It is actually laugh-out-loud funny. At the same time the Obama Administration and the mainstream media are saying that it represents "scare tactics" to worry about Federal control of health care, the Obama Administration has announced new, proposed REDUCTIONS in Medicare reimbursement to cardiologists and oncologists. The Obama Administration is proposing to "transfer" the money saved by cutting heart care and cancer care to the elderly to the more "cost effective" "preventive care" of family physicians. This, of course, is what central planning bureaucrats and politicians always do: They choose the WINNERS and the LOSERS by the regulations they impose. Cardiologists are upset because their Medicare payments will be reduced as much as 40%--a nice little discouragement to heart care for the elderly.
Does this represent a central planning decision that it is better to let some of the "sick" (using more than their "fair" share of medical resources) elderly die, while concentrating more on the "healthy elderly" (not using so much of our health care resources)? Of course this represents such a central planning decision--a decision made by Federal bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients. No, the Feral bureaucrats will not determine that specific people will die if/when the Federal government controls health care decisions in this country. When you are unable to find a competent cardiologist to treat your ailing heart, or a competent oncologists to prolong your life--as oncologists did with Senator Kennedy--it will not be a matter of "pulling the plug" on you personally. You will be merely part of a number of anonymous elderly who die because they do not have access to the heart care and cancer care they need. This will happen not only because doctors refuse to treat you (which may happen), but more because there will no longer be any competent cardiologists or oncologists to provide you specialized care.
What are the major causes of death for the elderly (other than old age)? Right. Heart disease and cancer. But that care is expensive. What happens when you make it harder for cardiologists and oncologists to get paid for life saving treatment of heart disease and cancer. Right again. PEOPLE DIE. They don't necessarily die because they are refused treatment (although that may end up happening). They die because treatment just becomes UNAVAILABLE. The good cardiologists and oncologists treat someone like Ted Kennedy, who can pay them what their services are "worth" on the open market, or even go to a foreign country. Or they retire early. Or they never go into cardiology or oncology at all, and perhaps not into medicine (as the Federal Government puts more and more pressure on doctors to keep them from making the kind of money their skills and training would justify.
The elderly generally understand this. My 888 year old mother does. Medicare quit paying fro one of her breathing medications, at least at the former reimbursement rate. That was a medication previously being provided to her by Apria (or something like that)--her oxygen provider. Yes, she is on constant (24 hour) oxygen--using up a lot of health resources. She was also a lifelong smoker (HORRORS!!! Kill her off now). Now my mother has 5 sons, including a pharmacist son. She can get medication she really wants--on way or another, at least for now. There may come a time when only the very rich, like Ted Kennedy, can avoid the long arm of Federal control. That is what at stake in this debate over health care "overhaul" to expand Federal control over all health care. In the end, Federal bureaucrats trying to "control costs" are going to try to kill off people like my mother--nothing personal, just the result of n8umber crunching and lack of access to care.
The elderly understand that this is a real risk--not a fantasy of Sarah Palin. They understand that, like my mother, they may stop breathing some night because the drug that BEST keeps their lungs operating. is deemed "too expensive", and not "significantly" more effective than a cheaper drug. The question is whether we want Federal bureaucrats controlling most health care decisions in this country.
You say President Obama promised this will not happen? You poor, deluded soul. This is not only a question of whether you can trust President Obama (valid as that question is). President Obama will only be President 8 years, at most. The Federal bureaucracy is there FOREVER (at least until the final collapse because the government has grown so massive it collapses of its own weight--or, rather, we collapse because of its weight upon our shoulders). Why is it better to have a FEW Federal bureaucrats making health care decisions, instead of a variety of insurance companies, state regulators, etc.? What do Federal health care "reform" proponents mean by "cost control", anyway, if they do not mean exactly what has just happened with regard to Medicare reimbursement for cardiologists and oncologists?
That is the crux of things, and the utter failure of the mainstream media here (not to mention Republican politicians and supposed "responsible" Democrat politicians, who keep flirting with the idea of a "compromise" imposing Federal control in as deceptive a way as possible). "HOW" is the question that is not asked. The mainstream media makes much of what ObamaCare will NOT do. Yet, the burden is on the Obama Administration, and proponents of health care "reform", to explain what it WILL do--not in the form of rosy conclusions as to thee fantasy "benefits" of Federal action, but in terms of the MECHANISM by which "cost control" is going to operate.
For example, the House bill evidently sets up some 45 new Federal agencies. However, many it is, what will these Federal agencies have the power to DO? For that matter, what new powers will the old Federal agencies be given. HOW is it envisioned that they will accomplish "cost control", and more "efficient" health care and health insurance? Are they not going to make the kind of decision just announced by Medicare--telling doctors and patients what treatments will be "reimbursed", and how much will be paid health care providers? And how does that differ from Federal "control" of health care, whether there is a "government option" or not? How else can you even attempt "cost control"? Explain please (as if you proponents of health care "reform" can explain, when we know you can't). Obama implies that the Federal government can just wave a magic wand and accomplish "cost control". The reality is that the key word here is CONTROL. The only means contemplated by Obama is FEDERAL CONTROL--the only means Obama proposes to use to "control costs".
Is there anything else? Well, we could stop MERGERS of health care companies (large ones). We could try to keep the number of decision makers as LARGE as possible, instead of trying to make that number as SMALL as possible. We could encourage more admissions to medical school (instead of severely restricting the number of students admitted to limit the number of doctors). In other words, we could encourage COMPETITION, and the free market--probably in a number of ways. What a concept!!! Notice, however, that this is NOT "central planning". It promises no "magic bullet"--no CONTROL of the process by a few people promising to "solve" all of our problems. There is no "comprehensive reform". In fact, we should encourage the STATES to try 50 different approaches. The idea here is DIVERSITY, and the spending only of money we have (which the states are ordinarily required to do--not being able to print money or get away with borrowing too much of it). Yes, this approach totally rejects the idea that the Federal Government can "solve" all of our problems. So? Just where did you get the impression that such idea ever made any sense? Experience?...............................Have you stopped laughing yet? I paused to let you get it out of your system.
Yes, we are seemingly stuck with Medicare, and Medicaid (another area where the Federal Government is distorting medical care by decisions on what care will be provided at what allowed price). That is what makes the actions of AARP such a BETRAYAL of senior citizens. The AARP administration has been BOUGHT OFF in this health care "debate", as have the "evil drug companies", in an effort to advance their own power and wealth. "Seniors be damned" is their attitude. The AARP considers seniors as simply a power base, and source of funds, for the Big Government people who run AARP.
As illustrated by this attempt to restrict cardiac care, and cancer care, for seniors, Medicare has SIGNIFICANT problems. It is going to hurt the elderly badly for the Federal Government to try to control the entire health care system, when the government needs to be trying to save Medicare (and Medicaid). If the Federal Government has any good ideas on "cost control", it needs to use them to save Medicare--not to finance a further expansion of Federal control.
Has the American Medical Association (AMA) also sold out? Of course it has. Why any doctors support the AMA is beyond me. I think it is going the way of the mainstream media--becoming only a leftist interest group. Yes, AARP is a more exact analogy, but the "leaders" of all of these organizations seem to eventually decide to promote their own power and prestige, and their group as part of the "establishment" power structure, rather than promoting the actual interest of their members.
P.S. I saw a representative of some cardiology association on TV this morning, complaining about this Medicare/Obama decision to cut reimbursement to cardiologists> Problem: The person said that "we have supported health care reform, but this is the wrong kind of action.". It makes me absolutely sick how many "establishment" people say something like that. I have ev3en heard Rush Limbaugh say it. I will translate for the cardiology group: "We favor Federal control so long as they are controlling insurance companies and other bad people, but not when they are controlling us good people in a way we don't want." I have no sympathy for the point of view that central planning (tort reform on national level?) is okay so long as it does not affect ME. That is the dirty little secret of Federal CONTROL. It puts decisions affecting your life in the hands of Federal bureaucrats, and eventually those decisions will hurt YOU (as central planning always does). Nope. We do NOT "need" Federal "overhaul" (control) of our health care system. We can't afford it now anyway, but even if we could afford it, it is a bad idea. You could try "small"changes, like amending HIPA (Health Insurance Portability Act). A relatively simple amendment to HIPA would prevent insurance companies from raising premiums for pre-existing conditions--presumably with some sort of provision to prevent people from waiting to be insured until they need it. Notice, however, that such a law (which I do NOT support, on a Federal level, although a simple law like that would be much better than some monstrosity of Federal control/"overhaul" of hour entire system)--such a law would INCREASE the cost of insurance for MOST people, although it would decrease the cost for those who have a pre-existing illness/condition. That is why I favor that sort of thing be done on a state level, where things can be tried and more easily changed. My brother worries about employers being faced with var tying state laws (did you realize "evil" WAL-MART is "on board" for Federal control of health care, obviously believing it will allow Wal-Mart to shift costs to American taxpayers). "TOUGH" is my reaction to employers faced with differing state health care policies. You either believe in federalism (few really do) or you don't. I have confidence that Wal-Mart can handle it.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Kennedy's Portuguese Water Dogs: Congress and the Mainstream Media Concentrate on the IMPORTANT Things
Kennedy's Portuguese water dogs will be missed on Hill"
Don't you feel sorry for Congress, and the people who work there. They are going to have to struggle along without Ted Kennedy's "Portuguese water dogs". This is on top of their struggles to force a Federal health care program on a public that recognizes the insanity of such a program (while our "elites", including Republican elites, do not recognize they have gone insane). The people recognize tow things: (1) Any kind of major heath care overhaul makes no sense at all in the face of a looming 9 TRILLION dollar national debt (2) It will NOT be an advance in health care to put health care decisions into the hands of a few Federal bureaucrats, even if everyone agrees insurance companies are not usually all that great--there at least being more than one insurance company, and the insurance companies at least being subject to private lawsuits and the regulations of 50 separate states, instead of having the almost total power "health care overhaul" proponents want to give to a few Federal bureaucrats.
"Skip,you made that headline up." That is the comment I am sure I would get from one of you brain dead people out there. You give me too much credit. That is not only a current headline on Yahoo News, but it represents the considered judgment of the people at Yahoo News (poor souls) as to one of the 7 or so most important "news" stories of this morning (being one of the 7 or so headlines featured on the Yahoo "Welcome" page that AT&T Uverse provides to me to make sure I keep up with leftist/mainstream media insanity in this country). I assure you I am not nearly talented enough to make up a headline like this, even though I flatter myself that I know more about the deficiencies of the mains tram media than almost anyone else alive.
Corrupt and useless: That is what the above quoted headline again reveals about a mainstream media with a virtual fetish about leftist leaders, the Kennedys, and entertainment figures like Michael Jackson.
By the way. Do you realize how much a "man of the people" Ted Kennedy had to be to keep PORTUGUESE WATER DOGS. Were collies, poodles, German shepherds--even Dobermans and put bulls--too pedestrian for him? What about a mongrel? I have a mongrel German shepherd mix. Am I saying I am more American than Ted Kennedy? Well, if the shoe (or glove or reference to a car crashing off of a bridge and a girl left to die while the driver consults his lawyers/aides) fits, wear it.
Don't you feel sorry for Congress, and the people who work there. They are going to have to struggle along without Ted Kennedy's "Portuguese water dogs". This is on top of their struggles to force a Federal health care program on a public that recognizes the insanity of such a program (while our "elites", including Republican elites, do not recognize they have gone insane). The people recognize tow things: (1) Any kind of major heath care overhaul makes no sense at all in the face of a looming 9 TRILLION dollar national debt (2) It will NOT be an advance in health care to put health care decisions into the hands of a few Federal bureaucrats, even if everyone agrees insurance companies are not usually all that great--there at least being more than one insurance company, and the insurance companies at least being subject to private lawsuits and the regulations of 50 separate states, instead of having the almost total power "health care overhaul" proponents want to give to a few Federal bureaucrats.
"Skip,you made that headline up." That is the comment I am sure I would get from one of you brain dead people out there. You give me too much credit. That is not only a current headline on Yahoo News, but it represents the considered judgment of the people at Yahoo News (poor souls) as to one of the 7 or so most important "news" stories of this morning (being one of the 7 or so headlines featured on the Yahoo "Welcome" page that AT&T Uverse provides to me to make sure I keep up with leftist/mainstream media insanity in this country). I assure you I am not nearly talented enough to make up a headline like this, even though I flatter myself that I know more about the deficiencies of the mains tram media than almost anyone else alive.
Corrupt and useless: That is what the above quoted headline again reveals about a mainstream media with a virtual fetish about leftist leaders, the Kennedys, and entertainment figures like Michael Jackson.
By the way. Do you realize how much a "man of the people" Ted Kennedy had to be to keep PORTUGUESE WATER DOGS. Were collies, poodles, German shepherds--even Dobermans and put bulls--too pedestrian for him? What about a mongrel? I have a mongrel German shepherd mix. Am I saying I am more American than Ted Kennedy? Well, if the shoe (or glove or reference to a car crashing off of a bridge and a girl left to die while the driver consults his lawyers/aides) fits, wear it.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Ted Kennedy, Chappaquiddick Joke, Joe McGinniss ("The Last Brogher"): "Good Catholic" or "Bad Catholic"? What Does Your Answer Say About Catholics?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/28/one-of-his-favorite-topics-of-humor-was-indeed-chappaquiddick-itself/
Do Time Magazine, the mainstream media, and Yahoo News REALLY want to try to sell the idea that Ted Kennedy was a "good Catholic"? If so, can there be any such thing as a "bad Carbolic", or were Martin Luther and the Reformation totally right about the Catholic Church.
Look at the above link--provided by a friend--describing an unrepentant Kennedy JOKING about Chappaquiddick.
Then read the book Joe McGinniss (he of "Fatal Vision") fame wrote exposing Ted Kennedy as the black sheep" of the Kennedy family, who had to be constantly "saved" by this family and the Kennedy empire from the consequences of his own character flaws (book title: "The Last Brother", and I dare you to read the book and still try to think of Ted Kennedy as a person of "quiet Catholic faith")..
"Good Catholic"? "Quite Catholic faith"? Real Catholics--especially good ones, but you don't have to be that good--should sue for libel.
Do Time Magazine, the mainstream media, and Yahoo News REALLY want to try to sell the idea that Ted Kennedy was a "good Catholic"? If so, can there be any such thing as a "bad Carbolic", or were Martin Luther and the Reformation totally right about the Catholic Church.
Look at the above link--provided by a friend--describing an unrepentant Kennedy JOKING about Chappaquiddick.
Then read the book Joe McGinniss (he of "Fatal Vision") fame wrote exposing Ted Kennedy as the black sheep" of the Kennedy family, who had to be constantly "saved" by this family and the Kennedy empire from the consequences of his own character flaws (book title: "The Last Brother", and I dare you to read the book and still try to think of Ted Kennedy as a person of "quiet Catholic faith")..
"Good Catholic"? "Quite Catholic faith"? Real Catholics--especially good ones, but you don't have to be that good--should sue for libel.
Kennedy's Quiet Catholic Faith": Yahoo News Channels Time Magazine Leftist Propaganda of the HYPOCRITE Kind
Will Ted Kennedy go to Hell because of his position on abortion, AND because he completely failed to LIVE his religion?
The headline above is a direct quote of a present headline from that leftist propaganda organ, Yahoo News (boycott Yahoo!)--quoting Time Magazine "buzz". We already know that Time Magazine is nothing more than a conduit for leftist propaganda, as the leftist canonization of Ted Kennedy continues. Yahoo News regards this false propaganda as one of the 7 top "news" stories to put on the present Yahoo Welcome screen. So much for Yahoo News and Yahoo.
Be honest here. What is the more hones headline: the Time Magazine/Yahoo headline or my first par paragraph of this blog entry above? There is no contest. Eunice Kennedy Shriver appears to have actually lived her religion. Ted Kennedy is a hypocrite who merely used his religion for political purposes.
Yes, Ted Kennedy was one of the most fanatic pro-abortion "leaders" in the Senate. Of course he was "quiet" about his religion. How could he be "public" about a religion that he CONTRADICTED with almost his entire life. It is the official position of the Catholic Church that abortion is a MORTAL sin, and that politicians who fail to oppose abortion cannot really consider themselves Catholic. It is the official position of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder, which means that Ted Kennedy was not only directly involved in the killing of Mary Jo Kopechne, but was implicated in millions of other killings.
Did you ever here Ted Kennedy make a speech about his opposition to abortion? Yes, I know the HYPOCRITICAL "position" as well as you do: "I am personally opposed to abortion, and my religion opposes it, but I refuse to impose my personal belief, or that of my religion, upon the country.". In other words, Ted Kennedy refuses to impose his "personal belief" about MURDER on anyone else--a position that would support female infanticide (still prevalent in parts of the world) and the legalized murder of Native American "savages", or even slaves, on the grounds that they do not have a "soul" like white people.
Did you ever hear WHY Ted Kennedy's supposed Catholic religion, in the view of Ted Kennedy, regards abortion as a mortal sin (for which, apparently, you go to Hell)? Of course not. You did not hear Ted Kennedy out there urging women NOT to have abortion is. His true religion, like that of Nancy Pelosi (who this blog has exposed not to believe in religion at all) was LEFTISM.
No, abortion is not the only indication that Ted Kennedy did not believe in his religion. Catholic position on MARRIAGE? Does Ted Kennedy's life indicate he believed in it? Not outside of leftist fantasies of what religion is when your real religion is leftism. I think Kennedy is divorced from the first wife--mother of his children--who he virtually destroyed with his infidelities and lifestyle. Did he get an "annulment" in the Church? I don't care. Look it all up on Wikipedia. Time did not bother. The idea that Kennedy had "quiet Catholic faith" is absurd.
It is well known that Ted Kennedy was a womanizer and a drinker. His personal appetites were unrestrained, and he is hardly an advertisement for the Catholic religion he did NOT live. He was more of a hypocrite than Jimmy Swaggert, the TV evangelist who at least APOLOGIZED for failing to be strong enough to live his religion.
Let me state flatly: Time Magazine (hypocrites all) does not believe in religion any more than I do, or Nancy Pelosi does. That is the biggest hypocrisy of all: that Time Magazine cares whether Ted Kennedy had "faith". Time Magazine only cares about its agenda--its own leftist religion--and would be horrified at a politician who actually LIVED the Catholic religion (and said so publicly).
As I have said repeatedly in this blog, I am agnostic. Unlike Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi--not to mention Time Magazine and Yahoo News--I am not a HYPOCRITE about it. In reality, their position on religion is approximately the same as mine, except that I have more respect for people who actually live and believe their own religion. However, I was raised Presbyterian.
Why do I mention that I was raised Presbyterian? It is because I was taught to distrust the Catholic Religion. What was the reason for the Reformation? I recently finished reading (listening to) Will Durant's two volume book on "The Renaissance". The Catholic religion had become corrupt, as popes, bishops and clergy failed to live their religion (often openly having mistresses). That hypocrisy basically created PProtestants, even though most of the "mainline" PProtestant churches no longer much encourage people to "live" their religion (which is why I respect "fundamentalist" Christians more, even though I can hardly be personally comfortable with a REAL belief I do not share).
I have previously commented on the criticism of the Catholic religion in Sir Walter Scott's "Kenilworth". Ted Kennedy is basically the poster child for that religion. Sir Walter Scoot describes the Catholic religion as perfect for a sinner like Ted Kennedy (the character having another name in Scott's book--being one of the villains). You can commit all of the sins you want, and live a corrupt life, and then you go to Confession and get "forgiven". That is the Protestant view of the Catholic religion with which I was raised. The purpose here is not to say that the Protestant churches are preferable to the Catholic Church, but only to say ththat the life of Ted Kennedy provides a lot of support to Sir Walter Scott and the Protestant Reformation view of Catholicism.
The headline above is a direct quote of a present headline from that leftist propaganda organ, Yahoo News (boycott Yahoo!)--quoting Time Magazine "buzz". We already know that Time Magazine is nothing more than a conduit for leftist propaganda, as the leftist canonization of Ted Kennedy continues. Yahoo News regards this false propaganda as one of the 7 top "news" stories to put on the present Yahoo Welcome screen. So much for Yahoo News and Yahoo.
Be honest here. What is the more hones headline: the Time Magazine/Yahoo headline or my first par paragraph of this blog entry above? There is no contest. Eunice Kennedy Shriver appears to have actually lived her religion. Ted Kennedy is a hypocrite who merely used his religion for political purposes.
Yes, Ted Kennedy was one of the most fanatic pro-abortion "leaders" in the Senate. Of course he was "quiet" about his religion. How could he be "public" about a religion that he CONTRADICTED with almost his entire life. It is the official position of the Catholic Church that abortion is a MORTAL sin, and that politicians who fail to oppose abortion cannot really consider themselves Catholic. It is the official position of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder, which means that Ted Kennedy was not only directly involved in the killing of Mary Jo Kopechne, but was implicated in millions of other killings.
Did you ever here Ted Kennedy make a speech about his opposition to abortion? Yes, I know the HYPOCRITICAL "position" as well as you do: "I am personally opposed to abortion, and my religion opposes it, but I refuse to impose my personal belief, or that of my religion, upon the country.". In other words, Ted Kennedy refuses to impose his "personal belief" about MURDER on anyone else--a position that would support female infanticide (still prevalent in parts of the world) and the legalized murder of Native American "savages", or even slaves, on the grounds that they do not have a "soul" like white people.
Did you ever hear WHY Ted Kennedy's supposed Catholic religion, in the view of Ted Kennedy, regards abortion as a mortal sin (for which, apparently, you go to Hell)? Of course not. You did not hear Ted Kennedy out there urging women NOT to have abortion is. His true religion, like that of Nancy Pelosi (who this blog has exposed not to believe in religion at all) was LEFTISM.
No, abortion is not the only indication that Ted Kennedy did not believe in his religion. Catholic position on MARRIAGE? Does Ted Kennedy's life indicate he believed in it? Not outside of leftist fantasies of what religion is when your real religion is leftism. I think Kennedy is divorced from the first wife--mother of his children--who he virtually destroyed with his infidelities and lifestyle. Did he get an "annulment" in the Church? I don't care. Look it all up on Wikipedia. Time did not bother. The idea that Kennedy had "quiet Catholic faith" is absurd.
It is well known that Ted Kennedy was a womanizer and a drinker. His personal appetites were unrestrained, and he is hardly an advertisement for the Catholic religion he did NOT live. He was more of a hypocrite than Jimmy Swaggert, the TV evangelist who at least APOLOGIZED for failing to be strong enough to live his religion.
Let me state flatly: Time Magazine (hypocrites all) does not believe in religion any more than I do, or Nancy Pelosi does. That is the biggest hypocrisy of all: that Time Magazine cares whether Ted Kennedy had "faith". Time Magazine only cares about its agenda--its own leftist religion--and would be horrified at a politician who actually LIVED the Catholic religion (and said so publicly).
As I have said repeatedly in this blog, I am agnostic. Unlike Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi--not to mention Time Magazine and Yahoo News--I am not a HYPOCRITE about it. In reality, their position on religion is approximately the same as mine, except that I have more respect for people who actually live and believe their own religion. However, I was raised Presbyterian.
Why do I mention that I was raised Presbyterian? It is because I was taught to distrust the Catholic Religion. What was the reason for the Reformation? I recently finished reading (listening to) Will Durant's two volume book on "The Renaissance". The Catholic religion had become corrupt, as popes, bishops and clergy failed to live their religion (often openly having mistresses). That hypocrisy basically created PProtestants, even though most of the "mainline" PProtestant churches no longer much encourage people to "live" their religion (which is why I respect "fundamentalist" Christians more, even though I can hardly be personally comfortable with a REAL belief I do not share).
I have previously commented on the criticism of the Catholic religion in Sir Walter Scott's "Kenilworth". Ted Kennedy is basically the poster child for that religion. Sir Walter Scoot describes the Catholic religion as perfect for a sinner like Ted Kennedy (the character having another name in Scott's book--being one of the villains). You can commit all of the sins you want, and live a corrupt life, and then you go to Confession and get "forgiven". That is the Protestant view of the Catholic religion with which I was raised. The purpose here is not to say that the Protestant churches are preferable to the Catholic Church, but only to say ththat the life of Ted Kennedy provides a lot of support to Sir Walter Scott and the Protestant Reformation view of Catholicism.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Mexico, A Failed Country: "Two American Teens Latest Americans To Be Killed In Ongoing Juarez (Mexico) Violence"
Yes, this is your latest update from the dangerous war zone along the Mexican border in El Paso, Texas.
The above is this morning's radio headline in El Paso. See yesterday's entry from yesterday's radio report in El Paso about the ongoing violence. The headlines are daily--like Baghdad during the worst days of the Iraq War. Juarez has to be the most dangerous current city in the world. Mexico is deteriorating quickly. You will note that this blog has been correctly calling Mexico a "failed country" for several years--while the mainstream media and politicians have ignored that fact. Proven right again. Yawn.
I have previously told you tht the violence in Juarez has not yet spread (substantially) across the Rio Grande to El Paso. there have been a few recent incidents that suggests it may be coming, but it is not yet a real problem in El Paso ("open border" crowd would make it one, as would fence sitters like the hypocritical Bill O'Reilly).
However, the violence in Juarez has affected El Paso. People in El Paso used to go to Juarez regularly. Even I did so once upon a time. Not so now. People from El Paso are getting KILLED in Juarez. Recently, a family of four was killed. As the headline stated this morning, these two teens are only the latest in a series of American deaths in Juarez.
Nor was that headline the only incident. Another headline was about a 4 year old girl being rushed to the Fabens (El Paso suburb) point of entry after having been SHOT. Another example of the superior medical care being provided in the United States. Even Juarez police are rushed to our country hospital after being shot. Exactly why our county hospital goes to that expense (extra security, you know) was never clear. Political pressure?
The situation is grim here on the front lines of the border. Looks more ominous everyday. Meanwhile, the dishonest people of the mainstream media ignore the ongoing violence, except when forced to pay attention briefly. This was after the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" used to chronicle almost EVERY death in Iraq, OF IRAQIS. Yawn again. Our "journalists" have no shame, and no integrity.
P.S. Google spell check, like the mainstream media, seems to prefer to pretend that El Paso does not exist. I think I am insulted on behalf of El Paso. "Paso" is highlighted every time. Google does not even seem to recognize that the Rio Grande--across which so many illegal aliens have come--exists. It wants "Grande" spelled "grand". Meanwhile, Google--like the mainstream media--does recognize Baghdad. It also recognizes "Juarez", but--to be fair--"Juarez" is a last name as well as being the sister city of El Paso across the Rio Grande (all of that YEOLLOW that I can hardly see generated by spell check at the end of this sentence).
The above is this morning's radio headline in El Paso. See yesterday's entry from yesterday's radio report in El Paso about the ongoing violence. The headlines are daily--like Baghdad during the worst days of the Iraq War. Juarez has to be the most dangerous current city in the world. Mexico is deteriorating quickly. You will note that this blog has been correctly calling Mexico a "failed country" for several years--while the mainstream media and politicians have ignored that fact. Proven right again. Yawn.
I have previously told you tht the violence in Juarez has not yet spread (substantially) across the Rio Grande to El Paso. there have been a few recent incidents that suggests it may be coming, but it is not yet a real problem in El Paso ("open border" crowd would make it one, as would fence sitters like the hypocritical Bill O'Reilly).
However, the violence in Juarez has affected El Paso. People in El Paso used to go to Juarez regularly. Even I did so once upon a time. Not so now. People from El Paso are getting KILLED in Juarez. Recently, a family of four was killed. As the headline stated this morning, these two teens are only the latest in a series of American deaths in Juarez.
Nor was that headline the only incident. Another headline was about a 4 year old girl being rushed to the Fabens (El Paso suburb) point of entry after having been SHOT. Another example of the superior medical care being provided in the United States. Even Juarez police are rushed to our country hospital after being shot. Exactly why our county hospital goes to that expense (extra security, you know) was never clear. Political pressure?
The situation is grim here on the front lines of the border. Looks more ominous everyday. Meanwhile, the dishonest people of the mainstream media ignore the ongoing violence, except when forced to pay attention briefly. This was after the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" used to chronicle almost EVERY death in Iraq, OF IRAQIS. Yawn again. Our "journalists" have no shame, and no integrity.
P.S. Google spell check, like the mainstream media, seems to prefer to pretend that El Paso does not exist. I think I am insulted on behalf of El Paso. "Paso" is highlighted every time. Google does not even seem to recognize that the Rio Grande--across which so many illegal aliens have come--exists. It wants "Grande" spelled "grand". Meanwhile, Google--like the mainstream media--does recognize Baghdad. It also recognizes "Juarez", but--to be fair--"Juarez" is a last name as well as being the sister city of El Paso across the Rio Grande (all of that YEOLLOW that I can hardly see generated by spell check at the end of this sentence).
Did Democrats Puull Plug on Senator Kennedy? Death Panel in Operation? Mainstream Media On Board to USE Kennedy Death to Push Health Care Bill
Were Democrats behind the death of Senator Kennedy, at this time, in a desperation attempt to save the health care "overhaul" and the Presidency of Barack Obama? Is there a vast conspiracy, with the mainstream (state controlled) media on board ahead of time to USE Kennedy's death to push through a health care bill that the American people do not want? The case is just as compelling (okay, and maybe just as not compelling) as the case for President Bush having arranged 9/11 so that he could do the things he wanted to do. Hree are the plausible items:
1. Senator Kennedy, with brain cancer at his advanced age, had no "quality of life" left. See Veteran's Administration "death book", and all of those "quality of life" statements by the euthanasia advocates on the left. This stuff is not new, by the way. I argued the matter with leftists in my criminal law class at the University of Texas School of law, about 1972. The class was taught by the most liberal professor I had in law school (saying a lot, even then). Even that professor was taken aback by how far some leftist students were willing to go. I argued, correctly, that voluntary euthanasia opened the elderly up to emotional blackmail. "You are a burden to us". "you are selfish". "Your life is over". "you are making life miserable for your children and grandchildren". Sound familiar? It is the kind of stuff that leftists still want to say, and yet refuse to fess up to what they want. That liberal professor was a little appalled at how willing leftist students in that class were to subject the elderly to that kind of pressure to "pass quietly into the night". That professor gave away "Clue" games to students that got the top grade in his class. I got one, to his slight chagrin. He told e: "Well, I guess this shows thinking is not necessarily a matter of ideology." This is not really a digression, because it shows how willing leftist Democrats are to tell someone like Senator Kennedy that he needs to sacrifice what is left of his now worthless life for the good of the leftist health care cause. Did leftist Democrats do what I suggested would be done more than 35 years ago? Did they convince Senator Kennedy to voluntarily leave this live? Or did they help him along? Indications are that they did one or the other.
2. Was an ailing Senator Kennedy any use to leftist Democrats, or the mainstream media, in the health care "debate"? Of course Kennedy was of no help. He might not have even been able to vote. But what about a DEAD Senator Kennedy? Could he be turned into a MARTYR (even though dying of natural causes at the end of a long life he denied Mary Jo Kopechne)? Could the martyrdom of his brothers rub off on him? Did not LBJ and the Democrats use the assassination of JFK to push through legislation in his name, including the first Medicare bill? Democrats--cynical as any people who have ever walked the Earth, and more hypocritical--have consistently USED death to try to advance their agenda. They even turned the funeral of Paul Wellstone into a political rally.
3. What was the IMMEDIATE reaction of the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats, to the death of Senator Kennedy? Did it not appear that they had PREPARED for that reaction? Was not the IMMEDIATE reaction yesterday that we needed to pass a health care bill as a memorial to Senator Kennedy? What is the present headline on Drudge? "Health care Bill from the Grave as Dems Push KennedyCare" (or words to that effect). The mainstream media is immediately on board, falling so quickly into their state controlled mode as to indicate pre-arrangement. There just seems little doubt that everyone was preparing to take advantage of the death of Senator Kennedy. Does this not indicate pre-knowledge--that these people helped that death along? I think so.
4. Look at how Yahoo News (using the despicable AP and other state controlled media sources) alone treated the death of Kennedy, and the rest of the mainstream media seemed to be WORSE (more directly part of the conspiracy?). First, yesterday, Yahoo had the headline (crocodile tears setting up the martyr/tribute push for KennedyCare?) that the death of Kennedy was a "blow" to health care "overhaul", because he was so involved in that effort. HOGWASH. As stated above, an ill Senator Kennedy was of no value in the leftist Democrat health care effort. He was a liability. Now a DEAD Kennedy could be anticipated to be a major asset, although there is no logic to the idea that a man's death from natural causes provides any rational reason to change anyone's position on legislation with the potential (more like certainty) to ruin the country, already facing a 9 TRILLION dollar deficit (or more). Nevertheless, the orchestrated campaign already shows that leftist Democrats, and their lackeys in the mainstream media, fully anticipate using Kennedy from the grave in a way they were never going to be able to use him while he was alive (but ill). That was made clear as Yahoo News followed up on the initial salvo. The next story I saw was that "Kennedy/Obama bond was important in putting health care overhaul on fast track". This showed that, before Kennedy's body was hardly cold, the propaganda campaign was already planned. Now Yahoo News (quoting the despicable AP or some similar "news" organization) was trying to directly wrap Obama in the mantle of the dead Senator, and really in the mantle of ALL of the Kennedys (the thrust of yesterday's push being to put the mystique of JFK and all of the "tragic" Kennedys behind health care "overhaul"). Now, this morning, the Yahoo News headline story is essentially the same as Drudge, without the classic Drudge headline: to the effect that health care proponents are hoping to use Kennedy support of health care "overhaul" as a weapon to get a bill passed. Can there be much doubt that these people would have helped Kennedy (no "quality of life", remember) pass along, if necessary?
5. Look at all of the funeral activities planned!!!! An Obama speech on Saturday. Two days lying in "state". Now you can say that we have lost all perspective, and that this is the way we do things now for any major figure--Michael Jackson, for God's sake. I would not argue with that. But is it not clear that health care proponents plan to USE these funeral events to push their cause? I think it is clear. These people do not believe in democracy. They do not want to "debate" health care "reform" on the merits. They want to PUSH it through. Would they stop short of murder, or assisted suicide, if they thought it would help them? I don't think so. They know that Kennedy's death has nothing to do with the merits of any health care bill. They don't care. The idea that these people want a REASONED "debate" is the biggest "myth" of all They don't. It is entirely possible that people like that would engage in euthanasia, or assisted suicide (after appropriate brain washing of Kennedy).
Pretty compelling case, isn't it? No, I am not a "conspiracy theorist" (unlike, for example, Keith Olbermann, the hypocrite, who is). I don't really believe that Kennedy was "helped along" to help push health care "overhaul" through.
However, I do believe that the mainstream media (state controlled media), and leftist Democrats, are the most cynical people on Earth, as well as the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth on two legs. Those people will literally stop at nothing to get what they want, and what they want is POWER. It is not moral compunction that would keep them from "helping along" Senator Kennedy. It is practicality, but I think that is enough. I don't think they did it. I not only think, but KNOW, that they fully intend to USE the death of Senator Kennedy in every possible way to advance their own agenda. This is cynical opportunism at its most blatant. For the mainstream media, including Yahoo News, it is PROSTITUTION. These "journalists" cannot be ashamed, because they have no shame. They are no longer capable of shame. They are too far gone in corruption.
In the end, is it that much more acceptable to try to cynically use the death of a man to push a political agenda than it is to "help" that death along? You can argue the point, but this idea that it is acceptable to use a death this way is monstrous to me. I say that even though I know that maybe Senator Kennedy, leftist that he was, would have approved. He was more than that cynical himself, in the past. IN fact, he was instrumental in getting that bill passed in Massachusetts requiring a special election to fill a vacancy in the Senate, rater than let the governor appoint an interim or permanent successor. That was a cynical ploy to keep Mitt Romney from perhaps appointing a Republican. But when Senator Kennedy saw he might be dying (or that he was being pushed into dying?), he was pushing to have the law HE ADVOCATED changed to let the Democratic governor appoint an interim successor. The Democrats in Massachusetts are now pushing this option, in the name of the health care bill, in one of the most CYNICAL acts of naked power politics you will ever see. And the mainstream media is acting like this is perfectly fine. For them, it is. The mainstream media today represent, as this blog has shown, the very worst hypocrites (along with their fellow leftists) who have ever walked the Earth.
No. I can't bring myself to believe in, or advocate for political purposes, a "conspiracy theory" that Democrats and the mainstream media got together to help Senator Kennedy die. However, I have no doubt they are acting in concert to USE that death in the most cynical and opportunistic way possible--making these pretty horrible people. "In concert" does not mean an affirmative meeting of conspirators. It simply means that these people are consciously action together, including Yahoo News, to advance their joint political agenda from the grave of Senator Kennedy. SHAME, but you have no shame.
1. Senator Kennedy, with brain cancer at his advanced age, had no "quality of life" left. See Veteran's Administration "death book", and all of those "quality of life" statements by the euthanasia advocates on the left. This stuff is not new, by the way. I argued the matter with leftists in my criminal law class at the University of Texas School of law, about 1972. The class was taught by the most liberal professor I had in law school (saying a lot, even then). Even that professor was taken aback by how far some leftist students were willing to go. I argued, correctly, that voluntary euthanasia opened the elderly up to emotional blackmail. "You are a burden to us". "you are selfish". "Your life is over". "you are making life miserable for your children and grandchildren". Sound familiar? It is the kind of stuff that leftists still want to say, and yet refuse to fess up to what they want. That liberal professor was a little appalled at how willing leftist students in that class were to subject the elderly to that kind of pressure to "pass quietly into the night". That professor gave away "Clue" games to students that got the top grade in his class. I got one, to his slight chagrin. He told e: "Well, I guess this shows thinking is not necessarily a matter of ideology." This is not really a digression, because it shows how willing leftist Democrats are to tell someone like Senator Kennedy that he needs to sacrifice what is left of his now worthless life for the good of the leftist health care cause. Did leftist Democrats do what I suggested would be done more than 35 years ago? Did they convince Senator Kennedy to voluntarily leave this live? Or did they help him along? Indications are that they did one or the other.
2. Was an ailing Senator Kennedy any use to leftist Democrats, or the mainstream media, in the health care "debate"? Of course Kennedy was of no help. He might not have even been able to vote. But what about a DEAD Senator Kennedy? Could he be turned into a MARTYR (even though dying of natural causes at the end of a long life he denied Mary Jo Kopechne)? Could the martyrdom of his brothers rub off on him? Did not LBJ and the Democrats use the assassination of JFK to push through legislation in his name, including the first Medicare bill? Democrats--cynical as any people who have ever walked the Earth, and more hypocritical--have consistently USED death to try to advance their agenda. They even turned the funeral of Paul Wellstone into a political rally.
3. What was the IMMEDIATE reaction of the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats, to the death of Senator Kennedy? Did it not appear that they had PREPARED for that reaction? Was not the IMMEDIATE reaction yesterday that we needed to pass a health care bill as a memorial to Senator Kennedy? What is the present headline on Drudge? "Health care Bill from the Grave as Dems Push KennedyCare" (or words to that effect). The mainstream media is immediately on board, falling so quickly into their state controlled mode as to indicate pre-arrangement. There just seems little doubt that everyone was preparing to take advantage of the death of Senator Kennedy. Does this not indicate pre-knowledge--that these people helped that death along? I think so.
4. Look at how Yahoo News (using the despicable AP and other state controlled media sources) alone treated the death of Kennedy, and the rest of the mainstream media seemed to be WORSE (more directly part of the conspiracy?). First, yesterday, Yahoo had the headline (crocodile tears setting up the martyr/tribute push for KennedyCare?) that the death of Kennedy was a "blow" to health care "overhaul", because he was so involved in that effort. HOGWASH. As stated above, an ill Senator Kennedy was of no value in the leftist Democrat health care effort. He was a liability. Now a DEAD Kennedy could be anticipated to be a major asset, although there is no logic to the idea that a man's death from natural causes provides any rational reason to change anyone's position on legislation with the potential (more like certainty) to ruin the country, already facing a 9 TRILLION dollar deficit (or more). Nevertheless, the orchestrated campaign already shows that leftist Democrats, and their lackeys in the mainstream media, fully anticipate using Kennedy from the grave in a way they were never going to be able to use him while he was alive (but ill). That was made clear as Yahoo News followed up on the initial salvo. The next story I saw was that "Kennedy/Obama bond was important in putting health care overhaul on fast track". This showed that, before Kennedy's body was hardly cold, the propaganda campaign was already planned. Now Yahoo News (quoting the despicable AP or some similar "news" organization) was trying to directly wrap Obama in the mantle of the dead Senator, and really in the mantle of ALL of the Kennedys (the thrust of yesterday's push being to put the mystique of JFK and all of the "tragic" Kennedys behind health care "overhaul"). Now, this morning, the Yahoo News headline story is essentially the same as Drudge, without the classic Drudge headline: to the effect that health care proponents are hoping to use Kennedy support of health care "overhaul" as a weapon to get a bill passed. Can there be much doubt that these people would have helped Kennedy (no "quality of life", remember) pass along, if necessary?
5. Look at all of the funeral activities planned!!!! An Obama speech on Saturday. Two days lying in "state". Now you can say that we have lost all perspective, and that this is the way we do things now for any major figure--Michael Jackson, for God's sake. I would not argue with that. But is it not clear that health care proponents plan to USE these funeral events to push their cause? I think it is clear. These people do not believe in democracy. They do not want to "debate" health care "reform" on the merits. They want to PUSH it through. Would they stop short of murder, or assisted suicide, if they thought it would help them? I don't think so. They know that Kennedy's death has nothing to do with the merits of any health care bill. They don't care. The idea that these people want a REASONED "debate" is the biggest "myth" of all They don't. It is entirely possible that people like that would engage in euthanasia, or assisted suicide (after appropriate brain washing of Kennedy).
Pretty compelling case, isn't it? No, I am not a "conspiracy theorist" (unlike, for example, Keith Olbermann, the hypocrite, who is). I don't really believe that Kennedy was "helped along" to help push health care "overhaul" through.
However, I do believe that the mainstream media (state controlled media), and leftist Democrats, are the most cynical people on Earth, as well as the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth on two legs. Those people will literally stop at nothing to get what they want, and what they want is POWER. It is not moral compunction that would keep them from "helping along" Senator Kennedy. It is practicality, but I think that is enough. I don't think they did it. I not only think, but KNOW, that they fully intend to USE the death of Senator Kennedy in every possible way to advance their own agenda. This is cynical opportunism at its most blatant. For the mainstream media, including Yahoo News, it is PROSTITUTION. These "journalists" cannot be ashamed, because they have no shame. They are no longer capable of shame. They are too far gone in corruption.
In the end, is it that much more acceptable to try to cynically use the death of a man to push a political agenda than it is to "help" that death along? You can argue the point, but this idea that it is acceptable to use a death this way is monstrous to me. I say that even though I know that maybe Senator Kennedy, leftist that he was, would have approved. He was more than that cynical himself, in the past. IN fact, he was instrumental in getting that bill passed in Massachusetts requiring a special election to fill a vacancy in the Senate, rater than let the governor appoint an interim or permanent successor. That was a cynical ploy to keep Mitt Romney from perhaps appointing a Republican. But when Senator Kennedy saw he might be dying (or that he was being pushed into dying?), he was pushing to have the law HE ADVOCATED changed to let the Democratic governor appoint an interim successor. The Democrats in Massachusetts are now pushing this option, in the name of the health care bill, in one of the most CYNICAL acts of naked power politics you will ever see. And the mainstream media is acting like this is perfectly fine. For them, it is. The mainstream media today represent, as this blog has shown, the very worst hypocrites (along with their fellow leftists) who have ever walked the Earth.
No. I can't bring myself to believe in, or advocate for political purposes, a "conspiracy theory" that Democrats and the mainstream media got together to help Senator Kennedy die. However, I have no doubt they are acting in concert to USE that death in the most cynical and opportunistic way possible--making these pretty horrible people. "In concert" does not mean an affirmative meeting of conspirators. It simply means that these people are consciously action together, including Yahoo News, to advance their joint political agenda from the grave of Senator Kennedy. SHAME, but you have no shame.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Rick Patino and ESPN: An Evil Network With Evil People (Joined by the Despicable AP, the Evil Will Graves, and the Evil People at Yahoo News)
Lest you think I am exaggerating in the headline, let me assure you that I am taking no dramatic license here. I mean every word. The "news" media, including sports "journalists", are committing EVIL with regard to Rick Patino.
First, do you agree that blackmail and extortion are evil things? What about aiding and abetting blackmail and extortion, and treating a person CHARGED with blackmail and extortion as a credible person? If you believe those things, then you must believe that ESPN, the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press", Yahoo News, and a good portion of the media is this country are involved in evil. I can attest personally to ESPN and the despicable AP (Will Graves--who, yes, I am accusing of being an evil person).
Let us go back. Seven months or so ago Rick Pation went to the authorities (federal, I think) and alerted them to a woman trying to blackmail him, and extort money from him. That woman has now been charged with blackmail and extortion. This is not a "scandal". This is Rick Patino coming forth as a WITNESS, and complaining party--a public spirited person--to bring a blackmailer to justice. So where is the "scandal". Well, it is mainly in the minds of evil persons in the media, who are acting like extortion and blackmail are perfectly acceptable things for them to aid and encourage. For there to be any "scandal", you have to assume that it is a "sex scandal" for a basketball coach to commit adultery (which Patino has admitted). See the first entry today on Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne, and realize that Rick Patino is being subjected to more media harassment for REPORTING A CRIME, and merely committing adultery, than Ted Kennedy suffered for KILLING A GIRL. Yes, whether leftists (most are) or not, these media people are HYPOCRITES of a magnitude beyond belief. And they are evil people who are doing their best to make sure that the next blackmailer or extortionist is successful--ESPECIALLY if the allegations of the extortionist are FALSE.
What was the extortion? Well, that is where the mostly leftist mainstream media, which includes ESPN, turns evil. Some time ago (I think years) Rick Patino had a one night stand with a woman. Again, is this a "sex scandal"? In what universe, when Ted Kennedy can be seriously considered by so many for President--with BOTH "sex scandals" AND killing a girl. How many coaches have committed adultery? I would guess more than half.
The woman, however, went to Patino and demanded a lot of money. Now at some point he gave her a little money (like $3000). That was the frist EVIL of which I became aware. The media reported this money was for an abortion . Patino says it was for a doctor. Aside from it all being speculation (and no one is more anti-abortion than I am), abortion is LEGAL in this country The breathless headline on Yahoo News, probably from the despicable AP, acted like Patino had killed a girl (this from people who FAVOR abortion--I guarantee you). Pp[s!!! I forgot. If you kill a girl, and you are Ted Kennedy, it is fine. If lyou are Rick Patino, you are treated like the criminal when you are the VICTIM. How is that for encouraging a blackmailer and extortionist, who has threatened to make a man's life a living hell (obviously knowing today's mainstream media). Wait. It gets better (or worse).
This woman asked Pation for a LOT of money toward the end of last year. She threatened, as stated, to make his life a "living hell" by accusing him of rape, and generally going public with all kinds of allegations (again, obviously confident that our mainstream media will aid and abet blackmailers and extortionists at every opportunity). She obviously thought Pation would be familiar with our mainstream media, as well. You might remember that BEFORE the mainstream media turned on prosecutor Nifong in the Duke rape case, they were perfectly willing to turn the life of the accused Duke players into a living hell based on SPECULATION and "trial by media".
Well, Patino went to the authorities. The woman made good on her threat to accuse him of rape, and who knows what else. Firt it was just an ordinary blackmail case. Private (as it should have been--at least until the trial). If you don't treat this as private, until the trial, you are definitely ENCOURAGING BLACKMAIL BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS. At most, you should factually present any defense that the woman is asserting. Remember, conduct of Patino is NOT--I repeat, NOT--a defense blackmail and extortion. Did I mention that Patino was NOT even charged with a crime. The allegations of the blackmailer were deemed not to be credible by the authorities (in contrast to Nifong). Thus, there are not even any outstanding ACCUSATIONS against Patino, other than the admitted sex (really of mo, or minor, importance in comparison to the extortion charge--not worth encouraging blackmail by making any kind of big deal about it).
But, of course, the media did make a big deal about it. They acted like Pation was the ACCUSED, and subjected his family to unmerciful publicity. They harasses the University of Louisville. They did everything possible to DESTROY PATIONO'S LIFE--to make his life "pure hell". Note that this is exactly what the blackmailer wanted. . I ACCUSE. I accuse the mainstreams media, including ESPN, the despicable AP, and the rest of AID AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO BLACKMAILERS EVERYWHERE. The "allegations" of the blackmailer were taken as if they were credible allegations against Pation--including the allegation of "non-consensual" sex (media weasal word used lby evil people). The substances of the blackmailing woman's "still awaiting trial on felony charges) "interview" with the police was reported as "news". The whole thing became a "sex scandal" with lPATINO AS THE ACCUSED. You just don't get any more evil than this.
Well, Patino had enough. He was told by everybody to keep quiet until after the trial (not HIS trial, since he is not charged with anything, but HER trial). But today (Inexplicable, really, and maybe based on one of those media requests for information), the police released the video of thewoman's00tge DISCREDITED woman's) interview with the police--where she made all of those accusations against Patino. You guessed it (realizing by now how EVIL these people are). These were the SAME allegations that had already been aired was to much by the evil mainstream media--including sports "journalists". Well, the media treated the released video as NEWS (evil people that they are), and acted like it was a new development in the "sex scandal" involving Patino. It is splashed all over the media again--every allegation as if Patino is being accused of something. Patino went ballistic.
He had a "news" conference today to AGAIN label the video allegations as lies (which is not just his opinion, but the opinion of people who have charged him with no crime). He said that the MEDIA was making his life "pure hell", as the blackmailer had predicted they would. If you wanted to lay out how to encourage blackmail and extortion, you could not do any better than the mainstream media has done in this case.
Let us go to the videotape of the truly evil people at ESPN--an evil network which this blog has previously recommended you boycott, except fro live sports events--myself, I only watched this specifically to see Patino's "news" conference replayed, which I did). What was the reaction of the evil woman on ESPN? I can't make this stuff up. She put up a "timeline" purporting to show essentially the "downfall" (not her word, but the clear implication of what she said) of Patino since his "high water" mark in the NCAA basketball tournament in March. The next to last item on this "timeline" (people just don't get any more evil than this--not talking about Patino) was "Patino CLAIMS sex was consensual". Say what? Patino is not accused of anything. His "claim" was ACCEPTED by the authorities, and his blackmailer was deemed not to be a credible person. I am livid over this. It will be a cold daly in Hell before I even surf ESPN again. I amy be foreced to view live events there, but I will not pay any attention to ESPN people. It is an evil network with evil people working there.
You want to know what the last item on the "timeline" was? I am glad you asked. The last item, AFTER the item suggesting Patino only "claimed" the sex was consensual, was: "Patino admits sex with woman." Say what? That was a good trick. How did he previously "claim" the sex was consensual, without admitting sex? These are terrible people (on ESPN) . I think they are worse than the blackmailer, and Patino is not even close to being in their class (from all evidence).
Now let us go to the evil Will Graves, and the evil people at the Associated Press (given a forum by the evil people at Yahoo News). This is the despicable lead paragraph from the despicable AP story by Will Graves:
"Louisville coach Rick Pitino said Wednesday a sex scandal involving a woman accused of trying to extort millions from him has been “pure hell” for his family, fuming that newly released video of her police interview revived her “total fabrication.”
I saw the press conference. The above is an EVIL LIE. The purpose of Patino's press conference was NOT to suggest that the "sex scandal" was "pure hell". The purpose of the press conference was to ATTACK THE MEDIA for making his life a pure hell--spreading FALSE allegations of a blackmailer time and time again. Yes, Pation admitted again that he made a mistake having sex with the blackmailer, but he made clear that the consequences of the sex (bad as that was for his wife and family) were not the "pure hell" of the media fascination with spreading the discredited allegations of a blackmailer again and again. I state again that I fail to see where this is even a "sex scandal", unless you label every case of adultery (Ted Kennedy anyone?) as a "sex scandal". This is a case of blackmail and extortion. The sex is merely what gave rise to the blackmail and extortion--where Patino did the right thing and cooperated with the authorities (and evidently his university--disclosing everything there and to his wife).
The despicable AP is composed of despicable people. Will Graves is despicable. The AP headline, and the Yahoo News version of that headline, screamed that "Patino says sex scandal pure hell". I tell you. I saw the press conference. That headline is an evil lie by evil people (and I include the people at Yahoo News).
No. I did not see the "coverage" elsewhere, other than to hear Patino's description of how it seemed to be universal in the mainstream media--even breaking into Kennedy coverage for "breaking news" treatment of a blackmailer's smear of Patino. That may well mean it was on Fox News, as well as other mainstream news outlets, although I don't know that. I have said before that Fox News, especially on this type of smear of people in the media, is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don't care who has spread this. It is evil stuff, and you should know that you have been involved in evil.
First, do you agree that blackmail and extortion are evil things? What about aiding and abetting blackmail and extortion, and treating a person CHARGED with blackmail and extortion as a credible person? If you believe those things, then you must believe that ESPN, the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press", Yahoo News, and a good portion of the media is this country are involved in evil. I can attest personally to ESPN and the despicable AP (Will Graves--who, yes, I am accusing of being an evil person).
Let us go back. Seven months or so ago Rick Pation went to the authorities (federal, I think) and alerted them to a woman trying to blackmail him, and extort money from him. That woman has now been charged with blackmail and extortion. This is not a "scandal". This is Rick Patino coming forth as a WITNESS, and complaining party--a public spirited person--to bring a blackmailer to justice. So where is the "scandal". Well, it is mainly in the minds of evil persons in the media, who are acting like extortion and blackmail are perfectly acceptable things for them to aid and encourage. For there to be any "scandal", you have to assume that it is a "sex scandal" for a basketball coach to commit adultery (which Patino has admitted). See the first entry today on Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne, and realize that Rick Patino is being subjected to more media harassment for REPORTING A CRIME, and merely committing adultery, than Ted Kennedy suffered for KILLING A GIRL. Yes, whether leftists (most are) or not, these media people are HYPOCRITES of a magnitude beyond belief. And they are evil people who are doing their best to make sure that the next blackmailer or extortionist is successful--ESPECIALLY if the allegations of the extortionist are FALSE.
What was the extortion? Well, that is where the mostly leftist mainstream media, which includes ESPN, turns evil. Some time ago (I think years) Rick Patino had a one night stand with a woman. Again, is this a "sex scandal"? In what universe, when Ted Kennedy can be seriously considered by so many for President--with BOTH "sex scandals" AND killing a girl. How many coaches have committed adultery? I would guess more than half.
The woman, however, went to Patino and demanded a lot of money. Now at some point he gave her a little money (like $3000). That was the frist EVIL of which I became aware. The media reported this money was for an abortion . Patino says it was for a doctor. Aside from it all being speculation (and no one is more anti-abortion than I am), abortion is LEGAL in this country The breathless headline on Yahoo News, probably from the despicable AP, acted like Patino had killed a girl (this from people who FAVOR abortion--I guarantee you). Pp[s!!! I forgot. If you kill a girl, and you are Ted Kennedy, it is fine. If lyou are Rick Patino, you are treated like the criminal when you are the VICTIM. How is that for encouraging a blackmailer and extortionist, who has threatened to make a man's life a living hell (obviously knowing today's mainstream media). Wait. It gets better (or worse).
This woman asked Pation for a LOT of money toward the end of last year. She threatened, as stated, to make his life a "living hell" by accusing him of rape, and generally going public with all kinds of allegations (again, obviously confident that our mainstream media will aid and abet blackmailers and extortionists at every opportunity). She obviously thought Pation would be familiar with our mainstream media, as well. You might remember that BEFORE the mainstream media turned on prosecutor Nifong in the Duke rape case, they were perfectly willing to turn the life of the accused Duke players into a living hell based on SPECULATION and "trial by media".
Well, Patino went to the authorities. The woman made good on her threat to accuse him of rape, and who knows what else. Firt it was just an ordinary blackmail case. Private (as it should have been--at least until the trial). If you don't treat this as private, until the trial, you are definitely ENCOURAGING BLACKMAIL BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS. At most, you should factually present any defense that the woman is asserting. Remember, conduct of Patino is NOT--I repeat, NOT--a defense blackmail and extortion. Did I mention that Patino was NOT even charged with a crime. The allegations of the blackmailer were deemed not to be credible by the authorities (in contrast to Nifong). Thus, there are not even any outstanding ACCUSATIONS against Patino, other than the admitted sex (really of mo, or minor, importance in comparison to the extortion charge--not worth encouraging blackmail by making any kind of big deal about it).
But, of course, the media did make a big deal about it. They acted like Pation was the ACCUSED, and subjected his family to unmerciful publicity. They harasses the University of Louisville. They did everything possible to DESTROY PATIONO'S LIFE--to make his life "pure hell". Note that this is exactly what the blackmailer wanted. . I ACCUSE. I accuse the mainstreams media, including ESPN, the despicable AP, and the rest of AID AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO BLACKMAILERS EVERYWHERE. The "allegations" of the blackmailer were taken as if they were credible allegations against Pation--including the allegation of "non-consensual" sex (media weasal word used lby evil people). The substances of the blackmailing woman's "still awaiting trial on felony charges) "interview" with the police was reported as "news". The whole thing became a "sex scandal" with lPATINO AS THE ACCUSED. You just don't get any more evil than this.
Well, Patino had enough. He was told by everybody to keep quiet until after the trial (not HIS trial, since he is not charged with anything, but HER trial). But today (Inexplicable, really, and maybe based on one of those media requests for information), the police released the video of thewoman's00tge DISCREDITED woman's) interview with the police--where she made all of those accusations against Patino. You guessed it (realizing by now how EVIL these people are). These were the SAME allegations that had already been aired was to much by the evil mainstream media--including sports "journalists". Well, the media treated the released video as NEWS (evil people that they are), and acted like it was a new development in the "sex scandal" involving Patino. It is splashed all over the media again--every allegation as if Patino is being accused of something. Patino went ballistic.
He had a "news" conference today to AGAIN label the video allegations as lies (which is not just his opinion, but the opinion of people who have charged him with no crime). He said that the MEDIA was making his life "pure hell", as the blackmailer had predicted they would. If you wanted to lay out how to encourage blackmail and extortion, you could not do any better than the mainstream media has done in this case.
Let us go to the videotape of the truly evil people at ESPN--an evil network which this blog has previously recommended you boycott, except fro live sports events--myself, I only watched this specifically to see Patino's "news" conference replayed, which I did). What was the reaction of the evil woman on ESPN? I can't make this stuff up. She put up a "timeline" purporting to show essentially the "downfall" (not her word, but the clear implication of what she said) of Patino since his "high water" mark in the NCAA basketball tournament in March. The next to last item on this "timeline" (people just don't get any more evil than this--not talking about Patino) was "Patino CLAIMS sex was consensual". Say what? Patino is not accused of anything. His "claim" was ACCEPTED by the authorities, and his blackmailer was deemed not to be a credible person. I am livid over this. It will be a cold daly in Hell before I even surf ESPN again. I amy be foreced to view live events there, but I will not pay any attention to ESPN people. It is an evil network with evil people working there.
You want to know what the last item on the "timeline" was? I am glad you asked. The last item, AFTER the item suggesting Patino only "claimed" the sex was consensual, was: "Patino admits sex with woman." Say what? That was a good trick. How did he previously "claim" the sex was consensual, without admitting sex? These are terrible people (on ESPN) . I think they are worse than the blackmailer, and Patino is not even close to being in their class (from all evidence).
Now let us go to the evil Will Graves, and the evil people at the Associated Press (given a forum by the evil people at Yahoo News). This is the despicable lead paragraph from the despicable AP story by Will Graves:
"Louisville coach Rick Pitino said Wednesday a sex scandal involving a woman accused of trying to extort millions from him has been “pure hell” for his family, fuming that newly released video of her police interview revived her “total fabrication.”
I saw the press conference. The above is an EVIL LIE. The purpose of Patino's press conference was NOT to suggest that the "sex scandal" was "pure hell". The purpose of the press conference was to ATTACK THE MEDIA for making his life a pure hell--spreading FALSE allegations of a blackmailer time and time again. Yes, Pation admitted again that he made a mistake having sex with the blackmailer, but he made clear that the consequences of the sex (bad as that was for his wife and family) were not the "pure hell" of the media fascination with spreading the discredited allegations of a blackmailer again and again. I state again that I fail to see where this is even a "sex scandal", unless you label every case of adultery (Ted Kennedy anyone?) as a "sex scandal". This is a case of blackmail and extortion. The sex is merely what gave rise to the blackmail and extortion--where Patino did the right thing and cooperated with the authorities (and evidently his university--disclosing everything there and to his wife).
The despicable AP is composed of despicable people. Will Graves is despicable. The AP headline, and the Yahoo News version of that headline, screamed that "Patino says sex scandal pure hell". I tell you. I saw the press conference. That headline is an evil lie by evil people (and I include the people at Yahoo News).
No. I did not see the "coverage" elsewhere, other than to hear Patino's description of how it seemed to be universal in the mainstream media--even breaking into Kennedy coverage for "breaking news" treatment of a blackmailer's smear of Patino. That may well mean it was on Fox News, as well as other mainstream news outlets, although I don't know that. I have said before that Fox News, especially on this type of smear of people in the media, is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don't care who has spread this. It is evil stuff, and you should know that you have been involved in evil.
Mexico, A Failed Country: Another Legacy of Sen. Ted Kennedy
As readers of this blog are aware, I live on the front lines of the actual/potential border war--right across the Rio Grande from Juarez, Mexico, portions of which are less than 5 miles from where I am typing this.
Well, the news reported today in El Paso was that 24 people had been discovered murdered in Juarez on Monday and Tuesday alone. This made a mockery of some reported "progress" against the drug cartel "hit men" in Mexico.
Mexico is a country out of control--a country that has failed miserably with leftist policies.
What does this have to do with Ted Kennedy? Well, he can't be blamed for the failure of Mexico. He can perhaps be blamed for trying to turn the United States into Mexico, politically. More fundamentally, he can be blamed for trying to turn this country into Mexico LITERALLY with an "open borders" policy (all the while sayng that he favored no such thing--in other words lying and deceiving in typical leftist fashion).
Do I oppose immigrants? No, I don't. My two daughters are 50% Mexican-American, since I married a 100% Mexican-American woman. However, unlike Senator Kennedy, I know that we cannot afford to have an "open border" with Mexico. We can't afford to try to have Mexico ship its problems, because it is a failed country, to us. We cannot afford to take care of Mexico's poor. We cannot afford to let Mexico's drug war spread into the United States.
Ted Kennedy did not--whatever he said--support enforcement of immigration laws. Like most leftist Democrat politicians, he saw poor illegal immigrants from Mexico as a source of endless votes for the Democratic Party--a means for the Democratic Party go get and keep power FOREVER--or at least as long as the PRI (original Mexican oligarchy) kept power.
Therefore, Ted Kennedy, over his entire career, was probably the major force in the Untied States Senate for essentially unrestricted immigration from Mexico--both legal and illegal. He was, of course, the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Even President Obama has now given up on that bill for the foreseeable future.
P.S. I am perfectly aware that John McCain is very little different than Ted Kennedy on this issue. Why do you think--among other things--I refused to support John McCain against Barack Obama, despite being fully aware of the kind of President Obama was going to be? I will go further. If I lived in Arizona, I would vote AGAINST John McCain in favor of Satan himself. Now I would do my best to avoid voting for Satan, as I did in the Presidential election by voting for a third party, but I would never vote for McCain. My brother DOES live in Arizona, and there is no way he will ever vote for McCain. I encourage my brother in that, even though he does not need such encouragement.
Well, the news reported today in El Paso was that 24 people had been discovered murdered in Juarez on Monday and Tuesday alone. This made a mockery of some reported "progress" against the drug cartel "hit men" in Mexico.
Mexico is a country out of control--a country that has failed miserably with leftist policies.
What does this have to do with Ted Kennedy? Well, he can't be blamed for the failure of Mexico. He can perhaps be blamed for trying to turn the United States into Mexico, politically. More fundamentally, he can be blamed for trying to turn this country into Mexico LITERALLY with an "open borders" policy (all the while sayng that he favored no such thing--in other words lying and deceiving in typical leftist fashion).
Do I oppose immigrants? No, I don't. My two daughters are 50% Mexican-American, since I married a 100% Mexican-American woman. However, unlike Senator Kennedy, I know that we cannot afford to have an "open border" with Mexico. We can't afford to try to have Mexico ship its problems, because it is a failed country, to us. We cannot afford to take care of Mexico's poor. We cannot afford to let Mexico's drug war spread into the United States.
Ted Kennedy did not--whatever he said--support enforcement of immigration laws. Like most leftist Democrat politicians, he saw poor illegal immigrants from Mexico as a source of endless votes for the Democratic Party--a means for the Democratic Party go get and keep power FOREVER--or at least as long as the PRI (original Mexican oligarchy) kept power.
Therefore, Ted Kennedy, over his entire career, was probably the major force in the Untied States Senate for essentially unrestricted immigration from Mexico--both legal and illegal. He was, of course, the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Even President Obama has now given up on that bill for the foreseeable future.
P.S. I am perfectly aware that John McCain is very little different than Ted Kennedy on this issue. Why do you think--among other things--I refused to support John McCain against Barack Obama, despite being fully aware of the kind of President Obama was going to be? I will go further. If I lived in Arizona, I would vote AGAINST John McCain in favor of Satan himself. Now I would do my best to avoid voting for Satan, as I did in the Presidential election by voting for a third party, but I would never vote for McCain. My brother DOES live in Arizona, and there is no way he will ever vote for McCain. I encourage my brother in that, even though he does not need such encouragement.
Mary Jo Kopechne, R.I.P.: Ted Kennedy, Deceased (as of today)--A Killer Elected to the U.S.Senate
To me, that is the legacy of Edward Kennedy: A young woman gasping for air in a car filling with water, ultimately floating dead in a dark , silent, underwater world. No rescuers fighting to save her. No one there at all. Because, while Mary Jo Kopechne was dying in the underwater tomb Ted Kennedy had created for her by driving her off of a Massachusetts bridge, on the way to some kind of assignation (probably drunk), that same Kennedy was consulting his LAWYERS/AIDES. See Wikipedia.
Kennedy, of course, was a "Kennedy of Massachusetts". So he would receive only a two month suspended sentence for "leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report same". He should probably have had to face charges of involuntary manslaughter, but he was a "Kennedy of Massachusetts", and even then a darling of the HYPOCRITES of the left. You will note that what Kennedy did to Mary Jo Kopechne was WORSE than anything CIA agents are now accused by the Obama Administration, or the rest of the left, of doing to TERRORISTS. For brain damaged, hypocritical people on the left (Keith Olbermann, for instance, who was ready to lynch VP Cheney for a REPORTED hunting accident that killed no one), Ted Kennedy broke "the law". He admitted breaking "the law". The left a woman dying or dead, and worried about himself rather than her.
Does anyone doubt the magnitude of the hypocrisy on the left? Ted Kennedy was not only continually elected to the Senate, after this, by the leftist voters of Massachusetts, but he was seriously talked about (and ran, briefly) as President of the United States. The hypocrites in the mainstream media had little problem with that.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media, leftists in general, and some hypocritical Republicans, were demanding that Larry Craig resign because he allegedly played footsie with a male undercover cop in a bathroom. These industrial grade HYPOCRITES of the left kept saying that Craig broke "the law" (pleading guilty to "disturbing the peace"--like a traffic ticket). Craig of course, killed no one, and left no one to die alone in a watery grave. Then there are those demands for Republicans to resign because of adultery (which no one doubts Kennedy committed on multiple occasions--beyond leaving a Young girl to die after he drove her off of a bridge).
Nope. For any of you who expected a "respectful" obituary of Ted Kennedy from me as a "lion of the Senate", you are not going to get it. I can't get past that image of a dead girl floating in that silent, underwater car as Ted Kennedy sought to save his own skin, and political career. I can feel sorry for those who loved Ted Kennedy, and their loss. I can't feel any respect for the man himself.
My image of Ted Kennedy was best illustrated by Don Imus, who used to have a regular radio skit about Kennedy. He would supposedly have Ted Kennedy as a "guest" on this program, to give some kind of a presentation. A Kennedy imitator would then start speaking. When the speaker said a word connected in any way with "water", there would be a screech of brakes and a sound of a car crashing through a barrier. Then you would only here "glug, gllug, glug"), along with the Kennedy voice cursing Imus.
Imus got it right. The voters of Massachusetts got it wrong. It is an indictment of them that they kept electing this man to the United States Senate.
Kennedy, of course, was a "Kennedy of Massachusetts". So he would receive only a two month suspended sentence for "leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report same". He should probably have had to face charges of involuntary manslaughter, but he was a "Kennedy of Massachusetts", and even then a darling of the HYPOCRITES of the left. You will note that what Kennedy did to Mary Jo Kopechne was WORSE than anything CIA agents are now accused by the Obama Administration, or the rest of the left, of doing to TERRORISTS. For brain damaged, hypocritical people on the left (Keith Olbermann, for instance, who was ready to lynch VP Cheney for a REPORTED hunting accident that killed no one), Ted Kennedy broke "the law". He admitted breaking "the law". The left a woman dying or dead, and worried about himself rather than her.
Does anyone doubt the magnitude of the hypocrisy on the left? Ted Kennedy was not only continually elected to the Senate, after this, by the leftist voters of Massachusetts, but he was seriously talked about (and ran, briefly) as President of the United States. The hypocrites in the mainstream media had little problem with that.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media, leftists in general, and some hypocritical Republicans, were demanding that Larry Craig resign because he allegedly played footsie with a male undercover cop in a bathroom. These industrial grade HYPOCRITES of the left kept saying that Craig broke "the law" (pleading guilty to "disturbing the peace"--like a traffic ticket). Craig of course, killed no one, and left no one to die alone in a watery grave. Then there are those demands for Republicans to resign because of adultery (which no one doubts Kennedy committed on multiple occasions--beyond leaving a Young girl to die after he drove her off of a bridge).
Nope. For any of you who expected a "respectful" obituary of Ted Kennedy from me as a "lion of the Senate", you are not going to get it. I can't get past that image of a dead girl floating in that silent, underwater car as Ted Kennedy sought to save his own skin, and political career. I can feel sorry for those who loved Ted Kennedy, and their loss. I can't feel any respect for the man himself.
My image of Ted Kennedy was best illustrated by Don Imus, who used to have a regular radio skit about Kennedy. He would supposedly have Ted Kennedy as a "guest" on this program, to give some kind of a presentation. A Kennedy imitator would then start speaking. When the speaker said a word connected in any way with "water", there would be a screech of brakes and a sound of a car crashing through a barrier. Then you would only here "glug, gllug, glug"), along with the Kennedy voice cursing Imus.
Imus got it right. The voters of Massachusetts got it wrong. It is an indictment of them that they kept electing this man to the United States Senate.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
President Obama: Will He Resign If We Are Attacked Again?
Remember 9/11? Remember the 9/11 Commission, and all of that stuff about how we had restricted the CIA too much, and needed to beef up our intelligence?
Well, I never thought much of the 9/11 Commission. I thought it too much a "blame game", and too much of a committee approach to "solutions" (camel: horse designed by committee). I never had any doubt about what caused 9/11: COMPLACENCY.
During the Clinton Administration, the CIA became pretty much useless. Yes, this was because of leftist attacks upon, and restrictions upon, the CIA since the Vietnam War. But I never thought it was useful to "blame" Clinton, or even those politicians that had hamstrung the CIA. They were wrong, but so were all of us in our complacency. It looked like we could afford a "nice" CIA--that we could afford to avoid getting our hands dirty. The Soviet Union was no more. We were not at war (apparently, although al-Qaida did not look at it that way). Thus, 9/11 happened because the "other side" was at war, while we were not. In that situation, I though "blame" was not appropriate--any more than "blame" was really appropriate for Pearl Harbor.
That is not the case now. We have already been attacked. We know we NEED INTELLIGENCE, and can't always play "fair" and "nice" to get it. We may have to deal with unsavory people, and get information from vicious killers out to kill us. I BLAME you if you are complacent now.
That means I BLAME President Obama for his actions weakening the CIA. See entries over the past few days. I don't believe there is any excuse, NOW, for the insistence that we give TERRORISTS (foreign kind) Constitutional rights, to the extent of reading Miranda "rights" to enemies picked up on foreign battle fields. I don't believe in being "fair" to terrorists, or that our CIA people should be more worried about being stabbed in the back by their own government t (plus the mainstream media and leftists like those ACLU people that have discovered the names of CIA agents and shown PHOTOGRAPHS to terrorists). In short, I don't believe we should go back to the pre-9/11 COMPLACENT attitude.
What if we are attacked again by terrorists, in some substantial way? For that matter, what if CIA agents started getting killed around the world? In short, what if terrorists succeed in attacking Americans because our intelligence is inadequate (automatic if we get attacked), or there are leaks?
Would we need a "Commission"? Nope. You might never be able to "prove" that a stronger CIA would have prevented the attack(s). Doesn't matter. At that point, I will BLAME PRESIDENT OBAMA. He can't claim ignorance. He is weakening our intelligence. Are we LESS SAFE now than 9 months ago? I have no doubt that we are less safe now, and getting less safe all of the time.
What does this mean if we are attacked again? What does it mean when I say Obama has to accept the BLAME for any such attack (Harry Truman)? It means that, in the event of a substantially successful attack--really anywhere in the world--PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN OR BE IMPEACHED. This blog has a policy of asserting things in foresight, rather than hindsight, and therefore I am telling you exactly where I stand in the event we are unable to stop a terrorist attack on the U.S., or on a number of U.S. citizens.
Nope. It is not like President Obama has done his best, and can't be held responsible for all breaches of security. That is the problem. President Obama has done his best to WEAKEN our intelligence, and has to accept the consequences. I know he claims he is not weakening our security. Well, I think he is in a position of GUARANTEEING that. If we avoid attack, fine. That did not stop the mainstream media (hypocrites all) from claiming that we were "less safe", even though the Bush Administration prevented any further successful attacks. But--hypocrites in the mainstream media aside--results count. If we are not successfully attacked, then Obama has a case that he has not weakened our security. I would still argue complacency is dangerous, but results matter. However, if we are successfully attacked, PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN.
What is a "successful attack"? Obviously, it is not a single person being shot, or a truck bomb blowing up pretty much harmlessly. No CIA could stop those kinds of attacks completely, if nuts want to go berserk. But, as far as I am concerned, President Obama is on the hook, PERSONALLY, for any substantial terrorist attack on the United States or its citizens--especially by foreign terrorists. I will let you know if/when such an attack occurs, although I don't expect you will need me to tell you if such an attack occurs. In such event, I will call upon President Obama to RESIGN. I warn both he and you of than it advance. .
Well, I never thought much of the 9/11 Commission. I thought it too much a "blame game", and too much of a committee approach to "solutions" (camel: horse designed by committee). I never had any doubt about what caused 9/11: COMPLACENCY.
During the Clinton Administration, the CIA became pretty much useless. Yes, this was because of leftist attacks upon, and restrictions upon, the CIA since the Vietnam War. But I never thought it was useful to "blame" Clinton, or even those politicians that had hamstrung the CIA. They were wrong, but so were all of us in our complacency. It looked like we could afford a "nice" CIA--that we could afford to avoid getting our hands dirty. The Soviet Union was no more. We were not at war (apparently, although al-Qaida did not look at it that way). Thus, 9/11 happened because the "other side" was at war, while we were not. In that situation, I though "blame" was not appropriate--any more than "blame" was really appropriate for Pearl Harbor.
That is not the case now. We have already been attacked. We know we NEED INTELLIGENCE, and can't always play "fair" and "nice" to get it. We may have to deal with unsavory people, and get information from vicious killers out to kill us. I BLAME you if you are complacent now.
That means I BLAME President Obama for his actions weakening the CIA. See entries over the past few days. I don't believe there is any excuse, NOW, for the insistence that we give TERRORISTS (foreign kind) Constitutional rights, to the extent of reading Miranda "rights" to enemies picked up on foreign battle fields. I don't believe in being "fair" to terrorists, or that our CIA people should be more worried about being stabbed in the back by their own government t (plus the mainstream media and leftists like those ACLU people that have discovered the names of CIA agents and shown PHOTOGRAPHS to terrorists). In short, I don't believe we should go back to the pre-9/11 COMPLACENT attitude.
What if we are attacked again by terrorists, in some substantial way? For that matter, what if CIA agents started getting killed around the world? In short, what if terrorists succeed in attacking Americans because our intelligence is inadequate (automatic if we get attacked), or there are leaks?
Would we need a "Commission"? Nope. You might never be able to "prove" that a stronger CIA would have prevented the attack(s). Doesn't matter. At that point, I will BLAME PRESIDENT OBAMA. He can't claim ignorance. He is weakening our intelligence. Are we LESS SAFE now than 9 months ago? I have no doubt that we are less safe now, and getting less safe all of the time.
What does this mean if we are attacked again? What does it mean when I say Obama has to accept the BLAME for any such attack (Harry Truman)? It means that, in the event of a substantially successful attack--really anywhere in the world--PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN OR BE IMPEACHED. This blog has a policy of asserting things in foresight, rather than hindsight, and therefore I am telling you exactly where I stand in the event we are unable to stop a terrorist attack on the U.S., or on a number of U.S. citizens.
Nope. It is not like President Obama has done his best, and can't be held responsible for all breaches of security. That is the problem. President Obama has done his best to WEAKEN our intelligence, and has to accept the consequences. I know he claims he is not weakening our security. Well, I think he is in a position of GUARANTEEING that. If we avoid attack, fine. That did not stop the mainstream media (hypocrites all) from claiming that we were "less safe", even though the Bush Administration prevented any further successful attacks. But--hypocrites in the mainstream media aside--results count. If we are not successfully attacked, then Obama has a case that he has not weakened our security. I would still argue complacency is dangerous, but results matter. However, if we are successfully attacked, PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN.
What is a "successful attack"? Obviously, it is not a single person being shot, or a truck bomb blowing up pretty much harmlessly. No CIA could stop those kinds of attacks completely, if nuts want to go berserk. But, as far as I am concerned, President Obama is on the hook, PERSONALLY, for any substantial terrorist attack on the United States or its citizens--especially by foreign terrorists. I will let you know if/when such an attack occurs, although I don't expect you will need me to tell you if such an attack occurs. In such event, I will call upon President Obama to RESIGN. I warn both he and you of than it advance. .
CIA: Looking Backward, Not Forward, To Make Sure Terrorists and Mainstream Media Have Pro-Terrorist Propaganda to Spread (President as Liar)
Harry Truman: "The buck stops here."
President Barack Obama (in pathological liar mode, channelling Pontius Pilate--probably getting the idea from Hillary Clinton refusing to channel Bill Clinton):
"I know I said that we needed to look forward, and not back, specifically in discussing allegations of alleged misconduct by the previous Administration and the CIA. However, the Attorney General (who I appointed; who is my employee; and who is directly under my authority's and can be fired by me) has his job to do. I can't interfere with that. It is totally out of my control, and does not mean I am a pathological liar."
Okay. I took some liberties with the actual words that President Obama said, but does not the above pretty well summarize what Obama said in trying to reconcile what he had previously said with the actions of Attorney General Holder? In case you were unaware, Holder appointed a special prosecutor yesterday to persecute the CIA--oops! sorry. I mean "investigate" the actions of CIA personnel and CIA contractors) concerning incidents described in a 2004 report of the Inspector General on CIA "harsh" interrogations after 9/11.
Nope. I am not making this up. I wish I were. Talk about "looking backward"!!!!! The Justice Department is appointing a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to look into something already investigated FIVE YEARS AGO, and CLOSED. In the process, terrorists get to learn all about our interrogation techniques, and get all of this propaganda handed them on a platter (and by our anti-American mainstream media, such as YAHOO NEWS).
Did a lot of terrorists die under suspicious circumstances? Weer they beheaded, like they do to their captives? Did we kill their children? Did we physically injure these people involved in terror acts against this country, including the killing of 3,000 people, and who had knowledge of further planned terror acts?
Nope. The CIA ALLEGEDLY fired off a gun in a Mock execution" (good). The CIA ALLEGEDLY threatened to kill one terrorist's children IF there were another attack on the U.S. A little harsh, but hardly "torture" (a word that is being devalued). Again, it is not something I would morally condemn--much less PROSECUTE as illegal. No children were actually killed.
I take that last statement back. OBAMA HAS KILLED INNOCENT CHILDREN OF TERRORISTS, AND PROBABLY SOME NON_TERRORISTS. You know those predator drones? Right, like the one that killed that Talilban leader, which the Obama Administration bragged about. Those attacks from the air are indiscriminate. They necessarily kill innocent people, including CHILDREN. You can't get around it. That is war. There is collateral damage. Of course, the anti-American, despicable Associated Press does not know this, because they made a big deal, FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT, about alleged U.S. killing of civilians from the air in the KOREAN WAR. But most sane people (does not apply to any "Journalist" working for the despicable AP) know that there is collateral damage in war.
Still, Obama has KILLED CHILDREN in air attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These CIA interrogators KILLED NO ONE. They INJURED NO ONE (seriously). They were doing their best to prevent further attacks on the United States. FDR did the same thing in ILLEGALLY (the Supreme Court later so held) "detaining" Japanese AMERICANS in detention camps during World War II. You can argue over what interrogation techniques should be used. To even "investigate" criminal prosecution, YEARS AFTER THE FACT, is absurd. It is criminal in itself. It is anti-American. It risks intimidating CIA personnel, acting in good faith, from doing what they need to do to keep this country safe.
Read my prophetic entry yesterday, when I talked about CBS News trying to "spin" the initial rumblings of this "news" by suggesting that Obama could be simply "reviewing" this matter in order to IMPLEMENT his promise to "look forward, and not backward".
I ask you. Who was right, and who was wrong? In a single day, I was PROVEN right, and CBS News PROVEN WRONG. What else is new? That is why this blog has an accuracy rating of 99.8%.
But might not CBS still be partially right? Might not President Obama merely be letting his Justice Department put on a show, and then conclude--with great fanfare and Obama rhetoric about how our system has "worked"--that no criminal prosecution is warranted (even though MISTAKES WERE MADE i the previous Administration)?
Oh, I don't doubt that this is intended to be a distraction to take the heat off of Obama on health care, and otherwise. And I have no doubt that in the end, Obama's Justice Department will act in a politically expedient manner. If it looks to be politically disastrous to actually bring any criminal charges, they won't be brought.
However, it just won't wash. This "investigation" was CLOSED. To reopen it after all of these years sends a message to CIA personnel, and people hired by the CIA--even as contractors or informants--that CIA activities are constantly subject to politically inspired "investigation"--even YEARS after the fact. The mere appointing of a "special prosecutor" has the power to DESTROY the CIA. CIA agents have been revealed. There operations have been revealed--all in public. There was no excuse to ever release this 2004 report.
Nope The whole thing is a disaster, and Obama cannot turn it into a "triumph" by later "spin" about how everything turned out all right (in conjunction with big publicity about how CIA personnel will not be prosecuted for acting for this country). CIA personnel are being placed under the gun by their own government, and that fact cannot be concealed or papered over by later political "cover".
P.S. I apologize to the memory of Pontius Pilate. He, too, acted through political expediency and political agenda when the put the fate of Jesus Christ in the hands of a vote of the mob. However, at least poor Pontius TRIED. He washed his hands of Crhist, as Obama has publicly washed his hands of the decisions of his Justice Department, but Pilate TRIED to do the right thing. Pathological liar Obama has no clue what the right thing is, beyond a dim feeling that it is the LEFTIST thing, and a stronger feeling that it is whatever SOUNDS GOOD at the time.
President Barack Obama (in pathological liar mode, channelling Pontius Pilate--probably getting the idea from Hillary Clinton refusing to channel Bill Clinton):
"I know I said that we needed to look forward, and not back, specifically in discussing allegations of alleged misconduct by the previous Administration and the CIA. However, the Attorney General (who I appointed; who is my employee; and who is directly under my authority's and can be fired by me) has his job to do. I can't interfere with that. It is totally out of my control, and does not mean I am a pathological liar."
Okay. I took some liberties with the actual words that President Obama said, but does not the above pretty well summarize what Obama said in trying to reconcile what he had previously said with the actions of Attorney General Holder? In case you were unaware, Holder appointed a special prosecutor yesterday to persecute the CIA--oops! sorry. I mean "investigate" the actions of CIA personnel and CIA contractors) concerning incidents described in a 2004 report of the Inspector General on CIA "harsh" interrogations after 9/11.
Nope. I am not making this up. I wish I were. Talk about "looking backward"!!!!! The Justice Department is appointing a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to look into something already investigated FIVE YEARS AGO, and CLOSED. In the process, terrorists get to learn all about our interrogation techniques, and get all of this propaganda handed them on a platter (and by our anti-American mainstream media, such as YAHOO NEWS).
Did a lot of terrorists die under suspicious circumstances? Weer they beheaded, like they do to their captives? Did we kill their children? Did we physically injure these people involved in terror acts against this country, including the killing of 3,000 people, and who had knowledge of further planned terror acts?
Nope. The CIA ALLEGEDLY fired off a gun in a Mock execution" (good). The CIA ALLEGEDLY threatened to kill one terrorist's children IF there were another attack on the U.S. A little harsh, but hardly "torture" (a word that is being devalued). Again, it is not something I would morally condemn--much less PROSECUTE as illegal. No children were actually killed.
I take that last statement back. OBAMA HAS KILLED INNOCENT CHILDREN OF TERRORISTS, AND PROBABLY SOME NON_TERRORISTS. You know those predator drones? Right, like the one that killed that Talilban leader, which the Obama Administration bragged about. Those attacks from the air are indiscriminate. They necessarily kill innocent people, including CHILDREN. You can't get around it. That is war. There is collateral damage. Of course, the anti-American, despicable Associated Press does not know this, because they made a big deal, FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT, about alleged U.S. killing of civilians from the air in the KOREAN WAR. But most sane people (does not apply to any "Journalist" working for the despicable AP) know that there is collateral damage in war.
Still, Obama has KILLED CHILDREN in air attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These CIA interrogators KILLED NO ONE. They INJURED NO ONE (seriously). They were doing their best to prevent further attacks on the United States. FDR did the same thing in ILLEGALLY (the Supreme Court later so held) "detaining" Japanese AMERICANS in detention camps during World War II. You can argue over what interrogation techniques should be used. To even "investigate" criminal prosecution, YEARS AFTER THE FACT, is absurd. It is criminal in itself. It is anti-American. It risks intimidating CIA personnel, acting in good faith, from doing what they need to do to keep this country safe.
Read my prophetic entry yesterday, when I talked about CBS News trying to "spin" the initial rumblings of this "news" by suggesting that Obama could be simply "reviewing" this matter in order to IMPLEMENT his promise to "look forward, and not backward".
I ask you. Who was right, and who was wrong? In a single day, I was PROVEN right, and CBS News PROVEN WRONG. What else is new? That is why this blog has an accuracy rating of 99.8%.
But might not CBS still be partially right? Might not President Obama merely be letting his Justice Department put on a show, and then conclude--with great fanfare and Obama rhetoric about how our system has "worked"--that no criminal prosecution is warranted (even though MISTAKES WERE MADE i the previous Administration)?
Oh, I don't doubt that this is intended to be a distraction to take the heat off of Obama on health care, and otherwise. And I have no doubt that in the end, Obama's Justice Department will act in a politically expedient manner. If it looks to be politically disastrous to actually bring any criminal charges, they won't be brought.
However, it just won't wash. This "investigation" was CLOSED. To reopen it after all of these years sends a message to CIA personnel, and people hired by the CIA--even as contractors or informants--that CIA activities are constantly subject to politically inspired "investigation"--even YEARS after the fact. The mere appointing of a "special prosecutor" has the power to DESTROY the CIA. CIA agents have been revealed. There operations have been revealed--all in public. There was no excuse to ever release this 2004 report.
Nope The whole thing is a disaster, and Obama cannot turn it into a "triumph" by later "spin" about how everything turned out all right (in conjunction with big publicity about how CIA personnel will not be prosecuted for acting for this country). CIA personnel are being placed under the gun by their own government, and that fact cannot be concealed or papered over by later political "cover".
P.S. I apologize to the memory of Pontius Pilate. He, too, acted through political expediency and political agenda when the put the fate of Jesus Christ in the hands of a vote of the mob. However, at least poor Pontius TRIED. He washed his hands of Crhist, as Obama has publicly washed his hands of the decisions of his Justice Department, but Pilate TRIED to do the right thing. Pathological liar Obama has no clue what the right thing is, beyond a dim feeling that it is the LEFTIST thing, and a stronger feeling that it is whatever SOUNDS GOOD at the time.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Stock Price Bubble. Oil/Commodity Price Bubble. The Stupidest People on Earth
You don't really have to take my word for the people on Wall Street being the Stupidest People on Earth. They convict themselves.
We have BOTH the stock market and oil reaching new 2009 highs. That is IMPOSSIBLE--that is, it is impossible for one or the other groups of traders not to be insanely wrong. In fact, they are both wrong. But the idea that oil can go into a price bubble based on expected runaway inflaton, and the collapse of the dollar, while stocks rise in the expectation of an IMPROVING economy, is an internally contradictory idea. If we are going to have runaway inflation, and high interest rates, the economy is going to COLLAPSE again. These (Wall Street and commodity traders) truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
Actualy, as this blog has told you, the rise in oil and the stock market is UNRELATED to the econmy, except tot the extent that minor developments in the economy may be used to HYPE the trading the computer gamers on Wall Street are manipulating. This is all MOMENTUM trading. The fact that it is insane to have momentum trading based on cmpletely contradictory hype (as between oil and stocks) makes no difference to the Stupidest People on Earth. The oil price alone, if it continues up in this price bubble, will SHUT DOWN the economy.
As this blog has correctly informed you, the economy has, indeed, "stabilized"--for now. That is , it is no longer getting substantially worse. However, neither is it getting substantially better. One of last week's news items was that unemployment in California was 11.9%. It is crazy for stocks to be trading as if "recovery" has already occurred when we are still bumping along the bottom, with alternationg "good" (relatively) and "bad" (relatively) news. Right now the momentum traders on Wall Street are hyping every bit of "good" news, and ignoring every bit of bad news. The bubble will brust, in both stock prices and the price of oil. If history is any guide, the bubble will brust by the end of September.
This blog previously told you when to invest in this markte, if you are a trader who felt you could not stand to wait for the big drop. I told you, in that case, to invest when the S & P 500 last went under 900. I was right, even though I (correctly) thought stocks were stil toward the top of their "real" range at that point. But you are one of the Stupidest People on Earth if you invest in stocks, as a trader (instead of 401 (k) dollar averager), with the S & P 500 above `1000.
Now if stocks do not decline more than 2l0% by the end of September (or at least be in a move that will extend that far), I will have been wrong about the timing of the bursting of the bubble. I don't think I am wrong about the bubble. But if I totally knew how to time these bubbles, I would be much richer than I am.
Still, if you invst in either stocks or oil now, you are proving yourself one of the Stupidest People on Earth.
We have BOTH the stock market and oil reaching new 2009 highs. That is IMPOSSIBLE--that is, it is impossible for one or the other groups of traders not to be insanely wrong. In fact, they are both wrong. But the idea that oil can go into a price bubble based on expected runaway inflaton, and the collapse of the dollar, while stocks rise in the expectation of an IMPROVING economy, is an internally contradictory idea. If we are going to have runaway inflation, and high interest rates, the economy is going to COLLAPSE again. These (Wall Street and commodity traders) truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
Actualy, as this blog has told you, the rise in oil and the stock market is UNRELATED to the econmy, except tot the extent that minor developments in the economy may be used to HYPE the trading the computer gamers on Wall Street are manipulating. This is all MOMENTUM trading. The fact that it is insane to have momentum trading based on cmpletely contradictory hype (as between oil and stocks) makes no difference to the Stupidest People on Earth. The oil price alone, if it continues up in this price bubble, will SHUT DOWN the economy.
As this blog has correctly informed you, the economy has, indeed, "stabilized"--for now. That is , it is no longer getting substantially worse. However, neither is it getting substantially better. One of last week's news items was that unemployment in California was 11.9%. It is crazy for stocks to be trading as if "recovery" has already occurred when we are still bumping along the bottom, with alternationg "good" (relatively) and "bad" (relatively) news. Right now the momentum traders on Wall Street are hyping every bit of "good" news, and ignoring every bit of bad news. The bubble will brust, in both stock prices and the price of oil. If history is any guide, the bubble will brust by the end of September.
This blog previously told you when to invest in this markte, if you are a trader who felt you could not stand to wait for the big drop. I told you, in that case, to invest when the S & P 500 last went under 900. I was right, even though I (correctly) thought stocks were stil toward the top of their "real" range at that point. But you are one of the Stupidest People on Earth if you invest in stocks, as a trader (instead of 401 (k) dollar averager), with the S & P 500 above `1000.
Now if stocks do not decline more than 2l0% by the end of September (or at least be in a move that will extend that far), I will have been wrong about the timing of the bursting of the bubble. I don't think I am wrong about the bubble. But if I totally knew how to time these bubbles, I would be much richer than I am.
Still, if you invst in either stocks or oil now, you are proving yourself one of the Stupidest People on Earth.
CIA and the Obama Administration: Anti-American Insanity? Going After the CIA People Trying to Protect Us Harader Than Against the Terrorists?
See last night's blog entry about the anti-American mainstream media, including Yahoo News and the despicable Associated Press.
Then look at today's headlines all over the mainstream media--including Yahoo News again--about a unit of the Obama justice Department that wants to REOPEN the investigation of CIA "prison abuse". There is evidently a big story in the New York Times today.
Why would anyone want to work for the CIA? Why would anyone now in the CIA be taking vigorous actions against terrorists? Your reward for good faith actions to protect this country is PERSECUTION. Yes, the left--aided by a nervous (see below) mainstream media--is again trying to take on the CIA. This is the very thing that led to 9/11 in the first place. We were more interested in restricting the CIA than in protecting the country from terrorists.
We have a President who has spent most of his time overseas APOLOGIZING for the United States of America.
We lhave a President who made no attempt to stop Scotland from releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, but who only reacted AFTER THE FACT--when the bombers reception in Libya made an absolute mockery of the supposed "compassion" behind the release.
We have a President who is more concerned about Guantanamo prisoners than about taking action to protect the country from terrorists (where the term "war on terror" is now prohibited).
I say above that this insanity is beginning to make the mainstream media nervous. I say that not because of what the anti-American AP, and Yahoo News, have reported. I say that not because of what the New York Times has reported. Much of the leftist mainstream media is still ready to be more on the side of the terrorists than on the side of this country. However, I heard the "spin" on CBS radio "news" this morning. Those people have obviously looked at the ratings for mainstream media "news", and at the reaction of people like me, and they are NERVOUS. They are nervous for both themselves, and for their guy, President Obama.
Thus, CBS radio took pains to suggest that these actions by the Department of Justice did not mean that anyone would be prosecuted. CBS went so far as to suggest that new "investigation" might give Obama an opportunity to CLEAR CIA officials, employees, and contractors from any possible prosecutions. CBS ("nervous" anyone?) even went so far as to suggest that Obama has said he wants to GO FORWARD, and not look back.
Did you wonder why I emphasized (all caps) the word "reopen" above? It is because that is the word used in the Yahoo News headline this morning. In other words, this matter was CLOSED. We were ready to "look forward, and not back." By REOPENING the investigation of a "host" of CIA "abuse" cases, the Obama Administration is clearly LOOKING BACK, and not forward. They are continuing to let CIA people know that they are AT RISK. You simply can't put the kind of "spin" on this that CBS tried this morning. Host", by the way, is not my word. It is the word used in the Yahoo headline.
Nope. As far as I am concerned, the Obama Administration has been proven GUILTY--guilty of what my headline accuses them. They are anti-American--more interested in prosecuting Americans who did nothing other than use their best efforts to protect this country from terrorist attack. Even if you think we should do things differently in the future, and think that some bad judgment was used, there is just no excuse for PERSECUTING CIA people year after year.
That is what CBS is nervous about. They know I am right on this. More importantly, they know that about 80% of the American people agree with me on this. Yes, the American people do want to "look forward, and not back". It is too bad that the mainstream media and the Obama Administration won't let that happen. But at least CBS is getting the message that this anti-American insanity is destroying both he mainstream media and the Obama Administration. You can't keep being more interested in putting out pro-terrorist propaganda than you are in keeping the Lockerbie bomber locked up--not, that is, and keep any credibility with the American people.
Attacking the CIA is a dangerous leftist parlor game, indulged in by that unholy trio of leftist Democrats, the mainstream media and the Obama Administration, that needs to STOP
Then look at today's headlines all over the mainstream media--including Yahoo News again--about a unit of the Obama justice Department that wants to REOPEN the investigation of CIA "prison abuse". There is evidently a big story in the New York Times today.
Why would anyone want to work for the CIA? Why would anyone now in the CIA be taking vigorous actions against terrorists? Your reward for good faith actions to protect this country is PERSECUTION. Yes, the left--aided by a nervous (see below) mainstream media--is again trying to take on the CIA. This is the very thing that led to 9/11 in the first place. We were more interested in restricting the CIA than in protecting the country from terrorists.
We have a President who has spent most of his time overseas APOLOGIZING for the United States of America.
We lhave a President who made no attempt to stop Scotland from releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, but who only reacted AFTER THE FACT--when the bombers reception in Libya made an absolute mockery of the supposed "compassion" behind the release.
We have a President who is more concerned about Guantanamo prisoners than about taking action to protect the country from terrorists (where the term "war on terror" is now prohibited).
I say above that this insanity is beginning to make the mainstream media nervous. I say that not because of what the anti-American AP, and Yahoo News, have reported. I say that not because of what the New York Times has reported. Much of the leftist mainstream media is still ready to be more on the side of the terrorists than on the side of this country. However, I heard the "spin" on CBS radio "news" this morning. Those people have obviously looked at the ratings for mainstream media "news", and at the reaction of people like me, and they are NERVOUS. They are nervous for both themselves, and for their guy, President Obama.
Thus, CBS radio took pains to suggest that these actions by the Department of Justice did not mean that anyone would be prosecuted. CBS went so far as to suggest that new "investigation" might give Obama an opportunity to CLEAR CIA officials, employees, and contractors from any possible prosecutions. CBS ("nervous" anyone?) even went so far as to suggest that Obama has said he wants to GO FORWARD, and not look back.
Did you wonder why I emphasized (all caps) the word "reopen" above? It is because that is the word used in the Yahoo News headline this morning. In other words, this matter was CLOSED. We were ready to "look forward, and not back." By REOPENING the investigation of a "host" of CIA "abuse" cases, the Obama Administration is clearly LOOKING BACK, and not forward. They are continuing to let CIA people know that they are AT RISK. You simply can't put the kind of "spin" on this that CBS tried this morning. Host", by the way, is not my word. It is the word used in the Yahoo headline.
Nope. As far as I am concerned, the Obama Administration has been proven GUILTY--guilty of what my headline accuses them. They are anti-American--more interested in prosecuting Americans who did nothing other than use their best efforts to protect this country from terrorist attack. Even if you think we should do things differently in the future, and think that some bad judgment was used, there is just no excuse for PERSECUTING CIA people year after year.
That is what CBS is nervous about. They know I am right on this. More importantly, they know that about 80% of the American people agree with me on this. Yes, the American people do want to "look forward, and not back". It is too bad that the mainstream media and the Obama Administration won't let that happen. But at least CBS is getting the message that this anti-American insanity is destroying both he mainstream media and the Obama Administration. You can't keep being more interested in putting out pro-terrorist propaganda than you are in keeping the Lockerbie bomber locked up--not, that is, and keep any credibility with the American people.
Attacking the CIA is a dangerous leftist parlor game, indulged in by that unholy trio of leftist Democrats, the mainstream media and the Obama Administration, that needs to STOP
Sunday, August 23, 2009
President Obama: Oil Driller, Hypocrite, and Comic Genius (Ventriloquist's Dummy for George Soros?); Environmental Hypocrits More Lefitst Than "Envi
Last word in hehadline is "environmental". Yep. This is another headline for you to think about what will be in the actual entry, which will appear (I hope) tomorrow morning. I hope you have been thinking about the entry without a headline from last week. There will eventually be an entry. Just haven't gotten to it in final form. Will reduce this heading enough to get within space available, along with posting tomorrow's actual entry
CIA Under Fire as World Gets More Dangerous: Despicable Associated Press, and Rest of Mainstream Media, in Anti-American Mode
Have you wondered why the official name of the AP is the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press"? Well, you can consult the archives of this blog. But there was another example this afternoon, showing why Yahoo News might be regarded as anti-American as well by featuring the anti-American propaganda of the AP.
One of those AP stories featured on the Yahoo News welcome screen this afternoon had a headline something like this: "CIA Papers Show Interrogations Used Mock Executions".
So what--unless you are the anti-American AP, or mainstream media or another leftist nut. These anti-American, anti-CIA stories now date back almost a DECADE, to the time right after 9/11. Yep. The AP, mainstream media, many leftists, and many Democratic politician's are STILL persecuting people in the CIA for actions taken to protect this country after 9/11, by people doing the best they knew how--people who had this country more at heart than ANY of the people I have observed att he despicable AP.
Are "mock executions" torture? If you think so (you FOOL you!!!!), then I have a curse for you. May you be the target of one of those reality TV shows that creates what amounts to a sick practical joke. I actually kept watching one because I could not believe these people are not sued REGULARLY. I don't even remember the name of the show--blocked it out. But they put the poor girl who was the target of the show in MUCH worse than a "mock execution". They put here in the middle of a HORROR MOVIE (that is, convinced her she was in a real situation right out of a horror movie). Now that's torture (hot to mention watching these reality shows, which I avoid--unless I get sucked in by the horror of what I am seeing).
In short, I have no problem with the CIA getting information out of terrorists with "mock executions". I would be disappointed if they did not trly things like that. The terrorists, of course, use REAL beheadings. Do you wonder that I consider the despicable AP as anti-American. Even if you don't like lthis interrogation "technique", and I havce no problem with that opinion, it is insane to be trashing/persecuting people for bruising YOUR sensibilities 5-8 years after the fact. It puts the CIA at risk around the world, and is the kind of propaganda (propaganda can be true, and the best usually is, if it over-emphasizes the negative out of context) that our terrorist ENEMIES would. That is, they would spread it if the they were capable of it, and if the anti American AP were not already spreading tthis anti-American propaganda more widely and effectively than the terrorists ever could. All anti-American forces around the world have to do is pick up and amplify the stuff our mainstream media is putting out.
The despicable AP, and Yahoo News, should be ashamed. But these anti-American people have no shame.
P.S. If Nancy Pelosi can call American citizens "un-American" for merely exercising their right of free speech in criticizing Congress, I can call the anti-American AP "anti-American". There is also the fact that I am right about the AP, and Nancy Pelosi is wrong about her criticism of ordinary Americans doing nothing to make the world unsafe for Americans.
One of those AP stories featured on the Yahoo News welcome screen this afternoon had a headline something like this: "CIA Papers Show Interrogations Used Mock Executions".
So what--unless you are the anti-American AP, or mainstream media or another leftist nut. These anti-American, anti-CIA stories now date back almost a DECADE, to the time right after 9/11. Yep. The AP, mainstream media, many leftists, and many Democratic politician's are STILL persecuting people in the CIA for actions taken to protect this country after 9/11, by people doing the best they knew how--people who had this country more at heart than ANY of the people I have observed att he despicable AP.
Are "mock executions" torture? If you think so (you FOOL you!!!!), then I have a curse for you. May you be the target of one of those reality TV shows that creates what amounts to a sick practical joke. I actually kept watching one because I could not believe these people are not sued REGULARLY. I don't even remember the name of the show--blocked it out. But they put the poor girl who was the target of the show in MUCH worse than a "mock execution". They put here in the middle of a HORROR MOVIE (that is, convinced her she was in a real situation right out of a horror movie). Now that's torture (hot to mention watching these reality shows, which I avoid--unless I get sucked in by the horror of what I am seeing).
In short, I have no problem with the CIA getting information out of terrorists with "mock executions". I would be disappointed if they did not trly things like that. The terrorists, of course, use REAL beheadings. Do you wonder that I consider the despicable AP as anti-American. Even if you don't like lthis interrogation "technique", and I havce no problem with that opinion, it is insane to be trashing/persecuting people for bruising YOUR sensibilities 5-8 years after the fact. It puts the CIA at risk around the world, and is the kind of propaganda (propaganda can be true, and the best usually is, if it over-emphasizes the negative out of context) that our terrorist ENEMIES would. That is, they would spread it if the they were capable of it, and if the anti American AP were not already spreading tthis anti-American propaganda more widely and effectively than the terrorists ever could. All anti-American forces around the world have to do is pick up and amplify the stuff our mainstream media is putting out.
The despicable AP, and Yahoo News, should be ashamed. But these anti-American people have no shame.
P.S. If Nancy Pelosi can call American citizens "un-American" for merely exercising their right of free speech in criticizing Congress, I can call the anti-American AP "anti-American". There is also the fact that I am right about the AP, and Nancy Pelosi is wrong about her criticism of ordinary Americans doing nothing to make the world unsafe for Americans.
Social Security, Medicare and the Despicable Associated lPress: Scaring Seniors With Lies (When They Should Be Scared for the Correct Reasons)
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – Sun Aug 23, 9:34 am ET
WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly."
As an exercise, you might try and discover the LIES by the "Anti-American Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference), as revealed in the above excerpt from the present AP story featured on Yahoo News (making liars out of Yahoo), before I highlight the lies for you. No, you don't need any outside research or knowledge. The lies are revealed by the AP itself--so bad that it exposes itself as a nest of LIARS in a mere three paragraphs. It is a talent peculiarly possessed by such otherwise untalented people.
"....since automatic increases were adopted in 1975" (see end of second paragraph): Is that a LIE? Don't take my word for it. Read the whole excerpt above, and you will discover that the despicable (stupid) AP calls itself a LIAR. "Automatic increases" were NOT instituted in 1975, as the AP points out elsewhere. A cost of living ADJUSTMENT was adopted in 1975. Well, did not Congress expect the cost of living to go UP every year? They may have anticipated that would be the usual case, but the helpful AP (helpful in pointing out its own lies) points out that Congress ANTICIPATED the possibility of the cost of iving going DOWN by a provision that Social Security checks will never go DOWN (no matter how much DEFLATION might occur). Thus, it is certainly a LIE to say that Congress adopted "automatic increases" in 1975. The idea was to keep the payments the SAME, in purchasing power, every year (thereby avoiding Congress having to have those constant arguments over raising the benefits to keep up with inflation, as Congress still does--stupidly--with the minimum wage).
"Well," you say, "Skip is just being picky. For someone who has as many typos as Skip does, without correction--sometimes garbling entire lines when he doesn't even notice his fingers are on the wrong keys--why should Skip pick on the AP over this relatively minor "slip of the mind?" Wrong, bison breath. I was just getting warmed up. The whole AP/Yahoo Article is a LIE. That stupidity about "automatic increases" is just a minor lie supporting the Big Lie ("1984" terminology--appropriate for the Age of Obama).
The despicable AP itself says that Social Security payments will not go DOWN. Yet, the headline and the article assert that Social Security's payments will be "shrinking". "Seniors Face Shrinking Social Security Checks" screams the headline, and asserts the lead paragraph, and it is a LIE.
"Ah," you say (bison breath stupid as you are), "your last paragraph confused 'checks' with 'payments', and you are confusing 'benefits' with 'checks'. The AP explains that CHECKS will go down because 'many' people have their Medicare Drug Benefit premiums deducted from their Social Security benefit checks." Wrong again!!!! It is not ME that is confusing these things, but the LIARS at the despicable AP who are deliberately confusing those things.
The Medicare Drug Benefit Program and Social Security have NOTHING to do with one another (other than that both that program and the proposed new Federal "overhaul" of health care may end up endangering both Medicare and Social Security, and ultimately damaging seniors). What difference does it make if you have CHOSEN to pay for a SEPARATE benefit you are getting out of your Social Security checks? How is that different from people who may be paying as much, or MORE, for drugs outside of the Medicare programme? As to how the proposed new health care program will drive out private insurance, you might consider that my 86 year old woman had perfectly good drug coverage. However, she CHOSE to drop that coverage, and join the new program, because the government SUBSIDIZED the new program (making it seemingly cheaper). I don't know whether my mother is paying the premiums out of her Social Security check or not. So what. Those premiums are a SUBSTITUTE for paying what she was going to have to pay anyway, and have nothing to do with Social Security.
The Medicare Drug Benefit program :(disaster though it is), is supposed to provide a BENEFIT to seniors, making them BETTER OFF. Whether that is true or not (and if it is not, it merely shows you what you can expect with the proposed now health care "overhaul"). Seniors who do not pay that premium do not get that "benefit". It is simply a cost of living, like Medicare premiums themselves--or FOOD--to pay for needed drugs by means of insurance that you choose to pay for out of your Social Security check (which you might well do with other things you need, if the government would let you).
It is a "1984" style Big Lie, by the LIARS of the AP, to try to SCARE seniors by misrepresenting reality. Let me explain further, so that even you--the reader--can understand. Say that Social Security "checks" were going to go UP in January , because the cost of living had gone UP. Does that not mean that the actual purchasing power of those checks would be SHRINKING, because of those increased Medicare premiums ("for millions")? Of course it does. The "increase" was intended to keep seniors in the same place. The Medicare premiums are an entirely separate thing (like comparing apples and oranges), and any increased Medicare premiums (whether paid out of Social Security or not) must ALWAYS be regarded as "shrinking" the resources of seniors. Of course, those premiums PURCHASE a benefit, and the question is whether that benefit is worth it. But that has nothing to do with Social Security. Those premium's have to be paid from somewhere by seniors, or the drugs have to be paid for, and whether they are paid out of Social Security "checks' is IRRELEVANT to any economic reality--"reality", that is, to anyone outside of the LIARS at the AP, and in the rest of the mainstream media. This idea that what you pay for out of your Social Security check is somehow differently from what you pay for out of your "own pocket" is absurd. Paying "from your own pocket" is the SAME as paying out of your Social Security check.
Say the "cost of living" INCREASED .1%. Would the Social Security check still "shrink" for millions? Of course it would, because the increase ni premiums would probably exceed the (mostly fictional, because representing inflation) increase in the checks to cover the cost of living. Again, one has nothing to do with the other, and the (implied) assertion of the despicable AP that they have something to do with one another is the biggest LIE of all!!!!!
What is the purpose of misleading seniors this way, and SCARING them? Is the despicable AP secretly SABOTAGING President Obama? It can hardly do President Obama any good for seniors to be further (if correctly) scared about what the government is doing to them, and perhaps going to do to them. We know that the despicable AP is composed of anti-American leftists. See archives of this blog. Are there moles conservative moles in the AP, or is there another explanation?
I think there is another explanation for this AP article scaring seniors with LIES. I think the AP people are just STUPID leftists. They think government money is "free", and in the back of their minds they probably think that seniors are "entitled" to a cost of living increase, even though the cost of living did not increase. Will Obama and the Democrats propose some "bailout" for seniors here--using as an excuse that their social security checks are "shrinking"? Don't bet against it.
P.S. Remember that the despicable AP is deliberately confusing people by talking about SOCIAL SECURITY checks "shrinking" "for millions" because of MEDICARE (drug benefit) premiums (apples and oranges). I mention this again because I foulnd myself typing "Medicare" when I meant "Social Security", and vice versa. I tried to catch those slips, but I hope you will forgive me if the AP managed to confuse even me, who knew their game. Deductionis from Social Security checks ALWYAS "shrink" those checks, and the idea that a "cost of living" increase--or lack of one--has any significance as to the econoics of such "shrinkage" is a fantasy of the despicable AP.
WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly."
As an exercise, you might try and discover the LIES by the "Anti-American Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference), as revealed in the above excerpt from the present AP story featured on Yahoo News (making liars out of Yahoo), before I highlight the lies for you. No, you don't need any outside research or knowledge. The lies are revealed by the AP itself--so bad that it exposes itself as a nest of LIARS in a mere three paragraphs. It is a talent peculiarly possessed by such otherwise untalented people.
"....since automatic increases were adopted in 1975" (see end of second paragraph): Is that a LIE? Don't take my word for it. Read the whole excerpt above, and you will discover that the despicable (stupid) AP calls itself a LIAR. "Automatic increases" were NOT instituted in 1975, as the AP points out elsewhere. A cost of living ADJUSTMENT was adopted in 1975. Well, did not Congress expect the cost of living to go UP every year? They may have anticipated that would be the usual case, but the helpful AP (helpful in pointing out its own lies) points out that Congress ANTICIPATED the possibility of the cost of iving going DOWN by a provision that Social Security checks will never go DOWN (no matter how much DEFLATION might occur). Thus, it is certainly a LIE to say that Congress adopted "automatic increases" in 1975. The idea was to keep the payments the SAME, in purchasing power, every year (thereby avoiding Congress having to have those constant arguments over raising the benefits to keep up with inflation, as Congress still does--stupidly--with the minimum wage).
"Well," you say, "Skip is just being picky. For someone who has as many typos as Skip does, without correction--sometimes garbling entire lines when he doesn't even notice his fingers are on the wrong keys--why should Skip pick on the AP over this relatively minor "slip of the mind?" Wrong, bison breath. I was just getting warmed up. The whole AP/Yahoo Article is a LIE. That stupidity about "automatic increases" is just a minor lie supporting the Big Lie ("1984" terminology--appropriate for the Age of Obama).
The despicable AP itself says that Social Security payments will not go DOWN. Yet, the headline and the article assert that Social Security's payments will be "shrinking". "Seniors Face Shrinking Social Security Checks" screams the headline, and asserts the lead paragraph, and it is a LIE.
"Ah," you say (bison breath stupid as you are), "your last paragraph confused 'checks' with 'payments', and you are confusing 'benefits' with 'checks'. The AP explains that CHECKS will go down because 'many' people have their Medicare Drug Benefit premiums deducted from their Social Security benefit checks." Wrong again!!!! It is not ME that is confusing these things, but the LIARS at the despicable AP who are deliberately confusing those things.
The Medicare Drug Benefit Program and Social Security have NOTHING to do with one another (other than that both that program and the proposed new Federal "overhaul" of health care may end up endangering both Medicare and Social Security, and ultimately damaging seniors). What difference does it make if you have CHOSEN to pay for a SEPARATE benefit you are getting out of your Social Security checks? How is that different from people who may be paying as much, or MORE, for drugs outside of the Medicare programme? As to how the proposed new health care program will drive out private insurance, you might consider that my 86 year old woman had perfectly good drug coverage. However, she CHOSE to drop that coverage, and join the new program, because the government SUBSIDIZED the new program (making it seemingly cheaper). I don't know whether my mother is paying the premiums out of her Social Security check or not. So what. Those premiums are a SUBSTITUTE for paying what she was going to have to pay anyway, and have nothing to do with Social Security.
The Medicare Drug Benefit program :(disaster though it is), is supposed to provide a BENEFIT to seniors, making them BETTER OFF. Whether that is true or not (and if it is not, it merely shows you what you can expect with the proposed now health care "overhaul"). Seniors who do not pay that premium do not get that "benefit". It is simply a cost of living, like Medicare premiums themselves--or FOOD--to pay for needed drugs by means of insurance that you choose to pay for out of your Social Security check (which you might well do with other things you need, if the government would let you).
It is a "1984" style Big Lie, by the LIARS of the AP, to try to SCARE seniors by misrepresenting reality. Let me explain further, so that even you--the reader--can understand. Say that Social Security "checks" were going to go UP in January , because the cost of living had gone UP. Does that not mean that the actual purchasing power of those checks would be SHRINKING, because of those increased Medicare premiums ("for millions")? Of course it does. The "increase" was intended to keep seniors in the same place. The Medicare premiums are an entirely separate thing (like comparing apples and oranges), and any increased Medicare premiums (whether paid out of Social Security or not) must ALWAYS be regarded as "shrinking" the resources of seniors. Of course, those premiums PURCHASE a benefit, and the question is whether that benefit is worth it. But that has nothing to do with Social Security. Those premium's have to be paid from somewhere by seniors, or the drugs have to be paid for, and whether they are paid out of Social Security "checks' is IRRELEVANT to any economic reality--"reality", that is, to anyone outside of the LIARS at the AP, and in the rest of the mainstream media. This idea that what you pay for out of your Social Security check is somehow differently from what you pay for out of your "own pocket" is absurd. Paying "from your own pocket" is the SAME as paying out of your Social Security check.
Say the "cost of living" INCREASED .1%. Would the Social Security check still "shrink" for millions? Of course it would, because the increase ni premiums would probably exceed the (mostly fictional, because representing inflation) increase in the checks to cover the cost of living. Again, one has nothing to do with the other, and the (implied) assertion of the despicable AP that they have something to do with one another is the biggest LIE of all!!!!!
What is the purpose of misleading seniors this way, and SCARING them? Is the despicable AP secretly SABOTAGING President Obama? It can hardly do President Obama any good for seniors to be further (if correctly) scared about what the government is doing to them, and perhaps going to do to them. We know that the despicable AP is composed of anti-American leftists. See archives of this blog. Are there moles conservative moles in the AP, or is there another explanation?
I think there is another explanation for this AP article scaring seniors with LIES. I think the AP people are just STUPID leftists. They think government money is "free", and in the back of their minds they probably think that seniors are "entitled" to a cost of living increase, even though the cost of living did not increase. Will Obama and the Democrats propose some "bailout" for seniors here--using as an excuse that their social security checks are "shrinking"? Don't bet against it.
P.S. Remember that the despicable AP is deliberately confusing people by talking about SOCIAL SECURITY checks "shrinking" "for millions" because of MEDICARE (drug benefit) premiums (apples and oranges). I mention this again because I foulnd myself typing "Medicare" when I meant "Social Security", and vice versa. I tried to catch those slips, but I hope you will forgive me if the AP managed to confuse even me, who knew their game. Deductionis from Social Security checks ALWYAS "shrink" those checks, and the idea that a "cost of living" increase--or lack of one--has any significance as to the econoics of such "shrinkage" is a fantasy of the despicable AP.
Friday, August 21, 2009
New York Governor Patterson and the Leftist, "White Dominated" Media: Racists Together (Racial Harmony Moment Marred by Internal Bickering)
ALBANY - Gov. Paterson blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year's election - launching into an angry rant that left even some black Democrats shaking their heads.
"The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary," Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.
"We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said."
The above is from an article in the New York Daily News, linked on drudgereport.com (if you want to read entire article). Now the (sealed) fate of Governor Patterson is not important, but this racist attitude IS important. It is often reflected in the mainstream media attempt to categorize opposition to President Obama as "racist", when the primary racism in this country today is in people on the left. It is those people who see other people in this country totally in terms of race. What other definition is there of "racism" other than looking at people solely as members of a racial or ethnic group, and not as individuals?
let me do a logical syllogism for Governor Patterson, and you other racist leftists out there:
1. People are DEFINED by their race, which totally determines how they look at the world, and how they view other people.
2. There are more "whites" than "blacks" in New York (not just more "white dominated" media).
3. The "whites" in New York will, therefore, never vote for a black person, because we are not in a "post-racial" society.
Q.E.D. Governor Patterson NEVER had any chance, and it is not a matter of the "white dominated" media.
I know. I left out a few things. But it is NOT ME that left them out. It is Governor Patterson, and the leftist racists out there. Why did all of those "whites" out there vote agaist their racial "interest", and for President Obama? Why was the "white dominated" mainstream media so biased in favor of Obama, and why is it still biased in his favor?
Governor Patterson has FAILED in New York. That is not to mention that he "confessed" to multiple sexual misconduct--not to mention other misconduct with, I believe, drugs--when he became governor after Gov. Spitzer (white) resigned because of sexual misconduct (which also involved the governor consorting with a criminal prostitution ring). I think Governor Patterson may have confessed to things that Mark Sanford has not even gotten around to. I am not, of curse, sure about that.
Think of just how pernicious and racist it is to suggest that a black politician should not be subject to the same types of criticisms, and media "suggestions", as white politicians. Sarah Palin would be ecstatic if the "white dominated" media treated her as well as they have treated Governor Patterson. I say this last thing with total confidence, even though I have not followed exactly how the media has treated Gov. Patterson in New York. But he, at least, has not been subjected to (unfair) national ridicule, even when he has deserved it (and I am aware of times he has deserved it).
Nope. The reason we can't get to a "post-racial" society is the racists on the left. Most of the rest of us are ready and willing to go beyond race, and leave it behind as a defining characteristic of people. The left is holding society back with their reactionary, old fashioned racism.
"The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary," Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.
"We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said."
The above is from an article in the New York Daily News, linked on drudgereport.com (if you want to read entire article). Now the (sealed) fate of Governor Patterson is not important, but this racist attitude IS important. It is often reflected in the mainstream media attempt to categorize opposition to President Obama as "racist", when the primary racism in this country today is in people on the left. It is those people who see other people in this country totally in terms of race. What other definition is there of "racism" other than looking at people solely as members of a racial or ethnic group, and not as individuals?
let me do a logical syllogism for Governor Patterson, and you other racist leftists out there:
1. People are DEFINED by their race, which totally determines how they look at the world, and how they view other people.
2. There are more "whites" than "blacks" in New York (not just more "white dominated" media).
3. The "whites" in New York will, therefore, never vote for a black person, because we are not in a "post-racial" society.
Q.E.D. Governor Patterson NEVER had any chance, and it is not a matter of the "white dominated" media.
I know. I left out a few things. But it is NOT ME that left them out. It is Governor Patterson, and the leftist racists out there. Why did all of those "whites" out there vote agaist their racial "interest", and for President Obama? Why was the "white dominated" mainstream media so biased in favor of Obama, and why is it still biased in his favor?
Governor Patterson has FAILED in New York. That is not to mention that he "confessed" to multiple sexual misconduct--not to mention other misconduct with, I believe, drugs--when he became governor after Gov. Spitzer (white) resigned because of sexual misconduct (which also involved the governor consorting with a criminal prostitution ring). I think Governor Patterson may have confessed to things that Mark Sanford has not even gotten around to. I am not, of curse, sure about that.
Think of just how pernicious and racist it is to suggest that a black politician should not be subject to the same types of criticisms, and media "suggestions", as white politicians. Sarah Palin would be ecstatic if the "white dominated" media treated her as well as they have treated Governor Patterson. I say this last thing with total confidence, even though I have not followed exactly how the media has treated Gov. Patterson in New York. But he, at least, has not been subjected to (unfair) national ridicule, even when he has deserved it (and I am aware of times he has deserved it).
Nope. The reason we can't get to a "post-racial" society is the racists on the left. Most of the rest of us are ready and willing to go beyond race, and leave it behind as a defining characteristic of people. The left is holding society back with their reactionary, old fashioned racism.
Deficit Out of Control: Heatlh Care INSANITY? AARP Medicare Betrayal?
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday."
President Obama: "We cannot sustain deficits of this size without disaster." (a month or so ago)
Do you understand how absurd it is to suggest "paying for" an overhaul of health care? And the mainstream media keeps calling Sarah Palin dumb!!!!!!!!
If we can "find" any extra money for the Federal Government (major spending reduction anyone?), EVERY DIME of that money is needed to reduce the out-of-control deficit. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk of any such money being used to "pay for" health care overhaul. That is like a person with a $50,000 credit card debt using the income from a second job to "pay for" a new car. Dave Ramsey would foam at the mouth if someone suggested that was rational, and yet leftist Democrats, including Obama and the mainstream media, act like it is perfectly rational to talk about "paying" for health care overhaul without worrying about "paying for" the spending we are doing, and the debt we have already incurred.
Look at AARP, whose power hungry, money hungry management has been out supporting health care reform (the AARP management having been bouught off, in one way or another, to betray their members). How can we talk about spending ONE DIME on health care "reform" when the issue is whether we are going to be able to save Medicare and Social Seucrity. Obama even talks about using Medicare "savings" to finance health care "overhaul", when any such (doubtful) "savings" are desperately needed to save Medicare itself.
Bottom line: We can't afford a single dime to finance an "overhaul" of health care, and that applies to any "extra" money we may "find" (or "save" from other programs--"save" being a word of art only meaning that the deficit in such programs is less than it otherwise would have been, but still unsustainable large).
Yes, this entry again applies to linguine spined Republicans, and conservatives like Betsy McCoy, who seem inclined to spend money we don't have bribing the middle class. Nope. Neither Republicans or Democrats should be spending a single dime on a new Federal health care "entitlement". Seniors (I am one, at 62) should realize, as they mostly do in their bones, that every dime spent on a new health care overhaul is another nail in the coffin of Medicare and Social Security.
Yes, a central planning, Federal "overhaul" of health care is a bad idea, even if we could afford it (in the short run). Even if it were a good idea, in the abstract, that is irrelevant right now. We simply cannot afford it. Anyone who says otherwise is clinically INSANE.
Did I just call our President, a good part of our Congress, and our mainstream media clinically insane? Well, if the shoe (or glove) fits, wear it. The fundamental definition of almost all insanity is "disconnection from reality". I rest my case.
President Obama: "We cannot sustain deficits of this size without disaster." (a month or so ago)
Do you understand how absurd it is to suggest "paying for" an overhaul of health care? And the mainstream media keeps calling Sarah Palin dumb!!!!!!!!
If we can "find" any extra money for the Federal Government (major spending reduction anyone?), EVERY DIME of that money is needed to reduce the out-of-control deficit. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk of any such money being used to "pay for" health care overhaul. That is like a person with a $50,000 credit card debt using the income from a second job to "pay for" a new car. Dave Ramsey would foam at the mouth if someone suggested that was rational, and yet leftist Democrats, including Obama and the mainstream media, act like it is perfectly rational to talk about "paying" for health care overhaul without worrying about "paying for" the spending we are doing, and the debt we have already incurred.
Look at AARP, whose power hungry, money hungry management has been out supporting health care reform (the AARP management having been bouught off, in one way or another, to betray their members). How can we talk about spending ONE DIME on health care "reform" when the issue is whether we are going to be able to save Medicare and Social Seucrity. Obama even talks about using Medicare "savings" to finance health care "overhaul", when any such (doubtful) "savings" are desperately needed to save Medicare itself.
Bottom line: We can't afford a single dime to finance an "overhaul" of health care, and that applies to any "extra" money we may "find" (or "save" from other programs--"save" being a word of art only meaning that the deficit in such programs is less than it otherwise would have been, but still unsustainable large).
Yes, this entry again applies to linguine spined Republicans, and conservatives like Betsy McCoy, who seem inclined to spend money we don't have bribing the middle class. Nope. Neither Republicans or Democrats should be spending a single dime on a new Federal health care "entitlement". Seniors (I am one, at 62) should realize, as they mostly do in their bones, that every dime spent on a new health care overhaul is another nail in the coffin of Medicare and Social Security.
Yes, a central planning, Federal "overhaul" of health care is a bad idea, even if we could afford it (in the short run). Even if it were a good idea, in the abstract, that is irrelevant right now. We simply cannot afford it. Anyone who says otherwise is clinically INSANE.
Did I just call our President, a good part of our Congress, and our mainstream media clinically insane? Well, if the shoe (or glove) fits, wear it. The fundamental definition of almost all insanity is "disconnection from reality". I rest my case.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Solar Power (Not Much Improved Since 1950), "Global "warming", and Red Skelton: Rotating Solar Houses (a 1950 "IBMer idea?)
Did you think that "solar power" (passive or active) was a new thing? Do you believe that environmental fanaticism is a new thing--environmentalists only becoming fanatic because of the (manufactured, false) "crisis" of man-made "global warming"? Think again.
Go all of the way back to `1950, now about SIXTY years ago. The movie was "The Yellow Cab Man" (funny in a way movies now generally aren't--rating 76 out of 100). A substantial plot element in the movie was a "home show" rotating solar house. I am not making this up. The movie explained a "rotating solar house" as a house rotated by a motor in such a way as to keep properly oriented to the sun ("move with the sun" was the movie description) to provide maximum energy efficiency.
Doesn't this sound like an idea that a house builder today might come up with, for the sole purpose of getting a Federal subsidy? You can well imagine good ol' boy economic fascist T. Boone Pickens pushing for subdivisions of "rotating" solar houses, or at least some more plausible variation of the idea. The concept is funnier now, in this era of environmental lunacy, than it was in 1950 (the movie was making fun of the idea then). Nope, I don't know if any "rotating solar houses" were actually built, since even I was only three years old in 1950.
Doesn't matter whether any such ridiculous houses were built, does it? Of course not. The point is that people (primarily environmentalists?) were talking about solar houses in 1950. In some sixty years since, solar power has still not become economic. Without Federal subsidies (taxpayer money to support an industry that has essentially failed for sixty years) , the industry would still not exist--except as a curiosity and in small niches. Yes, we are SLIGHTLY better able to produce active solar power now, while the idea was probably mainly passive in 1950. It is still not economic, or the industry would not need taxpayer subsidies to survive.
Yes, I was tickled by the "rotating solar house". It raised fanciful images in my minds of houses that not only change orientation with regard to the sun, but TRAVEL with the sun (flying house trailers?). This is fanciful because the sun does not travel, but the Earth rotates some 25,000 miles in a single day.
What is serious about this are two things:
1. Think of how much it DISTORTS the allocation of resources--not to mention increases in the deficit we can't afford--to make a central planning decision that we need to develop solar power, instead of other alternatives. Sixty years of failure (basically) mean nothing to central planners with a political agenda. Yes, it is entirely possible that we will have a breakthrough in solar power i the next decade, but the last sixty years show that we may not have such a breakthrough. Further, subsidizing UNECONOMIC solar power systems does NOT increase the likelihood that ECONOMIC solar power will be developed (which requires breakthroughs in technologythat would make a fortune without any Federal subsidy). That is the point. Economic solar power dos not need a subsidy. Uneconomic solar power does not deserve one.
2. It has always ben obvious that leftists in general, and "environmental" leftists in particular (who often use "environmental" issues like "global warming" as merely an excuse for a Federal Government takeover of the economy), have ALWAYS wanted to CONTROL our lives, and have ALWAYS wanted the very things they say they want now because of "global warming". That is what makes people like me so angry about "global warming". It is a fraud being used for political purposes. Its proponents could care less aboutt he "science". They want this stuff anyway. People who have lived as long as I have have seen various EXCUSES for leftist action in the name of environmental "crisis". From "global cooling" in 1970 environmental speak to scares over DDT and other pesticides, the left has tried to get control by cynical USE of the "environment. Yes, clean water and air are good things, but the ultimate goal of the left has been CONTROL rather than clean air and water. This absurdity about "greenhouse gases" conclusively shows that, since greenhouse gases have nothing at all to do with "clean" air and water.
Go all of the way back to `1950, now about SIXTY years ago. The movie was "The Yellow Cab Man" (funny in a way movies now generally aren't--rating 76 out of 100). A substantial plot element in the movie was a "home show" rotating solar house. I am not making this up. The movie explained a "rotating solar house" as a house rotated by a motor in such a way as to keep properly oriented to the sun ("move with the sun" was the movie description) to provide maximum energy efficiency.
Doesn't this sound like an idea that a house builder today might come up with, for the sole purpose of getting a Federal subsidy? You can well imagine good ol' boy economic fascist T. Boone Pickens pushing for subdivisions of "rotating" solar houses, or at least some more plausible variation of the idea. The concept is funnier now, in this era of environmental lunacy, than it was in 1950 (the movie was making fun of the idea then). Nope, I don't know if any "rotating solar houses" were actually built, since even I was only three years old in 1950.
Doesn't matter whether any such ridiculous houses were built, does it? Of course not. The point is that people (primarily environmentalists?) were talking about solar houses in 1950. In some sixty years since, solar power has still not become economic. Without Federal subsidies (taxpayer money to support an industry that has essentially failed for sixty years) , the industry would still not exist--except as a curiosity and in small niches. Yes, we are SLIGHTLY better able to produce active solar power now, while the idea was probably mainly passive in 1950. It is still not economic, or the industry would not need taxpayer subsidies to survive.
Yes, I was tickled by the "rotating solar house". It raised fanciful images in my minds of houses that not only change orientation with regard to the sun, but TRAVEL with the sun (flying house trailers?). This is fanciful because the sun does not travel, but the Earth rotates some 25,000 miles in a single day.
What is serious about this are two things:
1. Think of how much it DISTORTS the allocation of resources--not to mention increases in the deficit we can't afford--to make a central planning decision that we need to develop solar power, instead of other alternatives. Sixty years of failure (basically) mean nothing to central planners with a political agenda. Yes, it is entirely possible that we will have a breakthrough in solar power i the next decade, but the last sixty years show that we may not have such a breakthrough. Further, subsidizing UNECONOMIC solar power systems does NOT increase the likelihood that ECONOMIC solar power will be developed (which requires breakthroughs in technologythat would make a fortune without any Federal subsidy). That is the point. Economic solar power dos not need a subsidy. Uneconomic solar power does not deserve one.
2. It has always ben obvious that leftists in general, and "environmental" leftists in particular (who often use "environmental" issues like "global warming" as merely an excuse for a Federal Government takeover of the economy), have ALWAYS wanted to CONTROL our lives, and have ALWAYS wanted the very things they say they want now because of "global warming". That is what makes people like me so angry about "global warming". It is a fraud being used for political purposes. Its proponents could care less aboutt he "science". They want this stuff anyway. People who have lived as long as I have have seen various EXCUSES for leftist action in the name of environmental "crisis". From "global cooling" in 1970 environmental speak to scares over DDT and other pesticides, the left has tried to get control by cynical USE of the "environment. Yes, clean water and air are good things, but the ultimate goal of the left has been CONTROL rather than clean air and water. This absurdity about "greenhouse gases" conclusively shows that, since greenhouse gases have nothing at all to do with "clean" air and water.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Death Panels, the Public Option, President Obama's Assertions About a Bill That Does Not Exist: The Shifting Sands Under a Pathological Liar
Last week's news was not to worry--the Senate was going to delete that language in the House health care bill THAT DID NOT EXIST (if you listened to Obama and most of the mainstream media, except for traitors like the Washington Post reporter who actually read the stuff and pronounced it disturbing stuff). You know. All of that embarrassing language about "end of life" care and "counseling".
You did not, of course, see the mainstream media proclaim this as a victory fro Sarah Palin--virtually the only Republican politician brave enough to stand up the the mainstream media and actually say that the House bill raised the spectre of "death panels'. However, it was a victory for her, and an acknowledgement of how disturbing it was that there was language like the "ned of life" absurdities in the House bill, WHEN THERE DID NOT HAVE TO BE. The dirty little secret is that there could be "death panels" without any such language at all, since the whole thrust of this health care "reform" is to transfer life and death decisions about health insurance and health care to Federal bureaucrats. See my two sentence version of the health care "bill" (whichever one is the final bill) in yesterday's entry. If health care "reform" turns decisions on insurance coverage and appropriate care over to Federal bureaucrats (what other purpose does it have?), then Federal bureaucrats are going to be making those decisions based on regulations that will come into existence AFTER authority is given in some vague health care bill (if one passes). Nevertheless, Sarah Palin should get an apology from the mainstream media for ridiculing her concern over this language--concern echoed by those "key" Senators who rejected the House language as vague and disturbing to people. But Sarah Palin will never get an apology from the mainstream media, because they are HYPOCRITES.
This illustrates why I do not concentrate on single provisions in any "health care bill". Every single health care bill being prepared by Democrats is designed to give power to a Federal agency, or agencies, or "quasi-government organisation", to regulate health care, and health care insurance, in this country. How can you even promise to "contain costs", and "reform" the system, unless you are proposing to have the government impose such regulations? You can't. Thus, the mere deletion of language from the bill is no assurance at all that similar concepts will not appear in the REGULATIONS instituted to implement any bill that's is passed. Again, read my two sentence version of any health care bill, presented in yesterday's entry, which explains that the entire purpose of any bill is to turn health care policy over to Federal bureaucrats to control by REGULATION. That is why it was so stupid to put the vague language referring to "end of life" in the House bill. Such revealing stupidity can only scare you to death, as you realize these same kind of people fully intend to control health care, and health insuance, in this country BY REGULATION.
Then came yesterday's news, originating over the weekend, about the Obama Administration supposedly "abandoning" the "public option". This was, of course, an attempt to signal to REPUBLICANS in the Senate that some sort of "compromise", like happened on the terrible "Medicare Drug Benefit Program" pushed into law by President Bush, would be acceptable. Again, the message was "not to worry"--we will give "cover" to Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Well. It won't work for a Republican. This blog will CRUCIFY each and every Republican who votes for a terrible "compromise" version of this bill--which will have the same result as the "compromise version of that bill giving athority to the Secretary of the Treasury to hand out $700 billion dollars AT HIS DISCRETION. Both Democrats and Republicans assured us there was no "blank check". THEY LIED (or are so stupid, it is worse than lying). Now such Republicans may not worry about ME, but there are lots of people who think like me. I guarantee their political career will not survive such a "compromise" vote, in terms of any influence int the Republican Party or with conservatives. I digress (not really).
The point is that the whole point of health care "reform" is government CONTROL. Any bill passed by the Democrats who control Congress has that goal, because that is the whole purpose of the bill. We know that President Obama favors direct government health care, as a concept, BECAUSE HE HAS SAID SO IN THE PAST. The fact that pathological liar Obama wants everyone to belive only what he says TODAY, and forget the past, is merely proof he is a pathological liar. Thus, if Obama really is willing to give up the "public option" (government insurance "competing" with private insurance on the way to only government insurance), then it is because President Obama thinks that the goal of government CONTROL can be achieved another way. Thus, we have the idea of "co-ops", along with giving Federal bureaucrats complete control over the insurance industiy (and ultimately the health care industry). In other words, any "private" insurance will be drafted for you by, and administered--including life and death decisions--under regulations propounded by, FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS.
The ultimate question here is who will make decisions concerning your health care, and health care insurance? Will it be multiple insurance companies, acting under multiple state laws, with our own doctor having a big say? Or will it be FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS making those decisions? Health care "reform" has no meaning unless it puts such decisions in the hands of Federal bureaucrats.
It is bad enough to have so many health care decisions being made lby insurance company bureaucrats. Is there something worse than that? Yes, there is. Insurance companies can be checked. They can be sued. They are state regulated. There is no check on Federal bureaucrats, and on the evil concept of "central planning" of a few people determining envery health care decision concerning YOUR LIFE.
"End of life" language or no "end of life" language.
"public option" or no "public option". In the end it does not matter much, if the Federal bureaucrats are given CONTROL--directly or through quasi-government entities like co-ops (which can be established without Congress, if CONTROL were not the goal--control by the Federal Government). Since the whole concept of "reform" implies CONTROL, and since we know where Obama and the Democrats are coming from, you can be assured that CONTROL is the goal of any final Federal bill.
Now we are up to Obama's disgraceful appearance before veterans yesterday. Again, as he has done with everyone, President Obama--pathological liar that he is--promised that the health care of veterans will not be "affected" by Obama's health care plan. How can Obama say that. OBAMA HAS NO HEALTH CARE PLAN, OTHER THAN HIS ARROGANT, EMPTY ASSERTIONS. Obama has not endorsed the House bill. Obama can't possibly tell you what will be "affected" by a final health care bill and what won't. In fact, as I have stated, even if a bill existed, Obama could not be making these blanket assertions--except for the fact that he is a pathological liar. Ultimately, Federal bureaucrats writing Federal REGULATIONS are going to determine how any Federal health care "plan" works. Even if you trust Obama (hard to do with a pathological liar), Obama will not be around forever. Whatever pwoer we give to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS over health care policy will likely last forever--well beyond Obama. To assert that such pwoer will consistently be used wisely, and for the public good, is to ignore history and theory.
It cannot help to be a disaster to turn control over health insurance/health care decisions over to the central planning of Federal bureaucrats. That is why the individual provisions of the final health care bill do not matter (which we will likely not even know, as will not the people voting on them, because the final bill will likely be prepared at the last minute). We know that the goal of this legislation is Federal CONTROL, and that should be enough for you to condemn it. Obama's mere assertions as to what his non-existent "plan" will and will not do are absurd, because he really has no way of knowing. None of us do--other than it will cost too much and accomplish too little, with too great a cost in freedom.
What is amazing is that I believe that the public FIGHTING against this Federal CONTROL actually "get it". The same cannot be said of almost ANY of the politicians, including the SILENT Republicans out there proving nothing other than that they are COWARDS.
You did not, of course, see the mainstream media proclaim this as a victory fro Sarah Palin--virtually the only Republican politician brave enough to stand up the the mainstream media and actually say that the House bill raised the spectre of "death panels'. However, it was a victory for her, and an acknowledgement of how disturbing it was that there was language like the "ned of life" absurdities in the House bill, WHEN THERE DID NOT HAVE TO BE. The dirty little secret is that there could be "death panels" without any such language at all, since the whole thrust of this health care "reform" is to transfer life and death decisions about health insurance and health care to Federal bureaucrats. See my two sentence version of the health care "bill" (whichever one is the final bill) in yesterday's entry. If health care "reform" turns decisions on insurance coverage and appropriate care over to Federal bureaucrats (what other purpose does it have?), then Federal bureaucrats are going to be making those decisions based on regulations that will come into existence AFTER authority is given in some vague health care bill (if one passes). Nevertheless, Sarah Palin should get an apology from the mainstream media for ridiculing her concern over this language--concern echoed by those "key" Senators who rejected the House language as vague and disturbing to people. But Sarah Palin will never get an apology from the mainstream media, because they are HYPOCRITES.
This illustrates why I do not concentrate on single provisions in any "health care bill". Every single health care bill being prepared by Democrats is designed to give power to a Federal agency, or agencies, or "quasi-government organisation", to regulate health care, and health care insurance, in this country. How can you even promise to "contain costs", and "reform" the system, unless you are proposing to have the government impose such regulations? You can't. Thus, the mere deletion of language from the bill is no assurance at all that similar concepts will not appear in the REGULATIONS instituted to implement any bill that's is passed. Again, read my two sentence version of any health care bill, presented in yesterday's entry, which explains that the entire purpose of any bill is to turn health care policy over to Federal bureaucrats to control by REGULATION. That is why it was so stupid to put the vague language referring to "end of life" in the House bill. Such revealing stupidity can only scare you to death, as you realize these same kind of people fully intend to control health care, and health insuance, in this country BY REGULATION.
Then came yesterday's news, originating over the weekend, about the Obama Administration supposedly "abandoning" the "public option". This was, of course, an attempt to signal to REPUBLICANS in the Senate that some sort of "compromise", like happened on the terrible "Medicare Drug Benefit Program" pushed into law by President Bush, would be acceptable. Again, the message was "not to worry"--we will give "cover" to Republicans, and conservative Democrats. Well. It won't work for a Republican. This blog will CRUCIFY each and every Republican who votes for a terrible "compromise" version of this bill--which will have the same result as the "compromise version of that bill giving athority to the Secretary of the Treasury to hand out $700 billion dollars AT HIS DISCRETION. Both Democrats and Republicans assured us there was no "blank check". THEY LIED (or are so stupid, it is worse than lying). Now such Republicans may not worry about ME, but there are lots of people who think like me. I guarantee their political career will not survive such a "compromise" vote, in terms of any influence int the Republican Party or with conservatives. I digress (not really).
The point is that the whole point of health care "reform" is government CONTROL. Any bill passed by the Democrats who control Congress has that goal, because that is the whole purpose of the bill. We know that President Obama favors direct government health care, as a concept, BECAUSE HE HAS SAID SO IN THE PAST. The fact that pathological liar Obama wants everyone to belive only what he says TODAY, and forget the past, is merely proof he is a pathological liar. Thus, if Obama really is willing to give up the "public option" (government insurance "competing" with private insurance on the way to only government insurance), then it is because President Obama thinks that the goal of government CONTROL can be achieved another way. Thus, we have the idea of "co-ops", along with giving Federal bureaucrats complete control over the insurance industiy (and ultimately the health care industry). In other words, any "private" insurance will be drafted for you by, and administered--including life and death decisions--under regulations propounded by, FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS.
The ultimate question here is who will make decisions concerning your health care, and health care insurance? Will it be multiple insurance companies, acting under multiple state laws, with our own doctor having a big say? Or will it be FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS making those decisions? Health care "reform" has no meaning unless it puts such decisions in the hands of Federal bureaucrats.
It is bad enough to have so many health care decisions being made lby insurance company bureaucrats. Is there something worse than that? Yes, there is. Insurance companies can be checked. They can be sued. They are state regulated. There is no check on Federal bureaucrats, and on the evil concept of "central planning" of a few people determining envery health care decision concerning YOUR LIFE.
"End of life" language or no "end of life" language.
"public option" or no "public option". In the end it does not matter much, if the Federal bureaucrats are given CONTROL--directly or through quasi-government entities like co-ops (which can be established without Congress, if CONTROL were not the goal--control by the Federal Government). Since the whole concept of "reform" implies CONTROL, and since we know where Obama and the Democrats are coming from, you can be assured that CONTROL is the goal of any final Federal bill.
Now we are up to Obama's disgraceful appearance before veterans yesterday. Again, as he has done with everyone, President Obama--pathological liar that he is--promised that the health care of veterans will not be "affected" by Obama's health care plan. How can Obama say that. OBAMA HAS NO HEALTH CARE PLAN, OTHER THAN HIS ARROGANT, EMPTY ASSERTIONS. Obama has not endorsed the House bill. Obama can't possibly tell you what will be "affected" by a final health care bill and what won't. In fact, as I have stated, even if a bill existed, Obama could not be making these blanket assertions--except for the fact that he is a pathological liar. Ultimately, Federal bureaucrats writing Federal REGULATIONS are going to determine how any Federal health care "plan" works. Even if you trust Obama (hard to do with a pathological liar), Obama will not be around forever. Whatever pwoer we give to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS over health care policy will likely last forever--well beyond Obama. To assert that such pwoer will consistently be used wisely, and for the public good, is to ignore history and theory.
It cannot help to be a disaster to turn control over health insurance/health care decisions over to the central planning of Federal bureaucrats. That is why the individual provisions of the final health care bill do not matter (which we will likely not even know, as will not the people voting on them, because the final bill will likely be prepared at the last minute). We know that the goal of this legislation is Federal CONTROL, and that should be enough for you to condemn it. Obama's mere assertions as to what his non-existent "plan" will and will not do are absurd, because he really has no way of knowing. None of us do--other than it will cost too much and accomplish too little, with too great a cost in freedom.
What is amazing is that I believe that the public FIGHTING against this Federal CONTROL actually "get it". The same cannot be said of almost ANY of the politicians, including the SILENT Republicans out there proving nothing other than that they are COWARDS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)