Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Shamalot – no more.

The Democrats no longer have 60 seats today. One of their number - Senator Ted Kennedy - has gone on to face his eternity. Let’s hope that God’s mercy toward him is greater than Kennedy’s toward the unborn. I take no pleasure in his passing, but maybe Divine Providence has had a hand in his timely removal from the Senate.

Kennedy was a primary supporter of “healthcare reform.” (English translation: Socialized Medicine). Virtually everything Kennedy said was either a lie or it was simply not true. Chappaquiddick was not the beginning of his surreptitious career as many people might think. As early as 1964-65 Kennedy was working hard to alter the makeup of the United States. His Immigration Reform Act of 1965, under the guise of equality (which we all support), paved the way for many of the immigration problems we face today.

In 1965 Kennedy stated his bill “contrary to the charges in some quarters, will not inundate America with immigrants” and “will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Well, that is precisely what happened. Kennedy was the main force behind the amnesty granted in 1986 that was supposed to end illegal immigration and penalize businesses that hired illegal immigrant workers. Well Senator Kennedy, we’re waiting!

Kennedy also confidently predicted that no immigrant under the new system would become a “public charge.” Ha-ha. That one is laughable. Today there are so many immigrants drawing welfare in one form or another we can barely count them. We have more people on welfare today than entire populations of some other countries. Indeed, people immigrate here legally or otherwise specifically because of welfare programs that liberals (especially the extreme left-wingers in the ACLU) work hard to make available to them.

Most recently Kennedy wanted to convince us that healthcare, even for those here illegally, is an inalienable right. He told his constituents: “contrary to the charges in some quarters” healthcare reform [sic] will reduce the costs of healthcare without compromising quality of service. Given his track record, not to mention that of his fellow liberals, do you really believe a single (slurred) word that came out of his mouth?

So long Ted!

Monday, August 24, 2009

None So Blind As Them That Won’t See

New York Governor David Paterson thought he had an ace up his sleeve, but it turns out that all he had was the race card. Racism among Democrats has been particularly noticeable now that the Democrats have captured majorities in both houses and the White House, whether it’s Pelosi condescending to Alford, or Paterson blaming his failure on the racism of his constituents.
On Friday August 21st Paterson lamented that the chorus of people who believe he should not run for election next year want to keep him out of the race, not because the economy in New York is worse than in other states, or that the average New Yorker pays more in taxes than do people from just about anywhere else on the planet (and for ever-diminishing results), but because he is black!
“We’re not in the post-racial period,” said Mr. Paterson, according to an article posted on The Daily News Web site, which cited an interview the governor provided to a radio program hosted by Errol Louis, a Daily News columnist.
“The reality is the next victim on the list, and you can see it coming, is President Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system,” Mr. Paterson said.
Nothing more than trying to reform a health care system? That’s like saying we tried to eradicate AIDS by eliminating all those infected with HIV. But alas, that’s not the point here. The point is that I am sick and tired of all the racism coming from pretend victims of it. Paterson didn’t stop there though. He stated on Monday, August 24th: "Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous." Paterson may be blind, but he is not color blind. And to be honest, I don’t think he is very intelligent. I am not sure which is the greater tragedy. If only he could understand that people don’t care about his skin color – they care about the color of money, and too much of it is being taken from them because of fiscally irresponsible policy.
If it isn’t people like Barbara Boxer condescending to Harry Alford, it’s people like Paterson claiming victim status when in reality he’s only a victim of his own poor performance. And this isn’t anything new. Remember Georgia Representative Major Owens claiming in 1994 that 200 million Africans were killed on route to the United States? That the ecology of the ocean was forever changed and as a result sharks are still swimming the route of the the slave ships in search of human flesh?

This sort of thing would be truly hilarious if it wasn’t for the fact that these ridiculous claims impede race relations. Mindless comments such as these give fodder to hate groups like the KKK and any other stupid skin head operation out there. And by questioning them; by pointing out how ridiculous claims like this are, one risks being branded a racist by other kinds of hate groups like Nation of Islam, ACORN, or for that matter, the Democrat party.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Just Trying To Do My Part




According to Fox News, "The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send "fishy" information [regarding the healthcare "reform" debate] received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, 'flag@whitehouse.gov'."



Well, I think it's a good idea! Forget Fox News! I wanted to do my part to pass on the names of web sites that contain suspicious and misleading information, so I sent the following email:

Comrades,

Please focus some of your attention on the following web sites and persons of interest who are passing along information that is both false, and damaging to the President and his goal of Socialized Medicine.



http://www.democrats.org/ is a fairly pernicious site because although it looks semi-official, it is full of misleading statements concerning the public option and those who are against it.

http://www.dailykos.com/ - the people here are not only spreading lies about the healthcare debate and those opposed to socialized medicine, they also are very angry and have no sense of humor at all. Dishonest and hateful? Not a good combo. Perhaps they need to be watched a little more closely. If Janet Napolitano is right, this outfit must be made up of a bunch of angry white veterans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ - these guys were a little better. I believe the indignation described by David A. Harris over President Obama being compared to Adolf Hitler was justified: those two look NOTHING alike. However, I think that it is disingenuous and even racist to make comparisons like this based on looks. The fact that Obama is a dyed in the wool socialist (Nazi IS an abbreviated form of National Socialist German Workers' Party after all) lends a lot of weight to a comparison based on political ideology. And couldn't you say that Hitler started off as a community organizer?

And I would be remiss if I forgot to pass along a most troubling site; http://www.moveon.org/. But I probably shouldn't say anything disparaging about your most influential investor.

Robert Gibbs is the face of a propaganda machine that spews misinformation on a daily basis. You might want to give him a once-over.

Yes, something is definitely fishy over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Kind of makes you think that Mrs. Paul is the First Lady, and not the lovely Michelle Obama.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Bill Maher: Possibly the vilest human being on the planet.


My wife and I were channel surfing the other day and we did something that we swore we would never do (again); we stopped surfing long enough to see what socialist provocateur Bill Maher was talking about. As usual, he was emitting the same kind of inflammatory propaganda that was popular in Germany circa 1939. I am not saying that Maher is an anti-Semite; I am saying that he is a foul, loathsome, offensive, and deceitful socialist.

Maher’s HBO show is a delusory diatribe that feeds the moral and intellectual worthlessness of his fellow socialists who watch it. What aroused the ire of my wife and I was his incendiary attack on the insurance industry, portraying it as a greedy institution, accumulating wealth on the backs of the suffering and the miserable. Illustrating the absurd hypocrisy of the extreme liberal, he expressed a yearning for the return of once abundant Catholic hospitals that treated the poor and the needy; Catholic hospitals that were a part of a once great institution that Maher’s style of vicious liberalism helped destroy decades ago. Indeed, wasn’t it Maher ridiculing all religions, especially Catholicism in his flop of a hateful movie, Religulous?

True to his deceptive nature, Maher offered up a false chestnut of a statistic to prove that healthcare in the U.S. needs to be socialized: "When it comes to life expectancy, the United States is ranked 50th!"
The underlying suggestion is that the U.S. healthcare system is inferior to other nations such as Canada, which is socialized. Why is the life expectancy lower? Because of infant mortality rates. And the infant mortality rates are higher in the U.S., not because we have more babies dying, but because of how most other nations calculate that particular statistic. In some countries, a severely premature infant is labeled a fetal death instead of an infant death. Not in the U.S. In many nations, if a child dies within 24 hours of birth, it is labeled a stillbirth. Not here. Social and cultural factors - including maternal drinking, drug use, and age - are key to infant mortality and have little to do with access to or quality of health care. In America, infant mortality rates are sky high (five times the national average) on Indian reservations (which have publicly financed health care by the way through the Indian Health Service) and quite low in places like Utah and Washington.

Furthermore, there are other international comparisons that are more useful. Consider five-year survival rates after a cancer diagnosis. Unlike infant mortality, which is confounded by definitional and cultural factors, cancer survival rates are a pretty good measure of the quality of a health system. These numbers aren't perfect either. They are affected by factors like the uninsured in America (25 percent of whom are illegal immigrants) who tend not to get early screening for cancer and have more advanced cases at the time of diagnosis. The data that follow are accordingly all the stronger.
The journal Lancet Oncology has reported that American cancer patients live longer than those anywhere else on the globe. Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and a health statistics numbers cruncher, interprets the Lancet's (and other) findings as follows:
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent of women in Europe. For American men, the numbers are even more dramatic. Sixty-six percent of American men live five years past a diagnosis of cancer, but only 47 percent of European men do. Of cancers that affect only women, the survival rate for uterine cancer is 5 percentage points higher in the U.S. than the European average, and 14 percent higher for breast cancer. Among cancers that affect only or primarily men, survival rates for prostate cancer are 28 percent higher in the U.S., and for bladder cancer, 15 percent higher.
The British Health Service keeps costs down by rationing care through long waiting lists for service. The Manhattan Institute's Dr. David Gratzer reports that an estimated 20 percent of British lung cancer patients considered curable when they were first placed on the waiting list for chemotherapy or radiation were incurable by the time they obtained treatment.
An argument often advanced by single payer advocates is that nationalized health care leads to more preventative care. But an analysis by the Commonwealth Fund found that American women are more likely than those in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to get regular Pap tests and mammograms. In Great Britain, men do not start getting screened for colon cancer until age 75. In the U.S. men are urged to get their first colonoscopy at 50.

As usual, Maher (like every single liberal I know) won’t let the facts get in his way. He banties about words like "reform" to describe changes that are more properly called "destruction." My wife and I are going back to surfing past Maher’s show, not because we’re close-minded, but because we’re going to insure ourselves against the intellectual euthanasia he’s pushing.

Friday, July 24, 2009

The Devil is in the Details


When it comes to legislation coming out of Washington, discerning citizens of the United States (i.e. conservatives) are hungry for details. Despite the fiery rhetoric and the fabricated urgency of the Democrats - especially that of President Barack Obama - to pass legislation before even reading it (as was the case with the failed stimulus), word is filtering down to the masses that socializing medical care will have the opposite affect than that being promised by “the One.”
It isn’t conjecture on the part of Conservatives that government-run healthcare will be a disaster – the proof of that fact can be witnessed in every nation and state where it has been foisted on the people. People come to this country for medical treatment; they do not go to Canada or Great Britain.

Watching the healthcare debate is like watching a tennis match: ridiculous and impossible promises are served up by the liberals and the conservatives are volleying forcefully, the power of fact behind every sure swing. The score is currently Love – 40, but it isn’t over yet.

For the right side to win, people need to know the details! Hopefully it isn’t going to be good enough for the democrats to put a little “race card” or “poor card” spin on the ball like they usually do, (as was seen even from the President himself the other day, fielding a question about the Louis Gates fiasco when supposedly talking about his government run healthcare plan). There are actually liberally-oriented spectators in the stands this game. They include the unemployed, still waiting for their promised stimulus. They are the Hollywood types who are starting to realize that they will be taxed into relative (to their current status) poverty. They are accountants and economists who can’t reconcile Obama’s uncontrolled spending to any sort of fiscal responsibility unless they use the kind of funny math that Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle use to calculate their own personal tax debt. Now if we can just get the run-of-the-mill liberal out there to look at the facts instead of the buying into the liberal propaganda spoon fed to them by the loonies at Huffington Post and MSNBC, we might actually be able to use this attempted socialist take-over to our advantage.

Monday, July 20, 2009

"Dirty Harry" Alford



“I know what you’re thinking: did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, he pulled the rug right out from under Senator Barbara Boxer’s two leftist feet.

“Dirty Harry” Alford (as far as I know, I am the first to give him the moniker and I really hope it sticks), the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, eviscerated Senator Boxer during hearings for the so-called “cap and trade” bill, during which Boxer tried to give Alford a little black-for-black tit-for-tat. Oh, the arrogance of those liberals!

(See for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_jGD5nZ6U&feature=related)

Of course, everything “Dirty Harry” Alford said was spot on. But another reason I want to make Alford my hero (move over Joe the Plumber!) is his recent comments on the Bill O’Reilly show. In response to O’Reilly’s comment that, “Senator Boxer would say she loves black people and would always vote to help them,” Alford responded, “She loves poor black folks, and she loves black folks in their place.”

(This is a must see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TM2CESBe6M)

Bingo! Not only is that a ringing indictment of Barbara Boxer, but the entire leftist establishment, which condescends to keep minorities dependent on government handouts. This is exactly the kind of backlash I wrote about earlier, and I think it’s going to really start catching on, and it would make my day to walk alongside “Dirty Harry” Alford.

Friday, July 17, 2009

"Crisis" Word Drinking Game!



I for one am getting really tired of all the doom and gloom. I remember part of the Democrat strategy during the '08 campaign was to portray Republicans as "Doom and Gloomers." To me it looks like Chicken Little is leading the Democrat party. According to Salena Zito at The post Chronicle (http://www.blogger.com/www.postchronicle.com), had we "played a 'crisis' word-drinking game,"(during any of Obama's speaches) we "would have temporarily lost all brain function by the end of them."
So why is it that every program the Democrats want to ram through Congress is designed to confront (yet) another looming catastrophe? According to Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff (Nov. 9th 2008): "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste." The Democrats have been faithful to "rule one" ever since, spinning every agenda item in the Socialist's Handbook into a crisis in order to convince people to expand government control (relinquishing their freedoms in the process), and giving up more of their money (or rather, other people's money) in the form of higher taxes. In February of '09 Barack Obama said that failure to act immediately on his economic aid plan:

"will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred."

In reality, failure to act immediately meant that the pork-laden bill was never completely read by a single Senator or Congressman before it was passed without support from one House Republican. And to date, there has been a net loss of millions more jobs (unemployment nearing 10%).
Obama stated many times in the first few months of his administration that a government takeover of General Motors was the only way to save the country from another financial crisis. "GM can't be allowed to go into bankruptcy," he said. Yet come June, once GM was owned by the government and the UAW, having defrauded stock holders out of millions in the process, Obama was urging bankruptcy onto the very same company. Was the crisis averted, or created?

Al Gore said on July 7th 2009 that public awareness about the "catastrophe" of climate change is not high enough to pressure politicians into taking action. "We can berate politicians for not doing enough and for compromising too much and for not being bold in addressing this existential threat to civilization." Even Great Britain's Prince Charles stated last week that the earth had only 96 months (that's 8 years to you liberals) to survive if we (meaning tax payers of course) didn't do something to stem the tide of "Global Warming." [insert the words "the Angry Gods."] Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has intimated the same fears about the demise of the world as she continues to push for a cap and trade bill, despite the testemony of 650 scientists who challenge the claim that "global warming" [insert "the angry gods"] is man-made. Meanwhile, temperatures around the globe continue to drop to record lows.
Healthcare is the latest crisis, not the trillion dollar deficit and shrinking economy caused by these spending programs. (Yes, Bush had it wrong on this one too). And according to Vice President Joe Biden, if we don't spend trillions more on a national healthcare system the nation is going to go bankrupt. It's hard not to laugh about this, but it's true! Speaking to an AARP gathering (scaring old people silly no doubt) on July 16th '09 in Alexandria Virginia, Biden said:

"And folks look, AARP knows and the people working here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable, It's totally unacceptable. And it's completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it. It can't do it financially." And "We're going to go bankrupt as a nation."

Come again? How are we going to spend our way out of the red and into the black? In what strange universe is that even possible? Isn't it all the spending that's actually bankrupting us? Maybe I need one of the "52 per centers" to explain it to me, because the Donkeys in Chicken Little clothing running the socialist... I mean Democrat party sure don't make any sense. I may have to resort to playing the "crisis" word drinking game just to help get me through these difficult times.