Barack Obama’s charismatic performance during the 2008 electoral campaign was, to many, electrifying and highly exciting. His ability at eloquent oration, contrasted to former President Bush’s down-home style punctuated by frequent errors, was especially impressive, and led many people to suspend rational thought and analysis and come to the absurd conclusion held by historian Michael Beschloss, that Obama’s IQ was “off the charts”. Beschloss even went so far in his schoolgirl-giddiness to assert that Obama was “probably the smartest guy ever to become President.” Never mind that it was inevitably revealed that the teleprompter was to Obama what wax wings were for the mythological Daedalus. Remove the teleprompter…and Obama’s wings melt. It’s great entertainment to watch him crash to earth.
A year and a half into the presidency, Americans have caught on, and are increasingly disturbed by the absurd positions the administration has adopted. No longer appearing to be the great intellect many once believed him to be, Obama now appears incurably befuddled.
There is no issue that better highlights the administration’s contradictory and nonsensical folly, than the quandary in which it finds itself regarding the Arizona immigration bill, SB1070.
We all would do well to recall that Arizona passed SB1070 in response to unacceptable crime rates within the state connected to illegal immigration, and about which the Federal Government was simply not responding. The Government has, for several decades now, failed to fulfill its responsibility to secure the borders and to process the millions of immigrants who flaunt federal immigration laws. So the Arizona legislature carefully authored SB1070, with the specific intent of allowing local law enforcement to help enforce federal law. The law was in no way written to change, alter, or counteract federal law.
What’s more, out of concern that local law enforcement, while attempting to enforce the law, might violate the civil rights of citizens, the authors carefully stated in multiple locations that racial profiling was prohibited, and that officers could only request proof of citizenship when 1) the persons questioned had already been detained for other legal police matters, and 2) there were grounds for suspicion that the persons questioned were not US citizens.
The law was very carefully designed to support the federal laws, and to help federal agents to enforce the law, and not to undermine it.
High ranking members of the Obama administration could not even wait until they had actually read the bill before maligning it publicly. Department of Justice Attorney General Eric Holder was caught out while giving testimony before congress and had to admit that he had not read the law he was criticizing. The same embarrassment befell Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who went so far as to compare the Arizona law to Chinese human rights offenses.
It was no surprise when Attorney General Holder announced that he was filing suit to block the Arizona law. What was surprising was that the reason given had little to do with the concern about civil rights violations: the Obama administration’s position was that the Arizona law “interfered with” the Federal Government’s authority to regulate immigration.
There can be no doubt that the conflict between Arizona and the Obama administration will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, where Obama is going to have great difficulty convincing the Supreme Court that a state law that strengthens and supports federal law, somehow preempts the federal law. Consider marijuana laws as an analogy. There are federal laws that make growing, selling or distributing marijuana a crime. If a state passes laws that prohibit the growing, selling or distributing of marijuana and allows local police to enforce the law, they have not preempted the federal law, but have simply supported it. The Arizona immigration law does exactly that.
Click HERE to Read Part II
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 2)
Evidence for the befuddled, confused and contradictory opinions on immigration within the Obama administration can be found by a cursory examination of their actions taken since the issue arose.
In the midst of Obama Administration vs Arizona immigration law battle, Obama appointed Harold Hurtt to head up the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of State and Local Coordination. Hurtt is a former police Chief in Houston and Phoenix, and is a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies.
Sanctuary cities are those municipalities that “that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.”
That is to say, that the governments of cities have made the decision unilaterally to ignore federal law and to prohibit their officials from enforcing them. These laws were a response by liberals within local governments to reject the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, under which a number of crimes became grounds for deportation.
As an example, The 1979 Los Angeles policy stated: “Officers shall not arrest, nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code”
To put it quite simply, being in the country illegally was already grounds for deportation, but the 1996 law specified that illegal immigrants who committed additional crimes locally should be arrested, held in custody, and then reported to ICE for deportation. The sanctuary city proponents like Mr. Hurtt, realizing that they could gain political power by courting the Hispanic vote, rebelled against the federal law and declared that they would not assist the Federal Government. What’s more, they actively prohibited police from asking questions about residency status and reporting them to ICE.
Many illegal immigrant criminals have been released because of these policies, and US citizens have become victims of their crimes as a result.
At about the same time Obama was appointing a “sanctuary city” proponent to head up ICE, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with Obama in the White House, and they shared their opinions about the law. Brewer got Obama to agree to send National Guard troops to the border—but only 1,200 of them—and said his administration would contact her in two weeks to inform her of his decision whether or not so sue Arizona. Weeks passed, and still no one from the White House had contacted the Governor’s office.
To the contrary, word of the suit was leaked to the press by Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Ecuador, infuriating Governor Brewer due to the lack of protocol and disrespect. “"If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is {to} inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," she said.
Insult was added to injury when Arizona Senator Kyl demanded an audience with Obama. In a meeting with his constituents after that one-on-one discussion, Kyl revealed that Obama had explained his unwillingness to help Arizona: “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all {the Republicans} won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform…In other words, they're holding it hostage."
He later responded to Obama’s speech calling for immigration reform by declaring: “All Americans would be better served if this Administration focused on implementing proven border security solutions rather than engaging in demagoguery and criticizing states that have been left to enforce immigration law because of the federal government’s unwillingness to do so.”
Taken together, we now see that while Obama publicly declares that he takes national security seriously, and agrees that the problem of illegal immigration should be solved, his actions reveal that he is more focused on winning votes from the Hispanic constituency instead of protecting the rest of the citizens. While he threatens to sue Arizona for passing a law that supports Federal Law, he then appoints a man who supports laws that undermine federal immigration laws to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And when confronted in the Oval Office by Senator Kyl, Obama reveals that he recognizes the scope and severity of the crisis in Arizona, but will not act to protect US citizens because to do so would be to give up political leverage that would win him electoral support from the Hispanic voters.
Obama’s focus is not on fulfilling his duties to protect the American citizenry, but rather, to protect and defend his own political career.
Click HERE to read the Conclusion
In the midst of Obama Administration vs Arizona immigration law battle, Obama appointed Harold Hurtt to head up the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of State and Local Coordination. Hurtt is a former police Chief in Houston and Phoenix, and is a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies.
Sanctuary cities are those municipalities that “that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.”
That is to say, that the governments of cities have made the decision unilaterally to ignore federal law and to prohibit their officials from enforcing them. These laws were a response by liberals within local governments to reject the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, under which a number of crimes became grounds for deportation.
As an example, The 1979 Los Angeles policy stated: “Officers shall not arrest, nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code”
To put it quite simply, being in the country illegally was already grounds for deportation, but the 1996 law specified that illegal immigrants who committed additional crimes locally should be arrested, held in custody, and then reported to ICE for deportation. The sanctuary city proponents like Mr. Hurtt, realizing that they could gain political power by courting the Hispanic vote, rebelled against the federal law and declared that they would not assist the Federal Government. What’s more, they actively prohibited police from asking questions about residency status and reporting them to ICE.
Many illegal immigrant criminals have been released because of these policies, and US citizens have become victims of their crimes as a result.
At about the same time Obama was appointing a “sanctuary city” proponent to head up ICE, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with Obama in the White House, and they shared their opinions about the law. Brewer got Obama to agree to send National Guard troops to the border—but only 1,200 of them—and said his administration would contact her in two weeks to inform her of his decision whether or not so sue Arizona. Weeks passed, and still no one from the White House had contacted the Governor’s office.
To the contrary, word of the suit was leaked to the press by Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Ecuador, infuriating Governor Brewer due to the lack of protocol and disrespect. “"If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is {to} inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," she said.
Insult was added to injury when Arizona Senator Kyl demanded an audience with Obama. In a meeting with his constituents after that one-on-one discussion, Kyl revealed that Obama had explained his unwillingness to help Arizona: “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all {the Republicans} won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform…In other words, they're holding it hostage."
He later responded to Obama’s speech calling for immigration reform by declaring: “All Americans would be better served if this Administration focused on implementing proven border security solutions rather than engaging in demagoguery and criticizing states that have been left to enforce immigration law because of the federal government’s unwillingness to do so.”
Taken together, we now see that while Obama publicly declares that he takes national security seriously, and agrees that the problem of illegal immigration should be solved, his actions reveal that he is more focused on winning votes from the Hispanic constituency instead of protecting the rest of the citizens. While he threatens to sue Arizona for passing a law that supports Federal Law, he then appoints a man who supports laws that undermine federal immigration laws to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And when confronted in the Oval Office by Senator Kyl, Obama reveals that he recognizes the scope and severity of the crisis in Arizona, but will not act to protect US citizens because to do so would be to give up political leverage that would win him electoral support from the Hispanic voters.
Obama’s focus is not on fulfilling his duties to protect the American citizenry, but rather, to protect and defend his own political career.
Click HERE to read the Conclusion
Monday, April 19, 2010
70% overtaxed, but 47% pay no taxes?
I noticed two interesting statistics over the past few weeks and contemplated them for a while before I noticed something odd.
First, we saw a poll that revealed that 70% of Americans feel they are over-taxed.
At about the same time, we saw reports that 47% of Americans will pay no income tax at all.
I heard analysts speaking about both of these polls and statistics and I never heard anyone connect the two. What I did hear was President Obama mock the "anti-tax" protesters, since according to him he has "cut taxes", and should be thanked. In reality, the president imposed new policies that are going to hike the cost of living, impose new taxes, and even force Americans to purchase a product from a Government-approved list of companies (refusal to participate making the citizen subject to fines or imprisonment) and yet he then claims he has "cut taxes". How can he even try to make that claim? Simply by not having reversed the Bush tax cuts, he claims to have cut taxes.
Just like the government's tricky use of statistics such as "jobs created or saved", a vacuous shell game to try to take credit for jobs that still exist by claiming they would have been lost except for the Obama policies, or new jobs that have allegedly been created (most of the real jobs that were created were government jobs, so their inclusion is misleading from the start), this latest bit of propaganda is completly illogical. It's like saying "I cut your taxes because I didn't impose a new tax." It is doubly misleading because in reality, there have been a whole new slew of taxes created, many of which were hidden in the so-called "Health Reform Act". These taxes include increases in capital gains (such as a 4% tax on home sales), the already mentioned requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a "fine", and others. Meanwhile, the same administration proposes a VAT tax on all sales, not to mention the Cape and Trade energy tax, both of which will immediately cause inflation in all products and services.
So the reality is that YES, government-caused tax hikes and fines are in the works, and Obama's plattitudes are empty, as usual.
Which brings me back to the original topic: If the statistic is correct that only 47% of Americans have to pay federal income tax, how is it possible that 70% of Americans feel over taxed?
Clearly, the 53% of Americans that do pay Federal Income Tax feel they are paying way too much. So what of the additional 17% that apparently do not pay Federal Income Tax but still feel they are over taxed?
It occured to me that these must be individuals who are not required to pay Federal Income Taxes, but are still taxed heavily at the State and local level, and feel they are still paying too much. Many of these are likely to be the same individuals who are thrilled to get Obama-Care, because someone else will be footing the bill, and yet they also feel the squeeze from excessive local taxes. Afterall, I've heard that the tax rate in utopian cities like New York exceed 60%! It is not difficult to imagine that a NY resident who earns too little to pay federal taxes may squirm under the excessive state and city taxation in NY city.
And this leads me to believe that there is at least a 17% voting block of citizens who might be swayed against the type of government expansion of costly programs if only the right message were created and directed at them. In fact, this might just be an indication of who the independents and Democrats are that have been joining the Tea Party movement.
(I encourage you to read this article that breaks down who it is that actually pays taxes in this country. The findings may surprise you.)
First, we saw a poll that revealed that 70% of Americans feel they are over-taxed.
At about the same time, we saw reports that 47% of Americans will pay no income tax at all.
I heard analysts speaking about both of these polls and statistics and I never heard anyone connect the two. What I did hear was President Obama mock the "anti-tax" protesters, since according to him he has "cut taxes", and should be thanked. In reality, the president imposed new policies that are going to hike the cost of living, impose new taxes, and even force Americans to purchase a product from a Government-approved list of companies (refusal to participate making the citizen subject to fines or imprisonment) and yet he then claims he has "cut taxes". How can he even try to make that claim? Simply by not having reversed the Bush tax cuts, he claims to have cut taxes.
Just like the government's tricky use of statistics such as "jobs created or saved", a vacuous shell game to try to take credit for jobs that still exist by claiming they would have been lost except for the Obama policies, or new jobs that have allegedly been created (most of the real jobs that were created were government jobs, so their inclusion is misleading from the start), this latest bit of propaganda is completly illogical. It's like saying "I cut your taxes because I didn't impose a new tax." It is doubly misleading because in reality, there have been a whole new slew of taxes created, many of which were hidden in the so-called "Health Reform Act". These taxes include increases in capital gains (such as a 4% tax on home sales), the already mentioned requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a "fine", and others. Meanwhile, the same administration proposes a VAT tax on all sales, not to mention the Cape and Trade energy tax, both of which will immediately cause inflation in all products and services.
So the reality is that YES, government-caused tax hikes and fines are in the works, and Obama's plattitudes are empty, as usual.
Which brings me back to the original topic: If the statistic is correct that only 47% of Americans have to pay federal income tax, how is it possible that 70% of Americans feel over taxed?
Clearly, the 53% of Americans that do pay Federal Income Tax feel they are paying way too much. So what of the additional 17% that apparently do not pay Federal Income Tax but still feel they are over taxed?
It occured to me that these must be individuals who are not required to pay Federal Income Taxes, but are still taxed heavily at the State and local level, and feel they are still paying too much. Many of these are likely to be the same individuals who are thrilled to get Obama-Care, because someone else will be footing the bill, and yet they also feel the squeeze from excessive local taxes. Afterall, I've heard that the tax rate in utopian cities like New York exceed 60%! It is not difficult to imagine that a NY resident who earns too little to pay federal taxes may squirm under the excessive state and city taxation in NY city.
And this leads me to believe that there is at least a 17% voting block of citizens who might be swayed against the type of government expansion of costly programs if only the right message were created and directed at them. In fact, this might just be an indication of who the independents and Democrats are that have been joining the Tea Party movement.
(I encourage you to read this article that breaks down who it is that actually pays taxes in this country. The findings may surprise you.)
Monday, March 29, 2010
Nostaligia for the Plantation, a review
Folks, I just went back to look at something I had posted way back in 2008. This was during the campaign, before we knew what we know now. And boy, does it seem apt now.
I thought it might be interesting to look back and see it under new light.
Excerpt:
How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.” The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”
And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."
The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote. In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday.
But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain things in the constitution had to be changed?”
McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”
Goldberg:“I got scared!”
Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”
{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:
Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”
Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”Can it be any clearer, folks?
Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality. Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!
It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the Plantation.
I thought it might be interesting to look back and see it under new light.
Excerpt:
How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.” The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”
And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."
The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote. In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday.
But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain things in the constitution had to be changed?”
McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”
Goldberg:“I got scared!”
Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”
{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:
Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”
Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”Can it be any clearer, folks?
Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality. Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!
It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the Plantation.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Why hunt bears, when it's snakes that kill us?
Why do we think that “changing the way we live” is “admitting defeat” to al Qaeda?
Ted Koppel, in his recent interview by BBC World News America’s Matt Frei, appeared to drop a “bombshell” by declaring that the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing by al Qa’eda can be classified as “an absolute triumph for al Qaeda.”
Why? Because, according to Koppel, the United States’ reactions to the attempt has been so intense, and our attention so completely drawn to the attack, that they must be sitting back in their caves saying to themselves, “Not bad! If we can do that with a failed attempt, just think what we can do with a successful one.”
When Frei asked if the American response was an over-reaction, Koppel answered: “I think it’s an overreaction because we have spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, it is all that our media has been yapping about, it is much of what our Congress has been focusing on, the President himself has had to focus visibly his attention on it. Ironically, I think his initial reaction was the right one…I’m not going to over react publicly {but} he wasn’t able to sustain it.”
Koppel then explains that with all of the media “yapping” about “connecting the dots”, it leaves the politicians “no alternative but to make it look as though you are doing something. Well, doing something is exactly what the Terrorists want; they want to feel that they control our actions, rather than we control them ourselves.”
There is an element of truth to Koppel’s analysis. Al Qaeda intentions are clearly to attack the United States and take the initiative in the struggle. As in any chess game or war, an attack that elicits a response can be considered a successful move. What’s more, a minor attack (by comparison with major, complex and highly coordinated attacks such as the 9/11 attacks) that receives as much attention as this most recent attack did must surely be considered by the al Qa’eda leadership as a success.
Frei then quotes President Obama’s declaration that “we will not let a small band of terrorists define the way that this country lives its lives”, to which Koppel response that “this is the right thing to say, but it is not the way we have responded.”
And this is precisely where I diverge from Koppel’s absurd analysis. The thought pattern that is being promoted by Obama, as it had been by Bush and other leaders, that we should not allow the terrorists to “change our lives” or else “they win”, is infantile and dangerous. It is the mentality of the people who said, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that we should not over-react and be drawn into war. It is the same mentality of the individuals who said we should not fight against the Taliban and al Qa’eda in Afghanistan after they had killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens in New York. And it’s also the mentality of the politically correct fools who still cling to the absurd notion that—even though we know our enemy, we know what they look like, we know their religion, we know their languages, we know their profile—we should be “fair” and “just” by treating all individuals with the same suspicion rather than focusing our attention on the individuals who match the description of our enemy.
Think of it this way. If a village in India is suffering from deadly attacks of venomous snakes, should they take measures to clean the snakes out of the village, educate the villagers about the appearance and habits of the snakes, and teach them how to kill them when they are found? Or, in order to avoid discriminating against snakes, should they tell them not to worry about the snakes, because Polar bears might attack at any time? “We do not have Polar bears here in India!” they might respond. “Yes, but what if one comes here? And if you are looking for snakes, and not Polar bears, you might not be ready.” You can imagine how the villagers would immediately identify the village idiot, and they would return to hunting and killing snakes.
What’s more, imagine the stupidity of the statement: “we should not allow our enemy to change how we live our lives.” Was this the attitude that Americans took to win WWII? Did our grandparents declare that they would not report for the draft? Did the women refuse to get jobs? Did they refuse to conserve their use of gasoline?
What if Americans had allowed these village idiots to convince them that, if we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it would have been a victory for the Japanese?
The ultimate truth here is that this mentality is being promoted by individuals who arrogantly believe that the United States is too powerful to suffer cataclysmic attacks at the hands of "a small band of terrorists", and therefore we should treat them with indifference, a swish of a tail for an annoying mosquito. That response would be fine, if only the mosquitoes did not carry malaria. Would these same people propose that we ignore the mosquitoes, or should we drain the swamps and spray insecticide?
These people simply cannot comprehend: we are truly at WAR.
If we do not adapt, if we do not respond, if we cease hunting snakes and instead hunt Polar bears, we give a major advantage to our enemy. And this is exactly what Obama, and Koppel, are proposing. There is no strategic advantage to giving enemy combatants a civil trial, when precedent and law allows us to try them in military tribunals. There is no strategic advantage to Mirandizing enemy combatants in the field and hobbling our intelligence community. In fact, these decisions are exactly the kind of “civilized insanity” that al Qa’eda is counting on in order to continue inflicting damage on us. There is no strategic advantage to continuing the Polar bear hunt, when we know our people are dying of snakebites.
Ted Koppel, in his recent interview by BBC World News America’s Matt Frei, appeared to drop a “bombshell” by declaring that the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing by al Qa’eda can be classified as “an absolute triumph for al Qaeda.”
Why? Because, according to Koppel, the United States’ reactions to the attempt has been so intense, and our attention so completely drawn to the attack, that they must be sitting back in their caves saying to themselves, “Not bad! If we can do that with a failed attempt, just think what we can do with a successful one.”
When Frei asked if the American response was an over-reaction, Koppel answered: “I think it’s an overreaction because we have spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, it is all that our media has been yapping about, it is much of what our Congress has been focusing on, the President himself has had to focus visibly his attention on it. Ironically, I think his initial reaction was the right one…I’m not going to over react publicly {but} he wasn’t able to sustain it.”
Koppel then explains that with all of the media “yapping” about “connecting the dots”, it leaves the politicians “no alternative but to make it look as though you are doing something. Well, doing something is exactly what the Terrorists want; they want to feel that they control our actions, rather than we control them ourselves.”
There is an element of truth to Koppel’s analysis. Al Qaeda intentions are clearly to attack the United States and take the initiative in the struggle. As in any chess game or war, an attack that elicits a response can be considered a successful move. What’s more, a minor attack (by comparison with major, complex and highly coordinated attacks such as the 9/11 attacks) that receives as much attention as this most recent attack did must surely be considered by the al Qa’eda leadership as a success.
Frei then quotes President Obama’s declaration that “we will not let a small band of terrorists define the way that this country lives its lives”, to which Koppel response that “this is the right thing to say, but it is not the way we have responded.”
And this is precisely where I diverge from Koppel’s absurd analysis. The thought pattern that is being promoted by Obama, as it had been by Bush and other leaders, that we should not allow the terrorists to “change our lives” or else “they win”, is infantile and dangerous. It is the mentality of the people who said, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that we should not over-react and be drawn into war. It is the same mentality of the individuals who said we should not fight against the Taliban and al Qa’eda in Afghanistan after they had killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens in New York. And it’s also the mentality of the politically correct fools who still cling to the absurd notion that—even though we know our enemy, we know what they look like, we know their religion, we know their languages, we know their profile—we should be “fair” and “just” by treating all individuals with the same suspicion rather than focusing our attention on the individuals who match the description of our enemy.
Think of it this way. If a village in India is suffering from deadly attacks of venomous snakes, should they take measures to clean the snakes out of the village, educate the villagers about the appearance and habits of the snakes, and teach them how to kill them when they are found? Or, in order to avoid discriminating against snakes, should they tell them not to worry about the snakes, because Polar bears might attack at any time? “We do not have Polar bears here in India!” they might respond. “Yes, but what if one comes here? And if you are looking for snakes, and not Polar bears, you might not be ready.” You can imagine how the villagers would immediately identify the village idiot, and they would return to hunting and killing snakes.
What’s more, imagine the stupidity of the statement: “we should not allow our enemy to change how we live our lives.” Was this the attitude that Americans took to win WWII? Did our grandparents declare that they would not report for the draft? Did the women refuse to get jobs? Did they refuse to conserve their use of gasoline?
What if Americans had allowed these village idiots to convince them that, if we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it would have been a victory for the Japanese?
The ultimate truth here is that this mentality is being promoted by individuals who arrogantly believe that the United States is too powerful to suffer cataclysmic attacks at the hands of "a small band of terrorists", and therefore we should treat them with indifference, a swish of a tail for an annoying mosquito. That response would be fine, if only the mosquitoes did not carry malaria. Would these same people propose that we ignore the mosquitoes, or should we drain the swamps and spray insecticide?
These people simply cannot comprehend: we are truly at WAR.
If we do not adapt, if we do not respond, if we cease hunting snakes and instead hunt Polar bears, we give a major advantage to our enemy. And this is exactly what Obama, and Koppel, are proposing. There is no strategic advantage to giving enemy combatants a civil trial, when precedent and law allows us to try them in military tribunals. There is no strategic advantage to Mirandizing enemy combatants in the field and hobbling our intelligence community. In fact, these decisions are exactly the kind of “civilized insanity” that al Qa’eda is counting on in order to continue inflicting damage on us. There is no strategic advantage to continuing the Polar bear hunt, when we know our people are dying of snakebites.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A stormy 2010 forecast for Honduras
To recap: The Honduran President, Mel Zelaya of the Honduran Liberal Party, was deposed this year when he attempted to illegally and unconstitutionally propose a change in the term limits on presidents in order to open the possibility of re-election to himself. This created a rift in the country, but ws "resolved" when the Supreme Court determined that the referendum Zelaya had proposed was unconstitutional. Zelaya disobeyed the court orders and chose to thumb his nose at the Judiciary. The court then ordered his arrest, which occured and Zelaya was sent packing. The Honduran congress, ruled by a majority of Zelaya's own Honduran Liberal Party, agreed with the decision.
In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.
Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.
But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.
Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.
The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.
Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.
The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.
At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.
Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.
In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.
Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.
But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.
Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.
The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.
Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.
The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.
At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.
Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Eric Holder: most imcompetent AG in history
The “SMARTEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY” can’t make a decision and gets too confused to run a war. "Victory"? Please don't use that word.
Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".
Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.
So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.
Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!
Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy
agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United
States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about
using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor
Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC
News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he
explained.
Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.
So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.
Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The threats against conservatives
CNN’s Lou Dobbs has reported recently that a gunman fired a shot at his home while his wife was outside the home and entering her automobile. Dobbs stated that the mass media and pro-immigration groups such as LULAC and the National Council of La Raza have “created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda” against him, a statement that appears to connect their activities and the life-threatening attack against his family. The shot was not an isolated event; it “followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”
As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.
Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!
While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?
During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.
Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?
As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.
Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!
While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?
During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.
Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?
An analysis of Resignation Letter by Matthew Hoh
The resignation letter of Matthew Hoh, the U.S.’s Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan, represented the highest civilian official resignation over the war and has been received with some fanfare by the left, as well as trepidation by the Obama administration, who has reached out to him and tried to coax him to reconsider or, alternatively, to rejoin them by taking a domestic post where he can influence U.S. policy there.
But what has been glaringly absent is a real analysis of the absurd statements made by this young man. While we should be respectful of his service, the fact that he served honorably in both a military and civilian position for the nation should not excuse his resignation letter from scrutiny. And once the veneer of his letter is peeled back, a number of blatantly idiotic opinions become revealed.
For starters, Hoh states that “…the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries.”
This single phrase is the heart of Hoh’s ridiculous opinion. It is true that al-Qaeda agents, working in European and American cities, planned and executed the attacks, and it’s also true that these were primarily Saudi citizens. But his statement grossly overlooks the fact that it was Afghanistan where the al-Qaeda terrorists received most of their training, and served as the enclave from which their highest officers organized, funded, and ordered attacks. The Taliban were not only complicit, but were directly responsible because they provided material and moral support for the al-Qaeda terror organization. After the attack, they brazenly protected the perpetrators and responded to the world—not just the United States—with arrogant threats and challenges, instead of helping the world to get its hands on these bloodied murderers.
Hoh then continues: “The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”
Revealing a perverse form of the Stockholm syndrome, Hoh displays more sympathy for the Pashtun tribesmen who resent U.S. presence than he does the U.S. cause. If it was primarily the Pashtun who form the Taliban, and if it was the Taliban who supported al-Qaeda—which by its nature was primarily composed of foreign mercenary terrorists including Saudi, Georgian, Pakistanis and other nationalities—then it is fair to say that the Pashtun were not overly concerned about the presence of foreign fighters when they were initially in their midst, and it was their complicity with their actions that brought the full wrath of the United States to their lands. To say that their insurgency is “justified” is an attempt to obviate the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan was also justified, a rhetorical action that appears to undermine U.S. interests and a just response to a horrendous act of war.
Hoh says that “…this is not the European or Pacific theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, uniformed, civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced our men and women.”
No, indeed it is not. But like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was al-Qaeda and its close allies in the Taliban who launched the preemptive strike on the United States. The U.S. response to the Japanese was focused, furious, and justified. Hoh’s illogical argument would have rendered the American bellicose response on Japan inutile and would have justified any Japanese response as “justified”.
What’s more, for an individual who claims to know U.S. military history, he is either staggeringly ignorant of the facts surrounding World War II, or purposely overlooks the harsh realities of that war. It is false to pretend that U.S. troops in WWII were somehow better equipped than today’s soldiers. Their equipment was far more primitive and sparse than what our troops enjoy today. Leadership vacuums existed then, as now, and many horrific mistakes were made that cost our troops thousands of lives. In a single example, known as Exercise Tiger, which was a practice drill in preparation for the Normandy invasion, lack of preparation, leadership mistakes, and a surprise U-Boat attack killed nearly as many men in one day as what the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan over the course of eight years. What’s more, that exercise alone killed nearly three times as many men as what died on Utah Beach during the actual invasion. Many mistakes were made throughout the war included troops ordered to attack non-existant artillery emplacements, paratroopers accidentally dropped far from intended targets, troops killed by friendly fire and bombed by allied planes.
War is hell, they say. It always has been and always will be. Our troops have found themselves ill-equipped since the Revolutionary War, and have suffered horrendous losses to friendly fire and other mistakes, including the incident that killed Confederate General Longstreet in the Civil War. By comparison, our troops today are far better equipped, trained, and supported than at any other time in history.
Hoh’s most egregious comments are when he begins to question the entire strategy for the war. For example, he points out that the corruption and incompetence of the new Afghan government “reminds me of our involvement in South Vietnam.” He never bothers to consider that this new, incompetent government is a vast improvement over the brutality, inhumanity, cruelty and stone-age incompetence of the Taliban government, if we dare to even call it a “government”. The problems he highlights regarding fraud and corruption can be overcome with time, and are not unique to the Afghan government. What’s more, Vietnam did not attack the United States, but the previous Afghan government was complicit in the attacks on the United States which—by the way—killed more US citizens than the number who died at Pearl Harbor.
Hoh then says: “I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc….to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan…”
To suggest that we should “occupy western Pakistan” reveals yet another foolish opinion. Pakistan is not an enemy state; they have allied themselves with the United States to combat the Taliban terrorists and have lost more soldiers and civilians in this effort than we have (some estimates claim there have been thousands of deaths in Pakistan due to their assistance, including the assassinated Benazir Bhutto). While they have been neither as effective nor as cooperative as we would like, the Pakistanis have made great sacrifices and have risked their own internal peace in the effort to stamp out Taliban radicalism. And I must again remind Hoh that, while Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was. Yet despite that fact, the United States is in fact struggling to contain the terrorist threats that emanate from those nations. Hoh’s illogical conclusion appears to suggest that because the war in Afghanistan is difficult and costly, and because there are other threats also, if we don’t invade all the nations that threaten us, we should not invade any.
To refer back to WWII, it would be as if Hoh suggested that we should not have attacked Germany, Italy and Japan because we did not attack Spain, which had been a Nazi ally (even if Franco did remain neutral in the war). The Soviet Union, like Pakistan, was both a threat and an ally, but we did not invade Russia. So Hoh’s analysis reveals an infantile misunderstanding of strategy: if you can’t attack everywhere at once, then you should refrain from attacking anywhere at all.
Even a chess novice could see that this “strategy” is no strategy at all, but is instead an excuse for cowardice.
Hoh further reveals his ignorance when he says that “if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.”
Is Hoh unaware of our nation’s deep involvement in Mexico (not to mention Colombia)? Has he never heard of our efforts to strengthen their democracy, of our investment of time, resources and manpower in the counter-narcotic struggle?
Hoh summarizes his discontent by stating that our effort in Afghanistan “has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure.” To my knowledge, none of our civilian and military leaders have provided naïve positive statements about the war that could be described accurately as “Pollyannaish”.
Every assessment I have heard has been frank, forthright, worrisome, but has not promoted a hopeless and cynical call for retreat and surrender, which is what Hoh appears to promote.
But what has been glaringly absent is a real analysis of the absurd statements made by this young man. While we should be respectful of his service, the fact that he served honorably in both a military and civilian position for the nation should not excuse his resignation letter from scrutiny. And once the veneer of his letter is peeled back, a number of blatantly idiotic opinions become revealed.
For starters, Hoh states that “…the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries.”
This single phrase is the heart of Hoh’s ridiculous opinion. It is true that al-Qaeda agents, working in European and American cities, planned and executed the attacks, and it’s also true that these were primarily Saudi citizens. But his statement grossly overlooks the fact that it was Afghanistan where the al-Qaeda terrorists received most of their training, and served as the enclave from which their highest officers organized, funded, and ordered attacks. The Taliban were not only complicit, but were directly responsible because they provided material and moral support for the al-Qaeda terror organization. After the attack, they brazenly protected the perpetrators and responded to the world—not just the United States—with arrogant threats and challenges, instead of helping the world to get its hands on these bloodied murderers.
Hoh then continues: “The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”
Revealing a perverse form of the Stockholm syndrome, Hoh displays more sympathy for the Pashtun tribesmen who resent U.S. presence than he does the U.S. cause. If it was primarily the Pashtun who form the Taliban, and if it was the Taliban who supported al-Qaeda—which by its nature was primarily composed of foreign mercenary terrorists including Saudi, Georgian, Pakistanis and other nationalities—then it is fair to say that the Pashtun were not overly concerned about the presence of foreign fighters when they were initially in their midst, and it was their complicity with their actions that brought the full wrath of the United States to their lands. To say that their insurgency is “justified” is an attempt to obviate the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan was also justified, a rhetorical action that appears to undermine U.S. interests and a just response to a horrendous act of war.
Hoh says that “…this is not the European or Pacific theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, uniformed, civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced our men and women.”
No, indeed it is not. But like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was al-Qaeda and its close allies in the Taliban who launched the preemptive strike on the United States. The U.S. response to the Japanese was focused, furious, and justified. Hoh’s illogical argument would have rendered the American bellicose response on Japan inutile and would have justified any Japanese response as “justified”.
What’s more, for an individual who claims to know U.S. military history, he is either staggeringly ignorant of the facts surrounding World War II, or purposely overlooks the harsh realities of that war. It is false to pretend that U.S. troops in WWII were somehow better equipped than today’s soldiers. Their equipment was far more primitive and sparse than what our troops enjoy today. Leadership vacuums existed then, as now, and many horrific mistakes were made that cost our troops thousands of lives. In a single example, known as Exercise Tiger, which was a practice drill in preparation for the Normandy invasion, lack of preparation, leadership mistakes, and a surprise U-Boat attack killed nearly as many men in one day as what the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan over the course of eight years. What’s more, that exercise alone killed nearly three times as many men as what died on Utah Beach during the actual invasion. Many mistakes were made throughout the war included troops ordered to attack non-existant artillery emplacements, paratroopers accidentally dropped far from intended targets, troops killed by friendly fire and bombed by allied planes.
War is hell, they say. It always has been and always will be. Our troops have found themselves ill-equipped since the Revolutionary War, and have suffered horrendous losses to friendly fire and other mistakes, including the incident that killed Confederate General Longstreet in the Civil War. By comparison, our troops today are far better equipped, trained, and supported than at any other time in history.
Hoh’s most egregious comments are when he begins to question the entire strategy for the war. For example, he points out that the corruption and incompetence of the new Afghan government “reminds me of our involvement in South Vietnam.” He never bothers to consider that this new, incompetent government is a vast improvement over the brutality, inhumanity, cruelty and stone-age incompetence of the Taliban government, if we dare to even call it a “government”. The problems he highlights regarding fraud and corruption can be overcome with time, and are not unique to the Afghan government. What’s more, Vietnam did not attack the United States, but the previous Afghan government was complicit in the attacks on the United States which—by the way—killed more US citizens than the number who died at Pearl Harbor.
Hoh then says: “I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc….to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan…”
To suggest that we should “occupy western Pakistan” reveals yet another foolish opinion. Pakistan is not an enemy state; they have allied themselves with the United States to combat the Taliban terrorists and have lost more soldiers and civilians in this effort than we have (some estimates claim there have been thousands of deaths in Pakistan due to their assistance, including the assassinated Benazir Bhutto). While they have been neither as effective nor as cooperative as we would like, the Pakistanis have made great sacrifices and have risked their own internal peace in the effort to stamp out Taliban radicalism. And I must again remind Hoh that, while Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was. Yet despite that fact, the United States is in fact struggling to contain the terrorist threats that emanate from those nations. Hoh’s illogical conclusion appears to suggest that because the war in Afghanistan is difficult and costly, and because there are other threats also, if we don’t invade all the nations that threaten us, we should not invade any.
To refer back to WWII, it would be as if Hoh suggested that we should not have attacked Germany, Italy and Japan because we did not attack Spain, which had been a Nazi ally (even if Franco did remain neutral in the war). The Soviet Union, like Pakistan, was both a threat and an ally, but we did not invade Russia. So Hoh’s analysis reveals an infantile misunderstanding of strategy: if you can’t attack everywhere at once, then you should refrain from attacking anywhere at all.
Even a chess novice could see that this “strategy” is no strategy at all, but is instead an excuse for cowardice.
Hoh further reveals his ignorance when he says that “if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.”
Is Hoh unaware of our nation’s deep involvement in Mexico (not to mention Colombia)? Has he never heard of our efforts to strengthen their democracy, of our investment of time, resources and manpower in the counter-narcotic struggle?
Hoh summarizes his discontent by stating that our effort in Afghanistan “has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure.” To my knowledge, none of our civilian and military leaders have provided naïve positive statements about the war that could be described accurately as “Pollyannaish”.
Every assessment I have heard has been frank, forthright, worrisome, but has not promoted a hopeless and cynical call for retreat and surrender, which is what Hoh appears to promote.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Bite your forked tongue, Speaker Pelosi
Indeed, Madam Speaker, there may yet be violence. Let us hope there is not, but it is about time you take note of the rage simmering in the nation. Meanwhile, your pathetic speeches do not absolve you and your cohorts of blame.
I heard the little chat you gave to the press today, Speaker Pelosi. I heard your voice quiver with emotion, and I was glad of it. You said:
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … uh…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and what they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”
I’m pleased to hear you recognize this very real possibility. I hope you understand that citizens across the country have been warning the government for some time: you are out of control, and have strayed too far from the constitution, infringing on our rights and liberties, at the individual and state levels.
The recent dramatic increase in firearms purchases in the USA was not because the ultra-leftist statements made by you, President Obama and your ilk kindled a new interest in deer hunting. No. Rather, a significant portion of the citizenry is concerned about social deterioration, increased crime, and what appears to be an unrestrained government whose actions are becoming increasingly tyrannical.
The fact that twenty states have made moves to reiterate their sovereignty is no insignificant fact. Contemplate that for a moment.
It should be understood that we are in dangerous waters. The ever-expanding federal government, which habitually hefts unfunded programs upon the states and refuses them the right to nullify the policies, is an unacceptable violation of states’ rights, is creating an untenable burden upon the citizenry, and is considered by millions of Americans to be a real, and not rhetorical, cause for revolt.
So yes, you had reason to speak with emotion, Madam Speaker: there is a very real possibility of violence. For the first time in my life, I’m hearing red-blooded America-loving citizens speak of civil war.
You and your Liberal friends cannot grasp the sentiment that has been stirred, but clearly you are aware of it. But get this through your head: the people making these statements are not a bunch of “imbalanced” crazies. The people I know saying this are not like David Koresh or Tim McVeigh...or Bill Ayers, for that matter.
These are highly intelligent, highly educated individuals; some are doctors, others professors, while many are ordinary corporate workers whose patience with government intrusion is running out.
So before you point fingers and accuse everyone else of irresponsible behavior, reflect on your own! Who it is that has appointed radical Marxists to the highest echelons of our government?
Who has appointed dozens of “czars” who are unaccountable to the people? Some of these have openly suspected President Bush of conspiring to destroy the Twin Towers, sympathized with the terrorists, while others wrote books proposing forced abortions and sterilization.
Whose administration is promoting doomsday predictions about global warming and imposing incredible tax hikes on our energy, while simultaneously promoting a radical restructuring of the entire national healthcare system?
Whose administration is it that condemned the previous president for running up the debt and deficit, and then quadrupled said debt and deficit by 400% in less than one year? Who is it that has doggedly accused good American citizens of being racists, Nazis, hypocrites, and liars for opposing the radical agenda?
Was that what you meant when you promoted “change” in America? Was that what President Obama meant when he promised “fundamental transformation of America”?
I’ve seen all of this before. It is what has been happening in my wife’s country of birth, Venezuela (she's now a US citizen), ever since they elected another “progressive” named Hugo Chavez. Watching you and your minions at work, I have been struck by the similarities in your policies and outlandish behavior. Chavez was able to trash the 40 year old Venezuelan constitution after only a few years in office, implant a neo-Marxist totalitarian regime, all without any real violent resistance.
But this is not Venezuela. Americans are not pacifists. We are, by nature, tolerant and peaceful when possible, but bellicose when necessary. We love our Constitution as much as others love their god. Patrick Henry’s demand, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death”, still reverberates in our hearts. We understand that sentiment and value those same values. We are still ready to fight and die so that our children may live free.
You seem to be living under the delusion that your intentions are good, so therefore the results of your actions must also be good. But your good intentions are paving a road to Hell, and your stubborn determination to take us on that journey with you clashes with our determination to preserve this, the most perfect of imperfect nations.
Let me make clear that I am not inciting violence, so bite your forked tongue before you accuse me of that crime. To the contrary, I am hopeful that the Democrat super-majority in control today will tame its hubris, restrain its giddy arrogance, and that reason will prevail. But meanwhile, heed my warning; the People who recently assembled peacefully in Tea Parties , town halls and marches were not a “mob”. No, when the “mob” comes knocking, you will instantly recognize the difference!
I heard the little chat you gave to the press today, Speaker Pelosi. I heard your voice quiver with emotion, and I was glad of it. You said:
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … uh…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and what they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”
I’m pleased to hear you recognize this very real possibility. I hope you understand that citizens across the country have been warning the government for some time: you are out of control, and have strayed too far from the constitution, infringing on our rights and liberties, at the individual and state levels.
The recent dramatic increase in firearms purchases in the USA was not because the ultra-leftist statements made by you, President Obama and your ilk kindled a new interest in deer hunting. No. Rather, a significant portion of the citizenry is concerned about social deterioration, increased crime, and what appears to be an unrestrained government whose actions are becoming increasingly tyrannical.
The fact that twenty states have made moves to reiterate their sovereignty is no insignificant fact. Contemplate that for a moment.
It should be understood that we are in dangerous waters. The ever-expanding federal government, which habitually hefts unfunded programs upon the states and refuses them the right to nullify the policies, is an unacceptable violation of states’ rights, is creating an untenable burden upon the citizenry, and is considered by millions of Americans to be a real, and not rhetorical, cause for revolt.
So yes, you had reason to speak with emotion, Madam Speaker: there is a very real possibility of violence. For the first time in my life, I’m hearing red-blooded America-loving citizens speak of civil war.
You and your Liberal friends cannot grasp the sentiment that has been stirred, but clearly you are aware of it. But get this through your head: the people making these statements are not a bunch of “imbalanced” crazies. The people I know saying this are not like David Koresh or Tim McVeigh...or Bill Ayers, for that matter.
These are highly intelligent, highly educated individuals; some are doctors, others professors, while many are ordinary corporate workers whose patience with government intrusion is running out.
So before you point fingers and accuse everyone else of irresponsible behavior, reflect on your own! Who it is that has appointed radical Marxists to the highest echelons of our government?
Who has appointed dozens of “czars” who are unaccountable to the people? Some of these have openly suspected President Bush of conspiring to destroy the Twin Towers, sympathized with the terrorists, while others wrote books proposing forced abortions and sterilization.
Whose administration is promoting doomsday predictions about global warming and imposing incredible tax hikes on our energy, while simultaneously promoting a radical restructuring of the entire national healthcare system?
Whose administration is it that condemned the previous president for running up the debt and deficit, and then quadrupled said debt and deficit by 400% in less than one year? Who is it that has doggedly accused good American citizens of being racists, Nazis, hypocrites, and liars for opposing the radical agenda?
Was that what you meant when you promoted “change” in America? Was that what President Obama meant when he promised “fundamental transformation of America”?
I’ve seen all of this before. It is what has been happening in my wife’s country of birth, Venezuela (she's now a US citizen), ever since they elected another “progressive” named Hugo Chavez. Watching you and your minions at work, I have been struck by the similarities in your policies and outlandish behavior. Chavez was able to trash the 40 year old Venezuelan constitution after only a few years in office, implant a neo-Marxist totalitarian regime, all without any real violent resistance.
But this is not Venezuela. Americans are not pacifists. We are, by nature, tolerant and peaceful when possible, but bellicose when necessary. We love our Constitution as much as others love their god. Patrick Henry’s demand, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death”, still reverberates in our hearts. We understand that sentiment and value those same values. We are still ready to fight and die so that our children may live free.
You seem to be living under the delusion that your intentions are good, so therefore the results of your actions must also be good. But your good intentions are paving a road to Hell, and your stubborn determination to take us on that journey with you clashes with our determination to preserve this, the most perfect of imperfect nations.
Let me make clear that I am not inciting violence, so bite your forked tongue before you accuse me of that crime. To the contrary, I am hopeful that the Democrat super-majority in control today will tame its hubris, restrain its giddy arrogance, and that reason will prevail. But meanwhile, heed my warning; the People who recently assembled peacefully in Tea Parties , town halls and marches were not a “mob”. No, when the “mob” comes knocking, you will instantly recognize the difference!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obama’s ongoing lies about illegals and health care
A keen listener to Obama’s health care propaganda plug before Congress should have noticed something important: he lamented that there are “30 million” people uninsured in the country.
According to the Washington Examiner, Obama was quoted back in July as saying "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…"
Ain’t that a curious thing?
The explanation for this is quite simple: the numbers cited previously (46 to 47 million) corresponds to the numbers provided by think tanks such as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because Democrats insisted—in fact, they damn near screamed—that they were not including illegal immigrants when they quoted the 47 million estimate, I contacted Kaiser to ask them about it. One of their research assistants responded:
“Our uninsured figures includes {sic} legal and illegal immigrants, including those with green cards, student visas, and people waiting for citizenship papers to be processed. We do not have a breakout of illegal and legal immigrants at this time, though you might find Jeffrey Passel's report on unauthorized immigrants in the United States useful.”
This is proof positive that, during the majority of the discussion on the Health Care reform efforts, the Democrats were inflating the numbers of “uninsured Americans” by including illegal immigrants, and were lying through their teeth about how they arrived at that number. Obama’s sudden change to quoting only “30 million” reflects an un-spoken admission of this fact on his part.
Representative Wilson’s impromptu challenge of Obama’s honesty, while impolite, was warranted. Obama has been lying about the number of uninsured and the composition of that group for many months. He is still lying when he asserts that illegals will not receive health care benefits, because while the bill does explicitly say that they should not receive coverage, there is a glaring absence of provisions to verify eligibility. Until the Democrats solve that problem, we are forced to assume that they had an intent to lie about the issue until they were caught, and still intend to provide care for illegal immigrants by leaving loopholes in the law.
According to the Washington Examiner, Obama was quoted back in July as saying "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…"
Ain’t that a curious thing?
The explanation for this is quite simple: the numbers cited previously (46 to 47 million) corresponds to the numbers provided by think tanks such as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because Democrats insisted—in fact, they damn near screamed—that they were not including illegal immigrants when they quoted the 47 million estimate, I contacted Kaiser to ask them about it. One of their research assistants responded:
“Our uninsured figures includes {sic} legal and illegal immigrants, including those with green cards, student visas, and people waiting for citizenship papers to be processed. We do not have a breakout of illegal and legal immigrants at this time, though you might find Jeffrey Passel's report on unauthorized immigrants in the United States useful.”
This is proof positive that, during the majority of the discussion on the Health Care reform efforts, the Democrats were inflating the numbers of “uninsured Americans” by including illegal immigrants, and were lying through their teeth about how they arrived at that number. Obama’s sudden change to quoting only “30 million” reflects an un-spoken admission of this fact on his part.
Representative Wilson’s impromptu challenge of Obama’s honesty, while impolite, was warranted. Obama has been lying about the number of uninsured and the composition of that group for many months. He is still lying when he asserts that illegals will not receive health care benefits, because while the bill does explicitly say that they should not receive coverage, there is a glaring absence of provisions to verify eligibility. Until the Democrats solve that problem, we are forced to assume that they had an intent to lie about the issue until they were caught, and still intend to provide care for illegal immigrants by leaving loopholes in the law.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Healthcare and Universities
Just a quick thought on that Obama speech.
First of all, Representative Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, because an omission of truth is still a lie. What Obama said is technically correct, in that HB 3200 does specifically state that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive care under the government option. The problem is that HR 3200 contains to method of preventing it from happening anyway. Republicans tried to amend the bill in order to apply the same safeguards currently used for social security and other benefits, but the Democrats struck it down—and Obama knows it. So, in my opinion, although Wilson’s behavior was a bit out of the ordinary, he was right. And why should he apologize? Democrats booed President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address.
On another note, I’d like to draw attention to a little detail of Obama’s misleading and silly speech, taken from the full transcript.
“… The insurance companies and their allies …argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”
Mr. President, I’m so glad you brought up public colleges and Universities. Because in the context of your speech, you claim that government interference in the marketplace is going to reduce costs. And you point to state run universities…well have you looked at tuition costs lately?
According to a Money Central article on the rising costs of education, “the price tag for a college education rose again last year. Tuition and fees increased 14.1% for public four-year institutions and 6% for private schools, according to the College Board. The retail cost of a college degree has more than doubled in the past two decades, far outstripping the regular rate of inflation.” The average annual increase has been between 5% and 8%.
The author points to the work of Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who “describes a kind of arms race among the nation’s top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”
But what is the main cause for the increase? Financial Aid. Why? Because “most people dont pay the sticker price for college. Scholarships, grants and loans reduce the out-of-pocket cost for the majority of students. …As we’ve seen with the health-care system, if people aren’t feeling the real cost of their purchases, they have less incentive to change their behavior.”
Now what do you think will happen when you have government paid healthcare? If government-run universities can’t keep down their costs, and they continue to rise at rates far above the national rate of inflation, what do you think will happen with medical care under your plan?
First of all, Representative Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, because an omission of truth is still a lie. What Obama said is technically correct, in that HB 3200 does specifically state that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive care under the government option. The problem is that HR 3200 contains to method of preventing it from happening anyway. Republicans tried to amend the bill in order to apply the same safeguards currently used for social security and other benefits, but the Democrats struck it down—and Obama knows it. So, in my opinion, although Wilson’s behavior was a bit out of the ordinary, he was right. And why should he apologize? Democrats booed President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address.
On another note, I’d like to draw attention to a little detail of Obama’s misleading and silly speech, taken from the full transcript.
“… The insurance companies and their allies …argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”
Mr. President, I’m so glad you brought up public colleges and Universities. Because in the context of your speech, you claim that government interference in the marketplace is going to reduce costs. And you point to state run universities…well have you looked at tuition costs lately?
According to a Money Central article on the rising costs of education, “the price tag for a college education rose again last year. Tuition and fees increased 14.1% for public four-year institutions and 6% for private schools, according to the College Board. The retail cost of a college degree has more than doubled in the past two decades, far outstripping the regular rate of inflation.” The average annual increase has been between 5% and 8%.
The author points to the work of Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who “describes a kind of arms race among the nation’s top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”
But what is the main cause for the increase? Financial Aid. Why? Because “most people dont pay the sticker price for college. Scholarships, grants and loans reduce the out-of-pocket cost for the majority of students. …As we’ve seen with the health-care system, if people aren’t feeling the real cost of their purchases, they have less incentive to change their behavior.”
Now what do you think will happen when you have government paid healthcare? If government-run universities can’t keep down their costs, and they continue to rise at rates far above the national rate of inflation, what do you think will happen with medical care under your plan?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Obama Propaganda Machine
In his article entitled “The Artist Formerly Known as Dissent”, Patrick Courrielche wrote of his growing discomfort with the role that artists are playing under the Obama administration. He warns: “the art community is not meeting its duty of always questioning those in power. And I say duty because the art community, as a counterpart of the press, has been given special rights written into the Bill of Rights, known broadly as freedom of the press, for the explicit purpose of keeping power in check.”
He continues: “Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power.”
Courrielche then examines the hysterical and furious response to the only artistic challenge laid against the Obama administration—the infamous image of Obama as the Joker from the Batman series—and responds to the attacks on the anonymous creator. “Can you blame the artist for wanting to remain anonymous given the irrational and racially-charged criticism the poster has received?”
He ends his article with a brilliant admonition to the artists who continue to produce art celebrating Obama, rather than applying their talent to question “the ruling class”:
“It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.”
Courrielche’s article, it turns out, was both timely and insightful, for reasons I shall explore in a moment. But before I do, and because Courrielche mentioned him in his article, I’d like to quote der Furer’s philosophy on propaganda, as stated in Mein Kampf.
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.”
Courrielche has initiated what I hope will become a national dialog among American artists about their roles either as a “counterpart of the press” in defending democracy and our Liberty. But I fear that today’s artists—just like most of their counterparts in the mass media—have gleefully surrendered their independence from the current administration. The situation is growing so dire I dare say that it appears that McCarthy was right; Hollywood truly has become a socialist propaganda machine!
Consider the new film by Michael Moore, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, in which Moore “sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people…Ending on the notes of the ‘Internationale’ as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise.”
In keeping with Hitler’s advice for creating quality propaganda, Moore does not try to simply show a number of failures in order to fix capitalism. No, he creates a one-sided, emotionally charged piece intended to encourage the abandonment of capitalism and implementation of socialism, employing a nearly cartoonish montage of images to drive home his propagandistic point:
“Simplifications are Moore's stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of 50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present.” And as you might expect of a Nazi propaganda piece, it would not be acceptable to criticize the Führer: “Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice.”
Lest you think this is an isolated case, Moore is not the only Hollywood film-maker producing socialist propaganda: Now we find out that Oliver Stone has just completed his new film (“South of the Border”) that glorifies Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Like all the great socialists before him, Chavez is a student of history and has always directed a well-oiled propaganda machine employing the best liberal artists he can find in Venezuela. This propaganda machine has had two major intents: 1) to create the appearance within Venezuela that he is a man of the people waging a tireless struggle against the evil forces of capitalism and “the Empire” (AKA: the USA), and 2) to counter growing international concern that he has supplanted Venezuelan democracy with totalitarian rule.
To this end, Chavez has carefully orchestrated a number of events to present himself to the world as a great champion of human rights, defender of the environment, and a soldier for the people. His ultimate goal has been to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which his loyal followers have nominated him. Stone has apparently bought into this hook, line and sinker. “If you look now, there are seven presidents, eight countries with Chile, that are really moving away from the Washington consensus control. But in America, they don't get that story." When asked if he had tried to portray a realistic view of events in Venezuela, including Chavez’s “dark side”, Stone responded: "A dark side? There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? …He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region… He's not a dictator."
One must wonder why Stone failed to mention that the Chavez regime recently shut down over 40 radio stations that broadcast opposition perspectives to his policies, and this week his ministers warned they were about to close another thirty. Would Stone have overlooked similar excesses from the Bush administration?
Film-makers are not the only artists who are openly propagandizing for socialism. And in a new and deeply disturbing revelation, the Obama administration may actually be conspiring to convert the National Endowment for the Arts into an unofficial propaganda bureau.
For our good friend Patrick Courrielche has written another article in which he warns that the NEA is reaching out to the art community to create art that supports the Obama agenda. Courrielche reports:
“I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries ‘to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.’”
“Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were ‘health care’ and ‘energy and environment.’ The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. “
Courrielche intuitively and quite accurately senses the moral (and probably legal) conflict of interest: “In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. …Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions?”
He reports that during the call, there was much talk about “‘leveraging federal dollars’ to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.”
If this is true, then the Obama administration appears to be secretly re-writing the NEA’s mission statement, redirecting its purpose from supporting the arts to instead supporting his personal political agenda! What’s more, it’s a covert method of directing federal dollars into a propaganda effort without asking for or receiving permission from the Congress.
We must issue a Clarion Call to the citizens.
Not only did the socialist threat not die off with the collapse of the Berlin Wall; it is back, in a more dangerous and insidious form than ever. Our national media and our art community are conspiring with socialist politicians to destroy America’s capitalist economy and undermine the constitution. They are using our own tax dollars against us as they unleash new weapons to beguile and confound us. And just as Oliver Stone said, why should we consider the “dark side” to their methods, when they intend to “do good things”?
The ends justify the means.
Wake up, America!
***UPDATE***
Blogger Ben Smith reports that the NEA communications director has had to resign after issuing the communication that the NEA would help redirect federal dollars to artists so they would "work to further President Obama's legislative agenda."
Smith adds that "Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported that Sergant had been "asked to resign," and played it as another scalp -- like Van Jones' -- for Glenn Beck." Additionally, "Senator John Cornyn had also pressed the White House on the issue in a letter Tuesday."
He continues: “Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power.”
Courrielche then examines the hysterical and furious response to the only artistic challenge laid against the Obama administration—the infamous image of Obama as the Joker from the Batman series—and responds to the attacks on the anonymous creator. “Can you blame the artist for wanting to remain anonymous given the irrational and racially-charged criticism the poster has received?”
He ends his article with a brilliant admonition to the artists who continue to produce art celebrating Obama, rather than applying their talent to question “the ruling class”:
“It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.”
Courrielche’s article, it turns out, was both timely and insightful, for reasons I shall explore in a moment. But before I do, and because Courrielche mentioned him in his article, I’d like to quote der Furer’s philosophy on propaganda, as stated in Mein Kampf.
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.”
Courrielche has initiated what I hope will become a national dialog among American artists about their roles either as a “counterpart of the press” in defending democracy and our Liberty. But I fear that today’s artists—just like most of their counterparts in the mass media—have gleefully surrendered their independence from the current administration. The situation is growing so dire I dare say that it appears that McCarthy was right; Hollywood truly has become a socialist propaganda machine!
Consider the new film by Michael Moore, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, in which Moore “sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people…Ending on the notes of the ‘Internationale’ as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise.”
In keeping with Hitler’s advice for creating quality propaganda, Moore does not try to simply show a number of failures in order to fix capitalism. No, he creates a one-sided, emotionally charged piece intended to encourage the abandonment of capitalism and implementation of socialism, employing a nearly cartoonish montage of images to drive home his propagandistic point:
“Simplifications are Moore's stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of 50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present.” And as you might expect of a Nazi propaganda piece, it would not be acceptable to criticize the Führer: “Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice.”
Lest you think this is an isolated case, Moore is not the only Hollywood film-maker producing socialist propaganda: Now we find out that Oliver Stone has just completed his new film (“South of the Border”) that glorifies Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Like all the great socialists before him, Chavez is a student of history and has always directed a well-oiled propaganda machine employing the best liberal artists he can find in Venezuela. This propaganda machine has had two major intents: 1) to create the appearance within Venezuela that he is a man of the people waging a tireless struggle against the evil forces of capitalism and “the Empire” (AKA: the USA), and 2) to counter growing international concern that he has supplanted Venezuelan democracy with totalitarian rule.
To this end, Chavez has carefully orchestrated a number of events to present himself to the world as a great champion of human rights, defender of the environment, and a soldier for the people. His ultimate goal has been to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which his loyal followers have nominated him. Stone has apparently bought into this hook, line and sinker. “If you look now, there are seven presidents, eight countries with Chile, that are really moving away from the Washington consensus control. But in America, they don't get that story." When asked if he had tried to portray a realistic view of events in Venezuela, including Chavez’s “dark side”, Stone responded: "A dark side? There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? …He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region… He's not a dictator."
One must wonder why Stone failed to mention that the Chavez regime recently shut down over 40 radio stations that broadcast opposition perspectives to his policies, and this week his ministers warned they were about to close another thirty. Would Stone have overlooked similar excesses from the Bush administration?
Film-makers are not the only artists who are openly propagandizing for socialism. And in a new and deeply disturbing revelation, the Obama administration may actually be conspiring to convert the National Endowment for the Arts into an unofficial propaganda bureau.
For our good friend Patrick Courrielche has written another article in which he warns that the NEA is reaching out to the art community to create art that supports the Obama agenda. Courrielche reports:
“I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries ‘to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.’”
“Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were ‘health care’ and ‘energy and environment.’ The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. “
Courrielche intuitively and quite accurately senses the moral (and probably legal) conflict of interest: “In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. …Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions?”
He reports that during the call, there was much talk about “‘leveraging federal dollars’ to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.”
If this is true, then the Obama administration appears to be secretly re-writing the NEA’s mission statement, redirecting its purpose from supporting the arts to instead supporting his personal political agenda! What’s more, it’s a covert method of directing federal dollars into a propaganda effort without asking for or receiving permission from the Congress.
We must issue a Clarion Call to the citizens.
Not only did the socialist threat not die off with the collapse of the Berlin Wall; it is back, in a more dangerous and insidious form than ever. Our national media and our art community are conspiring with socialist politicians to destroy America’s capitalist economy and undermine the constitution. They are using our own tax dollars against us as they unleash new weapons to beguile and confound us. And just as Oliver Stone said, why should we consider the “dark side” to their methods, when they intend to “do good things”?
The ends justify the means.
Wake up, America!
***UPDATE***
Blogger Ben Smith reports that the NEA communications director has had to resign after issuing the communication that the NEA would help redirect federal dollars to artists so they would "work to further President Obama's legislative agenda."
Smith adds that "Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported that Sergant had been "asked to resign," and played it as another scalp -- like Van Jones' -- for Glenn Beck." Additionally, "Senator John Cornyn had also pressed the White House on the issue in a letter Tuesday."
Friday, August 28, 2009
Obama's State Dept. reverses itself AGAIN on Honduras
On August 17th, I published a blog entitled "Earth to Obama", in which I wrote:
The point of that article was that the Obama foreign policy seems to drift dangerously, illogically, and unpredictably. While Obama had first stated that the removal of Zelaya had been an "illegal coup", they then appeared to rethink that decision, and in an article published in McClatchy, the Obama administration wrote a letter to Republican Senator Lugar, which was reported to mark a change in the policy. According to McClatchy, "the Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking "provocative actions" that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28. "
And now, Reuters reports "U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation...The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon."
What in the name of God is going on in this Obama administration?
For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”,
Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President
missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then
leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to
formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for
his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the
hemisphere...Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.
The point of that article was that the Obama foreign policy seems to drift dangerously, illogically, and unpredictably. While Obama had first stated that the removal of Zelaya had been an "illegal coup", they then appeared to rethink that decision, and in an article published in McClatchy, the Obama administration wrote a letter to Republican Senator Lugar, which was reported to mark a change in the policy. According to McClatchy, "the Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking "provocative actions" that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28. "
And now, Reuters reports "U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation...The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon."
What in the name of God is going on in this Obama administration?
Monday, August 17, 2009
“Earth to Obama…”
Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez criticized President Obama recently, and although it pains me personally to ever agree with Chavez, I have to admit he is right: “"President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings; he doesn't get it."
While Chavez’s comment could be applied generally to nearly every Obama policy, from a public option in his Health Care reform to his attempt to have citizens report each other via the infamous White House website, he was specifically criticizing Obama's position on the democratic crisis in Honduras.
Even Bill Maher has piled on, stating that “Obama needs to get a little George Bush in him, personality-wise.” Maher seemed to think that Obama was just being “too nice”, and needs to get tough in order to get his policies through. The silly thing about this is that, while Bush managed to get his way even during the last two years of his presidency when he had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama can’t seem to get anything right despite the fact that his own party controls both houses and the presidency.
Could it be that executive experience does trump "coummunity organizing"?
The reason has nothing to do with Obama being “too bi-partisan”. No, it’s because he truly has lost his bearings, if he ever had any to start with.
The Honduran and Iranian cases prove the point.
When the presidential elections in Iran were allegedly stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, resulting in massive protests and extremely violent oppression of protestors, Obama wobbled on his feet indecisively. By the time Obama finally got his bearings and was convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated, it was too late. He looked like good-guy Bob Barber from the 1985 satirical film “Rustler’s Rhapsody”, bellying up to the tough-guy bar to order a warm-milk—except that Obama wasn’t even tough enough to threaten to shoot the guns out of the bad-guys’ hands.
Shortly after, when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who just happens to be one of Chavez’s great buddies) was ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court, congress and the attorney general for violating the constitution, the Obama administration didn’t hesitate to step knee deep in caca, by immediately condemning “the coup”.
This only helped the Latin American leaders who were eager to restore the leftist Zelaya, and put Obama squarely within the ranks of such esteemed leaders as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega. As usual, the Democrats proved that they were so busy looking like “good guys”, they had lost all moral compass.
A few weeks later, we get a new headline: “US drops call to restore ousted Honduran leader”. Not only have they stopped calling for his return, they “instead put the onus on him for taking ‘provocative actions’ that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28.”
My experience with lobbying Washington regarding the dangerous influences of Hugo Chavez’s regime convinced me that the Republicans were far more pragmatic about the new crop of leftist leaders in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez than were the Democrats. All it took to pull the proverbial wool over the Dem’s heads was for a Latin president to claim that he was determined to help the poor and promote “social justice”. Our Democrat “leaders” gobbled up that populist swill without hesitation, and it was nearly impossible to get them to see past the socialist window-dressing.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to notice those same leader’s attempts to overthrow their nations’ constitutions, create civilian paramilitary organizations, undermine elections, bribe the poor with promises of free money, free land, increased minimum wages, etc. It was as if the Republicans still remembered the horrific events in Panama under Noriega, while the Democrats had somehow forgotten them.
In keeping with this historical context, Republican Senator Richard Lugar R-Ind. and other Republicans protested the Obama position by threatening to hold up nomination of a number of key positions (Arturo Valenzuela for Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs and other ambassador positions). Facing tough challenges, and probably more informed about the details of the events, the Obama administration has changed its position 180º. They wrote a letter to Lugar that detailed the change in policy, and “also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras… While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly failed to call for Zelaya's return.”
More importantly, the Obama administration has finally verbalized a criticism of President Zelaya’s actions: “We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”
How could Obama take any other position? Since his removal, Zelaya has threatened the interim government with violence, and Chavez threatened to take military action in Honduras, either through direct military conflict or by arming an insurrection. Zelaya supporters shut down the schools and a number of hospitals in protests that turned violent, forcing the Honduran police to seize school after 2nd day of violence. These protestors attacked local businesses such as Popeye’s Chicken, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, and other local shops, smashing windows and even throwing firebombs at the offices of a local news station. All of these actions directly mirror the actions of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Circles”, and considering his threats, should generate suspicion that perhaps Chavez himself is helping to organize and fund the violence.
For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”, Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the hemisphere.
Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.
While Chavez’s comment could be applied generally to nearly every Obama policy, from a public option in his Health Care reform to his attempt to have citizens report each other via the infamous White House website, he was specifically criticizing Obama's position on the democratic crisis in Honduras.
Even Bill Maher has piled on, stating that “Obama needs to get a little George Bush in him, personality-wise.” Maher seemed to think that Obama was just being “too nice”, and needs to get tough in order to get his policies through. The silly thing about this is that, while Bush managed to get his way even during the last two years of his presidency when he had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama can’t seem to get anything right despite the fact that his own party controls both houses and the presidency.
Could it be that executive experience does trump "coummunity organizing"?
The reason has nothing to do with Obama being “too bi-partisan”. No, it’s because he truly has lost his bearings, if he ever had any to start with.
The Honduran and Iranian cases prove the point.
When the presidential elections in Iran were allegedly stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, resulting in massive protests and extremely violent oppression of protestors, Obama wobbled on his feet indecisively. By the time Obama finally got his bearings and was convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated, it was too late. He looked like good-guy Bob Barber from the 1985 satirical film “Rustler’s Rhapsody”, bellying up to the tough-guy bar to order a warm-milk—except that Obama wasn’t even tough enough to threaten to shoot the guns out of the bad-guys’ hands.
Shortly after, when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who just happens to be one of Chavez’s great buddies) was ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court, congress and the attorney general for violating the constitution, the Obama administration didn’t hesitate to step knee deep in caca, by immediately condemning “the coup”.
This only helped the Latin American leaders who were eager to restore the leftist Zelaya, and put Obama squarely within the ranks of such esteemed leaders as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega. As usual, the Democrats proved that they were so busy looking like “good guys”, they had lost all moral compass.
A few weeks later, we get a new headline: “US drops call to restore ousted Honduran leader”. Not only have they stopped calling for his return, they “instead put the onus on him for taking ‘provocative actions’ that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28.”
My experience with lobbying Washington regarding the dangerous influences of Hugo Chavez’s regime convinced me that the Republicans were far more pragmatic about the new crop of leftist leaders in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez than were the Democrats. All it took to pull the proverbial wool over the Dem’s heads was for a Latin president to claim that he was determined to help the poor and promote “social justice”. Our Democrat “leaders” gobbled up that populist swill without hesitation, and it was nearly impossible to get them to see past the socialist window-dressing.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to notice those same leader’s attempts to overthrow their nations’ constitutions, create civilian paramilitary organizations, undermine elections, bribe the poor with promises of free money, free land, increased minimum wages, etc. It was as if the Republicans still remembered the horrific events in Panama under Noriega, while the Democrats had somehow forgotten them.
In keeping with this historical context, Republican Senator Richard Lugar R-Ind. and other Republicans protested the Obama position by threatening to hold up nomination of a number of key positions (Arturo Valenzuela for Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs and other ambassador positions). Facing tough challenges, and probably more informed about the details of the events, the Obama administration has changed its position 180º. They wrote a letter to Lugar that detailed the change in policy, and “also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras… While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly failed to call for Zelaya's return.”
More importantly, the Obama administration has finally verbalized a criticism of President Zelaya’s actions: “We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”
How could Obama take any other position? Since his removal, Zelaya has threatened the interim government with violence, and Chavez threatened to take military action in Honduras, either through direct military conflict or by arming an insurrection. Zelaya supporters shut down the schools and a number of hospitals in protests that turned violent, forcing the Honduran police to seize school after 2nd day of violence. These protestors attacked local businesses such as Popeye’s Chicken, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, and other local shops, smashing windows and even throwing firebombs at the offices of a local news station. All of these actions directly mirror the actions of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Circles”, and considering his threats, should generate suspicion that perhaps Chavez himself is helping to organize and fund the violence.
For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”, Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the hemisphere.
Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The David Axelrod email
Well, now we know!
When the White House started its little “report on disinformation campaign”, directed from the Whitehouse, I fired off an email reporting “disinformation” I found at the web page of a VERY questionable character: Nancy Pelosi.
I mailed my report to the “Flag” email address at the Whitehouse. And guess what? I got one of David Axelrod’s emails in response!
What this confirms is that 1) they ARE storing the emails (we knew they would; they are bound by law to do so), and 2) they are compiling a list of what they perceive as “allies”.
You see, below, I got one of the now infamous David Axelrod emails. Confirming the White House’s confusion, however, is the opening term applied to me as “Friend”, which is false, obviously. I wish they would correct that and put me on the “Foe” list, but knowing what government bureaucracy is, it may take a while before they implement that change.
David Axelrod's email:
Dear Friend, This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions. As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.” So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now. Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email. Thanks, David David Axelrod Senior Adviser to the President P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ 8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq 8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
When the White House started its little “report on disinformation campaign”, directed from the Whitehouse, I fired off an email reporting “disinformation” I found at the web page of a VERY questionable character: Nancy Pelosi.
I mailed my report to the “Flag” email address at the Whitehouse. And guess what? I got one of David Axelrod’s emails in response!
What this confirms is that 1) they ARE storing the emails (we knew they would; they are bound by law to do so), and 2) they are compiling a list of what they perceive as “allies”.
You see, below, I got one of the now infamous David Axelrod emails. Confirming the White House’s confusion, however, is the opening term applied to me as “Friend”, which is false, obviously. I wish they would correct that and put me on the “Foe” list, but knowing what government bureaucracy is, it may take a while before they implement that change.
David Axelrod's email:
Dear Friend, This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions. As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.” So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now. Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email. Thanks, David David Axelrod Senior Adviser to the President P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ 8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq 8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
We would be fools to turn over healthcare to this government
In an August 6th, 2009 article titled “Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon”, journalist Susan Donaldson James describes a horrifying event that occurred to Oregon resident Barbara Wagner.
“The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay. What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. “
When I first wrote this article, I was under the impression that it was a private insurance company that rejected her service. But I was wrong: it was the state-run healthcare plan!
Why would the state-run do healthcare system do this to a person? Well, to put it quite frankly, in order to eliminate waste (and increase profits). “…Under [Wagner’s] insurance plan, she can the only receive ‘palliative’ or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the ‘five-year, 5 percent rule’ -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.”
Oregon is a state that has passed Doctor Assisted Suicide laws, called the “Death With Dignity Law”. Obviously intended originally to give terminally ill patients the ability to choose death on their own terms rather than languish in suffering for years, the law may appear on the surface to be a compassionate solution to one of the most difficult decisions a person can make.
But, in this case, instead of offering expensive care, the health plan offered a death pill instead.
I believe that it is the perfect example of how, given the option, the Federal Government will inevitably promote suicide or even euthanasia instead of “wasteful” care.
I have been researching euthanasia in Europe for a while now, and have published blogs on the topic in which I cite analysis showing how in some European states (principally Holland, although Switzerland also to a lesser degree) have begun to use euthanasia as part of their “health care” practice. No matter how well documented my sources are (even when government agency statistics are cited and links provided), I get responses from liberal friends who immediately dismiss the articles as “ridiculous lies”. Most simply refuse to read the articles. Others read parts, but then dismiss them outright.
When asked why they will not consider the articles, the response I get is: “You have a view, and you find whatever you can to support that view. Example: you hate socialism. Therefore, socialism kills the innocent.” So you just dismiss the concept from the start? “You’re absolutely right. When I hear that countries are killing their elderly, and we’re going to start doing the same, I just dismiss it.”
The next dismissal is predictable: “We would never have euthanasia in the United States.”
This was said in the context of my allegation that if we implemented single-payer healthcare in the United States, the government would inevitably head down this same morbid path, exactly as have the governments where they have socialized medicine: it is already happening.
Liberals scoff at concerns about section 1233 of the Healthcare Bill in the house currently (HR 3200), in which doctors are encouraged to discuss “end of life options”. In his article, “Undue Influence”, Washington Post writer Charles Lane explores a number of concerns people have about the government option, and openly questions whether or not the Federal Government’s plan would “force everyone over 65 to sign his…own death warrant.” Lane boldly states that his is “rubbish”.
“Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.” May I point out that laws can be changed?
However, Lane adds that, having read section 1233, “it is not totally innocuous.”
“The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives… Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”
When we have examples like the current one, in which the “villainous” health care insurance companies not only refuse care, but suggest death instead, it is clear that the argument “it would never happen here” is moot, to say the least. There are those who are already testing the waters, right here.
So, how radical of an idea is it to suggest that, if state-run health care programs are already suggesting suicide instead of care, the Federal Government will someday do the same thing? Why are we to believe that only states will apply cost-saving analysis to care, but the Federal Government will not?
We are talking about the same US government that didn’t want to send the recommended number of troops to Iraq, in order to save money. The result? A prolonged war and unnecessary number of dead soldiers.
It’s the same government that didn’t properly equip all of the troops it sent—again, as a cost-saving measure. How many troops died unnecessarily due to these “frugal” policies?
It’s the same government that has had a “trust responsibility to provide health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, {and yet} the Indian Health Service is substantially underfunded and understaffed.” There is no shortage of documentation supporting the allegation that our federal government has seriously underserved our Native Americans.
To quote an article by Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota who recently wrote "How Will Universal Health Care Affect Native Americans?":
"Those Americans opposed to it compare it to Canada's or Britain's health care systems, which they say are nothing but socialized medicine. The Indian Health Care system, deemed a "historic failure" by Sebelius, has also been labeled as socialized medicine, and the fact that she would label it as a failure does not place much faith in an even larger universal health care system. It just seems that every time the federal government takes total control over anything, failure is almost assured. Watch out General Motors."
He ends his article: "If you think the government can solve all of our problems ask an Indian."
Why should we believe that a government that has allowed its troops and the Native Americans to “go without” will suddenly change its stripes when we hand over the entire health care industry?
“The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay. What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. “
When I first wrote this article, I was under the impression that it was a private insurance company that rejected her service. But I was wrong: it was the state-run healthcare plan!
Why would the state-run do healthcare system do this to a person? Well, to put it quite frankly, in order to eliminate waste (and increase profits). “…Under [Wagner’s] insurance plan, she can the only receive ‘palliative’ or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the ‘five-year, 5 percent rule’ -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.”
Oregon is a state that has passed Doctor Assisted Suicide laws, called the “Death With Dignity Law”. Obviously intended originally to give terminally ill patients the ability to choose death on their own terms rather than languish in suffering for years, the law may appear on the surface to be a compassionate solution to one of the most difficult decisions a person can make.
But, in this case, instead of offering expensive care, the health plan offered a death pill instead.
I believe that it is the perfect example of how, given the option, the Federal Government will inevitably promote suicide or even euthanasia instead of “wasteful” care.
I have been researching euthanasia in Europe for a while now, and have published blogs on the topic in which I cite analysis showing how in some European states (principally Holland, although Switzerland also to a lesser degree) have begun to use euthanasia as part of their “health care” practice. No matter how well documented my sources are (even when government agency statistics are cited and links provided), I get responses from liberal friends who immediately dismiss the articles as “ridiculous lies”. Most simply refuse to read the articles. Others read parts, but then dismiss them outright.
When asked why they will not consider the articles, the response I get is: “You have a view, and you find whatever you can to support that view. Example: you hate socialism. Therefore, socialism kills the innocent.” So you just dismiss the concept from the start? “You’re absolutely right. When I hear that countries are killing their elderly, and we’re going to start doing the same, I just dismiss it.”
The next dismissal is predictable: “We would never have euthanasia in the United States.”
This was said in the context of my allegation that if we implemented single-payer healthcare in the United States, the government would inevitably head down this same morbid path, exactly as have the governments where they have socialized medicine: it is already happening.
Liberals scoff at concerns about section 1233 of the Healthcare Bill in the house currently (HR 3200), in which doctors are encouraged to discuss “end of life options”. In his article, “Undue Influence”, Washington Post writer Charles Lane explores a number of concerns people have about the government option, and openly questions whether or not the Federal Government’s plan would “force everyone over 65 to sign his…own death warrant.” Lane boldly states that his is “rubbish”.
“Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.” May I point out that laws can be changed?
However, Lane adds that, having read section 1233, “it is not totally innocuous.”
“The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives… Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”
When we have examples like the current one, in which the “villainous” health care insurance companies not only refuse care, but suggest death instead, it is clear that the argument “it would never happen here” is moot, to say the least. There are those who are already testing the waters, right here.
So, how radical of an idea is it to suggest that, if state-run health care programs are already suggesting suicide instead of care, the Federal Government will someday do the same thing? Why are we to believe that only states will apply cost-saving analysis to care, but the Federal Government will not?
We are talking about the same US government that didn’t want to send the recommended number of troops to Iraq, in order to save money. The result? A prolonged war and unnecessary number of dead soldiers.
It’s the same government that didn’t properly equip all of the troops it sent—again, as a cost-saving measure. How many troops died unnecessarily due to these “frugal” policies?
It’s the same government that has had a “trust responsibility to provide health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, {and yet} the Indian Health Service is substantially underfunded and understaffed.” There is no shortage of documentation supporting the allegation that our federal government has seriously underserved our Native Americans.
To quote an article by Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota who recently wrote "How Will Universal Health Care Affect Native Americans?":
"Those Americans opposed to it compare it to Canada's or Britain's health care systems, which they say are nothing but socialized medicine. The Indian Health Care system, deemed a "historic failure" by Sebelius, has also been labeled as socialized medicine, and the fact that she would label it as a failure does not place much faith in an even larger universal health care system. It just seems that every time the federal government takes total control over anything, failure is almost assured. Watch out General Motors."
He ends his article: "If you think the government can solve all of our problems ask an Indian."
Why should we believe that a government that has allowed its troops and the Native Americans to “go without” will suddenly change its stripes when we hand over the entire health care industry?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
How our government makes “civil debate” impossible
CNN Political Analyst, Gloria Borger, published a criticism of the “hecklers” at the many town hall meetings across the country, in which citizens who are concerned, even infuriated, about the Obama Healthcare plan, are vocalizing their opposition to the plan in a way she describes as “bad behavior.” She says: “Their bad behavior is a derivative of the questionable quality of the political debate they listen to every day. Indeed, if there's one thing we've gotten really good at over the years, it's this: reducing complicated problems to bite-sized slogans.”
Bite-sized slogans? You mean like "HOPE" and "CHANGE"?
She then tries to reassure us: “The effort on Capitol Hill has been serious…members of Congress are actually doing some real work.” Well they apparently are not working hard enough! They haven't read at least TWO of the major legislative pieces they've drafted and admit as much publicly.
As an example of the alleged misbehavior, she specifically refers to a recent town hall meeting organized by Senator Arlen Specter with the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”In attempting to answer questions, they were shouted down by folks more interested in venting than discussing.”
Other examples can be seen all over the news, such as this confrontation between a “Democrat Tea Party Protester” who confronted the House Majority Leader, or another meeting in St Louis, or the one in Austin. And following the Hugo Chavez model of governance, rather than accept that the people are furious at the government and leaders, the Obama administration has instead lashed out and accused the protests as being “manufactured”— that is to say, according to the ruling elite, they are being artificially generated and staged. This was also the same accusation they leveled at the hundreds Tea Party protests a few months ago.
What’s more, the administration is accusing groups of passing “disinformation” about their “plan”, and have even created a mechanism by which private citizens can report sources of “disinformation” directly to the White House –effectively creating a form of domestic spying network reporting directly to the President (yet another tactic eerily reminiscent of Hugo Chavez).
On the White House website, you can read: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
What are they calling “disinformation”? How about the video of Obama stating that he wanted Single Payer healthcare, published on Drudgereport.com? Or articles such as this one, in which the President was quoted: “ ‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.’ ” These comments have also been recorded on video. They additionally call “disinformation” the videos that have been assembled showing the many times that Obama stated that he wanted a single-payer healthcare system.
More importantly, Obama and other "leaders" have been caught saying that, while they acknowledge that the public would not support going directly to a single-payer system, their plan would eventually lead us there. They then state in other forums that this is not their intention, and that they want "competition". They say that the "plan" (which they admit they have not fully read and with which they are "not familiar") would NOT eliminate private healthcare insurance. Analysts who actually HAVE read the bill are warning that the opposite is true.
So what should we believe? Should be believe what they say they didn't say after they have said the thing they deny having said? Or should we believe the analysts who are telling us that what is in the bill will lead us directly into the situation they said they wanted before they said they didn't want it?
What Borger fails to comprehend is that it is the government’s fault, clear and simple, that “discussion” has degraded into furious screaming matches. Democratic dialog can only occur in an environment in which all sides can feel that they are being mutually respected, and in which the leaders who are answering to their constituents understand that A) they work for the people, not the other way around, and B) the information they provide is true, to the best of their knowledge.
But when government leaders have stated, on camera, a position that later they say they never said, and then accuse the citizens of “manufacturing” dissent and spreading “disinformation”—which implies they are lying—the government has alienated itself from the people it pretends to govern. It also has undermined the necessary conditions for “civilized debate”.
These government officials are just like the criminal who is caught on tape robbing a store and later claims “I wasn’t there when they caught me”; their credibility is shot from the start. When they then turn around and claim that the people who have seen the video are “liars” for reminding them of what they have seen, they are engaging in a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack on the citizens.
The Democrats, who proudly bragged that they were part of a young and hip generation that understands modern technology such as Twitter and Facebook and the Internet, have apparently misjudged the overall sophistication of the average citizen, and have ironically overlooked the fact that their previous statements are out there for all to see. The Democrats have repeated the mistakes made by the Iranian regime that thought it could silence the opposition by quashing journalism, only to have their criminal exploits exposed via the new information media.
Americans have lost respect for their leaders. These leaders are bewildered that we don’t just trust them, even though they are exposed every time they make contradictory statements to different audiences (remember Obama’s “guns and religion” quote? Or his gaffe about the police “acting stupidly”?). Instead of admitting that they misspoke, or admit the mistake, they act as if we are all stupid, and explain themselves by saying something to the effect of; “I know what I said but what I meant was the opposite.”
The citizens are screaming because they are honestly angry. They are yelling because they do not believe what they are being told. They are heckling because they know that it is impossible to have “civilized debates” with arrogant government officials who disrespect them, ignore them, and lie to them.
And if this does not change, soon, the screaming, yelling, and heckling may morph into actions a great deal more serious. Remember that the 1773 Boston Tea Party was not the start of the Revolution: it was just a warning that was not heeded by the arrogant and bullying British aristocracy.
Bite-sized slogans? You mean like "HOPE" and "CHANGE"?
She then tries to reassure us: “The effort on Capitol Hill has been serious…members of Congress are actually doing some real work.” Well they apparently are not working hard enough! They haven't read at least TWO of the major legislative pieces they've drafted and admit as much publicly.
As an example of the alleged misbehavior, she specifically refers to a recent town hall meeting organized by Senator Arlen Specter with the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”In attempting to answer questions, they were shouted down by folks more interested in venting than discussing.”
Other examples can be seen all over the news, such as this confrontation between a “Democrat Tea Party Protester” who confronted the House Majority Leader, or another meeting in St Louis, or the one in Austin. And following the Hugo Chavez model of governance, rather than accept that the people are furious at the government and leaders, the Obama administration has instead lashed out and accused the protests as being “manufactured”— that is to say, according to the ruling elite, they are being artificially generated and staged. This was also the same accusation they leveled at the hundreds Tea Party protests a few months ago.
What’s more, the administration is accusing groups of passing “disinformation” about their “plan”, and have even created a mechanism by which private citizens can report sources of “disinformation” directly to the White House –effectively creating a form of domestic spying network reporting directly to the President (yet another tactic eerily reminiscent of Hugo Chavez).
On the White House website, you can read: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
What are they calling “disinformation”? How about the video of Obama stating that he wanted Single Payer healthcare, published on Drudgereport.com? Or articles such as this one, in which the President was quoted: “ ‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.’ ” These comments have also been recorded on video. They additionally call “disinformation” the videos that have been assembled showing the many times that Obama stated that he wanted a single-payer healthcare system.
More importantly, Obama and other "leaders" have been caught saying that, while they acknowledge that the public would not support going directly to a single-payer system, their plan would eventually lead us there. They then state in other forums that this is not their intention, and that they want "competition". They say that the "plan" (which they admit they have not fully read and with which they are "not familiar") would NOT eliminate private healthcare insurance. Analysts who actually HAVE read the bill are warning that the opposite is true.
So what should we believe? Should be believe what they say they didn't say after they have said the thing they deny having said? Or should we believe the analysts who are telling us that what is in the bill will lead us directly into the situation they said they wanted before they said they didn't want it?
What Borger fails to comprehend is that it is the government’s fault, clear and simple, that “discussion” has degraded into furious screaming matches. Democratic dialog can only occur in an environment in which all sides can feel that they are being mutually respected, and in which the leaders who are answering to their constituents understand that A) they work for the people, not the other way around, and B) the information they provide is true, to the best of their knowledge.
But when government leaders have stated, on camera, a position that later they say they never said, and then accuse the citizens of “manufacturing” dissent and spreading “disinformation”—which implies they are lying—the government has alienated itself from the people it pretends to govern. It also has undermined the necessary conditions for “civilized debate”.
These government officials are just like the criminal who is caught on tape robbing a store and later claims “I wasn’t there when they caught me”; their credibility is shot from the start. When they then turn around and claim that the people who have seen the video are “liars” for reminding them of what they have seen, they are engaging in a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack on the citizens.
The Democrats, who proudly bragged that they were part of a young and hip generation that understands modern technology such as Twitter and Facebook and the Internet, have apparently misjudged the overall sophistication of the average citizen, and have ironically overlooked the fact that their previous statements are out there for all to see. The Democrats have repeated the mistakes made by the Iranian regime that thought it could silence the opposition by quashing journalism, only to have their criminal exploits exposed via the new information media.
Americans have lost respect for their leaders. These leaders are bewildered that we don’t just trust them, even though they are exposed every time they make contradictory statements to different audiences (remember Obama’s “guns and religion” quote? Or his gaffe about the police “acting stupidly”?). Instead of admitting that they misspoke, or admit the mistake, they act as if we are all stupid, and explain themselves by saying something to the effect of; “I know what I said but what I meant was the opposite.”
The citizens are screaming because they are honestly angry. They are yelling because they do not believe what they are being told. They are heckling because they know that it is impossible to have “civilized debates” with arrogant government officials who disrespect them, ignore them, and lie to them.
And if this does not change, soon, the screaming, yelling, and heckling may morph into actions a great deal more serious. Remember that the 1773 Boston Tea Party was not the start of the Revolution: it was just a warning that was not heeded by the arrogant and bullying British aristocracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
