the same with some of his other opinions ie. Climate Change is a bigger threat than bankrupt entitlement programs.


http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GduznzqGaG

One of my Political and Spiritual Heroes

Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and former Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration, was both a prophet and a patriot. During the course of his life he served faithfully as a watchman on the tower warning of potential political and spiritual perils that threatened the United States of America. While most of his political speeches were given during the fifties and sixties, their messages are still very pertinent to America today. The following quote is a great warning about the present "Bailout" mania that seems to be putting the federal government on the road to owning large national companies, ie. GM, Chrysler, and AIG.

"I am unalterably opposed to socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property." From the speech--The Proper Role of Government

Democratic Representative Insults Father of Dead Virginia Girl

U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez, democrat from Illinois's 4th congressional district and apologist for illegal immigrantion, offered an offensive and idiotic remark during a congressional hearing in which the father of a girl killed by a drunk driving illegal immigrant was testifying about his daughter's senseless death. The father pointed out that the illegal had been arrested multiple times and never deported. Instead he was allowed to stay illegally in our country and have the opportunity to drink, drive, and destroy the lives of two young women. In some of the father's comments he referred to the illegals as banditos.

Representative Gutierrez offered the following remark to the father:

“What I have seen, unfortunately, is the will to target and to victimize and to scapegoat a community of people,” Gutierrez said. “I have seen that readily here. It makes for great political points but it doesn’t solve the problem and would not have saved your daughter’s life."

How idiotic can this congressman be?! If the laws had been enforced and the perpetrator had been deported as he could and should have been before the day that he once again became drunk and then slammed into the two American girls who were lawfully waiting for a red light to change, he would have never been here to kill the two young ladies. Instead the congressman turns the drunk driver and other illegals into the victims. The next victims of illegal immigrant crime may be some of Rep. Gutierrez's family. I wonder if he will have the same viewpoint then?

Obama--Fabian Socialist

Prior to the election I commented on another blogsite that Obama was a socialist. I was rebuked that I didn't know anything about economic systems. True--I wasn't an Economics major. True--I didn't graduate with honors. That being said, I am a reader and a thinker. Evidently according to the following article I was also on the right track with my description of Obama. I just read this article and was pleased to see that my view was correct.

Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
Jerry Bowyer, 11.03.08, 12:32 AM EST

Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR - news - people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.

Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior "realist" playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack's character in Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" captures the movement rather well.

Arnold taught me to question everyone--my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn't supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That's the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.

That's Obama's world.

He's telling the truth when he says that he doesn't agree with Bill Ayers' violent bombing tactics, but it's a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you've got Saul Alinski?

So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the "commanding heights" of the economy, not the little guy.

As Obama said, "the smallest" businesses will be exempt from fines for not "doing the right thing" in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created...

Will Obama's be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don't know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won't see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won't see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.

The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who "go beyond the pale" in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don't want to come together and heal the planet.

You've heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you're about to see the bully part.

Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.

Obama: Once, Twice, Three, Four Times a Hypocrite, Idiot, Etc.

Some people told me how intellegent Obama was as to why I should vote for him. I wonder if they still feel the same way? The answer is probably yes. Many of his supporters view him more in a religious context than a political one. One told me that she believed that God had sent him to lead the country. God also sent the plagues on Egypt.

With questions now arising about Trade nominee, Ron Kirk, and his failure to pay $10,000.00 in taxes, Obama chalks up his fourth nominee with tax problems. Is he a hypocrite because he said his administration would be a model of ethics and integrity? Is he an idiot because he keeps making the same mistake? With his nomination of Tom Daschle he exclaimed "I screwed up." What is he going to say this time? Maybe it should be "I'll screw the American people."

True Blue Dogs

The following article focuses on the die hard blue dogs that stood up to Obama's and their leadership's spendulus plan. Notice that NC's own Heath Shuler is amoung the brave. Too bad he won't wait and challenge Kay Hagan in six years in the Democratic Primary.

Democrat Blue Dogs Fewer in Number, But Stronger in Bite

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:21 PM

By: John Mercurio



Who are the real Blue Dogs?
The question irks leaders of the fiscally conservative coalition of House Democrats, which made solid gains in 2008 and now includes 49 members. Every one of them is sincerely committed to reducing the federal deficit, they say. Of the 49, however, only six of them voted against President Obama’s $789 billion economic stimulus package despite their stated, laser-like focus on balancing the budget.
Obama’s plan, by his own acknowledgment, will increase the deficit in the short term by roughly $200 billion. (Another five Blue Dogs who had opposed Obama’s original plan switched to “yes” votes on the final version).
Obama is working to court Blue Dogs. The president invited them to the White House on Feb. 10 and focused their hour-long meeting on curbing federal spending rather than boosting the deficit. “We feel like he is committed to fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), one of the Blue Dogs who switched to ultimately support the president’s plan, told reporters after the meeting.
Blue Dogs claim Obama’s recent promise to cut the deficit in half by 2012 is a result of their efforts. “This week alone, President Obama is doing more to address the serious long-term fiscal problems facing our country than former President Bush and his congressional allies did during his entire 8-year tenure in office,” said Blue Dog Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.).
Still, some Blue Dogs say their relations with House Democratic leaders frayed during the stimulus negotiations, mostly because many Blue Dog demands were ignored. “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill; they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Blue Dog with particularly tense ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a Nashville radio station in early February. “We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time.”
So, will the Blue Dogs cling to their traditional colors, or will they be swallowed up by red ink? The answer to that question could depend largely on how aggressively these six “real” Blue Dogs push back against their party’s leaders.
Here’s a look at the “real” Blue Dogs of Capitol Hill:
Bobby Bright (Ala.): Bright, a farmer and former mayor of Montgomery, Ala., voted against both versions of the bill, saying there was too much spending and not enough stimulus in the bill. He complained that his party’s congressional leaders “rushed” the bill through Congress “with little debate or opportunity to offer meaningful changes.” And as a result, he said, his constituents overwhelmingly oppose it. Bright said his constituents “have little faith” that the bill “will be worth its tremendous” price tag. “I share their concerns,” he added. John McCain carried Bright’s district by 27 points last November, roughly the same margin as George W. Bush scored in 2000 and 2004, according to vote totals compiled by Swing State Project.
Parker Griffith (Ala.): Griffith, a former state senator from northern Alabama, said his vote was a “difficult but very thoughtful decision.” He said he had been willing to support a bill that included tax cuts, job creation and infrastructure projects. “But as the package went through the legislative process, it soon became apparent that this would be a spending bill without the necessary provisions to jump start our economy,” he said. McCain carried Griffith’s district by 23 points, roughly the same as Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004, according to Swing State Project.
Walter Minnick (Idaho): Minnick, a local businessman from western Idaho, voted against the plan because, he said, it can’t work until the country’s banking and financial industries are back on their feet. As an example, he cited funds in the plan devoted to infrastructure projects. Without access to loans from cash-strapped banks, he said, contractors can’t obtain lines of credit to buy equipment they need to begin work on projects. Minnick, who offered a scaled-down $200 billion stimulus as an alternative, said he didn’t mind being one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the plan. “My job is to represent Idaho and to do what's best for this country, and that's more important than party lines,” he told local reporters. McCain carried Minnick’s district by 22 points, but that marks a sharp decline for the GOP ticket over the past eight years. In 2000, Bush carried the district by 40 points.
Collin Peterson (Minn.): Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said he could support spending for infrastructure improvements, but not for tax cuts that only add to the federal deficit. “I just could not get there – I could not borrow money to give people tax cuts," he told local supporters in Bemidji, Minn., a few days after the vote. “We have a $2.2 trillion backlog in infrastructure. If they had put that $800 billion into infrastructure, into unemployment insurance, gave people health care who lost their jobs, and into food stamps, I would have borrowed the money and done that.” McCain carried Peterson’s district by just 3 points. Bush carried the district by double digits in both 2000 and 2004.
Heath Shuler (N.C.): Shuler, a former Washington Redskins quarterback, who’s eying a possible challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in 2010, criticized his party’s leaders for failing to work across the aisle on the stimulus bill. "In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," he told Salon. "We have to have everyone – Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration – saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulating and timely.'” (To this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman had a ready response: “Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?” quipped Reid spokesman Jim Manley). McCain won Shuler’s district by 5 points, a sharp decline for Republicans since 2000. At that time, Bush beat Gore there by 18 points.
Gene Taylor (Miss.): Taylor, dean of the Blue Dog caucus and arguably the most conservative member of the House Democratic caucus, said he simply couldn’t support a stimulus bill that spiked the deficit. “We will have to borrow every penny of the $789 billion,” he fumed after the House vote. “Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay it all back with interest.” As Taylor noted, “$789 billion is an enormous amount – As much debt as the nation borrowed in our first 203 years, from the revolutionary war to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency in 1978.” McCain trounced Obama in Taylor’s district, winning by 36 points. That margin is roughly unchanged from the past two presidential elections
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.