I'm Glad Swayze Wasn't Around To See This
30Sep09
From the Hollywood is still out of Ideas department, the craptastic remake of Red Dawn pits a group of teenagers in Pontiac, Michigan against Russian and Chinese Invaders.
After looking at the fictional communist party posters of the film, I'm struck by how much the slogans sound like they came from Obama's campaign.
This flick promises to be strong on leftist propaganda. Expect more moral ambiguity, benevolent dictatorship, and veiled promotion of Marxist ideals than the original.
From the Hollywood is still out of Ideas department, the craptastic remake of Red Dawn pits a group of teenagers in Pontiac, Michigan against Russian and Chinese Invaders.After looking at the fictional communist party posters of the film, I'm struck by how much the slogans sound like they came from Obama's campaign.
"Defeating your enemy."Does anyone think in this day and age that Hollywood would send a message against socialism, when they've fought so hard to see Washington adopt it?
"Restoring your country."
"Rebuilding you reputation."
"Fighting corporate corruption."
This flick promises to be strong on leftist propaganda. Expect more moral ambiguity, benevolent dictatorship, and veiled promotion of Marxist ideals than the original.
B.O.H.I.C.A.
30Sep09
As if Waxman-Markey wasn't bad enough.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is today expected to unveil Boxer-Kerry, the senate's version of the house cap and trade bill passed in June. The senate bill goes farther than the house bill mandating a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, compared to Waxman-Markeys 17 percent, and a massive 83 percent reduction by 2050.
While Boxer-Kerry imposes emissions restrictions, draft 1 of the bill does not specify how carbon allowances will be distributed among industry, leaving special interests to make their mark on the bill. Draft 2 contains fewer placeholders, instead ceding control of allowance allocation to the EPA, whose authority to regulate greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act is unlimited under Boxer-Kerry.
The "trade" portion of this cap and trade bill creates a new internationally traded commodity in the form of the carbon offset, but because we know liberals hate for anyone but them to make money, the senate bill includes measures to discourage "speculation" in the market; i.e. profitable trading of the commodity.
The provision known as a "carbon collar" puts a portion of the carbon emissions allowances under control of a government fund, allowing regulators to manipulate the carbon offset market and limiting the amount a corporation would have to pay for every ton of carbon it emits to $28 dollars. After all, they only want to gouge industry and consumers a little.
The measure ensures any money to be made from carbon offsets will mostly go to "producers" and expands the trade market for domestically available carbon offsets by 40 percent over the house bill. Because if you're going to redistribute wealth, best to keep it where your voters are. Farm groups are lobbying for the rights to much of the offset "production".
Boxer-Kerry is everything you hated about Waxman-Markey, only more so. I'm guessing the American family won't get off as cheaply as the $1700+ a year in new expenses under the house bill. The Institute for Energy Research has a more in depth analysis if you haven't had enough bad news already.
Contact your senator and tell them to Kill this legislation, before it kills our economy, and the republic with it.
As if Waxman-Markey wasn't bad enough.The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is today expected to unveil Boxer-Kerry, the senate's version of the house cap and trade bill passed in June. The senate bill goes farther than the house bill mandating a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, compared to Waxman-Markeys 17 percent, and a massive 83 percent reduction by 2050.
While Boxer-Kerry imposes emissions restrictions, draft 1 of the bill does not specify how carbon allowances will be distributed among industry, leaving special interests to make their mark on the bill. Draft 2 contains fewer placeholders, instead ceding control of allowance allocation to the EPA, whose authority to regulate greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act is unlimited under Boxer-Kerry.
The "trade" portion of this cap and trade bill creates a new internationally traded commodity in the form of the carbon offset, but because we know liberals hate for anyone but them to make money, the senate bill includes measures to discourage "speculation" in the market; i.e. profitable trading of the commodity.
The provision known as a "carbon collar" puts a portion of the carbon emissions allowances under control of a government fund, allowing regulators to manipulate the carbon offset market and limiting the amount a corporation would have to pay for every ton of carbon it emits to $28 dollars. After all, they only want to gouge industry and consumers a little.
The measure ensures any money to be made from carbon offsets will mostly go to "producers" and expands the trade market for domestically available carbon offsets by 40 percent over the house bill. Because if you're going to redistribute wealth, best to keep it where your voters are. Farm groups are lobbying for the rights to much of the offset "production".
Boxer-Kerry is everything you hated about Waxman-Markey, only more so. I'm guessing the American family won't get off as cheaply as the $1700+ a year in new expenses under the house bill. The Institute for Energy Research has a more in depth analysis if you haven't had enough bad news already.
Contact your senator and tell them to Kill this legislation, before it kills our economy, and the republic with it.
The Back Door Option
29Sep09
So the government option is out of the senate bill, for now. I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see it creep back in through the amendment process, and any joint house-senate bill will certainly have a version in it.
But there are two items already included in the finance committee bill that amount to a kind of backdoor government option, establishing a trigger scenario, and creating conditions likely to cause it to come into play.
The first is the "Snowe Amendment #1" on page 207 of the AHFA Coverage Amendments, which would institute a government option in any state where affordable coverage was not available to at least 95% of the population. "Affordable" being defined as at least 2 plans available, costing no more than between 3 percent of adjusted gross income at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, to 13 percent at 300 percent and above.
The second is a ban on companies denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. This would allow individuals to carry minimal insurance to meet mandatory insurance requirements outlined in the bill, and then buy into a better plan once they realize they are sick.
To use President Obama's pet car insurance analogy; this would be like me carrying only liability on my car, only to call my agent and upgrade to comprehensive coverage the day after an accident, so I could take my car into the body shop.
Webster's defines insurance as: coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril. Insurance relies on the notion of probability that not everyone will need to file a claim at once, and claims in excess of individual premiums paid can be offset by the premiums of individuals who have not made claims.
Well in this case the contingency would already have been met. Health insurance providers could expect to pay out significant claims for the majority of the insured. This would necessitate an increase in reserve requirements, and a drastic increase in premiums. Assuming the insurer could even stay in business, one could expect to see health insurance premiums grow two or three fold.
Remember that trigger?
Contact you senator, and reiterate: no government option, backdoor, front door, any door.
So the government option is out of the senate bill, for now. I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see it creep back in through the amendment process, and any joint house-senate bill will certainly have a version in it.But there are two items already included in the finance committee bill that amount to a kind of backdoor government option, establishing a trigger scenario, and creating conditions likely to cause it to come into play.
The first is the "Snowe Amendment #1" on page 207 of the AHFA Coverage Amendments, which would institute a government option in any state where affordable coverage was not available to at least 95% of the population. "Affordable" being defined as at least 2 plans available, costing no more than between 3 percent of adjusted gross income at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, to 13 percent at 300 percent and above.
The second is a ban on companies denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. This would allow individuals to carry minimal insurance to meet mandatory insurance requirements outlined in the bill, and then buy into a better plan once they realize they are sick.
To use President Obama's pet car insurance analogy; this would be like me carrying only liability on my car, only to call my agent and upgrade to comprehensive coverage the day after an accident, so I could take my car into the body shop.
Webster's defines insurance as: coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril. Insurance relies on the notion of probability that not everyone will need to file a claim at once, and claims in excess of individual premiums paid can be offset by the premiums of individuals who have not made claims.
Well in this case the contingency would already have been met. Health insurance providers could expect to pay out significant claims for the majority of the insured. This would necessitate an increase in reserve requirements, and a drastic increase in premiums. Assuming the insurer could even stay in business, one could expect to see health insurance premiums grow two or three fold.
Remember that trigger?
Contact you senator, and reiterate: no government option, backdoor, front door, any door.
Why Tort Reform?
29Sep09
Members of the Senate Finance Committee went back to work today on proposed health care legislation, and voted against creation of a government option health plan by a margin of 15-to-8.
What's still on the table? Tort Reform.
America's is a $2.4 trillion dollar Health Care industry. A 2008 report by the New England Health Care Institute estimated that this figure could be reduced significantly, $850 billion dollars, without reducing the quality of care. The largest portion of this is $600 billion in "unexplained" variations of care from hospital to hospital; i.e. doctor's judgment.
Doctors often perform additional tests for fear that if they were to miss something, they could be open to a medical malpractice suit. Neurotic patients may second guess their doctors and request expensive tests or procedures that the doctor might feel are unnecessary. Yet they cannot refuse for fear of being sued. This is the essence of defensive medicine.
We can eliminate defensive medicine and empower doctors to say no to hypochondriacs by limiting civil liability for doctors. In a report by the Perryman Group, it was shown that after instituting tort reform in 2003, the state of Texas experienced a 70% reduction in the numbers of suits filed against state run hospitals. As a result of the savings an additional 430,000 people have been able to get health insurance, and hospitals have increased charitable care by 24%.
Those are exactly the sort of results we need nationwide. Contact your senator and tell them to come home with tort reform, or don't come home.
Members of the Senate Finance Committee went back to work today on proposed health care legislation, and voted against creation of a government option health plan by a margin of 15-to-8.
What's still on the table? Tort Reform.
America's is a $2.4 trillion dollar Health Care industry. A 2008 report by the New England Health Care Institute estimated that this figure could be reduced significantly, $850 billion dollars, without reducing the quality of care. The largest portion of this is $600 billion in "unexplained" variations of care from hospital to hospital; i.e. doctor's judgment.
Doctors often perform additional tests for fear that if they were to miss something, they could be open to a medical malpractice suit. Neurotic patients may second guess their doctors and request expensive tests or procedures that the doctor might feel are unnecessary. Yet they cannot refuse for fear of being sued. This is the essence of defensive medicine.
We can eliminate defensive medicine and empower doctors to say no to hypochondriacs by limiting civil liability for doctors. In a report by the Perryman Group, it was shown that after instituting tort reform in 2003, the state of Texas experienced a 70% reduction in the numbers of suits filed against state run hospitals. As a result of the savings an additional 430,000 people have been able to get health insurance, and hospitals have increased charitable care by 24%.
Those are exactly the sort of results we need nationwide. Contact your senator and tell them to come home with tort reform, or don't come home.
Cries Of 'Unfair' Ring Hollow
27Sep09
KQED-FM San Fransisco, along with a wealthy donor, and 120 U.C. Berkeley graduate journalism students plan to start a non profit local news website that has the traditional news media in the area up in arms.
News outlets in the bay area, including the ailing San Fransisco Chronicle, fear they won't be able to compete due to the low overhead of the not for profit news service.
First, I find it laughable that the Chronicle and others see the student journalists as such a genuine threat. Perhaps if they did something more than regurgitate the AP news stories, and push the Democrat's daily talking points, they might feel as though they bring more to the market than the students.
Second, this is the same media who showed little to no concern for the ability of private insurers to compete when they ceaselessly editorialized for not for profit public option healthcare. Now when presented with similar challenges, they cry foul.
Personally, I am still against the public option, but I am for the student run news website. While the public option is a huge intrusion of government into the private sector, the news site is a private sector venture adopting a different business model that results in a competitive edge in the marketplace.
Private sector solutions are better than government ones.
KQED-FM San Fransisco, along with a wealthy donor, and 120 U.C. Berkeley graduate journalism students plan to start a non profit local news website that has the traditional news media in the area up in arms.
News outlets in the bay area, including the ailing San Fransisco Chronicle, fear they won't be able to compete due to the low overhead of the not for profit news service.
First, I find it laughable that the Chronicle and others see the student journalists as such a genuine threat. Perhaps if they did something more than regurgitate the AP news stories, and push the Democrat's daily talking points, they might feel as though they bring more to the market than the students.
Second, this is the same media who showed little to no concern for the ability of private insurers to compete when they ceaselessly editorialized for not for profit public option healthcare. Now when presented with similar challenges, they cry foul.
Personally, I am still against the public option, but I am for the student run news website. While the public option is a huge intrusion of government into the private sector, the news site is a private sector venture adopting a different business model that results in a competitive edge in the marketplace.
Private sector solutions are better than government ones.
He's All About Your Benjamins
26Sep09
I remember some time back Bill O'Reilly interview with Glenn Beck, where an incredulous O'Reilly asked Beck, "Do you think President Obama is a closet Marxist?"
The man was raised and mentored by radical socialist thinkers, and has surrounded himself with them for the whole of his adult life. How could he be anything else?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. President Obama's agenda is, always has been, and always will be "Social Justice" through the redistribution of wealth. Just look at his policies.
Even if only the proposed on tax, health care, and cap and trade legislation were to pass, nearly $1 trillion dollars in wealth would be redistributed from the top 30 percent of the nation, to the bottom 70 percent by 2012, according to The Tax Foundation.
One Trillion Dollars in just his first term. That's about 2800 dollars per year taken from each man, woman, and child in the wealthiest 30 percent.
Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable,” said Scott Hodge, president of the organization. “The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012.”
It's estimated that American families earning less than $109,460 would receive more in value of government benefits, than the money they pay in taxes. The lowest income brackets would receive a staggering $10.44 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.
So you ask me, "Why do you care, you're in the 70 percent right?" That's true, my family is for now, barely. It would not take much to put us over the line and into the top 30 percent, and I can assure those in Washington, that would not make us wealthy by any stretch. So pardon me if the idea of getting a raise only to cross some imaginary line, and be forced to prop someone else up bothers me.
I feel lucky that in this economy my family has what it needs, but there's really no luck to it. We work very hard for what we have, and Mr. Obama, we aim to keep it.
Wealth redistribution amounts to institutionalized theft. Contact congress, tell them to get their hands out of your pockets.
I remember some time back Bill O'Reilly interview with Glenn Beck, where an incredulous O'Reilly asked Beck, "Do you think President Obama is a closet Marxist?"The man was raised and mentored by radical socialist thinkers, and has surrounded himself with them for the whole of his adult life. How could he be anything else?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. President Obama's agenda is, always has been, and always will be "Social Justice" through the redistribution of wealth. Just look at his policies.
Even if only the proposed on tax, health care, and cap and trade legislation were to pass, nearly $1 trillion dollars in wealth would be redistributed from the top 30 percent of the nation, to the bottom 70 percent by 2012, according to The Tax Foundation.
One Trillion Dollars in just his first term. That's about 2800 dollars per year taken from each man, woman, and child in the wealthiest 30 percent.
Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable,” said Scott Hodge, president of the organization. “The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012.”
It's estimated that American families earning less than $109,460 would receive more in value of government benefits, than the money they pay in taxes. The lowest income brackets would receive a staggering $10.44 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.
So you ask me, "Why do you care, you're in the 70 percent right?" That's true, my family is for now, barely. It would not take much to put us over the line and into the top 30 percent, and I can assure those in Washington, that would not make us wealthy by any stretch. So pardon me if the idea of getting a raise only to cross some imaginary line, and be forced to prop someone else up bothers me.
I feel lucky that in this economy my family has what it needs, but there's really no luck to it. We work very hard for what we have, and Mr. Obama, we aim to keep it.
Wealth redistribution amounts to institutionalized theft. Contact congress, tell them to get their hands out of your pockets.
Frank and Paul, Not Just Together On Hemp
25Sep09
Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he would support the the proposal of Ron Paul to allow a detailed audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office.
However, rather than pass the bill H.R. 1207 authored by Paul, Frank would like to include that audit power in house financial reform legislation.
This is nothing more than political horse trading on the part of Frank, because the only thing that turns him on more than male prostitutes is far reaching government power. Its an effort to garner more support for financial reform items, including the proposed consumer credit oversight agency that would give the federal government over everything from a stores layaway policies to your mortgage.
But even in this age of increasing government control, and feel good Marxism, Paul's constitutionalists perspective is gaining steam. I think he'll garner somewhat less support for his proposal to end the fed entirely.
I don't so much want to end the federal reserve as I want narrow its scope, decimate its powers, and take its lunch money; leaving it a impotent remnant of its former self lying on the floor of its shower crying "Why...why...?"
Contact your representative and tell them to support H.R. 2775, the Federal Reserve Abolition Act.
Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he would support the the proposal of Ron Paul to allow a detailed audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office.
However, rather than pass the bill H.R. 1207 authored by Paul, Frank would like to include that audit power in house financial reform legislation.
This is nothing more than political horse trading on the part of Frank, because the only thing that turns him on more than male prostitutes is far reaching government power. Its an effort to garner more support for financial reform items, including the proposed consumer credit oversight agency that would give the federal government over everything from a stores layaway policies to your mortgage.
But even in this age of increasing government control, and feel good Marxism, Paul's constitutionalists perspective is gaining steam. I think he'll garner somewhat less support for his proposal to end the fed entirely.
I don't so much want to end the federal reserve as I want narrow its scope, decimate its powers, and take its lunch money; leaving it a impotent remnant of its former self lying on the floor of its shower crying "Why...why...?"
Contact your representative and tell them to support H.R. 2775, the Federal Reserve Abolition Act.
Take Our Ball and Go Home
24Sep09
President Obama said in his address before the U.N. General Assembly:
Classic liberal dogma. Nobody is better than anyone else, we're all special, and everyone gets a trophy at the end of t-ball season. One Marxist speaking before many.
The UN was created by and has always been controlled by socialists, communists, and internationalists seeking to supplant national identity. They envisions a one world government with equal income distribution through a centralized economy. "Traditional" notions of sovereignty and liberty are an obstacle to that vision. The natural world, and the whole of human nature as flawed in their eyes, because they do not fit the intellectual construct.
The leaders of the U.N. are no different from the U.S. political elites, seeking only the continued growth of their power. It is inherently corrupt.
It's time we stopped playing this game. American foreign policy should one of peace with the world through non-interference. We should discontinue the U.S. participation in the U.N. and resolve to no longer act as the world's police force. We should avoid all entanglements to include military, economic, and humanitarian aid.
We should adhere to the principle of non-initiation of force, acting only in response to foreign aggression. Then striking with all the force of hell, unbound by treaties or rules of engagement, until our enemy lies in ruin.
We as a nation must place ourselves and our needs, above that of any nation, any people. Contact your representative to find out where they stand on H.R. 1146 to end membership of the United States in the United Nations, and that you want it brought out of committee.
President Obama said in his address before the U.N. General Assembly:"No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."
Classic liberal dogma. Nobody is better than anyone else, we're all special, and everyone gets a trophy at the end of t-ball season. One Marxist speaking before many.
The UN was created by and has always been controlled by socialists, communists, and internationalists seeking to supplant national identity. They envisions a one world government with equal income distribution through a centralized economy. "Traditional" notions of sovereignty and liberty are an obstacle to that vision. The natural world, and the whole of human nature as flawed in their eyes, because they do not fit the intellectual construct.
The leaders of the U.N. are no different from the U.S. political elites, seeking only the continued growth of their power. It is inherently corrupt.
It's time we stopped playing this game. American foreign policy should one of peace with the world through non-interference. We should discontinue the U.S. participation in the U.N. and resolve to no longer act as the world's police force. We should avoid all entanglements to include military, economic, and humanitarian aid.
We should adhere to the principle of non-initiation of force, acting only in response to foreign aggression. Then striking with all the force of hell, unbound by treaties or rules of engagement, until our enemy lies in ruin.
We as a nation must place ourselves and our needs, above that of any nation, any people. Contact your representative to find out where they stand on H.R. 1146 to end membership of the United States in the United Nations, and that you want it brought out of committee.
The 'Obama Youth' Glee Club
23Sep09
Reason 6,098 to home school my child. Maybe if I convinced the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation that I desperately need a $500,000 genius grant to solve America's education crisis.
Parents, inoculate your children against this trash by telling them what you believe, and why.
Edit: Michelle Malkin had a big update regarding this video, and the people behind it. It was created by this looney at the Jamestown Project, a liberal think tank. Full Song Lyrics.
Reason 6,098 to home school my child. Maybe if I convinced the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation that I desperately need a $500,000 genius grant to solve America's education crisis.
Parents, inoculate your children against this trash by telling them what you believe, and why.
Edit: Michelle Malkin had a big update regarding this video, and the people behind it. It was created by this looney at the Jamestown Project, a liberal think tank. Full Song Lyrics.
From The Propaganda Department
22Sep09
Michael Moore's new movie is called "Capitalism, a Love Story". As one might guess, it is an indictment of capitalism, which he blames for everything from the current financial crisis to the 'climate change' phenomena to low achievement among the world's fat and lazy population.
Interesting. For someone who lauds socialist world leaders and believes in the politics of wealth distribution to still be possessed of a considerable private fortune. As usual, he only wants to be generous with your stuff.
I believe in free speech, and Moore's right to say what he wants. I also believe in my right to oppose his message. I intend to voice my disapproval in true capitalist fashion, with my dollars.
I will boycott any theatre showing Mr. Moore's latest piece of piece of self indulgent crap, for the duration of its run. You might want to do the same.
"This capitalist economic system that we have, it might have been right at one point, it's not right now."
"I mean, that's what I'm saying about capitalism, it's like a beast. And no matter how many strings or ropes you try and tie it down with that beast just wants more and more money."
"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people."
-Michael Moore
Michael Moore's new movie is called "Capitalism, a Love Story". As one might guess, it is an indictment of capitalism, which he blames for everything from the current financial crisis to the 'climate change' phenomena to low achievement among the world's fat and lazy population.
Interesting. For someone who lauds socialist world leaders and believes in the politics of wealth distribution to still be possessed of a considerable private fortune. As usual, he only wants to be generous with your stuff.
I believe in free speech, and Moore's right to say what he wants. I also believe in my right to oppose his message. I intend to voice my disapproval in true capitalist fashion, with my dollars.
I will boycott any theatre showing Mr. Moore's latest piece of piece of self indulgent crap, for the duration of its run. You might want to do the same.
Obama Thinks Your Blog Sucks
21Sep09
"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."
President Obama said when asked about the prospect of a bailout of mainstream media outlets. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland has already introduced S. 673, also called the "Newspaper Revitalization Act,". The measure would give the mainstream media outlets the tax benefits of a not for profit organization if they reorganized under tax code section 501(c)(3).
Really? Because the traditional news media and their impartial rendering of the facts is such a service to humanity, they must be charitable organizations, right?
Mr. O went on to say;
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,"
Oh, but he wasn't speaking of such bastions of journalistic integrity as Media Matters or the Huffington Post. No, no. He just meant the right hemisphere of the blogosphere.
This is the worst sort of big government proposal. Dead tree media is failing because of their failure to adapt their business model to the changing environment, and because the consumer simply cannot rely upon them for the truth. Any attempt by Washington to throw newspaper men a line is solely to preserve leftist speech; an increasingly hard sale in the marketplace.
Write your Senator and tell them to oppose S. 673. Then cancel your newspaper subscriptions.
"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."
President Obama said when asked about the prospect of a bailout of mainstream media outlets. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland has already introduced S. 673, also called the "Newspaper Revitalization Act,". The measure would give the mainstream media outlets the tax benefits of a not for profit organization if they reorganized under tax code section 501(c)(3).
Really? Because the traditional news media and their impartial rendering of the facts is such a service to humanity, they must be charitable organizations, right?
Mr. O went on to say;
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,"
Oh, but he wasn't speaking of such bastions of journalistic integrity as Media Matters or the Huffington Post. No, no. He just meant the right hemisphere of the blogosphere.
This is the worst sort of big government proposal. Dead tree media is failing because of their failure to adapt their business model to the changing environment, and because the consumer simply cannot rely upon them for the truth. Any attempt by Washington to throw newspaper men a line is solely to preserve leftist speech; an increasingly hard sale in the marketplace.
Write your Senator and tell them to oppose S. 673. Then cancel your newspaper subscriptions.
Cult of Personality
21Sep09
From the Obama Youth to mindless Celebrity Pledges to Chris Matthews Bromance for our President. The nature of Obama's following is clear, though its intentions are not.
Watch your friends and family, and call out the cult behavior when you see it. People must be made aware of what they're being caught up in.
Cult of Personality -noun
A cult promoting adulation of a living national leader or public figure. Arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.
From the Obama Youth to mindless Celebrity Pledges to Chris Matthews Bromance for our President. The nature of Obama's following is clear, though its intentions are not.
Watch your friends and family, and call out the cult behavior when you see it. People must be made aware of what they're being caught up in.
You Might Be A Socialist
18Sep09
- If you believe self-esteem is more important than self discipline.
- If you believe "equal opportunity" means "equal outcome".
- If you believe "Social Justice" means someone giving you money.
- If you believe that standardized testing is racist, but affirmative action is not.
- If you believe that taxes are too low, but the price of Starbucks is too high.
- If you believe that corporations create oppression, and that governments create prosperity.
- If you believe the only reason socialism hasn't worked to date, is that the people haven't given it a chance.
Financial Investigator Has Radical Ties
17Sep09
The newly appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is set to begin an investigation into the origins of last year's financial crash, headed by its chairman Phil Angelides.
Mr. Angelides is the former California State Treasurer, and chairman of the board of The Apollo Alliance. Yes, that Apollo Alliance. The one that also had Van Jones as a board member, and authored much of the stimulus package. The Apollo Alliance funded by The Tides Center, a social justice organization founded by the anti-capitalist Drummond Pike.
This is the man to provide an honest assessment of the financial meltdown? He is hostile to the very concept of the free market. I think I'll ask a Jihadist to impartially evaluate the right of Israel to exist while we're at it.
Congress and this administration are wagering on the ignorance of the American people to not call them out. Contact your congressman and prove them wrong.
The newly appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is set to begin an investigation into the origins of last year's financial crash, headed by its chairman Phil Angelides.Mr. Angelides is the former California State Treasurer, and chairman of the board of The Apollo Alliance. Yes, that Apollo Alliance. The one that also had Van Jones as a board member, and authored much of the stimulus package. The Apollo Alliance funded by The Tides Center, a social justice organization founded by the anti-capitalist Drummond Pike.
This is the man to provide an honest assessment of the financial meltdown? He is hostile to the very concept of the free market. I think I'll ask a Jihadist to impartially evaluate the right of Israel to exist while we're at it.
Congress and this administration are wagering on the ignorance of the American people to not call them out. Contact your congressman and prove them wrong.
From The Washington Post
As Right Jabs Continue, White House Debates a Counterpunching Strategy
"The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said."
Liberal Media: li-ber-al me-dee-a (noun); All news and entertainment outlets with the exception of: Fox News, talk radio, and portions of the blogosphere.
Rude, But Not Racist
16Sep09
"I think it's based on racism," former President Jimmy Carter said of Representative Joe Wilson's outburst.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."
For someone talking about "Sincere Debate", it seems odd to play the race card. It doesn't further the debate, it changes the conversation. It shuts down opposing viewpoints by making it an issue of race, rather than answering them.
In her now infamous "You lie, boy" editorial, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said "For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both." She deftly substitutes race for the debate at hand. Someone should inform Dowd as she speaks from her posterior, that in Wilson's home state of South Carolina, blacks are the majority of the voting public.
Since before inauguration day the left has set the precedent that they will declare opponents of the President to be racist. It's intimidation tactics, plain and simple. They know once you've been painted with that mark, you be viewed as less credible by a segment of the public.
The left always makes it about race, because for years it was. For years they fought for civil rights and understanding. Well I have news for you folks. You can stop fighting that one. You won.
By continuing to make this about race, the left is undoing a generation's worth or progress in race relations in America. Such frivolous allegations are akin to crying wolf. They only serve to cast genuine incidents of racism in a sceptical light.
It's unfortunate. But racism, and race bating won't die until the last of its practitioners do. Hopefully in Jimmy Carter's case, that won't be long.
In the mean time write a letter to the New York Times letting them know what you think of Maureen Dowd and her libelous editorial.
"I think it's based on racism," former President Jimmy Carter said of Representative Joe Wilson's outburst.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."
For someone talking about "Sincere Debate", it seems odd to play the race card. It doesn't further the debate, it changes the conversation. It shuts down opposing viewpoints by making it an issue of race, rather than answering them.
In her now infamous "You lie, boy" editorial, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said "For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both." She deftly substitutes race for the debate at hand. Someone should inform Dowd as she speaks from her posterior, that in Wilson's home state of South Carolina, blacks are the majority of the voting public.
Since before inauguration day the left has set the precedent that they will declare opponents of the President to be racist. It's intimidation tactics, plain and simple. They know once you've been painted with that mark, you be viewed as less credible by a segment of the public.
The left always makes it about race, because for years it was. For years they fought for civil rights and understanding. Well I have news for you folks. You can stop fighting that one. You won.
By continuing to make this about race, the left is undoing a generation's worth or progress in race relations in America. Such frivolous allegations are akin to crying wolf. They only serve to cast genuine incidents of racism in a sceptical light.
It's unfortunate. But racism, and race bating won't die until the last of its practitioners do. Hopefully in Jimmy Carter's case, that won't be long.
In the mean time write a letter to the New York Times letting them know what you think of Maureen Dowd and her libelous editorial.
As They Exist In Nature
15Sep09
Social contract theory describes an exchange of some rights of the individual as they exist in nature, with the state, for the security of social order by rule of law. A contract is only valid when entered into voluntarily. The only legitimate authority of the state must derive from the consent of the governed.
Though the state rules at the consent of the governed, that consent is not implicit. The state must abide by the obligation it has established for itself to remain valid. To the extent that a state deviates from its obligation and becomes coercive of the individual, the contract is no longer voluntary. The contract is void.
The individual must validate the contract by forcing a change in the state, or relinquish the contract by reestablishment of its rights as they exist in nature.
Social contract theory describes an exchange of some rights of the individual as they exist in nature, with the state, for the security of social order by rule of law. A contract is only valid when entered into voluntarily. The only legitimate authority of the state must derive from the consent of the governed.Though the state rules at the consent of the governed, that consent is not implicit. The state must abide by the obligation it has established for itself to remain valid. To the extent that a state deviates from its obligation and becomes coercive of the individual, the contract is no longer voluntary. The contract is void.
The individual must validate the contract by forcing a change in the state, or relinquish the contract by reestablishment of its rights as they exist in nature.
Senator Chuck Grassley's Response To Your Email
14Sep09
After about nine emails to his office, Senator Grassley responded to my opposition of the current health care proposals:
He says he won't support a take over of health care. As if to emphasize his point, he later goes on to say;
That's twice. It sounds like his position is pretty clear, doesn't it?
Well Senator Grassley is one of two senators from the so called "gang of six" being targeted for support of the plan set forth by Senator Max Baucus (pictured above with Grassley in 2008), to establish a system of 51 not for profit government backed co ops. Regardless of the name, these co ops amount to a government option.
Contact Senator Grassley and let him know that you expect him to keep his word, and say no to Senator Baucus' proposal, and any other public option put forth.
After about nine emails to his office, Senator Grassley responded to my opposition of the current health care proposals:"People are worried that health reform will result in lower quality, decreased access and government bureaucrats standing between patients and their doctors. Please rest assured that I recognize these concerns and will not support any legislation that leads to a government take-over of the American health care system."
He says he won't support a take over of health care. As if to emphasize his point, he later goes on to say;
"I certainly recognize your concerns about the current health reform debate, and I will keep your views in mind as Congress continues to debate health care issues. In the meantime, please know that I will not support any legislation that I feel hands our private system of medicine over to a bunch of Washington bureaucrats."
That's twice. It sounds like his position is pretty clear, doesn't it?
Well Senator Grassley is one of two senators from the so called "gang of six" being targeted for support of the plan set forth by Senator Max Baucus (pictured above with Grassley in 2008), to establish a system of 51 not for profit government backed co ops. Regardless of the name, these co ops amount to a government option.
Contact Senator Grassley and let him know that you expect him to keep his word, and say no to Senator Baucus' proposal, and any other public option put forth.
Always Watch The Other Hand
14Sep09
With health care reform still very much in play, the crusaders for hope and change are continuing their march to socialism by forcing further regulation on Wall Street.
One of the proposed measures is the creation of yet another federal agency to regulate the marketing of financial products to consumers. Multiple federal, state, and industry agencies already regulate these markets. The Consumer Financial Products Agency says another layer of regulation will only increase costs, curb innovation, and ultimately reduce choice for the consumer.
When it comes to individual investment products, I believe this is precisely their aim. From a regulatory standpoint we're left with fewer and fewer avenues for capital appreciation. I believe if the Obama administration had its way we'd all be in treasury bonds and fixed interest accounts. They are openly hostile to wealth creation.
Obama's plan also gives the already out of control Federal Reserve oversight powers to take over and dismantle companies deemed large enough to present a systemic risk to the economy, and create conditions to discourage other companies from growing too large. So if you're "too big to fail", they will take you over and dismantle your company. All for the good of the nation, of course.
These proposals give the government control, directly or indirectly, over the whole financial industry. Banking, mortgage, credit, investing. They're already trying to take over energy (cap and trade), manufacturing (bail outs), and health care. They won't stop until our economy is 100% nationalized.
Contact your politician of choice and tell them you're in favor of greater transparency for the Federal Reserve, and oppose the growth of its power.
With health care reform still very much in play, the crusaders for hope and change are continuing their march to socialism by forcing further regulation on Wall Street.One of the proposed measures is the creation of yet another federal agency to regulate the marketing of financial products to consumers. Multiple federal, state, and industry agencies already regulate these markets. The Consumer Financial Products Agency says another layer of regulation will only increase costs, curb innovation, and ultimately reduce choice for the consumer.
When it comes to individual investment products, I believe this is precisely their aim. From a regulatory standpoint we're left with fewer and fewer avenues for capital appreciation. I believe if the Obama administration had its way we'd all be in treasury bonds and fixed interest accounts. They are openly hostile to wealth creation.
Obama's plan also gives the already out of control Federal Reserve oversight powers to take over and dismantle companies deemed large enough to present a systemic risk to the economy, and create conditions to discourage other companies from growing too large. So if you're "too big to fail", they will take you over and dismantle your company. All for the good of the nation, of course.
These proposals give the government control, directly or indirectly, over the whole financial industry. Banking, mortgage, credit, investing. They're already trying to take over energy (cap and trade), manufacturing (bail outs), and health care. They won't stop until our economy is 100% nationalized.
Contact your politician of choice and tell them you're in favor of greater transparency for the Federal Reserve, and oppose the growth of its power.
The Great Emancipator
14Sep09
“Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-Abraham Lincoln
“Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”-Abraham Lincoln
That Old Saw
13Sep09
What's happening in America today isn't new.
Though it's been building in this country virtually since its founding, every country has or will face the same clash of ideals.
It's not about health care, or cap and trade. It isn't about political affiliation. It damn sure isn't about race.
Governance is an ongoing compromise between the rights of the state, and the rights of the people.
In the history of every nation must come a crossroads, when a people must choose for the security of the collective, or the freedom of the individual.
In determining the Constitution of these United States, the founders sought to answer that question for us; creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They ensured that the state would wield no right not lent it by the people.
But America is as much an idea as anything. Ideas can be changed, and people corrupted. We find ourselves at the crossroads.
These aren't easy questions we're dealing with here. What is the proper role of government? What is the place of the individual in the context of the social contract? What is our duty to our fellow man? Philosophers have struggled with these questions through the whole of recorded history. Anyone who says they have all of the answers is a liar.
But it comes down to the individual vs. the collective. You'd better know which side you're on.
What's happening in America today isn't new.Though it's been building in this country virtually since its founding, every country has or will face the same clash of ideals.
It's not about health care, or cap and trade. It isn't about political affiliation. It damn sure isn't about race.
Governance is an ongoing compromise between the rights of the state, and the rights of the people.
In the history of every nation must come a crossroads, when a people must choose for the security of the collective, or the freedom of the individual.
In determining the Constitution of these United States, the founders sought to answer that question for us; creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They ensured that the state would wield no right not lent it by the people.
But America is as much an idea as anything. Ideas can be changed, and people corrupted. We find ourselves at the crossroads.
These aren't easy questions we're dealing with here. What is the proper role of government? What is the place of the individual in the context of the social contract? What is our duty to our fellow man? Philosophers have struggled with these questions through the whole of recorded history. Anyone who says they have all of the answers is a liar.
But it comes down to the individual vs. the collective. You'd better know which side you're on.
The "Perils" of Too Little Government
10Sep09
Where do I even start?
47 long winded minutes later, and for all the carefully crafted prose, I've heard nothing but a re-iteration of the same tired talking points.
The American people need more than the assurances of a politician that our fears are unfounded. Lies and distortion are your stock in trade.
You claim to clear up the misinformation about health care reform, but you make your statements impossible to fact check by not specifying one of the various bills to come out of committee, instead referring to "my plan" or "this plan". Last time I checked your plan had not been drafted. For all your rhetorical flourish, without a bill there is no substance to your words.
The only thing we do know is that the Congressional Budget Office, the Galen Institute, and even the left leaning Urban Institute all question your cost estimates, and claims that your plan would be debt neutral.
So while you might manage to lie/cheat/threaten/bully some piece of legislation through congress, it will be to the benefit of government rather than the people, and come at the expense of freedom.
Really?
While the "perils" of too little government might injure Joe Public's sense of fair play, I don't think it was too little government that cause political opponents of Woodrow Wilson to be jailed for speech during his administration. It wasn't light handed policies by F.D.R. that prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years. And I doubt that 6 million Jews choked to death in gas chambers thinking, "Boy, we sure could use some more government right now."
47 long winded minutes later, and for all the carefully crafted prose, I've heard nothing but a re-iteration of the same tired talking points.
The American people need more than the assurances of a politician that our fears are unfounded. Lies and distortion are your stock in trade.
You claim to clear up the misinformation about health care reform, but you make your statements impossible to fact check by not specifying one of the various bills to come out of committee, instead referring to "my plan" or "this plan". Last time I checked your plan had not been drafted. For all your rhetorical flourish, without a bill there is no substance to your words.
The only thing we do know is that the Congressional Budget Office, the Galen Institute, and even the left leaning Urban Institute all question your cost estimates, and claims that your plan would be debt neutral.
So while you might manage to lie/cheat/threaten/bully some piece of legislation through congress, it will be to the benefit of government rather than the people, and come at the expense of freedom.
"A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise."
"The danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little."
Really?
While the "perils" of too little government might injure Joe Public's sense of fair play, I don't think it was too little government that cause political opponents of Woodrow Wilson to be jailed for speech during his administration. It wasn't light handed policies by F.D.R. that prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years. And I doubt that 6 million Jews choked to death in gas chambers thinking, "Boy, we sure could use some more government right now."
Mr. Wilson
10Sep09
One of the things I hated most while Bush 43 was president was in office was the name calling and utter lack of respect for the man and his office by his opponents. Not a day would go by without some left wing comic or pundit taking a cheap shot. No man gets to be President of the United States of America by being stupid, no matter who his daddy is.
No matter what you opinion of the person, or their policies, you must respect the office. Presidential bashing only serves to dilute the meaning of our republic, and the richness of American tradition.
That's why I don't like to engage in a lot of hyperbole in regard to Barack Obama. Though I disagree with him on the merits of a European style socialism, I believe that he is basically a good man, acting for the good as he sees it. I respect the office of the President.
I don't believe that it is ever acceptable, for the President of the United States to be heckled in congress as Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina did last night. For certain Mr. Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth, but for Wilson to yell out disruptively showed little class. Is congress to become the British House of Commons, booing speakers like so many soccer hooligans?
Though Wilson has since issued an apology, I'd invite everyone to email him, and ask that he voice his disagreement by writing a formal rebuttal of the President's speech.
One of the things I hated most while Bush 43 was president was in office was the name calling and utter lack of respect for the man and his office by his opponents. Not a day would go by without some left wing comic or pundit taking a cheap shot. No man gets to be President of the United States of America by being stupid, no matter who his daddy is.No matter what you opinion of the person, or their policies, you must respect the office. Presidential bashing only serves to dilute the meaning of our republic, and the richness of American tradition.
That's why I don't like to engage in a lot of hyperbole in regard to Barack Obama. Though I disagree with him on the merits of a European style socialism, I believe that he is basically a good man, acting for the good as he sees it. I respect the office of the President.
I don't believe that it is ever acceptable, for the President of the United States to be heckled in congress as Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina did last night. For certain Mr. Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth, but for Wilson to yell out disruptively showed little class. Is congress to become the British House of Commons, booing speakers like so many soccer hooligans?
Though Wilson has since issued an apology, I'd invite everyone to email him, and ask that he voice his disagreement by writing a formal rebuttal of the President's speech.
Different Words, Same Meaning
09Sep09
In a few hours, President Obama is going to address a joint session of congress in a hail mary attempt to regain momentum, and push through government option health care in one guise or another.
The White House believes that the American people are simply misinformed, because they hadn't given congress enough direction in drafting their various bills in committee. They're bringing out the big guns as Mr. Obama armed with his focus grouped speech, and trusty teleprompter prepare to charm the pants off of America and get everyone on board with the hype, just like he did in his campaign. Representative Charles Schumer is predicting a "Game Changer".
Don't believe it.
The only thing the White House is going to change tonight is the nomenclature, not the substance of their health care reform agenda. The Pew Research Center for People & the Press shows that congress is suffering from its lowest approval rating in more than 20 years. They can't sell the American people on legislation they don't want.
In an early September Gallup poll released this week 39 percent of those polled would tell their representative to vote against a health care reform bill; while only 37 percent said they's tell their representative to vote for it.
The people have let their voices be heard on this debate at town halls across the country, and they overwhelmingly do not want a government option. They've been heard by at least 23 Blue Dog Democrats, including Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, who has publicly stated that he would oppose a government option.
Tonight's speech is an attempt to re brand Health Care reform as something blue dogs democrats can get behind without incurring the wrath of their constituency. They are right to be worried, in the same Gallup poll 82 percent of those who oppose health care said the issue would be a "major factor" in how they vote in the 2010 mid-term election, but only 62 percent of health care supporters said it would be a major factor in their vote.
Something likely to appear in Obama's speech has been talked about by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs over the weekend. The idea of a 'trigger', much like included in Medicare, that would put the government option into effect if certain circumstances were not met. Gibbs has discussed the idea that the triggers would regional, and come into effect due to insufficient competion in a region. Of course, there's no specifics of what "sufficient" competition might be, or letting consumers purchase insurance across state lines to increase competition. It's just a way to let the blue dogs vote for the government option while maintaining plausible deniability.
I think it's also likely that the speech will back away from the government option language used before in favor of the more feel good term "co-ops". Senator Max Baucus of the senate finance committee has proposed a system of 51 federally funded non-profit member run insurance cooperatives to compete with private insurance. Make no mistake, these will be no more private institutions that the post office is. Co-ops are the same government option that Nancy Pelosi has said "is essential to our passing a bill."
The President will probably mention that the American Medical Association has come out in support of the reform, which is hardly surprising, as reported in the New York Times this morning the medical community stands to gain 30 to 40 million new customers under the government option. They support it because it's in their "economic self interest" to do so.
None of this rhetorical dance changes the fundamental fact, health care reform as offered by the left includes a government option that will force tens of millions of Americans off of there private insurance plans and into the hands of bureaucrats. It represents a profane invasion of progressive governance into the private sector which must not come to pass.
Contact your senator and representative and make it clear to them; no trigger, no government option under any name, no socialism.
In a few hours, President Obama is going to address a joint session of congress in a hail mary attempt to regain momentum, and push through government option health care in one guise or another.The White House believes that the American people are simply misinformed, because they hadn't given congress enough direction in drafting their various bills in committee. They're bringing out the big guns as Mr. Obama armed with his focus grouped speech, and trusty teleprompter prepare to charm the pants off of America and get everyone on board with the hype, just like he did in his campaign. Representative Charles Schumer is predicting a "Game Changer".
Don't believe it.
The only thing the White House is going to change tonight is the nomenclature, not the substance of their health care reform agenda. The Pew Research Center for People & the Press shows that congress is suffering from its lowest approval rating in more than 20 years. They can't sell the American people on legislation they don't want.
In an early September Gallup poll released this week 39 percent of those polled would tell their representative to vote against a health care reform bill; while only 37 percent said they's tell their representative to vote for it.
The people have let their voices be heard on this debate at town halls across the country, and they overwhelmingly do not want a government option. They've been heard by at least 23 Blue Dog Democrats, including Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, who has publicly stated that he would oppose a government option.
Tonight's speech is an attempt to re brand Health Care reform as something blue dogs democrats can get behind without incurring the wrath of their constituency. They are right to be worried, in the same Gallup poll 82 percent of those who oppose health care said the issue would be a "major factor" in how they vote in the 2010 mid-term election, but only 62 percent of health care supporters said it would be a major factor in their vote.
Something likely to appear in Obama's speech has been talked about by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs over the weekend. The idea of a 'trigger', much like included in Medicare, that would put the government option into effect if certain circumstances were not met. Gibbs has discussed the idea that the triggers would regional, and come into effect due to insufficient competion in a region. Of course, there's no specifics of what "sufficient" competition might be, or letting consumers purchase insurance across state lines to increase competition. It's just a way to let the blue dogs vote for the government option while maintaining plausible deniability.
I think it's also likely that the speech will back away from the government option language used before in favor of the more feel good term "co-ops". Senator Max Baucus of the senate finance committee has proposed a system of 51 federally funded non-profit member run insurance cooperatives to compete with private insurance. Make no mistake, these will be no more private institutions that the post office is. Co-ops are the same government option that Nancy Pelosi has said "is essential to our passing a bill."
The President will probably mention that the American Medical Association has come out in support of the reform, which is hardly surprising, as reported in the New York Times this morning the medical community stands to gain 30 to 40 million new customers under the government option. They support it because it's in their "economic self interest" to do so.
None of this rhetorical dance changes the fundamental fact, health care reform as offered by the left includes a government option that will force tens of millions of Americans off of there private insurance plans and into the hands of bureaucrats. It represents a profane invasion of progressive governance into the private sector which must not come to pass.
Contact your senator and representative and make it clear to them; no trigger, no government option under any name, no socialism.
Second Place Is The First Loser
08Sep09
The United States fell from first to second in the World Economic Forum's 2009-2010 list of the world's most competitive economies, ranking now behind Switzerland.
Though the report stresses that the U.S. is still very competitive overall, the WEF points out a series of 'escalating weaknesses' that have lowered its ranking. Here are some of the highlights from the report:
Proof that it's not just the recession, the progressive economic policies being pursued by our government are detrimental to the United States ability to compete in the world market.
The myth touted by the political left that the free market created the imbalances present in our system today, and that only government intervention can restore prosperity, is clearly not supported by the data.
Read the report. Arm yourself with the facts. The next time some big government Kool-Aid drinker starts in to tell you how Washington is going to solve all of our problems, set them straight.
The United States fell from first to second in the World Economic Forum's 2009-2010 list of the world's most competitive economies, ranking now behind Switzerland.Though the report stresses that the U.S. is still very competitive overall, the WEF points out a series of 'escalating weaknesses' that have lowered its ranking. Here are some of the highlights from the report:
Some aspects of the institutional environment could be strengthened, with particular concerns on the part of the business community about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (48th),
and in the perception that the government spends its resources wastefully (68th).
The country’s greatest overall weakness continues to be related to its macroeconomic stability, where it ranks 93rd, down from 66th last year. The United States has built up large macroeconomic imbalances over recent years. Repeated fiscal deficits have led to burgeoning levels of public indebtedness, which are presently being exacerbated by significant stimulus spending.
Proof that it's not just the recession, the progressive economic policies being pursued by our government are detrimental to the United States ability to compete in the world market.
The myth touted by the political left that the free market created the imbalances present in our system today, and that only government intervention can restore prosperity, is clearly not supported by the data.
Read the report. Arm yourself with the facts. The next time some big government Kool-Aid drinker starts in to tell you how Washington is going to solve all of our problems, set them straight.
There is no "I" in "Learn"
08Sep09
My son is spending the day with Grandpa rather than going to school.
The Speech.
I think the increase in public attention on Obama's speech to school children caused a massive re-write to tone down the rhetoric.
But phrases like "the circumstances of your life -what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have," or "Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look," seem to imply that some students and schools are at an inherent disadvantage and that government must level the playing field.
It smacks of racial and class divisiveness, the same old social justice talking points.
The folks over at HotAir.com points out how self serving the language seems to be:
The President refers to himself 56 times. That's more than School, Education, Responsibilty, Country or Nation, Teachers, and Parents combined. By contrast, in a similar speech given by Ronald Reagan to school children in 1986, Reagan referred to himself only 19 times. A third as much as Obama.
Is that your priority sir?
Good public schools are rare these days, because until some measure of competition is restored through a voucher system, a virtual goverment monopoly exists. I don't believe this administration has any intention of changing that. Only channeling funding away from wealthier areas where it was generated, to failing inner city schools where community organizations are ensuring the indoctrination of future party members.
Go read the speech for yourself and decide if you'll share it with your children.
My son is spending the day with Grandpa rather than going to school.
The Speech.
I think the increase in public attention on Obama's speech to school children caused a massive re-write to tone down the rhetoric.
But phrases like "the circumstances of your life -what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have," or "Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look," seem to imply that some students and schools are at an inherent disadvantage and that government must level the playing field.
It smacks of racial and class divisiveness, the same old social justice talking points.
The folks over at HotAir.com points out how self serving the language seems to be:
56 iterations of “I”
19 iterations of “school”
10 iterations of “education”
8 iterations of “responsibility”
7 iterations of “country”
5 iterations each of “parents”, “teachers”
3 iterations of “nation”
The President refers to himself 56 times. That's more than School, Education, Responsibilty, Country or Nation, Teachers, and Parents combined. By contrast, in a similar speech given by Ronald Reagan to school children in 1986, Reagan referred to himself only 19 times. A third as much as Obama.
Is that your priority sir?
Good public schools are rare these days, because until some measure of competition is restored through a voucher system, a virtual goverment monopoly exists. I don't believe this administration has any intention of changing that. Only channeling funding away from wealthier areas where it was generated, to failing inner city schools where community organizations are ensuring the indoctrination of future party members.
Go read the speech for yourself and decide if you'll share it with your children.
The Race Card: Now Available At Your Favorite Hobby Store
04Sep09
I think I echo the sentiments of many Americans when I tell you just how very tired I am of seeing the race card thrown about.
Though I don't agree with his politics, on the day of Barack Obama's inauguration I had resolved to take a wait and see attitude, holding onto a glimmer of hope that the post race America described in his campaign would materialize and we could all as a people move beyond the dark spectre of our past.
How foolish and optimistic I was in that moment.
If anything the racial divide in America has grown wider as literally any disagreement with progressive policies of the left is moral grounds for leveling the claim of racism.
You voted for McCain? Racist.
You say the president is wrong on the public option? You stupid racist.
You want to point out that our Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones is a self professed communist who was quoted as saying the maximum goal of the civil rights movement was "Reparations for slavery and the redistribution of all wealth."? You right wing racist fear monger.
You prefer reading The Amazing Spider Man to Miranda Mercury?
That's right fan boys, you're all a bunch of pasty white clan members meeting in your parent's basement.
The Internet buzz seems to to be that comics, and thus their film adaptations, are a form of institutionalized racism, because of the relative lack of titles and popularity of 'ethnically diverse' heroes.
Marvel comics editor Tom Brevoort gave his take:
It's natural to identify more strongly with stories and characters that one can relate to. Alot of comic readers are white males, so comic books featuring white characters are more easily related to, and therefor sell better. That's racist? It sounds more like market forces to me.
Oh, wait, to socialists the idea of a free market is racist. Well I'm sure the left will soon have the FCC's new "Chief Diversity Officer" Mark Lloyd all over this problem.
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I've always dreamed of the day when we could judge a comic book not by the color of the hero on its cover, but by the content of its pages.
Go buy a copy of your favorite comic book today, before the Avengers starts looking like a Benetton ad.
I think I echo the sentiments of many Americans when I tell you just how very tired I am of seeing the race card thrown about.Though I don't agree with his politics, on the day of Barack Obama's inauguration I had resolved to take a wait and see attitude, holding onto a glimmer of hope that the post race America described in his campaign would materialize and we could all as a people move beyond the dark spectre of our past.
How foolish and optimistic I was in that moment.
If anything the racial divide in America has grown wider as literally any disagreement with progressive policies of the left is moral grounds for leveling the claim of racism.
You voted for McCain? Racist.
You say the president is wrong on the public option? You stupid racist.
You want to point out that our Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones is a self professed communist who was quoted as saying the maximum goal of the civil rights movement was "Reparations for slavery and the redistribution of all wealth."? You right wing racist fear monger.
You prefer reading The Amazing Spider Man to Miranda Mercury?
That's right fan boys, you're all a bunch of pasty white clan members meeting in your parent's basement.
The Internet buzz seems to to be that comics, and thus their film adaptations, are a form of institutionalized racism, because of the relative lack of titles and popularity of 'ethnically diverse' heroes.
Marvel comics editor Tom Brevoort gave his take:
I don't know that it's any one thing, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that it's all part of the same phenomenon that makes it more difficult to sell series with female leads, or African-American leads, or leads of any other particular cultural bent. Because we're an American company whose primary
distribution is centered around America, the great majority of our existing audience seems to be white American males. So while within that demographic you'll find people who are interested in a wide assortment of characters of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds, whenever your leads are white American males, you've got a better chance of reaching more people overall.
It's natural to identify more strongly with stories and characters that one can relate to. Alot of comic readers are white males, so comic books featuring white characters are more easily related to, and therefor sell better. That's racist? It sounds more like market forces to me.
Oh, wait, to socialists the idea of a free market is racist. Well I'm sure the left will soon have the FCC's new "Chief Diversity Officer" Mark Lloyd all over this problem.
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I've always dreamed of the day when we could judge a comic book not by the color of the hero on its cover, but by the content of its pages.
Go buy a copy of your favorite comic book today, before the Avengers starts looking like a Benetton ad.
Redistribute Someone Else's Wealth
04Sep09
"Getting people to understand that costs are out of control, and the system can't continue with costs going up as rapidly as they are, and we need real cost-cutting as the centerpiece of a bill -- that's what you need in terms of being bipartisan,"
-Senator Chuck Schumer, House Democrat
"Getting congress to understand that government spending is out of control, and that the deficit can't continue going up as rapidly as it is, we need real spending cuts at the centerpiece of 'Change' -- and now probably isn't the best time to dump a trillion dollars into healthcare reform and grow the deficit 2 trillion dollars in your veiled attempt at wealth redistribution."
-The American People, Voice of Common Sense
"Getting people to understand that costs are out of control, and the system can't continue with costs going up as rapidly as they are, and we need real cost-cutting as the centerpiece of a bill -- that's what you need in terms of being bipartisan,"-Senator Chuck Schumer, House Democrat
"Getting congress to understand that government spending is out of control, and that the deficit can't continue going up as rapidly as it is, we need real spending cuts at the centerpiece of 'Change' -- and now probably isn't the best time to dump a trillion dollars into healthcare reform and grow the deficit 2 trillion dollars in your veiled attempt at wealth redistribution."
-The American People, Voice of Common Sense
That's Not In Robert's Rules Of Order
03Sep09
In Thousand Palms, California, during an altercation a MoveOn.Org protester bit off the finger of a 65 year old opponent of government health care.
It is good to know there's no thugs out there being used to intimidate the public on this issue, and that the American tradition of spirited yet respectful debate is alive and well in this country.
In Thousand Palms, California, during an altercation a MoveOn.Org protester bit off the finger of a 65 year old opponent of government health care.
It is good to know there's no thugs out there being used to intimidate the public on this issue, and that the American tradition of spirited yet respectful debate is alive and well in this country.
This isn't really about health care: Don't take the Bait
03Sep09
“Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system? You need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." -Democratic Representative Diane Watson, in praise of a brutal socialist dictator.
I am not a partisan, nor a Republican. I am a Libertarian. There's a lot of things I don't agree with conservatives on from their opposition of gay marriage and pro life stance, to personal privacy and the proper role of faith based initiatives.
The Republican party has been comlicit in the rampant growth of our government. It hasn't actively represented the American people, nor stood behind the values of their platform other than to confound Democrats, since Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house.
But there is one thing they would at least claim to agree with me about. That capitalism enables freedom, and that socialism is a cancer growing within out system, threatening to snuff out both.
Right now, the only thing keeping it from succeeding is the American people forcing the republicans to fight like their political careers are on the line, because we've made it clear that they are.
They are our tool as the American people to hold the line, to say "You shall not pass!" and offer no compromise. You cannot compromise with a cancer. Its job is to grow, to spread, it can find no balance within a host. If allowed to continue the result is always the same. The host dies.
In a New York times opinion editorial former Senator Bill Bradley suggested a bipartisan compromise; pass the bill with a single payer option, and the Democrats would vote for long sought torte reform.
Don't take the bait.
While this option hasn't yet been offered formally by the Democrats, I believe Bradley likely wrote the Op Ed piece at the behest of the DNC to gauge public sentiment on concept. But let me tell you what's really going on.
Democrats have historically fought torte reform in large part due to the powerful lobby of the trial lawyers association. But with support for health care reform evaporating, the dems are viewed as increasingly weak by their core constituency including the AFL-CIO, which has threateneded to pull their support from the DNC in 2010 if health care reform doesn't pass. It's an a attempt to shore up support with a powerful constituency, by sacrificing the interests of a less powerful one.
That sounds a lot like damage control to me.
I think it was Ross Perot that said "Most people give up just as they're about to achieve success." Now is the time to keep pressing those in Washington, now and clear through the 2010 elections until it's time to choose a new president in 2012. It's not enough just to defeat government run health care, or stop cap and trade, or pick up a few seats in congress. We must continue the fight of liberty until we have stopped the intended oligarchy, restored the constitution, and defeated socialism giving the next generation the chance to grow up free and succeed.
“Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system? You need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." -Democratic Representative Diane Watson, in praise of a brutal socialist dictator.
I am not a partisan, nor a Republican. I am a Libertarian. There's a lot of things I don't agree with conservatives on from their opposition of gay marriage and pro life stance, to personal privacy and the proper role of faith based initiatives.
The Republican party has been comlicit in the rampant growth of our government. It hasn't actively represented the American people, nor stood behind the values of their platform other than to confound Democrats, since Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house.
But there is one thing they would at least claim to agree with me about. That capitalism enables freedom, and that socialism is a cancer growing within out system, threatening to snuff out both.
Right now, the only thing keeping it from succeeding is the American people forcing the republicans to fight like their political careers are on the line, because we've made it clear that they are.
They are our tool as the American people to hold the line, to say "You shall not pass!" and offer no compromise. You cannot compromise with a cancer. Its job is to grow, to spread, it can find no balance within a host. If allowed to continue the result is always the same. The host dies.
In a New York times opinion editorial former Senator Bill Bradley suggested a bipartisan compromise; pass the bill with a single payer option, and the Democrats would vote for long sought torte reform.
Don't take the bait.
While this option hasn't yet been offered formally by the Democrats, I believe Bradley likely wrote the Op Ed piece at the behest of the DNC to gauge public sentiment on concept. But let me tell you what's really going on.
Democrats have historically fought torte reform in large part due to the powerful lobby of the trial lawyers association. But with support for health care reform evaporating, the dems are viewed as increasingly weak by their core constituency including the AFL-CIO, which has threateneded to pull their support from the DNC in 2010 if health care reform doesn't pass. It's an a attempt to shore up support with a powerful constituency, by sacrificing the interests of a less powerful one.
That sounds a lot like damage control to me.
I think it was Ross Perot that said "Most people give up just as they're about to achieve success." Now is the time to keep pressing those in Washington, now and clear through the 2010 elections until it's time to choose a new president in 2012. It's not enough just to defeat government run health care, or stop cap and trade, or pick up a few seats in congress. We must continue the fight of liberty until we have stopped the intended oligarchy, restored the constitution, and defeated socialism giving the next generation the chance to grow up free and succeed.
Education, now with 110% more socialist agenda
02Sep09
From the U.S. Department of Indoctrination Education Office of Communications & Outreach:
President Obama to Deliver Nationally Broadcast Address to Students Sept. 8
I wouldn't have had my son sit through a George W. Bush speech on No Child Left Behind, I won't have him sit through this. Of course, I think the teacher's unions might have taken up the fight for me on that one.
Department of Education Publications suggest that children listen to the speech, and ask themselves the questions:
And that teachers should follow up, by having the children discuss their take as a group:
President Obama was widely qouted during his campaign "You want to know my policies, then you have to look at the people I surround myself with." One of the people that Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with is a man called William Ayers, whom he served with on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform initiative for the Chicago public schools.
While Obama claims ignorance of Ayers ignorance of Ayers involvement with the domestic terrorist group "The Weather Underground", it is reasonable to assume that since they were serving on the board of an education project, that he'd have a pretty good grasp of Ayers views on education.
To give you an idea of what those views are, here's a few highlights from Ayers speech at the 2006 World Economic Forum in Venezuela.
Education is revolution. Given Ayers status as an avowed socialist, and unrepentant terrorist, those words are chilling. So I ask you, are these your policies Mr President? To sow the seeds of social revolution, a new "Obama Youth"?
No, thanks. I'll be keeping my son home that day, and I have the feeling, more days to come.
From the U.S. Department of President Obama to Deliver Nationally Broadcast Address to Students Sept. 8
"On Sept. 8, when young people across the country will have just started or are about to go back to school, I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education, the importance of staying in school, how we want to improve our education system, and why it's so important for the country. And so I hope everybody tunes in."
I wouldn't have had my son sit through a George W. Bush speech on No Child Left Behind, I won't have him sit through this. Of course, I think the teacher's unions might have taken up the fight for me on that one.
Department of Education Publications suggest that children listen to the speech, and ask themselves the questions:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
And that teachers should follow up, by having the children discuss their take as a group:
What do you think the President wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
These are questions I wouldn't want my son asking himself without knowing the content of the speech in advance. It is true that they seem inoquous enough, until viewed through the lens of this president's views on education.
President Obama was widely qouted during his campaign "You want to know my policies, then you have to look at the people I surround myself with." One of the people that Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with is a man called William Ayers, whom he served with on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform initiative for the Chicago public schools.
While Obama claims ignorance of Ayers ignorance of Ayers involvement with the domestic terrorist group "The Weather Underground", it is reasonable to assume that since they were serving on the board of an education project, that he'd have a pretty good grasp of Ayers views on education.
To give you an idea of what those views are, here's a few highlights from Ayers speech at the 2006 World Economic Forum in Venezuela.
I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!
Education is revolution. Given Ayers status as an avowed socialist, and unrepentant terrorist, those words are chilling. So I ask you, are these your policies Mr President? To sow the seeds of social revolution, a new "Obama Youth"?
No, thanks. I'll be keeping my son home that day, and I have the feeling, more days to come.
Socialism On Tour
01Sep09
Those on the single payer option side of the health care debate, those who have accused us of being "astroturf" for insurance companies, are throwing aside the facade that they are a grassroots movement in favor of a fully funded political campaign.
"Organizing for America" a nationwide network of Obama supporters being funded by the Democratic National Committee is in the midst of an 11 city bus tour advocating health care reform. The paid "volunteers" are going town to town in their "Health Care Reform Now: Let's Get It Done" party bus stressing that the issue is too important to wait and debate it with those they see as misinformed.
Their support fading, and opposition being felt even among their core constituency, the left is more determined than ever to ram this legislation down the throats of hard working Americans.
They don't have the votes, and they know it, so The New York Times has come out advocating using what Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire described as an "act of violence" against the American people, reconciliation.
The reconciliation process prevents minority filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours. It was created in 1974 to ensure important matters like passing a budget or reducing the deficit would be dealt with in timely fashion, and thus prevent a government stand still. It has since been heavily abused by both parties to overcome the objection of the minority party.
But to overcome the will of the people? They don't care about the will of the people,because they think we're too stupid to know what is good for us. Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) said of his constituency "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful." When asked what he meant by voting against their interests, he clarified "I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
That's the same sort of "representation" we've been getting from Leonard Boswell here in Iowa's 3rd congressional district who, like all blue state democrats, feels unassailable on high. Well no more.
It's time we gave all these ideologues their walking papers and start governing this country from someplace closer to center.
Those on the single payer option side of the health care debate, those who have accused us of being "astroturf" for insurance companies, are throwing aside the facade that they are a grassroots movement in favor of a fully funded political campaign.
"Organizing for America" a nationwide network of Obama supporters being funded by the Democratic National Committee is in the midst of an 11 city bus tour advocating health care reform. The paid "volunteers" are going town to town in their "Health Care Reform Now: Let's Get It Done" party bus stressing that the issue is too important to wait and debate it with those they see as misinformed.
Their support fading, and opposition being felt even among their core constituency, the left is more determined than ever to ram this legislation down the throats of hard working Americans.
They don't have the votes, and they know it, so The New York Times has come out advocating using what Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire described as an "act of violence" against the American people, reconciliation.
The reconciliation process prevents minority filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours. It was created in 1974 to ensure important matters like passing a budget or reducing the deficit would be dealt with in timely fashion, and thus prevent a government stand still. It has since been heavily abused by both parties to overcome the objection of the minority party.
But to overcome the will of the people? They don't care about the will of the people,because they think we're too stupid to know what is good for us. Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) said of his constituency "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful." When asked what he meant by voting against their interests, he clarified "I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
That's the same sort of "representation" we've been getting from Leonard Boswell here in Iowa's 3rd congressional district who, like all blue state democrats, feels unassailable on high. Well no more.
It's time we gave all these ideologues their walking papers and start governing this country from someplace closer to center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Archives
-
►
2010
(65)
-
►
July
(19)
- The Language Of Socialism
- All Is Not Well
- The Star Trek Supposition
- Necessary Elitism
- Looking Back
- The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
- With Apologies To Arthur C. Clarke
- The Fifth Estate
- Saturday Morning Cartoons - #3
- The Wolves In Sheep's Clothing
- Define "Advancement"
- If Dems Go Down, They're Taking Us With Them
- Collective Independence
- Don't Take The Bait
- FDR 2.0
- Libertarianism In 33 Words
- Fear The Unintended Consequence
- Saturday Morning Cartoons - #2
- Don't Vote Evil At All
-
►
June
(13)
- Heir To A Fool
- You Don't Spell Reform T-A-X
- Consumerism Benefits The Poor
- Long Live Capitalism
- Another Nails In Keynes' Coffin
- The Truth Of The National Debt
- Saturday Morning Cartoons
- The Threat Of Hyperinflation
- The Cult
- It Came From Jekyll Island
- Defining Poverty Up
- It's The Economics, Stupid
- The Cut Of His Suit
-
►
July
(19)
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments
The Warning by Casey Head is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.