Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Critical Lesson #2: Never forgive . . .
Governor Sarah Palin knows these lessons well. Barack Obama never knew them -- and never will.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.
Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Doug Brady wrote a great post earlier proposing August 29, the anniversary of Gov. Palin's nomination as the Republican vice presidential candidate, as "Sarah Palin Day". This is a fine idea. He also nominated yours truly for some kind of award (thanks!). However, I would be remiss not to throw in a few nominations myself. I get a lot of credit for launching the original Draft Palin site, but there are definitely two or three people who did at least as much work as I did and hence deserve awards. So, I would place the following nominations for the Sarah Palin Day Award:
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
I am disabled with MS. But, I do a lot of Internet communication. I’m also working on a writing project. I got this Special Message below from HuckPAC. Properly enough as a minister, your father retains and expresses a relatively positive Outlook. I hope in some respect, I’m able to project a bit of such a positive disposition. However, it strikes me as a bit sanguine to talk about getting “this country back on track.” Even assuming that we might thwart or more likely slow, the intrusion of the federal government into the private domain of medical care, the fiscal folly already accomplished alone is not a mere ditch but a multi-generational canyon from which it is hard to imagine how we could emerge in any sort of typically American state of health in liberty and commerce. The record of Republicans in undoing liberal folly is not a sterling one and appears particularly unpromising in the case of the enormity of this profligacy.
I watch your father’s television program weekly. I would sure love to hear it if he has reason beyond a mere encouragement for America to persevere, putting one step in front of the other irrespective of circumstance. I’m near his age and would share much of the romance of America as having experienced God’s blessing. But, I believe it has experienced that not by virtue of our name or geography but by the maintenance of some respect of the liberty that is the endowment of the creator. Today, we retain the name with which the USA was founded, but for many years that respect of liberty has been allowed to (unconstitutionally) drift until today, when it seems to have disappeared down a stretch of whitewater rapids. It is not a political or geographical definition but a social ideal that is the
Thursday, August 20, 2009
First-hand Witness to Staged Obama Town Hall Meeting in Belgrade, Montana
by Sue August 18, 2009
By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Joe and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on.On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here.
There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date.On about Tuesday Joe found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Joe knows EVERYONE at the airport)
Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public.
FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession. $$$$$
Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday.Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm.......900 tickets just DISAPPEARED.
This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think...with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for.
On Friday Joe and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal) and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.
The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them.....professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area)
Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.
So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.
If you are wondering about the press.....Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds.We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho .
Speaking of the local media...they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.
It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes........the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors....EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!!
I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America , more like the USSR !! I was physically nauseous.
Joe and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC . Scary!!
Bozeman , Montana
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
She's been a superb leader in a state mostly known for partisanship and rampant corruption. She talks the talk, and she walks the walk. I've said that people who don't like Sarah Palin (people like Letterman, Begala, Axelrod, and most Democrats) really don't like America. They don't like the kind of opportunity that's available to someone from modest origins. They don't like the fact she's a model wife and mother, mostly because they don't really believe women should be wives and mothers, apparently. They don't like her espousal of liberty, tolerance, and opportunity, because they believe in an America run by academic ideologues, like Dr. Zeke Emanuel. They don't like the fact that her son is in military, whereas their sons and daughters aren't. They hate the fact that she's an excellent athlete in a family of athletes. She's physically beautify, while they aren't. She makes them feel inferior, which they are.
Again, people who despise Sarah also despise America. It's that simple.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"Obama lies, Grandma dies" (a popular sign slogan at town hall meetings)
The attached is a graphic (very graphic) image of what ObamaCare will mean to grandma and grandpa. Please pass it on.Here's what Dick Morris thinks (not much) in boldface below of the removal of the end-of-life-counseling component from the Senate Finance Committee health proposal: Obama and congressional leftists have provided no answers to the questions Morris raises.
President Obama's retreat from his previous insistence on establishing a government owned insurance company to compete with private health insurers will do nothing at all to mitigate the massive rationing in medical care to the elderly his legislation will force. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in a rare moment of profundity, said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. How right she is.
The fundamental equation that means worse and worse medical care for our seniors remains exactly as it was before the public option was abandoned: Fifty million new patients to be treated and no extra doctors or nurses to care for them. The result will be precisely the same whether or not there is a public option -- massive rationing of medical services to the elderly.
The legislation still plans to achieve 40% of its savings from cuts in Medicare, slicing reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals encouraging them shortchange their elderly patients as a matter of economic necessity and shrinking further the population of doctors. The deletion of the public insurance option is a good step.
It reduces the likelihood of "socialized medicine" dominated by a single payer. But it does nothing to alter the basic equation of supply and demand which will doom medical care for the elderly.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The biggest problem with the Dem's health proposals is that they don't really try either to lower costs or to improve quality. Main point: no tort reform, because the Dems are completely in bed with the trial lawyers, who extract hundreds of billions from the health system, money that could be much better spent on the uninsured.
One fascinating development: hospitals in South America and India -- at least their top-tier hospitals -- are as good as MOST (not all) American hospitals. And insurance companies increasingly are flying people to New Delhi or Buenos Aires (and other sites) for operations. It turns out (rough numbers) that a heart bypass that costs $35,000 in the U.S. might cost $8,000 in India. Thus, the return flight tickets, the operation, and a short stay for recuperation can end up saving, say, $15,000 or more in costs.
The Economist had an article several months ago saying the number of Americans going to India or South America was nearly one million per year! They estimated the number could go to 10 million in the next decade or so. Start multiplying savings of $5 thousand or $10 thousand (or more) by ten million people, and the reduction in costs is immense.
If Americans see the numbers, which indicate they're not more likely to die in foreign hospitals, they are more inclined to take the trip. In some case, people are paying out of pocket (no health insurance) and saving money along with their lives appeal to them.
The Dem's health legislation is completely uncreative and basically will bring a meat-axe to medical costs. It will ration according to age and other statistical factors before it makes economic promises it will not be able to keep. Thus, Dr. Thomas Sowell is correct: they will just refuse to pay for expensive treatments. The refusal to pay will not be a "death panel" as such, but it will have the same effects.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan
By Sarah Palin (on Facebook)
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200).
It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care
inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing.
I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. 
Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the
“Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. 
How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.
The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise.
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back
in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” 
A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. 
The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.
Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill.
Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care.
Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”
In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” 
I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.”  The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything.
In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.
Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.
There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” 
Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.
Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current
administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.
Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.
The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:
“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated
benefits insurers are required to cover.
"It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” 
Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.
- Sarah Palin
 See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
 See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The "Obama Health Care" plan really doesn't exist. What we have is HR 3200. Since Obama has not read a word of it, he's not real good on answering questions about it.
Is there really a death panel, as Sarah Palin charged? Yes, there is, but it will be renamed something like "Life begins at 90 panel."
Actually, it's name is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its goal is to turn medical care from Mayo Clinic Model into the Dollar General model. Little secret: it's NOT about effectiveness. It's about reducing costs . . . and doing so at all costs.
In fact, the bill says its goal is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." In other words, no more of those pesky (and expensive) new meds that will cure mom's breast cancer or dad's heart arrhythmia.
And then -- don't tell Barack! -- we will have a gentleman or gentlelady who will serve (with a bureaucracy in the tens of thousands) as The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. Sounds great, right?
His (Her? Its/) job will be to "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly [key word] following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." Notice the use of the passive voice ("are deemed"), which are always signs that bureaucrats are work, evading responsibility as they go.
What will happen to doctors and hospitals doing cutting-edge work to keep patients alive? As you might guess, those "not adhering to guidelines will face penalties," which will include hefty fines . . . and even prison terms, particularly handed out to conservative doctors who hate the Obama Plan.
Question: what about those doctors (including mine) and hospitals (some in my area) that are doing a tremendous job healing patients and saving lives? Will they be used as examples for other docs and hospitals? Surely you jest. My betting is that they will be the ones facing fines and jail times. They probably aren't following the already cockamamie government regulations and "guidelines."
Sarah Palin is being attacked in the White House, as well as on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Disney Channel, and CNN for describing ObamaCare as exactly what it is: an exercise in the proposition that when you can make sure people are safely dead, they don't "incur" any addional health costs. Can't argue with that.
Do you really want to contend with the notion that an Obama who favors "live birth abortion" (i.e., infanticide) won't back a form of "eldercare" that includes euthanasia? Admittedly, the death panel won't fully crank up until, say, the third term of Barack Obama, by then known as "President-for-Life."
By then, we'll all be too numb to notice. Every home in America will have a super-size photo of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
Cong. Rothman, like most Democrats in the House, is totally unaware that his cluelessness is producing an explosive situation in the U.S. as his actions, along with those of other leftists, are making our country disappear as if it had all been a dream. The Rothmans of the world believe that it's all fine and good if they extract money from the relative few to buy votes from the many who sit as if they were baby birds waiting for "mom" to put worms in their mouths.
Elyse's Comments Below:
I went to two town hall meetings yesterday done in my district by Steve Rothman, have two more today. Some of the things I noticed were:
- No muscle in evidence in the afternoon session (mostly seniors) in Wallington. Crowd was civil and almost cordial (heavily Democratic town) Seniors were pretty well informed however he cut them off at the knees when they started talking about provisions in the bill by saying nobody knows what the final bill looks like because there are 3 versions that came out of committee. HR 3200 is listed on dozens of congressmen's websites however I couldn't find it on his. No one asked him why the bills that are out of committee are not available for public view.
- Muscle in evidence last night but a bit more discreet than we've seen nationwide - no identifying shirts etc. at the town hall in Palisades Park. Several people commented about the large menacing man in the meeting room itself (I could not get closer than the hallway) who would glower if the people seated didn't voice their approval. Actually told Michele from the NJ Tea Party organization that he would eject her if she didn't keep it down.
- We were unable to ask spontaneous questions - if you wanted to speak you had to fill out a form that Rothman's staff was passing through the crowd (SRO) giving your name, address, phone, email address and the question you would like to ask. There were 4 "plants" in Wallington and at least 8 last night, called on strictly for their favorable comments.
- The Congressman's remarks were even keeled until the last 20 minutes or so when the blame game started going. The debt is Bush's fault yadda yadda. No opportunity for rebuttal. You got your two minutes and that was it.
Stupidly drew the comparison that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid technically were and are unconstitutional but so what???? Unreal. I couldn't believe he made such a dopey comment.
Bashed Reagan for giving amnesty to 5 million illegals besides! As if there were no objections to that action then. It was one of the biggest gaffes of Reagan's Presidency. Think he's a little desperate?
- The little Obamabot girls, those kids that answered the $11-15 an hour Craigslist ads carrying small signs that said Thank you Mr. President for Healthcare Reform...almost threw up. When I asked the one young lady if she knew what the bill was about she had absolutely NO CLUE. Just making a little extra money before school starts, how utterly capitalistic of her ;)
All in all the attendees for these town halls come prepared and angry. Very angry. I was impressed to see all age groups actively engaged, talking to their neighbors and being very clear that they do NOT want what these idiots are selling. Many did their homework, brought with them facts and were well spoken. Expect that as information regarding the parental rights built into the bill that we do have access to comes out today that the questions will get much much tougher.
Two more town halls today, this afternoon in Englewood Cliffs and tonight in Rutherford. Rutherford should be interesting, that is the hometown of my friend Vince who ran against Rothman this past election ;)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama's "death panel," condemned by Gov. Palin, will appear as the government takes over health care almost completely. It will set "guidelines" that will separate Obama's favorite groups, such as the more militant unions, from his least favorite groups, including those with autism and Down Syndrome.
Does this sound overly cynical? In fact, it is just a statement of the way Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel operate. Oh yes, there may be a bone tossed in the direction of the disabled, but they don't need bones. Rather, they need good health care, including physiotherapy and psychological assistance. That's precisely what they won't get.
On death panels, I urge people to read (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about Obama's "health" advisers, including Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jacob Blumenthal, as well as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, an important outside influence. Emanuel is a death-worshipper. Blumenthal thinks rigid government controls are a good way to "control costs." Singer believes that people with severe disabilities have no real right to life.
What about Obama's "advisers" on the other side? Sadly, there are none.
If there are humane, intellectually sound ways to reduce costs -- and there are, with such things as medical liability reform -- they are NOT included in the Obama Plan. Civil liability reform would offend the ambulance chasers (John Edwards is the most famous one) who contributed tens of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign. Such tort reform would save as much as a trillion dollars over the next 5-6 years, but it will never happen as long as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are in power.
My wife and I save for ourselves (and the nation) approximately $1300 a year by ordering prescriptions in bulk. Why doesn't the Obama Administration encourage such savings nationwide? Because it would anger the executives of pharmaceutical retailers who have embraced the Obama Plan in order not to be punished by the Administration.
We all like to engage in philosophical debates about health reform. However, if we want to know what's really going on, we need to remember an old line from Watergate: "Follow the money." Obama knows that politics and power have everything to do with money.
This gets us back to autistic and Down Syndrome children. Their contributions to the Obama Campaign (one that's endless) adds up to . . . zero. Therefore, they will get nothing from the man who is pretending to be "our president."
Friday, August 7, 2009
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Palin: The Power of Good
Considering Obama and his operatives are beind the campaign of harassment, ethics charges and attacks on her and her children, Sarah Palin is nothing short of divine. The election is over.
It is time to repair friendships with the other party.
Gov. Sarah Palin is doing her part.
The rest of the world cannot understand how, after bitter election campaigns, American politicians can kiss and make up.
For instance, Gov. Palin has invited, to her great state of Alaska , the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, along with their wives. She has set up a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and hired three prominent experts in their field to assist them.
Dick Cheney will carry the gun, Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins each evening, and Bill Clinton will entertain their wives.
Sarah is such a good sport! She thinks of everything!
These guys are evil, I hope Palin is not holding her breath waiting on the tarmac.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
But, not Sarah Palin! Hell, no, she can’t go! Make her stay in Alaska where it’s cold and no one can see her! If she leaves the state for any reason, file more ethics complaints! We must destroy this woman AT ALL COSTS!
Dr. Utopia proves that just about anyone can become President of the United States. He spent less time in the US Senate before he ran for President than Sarah Palin has spent as the Chief Executive of the nation’s largest state, with extremely more important duties than any Senator has.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Obama's revealing body language
I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing. Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Like Pamela, I've determined that the stream of baseless rumors about Gov. Sarah Palin come directly from Obama's political gurus David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. (More about this in coming days.)
Sarah Palin: A Leader Without A Party
Here's an excerpt from Williamson's essay:
The truth is: Sarah Palin is not really a "politician". She did not get into politics to seek power or wealth. She bears no resemblance to the typical politician, who graduated in Law specifically to enter politics; or to the successful businessman who runs for office to gain profit advantage or status; or to the mediocrities who rises through nepotism or dynastic ambition like a Kennedy or a Gore. Or to any party hack out of the Chicago machine.
She has not brought herself into this fight at this point because she wants to be President...or Vice-President...or Senator....or Cabinet member. She is in this solely because she feels, deeply, that our traditional principles and values, already betrayed by both parties, are in serious jeopardy through the aggressive efforts of committed socialists. She is prepared to make a personal sacrifice in the cause of defeating them. If she succeeds, she'll be happy to just go back to Wasilla and the Alaskan way of middle class life she loves.
Remember, she made it clear in her resignation that she was going to remain "outside" the political fences. For she is going to turn her guns on the GOP -- big time. She wants nothing to do with the Republican National Committee, and not just because she has been reading Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. She has fought the GOP top dogs since her first days in Wasilla. When she was appointed by the Governor to chair the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission and found out the Republicans were dealing under the counter with the private companies, she resigned and blew the whistle. When her party wouldn't support her for Governor she ran on her own -- against their open opposition -- and won. And promptly attacked waste and corruption within the Republican state government.
Then she was drafted by McCain, sparking some indignation in the RNC. She promptly charged the flailing campaign with her energy and her personality, attracting huge numbers of people to GOP rallies, and most likely some new voters. But she got no support from the sclerotic RNC managers -- and the great fighter pilot couldn't shoot straight. Then he bailed out on her after the election, and she received no thanks for her valiant effort; not only was she simply dumped, but reviled and mocked by the insiders and elitists she had worked with.
What can you do now to help Sarah Palin? Please go to one of more of the following sites and makes at least a small contribution:
Thursday, July 30, 2009
One of my main selling points to people of various political stripes is that: Sarah Palin will LISTEN to you. And, Sarah Palin will do her darnedest to be PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, not just the president of AL, MS, UT, and ID.
She will uphold the Constitution, even in cases where her views might differ somewhat from those of the Founders. (For example, freedom of speech and press sometimes get misused, but that doesn't mean such misuses are unConstitutional.) I believe she will be respectful of state constitutions, which occasionally differ from the national document (or at least from Supreme Court interpretations.
I don't expect Sarah to come across as an "anti" in regard to groups (except perhaps terrorists). Sarah Palin is not a clone of any of us. And she's not someone comfortable with pitting one group against another.
For example, Alaska people tend to have a libertarian streak, and Sarah is one of them. She seems to be more a friend of small businesses than of the large ones she knows (the oil companies and oil service firms that misbehaved badly in AK). On the famous "social issues," Sarah clearly believes in teaching by example -- through behavior -- rather than by delivering lectures and passing laws that are unenforceable.
Finally, Sarah's appeal to some liberal women (Elaine Lafferty, Lynn de Rothschild, Tammy Bruce, Camille Paglia, and others) results from them seeing her as, in Lafferty's words, a "feminist" and a "brainiac" -- a good and thoughtful person). We don't need ideological tests to welcome people in as Supporters. After Nov., 2012, we can begin squabbling if necessary (or if we can still recall what the argument was about.)
We must get across to Sarah that there are people backing her, including many people working together on the "Sarah Effort," who can play important roles on ensuring she eventually makes the move to the White House. Smart, curious, hard-working, tough, loyal: those should be the main criteria for Sarah's people. A tradition of working on losing campaigns should be a disqualification.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
I began a blog (HillarySupportersforMcCain) and posted a couple of hundred pieces on it. Today, eight months later, I stopped posting on that site long ago, but it still gets 30-35 or so visitors a week.
A not-so-secret-secret: I don't like Hillary Clinton as a politician. I never did. But I believe my efforts helped the McCain-Palin ticket by my emphasizing that Hillary Supporters' votes were needed and valued. (I did believe Mrs. Clinton would be much better as a president than BHO, although not nearly as good as many of her Supporters believed.)
For months, I was co-host, with the irrepressible Cristi Adkins of VA, on the radio program "Clintons4McCain." We had a blast . . . and interviewed many terrific guests, including Bev Perlson and Gold Star Mother Debbie Lee.
In the end, we didn't get the six millions votes (from Hillary Supporters) that we needed. However, we apparently did get four million-plus of them. The additional two million votes would have allowed us to win several states (perhaps including FL) that would have provided many more electoral votes.
Many of the Hillary Supporters, including some on this list, have become good friends of mine. . . and tremendous allies in advancing the cause of Gov. Palin. Yes, I sometimes got a major Excedrin headache from Hillary Supporters -- mainly those who saw her wrongly as a modern Joan of Arc.
But I always tried not to stray far from political reality. My goal over the next several years is not to step out of that Political Reality Zone. Arguing with people who support Sarah is pointless.
Some of the Sarah/Hillary Supporters have a history of being fairly liberal -- Elaine Lafferty (former editor of Ms.) is one, along with Camille Paglia and Tammy Bruce. I don't care about their pasts; I care about Sarah's and America's future.
Remember, a couple of million people who call themselves "conservative" voted for Barack Obama. I don't recall him or Axelrod handing back those votes.
Sarah Palin's appeal transcends ideology. As I said before, she has conservative, libertarian, and populist (like the Alaska Constitution) elements. She has strong support in the gay community. She has great potential with young voters and Hispanics. She can draw many votes from YWP (Young Women Professionals) as soon as it dawns on them she's a YWP. The large number of parents of special needs children are seeing her as a major advocate.
If we're successful in reaching out to voters in the above communities, we will end up electing this good woman as POTUS.
As governor of Alaska, Sarah was basically being held prisoner in her home state. Now, she's free to be a national leader. She belongs not just to Alaska, but to America. "Free at last . . . free at last . . . thank God Almighty . . . "
Monday, July 27, 2009
Yesterday in her remarks, Gov. Palin cited the Alaska Constitution, which is a populist document she's sworn to uphold. Among other things, it says that the resources in Alaska belong to the people of that state -- not the oil companies, not Wall Street firms, not the most affluent Alaskans.
Some conservatives, not many, are horrified by that notion. I've heard people say that Sarah was mean to the oil companies, which in Alaska and elsewhere, have a history of heavy-handedness, arrogance, and bribery. (I worked for two oil companies, Phillips and Gulf, both of which had engaged in handing over bribe money to politicians.)
Six-out-ten Americans identify themselves as NOT conservatives. What are we going to do to get their votes (not to mention the many conservatives who voted for Obama)? If our answer is "nothing," then we have lost our minds.
On immigration, the notion that Hispanics voted against McCain because he was a supporter of the McCain-Kennedy bill is ridiculous. I wish it were true, but there is no evidence Hispanics believed Obama was anything but pro-amnesty.
Overall, McCain was a much more conservative candidate than Obama and Palin was a much more conservative candidate than Biden. We can determine that by looking at McCain's American Conservative Union vote analysis, up around 75--80%, and then looking at Obama's, down around zero (as was Biden's).
In the election of 2008 and to a lesser degree in 2006, Hispanics punished candidates, almost all Republicans, whom they perceived as anti-Mexican or anti-Hispanic. Hispanics are the largest minority group in America, and to win national elections, we must get more votes from them.
Our outreach to Hispanic Americans has been pathetic. When a strong CubanAmerican candidate surfaced in Florida, Marco Rubio, the head of the Republican Senatorial Committee (John Cornyn) rushed out to support Rubio's opponent (Charlie Crist). Crist would be replacing the one Hispanic Republican in the Senate (Mel Martinez).
There is no greater challenge facing Sarah Palin than the need to reach out and gain a significant percentage of Hispanic votes. She must never adopt positions that are perceived (by Hispanics) as anti-Hispanic.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Frankly, raising the national blood pressure may cause more heart attacks, but it's not going to remove Obama from power. Organizing, calling our congressional representatives, donating money to conservative causes (e.g., www.sarahpac.com) are what will end the national nightmare.
For FOX or anyone else to suggest otherwise is just game-playing.
Rush gave Greta a thumping the other night when she expressed her silly "hope" that Obama's Stimulus package, which she apparently knows nothing about, will work. Rush basically told her that a vague "hope" is for losers, and he's right.
As for Geraldo, who's a pro-illegals leftist with a history of grandstanding, he should not be on FOX or anything else. Anyone who spend one minute of his or her time watching "Geraldo" needs to find more productive things to do. There is not a conservative bone in Geraldo's body.
There are some great young people on FOX -- one is Patty Ann Browne on the Beck show, another is Greg Gutfield on their weekend late show, and others are Andrea Tantaros and S. E. Cupp -- but there many other big shots interested more in making millions than in winning the battle for America.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Yes, there are Republicans who have "problems" with Sarah Palin. Those were the people Limbaugh mentioned as the DC, NY, Boston "Republicans" (Olympia Snowe? Mitt Romney, Arlen Specter?) who have contempt for some 50 million Americans who always vote for the more conservative candidate. Half of those 50 million people listen to Rush . . . and share his views.
My Republican "friends" who dislike Palin -- or badmouth her -- rapidly become ex-friends. If you love America -- in all its complexity and sheer grittiness -- you are going to adore Sarah Heath Palin. Rush Limbaugh is a critical ally for Sarah. His support is the way you win primaries in America . . . and his message of freedom, tolerance, love of country, and opportunity is the same as Sarah's message.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The next CPAC will be held February 18-20, 2010 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington D.C.
The cost for attemdomg the three-day CPAC session will be as low as $150 (not including travel and lodging), although you can of course pay more for "status goodies" (e.g., the "presidential" banquet, NOT THIS YEAR FEATURING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA -- sorry). Costs for students' attending are low.
I'm just thinking off the top of my head about our own meeting(s) at CPAC, but we probably should talk about organizing, fundraising, voter registration, and use of "new media." I very much hope we could get a drop-in from Govenor Palin, but if that's not possible, we can get a member of her family.
Our own "Palinstas" meeting at CPAC (not endless, not unfocused) should get us all working effectively toward the Inauguration of President Sarah Louise Heath Palin in January, 2013.
Between now and the election of 2012, we need to work together as closely and effectively as possible. I expect members of our movement at CPAC to be an extremely diverse group of people and to represent a majority of states. My personal goal will be to help keep your expenses low. I've said one of my intentions for CPAC and the early primaries (IO, NH, NV, and SC) is to purchase a very good sleeping bag. I want all my extra discretionary dollars to go Palln for President (SarahPAC currently).
Trust me, going to Iowa and New Hampshire in the dead of winter, which many Palinstas will do, is not exactly a vacation.
If you write back (TalkTop65@aol.com) with questions or suggestions, I will summarize them all and put them in a return message.(For those who can't attend CPAC in February, there will be a conference call about February 22, 2010.)
The events leading up to Nov., 2012, may be the last mega-political project of my lifetime, and I'm looking ahead with tremendous enthusiasm. God bless you all.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor graduated "summa cum laude" (highest honors) with a degree in political science from Princeton University. Apparently, poli sci at Princeton, as at many big-time universities, is an easy major, one that doesn't demand a great command of the English language.
On Sunday and Monday, I'll be writing more about Sonia Sotomayor's intellectual limitations, which are many.
The other day I was taking notes during the first two days of the Sotomayor hearings. Her comments were legalistic and jargon-ridden to the point of being incomprehensible. When Senator Coburn asked her if we Americans "have a right to self-defense in our own homes," she gave an incoherent answer.
Even worse, she regularly misused common English words. In answering (sort of) Coburn's question she use the word "eminent" (standing out above others) several times when she meant "imminent." (about-to-happen). If she's ever ruled on the concept of "eminent domain," goodness knows what the decision sounded like.
Also, when she was talking about an individual's "store of knowledge" (itself a redundant phrase) she called it "story of knowledge." It was an absurd blunder. I doubt she won any spellingbees at Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx.
(Marine Delano of New York State pointed out to me that Sotomayor badly mispronounced the Latin phrase "sui generis," meaning originally "of its own kind" and now generally meaning individual or unique. Sotomayor pronounced it "soo jen-riss," whereas the correct form is "soo-eye gen-er-iss.")
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been slobbering (and shedding tears) over Ms. Sotomayor and her supposed "brilliance." Sotomayor once described herself as the "poster girl for Affirmative Action." In her case, truer words were never spoken.
She's not a "wise Latina." She's an unwise one. She wouldn't even be a good candidate for the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
Oh yes, she's a certain to get confirmed. Her confirmation is imminent, although there's nothing eminent about her.
America now is the country where every girl, even stupid ones, can grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice.