Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration

Obama’s National Security Advisor, General James Jones (Ret), has just been captured on video telling a joke that portrays Jews as greedy merchants.

“This happened recently in Southern Afghanistan. A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around in the desert lost, out of food and water, and looked out on the horizon and saw a little shack…he got closer and found that it was a store of a Jewish merchant. The Taliban warrior went up to him and said, I need water, give me some water. The merchant said we don’t have any water but we have some ties, we have a nice sale on ties today. Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a scream of language I can’t repeat…and passively the merchant sat there until the Taliban was through with his diatribe and said I’m sorry I don’t have water for you, and I forgive you for all your insults…but I’ll help you out. If you go over that hill about two miles there is a restaurant there and they have all the water you need. The Taliban said thanks and still muttering under his breath disappears over the hill only to come back an hour later and walking up to the merchant says ‘your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

The language of this joke is disturbing. How is it possible that a high level government official actually thinks that telling “Jew jokes” at an official speech is appropriate?

It is very interesting that while the General refers once the merchant as a “Jewish merchant” and from that point on only uses the term “merchant” for the Jew, in a manner that seems to reduce the Jewish aspect of the joke but, having set the premise, then uses a code word for the Jew from that point on. Meanwhile, the Taliban is never a “terrorist” or an “insurgent”: he is a “warrior”.

While contemplating this speech, I found that Rush Limbaugh is under attack for a comment he made in which he attempted to point out the use of code words used by the Obama regime that appear to subtly refer to Jews.

LIMBAUGH: To some people, “banker” is code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s — if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there?

The assault on Rush seems to be based upon the premise that he is anti-Semitic for pointing out that Obama is engaging in a constant attack on “Bankers”, which is, in fact, undeniable, and by pointing out that the term “bankers” appears to be a code-word for “Jews”. Take it in light of how General Jones used “merchant” as a code word for “Jew”. However, it should be noted that Limbaugh was discussing Norman Podhoretz's book, Why Are Jews Liberals?

This same topic has been discussed ad nauseum by none other than Jewish conservative talk-show host (and Rabbi), Dennis Prager.

In fact, Mr. Prager writes:

"The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal?..." He then goes on to write about the six main reasons why Jews tend to be Liberal, and points out that "just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism). If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews."

I guess, despite the fact that Limbaugh is a conservative and a staunch supporter of Jews and Israel, because he is a Gentile, he's not allowed to talk about the same topic that Prager and Podhoretz are discussing. Therefore, he is attacked. Mark Silk writes in Spiritual Politics:

“As MediaMatters pointed out, that last bit is patently untrue--unless Limbaugh wants to include himself among the Jew-haters. He begins with what "some people think" and then associates himself with the view. His speculation is that Jews--three-quarters of whom voted for Obama--may be having buyer's remorse because Obama has started attacking their co-religionists on Wall Street. Only someone a lot more familiar with traditional Gentile attitudes about Jews than with the American Jewish community could entertain the idea that the latter would have second thoughts about supporting a candidate who attacks Wall Street bankers.”

So, somehow, the Liberal left wants us to believe that it is “patently untrue” that the word “banker” is used as a form of code-word against Jews. But this is not the case. The use of the concept has been used since before the Nazis took control of Germany, and was in fact commonly used by American progressives such as FDR and his acolytes. Read a little about the Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin as just one example. Coughlin, an avid supporter of FDR blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. He later said that "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." Mind you, this Priest was the one who founded the National Union of Social Justice. (If the term “social justice” doesn’t jump out at you, you obviously have not been listening to the attacks on Glen Beck for his suspicions about the renewed infatuation by the Obama administration with “social justice”).

As Andrew McCarthy points out on his blog, Obama’s constant discussion about Economic justice “is simply the finance angle of ‘social justice,’ the idée fixe of Obama and his coven of Change-agents — like Michael Klonsky, the communist educator who ran a “social justice” blog on Obama’s official campaign website.”

There are many, more recent examples of “progressives” trashing Jews such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Former President Jimmy Carter, to name just two.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly true that Obama’s attacks on bankers have been on-going and quite vitriolic.

Example ONE:
Speaking from the White House, Mr. Obama said, "I want to send a strong warning to this country's bankers," before turning to his economic team and saying, "I don't mean you guys."
After the President excused them from listening to the rest of his address, approximately one hundred former bankers filed out the door, leaving the room virtually empty.
Once the room had cleared, Mr. Obama resumed his attack on bankers, using his strongest rhetoric to date: "If you do not clean up your act, I am prepared to give you heck."
Example TWO:
Obama: "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

Example THREE:
President Obama attacks banking 'masters of the universe'


Democrats want to convince everyone that it’s the Conservatives who are the bigots, but even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to distance himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama "anti-Semitic" over the airwaves this morning.

Perhaps Limbaugh’s belief that there are many Jews who see through the lightly veiled code words is accurate after all. And having his National Security Advisor stand up and tell “Jew Jokes” certainly does not help matters.

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.)

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.

Let the anti-capitalist illegal immigrant rot in a North Korean jail

Just a short note.

You may have heard about Aijalon Mahli Gomes, an American from Boston who left America and ran off to North Korea, where he illegally crossed the border--thus becoming an illegal immigrant in the Socialist Republic of North Korea.

He was arrested and now will be tried for his illegal entry into that socialist paradise.

Irony: According to Reuters News, Aijalon Mahli Gomes left the USA because he no longer wanted to live in a capitalist society.

I wonder if he's started to rethink his naive, dangerous, and stupid belief that socialist nations are Utopias now that he's rotting in a North Korean jail.

In my opinion, The US State Department should not invest ONE second in obtaining his release. He wanted a socialist experience, and now he's finding out what it's REALLY like.

Let him rot in a commie jail!

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?

Zelaya, Chavez, and Lula: Socialist intervention in Honduras

What should be one of the most important stories in the Western Hemisphere is going virtually unreported.

By now, only the profoundly and permanently ignorant can deny that former president Manuel (Mel) Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution when he called for reform of the constitution in order to give himself the option of re-election.

In a video-taped recording of a speech Zelaya gave to his followers four days before his destitution, he stated:
“Here the judges are re-elected, the fiscales (prosecuting attorneys) are re-elected, the mayors are re-elected, the Legislators (Diputados) are re-elected…the only one who is not re-elected is the President, but the Re-election is the theme of the next constitutional assembly.”

Constitutional Assemblies are organized efforts to re-write constitutions under Latin American democratic rules. The problem with this is that the Honduran constitution explicitly prohibits Presidents from requesting or even suggesting their own re-election, and he who violates this norm, according to the Honduran Supreme Court, automatically loses his mandate and is to be removed from power. This is what happened to Zelaya.

Yesterday, 21 of September 2009, Zelaya somehow slipped through the border and arrived in Honduras. The most common report states that he arrived secretly overland, while at least one other report suggests he was flown into Honduras aboard a Venezuelan military plane. He then managed to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy.

In response, the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, stated: “I can’t help but think that he’s here to try to put up obstacles to our presidential election” that is scheduled to occur in November. Micheletti, in agreement with the Honduran constitution, cannot and will not postulate himself as a candidate, now or ever again, since he served as President, even if it was for only a few months.

The most important factor in this story is that Zelaya apparently left Nicaragua with the help of the socialist Nicaraguan government of Manuel Ortega and was given protection in the Brazilian embassy. It appears that the leftist governments of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil are colluding to intervene in the internal affairs of Honduras, in order to overthrow the “de facto” government there and restore Zelaya to power, in opposition to what appear to be the legal and constitutional orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran congress (or parliament), and the standing president.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to waffle and wobble, speaking out of both sides of its diplomatic mouth. Publicly they have called for the return of Zelaya, but then in the past written letters acknowledging that it was Zelaya’s own actions that caused his removal.

It is shocking to see the UN, OAS, and United States behave in such an inept and unhelpful manner. The moral confusion that appears to run these organizations and our State Department will eventually contribute to a violent upheaval in Honduras and could result in the ultimate destruction of the Honduran democracy.

UPDATE:
Interested parties should listen to this blistering critique of the Obama policy on Honduras by none other than the great Newt Gengrich.
Selected quote:
"I think this administration may rapidly parallel Carter, in that Carter had this deep almost psychologically driven compulsion to attack America's allies and apologise for our enemies, and this administration has a very similar pattern..."{he then reviews the situation in Honduras I have outlined in my posts}..."The Obama administration has already announced they will not honor (the upcoming November elections). In fact, they went further and just withdrew the visas of the 15 Supreme Court Justices (who ordered Zelaya deposed for constitutional violations). This is waging war on Democracy."

The Obama plan to buy votes through healthcare

President Obama has just revealed his darkest intentions to the country.

If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.

The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.

Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.

Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.

That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!

Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.

• Democrats and Obama LIED with straight faces that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, but that this figure did NOT include undocumented (illegal) aliens--because we know that figure DID include them!
  
• Obama LIED when he told Congress that HB 3200 would NOT allow illegal aliens to receive the new government entitlement, because they KNEW there was no provision in the bill to prevent them from receiving it. (BTW, isn't lying to Congress a Crime?)
  
• Democrats and Obama were then caught in their lies, publicly shamed, and were forced to change the bill to prevent illegal aliens from receiving the government entitlement.
  
• So NOW Obama wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens so they can go ahead and receive the entitlement he had wanted them to receive in the first place.
  

The most outrageous aspect of this is that if they grant citizenship to those 12 million people who entered the country illegally and include with it a promise of a massive government entitlement, they will be radically changing the electoral map, and buying votes at the same time.

And, as my good friend Kent pointed out to me: "Perhaps since ACORN is now out of the picture for “assisting” with next year’s census, this was the only possible way to re-draw congressional districts to ensure Democratic hegemony."

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!

More Obama Stupidity

More stupidity in the Obama speech Let’s talk a moment about the $3800 fine that penalizes people who choose to NOT carry health insurance.

According to the Obama plan, it would now be “illegal” to NOT have health insurance, punishable with up to $3800 fine. So a 22 year old, healthy male straight out of college will have no right to choose to go for a couple of years without insurance while he pays off his bills, because—in Obama’s words—“those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”

“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.
There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved. That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

In response, let me remind anyone who reads this, that auto insurance is NOT required for anyone who does NOT drive a vehicle! In other words, driving is a privilege, and those who choose to drive are required to carry insurance—LIABILITY INSURANCE—in case the cause an accident and injure a third party.

But unlike health insurance, auto insurance is much less regulated, is portable, can be sold across all fifty states, and no one who chooses to NOT drive is penalized for not paying for someone else’s choice to drive!

This issue of forcing individuals to carry health insurance is the most obscene violation of individual liberty I can think of. Everyone should have the right to make his or her own decisions and then DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Otherwise, where does it stop?

I guess next year the government will declare that riding motorcycles is a "risky behavior" and make it illegal, because motorcycle accidents cause more severe injuries, at the expense of society.

Alcohol causes disease and accidents, so clearly we must either issue yearly fines on alcohol users, or ban it entirely.

And of course, the cause célèbre of the Liberals: marijuana legalization! How can you talk about a $3800 fine on people who choose NOT to carry health insurance because it causes a harm to society, but then want to legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs, since we KNOW that these substances cause harm?!

I tell you what: I'll agree to government health care when they include mandatory drug tests for all government healthcare participants, also ban those recipients from engaging in dangerous activities such as 1) unprotected sex, 2) driving motocycles 3) skydiving, 4) hang-gliding, 5) trail-riding on mountain bikes, 6) skiing and snowboarding, 7) whitewater sports, 8) alcohol use, 9) tobacco use, 10) excessive masturbation (because too much masturbation by young males can increase prostate cancer risks later in life) 11) long distance running (causes damage to knees resulting in inevitable government funded knee replacements) 12) tennis (causes tennis elbow) 13) mandate computerized vehicular speed controls so that no vehicle can go faster than 55 MPH (speed kills), 14) mandate a minimum weekly exercise regimen for every citizen.

Yes, I KNOW those are absurd and silly suggestions. They are as silly (but no more so) as the Democrat plan to FORCE every individual to carry insurance.

Truly, the word "LIBERTY" means nothing anymore.

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?

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."

Is health care a “right”?

Members of the left have repeatedly stated that “health care is a fundamental right”. When challenged on the constitutionality, I have seen several refer to the most-quoted phrase: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But this is erroneous and misleading. That phrase does not come from the constitution; it comes from the 1776 Declaration of Independence. That document was written as a declaration of American values and, more importantly, a laundry lists of grievances about the abuses by the autocratic British government under King George, and was essentially a “gentleman’s advisory” to the King and his minions that the frequent and unjust treatment of the colonies had violated the colonists’ perceived “inherent rights”.

By contrast, what we now know as “the Constitution,” was the agreed-upon limitations of powers for the newly-established government of the United States of America. As James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45).

Anyone who has attempted to read the current health care bill (HR 3200) will immediately be struck by the obtuse language and expertise required to read and comprehend it. It is a perfect example of the incredibly complex, opaque language used by lawyers to legislate and cover all the many facets of a program they wish to create, and is written in a style that is so difficult it requires a great deal of legal expertise to read. To wit; it is written by lawyers, for lawyers (and bureaucrats).

But upon reading the constitution, it will become apparent that nearly any person with a reasonable education can understand the enumerated rights, and although much ado is made by the elite that you must be a “constitutional scholar” to form a valued opinion on the issue, it was never intended that way: it was written by the people and for the people. It was not written in French, which was the international diplomatic standard in those times, nor was it written in Latin. It was written in common English, in a manner comprehensible by the average, educated citizen. Why? So that the everyday voting citizen could be empowered with knowledge of his rights and would remain vigilant for any attempt by the government to usurp rights and powers from the citizenry.

Concerned that, in the distant future, the government might interpret the rights stated within the Declaration of Independence and the early constitution to be the limits of individual rights and attempt to expand its “jurisdiction” and usurp powers they did not intend it to have, the framers added the “Bill of Rights” in the first ten amendments to the constitution (introduced by James Madison). The ninth amendment advised that the first ten amendments were not to be interpreted as the “universe” or entirety of “rights” of the citizens: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” And the tenth amendment specifically stated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).”

The Bill of Rights is, essentially, a list of what are known as negative rights. In brief: “Positive Rights” are those which permit or oblige action. That is to say: the government has the right to levy taxes, and therefore may take action to that regard. A “Negative Right” informs the government that it has no right to take action in that area: The congress cannot establish a religion, nor can it infringe upon the individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, for example.

So what of this “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: Does it apply to the notion of a government option to health care?

Proponents of a government-controlled health care option claim that the word “life” meant that the government has the right to create bureaucracies to provide access to health care for all citizens.

The only place in the Bill of Rights where “life” appears is in the Fifth Amendment, regarding due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and eminent domain: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This amendment made no reference at all to providing goods or services to the people; it was instead another limitation on government powers to protect the individual from tyrannical abuse of powers. The phrase “deprived of life” simply meant that the government shall not execute an individual without due process of law.

The constitution itself never states that the government has either the power or the responsibility to provide all the needs to sustain a life. Let us consider the most basic needs to sustain a life: 1) Shelter, 2) Food, and 3) Water. It is not within the government’s mandate to provide any of these “needs”. It is left up to the society at large and the ingenuity of the individual to make do to the best of his needs to provide those things. It is not up to the government to provide houses for the citizens. Nor does the government have the powers to create nationalized farms and ranches. Nor does the government have the responsibility to guarantee water to all individuals, regardless of where they choose to live; if an individual chooses to build a house in the middle of Death Valley it is incumbent upon that individual to satisfy his need for water. *(See footnote)

Health care should be considered a similar “need”. If any citizen believes that he or she cannot live a life of quality without health insurance, then let that citizen work diligently to earn sufficient money to pay for the service.

The states, on the other hand, do retain the rights to provide these additional services, if the citizenry agrees to collectively carry that burden.

In my opinion, therefore, any attempt by the federal government to create a bureaucracy to provide “affordable” health care is a violation of the constitution, and an unacceptable expansion of federal powers. To allow the federal government this latest indulgence would open Pandora ’s Box to similar compassionate consideration to provide a never ending list of “needs”. Shall the government provide transportation to all citizens? Shall it also provide mechanical services on the individuals’ vehicles? Shall it guarantee “affordable” food, creating mammoth new bureaucracies to provide subsidized sustenance? Shall it fund those conveniences upon the backs of other, more industrious individuals?

The love of Liberty requires that the individual accept the burden of personal responsibility. To demand that others sacrifice their Liberty, or their prosperity, in order to provide for your conveniences and needs, is a selfish and unconstitutional violation of the rights of other citizens. It should not be encouraged, nor shall it be tolerated.

*Footnote: Proponents to the health care plan will argue that, although the government "does not have a mandate to provide public housing", it already does so, just as it does provide education, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. This does not contradict my point in the least. Just because the federal government has previously expanded its powers beyond its constitutional mandate does not suddenly mean that to do so again is NOT another constitutional violation, or that it is made less reprehensible. Imagine that the driver of an automobile was caught driving 5 miles per hour over the limit, but the police officer only gave him a warning. Then later he is caught driving 30 miles per hour over the limit, and argues that because he was let off for speeding once, he believes that he has been exempted from speed limits. It's like the government saying: "Hey, we violated the constitution and gave the citizenry a bunch of expensive services and the citizenry didn't complain much about them, so we have the right to expand even further now."

Just because the camel got its nose under the tent does not mean it can now come live under the tent!

Obama's State Dept. reverses itself AGAIN on Honduras

On August 17th, I published a blog entitled "Earth to Obama", in which I wrote:

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?

Because Obama's too incompetent to be compared to Hitler

Apparently, It was too offensive to sensitive Liberals for protesters to use the Swastikas in order to suggest that the Liberal policies resembled National Socialist policies under Nazism.

So here is my own suggested alternative for posters...

“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.

Health Care for illegals?

A quick note on healthcare and illegal immigrants...

I read a comment by a liberal recently that stated that "all of the civilized nations cover everyone living in their country, even illegal immigrants." The same commentor also praised the British model, so I thought I'd do a quick check.

The United Kingdom population I found was 60,975,000. They had an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants. That means that the illegal immigrant population in the United Kingdom was just 0.82%.

The United States has 303,824,640 residents/citizens. We also have an estimated 12,000,000 illegal immigrants. That means that the illegal immigrant population in the United States is 3.95%.

We have four times the problem that they have in Great Britain, and logically, the cost of treating those illegal immigrants would be at least four times what it is there.

The Huddle Study found that if you compare what they generate here versus what they COST, the net cost per illegal immigrant is FAR greater than the NET GAIN, by an estimated $24.44 per individual.That was BEFORE "Obama Care" was considered. Give them all access to health care, and Lord only knows how much that will go UP.

My "Turn in Pelosi for 'Disinformation' Email"

And here is the content of the email I sent reporting Nancy Pelosi's "Disingormation Campaign":


Example:
To the esteemed manager of the Flag effort to identify disinformation about the Obama Healthcare Plan, I found a site where there is consistent and blatant disinformation.

It is the Web Page of Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has published false statements that clash with the facts.

She says:
“that we are moving closer to a place where we will lower costs, we will improve the quality of care, we will expand choices, and we will give peace of mind to the American people”

The falsehoods are:
1. Because the bill appears to be stalled, the statement that “we are moving closer” is purposely misleading.
2. According to the Congressional Accounting Office, the Obama plan will not only not decrease costs, but will increase costs. So this statement is purposely misleading
3. Mrs. Pelosi states that “we will improve the quality of care”. This is yet to be seen, but analysts examining the bill have concluded that the direct result of the bill will be rationing and a reduction of care, which is the opposite of “improving the quality of care.” So this statement is also misleading.
4. Mrs. Pelosi then states that: “the CBO has reported and disputed claims by the Republicans about what our legislation will do”. However, the CBO released a report estimating the cost of a leading healthcare reform proposal at more than $1 trillion, but that figure looked only at a portion of the bill. The analysis falls just within the most expensive cost scenario sketched out by Democratic leaders in recent days, but does not include an estimate for a highly contentious government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The CBO has actually disputed claims by the Democrats, and I demand that the White House correct this blatant disinformation.
5. Mrs. Pelosi makes a very harsh and misleading statement about the Healthcare Insurance companies, denouncing “the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry”. This statement was bolstered by President Obama, who remarked about the healthcare insurers making “record profits”. However, this is false. PolitiFact.com researched it and found that profits this year across the board are DOWN for Healthcare insurers. Please be sure to have Mrs. Pelosi and the President correct this in their statements.

These are but a few of the blatantly false and misleading statements made by Speaker Pelosi. This type of disinformation is poisoning the otherwise healthy debate on this vitally important issue. As a concerned citizen, I demand that you contact Mrs. Pelosi and have her review all of her published statements and make sure they accurately represent all of the known facts.

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?

Obama embraces our enemies and rebuffs our friends

I continue to be fascinated with the Obama administration’s handling of the Honduran political “stale-mate” (my term). The latest twist in the sordid tale is that, while ousted President Zelaya continuously taunts the interim government there by making frequent visits to the border, stepping one foot inside Honduras and then backing away before he can be arrested (generating lukewarm condemnation from US Secretary of State Clinton for his “provocative behavior”), the United States has decided to revoke the visas for officials in the interim government. (Read my previous analyses: Here, Here and Here)

As reported in the Washington Post, “the U.S. government revoked the visas of four members of Honduras's de facto government Tuesday, escalating the pressure on officials there to reinstate the president, who was kicked out of the country a month ago.” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly “indicated that other officials also could have their visas revoked.” Not only that, but he added that “U.S. authorities were reviewing the visas of all members of the current government and their dependents.”

This latest move is yet another example of how the Obama administration slaps its friends and allies, while coddling tyrants and enemies. Obama has not revoked the visas of the Iranian officials, who last month brutally oppressed protestors who claimed the presidential election was a fraud, resulting in untold number of deaths and injuries. Nor has he revoked the visas of North Korean officials, who have repeatedly threatened the destruction of the United States and provocatively launched missiles toward Hawaii. No, to the contrary: Obama believes in “engagement” with our enemies, and repeatedly opens his arms wide to them, turning his other cheek when those tyrants rebuff his entreaties and slap him down.

In keeping with that absurd policy, Obama has picked up the cause for President Zelaya, who was a part of the cabal of “Bolivarian” Marxists who openly called for the downfall of America, and has rejected the pleas of the interim Honduran government that wishes to befriend the United States.

Obama’s racial prejudice was recently on display with the Gates-Crowley brouhaha, when Obama precipitously and publicly prejudged the white officer and, quite frankly, got it all wrong, as has been indisputably proven by subsequent events and analysis.

The Honduran debacle reveals Obama’s parallel anti-American prejudices: his automatic sympathy toward world leaders who vociferously criticize the United States or accuse it of being an evil empire. It appears that Obama is predisposed to believe the historical interpretation that the United States has repeatedly and wrongly supported “dictators” in Latin America, and in a desperate effort to distinguish his Presidency and display his presumed “moral superiority”, he has ironically decided to meddle in the internal affairs of Honduras. Obama could have called a summit in the United States, in order to hear both sides of the story and try to find a way to reconcile the differences. Instead, he farmed that out to Costa Rican Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias, who failed to achieve progress. And far from remaining neutral, the Obama administration sided with the Castros and Chavez in demanding the reinstatement of a President who has been accused of various crimes, including treason.

Obama not only has ushered in a dark period in American race relations. He has also undermined our credibility in international affairs and proven yet again that the American government simply cannot keep its meddling mitts out of Latin American affairs.

Euthanasia as a solution for Health Care Rationing

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” The Hippocratic Oath

I was shocked, although not surprised, to learn that the medical profession in Netherlands (Holland) has not only legalized euthanasia, but has expanded its use recently. Shocked, I say, because it is horrific to think that the medical profession, which once swore by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, has adopted values that are in direct conflict with the oath. But I was not surprised, because this seems to be a logical outcome to the liberal philosophy that has taken control of much of Europe, and whose “humane” attempt to provide affordable access to medical care has been tempered by the practical need to reduce costs.

And what has been the logical, although horrific outcome? Euthanasia has become an acceptable alternative to expensive treatment.

The story was exposed to me by the great conservative radio host, Mike Gallagher. I wanted to verify the veracity of his statements, so I began to search, and found no shortage of corroborating articles.

What had started out as a “humane” ending of suffering for the terminally ill morphed, over time, to include an ever widening list of conditions. Recently, doctors there have even begun to euthanize the elderly, and children.

In “Euthanasia in the Netherlands”, I read a personal story about a man whose Dutch parents returned to their homeland to visit relatives, and shrugged off a story about a woman who chose euthanasia over treatment for depression following the death of her last son. Her physician did not even try to treat her depression: no, he decided she wasn’t depressed, just deeply saddened by her loss, and had the right to die—with his assistance, of course—instead of finding a new reason to live at the ripe old age of 50.

The author pointed out that many survivors of the Holocaust had managed to find new meaning in their lives after the loss of their entire families, but that was apparently unimportant. He reports:

“Over 50% of Dutch physicians admitted to practicing euthanasia, most often on cancer patients. Only 60% kept written records of their euthanasia practice and only 29% filled out death certificates honestly in euthanasia cases…”

While that statistic alone was alarming, I then confirmed that “Only half of Dutch doctors report euthanasia, report says.” In 2001, the study focused on 5500 deaths, of which 41% to 54% of those cases were patients that had been euthanized.

Proponents of the practice will rally to say that these cases provided a humane ending for individuals suffering chronic pain, with terminal illnesses, who chose to end their lives under their own terms. But that, it turns out, is not always true.

80% of Dutch now support euthanasia, in a nation that, during World War II, resisted Nazi orders to euthanize patients, actions that later resulted in the hanging deaths of Nazi “war criminals”.

But today, the practice is so widely accepted, doctors have begun to euthanize many others. In his article, “The Dutch way of Death” (2001), Richard Miniter points out that, in 1990 alone, of the 130,000 Dutchmen who died, 11,800 were “killed or helped to die” by their doctors. An estimated 5,981 people were killed by their doctors WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT—according to the Dutch government.

But if that was not shocking enough, prepare yourself: “other groups that are put to death involuntarily: disabled infants, terminally ill children and mental patients. Some 8% of all infants who die in the Netherlands are killed by their doctors, according to a 1997 study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal.”

These facts prompted the Catholic Association of Doctors and Nurses to issue a statement protesting the decision of Groningen University Hospital to euthanize children under 12 when their pain is “intolerable, or if they have an incurable illness.”
“The ‘decision proposes a death solution in situations which could be addressed by modern palliative care”, and “raises the suspicion of a financial interest of the public authorities, since it decreases the 'burden' of prolonged and expensive care in clinical conditions for which any extension of life duration is considered meaningless.’ The association continues; ‘it opens the door on a national scale to the 'mercy killing' of other mentally incompetent persons, to be eliminated without their consent for reasons based on an external appreciation of their quality of life."
In “Now They Want to Euthanize Children” Wesley J. Smith explains that, “In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the ‘consent’ of parents.”

"In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it ‘termination of the patient without explicit request’.
It is now considered a form of discrimination against the chronically ill to deny them assisted death because they will be forced to suffer longer than those who are terminally ill and it is considered bias to force endurance of psychological pain when it is not associated with physical illness. The next step, non-voluntary euthanasia, is then justified by appealing to our social duty to care for patients who are not competent to choose for themselves. "

Smith sums up the horror quite eloquently:

“It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg.”

“Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act. If killing is right for, say the adult cancer patient, why shouldn't it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation?”

You may well ask what this has to do with us here in the United States.

According to the authors, a primary driving force in this barbaric shift from euthanizing only as a means of ending insufferable pain and misery to euthanizing patients ranging from the mentally disable, to Alzheimer’s patients, to the depressed, was the implementation of Socialized Medicine. The financial costs of treating the sick grew to the point that society might rebel against the ever increasing taxes necessary to support it. The government began to ration care, and pressured doctors to make decisions that would reduce care to those for whom it would not heal, in order to reduce costs.

Bureaucrats, in a single payer system, have been given the power of God over the public. Their actions now echo the policies of the Nazis, whose efforts to “strengthen the strain” resulted in the mass murder of millions across Europe in order to weed out the weak, the feeble, the retarded, and the incurably sick—not to mention those whose ethnic background was simply “unacceptable”.

It is logical to conclude that, as genetic testing for inherited diseases improves to the point that fetuses and babies can be identified as carrying the genes that will trigger future illnesses, doctors may decide to euthanize otherwise healthy infants or abort fetuses simply to avoid even the remote possibility of having to treat them in the future.