Sunday, May 31, 2009
I saw on TV Rush Limbaugh's February presentation at CPAC and later read the speech (a long one). I described it as "A Love Letter to America," one emphasizing limited government, opportunity, tolerance, self-reliance, and, especially, liberty. I basically stopped listening to Rush with any regularity in 1994 -- too much bluster, but the man does have a good heart.
I realize that some on the Left called the CPAC presentation "hate speech," which it was not. People on the Left who hate Limbaugh do so because he's so effective -- and because he absolutely refuses to apologize for being an American.
Some people, including Rush, are extremely angry at Sonia Sotomayor, who has made remarks proclaiming herself superior not only to white people, but apparently to Black people. Note that she didn't give any props to "wise Black women" or "wise Asian women" or "wise Native Americans." Why not?
What if a Rush Limbaugh had pronounced white men superior to Black men . . . or Black women? I don't think Obama would have nominated him to the Supreme Court. I doubt if Rush has ever in his career made remarks as offensive as some of Sotomayor's. She's a racial polarizer, and he is not.
The whole "Latina" identity thing is B-S. If she truly believed the Latin culture was superior to our American culture, she would have headed back to Puerto Rico long ago. It's just pretense, a pose by someone who wants to assert her own "specialness."
Friday, May 29, 2009
We won a big victory in the Senate -- 90 to 6 -- on the issue of providing Obama funds to close GITMO. We won mainly because we framed the issue in a way that prevented even Dems from voting for it. We won because we framed it, "Do you want homicidal maniacs -- terrorists -- in YOUR neighborhood?" Even Harry Reid voted against it. The next day or so Obama went out with his TelePrompter and tried to "make the case," but it was a case nobody wanted to hear -- or will ever want to hear.
If we can't do that kind of "framing-to-win" with Sonia Sotomayor, then we won't win. Heck, we're all used to that anyway, right? We can wear the health care debate as long as we put the issue in terms that will acquaint the American people with the "joys" of rationing and "take-a-number" health care.
One of Obama's key advisers on health care is Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel -- he's Rahm's brother -- who advocates getting rid of the Hippocratic Oath. His "treatment" for the ill elderly seems to be to hold a pillow over their heads. Cost control, you know. Obama's comment -- I'm not making this up -- is for society to face up to the need for "democratic decisions" on when to deny care. Patients and their families -- and even their personal doctors -- appear not to be part of those democratic decisions for euthanasia.
I have been urging people to get a copy of Dr. David Gratzer's book called The Cure. In it, he describes his shocking experience as a Canadian med student, taking a short cut through a hospital emergency facility. Every hallway was full of people on stretchers, most of them elderly, who had been there for days. In the air was an almost suffocating stench of urine and sweat. Many of the patients were moaning, and others were going in and out of consciouness. (The description is on p. 1 of the book).
Gratzer says that was his first real experience of what the much-celebrated Canadian system actually meant. We need to take these realities and rub the leftists noses in them.. One of the people writing in these e-mail exchanges (Teri) has TWENTY-ONE separate/related illnesses, although she remains as feisty as when she was a teenager. In Canada, she would not be writing about Obama and Sotomayor, because her funeral would have occurred long ago.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Political commentator Dick Morris said that Obama's goal was to turn the proud USA into . . . France. Why do so many people in our country, formerly known as "the land of the free and the brave," approve of Obama's action diminishing our country? Today's column will explore the bad things that are happening in this nation.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
About Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, Stuart Taylor wrote the following in the National Journal: "Do we want a new justice who comes close to stereotyping white males as (on average) inferior beings?"
Barack Hussein Obama wants such a Justice. Sonia Sotomayor obviously does . . . but does America really want to go down that road of identity politics? We shall see.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, falsely claimed today (May 26) that she believes deeply in "the rule of law." As you learn more about this woman, you'll find that for her the "rule of law" is a term that means the rule of law-flouting liberal activist judges.Barack Obama clearly believes that Sotomayor possesses the quality he believes most important in a judge: empathy.
However, in her case, empathy apparently is synonymous with bias in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. From her public statements and rulings, believes that people should receive unequal protection under the law.
Specifically, in the case of the New Haven, CT, firefighters, Sotomayor ruled that Caucasian firemen (and one Hispanic) somehow had an unfair advantage when it came to promotion. However, on any objective basis, they had no such advantage.
Many lawyers who have argued cases before Sotomayor believe she lacks a judicial temperament. In fact, some make the case that she's a bad-tempered individual.
Consider the comments made by lawyers in The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, as outlined in one of Jeffrey Rosen's articles in the liberal New Republic:
- "She is a terror on the bench."
- "She is very outspoken."
- "She can be difficult."
- "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."
- She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."
- "She abuses lawyers."
- "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."
- "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."
Those are descriptions of a narcissist or an egomaniac, or both. Is that the kind of person we really want on the Supreme Court?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
As I make clear in the previous column below Judge Wood is a left-wing extremist whose decisions show contempt for Americans who are: (1) pro-life; (2) advocates of traditional marriage; (3) orthodox Christians; (4) believers in the concept that judges should interpret the law rather than use the bench to make new laws; and (5) those who believe in the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment. Yes, she has "empathy," but apparently it extends only to those who agree with her on social issues.
On defeating the nomination of Diane Wood consider the following: ”He who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven, making it impossible for the enemy to guard against him. This being so, the places that he shall attack are precisely those the enemy cannot defend.” – Sun-tzu, The Art of War.
She regularly displays contempt for lawyers taking legal positions at variance with her social and political philosophy. In her judicial opinions, Wood has consistently taken positions at variance with the intent of the framers of the Constitution. In one opinion, she indicated she would like to remove the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
This exceedlingly strange woman has even suggested that having gays and Christians -- or even Republicans and Democrats -- in the same law school classrooms could create an atmosphere she described as "poisonous." I
n one of her law review essays, she argues that the Constitution is out of date and that judges' "evolving" (i.e., socially acceptable) opinions should take precedence over the Framers' views. But as an Oklahoma legislator (Charles Keye) recently said, "The Constitution either means what it says . . . or it means nothing at all."
Wood should not be nominated and, if as appears likely, she is, should not be confirmed. Wood is a symbol of everything that's wrong with the American judiciary. Read the column below and click on the links to Ed Whelan's National Review Online columns (link below) to see quotes demonstrating this woman's outrageous views.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Obama's political guru and senior adviser, David Axelrod, reportedly has "cleared" the choice with George Soros' Moveon.org, a group that has favored another candidate (Hispanic Sonia Sotomayor). Also, Diane Wood is a major favorite of the National Organization of Women (NOW).
She is notable for favoring the view of the Constitution as a "living document" (or "evolving document") which for strict constructionists means she sees it as something open to liberal "interpretations" by activist judges. Apparently, she disagrees ith the Oklahoma legislator who recently observed, "The Constitution either means what it says, or it means nothing at all."
Wood apparently was chosen over other candidates (incuding Sotomayor, Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford, and Elena Kagan, former Dean at Obama's alma mater, Harvard) because of her "real world experience." Specifically, she is a divorced mother of three with a legal background not confined to the academic world. Apparently, no male candidates received any serious consideration.
Obama interviewed Judge Wood last week. Her political/judicial attitudes seem to dovetail with those of two SCOTUS judges Obama has said he admires, Justice Souter and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Stay tuned for much more information on Judge Diane Wood.
Key articles by Diane Wood below:
"‘Original Intent’ Versus ‘Evolution’," The Scrivener 7 (Summer 2005) (also published in Green Bag Almanac & Reader 267, 2007.
"Our 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century World," 80 New York University Law Review, 1079, 2005.
Obama proclaimed that a key quality for his appointee would be "empathy" (for the downtrodden). As you'll see from Ed Whelan's National Review Online articles (there are five),Judge Wood's empathy is clearly selective -- and don't apply, for example, to people with orthodos Christian beliefs:
Supreme Court Candidate Diane P. Wood—Part 5 [Ed Whelan]I’ve just read two speeches turned into law-review articles by Judge Diane Wood, “Reflections on the Judicial Oath” (8 Green Bag 2d 177 (2005)) and “Our 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century World (80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1079 (2005).)
There is a lot wrong with both articles, but for now I’ll limit myself to a few points:
1. Wood gives no sign that she recognizes any meaningful bounds on the role of the Supreme Court. In her view, “the text of the Constitution tends to reflect broad principles, not specific prescriptions,” and “broad language may legitimately be interpreted broadly [by the Supreme Court], in a manner informed by evolving notions of a decent society.” (80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1098.) Among the matters that Wood doesn’t address is how it is that the Court has the authority to override democratic enactments based on its own reading of language whose meaning is, in relevant respects, indeterminate.
2. Wood believes that it’s proper for the Supreme Court to revise the meaning of constitutional provisions to reflect contemporary international and foreign practices. Commenting on the Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, she states that “the Court appropriately chose to enrich its understanding of the issue by reviewing international practice, acknowledging implicitly that the American people are indeed part of the broader human community and at least presumptively share its core values.” (80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1101.)
3. Wood evidently believes that the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause and that a Supreme Court ruling permitting that phrase would “announce that the United States is a nation that has adopted monotheism as its official state dogma.” But perhaps I’m misreading her opaque and seemingly incoherent text, so I set forth the full paragraph here:
Last [of three cases involving “displays of patriotism”] is Newdow, in which Mr. Newdow tried unsuccessfully to raise the question whether the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court ducked the issue. Ordinarily, that would be the end of the matter for now. And perhaps it will be here too, assuming that the Congress does not pass the legislation that has cleared the House that would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear any case involving the Pledge. No matter what happens, however, it seems clear that no amount of pressure will cause the Court to announce that the United States is a nation that has adopted monotheism as its official state dogma.(8 Green Bag 2d at 181.)
4. Wood strongly signals, in her discussion of Loving v. Virginia, that she believes that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage: “The right not to have the State prescribe a set of acceptable spouses, in the absence of the kind of powerful reason it would have for incest laws or laws designed to protect children, is implicit in the concept of liberty.” (8 Green Bag 2d at 184.)
(For more on Wood, see my [Whelan's] Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 and this post on Jeffrey Rosen’s praise for Wood.)
Steve adds: The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, but at the very least, it informs us about the thinking of the Founding Fathers. In the Declaration, Jefferson says that we are "endowed by the Creator [singular] with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson certainly didn't believe that by saying so he was "establishing" a specific religious denomination's views (note to Judge Wood: monotheism is NOT a religion) as what she calls "the official state dogma."
For those still reading, I'd like to say one more thing. I'm sure Barack Obama, like many other liberals, believes Diane Wood is possessed of "intellectual firepower." In fact, as Ed Whelan observes, most of her thinking is incoherent and inflamed by political bias.
She has no business being on the Supreme Court. She has no business being on the Court she currently serves. She's a simpleton.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Today in his pompous TelePrompter-aided speech, Barack Obama referred to his Secretary of Defense as "William Gates." In fact, the man's name is Robert, not William. Can we have one more chorus of adoring Obamaphiliacs tell us how "brilliant" the man is?
[Note: On my other blog today -- Friday -- you can read the following: Obama's Bogus "Rule of Law" . Here's an excerpt . . .
Waterboarding is NOT torture, except by the prissy standards of the ACLU and America-haters like George Soros. Of course, Obama's recent speech on "national security," which Obama has redefined as "making nice with those who want to kill us," made much about his commitment to "the rule of law." Obama never really defined that concept, mainly because it is little more than a platitude.]
During the campaign, Obama once famously referred to the fact that he had visited "57 states." Perhaps he was foreshadowing the naming of Kenya and several other nations in Africa and the Mideast to the Union?
He also talked about the "10,000 people" who had died in a series of Kansas tornadoes. In fact, the number of deaths was somewhat smaller: a total of 12 fatalities.
This is the same Barack Obama who assured us one of his uncles, a man Obama never met, apparently had the newly fashionable PTSD. Obama never cited any other family members or associates to verify such a medical diagnosis of a moody relative dead for generations.
Obama does not do well with his "uncle" designations -- remember when he was still defending Rev. Wright and referred to him as an "old uncle?" In another case, Obama invented an uncle who had "liberated Auschwitz," apparently single-handedly.
When it was pointed out to him that Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, Obama plucked another uncle out of the hat, and said that he had "liberated Treblinka." Alas, what evidence exists suggests that particular great-uncle, Charlie Payne, was in the Navy, not the Army. Unless he magically liberated Treblinka from the sea, Charlie Payne never reached the level of heroism ascribed to him by his grand-nephew.
What if, say, Sarah Palin had ever come with such a collection of whoppers and gaffes? One imagines the Huffington Post and the NY Times would have volunteered to boil her in oil. They certainly would have seen her, although not Obama, as a certifiable nitwit.
Or what if it had been Sarah Palin, rather than the president of the US, who had portrayed participants in the Special Olympics as fodder for late-night jokes? Or what if Sarah had spent her earlier years "paling around" with Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn. Or what if she had spent 20 years in a church with a Caucasian version of Rev. Wright? Or what if the house she and Todd lived in had been financed by political fixer Tony Reszko? Or what if she had enthusiastically endorsed -- twice -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich?
Those of you who have read this far get the point. Sarah is not the one who makes idiotic comments and engages in constant hyperbole about her relatives' achievement. Barack Hussein Obama is the one who does so.
Yes, Obama, Axelrod, and their media minions have "done a number" on Sarah Palin. In fact, however, she and her family represent just about everything that's good in American life, including politics. Obama is a smooth talking ideologue in a $4,000 suit clinging to his TelePrompter. Sarah Palin? She's the stuff of which American legends are made.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
"Glenn knew this wasn't going to be pretty -- but his interview with the ladies on The View was even worse than anticipated, mostly because they wasted an entire segment on accusations that Glenn 'lied' about who said hello to who first on his Amtrak train ride with Barbara and Whoopi to the Correspondents dinner in Washington DC. The saddest part is that not only did they waste an entire segment on a completely insignificant, petty, humorless and incidental point – Glenn had already clarified the point the day before! Tune in to Fox News tonight at 5pm for Glenn's first response to the 'liar liar pants on fire' ambush interview by the ladies on The View. Watch the ambush HERE."
Gee, the dear ladies of The View treated Glenn Beck with hostility and unfairness. Gee, who woulda thunk it?
What exactly did Glenn expect? Did he believe that because he is a "nice guy," which he regularly tells us, Barbara, Whoopi, and the joyless Joy were going to become his new best friends? Why was Glenn so naive? Why did the "ambush" come as a surprise? And why oh why did he ever consent to go on a program famous for liberal hit-jobs?
Glenn is not a man of great talents, but he nevertheless has a huge ego. If the disastrous journey to Barbara Walters and friends accomplished anything, maybe it brought his ego at least slightly more into congruence with reality.
My notable blogger friend, Rodger Morrow, made the following comment after Sarah Palin's disastrous interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson: "Every time we hold the hand of friendship out to liberal journalists . . . they bite it."
I believe Sarah Palin knows what might now be occurring to Glenn Beck: the leftist errand boys and errand girls on the networks are not our friends. They do not have our best interests at heart. They do not want us to succeed. The errands they carry out are done on behalf of Obama and other far-left politicos/celebrities.
If any of us, including Sarah Palin, get ambushed in the future, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Let the liberals interview one another, while we stay far away from them. The only thing we accomplish by being on with them is to increase THEIR ratings.
Note: What about Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the one conservative on The View? She has to realize she's no more than a token. Joy, Whoopi, and Barbara don't respect Elisabeth. She needs a new job.]
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Conservatives selling for Conservatives...because the stakes are too high not to.
America's financial state has seen better days. To right the situation requires putting those who "get it" in office...which requires money many of us don't have. It's a "between a rock and a hard place" situation.
ConservaBid provides another venue for individuals, families, and groups to raise needed funds...for themselves and the conservative causes they support.
Whether it is from your attic, something you made, or your group's branded items, there is surely something you can list on ConservaBid. The site operates like eBay, with the exception that there are free listing and storefront options, and you and your cause get the profits, instead of the machine behind the site.
Recent elections have left us little money, spent emotions, and dwindling time. We not only have to come up with serious loose change, we have to do it in a hurry and with lots of fervor to get the job done.
ConservaBid is a fun way to network with other Conservatives and give each other the boost we need...financially and politically.
For more details, please visit our FAQs page.
Karen also manages a pro-life PAC called http://annieoakley.org/. I hope you'll visit that site and make a contribution, large or small.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it." (Statement reportedly made by a US military officer during the Vietnam War). Barack Obama is saving the US healthcare system by destroying it. The material below is from columnist and political guru Dick Morris. I'll be continuing to write all thise week on Morris' column, Dr. David Gratzer's great book The Cure, and the critical subject of Obam's choosing death-care over health-care. Please tell your friends about these columns -- thanks.
The following is:
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 12, 2009
When all of America’s top health insurers and providers met at the White House [last] week and pledged to save $2 trillion over the next decade in health costs, they were pledging to sabotage our medical care. The blunt truth, which everybody agreed to keep quiet, is that the only way to reduce these costs is to ration healthcare, thereby destroying our system.
• Essential to any cost reduction is a cut in doctors’ fees. Congress is trying to cut Medicare fees by 21 percent. But cuts in fees and doctors’ incomes will just discourage people from entering the profession and those already in it from practicing.
The limited number of doctors and nurses in the United States is the key constraint on the availability of healthcare. Our national inventory of 800,000 doctors is growing at only about 1 percent a year (18,000 med school graduates annually minus retirements), while the nurse population is stagnant at 1.4 million. To stretch these limited resources so that they can treat 50 million more people is possible only through the most severe kind of rationing.
• As in Canada, the best way to cut medical costs is to refrain from using the best drugs to treat cancer and other illnesses, thereby economizing at the expense of patients’ lives. Forty-four percent of the drugs approved by the Canadian health authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the healthcare system due to their high cost.
As a result, death rates from cancer are 16 percent higher in Canada than in the United States. We will pay for the attempt to save $2 trillion with our lives. (And remember, one cannot opt out of the Canadian system and pay for the medications out of pocket.)
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Consider the following story from Dr. David Gratzer's book The Cure:
"In medical school, I learned the most important lesson not in a classroom but on the way to one. On a cold Canadian morning about a decade ago, late for a class, I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers -- waiting, moaning, begging for treatment. Some elderly patients has waited for up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care -- not only in Canada, but also in the United States. Though I didn't know it then, I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times." [page 2]
In fact, Barack Obama and Kathleen Sibelius are beginning the same dismal journey -- and they, along with us, will experience the same disaster. That disaster will not occur overnight, but occur it will.
[On Saturday and Sunday, I'll have new columns up here -- the first one being about Sarah Palin's support of "Miss California," Carrie Prejean.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
He's famous for believing that animals have rights (relax, I'm an animal lover), but he's not convinced that (all) human beings have such rights. If they're more trouble than he determines they should be, they're candidates for termination. (See Singer material on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)
Obama's comments on the "democratic decisions" (made by government employees and not including patients, their own doctors, their families, and their priests, rabbis, or ministers!) about when to deny care to terminal patients, truly was chilling. It didn't get a lot of attention from the media. He was saying what many people on the agnostic Left are thinking.
It's not a paradox but rather a contradiction: In order to provide care, excessive in many cases, to all, government must deny it to the some, and the sick elderly are the first ones who will lose.
I'm not under any illusions that end-of-life issues are easy.
Personally, I'm in favor of hospices and DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate forms signed by patients or their next-of-kin), as long as it isn't some bureaucrat signing the DNR. The problem with Obama's "statistical" approach to health care is that it turns out the statistics don't really apply to unique individuals.
As for Prof. Singer, his reasoning about it's being okay to euthanize severely handicapped people is a lot like some of the "moderately evil" Nazis, who looked at handicapped individuals (and other groups) as merely a cost-benefit question. In doing so, they were "enablers" for the "pure evil" Nazis.
Obama-care is going to impose unsustainable costs on the health care system, including payoffs to SEIU members (many of whom are hospital workers) and "cooperative" providers. Also, more and more patients are going to start demanding the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins rather than their local hospital. That will cause costs to skyrocket.
Soon after, the government rationing will begin. The good news will be that we'll all have a "health care" card; the bad news it will be worth less and less.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
NOTE: I'm going to write this week (starting Monday) on my Draft Palin 2012 site about the major differences between Obama and Gov. Palin on the issue of "life." I won't be talking mainly about pro-life versus pro-choice (that is, about abortion), but rather about life in general. With Obama, there are many signs that he regards life-and-death issues as something that should be resolved by government bureaucrats on the bases of cost and politics. His recent comments suggesting that (widespread?) euthanasia for the terminally ill may be appropriate (as a cost saving approach) are downright chilling. I believe that Obama has a relatively low-regard for life in general -- and not just on the issue of abortion. One step I'll urge you to take involves spending a few minutes reading the fascinating Wikipedia article on Princeton professor and bioethicist Peter Singer, who's known to many that university as the man who urges people to "leave handicapped infants on the hillside to die." You can find the article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer. Professor Singer scares the heck out of many people who hear his thoughts, but he's a good barometer of where the "life issue" debate will go under Obama. I'll be writing about his views, Obama's, and Gov. Palin's on: http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.
On my other blog (with occasional excerpts on this one), I've been writing about the implications of Obama's lack of respect for life. That disrespect, as we've all read recently, goes far beyond the contentious abortion issue. In his recent interview with the NY Times, Obama made clear his administration is thinking of saving money by reducing health care for (very) ill elderly citizens.
A PA friend asked me why Obama has such a low regard for ailing seniors. I told her the following: "He's aware that a majority of seniors didn't vote for him. Thus, why spend money on them?" As we learned with his Stimulus Package, Omnibus Bill, and Fiscal 2010 Budget, Obama pays off his supporters -- ACORN, left-wing unions, and various elitists. Period.
My friend wrote back asking if I believed Obama was really that callous and politicized. My response to her follows:
"Some of my thoughtful friends have taken a good hard look at Obama and have joined survivalist groups. They don't do so because they are evil right-wingers who don't revere their nation. They do so because they love their country and believe its survival is at stake. They may well be correct.
"When Obama wanted to appoint Tom Daschle head of HHS, he knew that Daschle was an advocate of "reducing" care for the terminally ill. "Senator Daschle" had become "Senator Death," Jack Kevorkian without the steel-gray hair and suicide kits.
But as my wife's favorite program ("House") keeps pointing out, many people diagnosed as terminally ill have a habit of living on for years.
"My own favorite "House" program is the one about the very courageous 9-year-old-girl with terminal cancer. With the help of some fine physicians, she ends up hugging Dr. House and walking with her mom out of the hospital. Yeah, she's going to die of cancer . . . BUT NOT THAT DAY AND NOT THAT WEEK.
Granted, Obama's "universal" health care plan probably will become law, so we are going to go through some very bad days this year, but the idea is to live to fight on. Like my favorite 9-year-old on "House," we will live to fight another day. The bad that Obama does -- and he will do much more -- can be undone . . . not overnight, but over time.
But exactly how bad is Obama? He's getting ready to appoint a Supreme Court justice (probably Ms. Sotomayor) who will swear to uphold the Constitution, when she has no such intention. Like Obama, she has respect only for politics and political decisions, not the written Constitution.
Yeah, it's pretty bad. Is Sotomayor the best person available? She's almost certainly among the worst, just as Obama is the worst possible President we could have chosen.
The process of restoring a constitutional government will fall to leaders like Sarah Palin. As some people would have it, let's start calling her "Patriot Sarah." As for Obama, we've had some bad Presidents in the past, and we will survive his political antics. As novelist William Faulkner put it years ago, we will do more than survive. "We will prevail."
Friday, May 8, 2009
In a particularly depressed moment of his life the English poet John Keats spoke about "being half in love with easeful death." From his recent statements, Barack Obama is more than half in love with it -- especially when it comes to the chronically ailing and the terminally ill. It's not that death necessarily would be easier for the ailing, mostly elderly patients. It's that it would be easier on the Obama Administration's budget for health care. Just as dead people tell no tales, neither do they incur any health costs.
Remember when Obama told Pastor Rick Warren that determining when life began was "above [his] pay-grade?" In her recent speech to a Pro-Life group in Evansville, IN, Sarah Palin said such a determination was "not above [her pay-grade." She believes, unlike Obama, that God is the source of all life and that it begins at conception. Palin believes in what she calls "a culture of life." Obama believes that concept is nonsense.
In terms of views on life and death, the statement below (in boldface) by Obama (made to the NY Times and picked up by the Washington Times) is perhaps the most chilling one ever made by a high elected official. If you cut through his pompous rhetoric, you find an American President calling for bureaucratic control of health control, as well as rationing (particularly for older people), and, apparently, euthanasia in the name of cost-control. (I call his approach "Killing Off Grandpa and Grandma to Save Money").
President Obama admitted he wants the government to decide what health care Americans receive. "There's always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider," he said. "And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."
The ten-dollar word "asymmetry" means only that doctors usually know more about health care options than patients. Why didn't he say that rather than using a rhetorical smokescreen. Of most concern, why should bureaucrats ("the government") step in between doctors and patients in determining the best forms of treatment?
And, what "pay grades" (civil service levels") would such government people have when they help decide whether we live or die?
Obama paints a scary picture. He stated that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." For them, he said, "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."
Again, the soothing phrase "democratic conservation" hides the appalling implications of Obama's remarks. All those "doctors (not your doctor of course), scientists (of the "mad scientist" variety?), and ethicists (a nice term out of the secular humanist lexicon)" will be making abstract decisions on when you and other American should live or die. Obama didn't say that directly, but once you cut through the thick underbrush of his words, that's exactly what he meant.
Note: The "chronically ill" (perhaps half the adults in America) who may be denied health care under Obama include roughly half the American people, including yours truly (adult diabetes), my wife (stroke), and an adult daughter who lives with us (learning disabled). Three-out-three. What happens in Europe and to a degree in Canada is that health care for the terminally ill is delayed and they tend to die off quickly in much greater numbers than in the US.
In a scary sense, the logic is clear: dead people don't consume health care dollars. Can't argue with that, I guess.
(On my other blog, http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com, I'm writing a week-long series on Obama's frightening health plan, which appears largely to be a "death plan")
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Recently, I wrote the following to a friend (also named "Steve") who's an ardent conservative with a focus on social issues, especially abortion and gay marriage. For Sarah Palin to win the election in 2012, she must reach out -- in a spirit of love and respect -- to people who don't share all of her views.
Steve, at least Jeb Bush's remarks (about the GOP's need to get beyond Reagan) fired up people who truly care about the Republican Party and our beloved country. The basic Republican values should be, to cite Sarah Palin, "liberty, tolerance, and opportunity." I'm sure she would also add protecting our nation's security. We offer those things, and the liberal Democrats do not (although they occasionally claim they do).
One thing we must do -- and Pennsylvania senatorial candidate Pat Toomey must do the same, as I think he will -- is to emphasize that good people are going to disagree on one or more issues. But anyone who supports the principles Gov. Palin outlined is welcome as an ally.
I hope we can turn the "wedge issues" into something more than that. Mainly as a cost-cutting effort, Obama and his allies are creating a culture that "saves money" by increasing the number of abortions . . . and also shortens the lives of the elderly infirm. Obama recently said as much in an interview with the NY Times. [Note: On my other blog, I'll be writing for next week about Obama's disastrous health care proposals.]
I believe these realities will get the attention of people who may dissent with us to a degree on certain social issues. Most people, even those claiming to be pro-choice, are not enthusiastic about increasing abortions, particularly in the second- and third-trimesters. And very few Americans really want to snuff out grandma's and grandpa's lives prematurely . . . in order to save a few bucks.
We need to focus much of our energy on issues where we have a real chance of influencing the political process. We also need to salute our role models, even those who are not "perfect" in their life history. "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God."
Personally, I'd say two of those people are Bristol Palin, now relying on her life experience to support teen-age abstinence, and Carrie Prejean, who will probably lose her Miss California crown, but could gain something much more important: her immortal soul and her relationship with God. In the case of Bristol Palin, yes, she made a mistake (and haven't we all?). But unlike so many girls who get pregnant she didn't compound it with a much worse mistake.
I hope we all try to move our world in a direction where people don't hunker down in ideological camps but instead are able to discuss important issues fairly and honestly. Loving our neighbors is not synonymous with always agreeing with them.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
I believe Sarah Palin's slogan -- mantra, selling point -- should be "I'm ONE of YOU." Then, she needs to spell out exactly how that's true.
She's a working woman. She's the daughter of two educators. She's a feminist. She's a wife in a a terrific marriage. She's married to a union man and has been a union member herself. She's an athlete -- basketball, running, snow-machining, hunting and fishing -- and a gun-owner. She's the mother of an Army infantryman. She's the mother of a special needs child. She's the mother of a daughter who had a child out of wedlock. She's a Christian who tries to focus on practicing her faith rather than merely delivering lectures about it.
Also, she's a political leader who has bucked her own Party. She's an oil-state Governor who has taken on Big Oil . . . and won. She's one of America's leading advocates of renewable energy. She has been a major advocate of integrity in government and politics. She has helped ensure that Alaska has the lowest taxes on individuals of any state in the Union.
She will run for President on the grounds that she has much more in common with hundreds of millions of Americans than Barack Obama. If people compare the character and achievements of the two people, Sarah wins hands-down.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
I agree with my friend Mike Avery about the need NOT to re-brand the GOP. If we just try to imitate the Dems, people are going to shake their heads . . . and go in the other direction. What's our slogan to be, "Hey, we're almost as liberal as they are?" Or, "We're spending a lot -- but not as much as THEM?"
Yes, sending out Romney, the Bushes, Bobby Jindal, and the boring Eric Cantor is a terrible idea. We all know what GWB did wrong -- including terrible communication skills and surrounding himself with people of questionable talent and loyalty -- and the idea is for us to do better. I read during the campaign that Romney had higher negatives than . . . Hillary Clinton. Eric Cantor couldn't draw a crowd if he handed out $10 bills. Bobby Jindal, in his response to the State of the Union by Obama, gave a speech that was naive to the point of childishness.
McCain was/is a lazy man. He's been in politics 30 years, and he never learned out to give an inspiring speech? He condemned the NC Republican Party for running a commercial mentioning the Rev. Wright . . . then, he admitted he'd never actually seen the commercial! He remained mystified by the world of online politics. He kept activists chronically short of yard signs, especially "Democrats for McCain" material. He had terrible outreach to key demographics, including young voters and suburban women.
Other than that . . . well . . . he never knew who his opponent (Obama) was or what he was up to. He never grasped Sarah Palin's appeal -- and ended up resenting it.
We don't need re-branding. We need to do smart things rather than stupid ones. The smartest thing we could do in 2012 is to nominate Sarah Palin for the presidency.
Monday, May 4, 2009
What Rush Limbaugh said today about Sarah Palin (I heard the excerpt on the Greta van Susteren show) was right on the mark. Rush is strongly supportive of Sarah, and I hope the two work together. The other "guys" in the Republican hierarchy -- like McCain, Romney, and Jeb Bush -- have mothing even approaching the mass appeal of Gov. Palin.
Jeb Bush recently indicated we need to get over Ronald Reagan. When we "get over Reagan," we will no longer have any real political purpose. Why not "get over" the Founding Fathers?
Her connection with real, live Americans at all levels is something they don't comprehend. Instead of launching some "New America" PR effort, they need to go to Alaska and sit at the foot of someone who actually loves and respects people.As I said of Rush's speech at CPAC, it was a beautiful love letter to America. I hope he mobilitzes his 15 million listeners behind Sarah -- most of them are already behind her.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Being President to McCain is not as important to him as "being a PLAYER," being a Washington bigshot who gets on the Sunday shows and hangs out with other Beltway types. He's married to one of the richest women in America, and it has been many, many years since he had a real connection to The Great Unwashed.
My slogan for Sarah 2012 is: "Sarah . . . she's ONE of US." Peter N., who wrote the piece below is also "one of us."
Friday, May 1, 2009
I've been a conservative activist since the Goldwater days. But many of my fellow conservatives who are asking us to appeal to the "base" are wildly exaggerating the size of said base. (In the 2008 election, 23% of those voters identifying themselves as "conservative" cast their ballots for . . . Barack Obama. People in denial do not win elections.
Right now in my home state of Pennsylvania, the big question is whether conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey can beat "moderate" (i.e., liberal) Democrat Arlen Specter in the November 10, 2010 election. Frankly, most careful observers wouldn't bet even their coffee money on Toomey.
Consider: Incumbent Republican -- and uber-conservative -- Rick Santorum spent $26 million in 2006 - and got just over 40% of the vote. Pennsylvania is a Blue state, and it has been getting bluer. I
s there any way Toomey can win? One very thoughtful Republican analyst, Mike Avery, of the Lehigh Valley, thinks there is, and he has many suggestions (see below) for Toomey.
Will Pat be wise enough to follow them? I don't know. What I do know is that Pat is a "coat-tie-and-wing-tips" Republican in a "jeans-tee shirts-and-Reeboks" state. If he focuses laser-like on the base and peddles nothing more than the GOP's version of "old-time religion," he will get about as many votes as . . . Rick Santorum.
Mike Avery believes it doesn't have to be that way. His approach is part of the answer for Toomey, and it should work for other Republican candidates, including my particular favorite, Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the McCain Campaign decided to pull out of Michigan last October, Sarah Palin opposed the decision. She said she and Todd wanted to go into the auto plants and seek votes from the autoworkers. Frankly, she regarded them as "her people" -- something very unsual (but necessary) for a Republican candidate.
McCain thought he could win in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with the GOP base. That proved to be a fantasy.
The rest is from Mike . . .
If the events of today, April 29, [with Specter becoming a Democrat], don't mobilize Republicans, we might as well as give the keys to the Republican party to the Democrats and get ready to become "subjects" for the rest of our lives.
James Carville has a new book entitled "40 More Years"; the premise is this: Republicans have been so stupid that the Democrats are going to be in power for the next 40 years. Do you resemble that remark by Carville, or do you resent it? Speak up!
Let's review today's events: Arlen Specter has become a Democrat. That's a good thing, because now we can beat him twice. But not the way we are going.
GM & Chrysler are now owned by the government and the UAW. This is the beginning of the end of our country unless we start now to fight back.
Attention Pat Toomey: Do you know that truck drivers are Republicans? When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to a truck stop in their "straight talk express" motor-homes? Never, is the answer.
Another question: When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to Sturgis, SD, for biker week? Never is the answer. Did you know that bikers are Republicans? You have never thought about it, have you?
So I ask you, Pat Toomey, do you want to win the Senate seat now held by Arlen Specter? If you do, we can help that happen.
Put on some jeans and sneakers, and wear a "Pat Toomey for Senate" T-shirt, get into your motor home and start going to truck stops, biker events, into the inner cities and to the outer cities, go to the Wal-Mart parking lots and to the shopping malls, to the church parking lots after services, and anywhere else "street-level" Americans live & congregate.
Right now, we are seeing a Republican Party being led by the same people doing the same thing over & over again expecting a different result each time. It's not going to happen, unless we begin to take in new people with new ideas and then implement them.
Think of it this way, the Democrats are just jumping for joy seeing the same old people trying to lead the Republican party... they know it's a win-win for them. And a loss-loss for us.So, we have nothing to lose by inviting a better class of losers [campaign advisers and activists] to give it a try for us... hey, they might even help us win.
Pat, are you going to help change things? Or are you going to be satisfied with losing?
Self-serving [and self-deluding] we lose. Together we can win. -- Mike Avery
Steve adds: How much of Mike's piece do I agree with? Every word. Let's no recapitulate the failures of Rick Santorum. Instead, let's be brutally honest, figure out what's absolutely necessary to prevail . . . and then act like winners.