9/11f: Critical Lessons for America

Critical lesson #1: Never forget . . .


Critical Lesson #2: Never forgive . . .

Governor Sarah Palin knows these lessons well. Barack Obama never knew them -- and never will.

Palin: Obama Proposing Bad Medicine

In a Wall Street Journal OP ED on September 8, Gov. Sarah Palin explained in simple, but compelling, words exactly what's wrong with Barack Obama's socialistic health care plan. The Palin article follows:

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.

One Thing in Common With Obama

To all my honored guests who come here with such frequency, I'll be taking a short vacation -- if our awful president can do so, well "yes I can" -- until September 4, this coming Friday, when I'll start posting with the usual regulatity. Have a great week everyone. I love you all . . . especially Gov. Sarah Palin . . . but I know she's only one of many wonderful people in our great country. God bless America.

Sarah Palin Faces Party Elites

Sarah Palin exemplifies nearly everything that's good about America, so why do many in the party elites dislike her? There's even a name for the condition: Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Obama Undermines America's Spiritual Foundation

The following column is by Larry Perrault, a theologian and political philosopher who lives in Houston, Texas. Larry is a strong supporter of Gov. Sarah Palin. In the 2008 primary season, he supported Gov. Mike Huckabee.

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

The Problem with Palin Haters

The Alaskans who know her love Sarah Palin. What is there not to like?

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.

ObamaCare: Elderly Need Not Apply

"Obama lies, grandma dies" (a popular sign at town hall meetings). Governor Sarah Palin, with her description of Obama's "death panel" may be the first person in history to change a major political debate with an entry in Facebook.

"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.

Revisiting Palin's "Death Panel" Concept

"Obama Lies, Grandma Dies": from a sign often seen at town hall meetings and other gatherings related to ObamaCare.

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.

Palin Dead Right on Death Panel

In recent weeks, Gov. Sarah Palin has brought something new to the American scene: "Facebook Politics," and she's using it very effectively.

My friend "WB" sent the following: "The Death Panel already exists! It was passed in the Stimulus Bill. Here is a link to American Thinker and their article on this subject":

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

Also, take note of the following: See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html

The following is my take on the public relations elements of the "death panel" debate: From a public relations standpoint -- and yeah, I have been in that business since the mid-1970s -- the most important thing you can do is to put your opponents on the defensive. (We sometimes make the mistake of allowing ourselves to be put in a defensive posture.) One goal of Sarah's "death panel" concept is to get people like Obama and Specter (and Paul Begala and other drones) saying, "No, we don't have death panels in the legislation."

Keep them mentioning the phrase "death panel" -- and then hit them hard with statements like, "Gee, won't that be the practical effect of the mandated end-of-life counselling sessions?" Or, "won't that be the practical effect of making massive cuts in Medicare?" Or, "Gee, what about Obama's key adviser, Ezekiel Emanuel, who says a teenager's life is worth a lot more than that of a senior citizen?"

Keep them sputtering and blustering about the death panels. In short, keep asking them loaded questions -- keep passing them hand grenades. Bring up the "Jane Sturm" episode, where Obama was making the case that a healthy 100-year-old woman shouldn't have received a pacemaker -- the woman is now a health 105 year old. Bring up Obama's grandmother, whom he said shouldn't have received a hip replacement. That is, tie them knots, and beat them senseless.

Palin Hammers Obama's DeathCare

See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html

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. [1]

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. [2]

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.” [3]

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. [4]

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.” [5]

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] 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.” [7]

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.” [8]

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

[1] See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=116979483434&ref=nf

Palin Wins Death Panel Battle

Breaking News: Sarah Palin is back on Twitter, and you can sign up as a follower. Her new handle is: SarahPalinUSA.

Bulletin: Gov. Sarah Palin has won a fierce battle to eliminate Barack Obama's "death panel"provision in the House Energy and Commerce Committee legislation. The so-called "end-of-life" counseling provisions will be eliminated. Read the full story at Pamela Geller 's Atlas Shrugs. (Click link below.) Read the previous column on why the characterization of Obama's panel as one dedicated to death was a good one.

Palin Wins! Death Panels/End of Life Provision to Go

Palin Pro-Life, Obama Pro-Death

Barack Obama, Say Hi to Dr. Jack Kevorkian. (President Death meets Dr. Death.)

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.

Palin, Bush Decency, Obama, Indecency

The best way to evaluate Presidents and potential Presidents is not by words written by someone else and recited from a TelePrompter, but rather by their actions. The pictures below are worth more a 1,000 words, and they illustrate actions that tell us nearly all we need to know about the basic decency of President George W. Bush, Gov. Sarah Palin, and Barack Hussein Obama. If every American would take a good look at these pictures, it would help ensure that Obama would be a one-term President.

Palin Versus Obama on Healthcare

Gov. Sarah Palin in her recent Facebook column (scroll down to see) has become the most effective critic of Barack Obama bizarre health care proposals. As the most likely GOP nominee for president in 2012, Palin is assuming a leading role in opposing Obama's efforts to turn our country into the political, social, and economic equivalent of a landfill.

As regards children with autism, their major protector within the political world is Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She looks at them as American citizens with special needs who deserve special protection. Obama looks at them as non-voters and thus not one of the groups that he wishes to favor. Obama's bad taste joke on Letterman about the Special Olympics illustrates where he stands on special needs kids and adults, whom he apparently regards as a burden to society.

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."

Palin Hammers Obama's "Death Care"

Sarah Palin in Facebook announced her horror at Obama's plan for a government takeover of health care. She predicts it will lead to rationing and the denial of care to the elderly and special needs children. She's right.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434

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!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.

And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back.

Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

Rep. Bachmann's speech can be viewed here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI

Palin Invites Obamas to Alaska

Pamelas Geller of New York broke the following story about Gov. Palin's invitation to the Obamas to come to Alaska. More news as it develops.

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.

Hillbuzz: Total Support for Palin

Why Hillbuzz.com -- and America -- love Sarah Heath Palin

http://hillbuzz.org/2009/08/05/we-will-go-to-hell-and-back-for-sarah-palin/

We. Love. This. Woman.

Why?

Because this woman loves America. She wakes up every morning, works hard, and does her best to do what’s right each and every day. In the face of the nastiest, most misogynistic, most vile attacks from Left, she soldiers on, with grace, class, style, and charm. People call her a hillbilly, comment on her looks, talk about her marriage, attack her daughter, but she continues to put herself out there because she believes she can make a difference for this country.

And how stupid is someone to believe that Palin is “going away”. For what reason? Why resign as Governor when she would be re-elected if she wanted…if that’s what she really wanted, was to be Governor of Alaska. Why leave office now?

Because the kooks in Alaska kept The Guv from traveling, prevented her from making speeches, raising money for candidates, and doing all the things she needs to do to build a national organization for herself. With her book set to launch in 2010, these same kooks would throw a wrench in her book tour, too, and the assorted Obots assigned to filing bogus ethics complaints against The Guv would complain left and right about her TV appearances, interviews, and other obligations going forward.

Palin is a very smart woman and knows 2012 is her shot if she wants to run for President…but she could not do that as Governor of Alaska. The state’s too far away, but more important than that, the people there are of a very special breed in that they don’t seem to understand a sitting Governor can indeed travel in other states, making appearances, and raising her profile, while carrying out the constitutional duties of the state. In “the lower 48″, Governors cross state lines every day for one reason or another (just try to come between Charlie Crist and an especially attractive taffeta sale in Georgia…or between Bobby Jindal and an exorcism just about anywhere).

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.

The fact that liberals wailed and cried every time she left the state — declaring how important her job was — proves what great experience she has, and how well she did her job. If her leaving the state’s borders, for even a day, would seemingly trigger a complete collapse of society in Alaska and the end of life as Alaskans knew it, then it’s ludicrous to argue the woman isn’t capable at what she does.

What's Palin Really Up To?

The Aug. 1 American Thinker piece by Stuart Williamson on Sarah Palin is a remarkable essay, very much worth reading and pondering. The underlying question Sarah may have asked herself is this: Can I run for president as a Republican without losing my soul? My answer to this would be a tentative "yes." However, Williamson believes Sarah's answer at this point would be: NO. Following is the link to the piece, which I urge you to read. (Sarah's and Williamson's apparent "no" answer makes me question my own "yes.") The material below is an excerpt from Williamson's essay:

Sarah Palin: A Leader Without A Party

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/sarah_palin_a_leader_without_a.html

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:

http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com/donate

http://www.sarahpac.com/donate

Palin: President of All Americans

Sarah Palin, even if she serves two terms, would not be able to part the Red Sea.

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.

Marvellous Eyes: Sarah, Todd, Trig

Thanks to one of Sarah Palin's strongest advocated, Karen Allen of Wilmington, NC, for enhancing the superb photo of Sarah, Todd, and Trig Palin.