Obama Supports Marxist Dictators

Will Malven
6/30/2009

Looks like I'm not the only one who questions Obama's foreign policy. This is from Investors Business Daily:

Political Cartoons of Michael RamirezEditorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily

Get a unique perspective on today's issues with the political cartoons of IBD's Pulitzer Prize Winner, Michael Ramirez.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama Sides with Zelaya in Honduras (Surprise! Marxist Authoritarian Obama supports dictator wannabe)

Will Malven
6/29/2009

Well I think we are all getting a clearer picture of President Obama now and what kind of leaders he admires. He wants to build closer ties to Castro and Cuba. He is buddy-buddy with Ortega in Nicaragua and Chavez in Venezuela. He was very very reluctant to speak out for the freedom fighters in Iran who are seeking to escape the oppression of "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Kameini and those despots on the Iranian ruling council (as of today he has yet to have spoken out in support of the goals of those who have been fighting and dying in Iran).

Now following the ouster of dictator wannabe Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who was attempting to change the Honduran Constitution to allow him to run again for president) President Obama, that champion of despotism, has declared that the coup which ousted president Zelaya was illegal and that Zelaya was still Dictator President.

Zelaya is a close friend and ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who has managed to shutdown virtually all voices of opposition in his country, is working to destroy the last independent news source in Venezuela, and managed to get the Venezuelan Constitution altered to allow him to serve an unlimited number of terms as El Presidente. Chavez has already pledged to oust any leader the military coup puts in place and return Zelaya to office.

Here is the Brietbart report:

Obama says Honduran ouster was 'not legal'
Jun 29 04:22 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says the weekend ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was a "not legal" coup and that he remains the country's president.

Obama spoke to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday after meetings with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Obama said he wanted to be very clear that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president.

Obama pledged the U.S. to "stand on the side of democracy" and to work with other nations and international entities to resolve the matter peacefully.

Now it turns out that President Obama not only believes that Zelaya should be restored to the Honduran presidency, but worked to prevent his ouster.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

WSJ Update: Obama Worked To Prevent Ouster of Honduras President

By Jay Solomon, Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelaya's ouster, said a senior U.S. official. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Barack Obama wouldn't support any nondemocratic transfer of power in the Central American country.

"We had some indication that a move against Mr. Zelaya was afoot," said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. "We made it clear it was something we didn't support."

This revelation of Obama's true feelings should alarm every freedom loving American. Zelaya is not an admirable fellow; he was attempting to rewrite the Honduran Constitution by using a popular referendum after the Honduran Supreme Court had already ruled that the Honduran Constitution could not be amended in that way. The Honduran Supreme Court cancelled the referendum and Zelaya attempted to hold it anyway.

Zelaya's just another one of those South American Marxist dictators that Liberals like Obama love to support (of course he is one of them at heart). Too much you say? Well he has already expressed his contempt for the United States Consttiution as an impediment to the type of government he believes in. He has already taken over the United States banking industry, the automobile industry, and is moving to take over the healthcare industry and the energy sector of our economy (even going to the effort of suppressing information vital to the global warming debate to get his legislation passed). Once his government has control of our economy, what's to stop his efforts to take even greater control of our lives?

Certainly the Democrats in Congress won't stop him, they agree with his vision. They despise the vision of America that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives and fortunes to give us, why would they stop at taking away the last vestiges of our liberty?

President Obama's record is clear, he is no champion of freedom; he is a strong believer in the Marxist authoritarian model of government. He was raised on that philosophy, his pastor of twenty years preached that philosophy and his record in both state and federal government follow that philosophy.

He does not trust the American people, he trusts and believes in government.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Exit Stage Right: The Mark Sanford Affair

Will Malven
6/24/2009

Okay folks, call me a self-righteous prig, an over-zealous puritan, or just old fashioned, but I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and though I am a flawed human being-far from perfect-I feel entitled to call people down when they misbehave; especially when their misbehavior may have direct impact on my country.

The target of my self-righteous ire today is South Carolina Governor and until today potential front-runner in the 2012 Republican Party Presidential Nominee sweepstakes, Mark Sanford.

Sanford is a man who thrust himself upon the national stage when he took a strong Conservative stand against taking that portion of TARP money which would obligate his state to pay increased amounts of unemployment insurance even after the federal coffers had dried up. For that action, Governor Sanford rightly deserved the attention of all Conservative Republicans.

His name immediately went from being one on a long list of interesting but generally unnoted potential Republican candidates for the 2012 presidential elections to one of the few five or six names of real consequence.

Those of us who look at such things this early in the administration of a newly elected, but highly objectionable Democrat President take this vetting of potential candidates quite seriously and for this Conservative, Governor Sanford was a person of interest.

No more. As far as this Conservative is concerned, Mark Sanford's political career is worm's meat. I do not assert that I am any paragon of virtue, but I do know how to keep from becoming involved in an unsavory and illicit relationship.

As Conservatives we profess that certain aspects of our lives and our community hold greater intrinsic value than others. We believe that God and family are the center of our lives and are more important than career or other more Earthly desires. We accept our imperfection, but we seek to hold ourselves to ever higher moral standards.

Aspiring to and espousing those higher moral standards, we Conservatives are not wrong to expect better behavior from our elected representatives than the "average" Joe with a "mid-life crisis" or a "seven-year itch" or whatever else those who wish to excuse bad behavior call bad behavior.

We elect these people to represent us in our state's or nation's capitols. They are supposed to adhere to higher standard of behavior than one expects of a tomcat in a back alley.

Governor Sanford's "crime" is one of selfishness and self-centeredness. This is "I want it, I want it, I want it!!!" screamed like a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum, not the actions of a careful, measured, mature adult.

Everybody doesn't have an affair, everybody doesn't cheat on their spouses and everybody doesn't lie to the American people or live the hypocrite's life.

Mark Sanford' behavior is that of a spoiled, self-obsessed jerk. He didn't stop to consider how his actions would affect his wife or four children, he only saw what he wanted and pursued it to the exclusion of everything else...including his Gubernatorial responsibilities. He deserves no sympathy or loyalty from Conservatives.

This wrong behavior by the Governor is a symptom of our society in general and it reminds me of What Thomas Paine wrote in the first sentence of his introduction to Common Sense written February 14, 1776 (though he was referring to oppressive government, not obsessive desire):

"...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom."

Our culture has accepted aberrational behavior as normal for so long that even people that ought to know better feel entitled to misbehave.

How a man behaves in his personal life is highly indicative of how he will conduct his political life. If he lacks sufficient moral compass to control his baser appetites how can we expect him to control his avarice for wealth or power in the public arena? In other words, if you cannot keep your marriage vows, how can anyone trust you to keep any other promise or agreement you make?

I hear my less judgmental Conservative friends out there saying..."Democrats do this all the time and they get away with it with very little long-term political fall-out. Liberals always hold Republicans to a higher standard than they accept for themselves." Yes it is "the classic liberal argument" but that does not negate the fact that we on the right adhere, or profess to adhere to a higher moral standard.

That's just the point. We are not Liberals. We do not accept immoral, irresponsible, deceitful behavior as exempt from criticism. We believe morality is important that there is a difference between right and wrong behavior. It is one of the primary differences between Conservatives and Liberals.

We supposedly learn at an early age, just because we desire something does not make it right or permissible to follow that desire. We believe in a higher moral calling than the vain, self-serving, baser instincts to which the lower animals are subject. We are not dogs to couple in the streets, we are men and thus subject to our consciences and our higher reasoning.

This higher morality is the thin veneer of civilization which separates man from beast.

Time for Mark Sanford to take the long walk. He can join Senator Ensign (he at least was separated when he strayed) in his political exile...a victim of his selfish actions.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama harshly condemns Iran crackdown on protesters (says "Naughty, naughty.")

Will Malven
6/24/2009

...I mean come on Barry, where is the leadership? Where is the voice of solidarity with the protesters in Iran? Why haven't you said something like this?

"The Iranian people have a right to free and open elections. Thousands of Iranian are marching in protest because their electoral voices are not being heard by the Iranian ruling council. The brutal measures being used by the Iranian government against its own people are unacceptable to those of us in the international community and will have serious repercussions on any possible future discussions between our two nations.

Today we are all Iranians."

Is that so difficult to say? I seem to recall that following the attacks on 9/11 many voices from many nations all declaring that "Today, we are all Americans," to show support and solidarity with the American people in our time of crisis. Well this is the Iranian peoples' time of crisis and President Barack Obama is behaving like a blushing teen approaching the prom queen to ask for a dance. He's "making a measured response."

The Iranian citizens have been out in the streets fighting and sometimes dying for the same sort of freedom and liberty that we in America enjoy. They have been fighting for the right...the universal right...of self-determination.

And where has our President been? He's been sitting quietly on the sidelines waiting for things to settle down so that he and his good buddy Mahmoud can sit down for a little tête-à-tête. President Obama seems more concerned with maintaining good relations with the despot Ahmadinejad than he is in lending American moral support to those fighting for freedom in Iran.

President Obama's response has been somewhat slow in developing. Rueters, adopting the White House line, is describing President Obama's latest foray into the world of diplomacy with Iran as being "harsh;" I would describe it as his being tepid:

"Obama harshly condemns Iran crackdown on protesters

By John Whitesides and Jeff Mason
Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:03pm EDT

---The Democratic president, facing heavy criticism from Republicans that he was being too timid in backing street protests over Iran's contested election, said the United States was "appalled and outraged" by the violence.

"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost," Obama said
.
He called the video of an Iranian women killed in the streets, which has become a staple of news coverage of the protests, "heartbreaking" and said it made clear the violence against the protesters was "fundamentally unjust.
"
"In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice," he said.

Mr. President Obama, where is your spine? Where is your JFK's "Ich bin eine Berliner?" [Alright, I know that what he said actually translates to I am a pastry, but at least the spirit was there, at least the solidarity was present.] Where is your President Reagan's "Mr. President Gorbachev, tear down this wall?"

In response to the shooting death of the woman known only as "Neda," this weak president could only muster enough courage to say:

"I think there's something fundamentally unjust about that."

Really? Is he joking? Is that the best he can do?

He also keeps repeating "we don't know how this is all going to shake out," as if how we respond as a nation should depend on how events in Iran turn out.

Our nation's response to event in Iran should not be the result of a cold political calculation focused on how it makes the president look in foreign newspapers, it should always be a reflection of our national heritage and our belief in the right of every person in every nation to self-determination. On this President Bush got it right and President Obama is getting it terribly wrong.

Expressions of sorrow or outrage are not the same as expressing your overt and strong support for the people now engaged in a fight for their freedom.

President Obama keeps telling us that he doesn't want to inject himself into Iranian internal politics, that he doesn't want America to become the focus of the Iranian government's propaganda against the struggling protesters...What?

Is he so shallow that he doesn't know that regardless of what America does, the Iranian powers that be will decry "American involvement," whether we speak out in support of the protesters or not? Is he so gullible that he believes the ruling council, which has came into power through acts of brutality and maintains its control through those same acts of repression is an honest broker of news and won't use America as a political "football?"

American didn't sit on the sidelines when Stalin attempted to starve Berlin into submission, we ran the Berlin Airlift. We weren't concerned with how the Soviet Union would portray us in Pravda, we were concerned with preserving the freedom of the people of Berlin.

In the depths of the Cold War when the Soviet Union attempted to place their mid-range ballistic missiles in Cuba President Kennedy wasn't concerned with how he might be portrayed in Pravda. He took a firm (if somewhat tardy) stance against the actions of Nikita Khrushchev and in making that stance forced the Soviet Union to back down (yes I know he made the concession of removing the mid-range missiles from Turkey, but they were old and of little strategic value by then).

When President Ronald Reagan walked out of the talks in Reykjavik over the Strategic Defense Initiative and later, standing at the Brandenburg Gate, told Soviet Premiere Gorbachev, "Tear down this wall," he wasn't cowering fear that the Soviet propaganda machine might blame the unrest on America, he was expressing-as all American Presidents have expressed-American solidarity with those who were engaged in a struggle for freedom and self-determination.

To see an American President acting so tentatively in the face of open and brutal oppression is sickening. That an American Liberal (as our President is) generally takes this ineffectual path is predictable; that more Iranian citizens may die because of it is disgusting and unforgivable.

It was a sad day for America, for freedom, and for the world when this man became the President of the United States. How many more will die in the pursuit of "hope and change?"

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Kennedy Healthcare Plan (buying a Pig in a Poke)

Will Malven
6/19/2009

During his campaign, President Obama told Americans that in his healthcare proposal that they would have access to "the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." Once more he was telling the Americans what they wanted to hear rather than what he knew to be the truth, that there was and still is no way that America could afford to offer that kind of plan.

An examination of the plan-all 600 pages of it-has only begun and the facts don't meet the Democrat rhetoric...not by a long shot. The plan they offer is far from what then Candidate Obama promised his supporters. It is in fact what we Conservatives knew it would be from the beginning, a plan to force everyone into a managed care program that rations healthcare in exactly the same manner that it is rationed in every other nation that offers an entitlement to national healthcare.

This comes from the Wall Street Journal today (by way of my friends at FreeRepublic.com):

Dissecting the Kennedy Health Bill
No, you won't be able to keep your insurance if you like it.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. It's not true.

The president is barnstorming the nation, urging swift approval of legislation that is taking shape in Congress. This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)." These choices would be nice for all of us, but they're not in the offing. Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).

For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).

The President, like all Liberal Democrat politicians is an accomplished and habitual liar so all of this should come as no surprise...although for a lot of his supporters-those gullible enough to believe his rhetoric-it will.

Since he has been in office-a short five months-he has conducted a Sherman's March across the American economy and culture. His congress has doubled the national debt, he has nationalized the American automobile industry-just to benefit his union voters, he has nationalized the banking industry and is now proposing to exert even greater control over our economy with a gross expansion of powers and responsibilities for an already over extended Federal Reserve Commission, he has alienated our closest allies, Britain, Germany, and Israel (heck even the French are having second thoughts about him and his policies) while making romantic advances towards our most dangerous enemies, Iran, Hamas in Palestine, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

This healthcare debacle is just the latest (and most destructive to every American's freedom and well being) in his march towards the Marxism I warned against in an earlier editorial.

The Liberal Democrats in control of our government are systematically destroying every aspect of our culture that created this wealthiest, freest, most generous, and strongest nation in history. If they are not stopped, they will reduce America to just another socialist failure.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Treasury to set record in bond auction next week (deficit alert...Dems at work)

Will Malven
6/19/2009

Now folks, I thought the Republican Congress was profligate in their spending, throwing tax-payer dollars out the door faster than at any time since the Johnson "Great Society" years...maybe even faster, but over the past seventeen months-and particularly over the past five months with their party's president in office, they have once again proven that Republicans are pikers when it comes to spending the tax-payer's hard earned dollars.

There is no binge spender/shopaholic who can challenge a Democrat Party unfettered by the restraining influence of an opposition president. In April the Treasury Department auctioned off $101 Billion in bonds-an all-time record. In May, not wanting to fail to equal that dubious accomplishment, the Obama Administration again managed to auction off $101 Billion...that's a fifth of a trillion dollars added to our national debt in two months people.

Now Treasury has announced that the June bond auction will be...wait for it folks...$104 Billion. That's right they are setting a new record. "But, but, but the old record is just two months old," you say. "A-ha!" I say, "Never underestimate the spending ability of the Democrat Party."

CNBC has the low-down:

Treasury to Auction $104 Billion In Debt Next Week, a Record

Reuters
18 Jun 2009 03:36 PM ET

The Treasury announced Thursday a record $104 billion worth of bond auctions for next week, part of its herculean efforts to finance a rescue of the world's largest economy.

The sales will exceed the previous record of $101 billion set in auctions that took place in the last week of April and consist of two-year, five-year and seven-year securities. That record was matched by another $101 billion week in May.

Though next week's total was broadly in line with expectations, worries about supply have weighed on the U.S. government bond market, which will see a mammoth $2 trillion worth of new debt issued this year.

Faced with record deficits and confronted by an increasingly concerned debtor China, a nation which has recently began making noise about dumping a large portion of their U.S. debt holdings, the Democrats are now talking about spending even more (non-existent) money on Hillary-Care, Part Deux...$1 Trillion more over ten years, as estimated by their own Congressional Budget Office. The actual cost will probably be double that, a whopping $2 Trillion.

Folks, we're talking about a deficit reaching a frightening 13% of our economy...that's $13 out of every $100 generated by our economy, going just to pay for the deficit. How in the heck is our economy ever going to recover with more than 1/8 of every dollar generated already spent just to finance the deficit?

Democrats are destroying this nation's economy so rapidly that one begins to believe they are doing so intentionally.

For those of you who wish to blame President Bush for this debacle, and I know there are lots of you out there, remember two things: One, the President, whether it be President Bush or President Obama cannot spend one single dollar of tax-payer money on his own. Two, Democrats have been in total control of The House of Representatives and The Senate for close to 2 1/2 years now and they are the only people in Washington who can spend money.

President Bush didn't spend the TARP money, the Democrats in Congress did. President Bush didn't give GM $Billions of money, the Democrat Congress did. President Bush didn't cause this deficit to explode, Democrats in Congress did.

If you want to blame someone for the state of our economy (and you can't bring yourself to blame yourself for your greed for government funded entitlements) then don't blame President Bush and don't blame President Obama, blame the Democrat dominated Congress...it is they who are spending us into oblivion and if it doesn't stop now we will likely be looking back at the Carter economy as a time of great prosperity.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Why Iran's election result is suspect (maybe Liberals are waking up...nah!)

What is it about Democrats and their inability (or unwillingness) to confront despots? We are told that following the elections in Iran and the absurdly large "victory" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, spontaneous protests have erupted throughout Iran and that they are now being suppressed violently by Iranian police and national security operatives.

In the past, our American Presidents have stood forth resolutely; speaking out in support of such efforts by oppressed peoples in their efforts to exercise the kinds of freedoms and liberties we take for granted over here. They would speak loudly of the right of every human to enjoy self-determination in choosing their leaders. They might cite our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

They would extol the wonders and virtues of free and open elections and the importance of democracy...the dangers lying in wait from despotic regimes such as the caliphate which rules Iran.

No more! Now we have dulcet tones of appeasement and compromise; of "understanding" and diplomacy coming from the "bully-pulpit" of President Barack Hussein Obama. He assures us that:

"it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States."

Really Mr. President, I doubt very seriously that the protestors in Iran are concerned with whether America is a "football," convenient of otherwise, for the government now oppressing them. The Iranian government is fully capable of excusing their undemocratic actions whether America provides them an excuse or not.

President Obama continues reassuring us:

"that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place."

Ah, the despots are investigating the actions of despots. Well, "say no more squire."

We can all relax now, the Iranian caliphate is going to assure the world that their elections were fair and scandal free. We can all go back to the negotiating table secure in the knowledge that the despots are "resolving" any difficulties which may have arisen. I wonder how many people that means will be jailed or killed in resolving those election difficulties?

The Miami Herald has a very good summation of what has occurred in Iran:

Why Iran's election result is suspect

Unexplained police movements and exceptionally fast ballot counting are among reasons cited by those who cast doubt on Iran's presidential election.

BY WARREN P. STROBEL
McClatchy News Service

TEHRAN, Iran -- In American politics, it would be as if President George W. Bush won reelection over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 by taking Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, doing surprisingly well in liberal New York City and besting his 2000 vote totals by 40 percent.

What really happened in last Friday's Iranian presidential election, whose reported results have set off the deepest political crisis here in 30 years, may never be known.

However, unexplained police movements on the evening of the election, the exceptionally fast counting of handwritten ballots and some inexplicable election returns are among the reasons that opposition candidates and analysts cite when they say they suspect the vote was rigged.

Rigged? Hmmm...ya think?

Thirty-two have been killed so far by these "investigators." I can see why our President is so confident now as "the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities." I mean, just because the foreign press is being expelled is no reason to be concerned...kind of like Tiananmen Square..."no worries." Just because they are now "prohibiting coverage of demonstrations and threatening legal action against Iranians who sent videos, news reports and photographs abroad" that's no reason to be concerned.

Obama needs to step up to the plate. We can support the protesters without going to war with Iran...the usual straw argument trumped up by appeasers like President Obama and Democrats in congress. We can take an extreme hard-line positions threatening tough economic sanctions against the Iranian government, we can propagandize the people of Iran extolling the wonders of a free and democratic society, and we can put an end once and for all to the nuclear aspirations of the Iranian regime rather than announcing to the world...as President Barack Hussein Obama has...that Iran "should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power." [Ummm...why is it good for the Iranians, but not good for America...hmmm?]

You defeat oppressive regimes by opposing them, not by appeasing them; history has proven that truism to any willing to learn (obviously not Democrats) for millennia.

The Iranian people need our support, unequivocal, loudly proclaimed, and resolute, not a weak-minded "hands-off" lecture about "playing nice."

God Bless the Iranian People in their struggles to be free from the yoke of oppression.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Lawmakers clash over cost of health care overhaul (Let the games begin)

Will Malven
6/18/2009

Well, the congressional socialists are preparing to destroy our medical care system with "new" proposals designed to supplant our, very successful, private system of individual responsibility with a government run one-size-fits-all system similar to the demonstrably inferior systems one can find in Europe, Canada, and much of the "industrialized world."

As they begin this exercise in socialized medicine, one refrain continues to be repeated endlessly, the lie-first uttered by President Obama during his 2008 campaign-that you can keep the coverage you have if you are happy with it, or you can opt in to a government run system if you prefer. I doubt there is a more sinister or cynical claim any politician has ever attempted to foist off on the American people.

Any government funded, let's call it what it really is-tax-payer funded-system, offered by these clowns will inevitably lead to the demise of all private healthcare plans; rendering them unaffordable...except for the very wealthy. A government run system will have an unfair advantage over private plans since-until tax-payers revolt-the available funds will be unlimited.

MyWay has the low-down on these hearings:

Lawmakers clash over cost of health care overhaul

Jun 17, 5:21 PM (ET)
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hoping to make history, the Senate set off on its major overhaul of the nation's health care system Wednesday, but its first steps were quickly overtaken by fresh cost concerns and partisan anger. An ambitious timetable that called for completing committee action in early summer seemed in danger of slipping away.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee began work on a bill encompassing President Barack Obama's top legislative priority. It marked the first time since President Bill Clinton's ill-starred attempt in the early 1990s that Congress was tackling such a broad overhaul.

Let's hope that this new proposal, in whatever form it ends up, enjoys the same success as the ill-fated efforts broadly labeled "Hillary-Care" enjoyed in the 90's.

Any proposal that excludes much needed "tort reform" to lower the onerous burden placed on doctors in the form of malpractice insurance and protects the consumer from having to pay for a battery of tests made necessary by the defensive medicine doctors have been forced to practice because of frivolous law-suits, is destined to failure...I hope.

One reason healthcare costs have sky-rocketed over the years is the easy access to tax-payer money that Medicare and Medicaid gave doctors and hospitals. If the patient doesn't have to pay for the tests, then the kind of "defensive medicine" we have seen being practiced becomes painless for both the patient and the care-giver. This has one inevitable result...more and more money being spent by more and more doctors prescribing more and more tests.

Government isn't the answer for the problems in our healthcare system, it is the cause of them.

Ask your members of Congress if everyone is going to get the same gold-plated medical coverage that Congress members enjoy...after all that was the promise being made during the last political campaign...the answer will be a resounding "No." All of those parasites in Washington know that such a plan would be far too expensive were they to offer it to all Americans.

Second, ask those same members of Congress if they will be forced to enter the same plan they are going to offer the American citizens...that answer will also be a resounding "No!" Those prima donnas believe themselves to be special...better than the average citizen...and thus entitled to privileged healthcare.

Lastly, always remember that any such government run system will inevitably lead to rationing of healthcare. It has been the same in all of the nations which have such a system and it always the elderly who suffer the most because of that. After all it was Democrat Richard Lamm, former three term governor of Colorado who said:

"We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

Thank you Dr. Mengele.

One of the greatest blessings of our current private system of healthcare is that we have the right to expect to be able to sustain our lives by any and all means if we so choose and can afford to do so. In state run systems in which rationing is a daily fact of life, it is almost always the old and infirm who are first to be told "Go home and die."

No thank-you Liberals, I prefer to make life or death choices for myself, not have them made for me by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bush takes swipes at Obama policies (about time!)

Will Malven
6/18/2009

In the "It's about damn time" category, former President George W. Bush came out of his self-imposed seclusion and defended his administration on its interrogation policies, the detainment facilities at Gitmo, and the promoting our economy's private sector as the likely source for solutions to our economic woes.

Go, George Go! It's about time that you came out and opposed the inane and destructive policies that this current administration is pursuing. Time for some common sense and "truth-telling" even if it is from our favorite source of humorous malapropisms.

The Washington Times has the report:

Bush takes swipes at Obama policies
Defends interrogations

By Joseph Curl
Thursday, June 18, 2009

ERIE, Pa. Former President George W. Bush fired a salvo at President Obama on Wednesday, asserting his administration's interrogation policies were within the law, declaring the private sector not government will fix the economy and rejecting the nationalization of health care.

"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."

Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Mr. Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.

"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.

Boy the former President is right on the money here. Government doesn't create wealth, it stifles wealth creation, it consumes wealth, and it destroys opportunity.

If congress and the Republican under the Bush Administration were profligate in their spending, this new Democrat paradigm is politicians without any consciences running positively amok. President Obama tells us that we are out of money and in the next breath tells us that we need to spend another $2 Trillion on public healthcare. That's not simply stupid, it endangers the stability of our entire financial structure.

I hope Messrs. Bush and Cheney...and a whole lot more folks come out of their shells and begin to talk some plain common sense to all of this Democrat insanity.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation: Texas economy will benefit from business tax relief

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation applauds the leadership of Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Dan Patrick, Rep. Rene Oliveira, and all of the legislators whose efforts led to today’s signing of House Bill 4765, which increases the exemption for the state’s gross margins tax.

“Small businesses are responsible for most of the jobs in our modern economy,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy. “This period of economic difficulty makes it all the more important to support them, and we applaud Gov. Perry and our legislators for rising to the challenge.”

During the last several years, Texas has led the nation in job creation, exports, and business climate. Recent analyses indicate that Texas was one of the last states in the country to enter the national recession and will be one of the first states to emerge from it.

“Our research indicates that low taxes are vital to a vibrant private sector,” Heflin said. “Texas’ economy is the envy of the nation because our state leaders have kept taxes and spending low, which has enabled businesses to use more of their resources for job creation.”

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature’s successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama Care Will Lead to Socialized Medicine

Will Malven
6/11/2009

With all of the tall tales being told by Democrats these days about the proposed "new" healthcare system, I guess it's time to again explain why Obama-care is actually a single-payer system, also known as, socialized medicine.

President Obama likes to paint this rosy picture in which he declares that "If you like the coverage you already have, you can keep it." What he doesn't say is the conclusion of that statement, "If you can afford it."

The problem with Obama-care is that it will inevitably cause the demise of the private health insurance system that a vast majority of Americans have and which allows them, within the constraints of their insurance policy, access to whatever doctor, procedure, and facility they choose.

This comes about for two reasons. First, the folks who run businesses and corporations are not stupid. They pay a great deal of money for those insurance packages they offer their employees; usually the cost to the company is two to three times what the employee pays each month. Faced with the choice of cutting overhead and shifting that considerable burden to the taxpayer and off of the company's books, some of those companies will begin to terminate their employees healthcare benefits because they know the federal government will take up the slack.

The price we who are covered by private insurance policies pay is based on the size of the risk-pool of those being covered by such policies. The idea is that with a large enough group of people, the risk and expense of a covered member getting ill is balanced by the premiums being paid by those who remain healthy. The larger the pool of people, the lower the risk to the profitability of the insurance company and therefore the lower the individual's premium.

With government offering an alternative for business, every time a private business drops coverage for its employees, the number of people in the risk-pool shrinks. As that risk-pool shrinks, the insurance company is forced to raise their premiums on those they still cover to maintain their viability as a company.

Now I know you Liberals out there hate private enterprise and the whole profit loss model that our economic system offers, but for the sane folks out there what this means is that eventually, you will lose your private insurance coverage and be forced into the government (taxpayer funded) system.

As companies see their competitors gain an advantage by shifting the cost of providing their employees healthcare benefits to the government and thereby decreasing their overhead, they will have no choice but to follow suit and force their own employees into the governmental system just to remain competitive.

Every time this happens, the risk-pool for those with private healthcare insurance shrinks and the cost goes up to the company and the individual. Eventually only those who can afford to pay the full cost of their coverage will be able to access the superior medical care offered by private insurance and the private healthcare industry.

The end result, and here's the kicker folks, is a two-tiered system of medical care. We will have one huge impersonal government run system for the "masses" and another much smaller system for the wealthy elite.

That's right. We will still have private healthcare for a few of the "elite" of our society, but most of us will be forced to deal with an inferior, uncaring, bureaucratic nightmare system like that of the Canadians and Europeans, in which medical procedures are rationed and the elderly get short shrift.

You may need that transplant or very expensive procedure and with our current private healthcare system, you would probably get it. Under Obama-care you will be told that you are too old to qualify, or that the heart surgery you need is an "elective" procedure and that you will have to wait 8 months to have it done because there are several thousand people ahead of you in the queue.

You may not consider a life-saving procedure "elective," but under the government run single-payer system it very probably is unless it is an emergency. This is not a paranoid Conservative fantasy, this very thing goes on everyday in Canada, Britain and the rest of Europe to thousands of patients.

Oh yeah, and while you are waiting that 6, 8, or 12 months for your elective procedure you may rest peacefully secure in the knowledge that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will get that procedure because, after all, they are more important that you. You will also rest assured that Lance Armstrong (who recently argued before congress that all Americans should be treated equally in battling cancer), Elizabeth Edwards (who made an impassioned appeal for universal healthcare coverage before congress), and all of the rest of the wealthy elite celebrities who are so outspoken in favor of "universal healthcare" will get that same procedure on demand...because they can afford it and the very expensive private healthcare insurance they will continue to be able to afford.

In the end, it will be the little guy, you and I who will be made to suffer. If you don't believe me, just look at what they are contemplating today. They want to add your company paid health insurance premium to your taxable income. For most of us that will mean an increase in taxable income of $8,000-$15,000. It will almost certainly force a majority of Americans into a higher tax bracket and it will add 20%or more to the taxes you already pay.

You want socialized medicine? Well if Obama, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of the Democrats get their way, you'll get it...while they enjoy the best healthcare money can buy...on your dime.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation: Taxpayers fared well in 2009 legislative session

Key wins are adoption of conservative budget and defeat of higher taxes

Taxpayers fared well this legislative session, according to the post-session assessment of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“The Legislature adopted a relatively conservative budget, needed eminent domain reform, and improved public school accountability, while cutting taxes for small businesses,” said Justin Keener, the Foundation’s vice president of policy and communications. “To taxpayers’ relief, they defeated the expansion of government-run health insurance and several tax increases. Texas remains poised for a bounce back from the global recession thanks to lawmakers’ actions to maintain our state’s competitive edge of low taxes and a reasonable regulatory environment.”

Keener praised the Legislature’s action to reduce the bite of the gross margins tax on small businesses. “While we would have preferred a rate reduction for all businesses, increasing the exemption to $1 million for the next two years and to $600,000 permanently will be a great benefit to the small and startup enterprises that are the backbone of the modern Texas economy,” he said.

While there was not much forward movement on taxpayer protections such as improving the state’s expenditure limit and building upon Texas’ position as a leader in financial transparency, taxpayers dodged several bullets in the forms of billions of dollars in proposed new taxes and fees. The Foundation cited the failure of local-option transportation taxes and the unemployment stimulus legislation as the two biggest bullets that taxpayers dodged.

“During difficult times, Texas families expect their governments to scrutinize their budgets and set priorities in the same way that they have to,” Keener said. “This is not the time to ask citizens to raise taxes and fees, especially when other alternatives are available. The House showed true statesmanship in vetting the tax plans and rejecting them.”

The Foundation also cited the defeat of legislation that would have expanded unemployment eligibility, thereby accepting federal stimulus dollars in return for a likely permanent business tax increase.

“Our research has shown that one-time federal unemployment funds often come with conditions that permanently increase employer taxes,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Fiscal Policy. “Gov. Perry was right to reject these funds, and thankfully the Legislature ran out of time before it could overrule him.”

Heflin praised the Legislature for adopting a budget that stayed within population growth plus inflation, and for not tapping the Economic Stabilization Fund. “The state should have almost $9 billion set aside next session to pay for any emergency situations or tax relief initiatives,” he said.

According to the Foundation’s Bill Peacock, director of the Center for Economic Freedom, eminent domain reform moved forward for the first time since 2005 with passage of HJR 14.

“If adopted by Texas voters, this constitutional amendment will stop local governments from using blight designations to condemn blocks of perfectly good homes and businesses for economic development projects,” Peacock said. “While work still remains to fully address the ramifications from the Kelo Supreme Court decision, private property owners came out ahead this session.”

Texas public school students and taxpayers saw improvements. “The Legislature made considerable strides in education by preserving and expanding Texas’ teacher merit pay program, as well as providing for a meaningful accountability program to better prepare children for work or college,” according to Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry.

Despite these advances, Terry said many public school children will suffer due to the Legislature’s inability to lift the arbitrary cap on charter schools.

“More than 17,000 Texas children are on a waiting list to enter a charter school and we are very disappointed that the Legislature failed to lift the cap,” Terry said. “Texas charter schools have demonstrated amazing results by inventing new models to educate students and prepare them for success in college and the workplace.”

Charter schools are public schools supported by legislators in both parties. However, legislation to raise the arbitrary cap on charter schools and to help effective open-enrollment charter schools expand was vehemently opposed by the teacher unions.

"Major bills fail every session leaving work unfinished, yet industrious Texans still go about their business. This session will be no different," Keener said of the sunset legislation for the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Department of Transportation. "The governor and the Legislature have several options before them and we encourage them to take a measured approach when evaluating them."

Justin Keener is Vice President of Policy and Communications for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature’s successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

Bill Peacock is Director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Brooke Terry is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below