Quote by Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Conservative Quote of the Day
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not",
Quote by Thomas Jefferson
Quote by Thomas Jefferson
Monday, September 28, 2009
EQUAL SHARING OF MISERY
Winston Churchill once stated: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. How prescient he was in stating that quote many years ago.
Look around the world today, what countries are the most oppressive and consequently the most poverty stricken? Any rational person would deduce that most all of the oppressive countries embrace a form of socialism or an excess amount of state control. Many of these countries have evolved into a form of a communist state. A simplistic definition would be that Socialism is a form of Communism without the guns. Over the last hundred years, most all the countries who repress or have repressed their people all embraced a form of Socialism, if not Communism. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany (both were called national socialist countries) , Communist China and the Soviet Union, North Vietnam and most of the dysfunctional countries in Africa and the Middle East, mainly the Muslim controlled and run countries, which all have vast amounts of people living in poverty and degradation. Even in our own backyard we have two countries that have repressed or are in the process of repressing their citizens, and which has brought poverty to their respective countries by embracing a program of socialism/communism, namely Cuba and Venezuela. Very little democracy or private ownership of private property is allowed in these countries except for the “privileged few” or the ruling class. In contrast, the much maligned, by the far-left progressive movements around the world, democratic, free enterprise, capitalistic countries, have become prosperous by giving their citizens the opportunity or incentives to become financially better off than their counterparts in the Socialist/Communist countries. Economic freedom is the distinguishing characteristic between the two systems.
Some people in the United States today are touting the wonders of socialism and are pushing for a complete takeover of our health care system, which represents about 1/6 of our economy. They claim that the “greedy” capitalists are oppressing the working people and that the “fairest” economic system is socialism. As Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Soviet revolution and a communist, once said; “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Listen to the people who are promoting the philosophy of Socialism, it is they who claim that the “haves” should give the fruits of their labor to the “have nots” because it is the equal sharing of wealth that is right and just. That is a recipe for economic disaster, which has been proven over and over again throughout history, but still the champions of socialism preach that false doctrine to naïve and unsuspecting people who are looking for something for nothing and are taken in by their platitudes of living the good life by embracing socialism.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, then candidate Barack Hussein Obama , proclaimed, by answering a question from a citizen (mockingly referred to by the elite media as “Joe the Plumber"), that for the good of society, we should “spread the wealth” around. In other words, he was in favor of the principle of “redistribution of wealth”, the main tenet of Karl Marx and the socialists and communists throughout modern times. President Obama’s training over the years has had plenty of exposure to the socialist theories as espoused by Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor in Hawaii during his teen years and an avowed communist, his advocacy of the “Rules for Radicals” by the late Saul Alinsky, his mentor in Chicago, the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his friend the unrepentant terrorist and anarchist, Bill Ayers and his other anti-white, anti-Semitic friend, the Nation of Islam’s, Louis Farrakkahn. His ties to the radical group ACORN and the far-left union SEIU, have also reinforced his left-wing socialist views that is now pushing for government-run health care in place of a market-oriented system that has given us the best health care system in the world, but is very expensive, and which should be reformed to bring down the costs to make health care more affordable to most all of the people.
Most all the oppressive countries of the world, embrace some form of socialism or communism. They are also some of the poorest countries in the world. Countries that espouse democracy and free enterprise are the most prosperous and free, so why would any right thinking person want to “transform” a system that is the envy of the world into a system that is prevalent in third-world countries? That is the main reason behind the protests around the country at the Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings. People do not want socialism as their economic system.
We should be shooting for the equal sharing of prosperity, not the equal sharing of misery that so many unfortunate people of the world are confronted with on a daily basis.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Look around the world today, what countries are the most oppressive and consequently the most poverty stricken? Any rational person would deduce that most all of the oppressive countries embrace a form of socialism or an excess amount of state control. Many of these countries have evolved into a form of a communist state. A simplistic definition would be that Socialism is a form of Communism without the guns. Over the last hundred years, most all the countries who repress or have repressed their people all embraced a form of Socialism, if not Communism. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany (both were called national socialist countries) , Communist China and the Soviet Union, North Vietnam and most of the dysfunctional countries in Africa and the Middle East, mainly the Muslim controlled and run countries, which all have vast amounts of people living in poverty and degradation. Even in our own backyard we have two countries that have repressed or are in the process of repressing their citizens, and which has brought poverty to their respective countries by embracing a program of socialism/communism, namely Cuba and Venezuela. Very little democracy or private ownership of private property is allowed in these countries except for the “privileged few” or the ruling class. In contrast, the much maligned, by the far-left progressive movements around the world, democratic, free enterprise, capitalistic countries, have become prosperous by giving their citizens the opportunity or incentives to become financially better off than their counterparts in the Socialist/Communist countries. Economic freedom is the distinguishing characteristic between the two systems.
Some people in the United States today are touting the wonders of socialism and are pushing for a complete takeover of our health care system, which represents about 1/6 of our economy. They claim that the “greedy” capitalists are oppressing the working people and that the “fairest” economic system is socialism. As Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Soviet revolution and a communist, once said; “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Listen to the people who are promoting the philosophy of Socialism, it is they who claim that the “haves” should give the fruits of their labor to the “have nots” because it is the equal sharing of wealth that is right and just. That is a recipe for economic disaster, which has been proven over and over again throughout history, but still the champions of socialism preach that false doctrine to naïve and unsuspecting people who are looking for something for nothing and are taken in by their platitudes of living the good life by embracing socialism.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, then candidate Barack Hussein Obama , proclaimed, by answering a question from a citizen (mockingly referred to by the elite media as “Joe the Plumber"), that for the good of society, we should “spread the wealth” around. In other words, he was in favor of the principle of “redistribution of wealth”, the main tenet of Karl Marx and the socialists and communists throughout modern times. President Obama’s training over the years has had plenty of exposure to the socialist theories as espoused by Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor in Hawaii during his teen years and an avowed communist, his advocacy of the “Rules for Radicals” by the late Saul Alinsky, his mentor in Chicago, the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his friend the unrepentant terrorist and anarchist, Bill Ayers and his other anti-white, anti-Semitic friend, the Nation of Islam’s, Louis Farrakkahn. His ties to the radical group ACORN and the far-left union SEIU, have also reinforced his left-wing socialist views that is now pushing for government-run health care in place of a market-oriented system that has given us the best health care system in the world, but is very expensive, and which should be reformed to bring down the costs to make health care more affordable to most all of the people.
Most all the oppressive countries of the world, embrace some form of socialism or communism. They are also some of the poorest countries in the world. Countries that espouse democracy and free enterprise are the most prosperous and free, so why would any right thinking person want to “transform” a system that is the envy of the world into a system that is prevalent in third-world countries? That is the main reason behind the protests around the country at the Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings. People do not want socialism as their economic system.
We should be shooting for the equal sharing of prosperity, not the equal sharing of misery that so many unfortunate people of the world are confronted with on a daily basis.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Conservative Thoughts of the Day
"If an American criticizes Obama and a liberal doesn't hear it, is the person still a racist?"
Submitted by Bob Eldi
"In war (as well as peace) we, as a country, have secrets to keep. When we fail to keep those secrets, soldiers die, our enemies are encouraged, our allies grow reluctant to share intelligence with us, and our own agencies (like the CIA) worry about the danger of sharing information from their top sources. We, the American people, are the one's betrayed thanks to the Attorney General and the Obama Administration".
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Submitted by Bob Eldi
"In war (as well as peace) we, as a country, have secrets to keep. When we fail to keep those secrets, soldiers die, our enemies are encouraged, our allies grow reluctant to share intelligence with us, and our own agencies (like the CIA) worry about the danger of sharing information from their top sources. We, the American people, are the one's betrayed thanks to the Attorney General and the Obama Administration".
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Thugs, Tea Parties And Treacle
How many arrests were made in all the Tea Parties or Town Hall meetings? Compare that with the leftist loons at the G-20 meeting who are actually being violent. Hey Nancy, shed a tear over that.
Comments by Chuck
Investor's Business Daily
Politics: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers.
It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as "mobs" while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw ... I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, choking up, her eyes brimming with tears.
"This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and ... I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made," she told a congressional forum Sept. 17 in a bid to silence peaceful protesters.
Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as "Smash the G-20" and "Eat the Rich." Many take "direct action" to "challenge capitalism" in what organizers brazenly call an "unpermitted protest."
Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn't "hurl" statements — just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses.
"Sometimes you just got to say f-- it and get down," read a Web statement by the organizers "Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project," making no secret of their intent to wreak mayhem.
"Despite the use of rubber bullets, chemical weapons, and LRAD (noise) attacks, demonstrators remained on the streets for hours and actions continue across the city," the group's press release read.
By that they meant attacks on 13 pre-picked Starbucks stores, a Whole Foods, an American Apparel, a Trader Joe's, U.S. military recruiting stations, check-cashing outlets, 13 PNC bank outlets and other institutions, all conveniently listed as possibilities on a Google map. Many of these places saw smashed windows and graffiti attacks after they turned up on the blacklist.
This kind of violence is nothing new. It was found in Seattle in 1999, where former Obama administration green czar Van Jones got himself arrested. It was repeated at other summits in Turin, Italy; Washington, D.C.; and London. These leftists detest capitalism, abhor private property — and have ties to the Democratic Party.
The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren't democratic. They resemble the mobs of Castro's Cuba who engage in violence against citizens to enforce conformity.
The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi's real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it's no surprise that there's a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left.
Written by Investor's Business Daily
Comments by Chuck
Investor's Business Daily
Politics: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers.
It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as "mobs" while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw ... I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, choking up, her eyes brimming with tears.
"This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and ... I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made," she told a congressional forum Sept. 17 in a bid to silence peaceful protesters.
Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as "Smash the G-20" and "Eat the Rich." Many take "direct action" to "challenge capitalism" in what organizers brazenly call an "unpermitted protest."
Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn't "hurl" statements — just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses.
"Sometimes you just got to say f-- it and get down," read a Web statement by the organizers "Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project," making no secret of their intent to wreak mayhem.
"Despite the use of rubber bullets, chemical weapons, and LRAD (noise) attacks, demonstrators remained on the streets for hours and actions continue across the city," the group's press release read.
By that they meant attacks on 13 pre-picked Starbucks stores, a Whole Foods, an American Apparel, a Trader Joe's, U.S. military recruiting stations, check-cashing outlets, 13 PNC bank outlets and other institutions, all conveniently listed as possibilities on a Google map. Many of these places saw smashed windows and graffiti attacks after they turned up on the blacklist.
This kind of violence is nothing new. It was found in Seattle in 1999, where former Obama administration green czar Van Jones got himself arrested. It was repeated at other summits in Turin, Italy; Washington, D.C.; and London. These leftists detest capitalism, abhor private property — and have ties to the Democratic Party.
The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren't democratic. They resemble the mobs of Castro's Cuba who engage in violence against citizens to enforce conformity.
The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi's real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it's no surprise that there's a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left.
Written by Investor's Business Daily
Netanyahu Blasts United Nations
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasts the hypocrisy of the United Nations. Listen for yourselves to what he had to say.
Click on Picture to watch a portion of his speech.
Click on Picture to watch a portion of his speech.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Conservative Quotes of the Day
"Minority" no longer carries the dictionary definition of the word. It is now merely a label used to justify giving complainers anything they demand under penalty of being called a racist, sexist, or homophobe".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
************************************
"Liberals turn common sense into nonsense".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Written by Chuck Lehmann
************************************
"Liberals turn common sense into nonsense".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Acorn Who?
Obama heads for the high grass.
By JOHN FUND
Only one of the five television networks that interviewed President Obama for their Sunday shows bothered to ask him about Acorn, the left-wing community organizing group whose federal funding was cut off last week by an overwhelming vote in Congress.
"Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely," Mr. Obama claimed, adding he wasn't even aware the group had been the recipient of significant federal funding. "This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," he said.
Mr. Obama added that an investigation of Acorn was appropriate after an amateur hidden-camera investigation had found Acorn offices willing to abet prostitution, but he carefully declined to say whether he would approve a federal cutoff of funds to the group.
Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.
Mr. Obama's success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.
In 1996, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire listing key supporters for his campaign for the Illinois Senate. He put Acorn first (it was not an alphabetical list). In the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama became the leading critic of Voter ID laws, whose overturn was a top Acorn priority. In 2007, in a speech to Acorn's leaders prior to their political arm's endorsement of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was effusive: "I've been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
But the Obama campaign didn't appear eager to discuss the candidate's ties to Acorn. Its press operation vividly denied Mr. Obama had been an Acorn trainer until the New York Times uncovered records demonstrating that he had been. The Obama campaign also gave Citizens Consulting, Inc., an Acorn subsidiary, $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
Given his longstanding ties with Acorn, President Obama's protestations of ignorance or disinterest in the group's latest scandal seem preposterous. Here's hoping White House reporters will press the president to clarify just how much he really knows about Acorn and when he knew it.
Written by JOHN FUND
By JOHN FUND
Only one of the five television networks that interviewed President Obama for their Sunday shows bothered to ask him about Acorn, the left-wing community organizing group whose federal funding was cut off last week by an overwhelming vote in Congress.
"Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely," Mr. Obama claimed, adding he wasn't even aware the group had been the recipient of significant federal funding. "This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," he said.
Mr. Obama added that an investigation of Acorn was appropriate after an amateur hidden-camera investigation had found Acorn offices willing to abet prostitution, but he carefully declined to say whether he would approve a federal cutoff of funds to the group.
Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.
Mr. Obama's success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.
In 1996, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire listing key supporters for his campaign for the Illinois Senate. He put Acorn first (it was not an alphabetical list). In the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama became the leading critic of Voter ID laws, whose overturn was a top Acorn priority. In 2007, in a speech to Acorn's leaders prior to their political arm's endorsement of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was effusive: "I've been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
But the Obama campaign didn't appear eager to discuss the candidate's ties to Acorn. Its press operation vividly denied Mr. Obama had been an Acorn trainer until the New York Times uncovered records demonstrating that he had been. The Obama campaign also gave Citizens Consulting, Inc., an Acorn subsidiary, $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
Given his longstanding ties with Acorn, President Obama's protestations of ignorance or disinterest in the group's latest scandal seem preposterous. Here's hoping White House reporters will press the president to clarify just how much he really knows about Acorn and when he knew it.
Written by JOHN FUND
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Why the Cost of Medical Care Is So Expensive
Today’s issue of Investor’s Business Daily, stated that 48% of the doctor’s who responded to their survey indicated that tort reform was the number one way to slow medical costs. See Link below. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506988 The response was to answer the simple, non-leading question “what do you think should be done to lower increasing medical costs?” Doctors complained that medical insurance was costing them from $100,000 to $250,000 a year and that as a result of numerous lawsuits they practice defensive medicine, i.e., perform unnecessary tests and procedures to rule to defend against a lawsuit saying they were negligent.
The article showed what happened in two states, Texas and Mississippi, when tort reform was passed. In Texas non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering, etc.) are capped at $250,000 per individual and $750,000 per incident. [In non-lawyer language this means that if a doctor is found negligent the individual can recover actual damages such as loss of income, medical costs, etc., but the non-economic loss is limited to $250,000 for the patient and up to $750,000 total for the patient and anyone else such as spouse. In other states, such as Florida, there is no cap on non-economic damages resulting in jury awards of millions of dollars.] The result in Texas: malpractice insurance has dropped 37% with 10 new insurance carriers entering the market. Plus, 15,000 new doctors have applied to practice in Texas – a staggering 57% increase. Similar legislation in Mississippi has resulted in malpractice insurance rates dropping 45%.
The IBD article quotes the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, as saying that in 2008 as much as $700 billion a year – 30% of all health care costs – is spent on tests and procedures that do nothing to improve American’s health.
It should be noted that NONE of the Obama or Democratic sponsored health care proposals do anything in the way of tort reform. Could it be because of all the campaign contributions coming from the trial bar membership?
I was curious to see what is happening in the sue happy State of Florida. According to amednews.com, 13% of the doctors who are not of retirement age within the next five years plan on leaving the field of medicine or limiting the scope of practice. See www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/01/19/prsd0122.htm. The report was issued in 2008. Liability and reimbursement were the top two reasons for them leaving.
Something to think about: How will we ever get quality medical care at reasonable costs if we don’t deal with an issue that drives up medical costs by 30%?
Submitted by Jim Pirretti
The article showed what happened in two states, Texas and Mississippi, when tort reform was passed. In Texas non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering, etc.) are capped at $250,000 per individual and $750,000 per incident. [In non-lawyer language this means that if a doctor is found negligent the individual can recover actual damages such as loss of income, medical costs, etc., but the non-economic loss is limited to $250,000 for the patient and up to $750,000 total for the patient and anyone else such as spouse. In other states, such as Florida, there is no cap on non-economic damages resulting in jury awards of millions of dollars.] The result in Texas: malpractice insurance has dropped 37% with 10 new insurance carriers entering the market. Plus, 15,000 new doctors have applied to practice in Texas – a staggering 57% increase. Similar legislation in Mississippi has resulted in malpractice insurance rates dropping 45%.
The IBD article quotes the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, as saying that in 2008 as much as $700 billion a year – 30% of all health care costs – is spent on tests and procedures that do nothing to improve American’s health.
It should be noted that NONE of the Obama or Democratic sponsored health care proposals do anything in the way of tort reform. Could it be because of all the campaign contributions coming from the trial bar membership?
I was curious to see what is happening in the sue happy State of Florida. According to amednews.com, 13% of the doctors who are not of retirement age within the next five years plan on leaving the field of medicine or limiting the scope of practice. See www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/01/19/prsd0122.htm. The report was issued in 2008. Liability and reimbursement were the top two reasons for them leaving.
Something to think about: How will we ever get quality medical care at reasonable costs if we don’t deal with an issue that drives up medical costs by 30%?
Submitted by Jim Pirretti
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
A Radical's Book - "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky
Comments by Chuck Lehmann
"The name Saul Alinsky has been mentioned many times over the past couple of years, mainly because he has been designated as one of President Barack Hussein Obama's mentors (even though Alinsky died in 1972) as he began his political career which has culminated with him being elected President in 2008. Many people who evaluate Obama's methods and policies, equate them with the ideas and methods set down by the "Father of Community Organizers", Saul Alinsky. Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd (ret. USMC) has read the book in question, "Rules for Radicals" and has offered an objective review of its contents". Here's his review.
"Rules for Radicals" Review by Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd
This book is a methodical collection of thoughts, actions, and principles from the master 1930s-70s radical, Saul Alinsky, for maximizing opportunities to influence masses of people into rejecting and fighting the status quo. If you share Alinsky's basic and fundamental beliefs, this book is a great 'how-to' for becoming a radical and political activist. If you are opposed to Alinsky's political activism, born out of his negative outlook of and perspectives on our American way of life, this book can help you understand the methods and the 'madness' of those people
and forces that disrupt and try to tear down our traditional societal norms.
This book was not an easy read for I disagreed strongly with what he said about my country that I love and his general outlook on life. Alinsky used the following terms interchangeably: "activist," "radical," "orga-nizer," "agitator,"
"revolutionary," and "man of action." Another 'word group' used frequently was the many forms and variations of "organize" and "organizer" - some 356 times in 196 pages. I found his approach to change and reform crafty, cunning, deceitful, insidious, and disingenuous. His methods are masterfully designed to take advantage of our imperfect systems, and human weaknesses and tendencies. Another disturbing aspect of the book was the predominance of militaristic language when discussing the 'how' and 'why' of his logic: war, battle, attack, tactics, enemy, and strategy.
Alinsky was smart and well-read, but I believe he chose to put his intellect and energies to use for detrimental purposes. He offered many observations and perspectives that differed from my own beliefs and experiences, which was not necessarily a problem, but coming after his "acknowledgment to... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer," I found his logic and morals seriously flawed.
Rating this book was a new challenge for me. I vehemently disagreed with so much of the content that giving it a lot of stars was out of the question. Objectively, it was well-written and structured to support the author's perspectives, so in that sense it was not a bad book. In the end, however, taken together, I believe Alinsky's beliefs and methods are negative, destructive, and counter-productive, and I could not rate this book as high as books that contribute more positively to the advancement of our American way of life.
"The name Saul Alinsky has been mentioned many times over the past couple of years, mainly because he has been designated as one of President Barack Hussein Obama's mentors (even though Alinsky died in 1972) as he began his political career which has culminated with him being elected President in 2008. Many people who evaluate Obama's methods and policies, equate them with the ideas and methods set down by the "Father of Community Organizers", Saul Alinsky. Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd (ret. USMC) has read the book in question, "Rules for Radicals" and has offered an objective review of its contents". Here's his review.
"Rules for Radicals" Review by Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd
This book is a methodical collection of thoughts, actions, and principles from the master 1930s-70s radical, Saul Alinsky, for maximizing opportunities to influence masses of people into rejecting and fighting the status quo. If you share Alinsky's basic and fundamental beliefs, this book is a great 'how-to' for becoming a radical and political activist. If you are opposed to Alinsky's political activism, born out of his negative outlook of and perspectives on our American way of life, this book can help you understand the methods and the 'madness' of those people
and forces that disrupt and try to tear down our traditional societal norms.
This book was not an easy read for I disagreed strongly with what he said about my country that I love and his general outlook on life. Alinsky used the following terms interchangeably: "activist," "radical," "orga-nizer," "agitator,"
"revolutionary," and "man of action." Another 'word group' used frequently was the many forms and variations of "organize" and "organizer" - some 356 times in 196 pages. I found his approach to change and reform crafty, cunning, deceitful, insidious, and disingenuous. His methods are masterfully designed to take advantage of our imperfect systems, and human weaknesses and tendencies. Another disturbing aspect of the book was the predominance of militaristic language when discussing the 'how' and 'why' of his logic: war, battle, attack, tactics, enemy, and strategy.
Alinsky was smart and well-read, but I believe he chose to put his intellect and energies to use for detrimental purposes. He offered many observations and perspectives that differed from my own beliefs and experiences, which was not necessarily a problem, but coming after his "acknowledgment to... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer," I found his logic and morals seriously flawed.
Rating this book was a new challenge for me. I vehemently disagreed with so much of the content that giving it a lot of stars was out of the question. Objectively, it was well-written and structured to support the author's perspectives, so in that sense it was not a bad book. In the end, however, taken together, I believe Alinsky's beliefs and methods are negative, destructive, and counter-productive, and I could not rate this book as high as books that contribute more positively to the advancement of our American way of life.
WHO ARE THE REAL “RACISTS”?
There has been a flurry of accusations recently directed at the people who are against the policies of the President and his Administration. To some on the left, anyone who criticizes President Obama or his policies is somehow guilty of “racist” behavior.
How did we evolve into this position that dissent directed at an elected leader, in this case a black leader, is somehow tantamount to someone being called a “racist”?
If you notice, all the “racist” rhetoric is coming from one side of the political aisle. It is the liberal Democrats, spearheaded by the Neanderthal ex-president Jimmy Carter and the acid-tongued Maureen Dowd. Both state that the main opposition against President Obama’s policies is “racist” with no back up proof or verification whatsoever. It is what they “think” is the reason.
Most all the people I know, who question his policies, are questioning those policies on their own merits as to what those policies would do to the country and not what the color of the skin of the President is. It seems that the lower President Obama’s poll numbers go down into the tank, the more vicious the vitriol, by his supporters, has become against those they don’t agree with. You could say it is not the skin of the President that is at issue, it’s how “thin” his skin is.
They point out that some people, at the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings have carried unflattering signs about President Obama and his “imaginary” health care insurance plan. So what! Are those signs any worse than what the anti-President Bush Kool-Aid drinkers carried and said during his presidency? The self-righteous Maureen Dowd was especially vicious in describing George Bush and his Administration during the 8 years he was in office. Was she ever accused of being an anti-white male “cracker” during her tirades? No, she was just accused of being nasty and stupid. Both of which rightly applied to her manner of dissent.
It seems that you can’t question anything about President Obama, unless you want the wrath of being called a “racist” thrust upon you. This was supposed to be a “post racial presidency”, but it looks like the polarization has gotten worse, partly as a result of the actions of the President and his surrogates. They don’t want to argue the facts of his policies, they just want to shut down debate by using the hammer word “racist” whenever the public turns on Obama, like it has over his health care policies. His “idol worshippers” cannot stand any criticism of Obama or his Administration.
So, who are the real “racists”? I contend that the accusers should look in the mirror and see for themselves who the “racists” really are - they will then see the real “racists” staring at them right in the mirror.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
How did we evolve into this position that dissent directed at an elected leader, in this case a black leader, is somehow tantamount to someone being called a “racist”?
If you notice, all the “racist” rhetoric is coming from one side of the political aisle. It is the liberal Democrats, spearheaded by the Neanderthal ex-president Jimmy Carter and the acid-tongued Maureen Dowd. Both state that the main opposition against President Obama’s policies is “racist” with no back up proof or verification whatsoever. It is what they “think” is the reason.
Most all the people I know, who question his policies, are questioning those policies on their own merits as to what those policies would do to the country and not what the color of the skin of the President is. It seems that the lower President Obama’s poll numbers go down into the tank, the more vicious the vitriol, by his supporters, has become against those they don’t agree with. You could say it is not the skin of the President that is at issue, it’s how “thin” his skin is.
They point out that some people, at the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings have carried unflattering signs about President Obama and his “imaginary” health care insurance plan. So what! Are those signs any worse than what the anti-President Bush Kool-Aid drinkers carried and said during his presidency? The self-righteous Maureen Dowd was especially vicious in describing George Bush and his Administration during the 8 years he was in office. Was she ever accused of being an anti-white male “cracker” during her tirades? No, she was just accused of being nasty and stupid. Both of which rightly applied to her manner of dissent.
It seems that you can’t question anything about President Obama, unless you want the wrath of being called a “racist” thrust upon you. This was supposed to be a “post racial presidency”, but it looks like the polarization has gotten worse, partly as a result of the actions of the President and his surrogates. They don’t want to argue the facts of his policies, they just want to shut down debate by using the hammer word “racist” whenever the public turns on Obama, like it has over his health care policies. His “idol worshippers” cannot stand any criticism of Obama or his Administration.
So, who are the real “racists”? I contend that the accusers should look in the mirror and see for themselves who the “racists” really are - they will then see the real “racists” staring at them right in the mirror.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Obama no Lincoln
Now that independent knuckleheads who helped the nincompoop and his side kick, Gabby Biden get voted into office, and you are now getting your changes, now what?
I gotta warn you, I'm a white, christian male who doesn't agree with Obama's domestic, foreign or security agenda. This labels me by his neo liberal intellects a bigoted racist. If I attend a Tea Party, or Town Forum, domestic terrorist and Nazi will be an added label.
To dominate and hold control over anybody, and make them dependent on you. Tossing an occasional bone to them will keep them hanging on to the government apron strings. It's how democrats win elections. ACORN's job is to maintain the dependency and strong arm anyone who might stray off the urban plantation.
Obama's plans for change is to commandeer industries, subtly eliminate the middle class and the productive, by redistributing their toils to the unproductive; eliminating our choices and services. He wants to institute a civilian security corps as powerful as our military. I recall something similar with Italy's black shirts, Germany's Hitler youth and brown shirts of the late 20's and early 30's. I wonder what color shirts he has in mind for this force? Green?
Pres. Barack Hussein Obama's only credentials prior to his election was as a community organizer; in contrast to Abraham Lincoln who said it best:
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred..
You cannot build character by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they should do for themselves."
How can two men from Illinois be so different?
Written by George Giftos
I gotta warn you, I'm a white, christian male who doesn't agree with Obama's domestic, foreign or security agenda. This labels me by his neo liberal intellects a bigoted racist. If I attend a Tea Party, or Town Forum, domestic terrorist and Nazi will be an added label.
To dominate and hold control over anybody, and make them dependent on you. Tossing an occasional bone to them will keep them hanging on to the government apron strings. It's how democrats win elections. ACORN's job is to maintain the dependency and strong arm anyone who might stray off the urban plantation.
Obama's plans for change is to commandeer industries, subtly eliminate the middle class and the productive, by redistributing their toils to the unproductive; eliminating our choices and services. He wants to institute a civilian security corps as powerful as our military. I recall something similar with Italy's black shirts, Germany's Hitler youth and brown shirts of the late 20's and early 30's. I wonder what color shirts he has in mind for this force? Green?
Pres. Barack Hussein Obama's only credentials prior to his election was as a community organizer; in contrast to Abraham Lincoln who said it best:
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred..
You cannot build character by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they should do for themselves."
How can two men from Illinois be so different?
Written by George Giftos
ABC News' John Stossel Blows Lid off Obama Care
A GREAT short summary of what is involved in health care by feds.
Click below to watch John Stossel's special ABC News 20/20 report exposing the truth about ObamaCare, and then forward this message to 30-40 friends urging them to watch the video.
Click below to watch John Stossel's special ABC News 20/20 report exposing the truth about ObamaCare, and then forward this message to 30-40 friends urging them to watch the video.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Conservative Quotes of the Day
"The canard that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans did not play a part, was grossly and historically incorrect. In 1964, in the House, 80% of the Republicans voted for for the Civil Rights Act as compared with only 63% of the Democrats. In the Senate, 82% of the Republicans supported the legislation compared with 69% of the Democrats. Voting against the Civil Rights Act were these prominent Democrats; Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
"It's not the color of a person's skin that is at issue in this health care debate, it is how_ thin_ it is".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Written by Chuck Lehmann
"It's not the color of a person's skin that is at issue in this health care debate, it is how_ thin_ it is".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Ingraham Calls Jimmy Carter A "Self-Loathing Southerner"
After former President Jimmy Carter comments that opposition to current President Obama is based on race, Bill O'Reilly talks to Laura Ingraham about the issue.
Laura Ingraham calls out Jimmy Carter. She deserves more time on TV.
Laura Ingraham calls out Jimmy Carter. She deserves more time on TV.
Conservative Quote of the Day
"Make rules fair for everybody and the best people will achieve whatever their color, their ethnic background, or their sex. Discrimination in any form is un-American and cannot be justified by spouting false platitudes about past inequities."
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Obomacare
Investors Business Daily polled more than 25,000 doctors concerning the health care bills. They then ran an excellent article about the poll. See
Click Here for Article
65% of the doctors oppose Obomacare and 45% said they would consider quitting the medical profession if this bill is made into law. The best quote I heard was from one doctor who summed up the proposal as “All the efficiency of the Post Office, all the compassion of the motor vehicle bureau.”
This was somewhat surprising since the AMA is for the bill. But then again, only 18% of the physicians belong to the AMA and more are quitting every day over their stance. It seems to me the AMA lack of representation among doctors parallels the AARP’s representation of retired folks.
Submitted by James Pirretti
Click Here for Article
65% of the doctors oppose Obomacare and 45% said they would consider quitting the medical profession if this bill is made into law. The best quote I heard was from one doctor who summed up the proposal as “All the efficiency of the Post Office, all the compassion of the motor vehicle bureau.”
This was somewhat surprising since the AMA is for the bill. But then again, only 18% of the physicians belong to the AMA and more are quitting every day over their stance. It seems to me the AMA lack of representation among doctors parallels the AARP’s representation of retired folks.
Submitted by James Pirretti
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
YOU CAN'T POLISH HORSE MANURE!
How many times during the course of our lives have others tried to make something out of nothing or have tried to “make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. When I come across that situation, I’m reminded of an expression that a friend of mine told me a number of years ago. He said, “You can’t polish horse manure”. That was a very profound statement and so very true. Let me explain.
Each day on T.V., the radio, or in the newspapers and magazines, you’re bombarded with ads telling you that if you buy this product, service, or idea, that it will make you bigger, stronger, better, thinner, wealthier or wiser, but you know, by instinct, that the claims are exaggerated or downright false or to be more specific, “lies”!.
An example that I read and hear about quite often, one that boggles a rational persons mind, is the product that claims that it will make a part of a man’s anatomy “bigger and thicker” (a so-called male enhancement product). It even has a lady spokesperson says that that is just what a woman wants in a man. Now, who in the heck is going to believe that spiel, as common sense tells you that you just can’t take a “magic potion” and “voila” you are now Studley O’Day and a woman’s “prince in shining armor”? The ad claims that over a billion tablets have been sold. To whom, I’d like to ask? Are there that many undersized men with a similar undersized ego? Remember, you can’t polish horse manure!
Another claim that seems to test the credibility of a person with even average intelligence is the claim that if you give health insurance to 35 million people, who don’t now have health insurance, it would not cost the taxpayers a “single dime” more. Really? That’s like inviting 30 million people over for dinner and it would not cost the host anymore money to feed them. C’mon, be honest with us, we’re not that stupid (or are we?) to believe that nonsense. There is no such thing as a “free lunch” so why do politicians (in this case the President of the U.S.) try to “sugar coat” a fallacious statement in hopes that the voters will buy it? From what we saw over the past few months, most people are not buying it, but still the politicians are trying to shove it down our throats saying that they know better. Remember, you can’t polish horse manure!
Finally, the electric utility (in our case FPL) puts out public service announcements to businesses and homeowners about how they can save money and energy by cutting back on their electric use. Are they kidding me? How do they make their money, is it by selling electricity to its customers? Of course it is, and now they want to make “less” money doing it? Give me a break. Didn’t I read recently that FPL wanted to raise the electric rates because their revenues have gone down? Duh, why is that? Has their campaign urging customers to use less electric finally paying off? So we, the customers, who have cut back on our usage to save money and energy through their urging, now are faced with the prospect of giving back to the electric company the money we saved by having our electric rates raised for the “less” electric we are now using. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. Remember, you can’t polish horse manure!
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Each day on T.V., the radio, or in the newspapers and magazines, you’re bombarded with ads telling you that if you buy this product, service, or idea, that it will make you bigger, stronger, better, thinner, wealthier or wiser, but you know, by instinct, that the claims are exaggerated or downright false or to be more specific, “lies”!.
An example that I read and hear about quite often, one that boggles a rational persons mind, is the product that claims that it will make a part of a man’s anatomy “bigger and thicker” (a so-called male enhancement product). It even has a lady spokesperson says that that is just what a woman wants in a man. Now, who in the heck is going to believe that spiel, as common sense tells you that you just can’t take a “magic potion” and “voila” you are now Studley O’Day and a woman’s “prince in shining armor”? The ad claims that over a billion tablets have been sold. To whom, I’d like to ask? Are there that many undersized men with a similar undersized ego? Remember, you can’t polish horse manure!
Another claim that seems to test the credibility of a person with even average intelligence is the claim that if you give health insurance to 35 million people, who don’t now have health insurance, it would not cost the taxpayers a “single dime” more. Really? That’s like inviting 30 million people over for dinner and it would not cost the host anymore money to feed them. C’mon, be honest with us, we’re not that stupid (or are we?) to believe that nonsense. There is no such thing as a “free lunch” so why do politicians (in this case the President of the U.S.) try to “sugar coat” a fallacious statement in hopes that the voters will buy it? From what we saw over the past few months, most people are not buying it, but still the politicians are trying to shove it down our throats saying that they know better. Remember, you can’t polish horse manure!
Finally, the electric utility (in our case FPL) puts out public service announcements to businesses and homeowners about how they can save money and energy by cutting back on their electric use. Are they kidding me? How do they make their money, is it by selling electricity to its customers? Of course it is, and now they want to make “less” money doing it? Give me a break. Didn’t I read recently that FPL wanted to raise the electric rates because their revenues have gone down? Duh, why is that? Has their campaign urging customers to use less electric finally paying off? So we, the customers, who have cut back on our usage to save money and energy through their urging, now are faced with the prospect of giving back to the electric company the money we saved by having our electric rates raised for the “less” electric we are now using. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. Remember, you can’t polish horse manure!
Written by Chuck Lehmann
REPUBLICANS ANSWER TO HEALTH CARE
There are better ways to solve our health care problems than the take-over of health care by the government.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and several of their colleagues have introduced legislation (voted down by the Democrats) aptly called “The Patients Choice Act”.
It provides a path to universal coverage by redirecting current subsidies for health insurance to individuals. It also provides a new safety net that guarantees access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions and helps millions of people out of the Medicaid ghetto.
It accomplishes the goals of moving toward universal health coverage, making health insurance portable, and getting costs under control. And, rather than turning the health sector over to the government, it puts doctors and patients in control.
Isn’t that a refreshing idea!
The White House and the Democratic leaders in Congress appear undaunted in their efforts to ram through sweeping reform legislation in record time, even as the head of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) told Congress that the reforms they were proposing would worsen the federal government’s already bleak outlook. In addition, and worse still, the CBO said the bills won’t meet the president’s promise of reducing health costs over the long term, saying instead the proposed legislation would “significantly increase” costs.
Remember, Obama said his proposals would not impact the deficit by “one dime”. Was Joe Wilson (R-SC) correct is stating that President Obama lied at the joint session of Congress? You make the call.
Submitted by: Chuck Lehmann
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and several of their colleagues have introduced legislation (voted down by the Democrats) aptly called “The Patients Choice Act”.
It provides a path to universal coverage by redirecting current subsidies for health insurance to individuals. It also provides a new safety net that guarantees access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions and helps millions of people out of the Medicaid ghetto.
It accomplishes the goals of moving toward universal health coverage, making health insurance portable, and getting costs under control. And, rather than turning the health sector over to the government, it puts doctors and patients in control.
Isn’t that a refreshing idea!
The White House and the Democratic leaders in Congress appear undaunted in their efforts to ram through sweeping reform legislation in record time, even as the head of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) told Congress that the reforms they were proposing would worsen the federal government’s already bleak outlook. In addition, and worse still, the CBO said the bills won’t meet the president’s promise of reducing health costs over the long term, saying instead the proposed legislation would “significantly increase” costs.
Remember, Obama said his proposals would not impact the deficit by “one dime”. Was Joe Wilson (R-SC) correct is stating that President Obama lied at the joint session of Congress? You make the call.
Submitted by: Chuck Lehmann
Monday, September 14, 2009
Conservative Thought of the Day
"If you really need to be proud of something over which you had absolutely no control over (your race, for instance) that is okay, but when it turns into a preoccupation, it becomes an obstacle to progress. It promotes divisiveness, tribalism, balkanization, and, in addition, is un-American".
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Conservative Quote of the Day
"In a society where anything goes, everything eventually will. A society that stands for nothing will fall for anything - and then, of course, will just simply fall".
Journalist and Author John Underwood
Journalist and Author John Underwood
Obama and Health Care
Weren’t you guys in awe with Obama’s speech on health care?
The best moment had to be Wilson’s cry of “You lie.” Now our interim senator (Senator What’s His Name While Waiting for Crist) and John McCain are upset that someone had the balls to call him out. One of the best quotes I heard from someone was “It’s not that Obama is a liar, it’s that he seldom delves into veracity.”
Obama wants us to believe him when he claims that he can add 30-47 million people to the insurance rolls and not add “one dime” to the deficit. That would be quite an accomplishment. I guess the Congressional Budget Office as well as most independent economists should also be censured for disagreeing with the Anointed One.
Our local rag, the St. Pete Times, even had the stupidity to say the cash for clunkers program should be a model of efficiency that would carry over to the health care issue. But you do the math. 690,000 new cars were sold – mostly Japanese and Korean. The taxpayer cost of this program was $3 billion: $1.22 billion went to the dealers and $1.36 billion for government administration costs. That’s right: the efficient government added more money in administrative costs than went to the dealers in the program.
Written by Jim Pirretti
The best moment had to be Wilson’s cry of “You lie.” Now our interim senator (Senator What’s His Name While Waiting for Crist) and John McCain are upset that someone had the balls to call him out. One of the best quotes I heard from someone was “It’s not that Obama is a liar, it’s that he seldom delves into veracity.”
Obama wants us to believe him when he claims that he can add 30-47 million people to the insurance rolls and not add “one dime” to the deficit. That would be quite an accomplishment. I guess the Congressional Budget Office as well as most independent economists should also be censured for disagreeing with the Anointed One.
Our local rag, the St. Pete Times, even had the stupidity to say the cash for clunkers program should be a model of efficiency that would carry over to the health care issue. But you do the math. 690,000 new cars were sold – mostly Japanese and Korean. The taxpayer cost of this program was $3 billion: $1.22 billion went to the dealers and $1.36 billion for government administration costs. That’s right: the efficient government added more money in administrative costs than went to the dealers in the program.
Written by Jim Pirretti
Saturday, September 12, 2009
MY EXPERIENCE WITH MEDICARE
Awhile back I wrote a column entitled, “Medicare – Fix it, don’t Nix it”. I still firmly believe in Medicare and the need to fix it so that it is a fiscally viable sound medical plan for seniors. Recently, I had the occasion to use the medical benefits services of Medicare. Here’s my experience and comments about how to “fix it”.
After seeing my internist (family practitioner) for a medical problem I had, he advised me to see a specialist for the problem I was experiencing. Within a few days I had my appointment with the specialist. After his exam, he ordered me to have a CAT SCAN and an X-Ray. Within two days, I had those diagnostic procedures performed on me.
The medical services I received were fantastic, and it probably cost a pretty penny which will be covered by Medicare and my supplemental insurer. I am appreciative of the medical services I received.
But, all those medical services I received are some of the reasons why the Medicare system is going broke. There is not enough money coming into the system to sustain the amount and scope of the services it is now providing its seniors. 51 million plus people are now eligible for benefits under the Medicare system. With the approaching retirement of the “baby boomers” in the coming years when they will reach the age of 65 and become eligible for Medicare, it will finally break the back of the Medicare system, financially. It is predicted that Medicare will be paying out more than it is taking in by the year 2017 or sooner if the recession continues. It is predicted that we will have a $37 trillion unfunded liability in about 30 years?
The big question is, if we can’t sustain a fiscally sound Medicare system for 51 million people now, how can we sustain it for 300 plus million people under a Universal Medical Insurance plan? The answer is simple, we can’t! The congressional proposals, being put forth, state that in order to meet the extra expenses of instituting a Universal Health Insurance plan, $500 billion will be cut from the present Medicare setup. That means that seniors will bear the major brunt of the cuts in medical funding. It will mean long lines, rationing of services, and extra costs in the form of higher co-pays for seniors. The quality of the present day services, which seniors are now accustomed to, will be no more.
So instead of cutting $500 billion from Medicare, which will gravely affect seniors, we should institute practical remedies to make sure Medicare is preserved and health care is made viable for all who want it. It should not be forced upon citizens by the government.
Why don’t we fix what can be fixed and then tackle the other issues that could make Medicare and general health insurance more viable in the future?
For instance, why don’t we start off by instituting meaningful tort reform by reimbursing to victims, as close to the actual amount, for the loss they have sustained, through medical malpractice, and by capping the amounts for pain and suffering and punitive damages? In addition, to curtail frivolous lawsuits, we should institute “loser pays” for legal and court costs, as is practiced in Europe. The amount of frivolous lawsuits will practically dry up as result. Maybe a mediation and arbitration court arrangement could be setup to handle malpractice cases under government supervision.
Another area of change would be to make medical insurance available across state lines to broaden the pool of insurance providers to foster more competition which will lower costs and make insurance more cost “reasonable”. In addition, we could institute something along the lines of what the Forbes Publishing Co. has instituted – HSA – (Health Savings Accounts) where clients theoretically spend their own money from their account thereby putting a check on health care costs as people are more careful of spending their “own” money rather than having a faceless bureaucrat allocating what medical services you should have to spend your money on.
And finally, the only area that the government should get involved in health care, other than Medicare, is in government oversight to check on waste and fraud which is always present when people are involved. Billions of dollars are wasted every year by unscrupulous beneficiaries, medical services suppliers, and crooked insurers and medical practitioners. We shouldn’t disrupt our whole health care system to attempt to give access to 5% of the population that is in need of health insurance. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, fix the problems we can fix and then tweak the system to make it better later on.
Medicare is a great program for our senior citizens, but it must be made fiscally sound by keeping the overuse of services to a minimum and by keeping fraud and waste to a minimum. Once you get a hold on those areas, then you can institute other reforms later on to make the system work better so it will be there when our children and grandchildren become eligible in the future, because they are our country’s future. As it is today, I wouldn’t bet on it. So fix it, don’t nix it!
Written by Chuck Lehmann
After seeing my internist (family practitioner) for a medical problem I had, he advised me to see a specialist for the problem I was experiencing. Within a few days I had my appointment with the specialist. After his exam, he ordered me to have a CAT SCAN and an X-Ray. Within two days, I had those diagnostic procedures performed on me.
The medical services I received were fantastic, and it probably cost a pretty penny which will be covered by Medicare and my supplemental insurer. I am appreciative of the medical services I received.
But, all those medical services I received are some of the reasons why the Medicare system is going broke. There is not enough money coming into the system to sustain the amount and scope of the services it is now providing its seniors. 51 million plus people are now eligible for benefits under the Medicare system. With the approaching retirement of the “baby boomers” in the coming years when they will reach the age of 65 and become eligible for Medicare, it will finally break the back of the Medicare system, financially. It is predicted that Medicare will be paying out more than it is taking in by the year 2017 or sooner if the recession continues. It is predicted that we will have a $37 trillion unfunded liability in about 30 years?
The big question is, if we can’t sustain a fiscally sound Medicare system for 51 million people now, how can we sustain it for 300 plus million people under a Universal Medical Insurance plan? The answer is simple, we can’t! The congressional proposals, being put forth, state that in order to meet the extra expenses of instituting a Universal Health Insurance plan, $500 billion will be cut from the present Medicare setup. That means that seniors will bear the major brunt of the cuts in medical funding. It will mean long lines, rationing of services, and extra costs in the form of higher co-pays for seniors. The quality of the present day services, which seniors are now accustomed to, will be no more.
So instead of cutting $500 billion from Medicare, which will gravely affect seniors, we should institute practical remedies to make sure Medicare is preserved and health care is made viable for all who want it. It should not be forced upon citizens by the government.
Why don’t we fix what can be fixed and then tackle the other issues that could make Medicare and general health insurance more viable in the future?
For instance, why don’t we start off by instituting meaningful tort reform by reimbursing to victims, as close to the actual amount, for the loss they have sustained, through medical malpractice, and by capping the amounts for pain and suffering and punitive damages? In addition, to curtail frivolous lawsuits, we should institute “loser pays” for legal and court costs, as is practiced in Europe. The amount of frivolous lawsuits will practically dry up as result. Maybe a mediation and arbitration court arrangement could be setup to handle malpractice cases under government supervision.
Another area of change would be to make medical insurance available across state lines to broaden the pool of insurance providers to foster more competition which will lower costs and make insurance more cost “reasonable”. In addition, we could institute something along the lines of what the Forbes Publishing Co. has instituted – HSA – (Health Savings Accounts) where clients theoretically spend their own money from their account thereby putting a check on health care costs as people are more careful of spending their “own” money rather than having a faceless bureaucrat allocating what medical services you should have to spend your money on.
And finally, the only area that the government should get involved in health care, other than Medicare, is in government oversight to check on waste and fraud which is always present when people are involved. Billions of dollars are wasted every year by unscrupulous beneficiaries, medical services suppliers, and crooked insurers and medical practitioners. We shouldn’t disrupt our whole health care system to attempt to give access to 5% of the population that is in need of health insurance. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, fix the problems we can fix and then tweak the system to make it better later on.
Medicare is a great program for our senior citizens, but it must be made fiscally sound by keeping the overuse of services to a minimum and by keeping fraud and waste to a minimum. Once you get a hold on those areas, then you can institute other reforms later on to make the system work better so it will be there when our children and grandchildren become eligible in the future, because they are our country’s future. As it is today, I wouldn’t bet on it. So fix it, don’t nix it!
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Worst Bill Ever
Below is a very informative article from the Wall Street Journal.
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
***
All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
***
All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Conservative Quote of the Day
"When the "rich" have more money to spend, they spend more money, thus employing and making more prosperous the people at the lower end of the economic ladder. It then follows that if the "rich" are overly taxed, the less money they have to spend, and consequently the less money there will be for the people at the lower end of the economic ladder". (ECONOMICS 101)
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Video Exposing ACORN Fraud
Click on Picture above to play the Video.
Watch this 3 1/2 minute Video on the controversial community organizing group ACORN.
See B. Hussein Obama and his connection with the Radical group ACORN.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Conservative Quote of the Day
"The Democratic Party is no longer the party of ideas. Instead, it has become the party of invective and intolerance. It's divisiveness and demagoguery have little new to offer beyond expanding the welfare state and in appeasing our enemies".
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The “Pursuit of Happiness”
Our forefathers, in the Declaration of Independence, offered us the “pursuit of happiness” not the “guarantee of happiness” as some of our socialist oriented citizens seem to want to promise us by proposing to change 1/6 of our economy from a mostly private to a public (government-run) system of health care.
In their zeal to show that they have “compassion” for others, they want to push their idea of the “nanny state” where the government takes care of its citizens from cradle to grave. This mindset is what is driving the people who are trying to institute “Universal Health Care” upon us. As of now, it doesn’t seem to be resonating very well in Middle America, and the people are making their voices heard loud and clear. Will the Obama Administration and the Congress listen, only time will tell?
Most all of us know that reform is needed, but the question that causes all the fuss is how we go about it. The liberal seems to want the federal government to be the provider of the financing and operation for this reform. Conversely, the conservatives want the private sector to be the one to mainly provide this service. These divergent points of view are what are driving the emotional disagreement between the parties.
Ideally, in an unreal fantasy world, it would be fine if we could pay into one fund and have all our medical bills paid for. But, we do not live in a fantasy world, we live in the real world with imperfect people, therefore “it ain’t that easy” as Mother Nature sticks her ugly head into the mix. Look around you, how many government run entities are run efficiently with a minimal amount of waste, and outright fraud? Think about Amtrak, the Post Office, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Katrina relief, the I.R.S., Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid etc., etc. All running at a deficit or going broke. I can’t conceive of anyone in their right mind pointing to any government run program as the epitome of a well run enterprise.
Too many people do not want to take responsibility for themselves, but want others to take care of them. Many in our country feel that the “rich” people should pay for all their needs by “punishing” them by taxing them at an unrealistic rate, while they pay little or nothing at all. This class warfare shibboleth, fostered by the liberals (or is it now progressives?), of pitting one income group against another is right out of the Karl Marx playbook, is the modus operandi of the Obamamaniacs in trying to fundamentally change (or transform) our society as we know it. Today, people who make over $250,000 per year, which make up about 7% of all tax returns, pay 60% of all federal income taxes. How much more of the tax load do you want them to pay before they mutiny and say “the hell with it”? The bottom 50% of workers pays just 3% of the total income taxes collected. Is that fair?
Our country was built upon the proposition that everyone was to contribute to their own welfare, so when one group expects the other to take care of them, through the government and its taxing policies, resentment builds up and anger ensues just like what is happening at the “Tea Parties” and “Town Hall Meetings” around the country today. People are frustrated and don’t want others getting a “free lunch” on their backs. For their efforts they are being called “racists”, “brown shirts”, and “evil mongers”. The “Obamamaniacs” should look in the mirror and then make those slurs. It would be fitting and proper to do that.
We don’t need a “nanny state” because a government that controls many aspects of our life eventually will control our whole life, whether we want it or not. Once a government program is put into place it will be almost impossible to get rid of it. That’s what is happening in other countries that have “Universal Health Care”. The medical costs and the quality of the medical care have deteriorated to the point where many of these countries “Universal Health Plans” are on the verge of going bankrupt. They are trying to put a “band-aid” on their burdensome systems by instituting some form of “private” fixes, but it probably is too late. Is that what we want for America? Long lines and rationed care? I think not! We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water just fix what needs to be fixed.
We, as a nation, on the other hand, cannot “guarantee happiness”, but we can stop this insanity that is attempting to screw up our whole system by trying to attain something that is unattainable. Wake up America before it is too late.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
In their zeal to show that they have “compassion” for others, they want to push their idea of the “nanny state” where the government takes care of its citizens from cradle to grave. This mindset is what is driving the people who are trying to institute “Universal Health Care” upon us. As of now, it doesn’t seem to be resonating very well in Middle America, and the people are making their voices heard loud and clear. Will the Obama Administration and the Congress listen, only time will tell?
Most all of us know that reform is needed, but the question that causes all the fuss is how we go about it. The liberal seems to want the federal government to be the provider of the financing and operation for this reform. Conversely, the conservatives want the private sector to be the one to mainly provide this service. These divergent points of view are what are driving the emotional disagreement between the parties.
Ideally, in an unreal fantasy world, it would be fine if we could pay into one fund and have all our medical bills paid for. But, we do not live in a fantasy world, we live in the real world with imperfect people, therefore “it ain’t that easy” as Mother Nature sticks her ugly head into the mix. Look around you, how many government run entities are run efficiently with a minimal amount of waste, and outright fraud? Think about Amtrak, the Post Office, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Katrina relief, the I.R.S., Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid etc., etc. All running at a deficit or going broke. I can’t conceive of anyone in their right mind pointing to any government run program as the epitome of a well run enterprise.
Too many people do not want to take responsibility for themselves, but want others to take care of them. Many in our country feel that the “rich” people should pay for all their needs by “punishing” them by taxing them at an unrealistic rate, while they pay little or nothing at all. This class warfare shibboleth, fostered by the liberals (or is it now progressives?), of pitting one income group against another is right out of the Karl Marx playbook, is the modus operandi of the Obamamaniacs in trying to fundamentally change (or transform) our society as we know it. Today, people who make over $250,000 per year, which make up about 7% of all tax returns, pay 60% of all federal income taxes. How much more of the tax load do you want them to pay before they mutiny and say “the hell with it”? The bottom 50% of workers pays just 3% of the total income taxes collected. Is that fair?
Our country was built upon the proposition that everyone was to contribute to their own welfare, so when one group expects the other to take care of them, through the government and its taxing policies, resentment builds up and anger ensues just like what is happening at the “Tea Parties” and “Town Hall Meetings” around the country today. People are frustrated and don’t want others getting a “free lunch” on their backs. For their efforts they are being called “racists”, “brown shirts”, and “evil mongers”. The “Obamamaniacs” should look in the mirror and then make those slurs. It would be fitting and proper to do that.
We don’t need a “nanny state” because a government that controls many aspects of our life eventually will control our whole life, whether we want it or not. Once a government program is put into place it will be almost impossible to get rid of it. That’s what is happening in other countries that have “Universal Health Care”. The medical costs and the quality of the medical care have deteriorated to the point where many of these countries “Universal Health Plans” are on the verge of going bankrupt. They are trying to put a “band-aid” on their burdensome systems by instituting some form of “private” fixes, but it probably is too late. Is that what we want for America? Long lines and rationed care? I think not! We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water just fix what needs to be fixed.
We, as a nation, on the other hand, cannot “guarantee happiness”, but we can stop this insanity that is attempting to screw up our whole system by trying to attain something that is unattainable. Wake up America before it is too late.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Conservative Quote of the Week
"A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution"
(Doesn't this sort of describe how the "loony left" uses former President Bush as cover for their mistakes and foolish policies)
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
(Doesn't this sort of describe how the "loony left" uses former President Bush as cover for their mistakes and foolish policies)
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Myth of Separation of Church and State
It was Thomas Jefferson who penned the words, “wall of separation between church and state” in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Jefferson was responding to a letter the Association wrote him objecting to Connecticut’s establishment of “Congregationalism” as its state church. Jefferson responded that the 1st Amendment prohibited the national (Federal) government from establishing a “National Church”.
Jefferson concluded, rightly so, that the constitution’s 10th Amendment’s federalism provision prohibited the national government from interfering with matters of state governments - “a wall of separation”, if you will, between the federal government and state governments. The 1st Amendment states that we, as a nation, should be free of a government of religion, but not free of a government from religion. The “wall of separation” does not appear in our constitution.
Isn’t it ironic that most people agree that the G.I. Bill of Rights, which issued vouchers to returning veterans of W.W.II so they could pursue a college education, are not upset that the monies given to the veterans could’ve and was used to attend private schools (including religious schools), but get very upset when vouchers are proposed to be given to families of elementary and high school students to attend private or religious schools, and use the “wall of separation” as justification for opposing educational “vouchers”. In a very insightful paper written by, Professor Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, he states the following; “Some people argue that, in effect, school choice programs are pro-religious because most of their funds end up being spent at religious schools. But, this is like saying that putting out a fire at a church is pro-religious because the firefighters are helping only the church. If you look at education as a whole, or firefighting as a whole, you’ll find that the lion’s share of all money goes to nonreligious institutions – in education, to government-run schools. School choice programs merely mean that instead of the money going only to government-run schools, it goes to all schools, including a relatively few religious ones………That’s the true meaning of the Constitution, whether we’re talking about police services, the fire department, the G.I. Bill, or elementary schools. Equality for all. Special benefits for none. Discrimination against none”.
So the use of the “wall of separation” as justification for opposing “vouchers” is a bogus argument as it has no justification in our U.S. Constitution.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Jefferson was responding to a letter the Association wrote him objecting to Connecticut’s establishment of “Congregationalism” as its state church. Jefferson responded that the 1st Amendment prohibited the national (Federal) government from establishing a “National Church”.
Jefferson concluded, rightly so, that the constitution’s 10th Amendment’s federalism provision prohibited the national government from interfering with matters of state governments - “a wall of separation”, if you will, between the federal government and state governments. The 1st Amendment states that we, as a nation, should be free of a government of religion, but not free of a government from religion. The “wall of separation” does not appear in our constitution.
Isn’t it ironic that most people agree that the G.I. Bill of Rights, which issued vouchers to returning veterans of W.W.II so they could pursue a college education, are not upset that the monies given to the veterans could’ve and was used to attend private schools (including religious schools), but get very upset when vouchers are proposed to be given to families of elementary and high school students to attend private or religious schools, and use the “wall of separation” as justification for opposing educational “vouchers”. In a very insightful paper written by, Professor Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, he states the following; “Some people argue that, in effect, school choice programs are pro-religious because most of their funds end up being spent at religious schools. But, this is like saying that putting out a fire at a church is pro-religious because the firefighters are helping only the church. If you look at education as a whole, or firefighting as a whole, you’ll find that the lion’s share of all money goes to nonreligious institutions – in education, to government-run schools. School choice programs merely mean that instead of the money going only to government-run schools, it goes to all schools, including a relatively few religious ones………That’s the true meaning of the Constitution, whether we’re talking about police services, the fire department, the G.I. Bill, or elementary schools. Equality for all. Special benefits for none. Discrimination against none”.
So the use of the “wall of separation” as justification for opposing “vouchers” is a bogus argument as it has no justification in our U.S. Constitution.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Michelle Malkin on The View
For those of us who cannot stomach to watch "The View" (except to see Elizabeth) see the Link below to watch the awesome Michelle Malkin discuss her new book.
Do you have Buyers remorse?
Since hope and change were a lie.
Do you have Buyers remorse?
Since hope and change were a lie.
Cheney interview on Fox
If you missed the interview last weekend we have 9 minutes of it below.
Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday August 30 2009.
Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday August 30 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
