About ObamaCare...

Watch this...(yes, I know it's 58 minutes, but you need to see it):

Liberals Aren't Afraid of Socialism

Cynthia Yockey has a great article about the conservatives approach to the health care debate. It addresses an issue that has flummoxed me since the presidential campaign which is this idea of liberals that "socialism" isn't so bad.

Yockey is absolutely correct when she points out that "People who have no access to health care, and people struggling without sufficient health care, will be saying, 'you mean soon I could have some?' Because when you can’t afford it, you already have delays and rationing. Practically any alternative doesn’t just look better, it is better."

She says that "socialism" holds no dread for liberals - and I believe this. I have seen this.

Is it that liberals really don't understand what it means? Or is it that they just would prefer that sort of system? I've talked to friends that are liberal and many of them assert that we should indeed convert to a European style of social management; that Americans are egocentric, arrogant, and closed minded about such topics and that we simply refuse to investigate or accept other methods. They will even stand there and tell you that the fact that our government now runs the American automobile industry, a large part of the banking industry, has major new controls over the tobacco industry and now wants to run the health care industry is not socialism.

I don't agree with them. I've done my homework on socialism. Cynthia Yockey has, too. So has my blogging buddy Roxy whose grandparents lived in Cuba. Upon hearing about the seizure and closure of automobile dealerships, Roxy wrote, "The first thing that came to my mind was my dad telling me about the day, in Cuba, that my grandmother went to open her beauty salon and there were government officials waiting for her to tell her that it was no longer her business. Just like private property and private businesses were seized from law abiding, hard working, Cubans 50 years ago, now it is being seized from Americans."

A perfect example of that happening here is to look at Gretchen Carlson's family or any of the others across America who have lost their lifelong work to the American government.

Liberals will also tell you (and so will Obama) that when conservatives speak out against these actions, we're "fear mongering." Just trying to scare you. You mean, you aren't already scared? Really?

Yockey says, "I assure long time conservatives that the word 'socialism' does not hold any dread for liberals. Most of them have no idea what the word means. Liberals have simply not done as much homework as conservatives have on economic theory! Worse than that, they don’t believe in themselves as individuals the way conservatives do! So enough of them are sufficiently desperate that they are willing to trade the greater opportunity of capitalism, with its very real risks, for the stagnation of socialism and its false promise of security."

So as conservatives, what do we do? If we scream and rail against Obama's heath care takeover, we're just "bashing our President" and being closed minded. Fear mongering. Liberals simply aren't listening and we aren't making our case. How to get through to them before it's too late?

Read Cynthia's whole article here.

A Revolution is Coming

Did you hear that giant sucking sound? That was another $410 billion dollars going down the drain today compliments of 229 Democrats and 16 Republicans who voted for the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

I'm sort of with Ed at Hot Air on this one. I doubt that one person in a hundred on the street could identify an earmark in either Porkulus or Omnibus.

Is it true, as Ed says, and even as one of my commentors said, that Americans just don't care about the earmarks? Are they just such a part of politics that we assume it is business as usual and don't pay attention?

The hypocrisy of it all just slays me. Obama has the gall to tolerate this from Congress, not veto earmarks, and at the same time hold a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit"? Seriously? From Obama's On The Issues site:

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

He promised earmark reform. He promised to go through and veto "line by line" any earmarks in legislation that crossed his desk. Did he do that in the Stimulus bill? Of course not. When asked, he said that if those expenditures were in the bill all along then they were not earmarks. Shell game.

Please tell me how the garbage in the Omnibus bill is not defined as earmarks? Tattoo removal? Honeybee Insurance? Star-gazing in Hawaii? There are close to 9000 earmarks in the Omnibus bill.

Yet we're going to cut back on military spending and scale back in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If the economy is SO bad, and if we are going to spend all this money to rescue irresponsible home owners who made poor decisions about home loans, and if we are going to nationalize banks, and if we are going to bailout the auto manufacturers, and if we are going to keep pouring more money down this black hole of irresponsibility and poor decision making, why not fund earmarks for Brown Tree Snake Management or North Pole Wastewater Management?

If you're keeping count that's almost a TRILLION in Porkulus, now $410 billion in Omnibus. We haven't even gotten to the next TARP which is coming, or the $634 billion health care package which is coming.

Exit question? Where in the hell does it stop? Does it ever?

Exit question 2: You think he's going to do all this and NOT raise YOUR taxes?

Oh wait, I know. I'm supposed to suck it up because it's for the greater good? Sounds like socialism to me.

The Audacity of The One

Once again I am filled with a sense of doom about Mr. Obama. Oh I was trying to be fair, trying to be optimistic, filled with hope 'n change and all that, but seriously - I'm done with that.

According to the Washington Post, BHO is putting the finishing touches on his very first budget. Seriously - his FIRST budget ever. He didn't have to make a budget before as a community organizer and he didn't have to make one in his 42 days in the Senate either.

He has the nerve to suggest, now that Porkulus has been rammed down our throats, that it's time to reign in "fiscal irresponsibility" and get "spending under control." What audacity! Reign in fiscal irresponsibility? After moving us into the largest government spending era EVER? After funding Nancy Pelosi's mice habitats and Harry Reid's pet projects? And he's going to start with cutting spending on "winding down" the war in Iraq and by raising taxes on the "wealthy" (but RAISING the troop levels in Afghanistan - is that a wash?)

Someone should probably tell Obama that it is the wealthy that MAKE jobs, so to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and on businesses is probably not the best thing to do in a recession. Does he think that businesses will just take that loss and not pass it on to the consumer? And what happens later when he tries to live up to his campaign promise to raise minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011? Between raising taxes on business owners and printing new money for Porkulus, inflation is fixing to skyrocket like we've never seen it.

The Post also says that Obama proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" which I'm assuming will start with his own Cabinet appointees.

From there, he plans to move on to a "broad restructuring of the U.S. health system" in an effort to be sure that every American has health coverage, which in case you missed it, and I surely did, is somewhere in the Constitution that health care is an entitlement. Housing is in there too. We're all entitled to health care and a house. Ask Peggy the Moocher and Henrietta Hughes.

Joe the Plumber, scoff if you must, but he was dead on when he nailed Obama on this income redistribution. Take from the rich, give to the poor. But the poor don't make jobs, the rich do. Welcome to socialism.

Reagan v. Obama

Via The Anchoress and Texas Rainmaker:

A Rant on the Stimulus

So much for transparency in Washington. The Dems met last night secretly, behind closed doors, were nailing down their Porkulus bill and shutting Republicans out of the process. They also had previously agreed to allow 48 hours for the public to look at and read the bill before finalizing it but it doesn't look like that is going to happen either.

I am not against a stimulus. Let me repeat that: I am NOT against a stimulus. I'm not even against a stimulus with spending in it.

How do you feel about nationalized health care? How do you feel about going to the doctor and being told that your procedure or your illness is not priority and that you can't have it right now, if ever.

How do you feel about your mother or your grandfather needing surgery and finding out that they are "too old" and just need to come to terms with the process of aging. "You can buy a wheelchair Mr. Smith - you don't get a hip replacement or that orthoscopic knee surgery."

How about you go to your EN&T guy for your allergy meds and you can't have that medication that has always worked for you because it didn't work for enough people and is now too expensive to make. You can't have it any more. It's no longer being prescribed.

That's what is coming. That is what is in this bill. I'm not crying "Chicken Little" here - it's in the bill. I've read it. You want the page number?

What about the welfare reforms Bill Clinton signed during his tenure? Those little provisions that make welfare provisional on finding work? On not being open-ended? That even set a limit on how long you can draw welfare? Gone. Gone. Now you can draw welfare forever and remain dependent on the government forever. You don't have to look for work. You don't have to worry about finding a job in two years or five or ten. Open ended. Forever. It's also in the bill. I've read it.

They're also going to pay health insurance premiums for unemployed workers and their families REGARDLESS OF THEIR INCOME OR ABILITY TO PAY! You're a bank executive that just got laid off after making $150,000 or $200,000? You have eight kids? No problem. Here's your check. The underprivileged kids have already been taken care of when we expanded the SCHIP program two weeks ago! This is more on top of that one.

I'm tired of Dems saying "well, it's not perfect, but the world isn't perfect"(Max Baucus). This bill is so far from perfect it is insane. That's why they're jamming it down our throats; not because "we're in a crisis" but because they don't want to field the angry phone calls anymore and they don't want us to know what else is in there.

I'm listening to Sen. Baucus on CSPAN right now making the case that if we don't act RIGHT NOW people are losing jobs! As we speak! Right now! Hurry! Pass this bill! Now! JOBS! "We must enact this legislation to save jobs in this country!" "We must do something!" "Other countries are watching us!"

All I have to say is that if you wanted socialism, if you wanted nationalized health care, if you wanted to give the government complete and total control of your life, you've got it with this bill.

If you want to give the government permission to engage in income redistribution, you've got it with this bill. How do you think they are going to pay for open ended welfare and health insurance premiums for unemployed workers and their dependents?

You don't even have to be an American to benefit from this stimulus. Harry Reid and company denied the amendment that would have required proof of citizenship for stimulus recipients.

So go ahead and try to defend this "stimulus" package. It is European socialism on top of payoffs for Dem. pet projects and nothing more.

National Coordinator of Health Information Technology

Yesterday the Senate advanced the stimulus bill (61-36). I again assert that there is no way that they have read the entire bill or have full knowledge of what is in there. I don't just mean the ones that voted for it either; for those that voted against it, I would suggest that they at least cracked the seal on it long enough to know that there is massive unnecessary spending in the bill that is not stimulating in nature. I think the bottom line is, and what Sen. David Vitter said this morning, is that most Republicans support a bill do to something. We know that something must be done. We also would support meaningful infrastructure spending such as roads and bridges. But that is not the case with this bill. This is a bad bill.

Part of what is bad about this bill would be all the things hidden in it. Betsy McCaughey has an excellent analysis of the upcoming socialistic nature of our health care system imbedded in the bill (my words, not hers). We know that Obama believes health care records should now be electronic and this is not necessarily a bad thing except for the fact that this bill establishes the position of a National Coordinator who will now oversee and moniter your treatment in order to be sure it is cost effective. Sounds like the "Handicapper General" in Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" - that was the person who got to decide what "handicaps" you had to wear in order to make you Average and bring you down to the same level as everyone else.

McCaughey asserts that much of the health care provisioning in this bill is from Daschle. She writes:

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

The page numbers in the above quote refer to HR1 which you can read if you go the Read the Stimulus site. It's even searchable so you can type whatever you're looking for into the search bar and read this for yourself. I don't know about you, but I don't want the federal government as an overseer to my health care. Even more frightening, what this leads to, as it has in other socialistic countries, is that the elderly are the ones who pay the highest cost, and I don't mean financially. They are the ones who would be refused care because it is not "cost-effective." As McCaughey refers to Daschle's book, she also says:

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

The fact is that Obama is insisting that this bill be passed NOW! RIGHT NOW! and he suggests a major catastrophe will occur if we don't. The push to avoid scrutiny should be what makes us all stop and INSIST on scrutiny. He sounds like a spoiled child who is afraid he won't get his way. And to suggest that this bill has been bipartisan is an out and out lie. The bill was supported by NO Republicans in the House and only 3 in the Senate - 3 liberal east coast Republicans. This is not bipartisan. This bill is a horrific and permanent mistake for our country.

Why I Like John McCain Today - The Socialism Edition

If I say "socialism" what do you think of? What exactly do we, as Americans, think socialism is? Is it just another term like "liberal" or "conservative"? We're hearing that term a lot in this campaign and in the media especially, but what exactly is it?

Well, under Marx, basically all governments of the world were to be overthrown and the citizens of the world would contribute to a single socialist government which would in turn give them what they needed (as the government, of course, decided what they needed and when they needed it.) For example, in the Nazi socialist state the citizens immediately lost all rights to bear arms. Children were indoctrinated with giving their loyalty to the state (not the family.) The Hitler Youth sang songs of devotion to their Fuhrer. Of course, most people didn't actually envision these goals at first, they just thought the socialists would restore order to their economy. China is another example of hard-core socialism and Russia. We all know how that turned out.

Income redistribution is another tenet of socialism. Companies (like oil companies) or wealthy people are fined and penalized for having been successful and working hard in order to support those behind them on the scale. Socialism operates by taking all for the good of the state and redistributing it as the state sees fit. But who says what "fit" actually is; who decides who needs what?

What is more insidious is the softer version of socialism such as what Britain has in place, especially evident in its health care where people can't get treatment if they are deemed too old or too sick by the socialist state. Oh and they lost their guns there, too. Crime is through the roof. Softer socialism destroys individual freedom. Lives are slowly squeezed. Freedoms are lost.

Nancy Pelosi said a few weeks ago we should nationalize oil companies. That really worked for Hugo Chavez. The only folks that pay full market price for his oil is the U.S.

What I like about John McCain today is that I KNOW he believes in the capitalistic system that is the United States of America. I KNOW that he supports the soldiers that have fought against socialism and communism. I KNOW that he supports democracy. I KNOW and believe that John McCain has America's AND American's best interests at heart. I know beyond all doubt that he loves his country. I KNOW that he would never serve on a board with a man that wanted to bomb and destroy his own country. I KNOW that he would NEVER sit in a church with a man that EVER said "God Damn America!" That's why I like John McCain today.