Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Dear Mr. President


President Obama, your contingent of intelligencia is wrong. They have been affected by
embracing incorrect beliefs and wrong headed heroes. They have been affected by the hypnotic spell which was cast upon them, by minds so diabolical as to attempt to radically morph the most successful and civilized way of life yet conceived. They think that anything which is not government oriented and controlled, is not comprehensible.
In this great country of ours, man is a mere ant, in his influence and his intellect. But when the ants of this country are marshalled to action, both in physical and intellectual strength, mountains can be moved, policies can change and political regimes can be shown the door, thus preserving the American system of capitalism and free enterprise.
Yes, Mr. President, there is an opposition majority. We exist as certainly as your attempt to reduce and eliminate our freedoms. And you know that they abound, giving our way of life a certain uniqueness, which is the envy of the entire world. Alas, how dreary would the United States be if all we had to look forward to was what the State was going to supply and how much. It would be as dreary as existing in the former Soviet Union, where individual incentive took a back seat to the central source of all power- the State.
If your position on the value of human life were in existence before you were born, perhaps there would be no Barack Obama today, and what a pity that would indeed be. The eternal light which is the United States, as exemplified in the Statue of Liberty fills the world and is on the threshold of being extinguished.
Not believe in freedom and the American system of government, and strive to sustain them? You might as well get out the hammer and sickle now and spare us the drama.
No one sees our freedoms and liberties, but that is not a sign that they should be dispensed with. The most real characteristics of our system of government are not those we can see, but those we can experience. Freedom, justice, liberty, the right to work as hard as we desire and to reap the rewards of such, without government peering over our shoulder ensuring that some ill conceived equality be satisfied, must and will continue to be our incentive.
Mr. President, you and your cohorts may dismantle our system of government, our freedoms, our liberties, but neither you nor an army of your peers will even vanquish our zest for the gift which our founding fathers gave us and for which so many have paid the ultimate price to preserve. Ah, Mr. President, in all this world, there is nothing as comforting and secure as our system of government. Thank God for what we have, and to those who are bold enough to try to take it from us, beware, the opposition majority will mobilize and you will be political history.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Compost: Sudden Death

Tell me more about these... death panels:

That's a pretty good Keith Morrison. I'm surprised SNL would even reference 'Death Panels' in an Obama skit, lest they attach the concept to Obama in anyway. I would guess they think Americans believe the idea of death panels is so preposterous that it's inherently humorous.

It would be preposterous if there were five people sitting on a panel making a call on whether a patient would receive the treatment necessary or die. I don't know if that' what Palin envisions when she started using the phrase "death panels," but it's not that blatant. It's not exactly subtle either.

C/o Ace of Spades, this editorial highlights one way in which Obamacare will force patients, doctors and administrators (of hopsitals, insurance companies, and government oversight panels) to make life or death treatment decisions in cases where full treatment used to be the standard.

Yes, there are death panels. Its members won't even know whose deaths they are causing. But under the health care bill sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, death panels will indeed exist - oh so cleverly disguised as accountants.

The offending provision is on Pages 80-81 of the unamended Baucus bill, hidden amid a lot of similar legislative mumbo-jumbo about Medicare payments to doctors. The key sentence: "Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization." Translated into plain English, it means that in any year in which a particular doctor's average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the nation, the feds will cut the doctor's payments by 5 percent.

So, no, there will not be a group of bureaucrats gathered in a windowless room deciding whether a patient gets treatment or not. However there are three ways in which Obamacare will, as the Wash Times puts it, institute "death panels by proxy."

First, Medicare payments to doctors, which are already not to the full cost of treatment, will be reduced if a doctor does everything he can to successfully treat a patient. Every year, doctors will try to push down costs by under-treating patients in order to avoid landing in the 10% of doctors who will have their Medicare payments docked by 5%.

It's not just elderly people who will suffer under this formula, although they will certainly see the availability of treatment reduced. This will undoubtedly hurt low-income urban patients who rely on Medicare and Medicaid. Doctors working in urban clinics or hospitals, where the volume of patients is naturally higher, will be forced to stop seeing patients or to drastically reduce the available level of care to avoid being in the top ten percent. (That and/or the government will set a minimum/maximum number of doctors for geographic regions, whereby doctors will be forced to practice in areas where there is a deficit of doctors).

Second, a government panel will decide the minimum and maximum levels of coverage that ALL insurance policies can provide. There is a minimum so all insurance plans will be watered down in order to limit treatment and drag down costs. There's no magic savings, just a lower standard of care. There is a maximum so the government can tax people over the max coverage in order to subsidize a) the reduced Medicare and Medicaid programs, b) those receiving insurance through a public option (if there is one), and c) lower- to mid-level income people receiving private insurance (with government subsidy).

Third, a government panel will decide which procedures and treatment will be covered by the public option (if there is one) and by Medicare and Medicaid. This will result in savings, but again, only by reducing the standard of care and lowering the level of treatment currently available through public and private insurance.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

"The Great One", and just "The One"

There's a reason why they call Mark Levin "The Great One." It's blunt ads like this:

American Spectator is a good website, and Mark Levin is a great American. His book, Liberty and Tyranny, is one of the few modern conservative books that will stand the test of time. It's meticulously researched, entirely coherent, and comprehensive on historical and modern political debates. This qoute, on page 22, is something everyone should keep in mind when considering expansion of government-run health care in the guise of "reform":
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Something to keep in mind for all sorts of reform: health care, "global warming" or "climate change," and whatever else has been promised by The One.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Can't Spell UN Without "Dumb F'n Idiots"

It's good to see Canadians are able to recognize legitimately offensive speech when it's right in front of them. Canada is always ready to bend over to defend supporters of terrorist networks in their Human Rights Commissions, but they got it right this week when they announced that they'd walk out Ahmewhatever's UN speech. As expected, Bullshidinejad went on a diatribe against the West, Israel and the US in specific. As announced, Canada took a hike. As did a stream of other countries that presumably showed up to do the same thing.

Other stuff that's pretty interesting: Libya's dictator, Gadhafi, is crazy. He says the UN needs to give more authority and deference to member countries. The bigger mystery is why Libya is allowed to speak inside of the UN. Or Iran for that matter. One brilliant Gadhafi insight: “They make the virus so that the capitalist companies will have the vaccinations, create the vaccinations, and they want to sell it... This is really bad ethic.”

In the real world, where the ramblings of belligerent, murdering dictators aren't held aside the policies and values of democratic societies, an Iranian exile gave a clear picture of Ahmedinejad: "He's a murderer! They took my 19-year-old brother and killed him," said Allen Tasslimi, a member of the Association of Iranian-Americans. ... "Ahmadinejad is known in Iran as the 'Terminator' -- and not because he resembles Arnold Schwarzenegger," Safavi said.

The UN is a corrupt joke.

No Longer Reverse Racism, Just Racism

At Ace of Spades is an article about Obama's Head of Diversity at the FCC, Mark Lloyd. The article is sort of disjointed - it encompasses quotes from across time - but there are a few specifics that are interesting in relation to the liberal conception of freedom of speech (these are accumulated by Newsbusters across time, but paint a pretty bad picture):

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.


What we're really saying is that the Fairness Doctrine's not enough. And that having a sort of over-arching rule that says broadcasters ought to be "fair" or ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply enough. Unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard, structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness.


This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.


The conversation about how we communicate with each other despite being aware of the clear impressions that I know that I make in rooms that I walk into, when people hear my voice, is a challenge. How much do I express the... I think really pretty obvious complaints of black Americans in rooms full of whites....

There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.

This is a pretty good example of what is wrong with human rights commissions and diversity panels and free speech zones. Nobody is actually trying to enhance the first amendment through them. None of them are simply trying to guarantee the right to free expression. They are trying to bring about equality of speech: to make sure that regardless of circumstance or necessity, views are given equal time. People can say whatever they like, and for the most part do whatever they like, and that is protected. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to a forum in front of a large audience to expose those views or actions.

These gimmicks attempt to box in free speech for the purpose of enhancing expression. But the first thing to go inside of them is free speech. The next thing that happens is whoever is in charge of the commission or panel on free speech/diversity of thought immediately seeks out the most minor of viewpoints to exalt above the opinion that represents a plurality or majority. Not to give it equal time, but to exalt it above. After that, as Lloyd states, people who aren't in the preferred race, religion or sex category are pushed aside - from the radio, television, or their job - to make room for someone who is under-represented. There is no thought to the underlying problems that cause under-representation or why some groups of people haven't naturally gained a national forum. No thought to creating jobs, creating leaders, or sincere efforts to improve education in minority or low-income communities Parity and equality will solve the world's problems. Give more to unions, and make sure no one (individual or group) has, no matter how hard they worked to earn it, more than anyone else.

The Townhall and Teabag protestors are racist. Mark Lloyd, diversity czar, is full-on Counting Crows Colorblind.

Video of Lloyd yapping here:


Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Obamacare Is Un-healthy and Mean

There are a lot of contradictions in modern liberalism. One of the primary ones that stands out is the elevation of social liberties over economic liberties. It would seem that both should be equal, and maybe there should be no distinction between the two.

It's hard to understand why a person would get worked up to the point of derangement about, for example, little or un-used Patriot Act provisions that can prevent serious attacks against the US and only negatively affect criminals or terrorists, yet be perfectly at peace with the government taxing: income, shopping, smoking, alcohol consumption, soda consumption, dinner at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, gambling, attending a sporting event, attending a concert, your income (state level), your profit on securities investments, your profit on selling your house, your income (county level), and even the money that the government gives you to stimulate the economy (stimulus checks were taxed last year).

Similarly, it's difficult to understand why modern liberals put so much blind faith in the government. Currently they want to diminish economic freedom by expanding government involvement in health care. In the same of social equality, they'd like to ruing a system that provides Big advocates of democratic principles when it's convenient (protesting the Patriot Act, registering anybody and everybody to vote), they couldn't care less about the will of the majority when it contradicts their instincts.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that no one wants health care reform as it's presented by Obama and Congressional Democrats. But still, townhall protestors and tea bag demonstrators are unruly, mob-like, violent and dangerous. It doesn't matter that 55% of voters in contested Congressional districts (where there's likely to be a close-to-even mix of party affiliation) don't want single-payer, and 70% don't want mandates or fines to force people to buy insurance.

Obamacare would severely limit peoples' insurance options. Not just by which insurers they'll be able to choose, but what type of plans they'll be able to purchase. A minimum and a maximum coverage will be set. People won't be able to spend their money as they see fit. Seniors with private insurance through Medicare Advantage will have to get public insurance through Medicare. Another tax will be added for people with plans the government deems too expensive. Another tax will be added if insurance is mandated through fines. Government will control how and when you get treated. Inevitably, a crowd out will occur, and choices will be limited. Insurers may be large corporation, but there is no business as large as the federal government.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Great article


For those out there who are tired of being told how horrible their country is

Why no one cares

It's amazing. You ask the average person, "Who's Van Jones?" and they look at you like you have 5 heads. But you ask them, "Who's Kim Kardashian?" and they could give you a doctoral thesis.
This is a turning point in our history. We have reached a time in our country where the powers that be are so out of touch with reality that we have people like Sen. Charlie Rangel, who is one of the biggest crooks you could imagine, is writing tax code. Or Tim Geithner, head of the IRS, who is a tax cheat. But this is on TV every night - if you search for it. On my TV, it's channel 118, Fox News. Why is Fox News demonized? Because they are presenting the side of the argument that is meant to be kept a secret. But wait, let's look at the ratings. Fox News is the most watched channel in the news. Go look it up. I bet Keith Olbermann hasn't slept in months, since no one watches him.

If you watch Glenn Beck like I do, and wonder "what he hell can I do?", here's your answer. VOTE. Or as MTV like to say, "Rock the Vote". Show up to the polls. I do think that there are some good people left in Washington. There are plenty of dirty, corrupt puss eating politicians on both sides that have been selling this country down the river for some time now. But there are some left that are honest, law abiding citizens, that want to serve their country, and care about its future.

This past election year, we saw the Democratic machine at work. They got out there and won the confidence of certain people, in a much debated way. Lying. You're not going to watch World News with Charlie Gibson, and find out that dead people voted in the election. It's just not going to happen. I think enough people are fed up with the mainstream media. It's clear who is pulling the strings. Don't know what to do? DON'T WATCH IT. As ratings continue to plummet, eventually it will reach a point - start reporting news, or get on the unemployment line.

The point of all of this? Sometimes you have to beat people at their own game. Everyone loves to lecture us on how we "can't torture", or how we have to "lead by example". Pull out a history book. Remember the French and Indian war? The British, clad in bright red marching through the woods to the beat of a drum, got massacred by the Indians (allied with the French) waiting in the woods. It was called guerilla warfare. Not until the British realized that they were obvious, easy targets and employed another strategy- similar to the one that was defeating them- did they begin to make headway against their enemise. We live in a nation that wants to read a terrorist miranda rights, yet that same terrorist would sent his own offspring into a crowded American city with a bomb strapped to himself in the name of Allah. Where is that in the Koran?

The age of nievety has to end. Go to the polls - things you have never voted on before. Vote people out that do not deserve to be there. Beat them at their own game - and don't forget, there's plenty of available real estate in downtown Kabul, Afghanistan if America is so horrible.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Milton Friedman and... Stephen A. Smith?

Stephen A. Smith, in an excellent interview with The Great One, completely nails what is - and what has always been - wrong with Obama's vision for the country:

It's one thing to put up for the $787 billion stimulus package, but to drop on top of that $410 billion omnibus package, $3.6 trillion budget, a cap and trade bill, and then to come with universal health care that ultimately lends towards a government takeover of the system, I did not have to listen to Mark Levin, or Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh to recognize that this is something that this is something that should make us all uncomfortable.

As a young black man growing up on the streets of New York City... people may have advocated, Mark, government intervention in terms of supervising things and making sure we were all operating under a fair and equitable system, but I don't recall anybody - and I do mean anybody - that has ever walked into the Black community and advocated a government take over of anything. It's about handling your own business. [emphasis his]
America is not a country of dependents. It was not set up to have citizens rely on the government for all of their needs. Smith, speaking from his own experience, mentions the Black community, but his points apply equal to all American citizens. The government's role in society should be to, as Smith puts it, "level the playing field," which means the same as guaranteeing equality of opportunity. It is not to give equality of outcome to all, or to advance one set of citizens ahead of another set. His interview is completely in sync with two basic ideas that should define government's role:

1. Nothing the government gives you is going to be better - in quality or quantity - than what you can give yourself.

2. "Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as he spends his own." - Milton Friedman

Contradictions: Health Care Mandates & Fines

Sen. Barack Obama, Feb. 26, 2008, Democratic Primary Debate:

Now, I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior, but the fact of the matter is, is that if, as we've heard tonight, we still don't know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don't know the level of subsidies that she's going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford it, even with the subsidies.

And they are then worse off. They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that.
Sen. Max Baucus, Sept. 8, 2009, Health Care Compromise Proposal:
The fines would be the stick to enforce a proposed requirement that all Americans get health insurance, much as auto coverage is now mandatory. The penalties would start at $750 a year for individuals, and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.
Baucus's plan, if approved by President Obama, would essentially give the country the Massachusetts health care plan. That plan is bankrupting Massachusetts. It's been a failure on numerous fronts: costs have doubled since its inception, the state provides subsidies to people far above the level at which assistance is needed, and, in order to pay for unnecessary subsidies, MA is removing people (legal, taxpaying immigrants) from the program and changing the parameters of coverage to control costs.

Obama in 2008 says he would not have gone for this plan. He was right then: the people who need relief will be worse off; they still won't have coverage and they will be forced to pay a fine and still not receive coverage. But now he has left the drafting of legislation to Congress, and what he decried in Clinton's plan is a plan being put forward as a compromise.

If this plan is enacted, various citizens will: still not be covered, receive inferior coverage than they could already purchase but choose not to, and be subject to future limitations and/or denial of coverage when the government can't afford the coverage it promised people.