(Originally posted on Two Cents' Worth)
I received a fund-raising e-mail from the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago, specifically attributed to, and signed by, Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman. Now, that is not so surprising, as we all get these relatively harmless missives from time to time.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I very seldom read these things, and I haven’t, to the best of my memory, ever sent any money to the RNC, either in response to one of these letters or any other request. You see, I happen to believe that the RNC has no business taking our money and shoveling it like so much fertilizer to the candidates or groups that they (the NRC) choose to support (fairly analogous to what the Government does with our taxes, I guess). They apparently base their selections on perceived electability as an (R), regardless of whether those candidates are aware of, let alone strong advocates for, the conservative values that the Republican Party theoretically stands for (and that I definitely stand for!).
Tell me if I am wrong, but did the RNC not strongly back Arlen Specter (spit!) in his last election? Heck, even all the way down here in Texas, one could see that he has been a traitor to conservative values for several years now. Could those smart cookies at the RNC not see such an obvious thing, or did they not care because he was electable as an (R)? Either way, they rank right up there with the Government on the list of organizations to which I am willing to hand my money for re-distribution. At least with the RNC, I can make the decision to exercise a choice without being hounded by the law.
But I did read this one, mainly because Mr. Steele had piqued my interest by showing a little backbone a week or so ago and I thought that we might actually be seeing some real conservative leadership. Alas, I was fated to reinforce my developing view that the Republican Party and I have almost nothing in common anymore.
The talking points that were addressed in this email were predictable and, frankly, insulting to the (presumed) target audience. The only positive aspect was that they didn’t point out how smart Obama supposedly is, even though the evidence seems to suggest that he reads a teleprompter very well (an admirable talent, for sure) but in no way takes those words and converts them into coherent, logical thoughts. I am struck by the similarity between logical thought/Obama’s teleprompter and logical thought/authors of this email.
Mr. Steele, you say that “last year the Democrats told voters they would bring "change" to Washington, but their version of change has been to push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined,” and assert that that is why you believe America needs the Republican Party now more than ever before. Are you kidding me? I am sorry, sir, to have to tell you that a lot of us not only imagined, but clearly understood, just how far and fast it would be done. We just weren’t able to get it through to the “bright” guys who happen to have control of the reins.
You say that “some people who were willing to take Barack Obama at his word when he campaigned as a reasonable, moderate candidate are coming to realize the unfortunate truth.” Why did you guys not find a way to get the message out about the lies Obama was telling while he was telling them? It is a little late now!
Come to think of it, where were you when the MSM and the piddle-head Republicans were bashing Sarah Palin during this election you were so concerned about? Oh, yeah! I forgot! Many of those cats were right in the middle of it!
Also, I will believe that you supported the Tea Parties as a “groundswell of popular grassroots opposition” when you can show me that you or your personal representatives helped to develop, fund and advertise them. Until then, I will continue to believe that you are just using the obvious popularity of those efforts to try to hang your fund-raising hat on. That's another one of those things that we "dummies" can readily recognize - the difference between sincerity and BS.
And this thing about chiding the Dimmocrats about lack of fiscal responsibility: What a joke that is! Have you paid any attention at all to the pork-grabbing, as well as other waste and fraud perpetuated by your Republican buddies?
If this was viewed on high as a stirring call to arms of the Republican proletariat (i.e. those of us whose opinions do not count, but whose votes and money are needed), I would suggest that your viewing device, like the Hubble telescope once did, needs a replacement lens. Polish it with liberal doses of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Burt Prelutsky, Michelle Malkin, as well as many others who "get it." Maybe if you actually listen to Rush and Laura and Glenn Beck and even Lou Dobbs, you might get some idea of what we stand for. Instead, you try to gain favor with the press by taking potshots at those who reflect our real feelings.
Don’t waste your paper or band-width asking for money from me. I will be looking to vote for and support the party that has a ticket of Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin, or philosophical equivalents. I’m willing to bet that you and the powers-that-be of the Republican Party can’t even imagine why I feel that way, and very likely do not care.
Trust me! That has become a mutual feeling.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
MSM: Squealer Incarnate
Often, in order to define or understand some modern-day phenomenon, it is instructive to refer to the writings that have withstood the test of time.
It is hard to imagine a more appropriate and revealing application of that truism than the use of George Orwell's Animal Farm to illustrate what is going on in America today. The parallels between Orwell's characters and the current elements of government, other political institutions, and assorted enablers are eerily and precisely striking. It is almost as if Orwell was sitting at a keyboard only yesterday, writing about a 21st century farm, America, instead of at a typewriter in 1943-44, addressing the Russian Revolution of some ninety years ago.
Although it would be a highly interesting exercise to identify and thoroughly develop the 2009 characters, my intent is to only provide the definitive answer to an exercise generated by Bernard Goldberg a few days ago, namely, what the best name for today's media, which clearly no longer is reflective of main stream America.
Well, Mr. Goldberg, I submit for your consideration the term Squealer Incarnate, or Squealer for short, as the perfect name for the collective socialism enablers at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.! etc.! etc.!
The evidence to support my recommendation follows in the form of character descriptions from two sources. I have bold-ed the parts of their descriptions/summaries that I feel are particularly pertinent:
mass media. In Animal Farm, the silver-tongued pig Squealer abuses language
to justify Napoleon’s actions and policies to the proletariat by whatever means
seem necessary. By radically simplifying language—as when he teaches the
sheep to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!”—he limits the terms of debate.
By complicating language unnecessarily, he confuses and intimidates the
uneducated, as when he explains that pigs, who are the “brainworkers” of the
farm, consume milk and apples not for pleasure, but for the good of their
comrades. In this latter strategy, he also employs jargon (“tactics, tactics”) as
well as a baffling vocabulary of false and impenetrable statistics, engendering in
the other animals both self-doubt and a sense of hopelessness about ever
accessing the truth without the pigs’ mediation. Squealer’s lack of conscience
and unwavering loyalty to his leader, alongside his rhetorical skills, make him
the perfect propagandist for any tyranny. Squealer’s name also fits him well:
squealing, of course, refers to a pig’s typical form of vocalization, and Squealer’s
speech defines him. At the same time, to squeal also means to betray, aptly
evoking Squealer’s behavior with regard to his fellow animals."
"Squealer: Squealer is an intriguing character in Orwell's Animal Farm. He's first
described as a manipulator and persuader. Orwell narrates, "He could turn
black into white." Many critics correlate Squealer with the Pravda, the Russian
newspaper of the 1930's. Propaganda was a key to many publications, and since
their was no television or radio, the newspaper was the primary source of media
information. So the monopoly of the Pravda was seized by Stalin and his new
Bolshevik regime. In Animal Farm, Squealer, like the newspaper, is the link
between Napoleon and other animals. When Squealer masks an evil intention of
the pigs, the intentions of the communists can be carried out with little
resistance and without political disarray. ..."
I suggest that every concerned American read, or re-read, Animal Farm, or at least go to one of these sites and brush up on what George Orwell was saying about totalitarian governments.
And start calling the "MSM" Squealer - it will get under their skin, I'll bet!
It is hard to imagine a more appropriate and revealing application of that truism than the use of George Orwell's Animal Farm to illustrate what is going on in America today. The parallels between Orwell's characters and the current elements of government, other political institutions, and assorted enablers are eerily and precisely striking. It is almost as if Orwell was sitting at a keyboard only yesterday, writing about a 21st century farm, America, instead of at a typewriter in 1943-44, addressing the Russian Revolution of some ninety years ago.
Although it would be a highly interesting exercise to identify and thoroughly develop the 2009 characters, my intent is to only provide the definitive answer to an exercise generated by Bernard Goldberg a few days ago, namely, what the best name for today's media, which clearly no longer is reflective of main stream America.
Well, Mr. Goldberg, I submit for your consideration the term Squealer Incarnate, or Squealer for short, as the perfect name for the collective socialism enablers at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.! etc.! etc.!
The evidence to support my recommendation follows in the form of character descriptions from two sources. I have bold-ed the parts of their descriptions/summaries that I feel are particularly pertinent:
- From *sparknotes :
"Squealer
Throughout his career, Orwell explored how politicians manipulate language in an age ofmass media. In Animal Farm, the silver-tongued pig Squealer abuses language
to justify Napoleon’s actions and policies to the proletariat by whatever means
seem necessary. By radically simplifying language—as when he teaches the
sheep to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!”—he limits the terms of debate.
By complicating language unnecessarily, he confuses and intimidates the
uneducated, as when he explains that pigs, who are the “brainworkers” of the
farm, consume milk and apples not for pleasure, but for the good of their
comrades. In this latter strategy, he also employs jargon (“tactics, tactics”) as
well as a baffling vocabulary of false and impenetrable statistics, engendering in
the other animals both self-doubt and a sense of hopelessness about ever
accessing the truth without the pigs’ mediation. Squealer’s lack of conscience
and unwavering loyalty to his leader, alongside his rhetorical skills, make him
the perfect propagandist for any tyranny. Squealer’s name also fits him well:
squealing, of course, refers to a pig’s typical form of vocalization, and Squealer’s
speech defines him. At the same time, to squeal also means to betray, aptly
evoking Squealer’s behavior with regard to his fellow animals."
"Squealer: Squealer is an intriguing character in Orwell's Animal Farm. He's first
described as a manipulator and persuader. Orwell narrates, "He could turn
black into white." Many critics correlate Squealer with the Pravda, the Russian
newspaper of the 1930's. Propaganda was a key to many publications, and since
their was no television or radio, the newspaper was the primary source of media
information. So the monopoly of the Pravda was seized by Stalin and his new
Bolshevik regime. In Animal Farm, Squealer, like the newspaper, is the link
between Napoleon and other animals. When Squealer masks an evil intention of
the pigs, the intentions of the communists can be carried out with little
resistance and without political disarray. ..."
I suggest that every concerned American read, or re-read, Animal Farm, or at least go to one of these sites and brush up on what George Orwell was saying about totalitarian governments.
And start calling the "MSM" Squealer - it will get under their skin, I'll bet!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
I can see clearly, now!
After his abomination of a speech at the U.N. (Upchuck Nations) today, Obama has cemented in the minds of all who will open their eyes that Sarah Palin, on her worst day ever, was more prepared to be our President than he was, is, or ever will be.
When, in the future, the idiots of the media try to railroad her on the basis of not being prepared for such a lofty position, the vast majority of the American people will just laugh at them.
What are they going to use in his defense: His tasteful selection of gifts to foreign heads of state? His paying obeisance to every thug ruler in the civilized world? His endless apologizing for the exceptional-ism of the United States? His clearly superior way of strong-arming legislators to get things done? His disdain for the American People? His willingness to actually work with Republicans to reach workable solutions on important issues?
There are plenty of other equally revealing examples, but the usual media suspects will, I am sure, be looking for ways to divert attention from them all.
But there is one nagging little problem: a lot of our fellow citizens have opened their eyes, and do not like much of what they are seeing.
When, in the future, the idiots of the media try to railroad her on the basis of not being prepared for such a lofty position, the vast majority of the American people will just laugh at them.
What are they going to use in his defense: His tasteful selection of gifts to foreign heads of state? His paying obeisance to every thug ruler in the civilized world? His endless apologizing for the exceptional-ism of the United States? His clearly superior way of strong-arming legislators to get things done? His disdain for the American People? His willingness to actually work with Republicans to reach workable solutions on important issues?
There are plenty of other equally revealing examples, but the usual media suspects will, I am sure, be looking for ways to divert attention from them all.
But there is one nagging little problem: a lot of our fellow citizens have opened their eyes, and do not like much of what they are seeing.
Bank of What???
Have you seen this video of Fox's Meghan Kelly interviewing a Bank of America flack? This was concerning the actions of a BoA branch manager in Gaffney, South Carolina, who removed American flags that were being placed, by a family friend, along the route of the funeral procession for Lance Corporal Christopher Fowlkes, a United States Marine who was killed in Afghanistan. As I understand it, the reasons the manager gave were: it was against bank policy and, some of their customers might be offended by the flags.
I deeply admire Meghan Kelly. In fact, I think she is the best in the news part of the business. She asks tough questions and routinely pushes for answers literally until the time allotted for an interview runs out. Her style is decidedly different from the tendencies of many other Fox news personalities to pander to the interviewee after a good question or two. I just wish she had drilled into this even further in nailing this BoA scum's hide to the wall.
The idiot that Bank of America sent out to do damage control very carefully kept to his talking points, even in the face of the fact that his points were, at best, poorly conceived, and at worst, reflective of a corporate policy of anti-Americanism. But, maybe they just want to go along with Obama's view of where we should go as a nation. After all, he does have America's interest at heart, right? And, there will have to be banks, right? Well, why not BoA? They won't even need to change their name (except maybe to change the "c" to a "k").
I have a seething anger about this, because it was much more than dis-respecting the flag. One expects all leftists to do that. But, one would hope that some of them would have the decency to respect the dead, especially one who gave his precious life to protect the freedoms that allow them to be successful in their crass, greedy, stupid and insensitive politically correct behavior. This was not the funeral of just another old white person trying to help Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's belief that whites should step aside and allow blacks to move into power. This was in honor of a United States Marine who died in the service of his country! Who died to protect the right of BoA's idiot managers and smooth talking spokesmen to commit such despicable acts! BoA is no better than the Associated Press creeps who, in the interest of either greed or propaganda, showed utter contempt for our military and their families just a couple of weeks ago in showing the death of Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, in total disregard for the family's wishes. Anything for money and political gain, huh, AP?
See if this litany of his vacuous BoA bromides, in response to Meghan's pointed questioning, makes you feel better about the unspeakable insult to Lance Corporal Fowlkes and his family and friends: "gonna respect the family's privacy"; it shouldn't have happened; this doesn't represent any policy of the BoA; reiterated to our branch managers our policy; we encourage branches to fly the flag; not acceptable and people know that; should use better judgment, and a few more, just as empty of real meaning or understanding. Man, you sure convinced me!
Obviously! Obviously! Obviously! This guy may have set a record for the use of that shallow catchall word which in reality, just points out that, if it were so obvious, this mind-numblingly stupid incident would not have occurred in the first place. Have you got that, BoA?
Also, I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is not so obvious that you care about anything other than damage control. What is obvious is that BoA has failed to educate its spokesmen in the most important maxim of public relations: that the most important thing is sincerity - once you learn to fake that, you've got it made! This guy failed, not only through his over-use of callow attempts at deflection, but also in the fact that, in his remarks, he never acknowledged that this was a direct insult to our Marine, but just kept insisting that there is no BoA corporate policy to dis-respect the flag.
No corporate policy against the flag? Indeed! How about a corporate policy requiring allegiance to the flag as a condition of employment, with special emphasis on total support FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND OUR FLAG?
I am deeply ashamed to admit that my house mortgage and car note are held by this bunch of blowhard anti-American opportunists! I am considering paying them both off immediately or re-financing through some other institution, and I vow to never deal with this bunch again!
How about you joining me?
I deeply admire Meghan Kelly. In fact, I think she is the best in the news part of the business. She asks tough questions and routinely pushes for answers literally until the time allotted for an interview runs out. Her style is decidedly different from the tendencies of many other Fox news personalities to pander to the interviewee after a good question or two. I just wish she had drilled into this even further in nailing this BoA scum's hide to the wall.
The idiot that Bank of America sent out to do damage control very carefully kept to his talking points, even in the face of the fact that his points were, at best, poorly conceived, and at worst, reflective of a corporate policy of anti-Americanism. But, maybe they just want to go along with Obama's view of where we should go as a nation. After all, he does have America's interest at heart, right? And, there will have to be banks, right? Well, why not BoA? They won't even need to change their name (except maybe to change the "c" to a "k").
I have a seething anger about this, because it was much more than dis-respecting the flag. One expects all leftists to do that. But, one would hope that some of them would have the decency to respect the dead, especially one who gave his precious life to protect the freedoms that allow them to be successful in their crass, greedy, stupid and insensitive politically correct behavior. This was not the funeral of just another old white person trying to help Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's belief that whites should step aside and allow blacks to move into power. This was in honor of a United States Marine who died in the service of his country! Who died to protect the right of BoA's idiot managers and smooth talking spokesmen to commit such despicable acts! BoA is no better than the Associated Press creeps who, in the interest of either greed or propaganda, showed utter contempt for our military and their families just a couple of weeks ago in showing the death of Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, in total disregard for the family's wishes. Anything for money and political gain, huh, AP?
See if this litany of his vacuous BoA bromides, in response to Meghan's pointed questioning, makes you feel better about the unspeakable insult to Lance Corporal Fowlkes and his family and friends: "gonna respect the family's privacy"; it shouldn't have happened; this doesn't represent any policy of the BoA; reiterated to our branch managers our policy; we encourage branches to fly the flag; not acceptable and people know that; should use better judgment, and a few more, just as empty of real meaning or understanding. Man, you sure convinced me!
Obviously! Obviously! Obviously! This guy may have set a record for the use of that shallow catchall word which in reality, just points out that, if it were so obvious, this mind-numblingly stupid incident would not have occurred in the first place. Have you got that, BoA?
Also, I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is not so obvious that you care about anything other than damage control. What is obvious is that BoA has failed to educate its spokesmen in the most important maxim of public relations: that the most important thing is sincerity - once you learn to fake that, you've got it made! This guy failed, not only through his over-use of callow attempts at deflection, but also in the fact that, in his remarks, he never acknowledged that this was a direct insult to our Marine, but just kept insisting that there is no BoA corporate policy to dis-respect the flag.
No corporate policy against the flag? Indeed! How about a corporate policy requiring allegiance to the flag as a condition of employment, with special emphasis on total support FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND OUR FLAG?
I am deeply ashamed to admit that my house mortgage and car note are held by this bunch of blowhard anti-American opportunists! I am considering paying them both off immediately or re-financing through some other institution, and I vow to never deal with this bunch again!
How about you joining me?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Do You Think I'm a Racist Just Because ...#4?
When I first started my Town Hall blog, Two Cents' Worth, about a year ago, there were some columns appearing which extolled the "sudden advancement" of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency. They were based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away. It was then, and still is, my feeling that racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we are all better off for it.
So, anyway, I had this brilliant idea to do a little survey to hopefully get some idea of what various people thought would constitute racism on the part of an individual, using some basic behaviors or perceptions that many of us have.
It was a modest little effort, and despite getting (I am sure) thousands upon thousands of hits, it got an even more modest response. No matter! It was a good exercise for me then and I am sure that someday my grandchildren will be able to show it off and brag about my farsightedness.
The technique that I used was to do a base post, Do you think I am Racist Just Because..., which established the background and parameters for the series, and, as well, introduced the first scenario just to get things rolling. I then provided additional scenarios in separate posts. See them here at: #2? and #3?
Today, in visiting some sites around the net, I ran across a brilliant chart, entitled Obama Criticism Flow Chart, at Missourah.com. This simple yet powerful chart (included below) graphically reflects the root cause of one's state of mind relative to the antics being carried on in Washington these days. The intense disagreement that you might have with those antics may not be the simple disgust with socialism that you thought it was.
My own feeling is that leftists have a propensity for using the race card when the going gets a little tough (and that seems to be happening at an increasing rate). In fact, I will go so far as to say that the racism charges hurled by Carter, Pelosi and other left-wing ideologues are generally really false claims to deflect attention from their inability to answer tough questions, or to protect some sacred leftist cow. The "r" word, and its use as a tool for intimidation, appears to be much more prevalent by these "tolerant liberals" than it is by any group of right wing hardliners. It is racism, and is despicable, in the hands of either side.
The new president has spent vast amounts of energy, real money and political capital and has squandered our total international prestige to drag us into situations that no American populace has ever had to face before. The socialist implications of following him down the paths that he is trying to blaze for our country are staggering to the imagination, with the very real possibility that within 5 years there will be no individual freedoms left. Probably 25% of our population is chomping at the bit to go with him, not understanding that they will not be the governing class, but are just useful idiots. Other than the relatively small number who would comprise the major and minor party officials and the state security apparatus, the rest of them will be in the same freedom starved state as the rest of us.
He, aided and abetted by the leftist legislators and press, has misrepresented the real probable impacts to individuals as well as the nation, and has stifled opposing views about the "health crisis" even while claiming to be open to ideas from the other side. He has totally ignored the will of the growing number of people who simply want to be heard. And, yet, the people have raised enough of a stink that they can't even pass the bill, even with a veto-proof legislature. So, what's the path to be taken?
Why, as predictable as clockwork, the collective rant from that gang of thieves starts spreading across the land: the only reason these right wing crazies are against this is because our poor leader has the effrontery to be, gasp, black!
So, if you find yourself getting a little miffed with our leader, maybe it's only because you can't be sure whether it is a real concern or if you are just a racist. To clear your mind, just walk yourself through this chart.
In the words of the Missourah.com web-site: "It’s pretty exhausting trying to keep track of what is legitimate criticism of President Obama and what is racial hatred. That’s why I developed this handy flow chart:"
Obama Criticism Flow Chart
Joe Wilson's Truth
Joe Wilson's only mistake was that he didn't keep talking while he had the floor - he should have spelled out the details until forcibly removed or gagged. Even the Mangy Socialist Media (MSM) would have switched the focus to him just to get it on tape. Those few who were watching for their, seemingly, hourly dose of socialist doctrine would have at least heard some truth, in that evening of studied avoidance of such.
Note: This was the moment in time which forever established the ultimate nickname for our current president. There are a lot of very creative manipulations of the name that he has chosen to go by, and most of them reveal a solid statement on his character or ideology. But, forever, the term ”staring like a deer caught in the headlights” will carry a mental image of Obama’s face at that point in time. Henceforth, he should rightfully be known as Obambi, which many have used before, but which now has the imprimatur of the House chamber and national television cameras.
Obambi's response to Mr. Wilson's contention: staring around for Saul Alinsky or Soros or Ayers, as if to say "You didn’t tell me what to do when someone actually stands up during my speeches and correctly points out that I am lying. What do I do now?” Finding none of them present in the chamber, he abjectly looks to the teleprompter, but no help there, either.
At least he had his wits about him enough to not look toward Heaven for Alinsky, or to turn around for consultation with Ghoul Pelosi or Bilious Biden. I thought for a moment he was going to take the Jeremiah Wright approach, requesting the Almighty to strike down this white American who was telling the truth, and just as he was on a roll with his tapestry of lies!
Then, he remembered just in time that God won’t listen to a person who champions the murder of babies just as they enter the world. More importantly, he realized that he would lose the support of a few million liberals just for pretending to acknowledge that there is a God. Can’t take a chance on shrinking that base!
Now, all of that thought processing might have taken the average citizen several seconds to sort through, but this is a really smart man, as we are constantly reminded by the Sqealers and elitists of all stripes. In a few blinks of an eye, he went through all those possibilities and came to the perfect answer. He calmly looked toward his accuser and semi-forcefully mumbled “not true.”
That is what liberals think of as a brilliant put-down, and he didn’t even have to use foul language, which, of course, further strengthened their view of him as the greatest statesman of our time (maybe forever, but, then, Stalin is a formidable standard for them). They will also sing odes one day to the way he picked right back up on reading his tele-prompted speech after the rabble-rouser Wilson was put in his place.
Of course, one can’t blame Mr. Wilson for not grabbing the opportunity and running with it. He may very well have been looking around himself to see who had dared utter such truth, especially in a chamber that has witnessed so little of that commodity for a half century or more. After all, it is repugnant to think of a member of this venerated House (of ill repute) who doesn’t strive to live up to the decorum and moral standards of the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Murtha, Jerrold Nadler, just to name a few of our courtly representatives. And to think that in this room have sat the tainted (er, I mean sainted) Traitor Ted Kennedy, Chuck "Slimeball" Schumer, John McCain (the Benedict Arnold of conservatism), Lindsey “Can I Find a Way to Compromise on Principles so I Can Look Powerful” Graham, and a host of other craven power seekers.
How can one possibly be so crass as to soil the haunts of that bunch of sycophants and toadies? They, and others, will lead the charge to brand Joe Wilson as something other than “truth teller,” and there is no doubt in my mind that they will herd together to censure him, simply for stating what the vast majority of Americans would have been thinking or saying, had they had the stomach to even watch this charade of a speech.
I like the way Sandy Rios puts it in a Town Hall article. “If the chamber of the Congress of the United States of America isn’t the right place to fight for the future of the Republic, then where is that place?”
In the spirit of truth-telling, and probably to comply with McCain’s campaign reform deal with the devil, I must admit that I sent Joe Wilson a relatively small donation for his re-election effort, as did my wife in a separate action. Mr. Steele and the RNC might take note that Joe Wilson is the type of Republican that I told them I would be willing to support, in my post on Two Cents' Worth, my Town Hall blog, entitled An Open Message to Mr. Steele and the RNC!
Note: This was the moment in time which forever established the ultimate nickname for our current president. There are a lot of very creative manipulations of the name that he has chosen to go by, and most of them reveal a solid statement on his character or ideology. But, forever, the term ”staring like a deer caught in the headlights” will carry a mental image of Obama’s face at that point in time. Henceforth, he should rightfully be known as Obambi, which many have used before, but which now has the imprimatur of the House chamber and national television cameras.
Obambi's response to Mr. Wilson's contention: staring around for Saul Alinsky or Soros or Ayers, as if to say "You didn’t tell me what to do when someone actually stands up during my speeches and correctly points out that I am lying. What do I do now?” Finding none of them present in the chamber, he abjectly looks to the teleprompter, but no help there, either.
At least he had his wits about him enough to not look toward Heaven for Alinsky, or to turn around for consultation with Ghoul Pelosi or Bilious Biden. I thought for a moment he was going to take the Jeremiah Wright approach, requesting the Almighty to strike down this white American who was telling the truth, and just as he was on a roll with his tapestry of lies!
Then, he remembered just in time that God won’t listen to a person who champions the murder of babies just as they enter the world. More importantly, he realized that he would lose the support of a few million liberals just for pretending to acknowledge that there is a God. Can’t take a chance on shrinking that base!
Now, all of that thought processing might have taken the average citizen several seconds to sort through, but this is a really smart man, as we are constantly reminded by the Sqealers and elitists of all stripes. In a few blinks of an eye, he went through all those possibilities and came to the perfect answer. He calmly looked toward his accuser and semi-forcefully mumbled “not true.”
That is what liberals think of as a brilliant put-down, and he didn’t even have to use foul language, which, of course, further strengthened their view of him as the greatest statesman of our time (maybe forever, but, then, Stalin is a formidable standard for them). They will also sing odes one day to the way he picked right back up on reading his tele-prompted speech after the rabble-rouser Wilson was put in his place.
Of course, one can’t blame Mr. Wilson for not grabbing the opportunity and running with it. He may very well have been looking around himself to see who had dared utter such truth, especially in a chamber that has witnessed so little of that commodity for a half century or more. After all, it is repugnant to think of a member of this venerated House (of ill repute) who doesn’t strive to live up to the decorum and moral standards of the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Murtha, Jerrold Nadler, just to name a few of our courtly representatives. And to think that in this room have sat the tainted (er, I mean sainted) Traitor Ted Kennedy, Chuck "Slimeball" Schumer, John McCain (the Benedict Arnold of conservatism), Lindsey “Can I Find a Way to Compromise on Principles so I Can Look Powerful” Graham, and a host of other craven power seekers.
How can one possibly be so crass as to soil the haunts of that bunch of sycophants and toadies? They, and others, will lead the charge to brand Joe Wilson as something other than “truth teller,” and there is no doubt in my mind that they will herd together to censure him, simply for stating what the vast majority of Americans would have been thinking or saying, had they had the stomach to even watch this charade of a speech.
I like the way Sandy Rios puts it in a Town Hall article. “If the chamber of the Congress of the United States of America isn’t the right place to fight for the future of the Republic, then where is that place?”
In the spirit of truth-telling, and probably to comply with McCain’s campaign reform deal with the devil, I must admit that I sent Joe Wilson a relatively small donation for his re-election effort, as did my wife in a separate action. Mr. Steele and the RNC might take note that Joe Wilson is the type of Republican that I told them I would be willing to support, in my post on Two Cents' Worth, my Town Hall blog, entitled An Open Message to Mr. Steele and the RNC!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Is That A Serious Question? - revisited
I do not remember ever being particularly moved by anything Pat Buchanan said or wrote. What little I do seem to remember leads me to the conclusion that the man is out to promote himself more than to further any particular philosophy. It's not that I ignore him or turn the noise down or change the channel, as if he were a Clinton, Obama or McCain. With Buchanan, I try to listen, but just tune out after two or three minutes, since that is how long it takes for the self-promotion to kick in. He is very similar in that way to the likes of Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly. Each of these reminds me of the self-centered party goer who brings his own bottle of wine to the party, because whatever the host has is not good enough for him.
Actually (you may find this hard to believe, I suppose), the intent of this post is not to bash Mr. Buchanan per se, but to address a column by him, posted on Townhall.com, entitled Is America Coming Apart? I did read this one through to the end because he occasionally writes something that is worth reading. In this case, I have yet to decide what his purpose is for a piece like this. The obvious choices would be: he needs the money, to keep his name out there, or he was suffering from jet lag. Otherwise, I can't see why he would expend any mental effort on such drivel because it has no meat on its bones. In today's vernacular, it comes across as a fluff piece.
I mean, is there any question in your mind about whether America is coming apart? Has no one been watching the un-constitutional or treasonous actions of our congress and White House denizens over the last couple of decades, reaching alarming levels in 2006 with George Bush totally abandoning even the pretense of conservatism? And now we are at the critical point, with the ascendancy of the socialist congress and the election of a full blown socialist engineer who, through the hiring of dedicated communists, socialists, Marxists and general all around nut cases into powerful positions with no accountability, is subverting our Constitution. I think the question would more accurately be "Is America Purposefully Being Driven Apart?"
It's not that any one of his statements is necessarily wrong, but rather that the totality is just so shallow, based as it is on comparing actions by the Right and Left to arrive at - nothing! No hint is given as to what Mr. Buchanan's personal conclusion is. That is, undoubtedly, a nice approach when the author intends to make one think, but there is nothing of substance to chew on in this article - the facts are what the facts are.
There is one aspect to this that I feel Mr. Buchanan could have addressed to actually salvage this piece and have a chance to influence some thought, that being: what are the implications of the success of the relative positions to our way of life? Instead, his approach leaves one to the inference that he believes that there is moral equivalence between the opposing positions in the examples used - it's just that people have differences of opinion.
Well, there is a major difference between the positions described. All one has to do is to ask the question "What are the opposing positions based on?" The answer, of course, is that the positions of one side are generally based on the Constitution and the belief that we should have the freedom to pursue the best life that we are capable of, based on our own merits and/or hard work. The positions of the other side appear to be focused on leading us into a world that may eerily resemble that of George Orwell's 1984. Each of us has to decide, while we can, whether that should make a difference in what we want our country to be for ourselves and our future generations.
We'll know the early fruits of our collective decision in the results of the 2010 congressional elections. I just wish Mr. Buchanan, and a lot of other "real" conservative writers, with national audiences, would concentrate their considerable talents on the things that really matter: things that would generate a powerful urgency in our fellow countrymen to turn out the congressional scoundrels in 2010, and give us a start back to political sanity.
Keep in mind this observation by William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Actually (you may find this hard to believe, I suppose), the intent of this post is not to bash Mr. Buchanan per se, but to address a column by him, posted on Townhall.com, entitled Is America Coming Apart? I did read this one through to the end because he occasionally writes something that is worth reading. In this case, I have yet to decide what his purpose is for a piece like this. The obvious choices would be: he needs the money, to keep his name out there, or he was suffering from jet lag. Otherwise, I can't see why he would expend any mental effort on such drivel because it has no meat on its bones. In today's vernacular, it comes across as a fluff piece.
I mean, is there any question in your mind about whether America is coming apart? Has no one been watching the un-constitutional or treasonous actions of our congress and White House denizens over the last couple of decades, reaching alarming levels in 2006 with George Bush totally abandoning even the pretense of conservatism? And now we are at the critical point, with the ascendancy of the socialist congress and the election of a full blown socialist engineer who, through the hiring of dedicated communists, socialists, Marxists and general all around nut cases into powerful positions with no accountability, is subverting our Constitution. I think the question would more accurately be "Is America Purposefully Being Driven Apart?"
It's not that any one of his statements is necessarily wrong, but rather that the totality is just so shallow, based as it is on comparing actions by the Right and Left to arrive at - nothing! No hint is given as to what Mr. Buchanan's personal conclusion is. That is, undoubtedly, a nice approach when the author intends to make one think, but there is nothing of substance to chew on in this article - the facts are what the facts are.
There is one aspect to this that I feel Mr. Buchanan could have addressed to actually salvage this piece and have a chance to influence some thought, that being: what are the implications of the success of the relative positions to our way of life? Instead, his approach leaves one to the inference that he believes that there is moral equivalence between the opposing positions in the examples used - it's just that people have differences of opinion.
Well, there is a major difference between the positions described. All one has to do is to ask the question "What are the opposing positions based on?" The answer, of course, is that the positions of one side are generally based on the Constitution and the belief that we should have the freedom to pursue the best life that we are capable of, based on our own merits and/or hard work. The positions of the other side appear to be focused on leading us into a world that may eerily resemble that of George Orwell's 1984. Each of us has to decide, while we can, whether that should make a difference in what we want our country to be for ourselves and our future generations.
We'll know the early fruits of our collective decision in the results of the 2010 congressional elections. I just wish Mr. Buchanan, and a lot of other "real" conservative writers, with national audiences, would concentrate their considerable talents on the things that really matter: things that would generate a powerful urgency in our fellow countrymen to turn out the congressional scoundrels in 2010, and give us a start back to political sanity.
Keep in mind this observation by William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
not exceeding the limit
Posted on my Town Hall blog, Two Cents' Worth, at the inception of my new blog.
Having become more than a bit miffed at the poor treatment of one of my favorite columnists, Burt Prelutsky, just because he dared to write about the real Islamo-fascist activities, I am seriously considering taking my talents(?) and leaving myself.
I also have to admit that I was initially prodded into it by my daughter because she was seeing my frustration with the Town Hall approach.
So, I have started another blog, on the Blogger site, named "not exceeding the limit." I have written my first post for that blog, entitled "Joe Wilson's Truth." I think you will enjoy it and would certainly appreciate the audience. Drop by, please! I will also be posting my favorites from the Two Cents' Worth blog to the new one. Have not decided if I want to do the same in reverse. In case you are curious about the name, it comes from a quote from Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher who died, along with his wife, in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. This is a great philosophy to live by:
"Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit."
Having become more than a bit miffed at the poor treatment of one of my favorite columnists, Burt Prelutsky, just because he dared to write about the real Islamo-fascist activities, I am seriously considering taking my talents(?) and leaving myself.
I also have to admit that I was initially prodded into it by my daughter because she was seeing my frustration with the Town Hall approach.
So, I have started another blog, on the Blogger site, named "not exceeding the limit." I have written my first post for that blog, entitled "Joe Wilson's Truth." I think you will enjoy it and would certainly appreciate the audience. Drop by, please! I will also be posting my favorites from the Two Cents' Worth blog to the new one. Have not decided if I want to do the same in reverse. In case you are curious about the name, it comes from a quote from Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher who died, along with his wife, in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. This is a great philosophy to live by:
"Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.
It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph. The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least. As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article. No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.
Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:
"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:
Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.
Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"
A Revealing Scenario
Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.
It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph. The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least. As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article. No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.
Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:
"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:
Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.
Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Contempt of Citizen!
How many of us, after watching the treatment of ordinary citizens in these town meetings, still believe that these Magnificent Idiots that were sent to Washington are there to serve us? After seeing video of several such meetings, I never heard a straightforward attempt to answer a single question asked by the public (other than the softballs gently tossed to Obama, who even screwed those answers up).
Any true American has to be awed by the sight of ordinary citizens gathering their courage and walking into these town meetings with these almighty Senators and Representatives, knowing that they will be accused of being un-American, organized mobsters, and/or Nazis. Knowing also that those wonderful champions of the little man are more than willing turn their government subsidized union thugs on them, not only at the meeting, but also that their homes and businesses may be targeted. One must constantly remind oneself that these are the same congressional "representatives" who rushed back from Washington to gather input from their citizen bosses in order to figure how to best reflect the desires of those "folks from back home" in their deliberations. But, of course, that is not what they were doing.
It is clear that the representatives do not "need" input from these citizens. They already know what they intend to do and do not want the citizens to question anything about it. After all, more than one of these arrogant feces outlets said in so many words to the great unwashed: "this is MY townhall meeting" or "you are MY constituents" or the most used answer "that is not in the bill" or my favorite "shut up and sit down, I will vote as I see fit." I can't even begin to comprehend the gall it would require to stand up there and say that I hadn't even read the bill.
Can you imagine the response such arrogance would have received in the early years of our republic? I can well imagine public floggings and some stock time for the antics we have seen from Obama the Racist, Pelosi the Idiot Queen, Milquetoast Reid, Sheila Jackson "Cell Phone" Lee , LLoyd Dogged, Arlene "Now, hold on a Minute" Spectre (wink) and scores of others who are equally guilty. These "servants of the People" take themselves so seriously that they charge ordinary citizens (their bosses, remember?) with contempt of congress if they don't like something that the citizen says to them. What is the old British saying about the world being turned upside down?
Well, I hereby propose that we establish a law against Aggravated Contempt of Citizenry! The punishment would be instant removal from Washington and permanent revocation of rights to ever return. You know, we could turn this thing around in only a couple of weeks!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Long Term Care
Well, I haven't heard it raised as a question and have not seen it addressed as one of the silly items in the Health Scare Bill, but I am wondering just how all of this is going to affect all those Long Term Care contracts that people have been paying premiums for over the years.
I'm sure that as soon as Otrauma and his Legion of Death appointees figure out that this has slipped through their fingers, they will quickly resolve that oversight!
I'm sure that as soon as Otrauma and his Legion of Death appointees figure out that this has slipped through their fingers, they will quickly resolve that oversight!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Don't Drink the Water?
The following is an excerpt from the July 15, 2009 Town Hall article by Michelle Malkin, entitled “Two Scientists, Two Standards.”
The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."
Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.
There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."
Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
Now someone please explain to me that we shouldn’t be concerned that Obama is gathering around him all the scarier elements of Nazi-ism (as developed by Adolf and the Gang) and Communism (Soviet and Chinese style).
Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.
There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.
Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist. What do you think?
Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."
Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.
There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."
Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.
There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.
Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist. What do you think?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
So, You Believe
that Obama is being straightforward when he looks into his teleprompter and proclaims that, if you are happy with your current private health insurance coverage, you will be able to keep it? Before you let yourself be led down that path, you might want to read the following verbiage from page 15 of the proposed (and still unread by legislators) Government health control plan:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED INSURANCE OVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. ---
(A) IN GENERAL—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
The bottom line is: If you have coverage under a private option insurance plan as of the day this piece of crap goes into effect (day 1 of Y1), you will be allowed to keep that coverage. Sounds just like what The One says, doesn't it? But there is a big message hidden in plain sight here. They are hoping that we, the people, won't read this thing any more than those legislators (who, by the way, get a huge salary and lots of "perks" for supposedly representing us). I have this crazy right-wing idea that "representing us" means reading and understanding bills before they vote on them.
You have to do a little third grade logic to connect with the message, but I'll make it easy: This says no new policyholders for those private companies as of that day, and that any term or condition that gets changed after that day will allow the shut down of that coverage (i.e., all covered persons will have to move to the so-called public option). Now, how long do you think your insurance company can hold out in the face of: initial defections to the ObamaNation plan, older customers dying off, and lack of ability to adapt coverages to changing needs. These private companies will need to get funds from some place to provide coverage. Guess what? Higher premiums, which you can bet will be one of the terms which, if changed, will trigger the shutdown of that insurance plan.
A disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but that doesn't mean I rode in on a turnip truck. I did develop, write, negotiate and administer multi-billion dollar contracts for major space system vehicles and systems for 25 years. I can read, write and interpret government doublespeak with the best of them.
You have been warned!
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED INSURANCE OVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. ---
(A) IN GENERAL—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
The bottom line is: If you have coverage under a private option insurance plan as of the day this piece of crap goes into effect (day 1 of Y1), you will be allowed to keep that coverage. Sounds just like what The One says, doesn't it? But there is a big message hidden in plain sight here. They are hoping that we, the people, won't read this thing any more than those legislators (who, by the way, get a huge salary and lots of "perks" for supposedly representing us). I have this crazy right-wing idea that "representing us" means reading and understanding bills before they vote on them.
You have to do a little third grade logic to connect with the message, but I'll make it easy: This says no new policyholders for those private companies as of that day, and that any term or condition that gets changed after that day will allow the shut down of that coverage (i.e., all covered persons will have to move to the so-called public option). Now, how long do you think your insurance company can hold out in the face of: initial defections to the ObamaNation plan, older customers dying off, and lack of ability to adapt coverages to changing needs. These private companies will need to get funds from some place to provide coverage. Guess what? Higher premiums, which you can bet will be one of the terms which, if changed, will trigger the shutdown of that insurance plan.
A disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but that doesn't mean I rode in on a turnip truck. I did develop, write, negotiate and administer multi-billion dollar contracts for major space system vehicles and systems for 25 years. I can read, write and interpret government doublespeak with the best of them.
You have been warned!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Lies, Evasion, Obfuscation and Dereliction of Duty
There is no question that the saddest thing that I have witnessed in my 65 years on this earth is the situation that we are now facing in the confirmation process for Sonia Sotomayor, the current nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States.
My simple view is that the Founding Fathers established and constructed the Supreme Court branch for the purpose of constraining the potential for excesses and human weaknesses which would cause the other branches to stray from the Constitution. No matter how many left-wing crazies or right-wing crazies or moderate do-nothings populate the legislative and administrative branches, the judicial branch should ultimately bring them back to a constitutionally correct path.
It is there to assure that every citizen is protected from violations of the Constitution, not only from other citizens but also from the Government itself. Inherent in this is that there should be no consideration given to the ethnicity, gender or economic circumstances of the parties appearing before the court - all should be presumed as having equal protection by the Court. To allow such things to affect or determine the Court's decision is to, ultimately, deny equal protection under the law and remove the law as the basis for conducting our lives. To allow biased views to affect their decisions is tantamount to increasing the rights of one party and decreasing the rights of the other party. It then becomes a fact that compliance with the law is determined on factors other than the written laws and fundamental fairness.
To populate the Court with Justices who may have agendas different than assurance of full and complete compliance with the Constitution is to make a mockery of the Court. There are those who argue that a sitting President has the right to have his nominees to the Court confirmed by the Senate, almost without any question. While there is no arguing that he has a right to to nominate whomever he wishes, it is the Senate's duty to determine whether a nominee meets the moral and ethical standards for appointment to the Court.
The current confirmation process would be laughable were it not so deadly serious for the future of our country, Lies, evasion, obfuscation of the truth, and dereliction of duty are being practiced by all involved. Sonia Sotomayor is clearly lying and evading truthful answers on matters that relate directly to her fitness for serving on the Court. In her carefully worded way, she is doing nothing more or less than invoking the Fifth Amendment. Should that be allowed for nominees to our Federal Courts? Many of the Democrats, as well as a sitting Supreme Court Justice, are aiding and abetting her in doing that, and the Republicans are, oh, so carefully trying to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. Of course, they all are ignoring the violations of ordinary citizens' rights that will occur in the future because the Justices will have more "empathy" for the other litigant.
I guess Sotomayor, due to her rich heritage and her wisdom and her history of actually getting some decisions right on the bench, has earned the right to lie and cheat her way onto the Supreme Court. I can not give the same leeway to the political hacks that we have in the Senate, both Democrat and Republican. This is too monumental a decision to be left in the hands of small-minded people.
Had the Founding Fathers been able to even conceive of the American people electing "leaders" with such smallness of mind, they surely would have placed term limitations on the legislators and an impeachment or recall process on the members of the Court for treason against the Constitution. I guess they just could not think at such petty levels as we see today.
I think it is time to pursue the process of placing limitations on the terms of the fat cats in Washington, and for establishing some level of accountability for Supreme Court Justices.
But, what do I know? I'm just a citizen.
My simple view is that the Founding Fathers established and constructed the Supreme Court branch for the purpose of constraining the potential for excesses and human weaknesses which would cause the other branches to stray from the Constitution. No matter how many left-wing crazies or right-wing crazies or moderate do-nothings populate the legislative and administrative branches, the judicial branch should ultimately bring them back to a constitutionally correct path.
It is there to assure that every citizen is protected from violations of the Constitution, not only from other citizens but also from the Government itself. Inherent in this is that there should be no consideration given to the ethnicity, gender or economic circumstances of the parties appearing before the court - all should be presumed as having equal protection by the Court. To allow such things to affect or determine the Court's decision is to, ultimately, deny equal protection under the law and remove the law as the basis for conducting our lives. To allow biased views to affect their decisions is tantamount to increasing the rights of one party and decreasing the rights of the other party. It then becomes a fact that compliance with the law is determined on factors other than the written laws and fundamental fairness.
To populate the Court with Justices who may have agendas different than assurance of full and complete compliance with the Constitution is to make a mockery of the Court. There are those who argue that a sitting President has the right to have his nominees to the Court confirmed by the Senate, almost without any question. While there is no arguing that he has a right to to nominate whomever he wishes, it is the Senate's duty to determine whether a nominee meets the moral and ethical standards for appointment to the Court.
The current confirmation process would be laughable were it not so deadly serious for the future of our country, Lies, evasion, obfuscation of the truth, and dereliction of duty are being practiced by all involved. Sonia Sotomayor is clearly lying and evading truthful answers on matters that relate directly to her fitness for serving on the Court. In her carefully worded way, she is doing nothing more or less than invoking the Fifth Amendment. Should that be allowed for nominees to our Federal Courts? Many of the Democrats, as well as a sitting Supreme Court Justice, are aiding and abetting her in doing that, and the Republicans are, oh, so carefully trying to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. Of course, they all are ignoring the violations of ordinary citizens' rights that will occur in the future because the Justices will have more "empathy" for the other litigant.
I guess Sotomayor, due to her rich heritage and her wisdom and her history of actually getting some decisions right on the bench, has earned the right to lie and cheat her way onto the Supreme Court. I can not give the same leeway to the political hacks that we have in the Senate, both Democrat and Republican. This is too monumental a decision to be left in the hands of small-minded people.
Had the Founding Fathers been able to even conceive of the American people electing "leaders" with such smallness of mind, they surely would have placed term limitations on the legislators and an impeachment or recall process on the members of the Court for treason against the Constitution. I guess they just could not think at such petty levels as we see today.
I think it is time to pursue the process of placing limitations on the terms of the fat cats in Washington, and for establishing some level of accountability for Supreme Court Justices.
But, what do I know? I'm just a citizen.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Don't Drink The Water?
The following is an excerpt from the July 15, 2009 Town Hall article by Michelle Malkin, entitled “Two Scientists, Two Standards.”
The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."
Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.
There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people
more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor
does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to
meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses
received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals;
it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of
the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social
deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those
born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."
Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption
proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
Now someone please explain to me that we shouldn’t be concerned that Obama is gathering around him all the scarier elements of Nazi-ism (as developed by Adolf and the Gang) and Communism (Soviet and Chinese style).
Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.
There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.
Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist.
What do you think?
Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."
Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.
There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people
more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor
does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to
meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses
received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals;
it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of
the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social
deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those
born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."
Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption
proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.
There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.
Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist.
What do you think?
Monday, June 8, 2009
Best wishes to Mr. Penske
I have never been a fan of the Saturn automobile line – lack of headroom and legroom having more to do with that than any aversion to the brand. Nevertheless, I salute Roger Penske and wish him the absolute best in his effort to inject some sanity into this whirling dervish of socialism unleashed.
What we need now is for more of the Penske and Ford approach to managing business affairs (and not just the car business, either). However, my cynicism (about what Obama and the congressional troglodytes are willing and anxious to do to productive Americans) has reached the level at which I suspect there will soon be a Master of Capitalism Control position created by His Obama-ness. Reid, Pelosi and the gutless RINO's will, of course, provide ample funding and vacuous verbiage in their continuing effort to bask in The Glow.
Do you really think that Obama and the troglodytes can, or will, allow any capitalistic efforts to succeed against their state-run “Lada mills”? From Wikipedia (with links removed):
If you are not afraid for our country’s future, it is because you are either: totally ignorant of the depths to which these people are willing to take us (inexcusable if you can read and/or think for yourself), incapable of understanding what is really going on (understandable, but sad), or a willing and fervent supporter of the planned destruction of the greatest country in the history of mankind (in my mind, this defines the most insidious form of treason).
What we need now is for more of the Penske and Ford approach to managing business affairs (and not just the car business, either). However, my cynicism (about what Obama and the congressional troglodytes are willing and anxious to do to productive Americans) has reached the level at which I suspect there will soon be a Master of Capitalism Control position created by His Obama-ness. Reid, Pelosi and the gutless RINO's will, of course, provide ample funding and vacuous verbiage in their continuing effort to bask in The Glow.
Do you really think that Obama and the troglodytes can, or will, allow any capitalistic efforts to succeed against their state-run “Lada mills”? From Wikipedia (with links removed):
The original Lada was a basic car, lacking in most luxuries expected in cars of its time and was patterned after the Fiat 124. Ladas were available in several Western countries during the 1970s and 1980s, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, though trade sanctions banned their export to the United States. Sales to Italy were forbidden by the agreement between the Soviet government and Fiat, to protect Fiat from cheap imports in its home market. Imports to Spain were also prohibited because the local Fiat subsidiary, SEAT, built a version of the same car.Eerily familiar, isn’t it? Fiat, low quality vehicles, trade sanctions, suppression of competition. One wonders if Obama and his Socialist buddies are putting life to the old saying about taking over (literally, in this case) by “Fiat.”
If you are not afraid for our country’s future, it is because you are either: totally ignorant of the depths to which these people are willing to take us (inexcusable if you can read and/or think for yourself), incapable of understanding what is really going on (understandable, but sad), or a willing and fervent supporter of the planned destruction of the greatest country in the history of mankind (in my mind, this defines the most insidious form of treason).
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A question from the dark side
How can anyone with a brain have voted for this socialist administration? Even more incomprehensible is how they can continue to worship Obama after seeing, in only 100 days, his plan and capacity for damage to our country.
They are in awe, giggling like schoolgirls, as they watch him fire that nasty old CEO of GM, never contemplating that we just got on a slippery slope to a point where the government will determine every aspect of our lives. Do you really think, once these statists (as Mark Levin has so eloquently branded them) get in full swing, that they are going to concentrate on developing new video games, cars designed for comfort and convenience, new medicines to prolong your life, or other such foolish notions? Do you think they are going to make sure we have a good national defense to keep at bay the despots of the world, who just happen to have the same philosophy that they do? Sure they will, because we all want what's good for America, right?
If you think these guys want to do something to make life better for the little guy, just ask yourself one question: Instead of taking this $2-3 trillion porkulus and using it to take over private enterprises, why didn't they just send you, and every other American (man, woman and child), a check for $10,000 and let you use it to alleviate personal concerns or debts? That would not be right, either, but I guarantee that a lot more stimulating would have occurred! A hint: they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.
I predict that, 10 or so years from now, a lot of formerly free Americans are going to be mumbling to themselves, "Why did they let this happen?" Some will even understand that it is not they, but we, who let it happen. It will, of course, be a crime against the state to say such things aloud.
They are in awe, giggling like schoolgirls, as they watch him fire that nasty old CEO of GM, never contemplating that we just got on a slippery slope to a point where the government will determine every aspect of our lives. Do you really think, once these statists (as Mark Levin has so eloquently branded them) get in full swing, that they are going to concentrate on developing new video games, cars designed for comfort and convenience, new medicines to prolong your life, or other such foolish notions? Do you think they are going to make sure we have a good national defense to keep at bay the despots of the world, who just happen to have the same philosophy that they do? Sure they will, because we all want what's good for America, right?
If you think these guys want to do something to make life better for the little guy, just ask yourself one question: Instead of taking this $2-3 trillion porkulus and using it to take over private enterprises, why didn't they just send you, and every other American (man, woman and child), a check for $10,000 and let you use it to alleviate personal concerns or debts? That would not be right, either, but I guarantee that a lot more stimulating would have occurred! A hint: they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.
I predict that, 10 or so years from now, a lot of formerly free Americans are going to be mumbling to themselves, "Why did they let this happen?" Some will even understand that it is not they, but we, who let it happen. It will, of course, be a crime against the state to say such things aloud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)