The Changing Nature of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Prior to the presidency of Bill Clinton sodomy was a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), rightly described as conduct unbecoming of any member of the armed services, and punishable by dishonorable discharge.

When “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was passed in 1993, it was hailed by liberals and homosexuals as an end to discrimination against gays. However, there were restrictions: gay soldiers were not allowed to serve openly. Conservatives knew then that the policy was only just a first step toward the decriminalization of homosexual activity under the UCMJ, a classic example of the incremental approach toward the furthering of the liberal agenda, and that eventually, if liberals continued to have their way, all restrictions against gays serving in the military would be eliminated.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will no longer apply to gays, but will by default apply to all those who disagree with gays serving in the military. For those service men and women with properly formed consciences, vocalizing any opinion against gays serving in the military will mean the effective end of their careers.

When women were allowed to begin serving in combat units and aboard naval surface combatants the military spent a lot of time and money indoctrinating soldiers, sailors and marines all about the evils of sexual harassment, which resulted in many false accusations and unfair treatment of active duty personnel. I know because I witnessed such treatment first hand. The same treatment undoubtedly awaits straight service men and women who would vocalize opposition to gays serving in the military. They are the ones who will be discriminated against. Promotions will not be granted to those who don’t go along with the policy.

Mark my words: The military is going to shrink over the next decade or two due to lack of recruitment at a time that we can ill afford it. How many officers and key military leaders will resign remains to be seen, but there is going to be a huge leadership vacuum that will be filled only by those who are willing to lower their own moral standards – in other words, those who are unfit to lead. With so many global threats, present and future, this was the worst time to engage in this silly social engineering within our military. Barack Obama and his administration pushed this legislation to score cheap political points among gays because he’s concerned about losing their votes in 2012. Small wonder that he waited for the lame duck session to push this through, knowing that a conservative House majority would have put a stop to it. There are Republicans to blame too; Olympia Snow and Scott Brown among them.

In ten or twenty years I hope people will remember that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was the effective end of our all voluntary military. By allowing gays to serve openly the recruitment of those with moral stands will fall drastically, and without the draft we will lack the manpower to defend this nation and its interests. Until then I guess those who remain can have a gay ol’ time.

Coming Soon - The Marlboro Baby?

The United States Government has decided that roles such as the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel must now be portrayed by various sick or dead people, and that cigarette manufacturers must display the new leading men, women, and cadavers on each and every package of cigarettes. To audition, the dying or deceased must have smoking related illnesses or must have died from them. According to Federal health officials it is hoped that the new packages will shock people into quitting the habit or not starting in the first place. You can read about it here:

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm

Oh the hypocrisy! Can you figure out where I am going to go with this one?

Several attempts have been made to require abortionists to provide information to those seeking abortions so that they are allowed to make a fully informed choice. Such information should, pro-life advocates assert, contain ultrasound images of the soon-to-be-aborted, and graphic images of aborted fetuses so that women will know that what they are about to destroy isn’t just a mass of cells as is commonly, not to mention falsely, claimed by abortion workers and supporters. In other words, pro-life advocates want women to make an informed choice. But as is usually the case with liberal causes, informed consent doesn't sit well with liberals and their favorite Marxist politicians. Graphic images of the aborted are deemed by them to be “extreme,” "fanatical," “cruel,” or just plain “disgusting.” The real reason is of course that if most women, especially young women, actually knew what they were about to do, they might just decide to choose life for their unborn children, and that wouldn’t sit too well with the abortion mills and their fanatic partners at NOW and NARAL.

Maybe what smokers need is a Joe (Camel) vs. Wade type of battle. They could argue things like, “It’s my body and I can do whatever I like with it.” Perhaps we need to designate a 100 foot area surrounding every tobacco shop so that the anti-(smoker's) choice groups will have to wave their signs from a safe distance. Matt Lauer can interview executives from R.J. Reynolds so that they can describe how they are harassed and live in fear. Phil Donahue can invite a smoker to smoke a cigarette on live T.V., and describe how it feels to do so from behind a curtain.

Yes, I know it’s absurd. But when you think about it, isn’t the double standard just as absurd? And if we don’t stand up for ourselves who knows? Perhaps they’ll soon be banning Happy Meals!

What next? NO COMPROMISE!

Many pundits are throwing in their two cents on what direction the Republican Party should take now that they have won mega wins in the House, state legislatures and gubernatorial seats across the nation, as well as depriving the Democrat party of a super majority in the Senate. Most of them, from liberal commentators to moderate Republicans opine that the two adversarial groups should meet somewhere in the middle. I for one do not agree.
Let me point out that the words “liberal commentators” means insanely fringe leftwing pundits, or just plain Marxists, and “moderate Republican” means Liberal. There is no such thing as a moderate. Moderates may actually be worse than either because they lack a fundamental moral foundation. They wait to see which way the wind is blowing before choosing sides, thus ensuring their own survival over our nation’s. These were the Joe Sestak’s, Blanche Lincoln’s, and Arlen Spector’s of the political landscape and we should be thanking our stars that they have been removed from it.

The Conservatives must press their advantage and make the most of this historic opportunity. Today’s Conservative Politician has many advantages over his predecessor of the Gingrich era, namely that mainstream news can no longer deceive so many. The once formidable print media, slanted almost exclusively to the far left, has been outflanked by conservative web sites and blogs. The ABC–CBS-NBC-CNN union of misinformation has been virtually destroyed by coverage at Fox News. I would include MSNBC, but their lineup of insane pundits like Olberrman, Maddow, Schultz and company has eliminated any and all credibility and made it the laughing stock de jure of networks. Liberals no longer have a monopoly on information. They do not get to decide on which stories to report and which to discard with the sole intention of misinforming the public to elicit a specific result or opinion. What’s more, web sites like You Tube have exposed the disingenuousness of the Liberal politician and have shown the American people that there are many who stand in solidarity against the corrupt-o-crats intent on transforming our country into yet another Marxist regime.

Liberalism is not something with which we may compromise. When we do so we allow Liberals to advance their agenda in incremental baby steps; we need to reverse course, not slow it down temporarily. A case in point would be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This policy allowed gays to serve in the military. It was a step toward allowing them to serve openly and not, as is commonly reported these days, a step designed to prevent them from serving. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) was very clear on barring gays long before DADT. Another example would include “Hilary Care,” the attempt by the Democrats to foist socialized medicine upon the country in the 1990’s. Now we have Obamacare which is sure to put the private health insurance industry out of business in just a few more short years unless repealed.

Uncompromising conservatives are what Liberals fear the most. They know we can win if we but try. So the question is, what exactly should Republicans do? There should be no compromise. Compromise to us is a loss. If we want to win we must do everything in our power to stamp liberalism from our policies and liberals from government. Here are some recommendations:

1) Repeal Obamacare. There is no wiggle room here. It’s a bad piece of legislation that needs to be thrown to the ash heap.
2) Properly redistrict the voting precincts around the nation. Eliminate the gerrymandered districts that the Democrat party loves so much so that we can remove their ability to create safe and unfair districts for their party.
3) Cut spending. Across the board spending cuts need to be made. All entitlement programs should be eliminated, or phased out over time. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and too many welfare programs to mention. The role of the government is to secure our nation within and without, not to take care of people. That is the role of the people.
4) Lower taxes and reduce government bureaucracy. People are entitled to what they earn – nothing more and nothing less. Legal theft of a person’s money and goods, for any purpose whatsoever, is immoral and un-American.
5) Require voter identification for all Federal elections. We know that the Democrat Party does not like the idea specifically because it will remove or severely restrict the ability for people vote fraudulently. If it weren’t for rampant voter fraud by liberals, the 2000 election would not have come under scrutiny, Al Franken would not be a Minnesota Senator, and as of November 3, 2010, Minnesota would not be trying to figure out how it magically received 174,000 more votes than registered voters. Hennepin County, which includes the city of Minneapolis, originally reported 880,000 votes, even though only 706,000 are registered to vote there.
6) Require Union reforms and defund unions and all organizations hostile to conservative values. There is no reason to give them tax dollars, especially when they have hundreds of millions of dollars to donate to Democrat candidates. Universities that bar on-campus military recruiting should be defunded immediately.
7) Tackle immigration reform, i.e. combine agency databases to speed up the background check process. Deport all illegals, build the fence, and make the penalties for illegal immigration severe enough to discourage illegal immigrants and those who would hire them.
8) Tort reform!
9) Reform the public schools. Money is not the answer – discipline is. If students aren’t going to take advantage of their free education then they need to be expelled and left to succeed on their own. Eventually necessity will force them to come around.Make prison what it should be; punishment, not a reformatory.

10) Make prison what it should be; punishment, not a reformatory.

New Use For Gene Therapy

Scientists at the University of California San Diego and Harvard University determined that people who carry a variant of the DRD4 gene are more likely to be liberals as adults, depending on the number of friendships they had during high school. They published their study in a recent issue of The Journal of Politics.

It only goes to show what I've said all along: Liberals are genetically inferior. Liberalism IS a mental disorder!

Two types of treatment may be utilized as a cure. The more costly option is gene therapy, which would require years of testing and crippling government beauracracy, and the other is cranial-rectal extraction, which is relatively inexpenseive and, besides causing loss of liberal friendships, is generally free of side effects.

Hope and Change Unveiled

"Let's show Washington one more time, change doesn't come from the top," President Barack Obama told an audience at the University of Wisconsin.. "Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you!"
He went on to tell the mass of students, "In every instance, progress took time, in every instance, progress took sacrifice. Progress took faith."
He then gave three examples of what he meant: "You know, the slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs, they weren't sure when slavery would end, but they understood it was going to end.” [Never mind that it was Republican President Abe Lincoln who ended it!]
“When women were out there marching for the right to vote, they weren't sure when it was going to happen, but they kept on going. When workers were organizing for the right to organize and were being intimidated, they weren't sure when change was going to come, but they knew it was going to come." [Now we can’t pay the massive deficits that organized labor has caused.]

Of course, you may not have noticed that for those past accomplishments - the abolition of slavery, the establishment of women's suffrage and the recognition of organizing rights for laborers - people and government focused on very specific demands. Obama is promising “change” without providing any specificity; “Change for the sake of Change.” Perhaps that’s why he’s spending so much time pontificating to young and inexperienced college students who, generally speaking, after reading a chapter of the Communist Manifesto, spend whatever free time they have boozing and carousing.

For what, I must ask, does Obama clamor from behind the veil of “change?” Besides Socialized Medicine and government takeover of industry, perhaps the story of Johnathon Irish is a good example:

His new born child was snatched from he and his fiancé by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers, an organization that collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S. More specifically, Oath Keepers' members promise not to obey any order "to disarm the American people," conduct warrantless searches, "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" work to impose martial law, invade or subjugate any state, blockade American cities, put Americans in detention camps or "make war against our own people."

Does that sound bad, or worthy of alarm? It does to me, but only because it’s ridiculous that our own military and police would think they needed to make such a pledge in the first place!
It was the administration of “Hope and Change” that seems to have made this a quasi-crime. Remember the federal Homeland Security Department document of April 2009 entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment?” If you don’t, I’ll refresh your memory. It contains the following definition:

Also targeted in the report are veterans, folks anticipating additional restrictions to their Second Amendment rights, and those concerned about the loss of U.S. sovereignty. This report implies that one harboring these sorts of views is a racist as well as a potential terrorism suspect.

Johnathon Irish told World Net Daily (Oct. 8 2010) that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'" Officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.
Is this what Obama has in mind?
November is right around the corner. "Let's show Washington one more time, change doesn't come from the top, Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you!"

Is It Really Wrong to Call Obama A Socialist?

From the time their children begin middle school, most parents come the conclusion that with whom their kids’ associate and their interests is a good indicator of what they’re own children are up to. As the saying goes, “Birds of a feather flock together.” But it isn’t just teenagers to whom this analogy is applicable; it’s pretty much apropos for everyone, and every institution.

Consider the two of the most recent rallies in Washington DC. Attendees picked up after themselves at one (the larger) rally, and left a pig sty behind them after the other:

1.) Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Tour featured Beck, Sarah Palin, Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King Jr.), and Marcus Luttrell, former U.S. Navy seal and recipient of the Navy Cross. The speakers came together with a very large crowd to discuss, guess what, restoring honor. Billed as a religious gathering, there was still plenty of politics injected into the speeches, all in support of Conservative ideals.
2.) The liberal “One Nation Working Together” which featured such speakers as Self-confessed Communist and former Obama appointee, Van Jones, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Socialist), NAACP President, Ben Jealous (Socialist), Mariam Wright Edelman (Socialist) and others (virtually all socialists). This crowd came together, or rather, was bussed in, to show support to Barack Obama’s agenda, and to promote Socialist change.

Not only has he appointed many Marxists to his administration (Ron Bloom, David Bonior, Rosa Brooks, Carol Browner, Heather Higginbottom, Samantha Power, Hilda Solis, and Van Jones), any and all rallies conducted in his honor or to support him are always full of the most rabidly Marxist individuals and groups who, by the way, do not represent a fringe element at such gatherings, but rather, make up the core of those in attendance. Is it any wonder that so many people believe Barack Obama to be a Socialist? Birds of a feather… Below are more pictures of the "One Nation" rally.

Hey, how about that Amnesty idea?

Get this!

“(Fox News Oct. 1, 2010)- A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence. The request was made at a recent San Diego conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records — including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers. Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border. But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.”

So let me get this right (forget for a moment that we deport these people at the expense of the American tax payer, and that to transport them to their home towns would cost us even more); in the last three years, of the 80,000 illegal immigrants that have been deported to just one border town, 35% of them have committed crimes in our country, and over 11% have committed violent crimes here in the United States? 7,000 rapists? 2,000 murderers!?

I suppose these are the “jobs” our liberal friends say we need illegal immigrants to do since none of us selfish, lazy Americans will. What… are they working for the Mafia? All of them are, of course, criminals since they entered the country illegally. But inquiring minds want to know more, such as:

1.) How many of these illegals were convicted of crimes in Mexico before coming up here?
2.) Are the numbers and percentages similar of illegals deported to other border towns?
3.) How many are guilty of crimes for which they weren’t caught or prosecuted?

So how can anyone, especially the politicians who are charged with protecting the citizens within our borders, consider providing legal status beyond our current methods which require background checks? The only common sense conclusion is that we need better border protection and we need to justly punish those who break our laws. Besides the economic implications, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will mean giving amnesty to the 35% who commit crimes. Over 11% of those to whom we give amnesty will be rapists and murderers.

Do you understand that Democrats? President Obama, are you so desperate for votes that you’re willing to put the well being of your citizens, and their very lives, at such risk? Doesn’t sound like the kind of change we need to me.

Immigration Facts

As I’ve noted before, when liberals say one thing, most often the opposite is true. For example, when the ’94 Republican-led Congress sought to balance the budget by lowering the amount of increases for certain welfare programs from previous years (a 7% increase instead of a 10% increase), the Democrats called these “cuts.” (For you liberals, who don’t quite understand math, a cut would have meant a reduction by some percentage, not an increase – that is, a 7% increase is still an increase, and not a cut).
When the Republicans thrice warned the Democrat-led oversight committees between 2004 and 2007 that government initiated and irresponsible lending programs would lead to a major financial crisis, the Democrats (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in particular) called these warnings “typical Republican fear-mongering.”
The recently passed Healthcare “Reform,” is proving to be anything but a fix. In similar fashion the current administration is preparing to foist immigration “reform” upon us all. Of course, one can only guess what they mean by “reform.” Let’s take a look at some basic facts. I know liberals don’t like facts, but conservatives try to form opinions based upon them instead of pure feelings and political opportunism. Below is a chart depicting 2009 immigration numbers from the top 10 countries of origin (sources: Department of Human Services and the Office of Immigration Statistics).



Remember, these are the top 10 – if you add up the percentages they won’t equal 100%. I stuck with the top 10 to make this post as brief as possible. It’s interesting to note also that as a percentage of a source country’s population, the Hispanic nations on the list blow all other countries away.
Here is a pie chart representing the table above:



Mexico, despite its much smaller population is, by far, the largest exporter of humans to this country. And yet more pressure is being applied to the U.S., and its citizens to increase the percentages through an amnesty type “reform.”
If you look closer you will see that out of the top 10, over 51% of those immigrants come from countries with Hispanic populations. Maybe this pie chart will help:



This information should make it quite clear that current U.S. Immigration laws are in no way biased against Hispanics!!
So why does it take so long for people from other countries to become citizens of the U.S.? There are many good reasons, namely criminal background checks. And after 9/11, we would be criminally stupid if we weakened our security to accommodate anyone. Names of potential citizens are checked against multiple databases at the CIA, FBI, NSA and other agencies to make certain we aren’t giving terrorists, rapists, murderers, thieves, drug dealers and other undesirables unfettered access to the lives and property of our existing citizens who have every right to expect and demand such scrutiny in the first place.
The Obama Administration isn’t thinking about that. To them, the (cough and wink) 20 million illegals currently residing here represent a major block of voters that may help liberals turn the tide in future elections. This group is becoming more integral to the success of the Democrat party especially since ACORN has collapsed amid its voter-fraud, tax fraud, and prostitution-promoting scandals, not to mention the decline of the SEIU, the worsening employment outlook, the overwhelming national debt, and the passage of the increasingly unpopular healthcare “reform.”
Make no mistake about it; This is the reason the Obama administration failed to secure the border and opposed Arizona's immigration enforcement law. He and his cronies will politicize everything to retain power and control. Remember that come November!

Obama and the Religion Question

Poll after poll, the left-leaning media are quick to point out that the nearly 20% of the population who believe Obama is a secret Muslim are nothing but kooks from the fringe-right. In March of 2009 the number was 11%, so either the kooks are breeding more kooks, or there must be something compelling about all of the evidence. Such as:

He was born to a Muslim father who later became an atheist, his step-father was Muslim, his pastor for 20 years in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, is a former Muslim, he practiced Islam as a young boy and attended a Muslim school, etc., etc.

Although I believe in my heart of hearts that Obama is partial to Islam, probably for nostalgic reasons, I don’t believe he is a Muslim. And I think the question of whether he is or isn’t a Muslim is not the right question to be asking. The real question is: Is Barack Obama a Christian as he claims?

It’s a difficult question, because there are over 12,000 “Christian” denominations in the United States alone, none of which seem to be able to agree on any particular body of doctrine and yet; most of them share a belief in certain core doctrines.

Fundamental to all Christian sects is a respect for innocent life, of which Obama has shown through word and deed he has none. His voting record has always sided with the pro-abortion crowd, even to the point that he voted against ending partial birth abortions. During the 2008 campaign when asked when human life begins, he stated that the answer was above his “pay-grade,” despite the fact that science has proven that life begins at conception, and that Christian doctrine says exactly the same thing.

On social issues Obama fails to even consider the Christian concept of ownership through work and earning. Instead, he prefers a more socialist (and anti-Christian) system of forced wealth redistribution. In all fairness to Mr. Obama, most Christian sects have fallen into this error over the last 50 years. But, by his own admission, it was this “social justice” that led him to convert to… Jeremiah Wright’s “church” in the first place, and not any of the fundamental Christian beliefs. It should come as no surprise that, as of this writing, Obama still has not found a church to regularly attend. Since going to Washington it appears he has attended more golf outings and vacations then any sort of Christian service.

I do not believe that he is a Christian, but I am convinced that he will begin attending services and paying lip service to the tenants of a faith, any faith, if doing so is the politically expedient thing for him to do.

Words have... consequences?

Bill Clinton has entered the rhetorical fray by attempting, on April 16th 2010, to link the TEA Party, and anti-big government, fiscal conservatives, especially those in the Talk Radio business, to violence. Never mind the fact that thus far there has been no violence stemming from conservatives, just from kooks on the left. What struck me was this statement, speaking of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, from the former President:

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing. But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”

Does this mean that Clinton is prepared to accept his role in the devaluing of moral virtue? Do his words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” bring to his mind any of the consequences of his actions?
The complete arrogance of the liberal-minded is put on display every single time one of them attempts to lecture any conservative on values related issues, such as responsibility. Hypocrisy such as this is precisely why, among many other reasons, the Democrat party is going to lose big come November, despite any liberal’s denial of the impending political defeat. I guess if you’re a liberal it “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

“These Tea Partiers aren’t well informed”

So says the new Democrat talking point. Really? Maybe the counterpoint should be “Boy those liberals are either too stupid or too evil to govern!”
Where does one begin to discuss this takeover over 1/6 of the United States economy? It’s such a complete mess that it would take volumes of information to weed through the swamp that is Liberal legislation. How ‘bout we start with every other big government spending program? Do any of them stand the tests of time to remain solvent? Social Security? Nope. Medicare? Nope. Medicaid? Nope. HUD and government housing oversight? Nope. United Stated Post Office? Not really. And while we’re at it, why is it that every other social spending program requires annual funding increases well beyond cost-of-living increases?
Depriving any individual of his hard-earned wage simply to redistribute it to anyone else who hasn’t earned it is immoral, evil, and un-American. I’m not talking about helping the indigent, but if we cut spending to only cover them we’d have huge budget surpluses every year. As predicted many decades ago, the development of the welfare state would soon lead to the creation of a dependent class of citizen, and isn’t that precisely who tax payers are forced to fork over their monies to?
This country existed – no, it prospered - for roughly 160 years before the advent of our first welfare programs, which were foisted upon the American people to help them through the Great Depression. But did they go away once said Depression was over? Nope – we’ve allowed the Marxists to expand programs and to develop even more sinister methods of depriving the worker under the guise of assisting the needy. From FDR to Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama: they were all cut from the same Marxist red cloth.
Touting the recent scoring of the Senate version of the Healthcare “reform” Act, the Democrats remained emboldened, at their own peril, and passed this sorry legislation. Nevermind the fact that the 2,400 page bill was kept from the American people until shortly before a weekend vote. The CBO was rushed to score it, and the Dems utilized a bit of sleight of hand to make the bill look as though it would cost less than it actually will. For example, there are three provisions that are vital to the scoring of the bill – provisions which are based entirely upon unrealistic assumptions:
(1) an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that would begin in 2013; (2) a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare and other rate cuts for Medicare providers; (3) the implementation of an advisory board that would implement cost-saving measures to reduce Medicare spending, unless rejected by subsequent legislation.
These assumptions are particularly important. First, consider the effects of the excise tax as a potential revenue source. The tax is not implemented until 2013. This suggests that, in the near-term, firms that offer top-of-the-line insurance have an incentive to reduce the coverage extended to their employees to avoid the tax. This shift could potentially reduce health care spending as these individuals would then have to spend more in out-of-pocket costs – effectively raising the price and reducing the quantity demanded. Such a shift, however, would also imply lower tax revenue as these plans are eliminated.
Of course, even the analysis of the excise tax above makes important assumptions. For example, it was assumed that the tax was actually implemented and not repealed by subsequent legislation. In addition, the most vehement detractors of this provision have been labor unions as they tend to offer their members better benefits that could potentially be subject to the new tax. As a result, there has been discussion about creating an exemption to the excise tax for members of labor unions. Such an exemption, however, would result in lower tax revenue and a lesser reduction in health care spending.
The second assumption baked into the analysis is a reduction in physician payment rates for Medicare. This reduction was actually passed during the 1990s, but each year has been postponed by subsequent legislation. There is no reason to believe that, after the passage of the health care legislation, this reduction will not be postponed once again. Such a postponement would be enough to cause the health care bill to result in a $59 billion addition to the budget deficit over ten years. And of course one must consider why the government wants to lower Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors – becasue the government doesn’t have the money! As a result, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare in the first place, because by accepting Medicare they are losing money. This is resulting in poorer medical care, not better. Many people seem to think that doctors shouldn’t make a profit – but when medical professionals are expected to work for declining profits, there soon won’t be any medical professionals. If doctors and nurses can be expected to work for the convenience of the state instead of for profit, why can’t everyone in every industry?
The final major funding source comes from the creation of an advisory panel that would recommend cost-savings measures for Medicare that would be enacted unless revoked by subsequent legislation. The bill assumes that this panel would be able to identify significant areas for cost reduction. This cost reduction could be in the form of greater efficiency or by reducing the quantity or quality of service. One is left to ponder how this will benefit the citizens, especially those who age and begin to require more healthcare services.
Overall, the bill assumes that reductions in payment rates to Medicare providers and those identified by the advisory panel would ensure that Medicare spending per beneficiary would grow at a rate of 2 percent per year (adjusted for inflation). As a method of comparison, this growth rate has been roughly 4 percent per year over the last 20 years.
The cuts to Medicare are an extremely important source of “revenue” for the health care bill. In fact, in the latest CBO projections (March 11, 2010), cuts to Medicare make up $430 billion of the funding over the next decade. This figure represents roughly 50 percent of the estimated total cost of $875 billion.
The facts are that the health care bill makes a great deal of assumptions about revenue sources that potentially obfuscate the true costs of the bill. When factored beyond the CBO timeline of 10 years (10 years taxation and only six years of benefit payments – another Democrat accounting trick) this healthcare bill is projected to create deficits of nearly 2.5 trillion dollars!

But wait, there’s more! To acquire Bart Stupak’s support the President had to promise that he would issue an Executive Order preventing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions. Understand that Stupak is a Democrat first, and a pro-lifer second – or maybe last. An Executive Order is not law. It is only binding until the President, current or future, repeals it. Upon becoming President in 2009, Obama’s first act was to issue an Executive Order repealing George W. Bush’s order banning embryonic stem cell research. Let’s wait and see how long it takes Obama to rescind his own order concerning abortion. All it will take is some half true story of a teenage girl getting pregnant who can’t afford to pay for her abortion out of pocket, and then the order will disappear faster than John Edwards’ political aspirations.
And let’s not forget Obama’s (and the Democrat Party’s) actual goal of Socialized Medicine. Don’t take my word for it either – take his own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
This “Healthcare Reform Bill” is nothing of the kind. It is a major step toward Obama’s Socialist vision for America. That’s how the liberals work! One step at a time, but they will never give up.
We can’t either! Remember these shenanigans in November! Vote the bums out! And while we’re at it, let’s make sure that nothing of the kind can ever happen again in this country.
Now, who is it that's really uninformed?

The War on Error

The Scott heard ‘round the world galvanized the citizens of Massachusetts. Whereas the liberals have fled the field of battle in what could only be described as a rout, the conservatives have marched from the voting places victorious, heads held high. Rejoice, and enjoy the moment! Rest assured that the message has been received despite all the finger pointing and empty blathering coming from the vitriolic mouths of the vanquished. The Senate has heard from the Tea-Partiers! The House understands the message! The White House can no longer deny that the citizens of Massachusetts and those of the rest of the nation have spoken vociferously, although not yet unanimously! Keith Olbermann and his arrogant sect of lunatics have been served!
But now is the time to remain ever vigilant. Let not the conservative-minded rest on his laurels: this was just the first of many battles to be waged in this year’s War on Error. While we may be happy that Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley, we must reflect on what remains at stake. Brown, who supports a “woman’s right to choose (to murder her unborn children)” was not the best candidate; he was merely the better of the two. Already there are those pushing for a Brown Presidential candidacy. We can’t make the same mistake we made in ’08; Brown is not the conservative we need, he is yet another John McCain.
We have the momentum. We must strike while the iron is hot! The disease affecting our nation is Liberalism; the cure simply can’t be more Liberalism, and it certainly is not more compromise! Our nation’s current defects are the result of incrementalized Liberalism - slow and subtle change – brought about in part by those who were willing to compromise fundamental rights and basic moral principles. We must find and promote candidates who are willing to undo the damage that has been caused by Liberalism by stamping it out of our government. It is clear that part of our effort must be to re-establish standards in the press, in our universities, and in our society at large. November is just around the corner. No matter what happens between now and then we mustn’t let people forget that the liberals (from both parties) almost succeeded in defeating our nation from within. Brown’s victory was just the opening volley in this conflict. This is a War on Error; a long war, necessary for the survival of Western Culture and, indeed, our very civilization.

Pride Goeth Before the Fall

One of the most common characteristics among liberals that I have noticed, from the rank and file uninformed liberal, to the wacko “journalists,” to the rabble rousing elites, is their unabashed arrogance. Every conservative, from Supreme Court Justices (and nominees), candidates, elected officials, radio and TV personalities, to the common parent is, according to liberals, “stupid,” “uneducated,” and in every way inferior to their liberal counterparts. Any sampling of mainstream media reports on Barack Obama easily illustrates a bias on par with the hysterical screaming of thousands of teenage girls at the height of Beatlemania.
For example:

“Reagan [at the 1984 D-Day commemoration] was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something.’ I mean, in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on MSNBC’s Hardball, June 5, 2009.

“The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
— Washington Post’s Eli Saslow December 25th, 2008.

“The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs....I launched an e-mail inquiry....Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the President.”
— New York Times “Domestic Disturbances” blogger Judith Warner, February 5, 2009.

Can you imagine any journalist slavering like this over a conservative leader? Rush Limbaugh would never shame or demean himself in such a groveling manner, but if he were to do so it would become the centerpiece of a liberal tsunami to discredit him. People on the left would undoubtedly seek to have him institutionalized. There are no checks and balances within the liberal media establishment to prevent this sort of thing. One would think the editors of Newsweek would have squashed this kind of blatant cultish admiration. Not so. Note that Thomas’s prediction that Obama would bring all sides together is, thus far, just as ridiculous as his attempt to deify him. Who can deny that this idolization doesn’t feed Obama’s (not to mention the members of his administration) ego? Why, not only is he the first black president, he’s the smartest and the sexiest too! What else would anyone expect from a demi-god?
The arrogance of the left is not isolated to the media either. Every experiment with charter schools and voucher programs proves their success and worthiness, but for some reason, top educators remain opposed to such systems. This opposition is borne of exactly the same arrogance exhibited by liberal elitists: they, and not parents, know what’s best for everyone else!
One look at the academic credentials of Obama and his cabinet members says it all. Princeton, Columbia Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cambridge, and Oxford to name a few; bastions of liberal indoctrination a.k.a. education. Of course, George W. Bush went to Yale too, but the liberals didn’t let that stop them from impugning his intelligence, despite the fact that his grades, according to the transcripts, were higher than John Kerry’s. (Conspiracy-minded Liberals have made a point to explain that this was because members of the Secret Service were the ones really doing his homework for him – and the rank and file liberals actually believe it)! Funny thing is Obama won’t release his transcripts. Am I the only one wondering why the media hasn’t pressured the White House their release, or to editorialize that the most likely explanation is that Obama had worse scores than Bush… Hmmm?
The liberals are on the verge of fundamentally changing the United States. The largely unspecified “change” promised during the 2008 presidential campaign by Obama and other top liberals is every bit the Socialism predicted by Obama’s political enemies. These so-called “reforms” have been overwhelmingly unpopular among the citizens of the United States, as is evidenced by the numerous Tea Party demonstrations and town hall meetings held around the country. Yet the liberals are still moving ahead, forcing their Marxist agenda down our throats like so many teaspoonfuls of bad medicine. It just so happens that Joe Wilson was right when he called Obama a liar. The healthcare bill about to emerge from Congress will provide tax dollars to cover abortions, and the Administration has announced that the next item on its agenda is to make citizens of the “15 million” illegal immigrants currently invading our nation, most, but not all of them, peacefully.
There are indeed many reasons why the liberals continue to do these things despite the opposition of the people. Despite their “education,” they aren’t nearly as intelligent as they think they are – or that they want us to think they are. Remember, whereas the Ark was built by a lone amateur, the Titanic was built by a team of professionals. And lest there be any doubt, we’re the ones steaming full speed ahead toward icebergs, not salvation, because of the Liberals' unabashed arrogance - they, not you, not me, know what’s best for us.