Sunday, March 21, 2010

Seems appropriate for today


Son, if you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers.


Homer Simpson

ObamaCare and ObamaVilles will forever be entwined

Actually I think my family (because that is my ultimate responsiblity) and I might come out of this ObamaCare ok. I'm going on 49, so Social Security will probably still be around for me. I will have paid into it for 40+ years, so I might as well take what I can get. And I shouldn't need a hip replacement or some other very expensive procedure for the next 20 years. Those poor shmucks that are around the age of 60-65; don't break a hip, because it aint gonna get fixed. There is absolutely no ROI for fixing someone after they are done paying their taxes. At that point they are only a burden on society, so see ya! And I'm old enough that I am not at the peak of my earnings potential, so the lions share of the financial burden of ObamaCare is going to fall on the under 30 crowd. Good for them, let them pay for this monstrosity. They got Barry elected so let them reap what they have sowed.

It's not going to be long before the Chinese are going to stop buying our debt. And when that happens, God help us. Our credit cards will be shredded, but we will still have the principal + interest payments. We have been financing our national daily expenses on borrowed money. And when we have no more credit, its going to be cash only. What do you think is going to be slashed first? Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, police and fire services, federal funds for abortion (oh sorry, of course not that), national defense? I don't know. Take your pick. The only thing I'm certain of, is that paying for ObamaCare is going to be the least of our worries.

Better make sure you can defend your castle.

-Editor

Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'

WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:

"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

"Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program."

"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."

"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Plan B - If ObamaScare passes


This from American Thinker

Here are my top four "Plan B" safety-valve ideas if ObamaCare passes:


1. I am going to buy the book by that guy I see on TV all the time, author Kevin Trudeau. His Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About will be looking pretty good by the time health care rationing starts. In fact, I think that there are a lot of good books like his out there. I am going to purchase them all. I am going to buy a new bookshelf and fill every shelf with natural cure books. If I die before I read them all, I will have my wife sell them on eBay. I am sure she will get a good price for them once ObamaCare kicks in.


2. I am going to sign up for self-hypnosis workshops and order self-hypnosis CDs. While perusing the internet, I discovered that there is a whole other world of health care beyond the conventional. If I am going to be subjected to health care rationing, I may as well give self-hypnosis a chance.


3. I am going to get out my old Q-Ray Bracelet and put it on. It never did help my herniated disc pain one darn bit, but it's not doing me any good sitting in my underwear drawer. This time, I am wearing it 'til I die. If that happens sooner than later, I bet my wife can get a good price on eBay for that, too, once ObamaCare starts.


4. I plan to find myself a top-of-the-line faith healer. I am talking bona fide, not like that charlatan who worked on Andy Kaufman.


There is a safety-valve idea "#5" I am considering should ObamaCare pass, but it is kind of humiliating, and I would need the help of my wife. I start by ordering an adult Clifford the Big Red Dog Halloween costume (I saw them for sale on Amazon). My wife brings me into the local veterinarian on all fours with a leash around my neck. She provides the vet with my stool and urine samples and explains, "This is my big red dog, Clifford. I would like him examined thoroughly. You are welcome to draw his blood and take X-rays, but he is not to receive any rabies or distemper shots. If I have to leave him, that is fine, but under no circumstances should he be neutered."

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Healthcare. Bankruptcy. Woodstock. The under 30 generation.

I really don't like wishing ill will upon my country, but I'm thinking it might be best for these United States if the Congress passes the abortion (definition: any malformed or monstrous person, thing, etc) that is healthcare reform. The sooner this country goes bankrupt, the better.

We are no longer a country that values the individual, it is the collective that has become of ultimate consequence. But the notion that all the ills of society can be cured by assaulting the rights of the individual is absurd. As long as we are solving the healthcare 'crisis' and as we are contemplating providing 'healthcare' for all, at the expense of the few and the liberty of all, why don't we also propose that we eliminate poverty, drug abuse, alcoholism, and drunk driving? All of these are a plague on society, just to name a few. We could eliminate poverty by providing for those without from the abundance of those that have excess (I think doctors make way too much money anyway, it is perfectly ok to tax 95% of their income). Drug abuse would be eradicated if we incarcerated those that abuse. Alcoholics would be cured if we prohibited the sale of alcohol (although I think that has been tried). And drunk driving would evaporate if we eliminated automobiles. These pox on society would all be cured. Freedom be damned. But if Congress continues along its present course, everyone is going to have healthcare, at least for a few years. That is, until everyone is bankrupt. Can you imagine what would happen if groceries were one day legislated to be 'free'? Probably not a lot of hamburger being taken from the shelves, Filet Mignon for everyone!

Its the Woodstock generation that has gotten us into this mess. The drugs are groovy, free love, flower power generation are now in control of congress. The generation that believes that there are no consequences to their actions. If they F-up, someone will be there to fix it for them. Unfortunately, those that are going to fix 'it' are the under 30 generation. They are going to be paying for this mess for many, many years to come. Long after I have retired, and am collecting Social Security, that, I'm sorry to tell you, will never, ever be there for you. You will be paying your entire lives for no benefit. And I'm sorry to inform you of this, but there are consequences to electing this abortion, Barack.

-Editor

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Its time to resign


Monday, March 1, 2010

I guess the Patriot Act is OK after all.


President Obama signed the renewal of the Patriot Act in the quiet of a slow-news Saturday–the Act was set to expire Sunday, February 28.

The reauthorization did NOT include any reforms to the current Patriot Act–an odd display of agreement and submission to Bush-era policy–even though the Democrats had the numbers to reform the Act. The continuance of the current Patriot Act signals that Democrats are fearful of further controversary in light of American’s distrust and poor approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

War? What War? Where did all the protesters go?


The truth about handgun bans. But who needs facts anyway?


Reuters
In the 2008 “Heller” decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation’s capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.

When the Heller case was decided, Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Knowing that Chicago's gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were "outraged" by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute."

But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.'s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.'s population count is at about 590,000).

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans have been imposed. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.

Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there is only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the1976 number and that happened many years later -- in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington’s murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.

The failures of gun bans in the U.S. are frequently blamed on lax gun restrictions in other states. But the experiences of other countries, even in island nations that have banned handguns and in countries where borders are easy to monitor, do not support this claim. For when handgun bans were enacted in Ireland and Jamaica, in 1972 and 1974, respectively, murder rates doubled over the following decade. And take the more recent example in England and Wales, where handguns were banned in 1997: deaths and injuries from gun crime more than doubled over the next seven years.

The benefits of guns are not lost on Chicago's politicians. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that there are two types of people who are allowed to have handguns in Chicago: "The criminals. And the politicians." The politicians use their pull to either "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll." It is just that the politicians don't want to extend those benefits to the citizens they are supposed to represent. This includes Mr. Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in the Chicago case. He is a 76-year-old black man living in a neighborhood infested with drug dealers. McDonald's home has been burglarized three times, and he would like to possess a handgun that he can easily access next to his bed.

Chicago's fate will be decided on constitutional issues. The decision ultimately comes down to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states in the same way that the 14th Amendment has been applied to most of the Bill of Rights. It would seem to be a no-brainer, especially since the 14th Amendment was in large part passed to protect newly freed blacks from Southern states passing laws to disarm them. Nevertheless, how one sees guns affecting crime seems to color interpretation of the Constitution. The brief submitted by the city of Chicago to the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasizes the claim that more guns cause more crime. They argue: "a handgun ban and stringent firearms regulation will best address the very serious problem of handgun crime and violence in their communities."

Despite Chicago's ban, criminals still have managed to get their hands on guns. During the first 10 months of last year Chicago police confiscated or recovered 7,234 guns, which is about one gun for every 14 gang members in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And police found just a small fraction of the guns. What the crime data show is that gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not make them safer. Even restrictions on guns, such as laws that mandate that citizens store shotguns and rifles locked and unloaded, defeat the very purpose of guns and often make the guns no more useful than sticks.

"Let me be clear .. "


"Let me be clear...John...We're not campaigning anymore. The election is over."


"Let me be clear...Over the last fifteen months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states."


"Let me be clear...My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."


"Let me be clear...The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person ..."


"Let me be clear...I've been fighting ... alongside ACORN, on issues you care about, my entire career."


"Let me be clear...You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime."


"Let me be clear...In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."


"Let me be clear...America has shown arrogance...At times we sought to dictate our terms."


"Let me be clear...The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans...I know, because of my Muslim faith."


"Let me be clear... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


"Let me be clear... I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts ... but I think it's fair to say ... that the Cambridge police acted stupidly."


"Let me be clear ...We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."


"Let me be clear ... I won."