A Christmas Poem...

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the land
Not a politician could be counted to make a strong stand.
The anointed one was nestled all snug in his bed
While visions of sainthood danced in his head.

The people were jobless, the economy a mess.
Two wars were still raging yet a peace prize no less.
The stimulus was failing and going unspent
The banks kept on closing despite bailout's intent.

The money kept flowing with no end in sight.
The debt, it kept growing...this didn't feel right.
They kept up the spending, the goal was so close.
The country was teetering, we'd soon overdose.

Nine-twelve and Tea Parties were gathering steam
They tried to keep swimming against a swift stream.
They marched and they shouted and tried to rebut
But the media ignored them or called them all nuts.

"They're racists and haters!" said Matthews each night
Olberman waxed moronic and screamed at the right.
The crowds just got bigger, the anger it grew.
The press just went silent, despite what they knew.

The polls just kept dropping, the people were scared.
Something didn't smell right but they didn't know where.
"It's coming from Washington" said Rush and Said Beck
"If you don't watch them carefully, your freedoms they'll wreck!"

Obama starting worrying, he might lose the fight.
His losses kept mounting, "Won't something go right?"
He lost the Olympics, a slap in the face
The climate was cooling, "I'm losing the race!"

Despite his great speeches, to despots and commies
He looked like a school boy, who wanted his mommy.
He kept spending money that nobody had
The right lost their patience and wound up quite mad.

So he called on his faithful, his loyal and true
But some were quite angry and simply withdrew.
Dean said, "This bill sucks", and Kos turned his back.
Acorn was melting and Stern was a hack.

But healthcare was waiting of that he was sure
It was happening so quickly, it all seemed a blur
"We must make them buy it or else we'll all die"
With slick packaged selling and one or two lies.

It saves lots of money, it heals the sick.
It pays down the deficit, now that's a neat trick.
Landrieu was bought off and Lieberman shut down,
Nelson was trying to maintain his ground.

With healthcare and stimulus, bailouts and more
The right kept on trying to paddle to shore.
They just kept on trying, to stuff down our throats
McConnel was trying to rock his small boat.

Obama sent word out, "We're under the gun.
"I'll send out my minions, it still can be spun."
Harry was worried the votes were not there.
"Polls just don't matter, they must think I care."

On Harry, on Nancy, On Barney and Dick
Let's wreck the economy and do it right quick.
"We'll keep printing money, their taxes we'll raise."
"It's not really their money", to coin a new phrase.

Obama was wondering, "How long can it last?"
"I must get this healthcare, I must get it passed."
"Voters are too stupid to know right from wrong."
"I'll make the decision, to help them along."

"We'll take all their money and give it to those"
"Who don't have a green card or a job, I suppose."
He walked away smiling all full of good cheer
"I'll get this by Christmas", he said with a sneer.

What lies 'neath the tree on Christmas this year?
Socialized medicine? It still is not clear.
One thing is certain, on this you can bank
Our country will wind up, right in the tank.

The Way I See It.

The way I see it:

If the wacko responsible for the carnage at Ft. Hood used his religion in any way to justify his actions, then he's a terrorist who should be put to death without delay. If he didn't, he's a very sick, very disturbed individual who should be put to death without delay. Every other major news outlet besides Fox appears to be ignoring his ties to and/or sympathies with islamo-fascists. If this guy was Christian and he mentioned his belief that God wanted him to purify the unrighteous, the other news outlets would be leading with that fact and that fact alone. Jeanine Garafolo, Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman would be advocating the abolition of Christianity along with the immediate incarceration of all it's practitioners.

The way I see it:

President Obama, we elected you a year ago now. Quit your bitching about how bad things were when you moved in and start doing something. If I had moved into a house that was falling down around me, I don't think my friends would have much sympathy for me if I was still whining about it a year later. When does your presidency become yours? When does Afghanistan become yours? The economy? The debt? Eventually, even MSNBC is going to start calling you a cry baby if you don't ruck up and take some responsibility. It may take a couple of years but it will happen. I think.

The way I see it:

Those of you who have a problem with capitalism need to find another country to inhabit. I'm tired of hearing from elitists like Michael Moore on down to the average radical complain how capitalism is an exclusive club and only the super rich ever benefit from it. That's bullshit plain and simple. Capitalism is the foundation for a meritocracy, something our founding fathers believed in quite strongly. A simple idea that if you work hard and stretch beyond what you think you're capable of, you will succeed. You may not become Warren Buffet or even Michael Moore but you will reap the rewards of your labor. Greed and evil exists in business but that's not to say that it doesn't exist in every human endeavor. Most Liberals believe that big business should be shut down because a few greedy assholes are out there but see nothing wrong with greedy assholes like Charlie Rangel, corrupt Congressman from NY, under-reporting his net worth to the tune of almost a million dollars. Or Timothy "Turbo-Tax" Geithner for that matter.

The way I see it:

The government should not give one thin dime to any newspaper, TV broadcasting company or any media communications entity that can't manage to stay in business. That's not a free press no matter what you might believe. That money will have strings both visible and invisible that will crush the first amendment. If the NY Times can't manage to make a profit, then they go out of business. Period. The free market is the great equalizer even in the hallowed, albeit biased, halls of "journalism". If the NY Times had a product that was so compelling, so necessary, they would, by default, be making money. It's ok for the Internet to demolish the idea of books and libraries but let's save the NY Times? Nope, not one thin dime. Bye-bye Newspaper Of Record.

The way I see it:

Any politician that votes consistently against the mandate of the people who elected him or her, should be removed sooner than the customary 2, 4 or 6 years. There should be a quicker mechanism for the people to remove those politicians who forget why they're in DC in the first place. A representative republic is only as good as it's representatives and if they're not willing to take action against a fellow member then it should be left to the people. Radical, I know but I think it might send a message to all our politicians that if you don't do what we elected you to do, you will no longer have power over the people. Coupled with stricter rules on who gets a congressional pension, it would also serve to keep them at least working on our behalf. A one term Congressman or Senator doesn't deserve a pension that we pay for until they die. I'd have to spend 20-30 years working for my current employer to earn a pension but any jackleg who can manage to be elected once, do a terrible job and then be voted out STILL walks away with a paycheck for the rest of his or her life.
WRONG! I think it should take at least 5 consecutive terms for congressman and at least 3 for Senators to earn any sort of continuing compensation. That shows at least a minimum commitment to serve the people's will. They're called public servants, not public sponges.

Cramming for the Midterm

Those of you with a fondness for all things politic already know the inevitable truth about midterm elections. They're less a referendum on the newly elected President and more about wanting change in the Congress. Historically, every President in the last century has lost seats and more often than not, control of the Congress. In fact, only two Presidents in the last 100 years have gained or maintained seats during a midterm election, George W. Bush in 2002 and FDR in 1934. Most notable in recent years was the Republican landslide in '94 that swept Newt Gingrich and company to power with their "Contract For America" during Clinton's first term.

The pundits and the parties are already positioning themselves to look good or shunt blame as the case may be. Three of the races this year have already garnered national attention for their supposed importance to the White House. The gubernatorial races in NJ and VA and the NY 23 Congressional district were perhaps the most closely watched of all the races slated for November with the White House downplaying the significance of all three as to their relation to Obama.

The NY 23 race was more about the fracturing of the Republican party, with Scozzafava, the Republican, bowing out of the race last weekend "for the good of the party" and then a scant 48 hours later throwing her support to the Democrat, Bill Owens because "he best mirrors my own ideology.", she later claimed. This proves my point from a previous post that she is, at heart, a Liberal in a conservative district. This race says very little about Obama but quite a lot about the RNC machine's new penchant for appearing "mainstream" to woo the Independent voters. Much to the chagrin of the RNC, Independents seemed to like Doug Hoffman's message of fiscal conservatism so much so that they left Scozzafava in a distant third place once Hoffman entered the race.

The same is true for McDonnel in VA and Christie in NJ. Both ran as rock-ribbed, Reagan conservatives espousing lower taxes, more job creation and fiscal sanity where our national debt is concerned. One thing that must be said is that VA and NJ were solidly won by Obama in 2008, VA by 6 points and NJ by a whopping 15 points. Looking at it that way denotes a swing of 24 points in VA and 19 points in NJ. Most pundits agree that the big change is due in large part to the independent or unaffiliated voters who broke heavily for Obama in '08 and appeared to have changed their minds in short order, with the President in office for less than a year.

Historically, VA has always gone for the opposition party in the off year election but the right seems intent on assigning "Obama-fatigue" as the cause. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen. It looks more like the status quo on it's face but I think something must be said for Obama's inability to hold the state in his column. It would appear that the independents found enough wrong that they left him high and dry.

Not so easy to dismiss is the NJ race that left John Corzine out in the cold among voters who cited jobs, the economy and property taxes as their hot button issues this election year. Playing against the financial ruin the state appears to be in, Chris Christie swept into the state house with relative ease in a state that is notoriously blue at it's core. I guess when your taxes go up high enough, you become conservative after all. Either that or Corzine should have left out the fat jokes at Christie's expense.

Despite the spin the White House may put on this one, it hurts. Obama spent time and political capital on this race and to see it slip away does say something about his ability to keep the party faithful...faithful. Independent voters left him in droves and there were more than a few Democrat voters that jumped ship if exit polls are to be believed. Christie garnered 60% of the Independent vote and a staggering 8% of the Democrat vote, a number unheard of in recent times.

In a year when Obama has had little success in getting his agenda passed legislatively, a war in Afghanistan that seems to be slipping into chaos and an economy that shows few signs of improvement, losing NJ is yet another slap in the face to the boy king. It serves to highlight his personal approval numbers versus his agenda approval numbers.

People like him personally by a wide margin but his political agenda is leaving many independent voters cold. They voted for a centrist and got a wildly leftist ideologue instead. Call it sticker shock or buyers remorse but whatever the case, it does not bode well for the 2010 elections. It must be said that leading the country into a massive deficit expends political capital as well with the races in VA and NJ as hard, cold evidence of this truth.

Every red state Democrat must be doing some soul searching right now. In 2010, they'll have to choose between the President's agenda and their own political survival. Knowing his failure to enact health care reform with both houses of Congress in his pocket and allowing for the wild swing of independent voters, leaves them with a choice that few will make easily.

It's a foregone conclusion that Obama will lose seats in the midterm. Historical fact dictates this quite well. The real question is, will the results in VA and NJ sway the red state Democrats to distance themselves from his radical agenda to keep their jobs or will they fall on the sword to advance his legacy?

Only time, and independent voters can tell.

If it quacks like a (D)uck...

I choose to highlight a story I read about a week ago that seemed innocuous on it's face but as I delved into it further, I saw a broader point and a very clear misuse of power.

Where to begin...

Let's start in Kinston NC and the story of hope and change brought to a grinding halt by Eric Holder and the DOJ.

Kinston is a town of 23,000 residents, of whom 14,000 (62%) are African-American and the town is overwhelmingly Democrat. A recent referendum to switch to non-partisan elections was approved by a 2 to 1 margin. This simply means that candidates would run without a party designation next to their names and win an election based on a simple majority. It's not some right wing tactic to skew election results or some liberal scheme to disenfranchise the voters. It's actually fairly commonplace throughout the country and especially in North Carolina. Several cities have switched to non-partisan elections with no adverse effects. Seems like the perfect answer to the negative connotation that party affiliation can sometimes breed and it allows the voters to view the candidates by stance, character and record. In Barak Obama's post-partisan, post-racial America, Kinston has seen the light and decided that character, not party affiliation, counts most to them.

Not so fast.

It would appear that while Kinston is a majority black town, that majority does not tend to vote as often as the DOJ thinks it should. This gives them a "technical minority status". The DOJ subsequently threw out the referendum and ordered the town to continue it's old way of electing candidates because,

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office."

Put another way, African-American voters would not be able to recognize a Democrat well enough thus diminishing their ability to be elected. Put even more simply, African-Americans are just not smart enough to know who to vote for unless we put a big, fat (D) next to a name.

This says two very important things about the DOJ.

One: They assume that all Democrat candidates are black.
Two: They assume that all black voters will vote Democrat.

One other stunning admission by the DOJ in their letter to the city council in Kinston that struck me as horrifying was this,

"In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

Did you catch that? Stunning isn't it?

In that one sentence, the DOJ acknowledges that elections in Kinston are primarily race based but they only seem to have a problem with whether or not white voters will vote for a black candidate, not the other way around, or both for that matter.

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

Not only is it un-American, it's just downright patronizing. It assumes far too much of the voting public in Kinston. Local residents blame voter apathy for the low turnout of African-Americans in municipal elections. The DOJ sees a darker, more sinister force at work in Kinston where none exists. The measure passed by a clear majority to hold non-partisan elections. The people spoke through a valid vote and were were summarily overruled by a government entity that thinks it knows better.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Now, if the NAACP doesn't have a problem with it and the ACLU hasn't reared their ugly heads as of yet, then why would the DOJ even bother with the matter?

To protect the power base is why. To guarantee that the divide remains firmly in place so that they can point their bony fingers and say either, "That Republican is trying to harm you." or "That white person doesn't have your best interests at heart."

I chose to highlight this story simply to illustrate two very key points. One is the erosion of our basic liberties at an alarming rate and the other is to show the ability of our new President to crow loudly about leading the way to curing our ills where racism is concerned...

and then allowing it to continue.

Just the facts...

Here's another look at some simple stats from the first nine months of the anointed one's first...and only term... as President.

24 - Number of times Obama has played golf since taking office.

34 - Number of months it took for Bush to play 24 rounds of golf as President. That's 2 years and 10 months for you liberals with that "progressive" education.

1 - Number of vacations Obama has taken since being elected.

147 - Number of speeches Obama has given on health care/reform. (He's making one now.)

1 - Number of undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to a black President.

4 - Number of news networks that have gone in the tank for a political party.

2 - Number of times Obama has met with Gen. McChrystal about Afghanistan.

1 - Number of times Obama has blown our chances to have the Olympics in the USA.

679 - Number of times Obama has said, "Let me be clear" and then made no sense.

3 - Number of radical Communists/Maoists that have served in the administration.

??? Number of times Obama has lied about wanting single payer. (this number approaches infinity)

300 million - Number of people who will be completely screwed if Obama implements his wacko socialist agenda.

The Devil You Know...

If I hear one more talking head with a liberal bent tell me what the Republicans need to do to win an election I think I'll scream. Their careful, insightful analysis always ends with one conclusion:

Republicans need to be more liberal to win in the future.

Well there's a shocker. Now why didn't I think of that?

Is it just me or does the idea of making yourself more like the other guy seem like a really stupid thing to do? Beyond the fact that I doubt the media's true motives in trying to ascertain what might be a winning strategy for a party they openly despise, it just seems pointless to blur the lines between liberal and conservative in order to gain power. Know what happens when you do that? You wind up with Olympia Snowe...or Jim Jeffords...or Arlen Specter. You get what we on the right lovingly call R.I.N.O.'s--Republican In Name Only. Those members who, if they don't jump ship outright like Jeffords and Specter, vote almost overwhelmingly with the Democrats like Snowe and Susan Collins. Or the kind of Republican who, after seeing the political winds shifting, decides to embrace the other side to show how moderate and non-partisan they are.
Case in point--Lindsey Graham.

Graham, in a recent town hall meeting, said he didn't want the Republican party to be the party of "the angry white guy". Graham has spent the last year since his election in "08 making his constituents regret sending him back to the Senate. He voted for Sonia Sotomayor to be confirmed by the Senate despite having "serious hesitation as to her judicial fidelity regarding matters of race and the 2nd amendment". He was so spineless that he couldn't bring himself to cast a no vote for fear of looking like...a conservative. He voted for amnesty during the heated immigration battle near the end of Bush' final term. He partnered with John Kerry on climate change legislation that would raise taxes on every American who uses any kind of energy...which means every one of them. He talks incessantly of reaching across the aisle to the President to forge a coalition that will make America better. Better than what? Cuba? Venezuela?

He stands as a testament to what happens when you stop listening to the people and start worrying about keeping your power firmly in place.

Oddly enough, nowhere in the hallowed halls of ABC, NBC or CBS will you ever hear a pundit say that liberals need to be more hawkish on national defense or more fiscally sane when it comes to our skyrocketing national debt. You'll never hear them tell Barney Frank to tone down the rhetoric about how evil business is but they've got advice to spare for every conservative in D.C. who has a problem with government run health care.

Another case in point is a race in upstate New York that under ordinary circumstances would not rise to the level of national attention. Congressional District 23 has captured the eye of much of the nation partly because it was a seat vacated due to an Obama appointment but mostly because there are 3 challengers to the seat. A democrat a Republican...and a Conservative.

You read that right. As if it doesn't say enough about the fracturing of the Republican party, it gets worse. The RNC is currently running ads against...the conservative, Doug Johnson in favor of Dede Scozzafava, a moderate assemblywoman. I use the term "moderate" here because the RNC chose it for her. She's anything but moderate. She's embraced the Obama party line and has accepted an endorsement from ACORN. Yes...the same ACORN that has no trouble giving tax advice to pimps and hookers. She favors abortion rights and gay marriage and taxes like a liberal.

I wish I was joking here, I really do. I wish I could say that this is all just a dream starring John Podesta and James Carville, but it's not.

Instead of targeting the Democrat, lawyer Bill Owens, the RNC chose to target a conservative because he represents a serious threat to their choice. Johnson has won the backing of some fairly heavy hitters on the right despite his soft spoken demeanor and because of his staunchly conservative views. Names like Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh and the right leaning Club For Growth.

Newt Gingrich, when queried about why he has decided to back Scozzafava said, “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”

Really Newt? Our best chance? Calling Scozzafava a "moderate" is a kindness she doesn't really deserve. She's a liberal in a conservative district who's savvy enough to know how to get elected. Have no doubt she will show her true colors once there.

Gingrich said of his endorsement,

"My number one interest is to build a Republican majority. If your interest is taking power back from the Left, and your interest is winning the necessary elections, then there are times when you have to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it." In other words, "Ok, so she's more liberal than Bill Clinton but at least she might vote with the party once in awhile."

So Newt, what you're telling me is that I should sacrifice my principles just to get an (R) in office, consequences be damned?

I don't think so. I used to admire Gingrich for his clear delineation of what conservatism was. Now I think he's succumbed to the idiocy that strikes all power players in or out of D.C.

"Whatever it takes to get power. Then, whatever it takes to keep it. Principles, morals and voters be damned."

On this day, I am officially an independent conservative. I will wear the moniker of Republican no longer.

The Week In Review

This week in review is going to be a bit different. I'm breaking away from my usual dissection of the weeks events to talk about a few that I think are perhaps more important than poll numbers and who's the new communist in Obama's group of advisers, although we did learn of two new ones.

Instead I thought I might pose a simple question and expand from there.

Here it is:

Of the original ten amendments to the Constitution, which would you say is the most important?

The answer has always been easy for me personally but think for a moment before you answer for yourself. There are critical issues of freedom and liberty locked inside each one and choosing only one might be a tad on the difficult side at first. There are issues of search and seizure, fair trials, gun ownership, religious freedom etc. that appeal to each individual in a very personal way. One's own life experiences may make one more important than an another or perhaps being a hunter or a clergyman may inform that decision. I have several friends who are lawyers who might say that bit about a fair and speedy trial is the key to a polite and civilized, free society.

One has always stood out more plainly and grandly than all the others for me, for many years. I regard it with reverence and sanctity. I've written and spoken on it at length on many occasions, much to the annoyance of those who have been made to suffer through it. I love it for it's beauty it's simplicity, and it's strength. It is the iron upon which all the rest were built and there is a reason it was placed highest in order. So there would be no doubt as to the foundation of what constitutes freedom and liberty. It's tucked neatly between two other rights but it stands out as my favorite.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of speech and of the press to me is the keystone of freedom, even above the right to bear arms. While it's true that the framers intended to put freedom of religion, speech and assembly first, due largely to the horrors they had suffered under King George, it does nothing to diminish their importance in my mind. Leaving aside the history lesson that we're all familiar with, let's instead take a look at the right I consider to be the most important.

The right to free speech was arguably the most contentious of all of the original ten. The "Alien and Sedition Acts", signed into law by John Adams in 1798 was, on it's face, designed to prevent alien powers from interfering with a fledgling government and was intended to prevent such powers from speaking ill of the government. Thomas Jefferson allowed them to expire or repealed them in 1802. One, the "Alien Enemies Act" is still in force today and is meant to be used in times of war. This was the first attempt at silencing speech and drove a wedge between Adams and Jefferson that lasted for many years. Jefferson argued that the acts were designed to silence criticism of Adams and should never have been enacted at all. In the early years of the republic, speech was an important thing to the founders. They learned the hard way the consequences of not being allowed to speak out against what they perceived as a tyrannical king bent on forcing the colonies to submit to his mad whims.

Throughout the years, the burning of the American flag came to symbolize the ultimate in political speech. Agree or disagree with the idea, it is a form of expression of displeasure with the government that is protected. There have been battles over whether or not money can be construed as "speech" in todays modern society. It's logical to assume that in the media age, it takes money to get a message across any of the varied medium available today. The advent of the Internet has allowed the free flow and exchange of ideas but without the gravitas of the traditional media outlets. Remember, just because you read something online doesn't make it true.

Walter Cronkite once said, "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy." Never has that been more true than today. You may argue the motives and the end effects but the recent attacks on speech send a chill up my spine. I call them attacks just as I would call burning or censoring library books in our schools attacks on free speech.

In the last few months, I've read article after article about those in government and on the periphery who seem to want to "level the playing field" where talk radio is concerned.

I personally despise that term. It presupposes that one concept should be lowered to allow a weaker concept to flourish. Too bad we can't level the playing field in baseball...then the Yankees wouldn't be such a threat come October. The idea of "leveling the playing field" is foreign to our republic insomuch as we applaud those who aspire to greatness.

But I digress...

Mark Lloyd wants to level the playing field in radio, the "Net Neutrality" rules are meant to level the playing field online. Both ideas are nothing more that a "fairness doctrine" meant to weaken what the market has determined is successful and replace it with an opposing viewpoint...that doesn't sell advertising. There's a reason that Al Franken ran for the senate...his radio show on Air America had no audience to speak of.

The website that the White House put up to rat on your neighbors about health care springs immediately to mind as well. That was a gem that the Pillsbury Spokesboy, Robert Gibbs had a hard time explaining. For being the smartest press secretary ever, this guy can really be a dunce sometimes.

John Morley, prominent British politician and thinker of the late 19th century once wrote, "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."

The White House's recent attempts to marginalize Fox News and to call it "not a news organization" is another example of the assault on speech. Again, agree or disagree with Fox News, you cannot deny that they disseminate information for a vast number of viewers and listeners every day. Since the inception of the idea of a press pool, the shared responsibility of all the major news networks, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and FNC, never has the White House sought to exclude a member of the press from interviewing a member of the cabinet.

That is, not until last week when the White House decided that since they had determined that FNC is not a news outlet and should be excluded from interviewing the "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg concerning his decision to cut the pay of the top execs at companies that took bailout money. President Obama sent out his pit bulls, David Axelrod, Anita Dunn and Rahm Immanuel to the Sunday shows to decry the unfair treatment the president had been subjected to at the hands of FNC. Rahm Immanuel even went so far as to issue a tacit yet understood warning to the other networks not to treat FNC as a news outlet, lest they suffer the same fate. Right after hearing Anita Dunn talk about the lack of journalistic fidelity of FNC, we learned that Mao Tse Tung was her favorite political philosopher.

Maosketeer Anita reporting for duty!

In the 70's and 80's the press used to act like a watchdog over government, skeptical of those in power and always asking the tough questions., Now they act like lapdogs cowering at the feet of power for a taste of the scraps after dinner. To their chagrin, the White House lost the short battle with FNC as the bureau chiefs decided that if FNC was excluded, then none of them would interview Feinberg. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall after all.

These attempts will fail in the end but the thought of seeing the government trying to silence speech fills me with such mistrust and disgust that at times all I can do is ask myself where my republic scampered off too. It was here last night when I went to sleep but it seems to have gotten misplaced when I wasn't looking.

I find the words of Jefferson comforting when all else seems to spin out of control.

"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."

There are days when I'm not sure which one I am.

Which one are you?

Behavior Modification

I decided to forgo my usual weekly rant about the news to expand on something that got me thinking recently. I hope you'll indulge me.

I had an interesting exchange with a friend the other day that left me wondering about the concept of behavior modification and it's place in modern society in America. His point was that conservatives tend to want to dictate behavior in the bedroom and to a degree, he was correct. Not so much these days but in the late 70's and early 80's the conservative movement had trouble accepting alternative lifestyles. Change in the conservative movement comes slowly and at a great price when it comes at all. I will not attempt to downplay the faults and shortsightedness of the movement here. My only goal is to show the correlation between how conservatives try to dictate behavior and how liberals try to do it.

Leaving aside the old maxim of how to boil a frog, I'll simply say that at minimum, conservatives are more open and up front in how they dictate behavior. Laws were passed, generations ago banning sodomy and the like as a misguided attempt to "regulate" homosexuality. Most have been overturned as unconstitutional or just written off the books as grossly incompetent and rightly so. I find no fault with how an individual defines his or her own relationship. Being agnostic, I tend to view same sex relationships from a Darwinian point of view: Natures only goal is to propagate the species. Barring this, the species dies. I don't place a religious or even a spiritual premium on the subject. I look at it only from the standpoint of whether or not the species will survive based on it's behavior. I won't attempt to argue the right or wrong of it, my only thought is to give the reader an insight into my own thought process.

Having said all that, let's now take a look at how liberals have played the behavior modification game throughout the last 20 or 30 years.

Starting in the 70's, we all heard about the awful trend of tuna fisherman snaring dolphins inadvertently and the poor creatures being destroyed as a result. Soon, the cries of "Dolphin safe tuna!" were everywhere. You were considered beastly if you chose to eat tuna that didn't have a "dolphin safe" label on the can. Several tuna companies were forced to change how the fish was caught, how the product was packaged and sold and ultimately, how much it cost the consumer.
A small price to pay for safer waters for our friendly cousins, the dolphins.

Also in the 70's came the advent of the the 1.5 gallon per flush toilet. Remember that one? We were about to run out of water so the government, in it's infinite wisdom, swooped in to save the day. No more toilets in residences would be more than 1.5 gallons to conserve water. The only trouble was, you had to flush twice to get the job done. I know many of you are cringing at this particular topic but it's illustrative of what was to come.

By the end of the 70's, the behavior modification game was just finding it's legs in society and was expanding into more areas with the help of groups like The Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society and the National Wildlife Federation. These groups, spurred by the popularity of the first "Earth Day" celebration in 1970, began to see the value of tapping into the national psyche by promoting what appeared to be a harmless agenda of an "Earth-centric ideology" that everyone could agree with. They would quickly become more radicalized and spawn even more radical groups like Greenpeace, PETA and ELF with ELF earning the title of a domestic terrorist organization for it's penchant for destruction and it's reign of terror in California.

By the end of the 80's, environmental groups had played a major role in pushing policy through Washington DC and changing the way Americans ate, drove, worked and played. Dolphin safe tuna and low usage flush toilets were only the beginning for the now radical, environmental "new left" that sought to impose their ideology and agenda on an entire nation. By the end of the 80's the concept of conservation went far beyond just using less and saving more. It blossomed into regulating how farmers used their own lands to grow and sell crops and livestock. They told us how hot or cold our houses should be, what we could use to bring our groceries home: paper or plastic?, they told us what kind of mileage we should get in our vehicles, what kind of cleaners and solvents we could use, what kind of appliances we should buy and now...what kind of light bulbs I can use.

While many environmental groups did great works ridding the country of lead and mercury in consumer products and enabling clean air and water acts through Congress, they inevitably went too far after enjoying success. "If we can dictate ten things, then we can dictate a hundred." must have been the philosophy.

My only real point, after all this, is only this: While conservatives may indeed sought to regulate behavior in the bedroom, liberals have sought to regulate my behavior in every other room of my house covertly, secretly by employing a strategy of subterfuge to distract me while they seek to impose even stronger regulations. I will submit that the Congess' latest ploy is Cap and Trade, also called Cap and Tax because that is precisely what it will do. It will add a multitude of taxes on every energy source we Americans rely on to go about our day. Call it behavior modification that benefits the likes of Al Gore and George Soros, both heavily invested in the concept of carbon credits and it's resulting industry.

Socialized Medicine, lovingly referred to as a "Public Option" by liberals, seeks to modify behavior in ways most of us can't even imagine yet. Talk of higher taxes on sugary drinks like some juices and sodas can only be the start of what will eventually lead to taxing anything that may be detrimental to my health. Like riding a motorcycle or sky-diving.

I know I may sound paranoid but it's inevitable that the heavy hand of government must surely lay the smacketh down on me should I decide to eat a twinkie.

Affirmative Action and the Nobel Peace Prize

As I'm sure you've all already heard, President Obama won the Nobel Peace prize. It was announced Friday morning to cheers and jeers all across the globe. The announcement drew sharp criticism from the right for reasons of having no real accomplishments to speak of to be so deserving of such a high honor. After all, Jimmy Carter spent 20 years kissing the rear end of every fascist he met before he was nominated. The left crowed triumphantly as if the party itself had won the prize. I'm quite certain that Chris Matthews has been in an orgasmic stupor since hearing the announcement.

Left or right aside, he doesn't deserve it. It smacks of social engineering by the Nobel committee and the President should have had the class and dignity to decline it. He won't of course. This has been the story of his entire career and I would guess, most of his life. Promotion without accomplishment...accolades without achievement. It's certainly been the defining mark of his still young presidency. He's accomplished very little yet the media, for the most part, seems to think he's already changed the world.

What disturbs me most of all is that he appears to believe his own press these days. The Nobel committee isn't helping that one damn bit either. When you consider that the cud off date for nominations is February 1st, that means the committee had only 12 days to use as consideration for his "achievements in the area of promoting peace."

12 days. I'll bet I can find 12 days in my own life that could be considered for the peace prize too. Like the time I worked at a homeless shelter handing out meals as part of a "Artists Against Hunger" campaign sponsored by the music store where I taught. Or when I served in the military and was part of a group of soldiers that spent a month touring Germany...entertaining the German citizens by showcasing that the Army was more than just trained killers. I shook hands with Irwin Rommel's grandson during that tour. I secretly admired Rommel as a military commander only back then as I had a passion for military history for a time in my youth.

I'll not bore you with the details of the life and legacy of Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite. Suffice to say that he has arguably changed the world for good and for ill at the same time. I'll settle for a little insight into the Peace Prize only for the purposes of our discussion here.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:

"during the preceding year...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Taken in that context, as we should after all...it IS Nobel's final request, Obama hasn't accomplished any of what is mentioned. He certainly can't have done it in the 12 days it took the committee to nominate him. I heard the news and was stunned and dumbfounded that someone with so little concrete accomplishments would even be considered let alone win. Something about it, beyond the obvious, didn't sit well with me. It mulled in my brain all day and drove me to distraction until it slipped into place. I would almost swear I could hear a faint click as it locked into place. The question that kept plaguing me was this:

If he didn't deserve such a lofty, coveted prize, how could he have won?

The answer was much simpler than I was giving it credit for.

The Nobel committee was merely playing by the same rules that most Democrats play by. In fact, the committee used a favorite policy of the left to justify the reward...

Affirmative Action.

That's it. In a nutshell, they gave Obama the award for what he was capable of but not deserving of yet. This is the essence of affirmative action. Awarding someone with less than stellar achievements on the basis that without a little nudge, they can't do it themselves. We've all heard the stories of the unintended consequences of affirmative action. Deserving students with 4.0 grade averages being denied entry into some of our most prestigious universities and colleges based solely on the color of their skin. Job applicants being turned away because a company needs "more women and minorities" than it needs qualified people.

This is what the Nobel committee did. They gave the prize to someone who otherwise would not have been qualified over more deserving individuals based solely...on the color of his skin. I think the award was partly to poke former president Bush in the eye, but I suspect that it was primarily to give the award to a black president. Skin color was the deciding factor though in this case.

It's at this point that my liberal friends begin to feel their blood heat up...I can almost hear the accusations forming in their minds...

RACIST!

Not in the least. There is nothing else that explains the award. This man now sits in the company of Mother Theresa, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Begin and Sadat, the 14th Dalai Lama and Lech Walesa--a hallowed list of those people who put peace and brotherhood above the security of their own lives. Obama has done nothing but promote his own career and his meteoric rise to power as his primary goal in life. His nomination after only 12 days in office and his subsequent win is an indelible stain on the prize for time immemorial. There have been other, more infamous nominations in the past of course. The committee is not without it's dark secrets after all. A short list of other nominees include Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin and everyone's poster boy for peace...Adolph Hitler. It's true... You can't make this stuff up.

There is no other way to see Obama winning the peace prize as nothing more than an attempt by the Nobel committee to insert themselves into history in a public and very disturbing way. When you consider that America is embroiled in protests and division as Obama attempts to alter the fabric of our republic, you can't help but wonder if the committee was drunk...or stupid.

The Week In Review

Well, here we are again at the end of yet another momentous week. A week of cheering throngs in Washington D.C., undercover, hidden camera scandals, heated rhetoric about race and a shattering of decades old promises and alliances.

"Are you now or have you ever been?"

Not since the civil rights movement has our country been so captivated by the issue of race relations. Looking only at the headlines, outside observers might think we were living 1968 all over again.
In a moment of passion and arguably a serious breach of good taste and etiquette, Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, "YOU LIE" during the Presidents speech to both houses last week, touching off a firestorm of protests from the left and hardy slaps on the back from the right. Wilson called the White House, apologized to the President who accepted it graciously and that was to be the end.

Say what you will about Wilson's insult to house protocol, it exposed both sides for what they truly are--partisan hacks stuck on a merry-go-round of hatred for the other side. For the last week now almost every voice of consequence on the left from Maureen Dowd to Hank Johnson to his royal goofiness-- Jimmy Carter, have seen the dark specter of racism in Wilson's outburst on the chamber floor.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D) GA claimed, with a straight face surprisingly enough, that to let Wilson go unpunished for his lapse of good manners, would somehow lead to the KKK roaming the countryside once again in full regalia.

Really Hank? The KKK will somehow magically reconstitute itself into numbers large enough to threaten the entire country?

Maureen Dowd, columnist for the NY Times and noted Hillary fan, said there was a word missing from Wilson's shout. She claims it should have been, "You Lie ...BOY!" Adding that even though the racial epithet wasn't there...it was implied. You could almost feel it. Maureen Dowd is now going to read your tea leaves and predict the future. Well, she can already read minds...through a TV screen. Predicting the future is the next logical step isn't it?

Look out Dionne Warwick, Maureen's psychic friends can beat up your psychic friends!

Jimmy Carter also weighed into the fray adding a certain presidential air to the whole debate.

Not really. I was just kidding. Jimmy Carter is the reason former presidents should retire from the spotlight and keep their mouths shut. Hearing an anti-Semite lecture me on matters of race is beyond the pale. Carter is living proof of the old adage, "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought of as a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Jimmy Carter has disgraced the office on so many occasions it's laughable these days to see him pop his head up and again start uttering nonsense. Night night Jimmy, we'll wake you if we want some kind words about Castro or some unkind words about Jews.

I'll sum it up this way, blacks have become human shields for the left in this country and they willingly join in as often as they can. No black politician ever need feel embarrassed about personal failings or bad policy decisions again. We'll just shout racism at the top of our lungs and the opposition will spend it's time defending their own character instead of looking any closer.
Shouting racism these days is akin to shouting communist in the McCarthy era. It doesn't require any proof on the part of the accuser and instantly brands the accused despite that lack of proof.

"Times change...so do Allies."

Elsewhere in the world of news, President Obama nixed the missile defense shield for eastern Europe on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Wow, the lack of knowledge of history is breathtaking here. In one fell swoop, he turned decades of good will with our Eastern European allies into a new joke for radio talk hosts and late night comedians. Was there no one in the White House who thought maybe choosing this day to kill the shield was a bad idea? Poland actually refused to take Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton's phone call, they were so outraged.

This galactically stupid decision leaves Poland and several other countries vulnerable once again to aggression from neighbors and spits on promises made and kept for many years. Since taking office, Obama shook hands with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Noriega and coddled the likes of Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while simultaneously insulting almost every other traditional ally we have like the Brits, the Canadians the French, and most recently, Eastern Europe.

If president Obama believes, as his actions have dictated, that the US is a member of the "Axis Of Evil", he's certainly putting us in good company.

On a totally unrelated note, Russia's Vladimir Putin announced a meeting with Jeffrey Imelt of GE to discuss how they might be able to do business together.

Totally unrelated my ass. Jeffrey Imelt sits on Obama's economic advisory team. GE also owns NBC and MSNBC, both networks famous for praising the president at every turn. It's possible that the US just sold out our good friends for the sake of political payback to GE, thereby risking millions of lives in the quest of the almighty dollar. I'm wondering where all the anti-big business liberals are right now decrying the evils of a president who kow tows to business as they did when Bush was president. I suspect they'll keep their little hypocritical mouths shut for now.

"Falling far from the tree."

In a stunning turn of events, the media and almost every liberal in congress, was forced to watch as two 20 somethings brought down the might but mighty corrupt ACORN. With only a hidden camera and about $1500.00 in operating capital, these two went to multiple ACORN offices from Baltimore to San Diego exposing the organization as a corrupt, morally reprehensible group of flesh peddlers. The media tried to ignore it, Charlie Gibson actually claimed he'd not heard a word about it. Probably because the NY Times hadn't written about it yet.

Every day brought a new hidden camera video until eventually the House and the Senate could no longer ignore it either. Funding began to be pulled at light speed as both parties tried to distance themselves from ACORN. We've yet to hear from the President as to how he personally feels about his beloved grass roots darlings being exposed as frauds and tax cheats. Remember, he said he was going to bring ACORN in to help "shape the policy in his administration."

Really? That sounds about as stupid as killing a defense shield on the anniversary of Soviet aggression...

Wait......he actually did that too. Too late. You can't make that kind of stupidity up, it occurs naturally.

"Hell No, we won't go...we have to work!"

According to who you ask, there were between 50,000 and 2.2 million people on the mall in Washington last Saturday. Kind of a wide swing in opinion on a head count. Glenn Beck, titular head of the 9-12 Project claims it was closer to one million while Fox news and the Parks service put the number somewhere between 50,000 and 75,000. Either way, it was an impressive demonstration to be sure. Primarily owing to the fact that it's tough to get that many conservatives to march about anything.

The old media found as many nutjobs with signs as they could and crowed about how angry and racist the crowd was. One line overheard from the media was, "I haven't seen that many racists in one spot since George Wallace was around." That's a pretty bold if ignorant statement. To say that every person there was a racist was just a way to minimize the passion they felt. There were racists there, to be sure, but race was not the single governing factor in why those people marched.

It was a culmination of the tea partiers march across America and the 9-12 Project's march on Washington. Along the way, both groups were co-opted by the angry right we hear so much about from the liberal media. Most wanted a peaceful demonstration of their dissatisfaction with the government in general and the President in particular. His domestic policy has been a shambles of ill spent stimulus money, his foreign policy is a nightmare of appeasement to our enemies and his Health Care reform efforts have frightened the daylights out of seniors and just about everyone else on the right.

I'll make no judgment on what every member of the crowd was thinking or feeling last weekend. I'm not Maureen Dowd or Hank Johnson. I don't see racists everywhere like they do. I can't read minds like they can. There were some stupid and offensive signs carried by people with less than a stunning intellect I'll grant you but not all were like that.

Sorry Jimmy, I just don't buy it. Maybe your generation would have had a problem with a black man as president...not mine. Despite the fact that I disagreed with Obama on almost everything, well...except Kanye West being a jackass, I felt a measure of pride that the country I loved so much had finally risen above it's hateful past to propel a person of color to the White House. There was a small feeling of satisfaction mixed with feelings of loss. America is ready for a black president, I just don't think Liberals are ready to hear that black president be called out on matters of truth, policy differences or his radical friends without screaming racism with every other breath.

After all...they keep reminding me that he's black. I figured that out all by myself. Let it go now and let's look at the content of his character...like MLK said we should.

Just The Facts...

I've resisted it for too long. I've fought it with every fiber of my being for months now and I can take it no longer. So many around me with the same political views as myself have said it and I told them to choose their words carefully. I thought I was being the voice of reason against the howling mob.

Turns out I was wrong.

I've always known Obama was a radical even before the election. I looked into his background, his associations and friends with the interest we should all put into a candidate before we decide to give him our most precious gift, our vote. Too often, we give that gift to someone and they inevitably repay us with deceit and deception. I'm one of those people who believes you can tell a great deal about a man by those he calls his friends. I've gotten more politically active in recent years by virtue of having been a flaming, save the whales, corporate America is evil, where's the nearest tree--I need a hug, liberal you can imagine.
I felt betrayed by Clinton to such a degree that it soured me to liberalism forever. Even as a conservative I still see the evil in the Republican party. There's precious little difference left between the two established parties now. The upper echelon of both sides are now indistinguishable from each other. Both sides seek to gain and hold power for themselves alone. Not as a hedge against the other side, more as a way to stay in the star chamber at all costs. I recently began thinking that to vote for either would be a vote for mediocrity.

That is, until I began to see just how radical Obama really was.

I've read article after article online about the people he surrounds himself with and I began to notice a very distinct pattern. Now only are the people he surrounds himself with radical, many are either Marxists (by either their own admission or their writings) or avowed communists. I started to see the political chessboard as it was being laid out. All the pieces neatly in place now-- the game almost ready to begin.

I still feel that oh so familiar twinge of paranoia that I always do when I think like this. I guard against it constantly to retain some semblance of objectivity. I struggle mightily at times to retain a sense of cautious hope for the basic decency in our elected officials but that has been stripped away. I feel a sense of dread that goes deeper than mistrusting some greedy, political fat cat out to get his slice of the special interest pie. I actually fear for the future of the republic now.

Two recent articles left me in stunned amazement after I read them. The first was the appointment of a new Czar, Mark Lloyd, as the Chief of Diversity for the FCC. Just those two words together should start the alarm bells ringing--"diversity" and "FCC" about the prospect of a covert attempt at silencing speech. Since the "Fairness Doctrine" had been shot down by the congress, I naturally assumed that the market would rule supreme in the business of television and radio.

It's a simple free market concept really, if there are voices on either side with an audience, the market will adopt them if for no other reason than to make money. It's the most basic premise of the free market economy. If there is a way to make money from someone's viewpoint, the market will find it and it will succeed if the audience is there. Howard Stern is a perfect example. Personally, I find Howard Stern crass and vulgar but he has an audience that the market can make money from. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have an audience that the market can make money from. The problem is that most Liberal talk hosts can't find a market due to the obvious fact that the vast majority of talk radio listeners are conservative. It doesn't mean the market doesn't exist for them to speak their minds, it means the audience doesn't exist in great enough numbers for the market to make any money from it.
It's not some dark conspiracy, it's just the facts.

The second article was about a bill before the congress that would allow the President "emergency control of the internet during a cyber crisis". The bill is so vague in spots as to be almost a blank check to shut off internet access to anyone who has a connection in the interest of "national security".

Either of these alone would be bad but when coupled together they take on a sinister quality that sends a shiver up my spine. The odds that either could actually be enacted are slim but possible. What really goes to the heart of my fear is that either would ever actually be considered at all. Does no one in Washington hearing about either of these have any hesitation that these two ideas might be infringing on free speech?

The facts are these:

We've seen the government leap in to control and regulate the banking and housing industry to include the appointment of a "Pay Czar" to determine how much money certain individuals can make, the restructuring of the automobile industry that started with President Obama demanding former G.M. CEO Rick Wagoner step down. The President decided that both restructuring plans for GM and Chrysler were insufficient and he refused to grant them any more money until they adopted plans that he agreed with. The trouble is that the President does not possess the constitutional authority to do any of this.

From Wikipedia,

"While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, almost led to full employment during the 1930s (statistics didn't include non-citizens or women), real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. In place of ordinary profit incentive to guide investment, investment was guided through regulation to accord with needs of the State. Government financing eventually came to dominate the investment process, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933 and 1934 to approximately 10 percent in 1935-1938. Heavy taxes on profits limited self-financing of firms. The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however government control of these were extensive enough to leave "only the shell of private ownership."

Bearing in mind the two examples of media control I just mentioned, let's go back to Wikipedia,

"When the Nazis took power the Propaganda Ministry was established almost immediately. It was charged with enforcing Nazi doctrine on the people and controlling public opinion. However, the Ministry became even more important after the outbreak of war.

World War II was conducted with a much greater level of propaganda than World War I, especially in the new media of film and radio. Because of practical experience and scientific occupation with propaganda in Europe and USA, propaganda was organized in a planned fashion. A new psychological warfare was born.

"I consider radio to be the most modern and the most crucial instrument for influencing the masses.." was a famous and important quote from Goebbels. Radio was undoubtedly exploited to its full potential by the Nazis. Radio manufacturers received grants from the government to build cheaper receivers; these sets were manufactured so that they could not pick up foreign, non-Nazi broadcasts. In addition, criminal penalties were set in place for listening to non-German radio stations; by the height of World War II, persons in Nazi Germany or in lands under Nazi occupation could be executed for this act.

One could replace the word "radio" with "internet" and have the new policy right before their eyes.

How much more do I need to think that a totalitarian, fascist inspired state is being built, brick by brick around our Republic? The only difference seems to be that Obama is allowing the memory and adoration of that Republic to be used as a shell to prop up what's coming. Like any new wall being built around an old one, once the new structure is strong enough to stand on it's own...you tear the old one down.

But I'm just a crazy, right wing, hate monger...what do I know?

The Week In Review

Well, it has been a week of news hasn't it? We learned a lot about how our government works but precious little as to why it does the things it does.

We've got the head of Justice, Eric Holder, pressing forward with investigations into the actions of the CIA and it's contractors about interrogation techniques. As of this date, head of the CIA Leon Panetta will have his agency provide funds for attorneys from his own budget. So we've got one arm of government investigating another arm of government and taxpayers paying for the attorneys to defend CIA employees. I couldn't make this up if I tried. I never cease to be amazed at the ways gov't bureaucrats find to spend my money. This is like what the government would be like if the Marx Brothers ran the show. All this after President Obama promised that he would stop thinking about the past and start thinking about the future. Another pie in the sky promise down the tubes.

On the free speech front, we learned news of the most serious assault on free speech since the Patriot Act. It would appear that the FCC now has a diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, and he intends to ratchet up his hatred of conservative talk radio to a new level. CNSNews' Matt Cover writes,

"Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate."

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.” (emphasis added)

He uses the word "ensure" with such ease it frightens me. Put another way, he intends to use the might of the Federal Government to force media outlets to say what he thinks they should be saying. Does anyone remember Pravda? (emphasis needed)

In a related story, "Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.", writes Declan McCullagh with CNET News. This would allow the president to have control over the internet of every American that is connected.

I keep joking that I wouldn't be so paranoid if they didn't keep giving me reasons. I'm not laughing anymore now. Now, I'm beginning to get scared. Left to it's own devices, the Government would have control over Television news, print media AND the internet. In New York...they call that the trifecta. Hugo Chavez, communist extraordinaire, is attempting the same thing in Venezuela. He calls it "returning the airwaves to the people" but what he's really doing is shutting down the outlets that speak ill of him and trumpeting his message of a workers paradise on all the rest.

For those of you who bristle when I even so much as hint about Obama's latent fascist tendencies, I implore you to tell me why this isn't the encroachment of fascism in our own country.

On a happier note...Ted Kennedy is dead. I spent one day not saying anything nasty about Ted. He got his 24 hours from me. Which is consequently about how long it took him to admit that he had been in the car with Mary Jo Kopechne the night she drowned. I actually read an article titled, "The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought Of Ted's Career?"
An interesting premise except...we can't ask her.....she's DEAD! Liberals ability to play the moral relevance game used to just amuse me, then they infuriated me. This story disgusts me to no end. Referring to her as a "foot note" is to minimize her as a person who had parents, siblings and a future...that is, until she met Teddy. I love people who say, Mary Jo would have forgiven him. Too bad the one person who can forgive him is dead. Chris Matthews must have felt his leg tingling again when he uttered the words, "Obama is the last Kennedy brother. Ted passed the torch to him."

Anyone wanna see what a slightly used hamburger looks like? Low mileage...one owner.

I've been watching Glenn Beck on TV this week because I was curious what he must be saying to inspire such hatred in the rest of the cable news networks who incidentally can't muster a tenth of his ratings. All week long he's been profiling our new Czars. Outside the reach of the congress, they answer to no one. They can't be compelled to testify, they don't have to answer to the people, they exist as a sort of shadow government. Above and outside the laws they presume to make the rest of us adhere to.

I used to love Glenn Beck before he became the "Grim Weeper". When he used to have fun on the radio. For a while, he was on the edge...then he went over. This week, he's been more coherent than usual and much to my surprise, and dismay honestly, he's beginning to make sense finally. He has a slightly schizophrenic approach to his show. Bouncing around from topic to topic, wildly gesticulating and having the camera zoom in to uncomfortable closeness. This week, he's been making the case for the radical background of the people the President insists on calling his advisers and Czars. He makes sense. Oddly enough...he makes a scary kind of sense that I am uncomfortable admitting to myself. I have obviously not been doing my homework well enough.

This week has revealed a lot to me and I, in turn, have passed much of it on through Facebook. Partly to hopefully enlighten those who would read it and partly to bolster my own sense of incredulity. I know I've annoyed some, amused others and been ignored by most. That's ok, I'm fine with that.

Consider this my journal of what it was like...

just before the end of our republic.

fin

A Health Care "Pep Rally"

An ominous, overcast sky cast a gloom over Mundy's Mill High School, site of Rep. David Scott's (D) GA District 13, "Health Fair" as it was billed on the school's website. This was his fifth annual event and the first held here at this newly built school. The school is modern and in immaculate condition. Just the place to hold this type of event.

Upon arriving at the entrance to the school's massive parking lot, the first thing one notices is the rather large and very obvious police presence. There were uniformed officers in plain view at every possible location in and around the school. Dozens of cruisers line the drives and are placed strategically at the front and sides of the school as well. There were several TV remote trucks and a dozen camera crews mingling and setting up for live shots and taped footage to be played later on the local broadcasts. There were even a few radio trucks sent there by local stations to do their own reporting. One Station, KISS FM, was blaring James Brown at levels reminiscent of concerts I'd attended in the past. Papa's got a brand new bag indeed! My initial sense of the event was that of a carnival any school would hold to raise money or awareness on the importance of staying away from drugs or some such cause. I half expected to see face painting displays and a dunking booth.

As I parked, I noticed two women getting out of there car just down the row from me. They were obviously senior citizens and both were carrying small signs showing their opposition to reform. One wore a red, white and blue hat with a placard in the front with Obama's name in a circle with a line through it.

Who ya gonna call? Obama Busters!

I walked across the parking lot and spied to my left a row of seven school buses. Ordinarily this wouldn't raise an eye on a school campus but these buses were from another school district. Besides, Clayton County, where the event is held, parks their buses at a central lot to prevent theft or damage. These had obviously been used to bring in large groups of people. "Which groups did they carry?", immediately sprung to mind. I approached the school from the left side and as I came around the corner, I was met by a young woman wearing a Moveon.org shirt. She immediately asked me to sign a petition supporting the president's reform initiative. I made an excuse that I was here to watch and evaluate and not to choose sides. This was true actually. I had made the choice not to prejudge the event in any way. I wanted only to listen and watch to know what I had seen.

It was a rather large crowd and the parking lot was full after all with cars parked on the grounds surrounding the school as well. I'm not sure what I expected to see as I walked around the corner of the school. I'd seen the raucous videos and heard the loud, angry sound bites on the news for weeks. As I walked across the front of the school, what was obvious first was the diversity in the crowd--blue collar, white collar, white, black, asian etc. At first blush, it looked like a good cross section of the residents of Congressman Scott's district. I live in his district and I'm well aware of the demographics relating to race, income and the like.

I strode past the line waiting to gain entry to the school and was again asked to sign a petition. This time, by a young man in a Moveon.org shirt. I shook my head and walked past two men who were talking, they were within earshot so I shot my ears their way.

"I'm going back to the bus. I ran out of stickers. You need anything?" said the first man, probably in his mid 30's to an older gentleman.

"No, I'm ok right now. I'm gonna need more signs though before he gets started."

"I'll just get another box and you can pass them out."

This entire event was beginning to take on a very slick, very organized feel and I had only been there ten minutes so far. I saw a few signs being carried by the attendees in line. They were overwhelmingly in support and most were the kind of signs I had just heard mentioned. Most of the hand painted or made signs I saw were in opposition. The few that seemed in favor made no mention of health care. One read "Racism is UnAmerican" and another read "Stupidity is a pre-existing condition" I suspect these two individuals arrived with an agenda beyond that of health care reform. I walked casually, taking pictures randomly of the scene and the crowd. I walked further down the line, taking in the conversations as best I could from the distance I had chosen to stay from the crowd.

One gentleman, wearing a t-shirt with the words;

"Masters of
Observing
Bullxxxx"

an obvious reference to the "angry mobs" we've all been hearing about in the news, was having a rather spirited debate with the woman behind him about reform. It was passionate but respectful on both sides. They both felt strongly about their positions and neither seemed moved by the other's argument. My curiosity finally got the better of me and I had to go inquire of the man carrying the sign about racism why he chose that particular sign.

I approached him and asked if he minded answering a few questions. I explained I was writing a blog and just wanted to ask him a few basic questions. I had already picked three basic questions beforehand to maintain a semblance of impartiality. The questions I wanted to ask, I thought, would give me and anyone who might read this, a sense of who was really attending and where they stood on the issue.

His name was Eric Smith and he was from Decatur, as were the three friends he was standing with. It's important to note here that Decatur, where these four men were from, is not in the 13th district. At last, I had stumbled upon the "astro-turf" I had heard so much about. He explained that his sign was in response to the swastika that had been spray painted on Congressman Scott's Smyrna office sign. When asked if he expected that kind of sentiment at this event he replied,

"When don't you see it? It's everywhere now man." He turned to one of his friends just then and said, "Look at Bubba Gump over there with the sign."

I turned to see what he was talking about and saw a young black man carrying a sign that read, "Obama = Socialism". He turned back to me and I asked him if he'd read the bill to which he replied, "I don't need to read the bill, that's what them people in Washington are supposed to do." A woman in front of him, who had been listening to us, spoke up as well, "Who can understand that gobbledy-gook anyway? It's not like they're speaking a language any of us can understand is it?" I joked with her that she was right and that Congress had stopped speaking English a long time ago. Thanking them for their time I sauntered further down the line and caught these words as I passed a man in line talking to someone holding a clipboard,

"Now why would I sign that if I don't even know what it stands for?"

Intrigued, I wandered over and waited for the clipboard carrier to move off. I asked the gentleman his name and if he'd mind a few questions.

"My name is Tim and that kool-aid drinker was wasting my time. He wants me to sign a petition but won't tell me what it's a petition for. Stupid Moveon people think everyone thinks like they do." He explained that he lived in Clayton county and was here to ask questions and maybe learn something new. His tone suggested he doubted that but he had come anyway.

"I just want someone to tell me why we have to do it right now and how the hell we're gonna pay for it. I've got health insurance and I don't need Obama messing with it."

Curious about the petition he was asked to sign, I walked over to the young man carrying the clipboard and asked him for a few moments of his time. He was more than courteous and smiled broadly saying, "Anything for the press!"

I explained that I was just writing a blog and the term "press" might not apply in this instance. He simply smiled and told me to ask away.

Miguel Santiago was a member of Moveon.org and had been bused here today from Decatur along with about 25 fellow members to get petitions signed and to pass out signs and stickers in support of the president's reform initiative. He'd been with Moveon for about two years and explained that his resistance to the Iraq war had drawn him in to better organize his protestations of it. When asked if the Congressman had had any involvement in having his people out here today he said,

"Not directly but we can't let this opportunity pass by. We have to get out and stop the lies that the right is telling about health care reform. There are people out there dying because they have no insurance and it's time to stop it. Time to make it better."

He said that someone from his local chapter had contacted the Congressman's office and asked how they could help.

"And here we are!" he said cheerfully.

It was at this moment that my objectivity began to slip as I realized that the organization, the astro-turfing was all one sided indeed and it was the left that was doing it. I met one supporter of health care reform that actually lived in the district. That's not to say that there weren't more but in the unscientific sampling I took, it shook out this way;

For reform - out of 8 people I talked to, only one lived in the district.

Against reform - out of 7 people I talked to all but one lived in the district. (The one from outside the district had grown up in Clayton county and was here with family members who still did.

The only coordination I saw was from Moveon.org and they brought a myriad of people to sway opinion. I stayed for the panel discussion and the town hall but watched the first 15 questions come from people who had been preselected and placed in the front row. Questions were taken for the first 45 minutes by a lottery system and not asked of the audience. The Congressman answered most of these questions with the same talking points that the President had been using.

"If you like your health care, you keep your health care."
"This is not a government take over of health care."
"No one wants to come between you and your doctor."

The one interesting thing he said that drew boos from the crowd was that he intended to pay for reform but taxing the top 1% of earners who can," Afford to give us a helping hand in this."

I turned and walked away knowing that I wasn't going to hear anything of any substance here today. If the Congressman truly thinks punishing the wealthy by excessive taxation is really "giving a helping hand" then there was no further reason to stay.

No, I'm not a journalist. My ability to spot bullshit from a mile away makes being objective in the face of that kind of stupidity impossible.

What's REALLY in the health care "reform" bill.

A special thanks to Mr. Lewis for interpreting the "legal-eze" that makes keeping an eye on your government so hard. God bless you sir and a long life to you...away from Obamacare!

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says

John David Lewis

August 6, 2009

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

8. 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

9. 9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.