This is literally the bottom of the lake. When there's a lake. As this fish found out. Looks downright apocalyptic.
Monday, August 31, 2009
This is literally the bottom of the lake. When there's a lake. As this fish found out. Looks downright apocalyptic.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
With the Justice Department's release this week of previously classified documents involving enhanced interrogation techniques, Democrats have a new excuse to be outraged at Bush, Cheney, and company. The so-called "abuses" perpetrated on detained terrorists by the CIA include such unorthodox techniques as faked executions, false threats against their family members, and in at least one case a drill held behind a captive's head like it might be used to pick his brain.
Of course, no actual harm was done in any of these cases. Without harm, how do you define abuse? It's ridicule maybe, psychological trickery most definitely. But abuse?! Heck, if this is abuse, where do I sign up? Because given the choice, I'd rather face a mock execution than an Obamacare death panel any day. Who wouldn't?
What a wonderful time to be a terrorist. If you are an Al-Qaeda member detained by the United States, you have a White House and an attorney general in your corner. The ACLU is fighting for your rights. You have hundreds of the best lawyers championing your cause. You'll be back on the battlefield in no time, Allah willing, perhaps with a prosthetic limb that we provided in a rare case where we actually should have rationed health care.
If you're a Libyan bomber in Scotland and you are responsible for the deaths of 260 innocent airline passengers, even if you are found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in prison, you can be set free after only eight years under the guise of compassion. The bomber, al-Magrahi, received a hero's welcome back home, which had tyrants and terrorists joyfully singing."It's springtime for Gaddafi, winter for Lockerbie. We're marching to a jihad's pace. A Scottish judge threw out the case."
You'll excuse me for not singing along.
Everyone on the Left seems to be concerned about the most constitutional, humane, and compassionate way to treat the least compassionate, most vile jihadist, the undignified cowards often responsible for plotting to blow up innocent women and children. We must stand up for their liberties! But if you're an everyday American, not so much. In fact, if you've been speaking up at town hall meetings, please shut up. Your speech is offensive, radical, racist, and dangerous. Which reminds me, why haven't we passed the "Fairness" Doctrine yet?
Welcome to Obama's America, where we are supposed to be outraged over pretending to execute terrorists, but gladly volunteer ourselves to appear before real health advisory boards who can, for all practical purposes, hand out death sentences by rationing life-saving treatments. You can mock Sarah Palin all you want for calling them death panels, but just because they aren't supposed to officially kill people, doesn't mean they haven't had that effect.
In the U.K. for example, depending on where you live and what your income level is, the chance of receiving effective cancer treatment varies greatly. As many patient advocates have said of the poor single-payer system, it's a health care lottery. You are 400% more likely to survive most types of cancer in the United States than in Britain. Given that data alone, why change our system to look more like theirs when you've got to ask yourself, do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, statist punk?
Our vicious CIA interrogators might issue false threats against family members of Al-Qaeda operatives, but our bold health care reformers want to send end-of-life counselors into our homes to interrogate our vulnerable, eighty-year old moms and dads. Maybe we should be sending these bureaucrats out to visit the family members of Al-Qaeda, signing up terrorists for hospice and encouraging do-not-resuscitate orders. But the ACLU would probably suddenly step in and call it torture. It's amazing what you can get away with if it's against your own people, especially if the perpetrator is progressive and the victims are perceived to be old, white, and against progressivism.
As C.S. Lewis said more brilliantly than I ever could:
"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 at some point may 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 conscience."
I, for one, would appreciate the enhanced interrogation technique of a mock death panel. Pretend the person in the room next to me is having their treatments rationed for the benefit of the state's bottom line, and I'll give up almost any information. Just don't let the government decide how long I can live based on what treatment they will approve. If only it was all pretend. But the takeover is real. Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to make it happen. Even if there are constitutional questions that haven't been addressed. I'd tell Eric Holder and the boys over at Justice to look into it, but I understand they have their hands full protecting the civil liberties of wannabe suicide bombers.
Meanwhile, real atrocities are being confirmed in prisons in Iran, where protesters against the government's stolen election have been jailed, beaten, tortured, and raped. Funny, but I haven't heard any uproar coming from the U.N. or human rights activists who were so worked up about a few nude photos taken at Abu Ghraib. I haven't seen any outpouring of support from the Muslim world or massive demonstrations against this cruel oppression.
President Obama hasn't said a thing about the rights of these prisoners. Which is too bad, because his silence is the soothing sound of comfort that tyrants and terrorists are all too glad to hear. His silence gives hope to our enemies around the globe. That's probably not the kind of hope most people thought they were voting for.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Too often in this nation, we let our political stripes divide us. Too often, we demonize the other side. Too often, especially on left leaning blogs, the death of a political opponent is celebrated. Vile things that no decent human would say to another person's face are written anonymously. It hinders us as a nation. It poisons us as a people. It diminishes our cause and cheapens the debate. This blog, even though it is a conservative blog that often serves up red meat, will do no such thing. We condemn any blogs that commit such acts of malice. In other words, we are not the Huffington Post.
We mourn today the passing of a longtime legislator, Edward Kennedy, who was the lion of liberalism in the Senate. He served almost 50 years for the state of Massachusetts. I will save my rant for Congressional term limits for another time. Senator Kennedy's life was one of tragedy and triumph. He lost three brothers during his lifetime; one in war, and two assassinated by extremists who clearly had no respect for the dignity of life, for the Constitution, and for the process through which we elect our leaders in America. Let us remember how important that process is, for though politics may divide us, we are all Americans.
We are too quick to forget in this country and we are too quick to judge, so let us do neither now. Senator Kennedy and his family deserve our gratitude and our respect. Even though we may disagree on key issues, including universal health care and abortion, even though we may have doubts about how the senator handled his affairs in the past, including Chappaquiddick, the appropriate time and place to have that discussion is not today. We do a great disservice to our nation and our own ideals when we can't separate the achievements of the person from the person, or for that matter, the life of the person from our philosophical disagreements. Let's not use the tragic end of his life to breathe life into our own personal biases and political agendas. He is neither hero nor villain.
We are bound by a common past and our destiny is a common future. Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, we share a common set of values. That all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. May no enemy take those away from us.
"Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle year in and year out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty and war itself."
The famous words of Ted's older brother, President John F. Kennedy never seemed more appropriate. If only he would have taken these words more to heart during his lifetime. Today, the trumpets have summoned Senator Edward Kennedy home.
Monday, August 24, 2009
That's why Obama smiles and makes the talk-show rounds. He tells wild tales of health care failures and makes pretty promises of hope. Look at the president and his beautiful family. How can you not trust him? Are you going to believe the Republicans, the ones who got us in this mess? Are you a racist? Don't you want to bring the change that Obama wants to bring to health care?
If we continue down this path, the rights of the individual will be crushed by the whims of authoritarian hero-worship. The best way to prevent this is to stand up against state-controlled health care right now and make articulate arguments against tyranny. Even if it means being labeled an extremist or a racist.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
"What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever," Reid stated. "We would in fact have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would determine everything that happens... the Senate was set up to be different. That was the genius, the vision, of our Founding Fathers."
"As long as I am the leader, the answer is no. I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again. I really do believe it will ruin our country."
"We will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid. "However, patience is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary."
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
When Sheila Jackson Lee speaks, does Sheila Jackson Lee listen?
We are all aware of her rude cell phone routine during a recovering cancer patient's questioning of health care reform at a Houston town hall meeting. But it gets even better. On Thursday night, Greta Van Susteren attempted to interview the Democratic congresswoman. I say "attempted", because Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee never heard a word. She talked right over every question. It would be downright embarrassing if it wasn't so hilarious. Saturday Night Live's weekend news parodies have rarely been this funny. Sheila Jackson Lee went on TV to prove that she wasn't an elitist with a tin ear, and yet she proved undoubtedly just that. She is indeed phone-y.
Delusions of grandeur? Check. I wouldn't say she's as bad as former representative Cynthia McKinney, but give her time. She's certainly as vocal. And worse she's from Texas, so I feel obliged to apologize to the nation for sending her to Washington. It's clear Sheila Jackson Lee doesn't represent the interests of her constituents. She represents the interests of Sheila Jackson Lee. But who knows? Because she speaks about herself in third person, she just might be convinced she is representing an outside party.
Here's the million dollar question, which Greta touches on briefly: why do legislators who support health care reform have to call a hotline to get answers about a bill that they wrote? Don't they know? If they've read it (as they claim) and still don't understand it, isn't that evidence that their health care reforms cause more problems than they solve? Isn't that evidence that the bill is too invasive and complicated? How do you accuse your opponents of intentionally misconstruing what's in the bill when you can't say yourself without calling a hotline?
Jackson Lee, however, dodged anything close to answering. Instead, she complained that the video of her at the town hall "looked strange." As if it were footage of Bigfoot or something. Greta, quick on her toes, shot back, "It looked bad. This behavior looks bad."
We are being governed by spoiled children who would rather whine and demonize their critics than do their homework. They don't like the status quo, they can vilify insurance companies for cheap political points, and their messiah is in favor of a single-payer system. Case closed. Any reform that strips power from the free market will do, making them heroes in their own twisted minds. They're not reading, they're not listening, and they sure as heck aren't leading. This is why people are infuriated.
Can you hear us now, Democrats?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
If you are wondering why I haven't posted a blog in almost a week, I was in film school learning my new mad mac skills! More videos to follow.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
One of the biggest myths the Obama administration continues to push is that health care reform is necessary in order to control health care costs for you, the consumer. This is such a blatant lie, I laugh out loud every time they send out one of their spokespersons to repeat it. If only laughter really were the best medicine, we'd have found a cure in the nonsense that is Obamacare.
There are no guarantees health care reform will reduce costs for you, and the government knows it. That's why they are trying to ram it through as quickly as possible. In fact, it will most likely increase costs. How else do you expect insurance companies to cover the expense of high-risk patients with preexisting conditions that they will now be forced to insure? As the president said, "there are no free lunches." Someone has to pay for this and no surprise, it's you and me, hard-working and healthy individuals. If it takes higher premiums and higher taxes down the road, so be it. Obamacare is basically a universal surcharge disguised as "caring for people."
Think about it. If Democrats really cared about how much you have in your pocket to pay for health insurance, they would be in favor of letting you hold on to more of your money. That's called a tax cut. It's the quickest and most effective way to make sure families and individuals can meet their budgetary obligations. But when was the last time you remember a liberal proposing a tax reduction? They'd rather confiscate your wealth and redistribute it as they see fit.
So while the Obama administration talks about saving you money in health care reforms, they're planning tax increases that will eat up any savings you might see. Just this weekend on Meet the Press, Timothy Geithner left the door open for a tax increase on the middle class. You know, the one Obama promised he would never raise, "not even a cent", when he was campaigning for office last year.
Then there's the cap-and-trade legislation that will raise the cost of energy by taxing energy companies, eating into the budgets of small businesses and working families. Last time I checked, all those fancy machines that doctors and hospitals use to treat patients require energy, so if President Obama's crap-and-trade passes, the cost to treat patients will go up. Unless Obama is planning on rationing electricity. Maybe that's what he means when he talks about eliminating unnecessary tests. No more CAT scans, MRIs, heart monitors, dialysis machines, you name it. The energy costs too much!
How can an administration or anyone seriously claim that you pay too much for health care while at the same time trying to increase what you pay for gas and electricity? Or saying you don't pay enough in taxes? Yet they do, because the media lets them get away with it. This is a shell game, plain and simple, a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. No families will see a net increase in the money they bring home under this scheme. The only savings will be for the government. Which we know they will waste.
The fact of the matter is the government has become too involved in health care, killing choice and competition. In fact, 46% of all health care costs in this country are paid by Uncle Sam thanks to Medicaid and Medicare. The government has never set the appropriate amounts of money aside for these entitlement programs, underfunded them from the beginning, and now they are even skimping on payments to the doctors and hospitals who accept them, leaving private insurance to pick up the slack. Not surprisingly, Medicaid and Medicare are bankrupt government solutions sold to us by the same clowns selling us the new solution of universal health care. And they were sold to us for a lot less than they actually cost.
So what do you do when your Ponzi scheme is running out of money? As Bernie Madoff would say, find some new suckers! Enter Obamacare. It forces everyone to enroll in government-regulated insurance (including the public option) or be punished with a tax (2.5% for every uninsured member of your family). It forces businesses who don't supply their employees with health insurance to pay a tax (8%). And by forcing young, healthy people who usually don't have many medical claims into plans with unnecessary coverage and considerably higher premiums than the private sector has ever charged (you know, the evil ones that make a profit) it basically sets up a system like social security (also going broke), that relies on young workers to work harder to pay for the old and unhealthy.
If just Medicaid and Medicare are too expensive and underfunded, you can imagine what will happen when a health care entitlement program is expanded to include tens or hundreds of millions of new participants. We will be burdening ourselves under even greater amounts of debt, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has articulated. Heck, just for fun, ask a liberal to name one government program that has ever cost less than projected. Might as well make it a hundred dollar bet, because there aren't any.
There's no bending the curve on health care costs unless the government controls actual health care decisions by price fixing and rationing. In fact, that's exactly what the bill that has been proposed in the House is designed to do. It will be sending bureaucrats out and about to monitor procedures, monitor doctors, monitor medical devices, monitor expecting couples and young families, and monitor end-of-life decisions. There's never been so much Big Brother in a bill before. Not in America. Pundit and Pundette has done a great job of breaking down some of the details by providing pertinent page numbers in the 1000 page bill.
Even with rationing, the cost curve will eventually bend the wrong way and snap back to reality. Why else do you think Obama and the Democrats are only asking that the plan be deficit-neutral for the first ten years? Because that's the furthest they could cook the books without looking like Enron. After that, they can't keep the costs down without massive tax increases, as this chart shows. State-controlled health care will be contributing to the deficit in a big way twenty years out.
What does this mean for you, the consumer? Besides less choice, less money in your pocket, and a ballooning federal deficit that your grandkids will inherit? It means inferior service and longer waits, a shortage of ambulances, and lotteries to see a specialist (just ask Great Britain or Canada). These aren't scare tactics. These are real consequences of real governments making health care decisions based on the state's bottom line. And it's exactly what's wrong with Obama's plan, even if it can reduce some people's premiums.
Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't signing up for the public plan, you can count on that. They are the ridiculously wealthy, the politically connected, and the elites, and they will go outside the system for preferential treatment. The same way Fidel Castro traveled abroad for his health care rather than use the single-payer Cuban system, you can expect the same dastardly behavior out of our elected officials. After all, as Obama said in his press conference, he doesn't need the public system. "I have the best health care available. I have doctors following me around everywhere." Lucky him.
You don't reduce the cost of government by adding new entitlement programs that increase bureaucracy and the size of government. You don't reduce the costs to businesses by adding layers of invasive regulation. Obamacare is a massive transfer of wealth from the private sector to the state camouflaged as necessary reform just because it isn't the status quo. Funny, but isn't that the same way we were sold TARP, the government takeover of Chrysler and GM, and the failing stimulus bill? Obama seems to think any proposal is better than the status quo, even if it's handing over massive power to the state. Or I should say especially if it's handing over massive power to the state.
Given a choice, I would prefer to be poor and free rather than wealthy and enslaved. But it looks like state controlled health care will give us a third option: sick, poor, and bounded by bureaucracy.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Oh dear, is someone in high places paying attention to my little blog? If so, I may have started something. House Republican leader John Boehner has a new video out regarding Obamacare and it mirrors pretty much everything I wrote the night of Obama's health care press conference. That was nearly two weeks ago. Here's the video and here's the blog. You be the judge.
My only disappointment is that they didn't include the "asthma/breathalyzer" stuff from the campaign trail last year. Of course, it's possible that great minds think alike. In which case, hire me. I can help articulate the conservative message in attention-grabbing ways better than almost anyone. Seriously. What are you waiting for?