Opinion 1.0
It's hard to imagine what has transpired in the last couple of months. An unknown Massachusetts State Senator, Scott Brown, has ignited a firestorm of enthusiasm and persistance of independents and other voters which make up a large part of Massachusetts' voters. I think the big question is why is a senate seat is in play after being democrat for over 50 years? Massachusetts is one of the bluest of blue states. Most agree, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, has run a terrible campaign making it seem she is out of touch and a minion for Obama. Scott Brown put his senate race on the map when he corrected David Gergen, moderartor of the senate debate, that the seat belongs to the people and not Kennedy or the democrats. That statement had a great amount of impact and resonated with the Massachusetts voters and voters natioanwide. It showed the eletist's status and arrogance that exudes from the democrats. I know the democrat pundits say that this race is not a referendum on President Obama's liberal policies, especially, the paramount debate on healthcare. Obama said he wasn't headed to Massachusetts to stump for Martha Coakley. This past Sunday, Mr. Obama was in Massachusetts with Martha attempting to help her in the polls. I read Scott Brown was bringing in larger crowds then our messionic President. Mr. Obama made some confrontational statements about Brown driving a truck. Whats wrong with driving a truck? Also, he said that anyone can buy a truck. If you are one of the 10.2% unemployed, I doubt you can purchase a truck at this time. Can you say eletist and out of touch? Former major league "hall of fame" pitcher, Curt Schilling was stumping for Brown. Coakley insulted Schilling and the Boston Red Sox fans by calling Schilling a New York Yankee fan. Ouch! I wonder how the Sox fans feel about that dis? Let's not forget about the football great, Doug Flutie. Looking at this race a different way, I think the people of Massachusetts have the closest healthcare program to what Obama and congress is trying to shove down our throats. They cover 98% of the people of Massachusetts. Why would they vote in a senator who has already stated that she will vote for Obamacare. They would have to pay for Louisiana and Nebraska's "special deals," while paying higher taxes already, then paying even more taxes. It really is a no brainer. Plus, everyone knows that the Obamacare healthcare plan is not deficit neutral. We will pay for this plan 4 years in advance. I think one massive factor determining this race in Massachusetts is the citizens do not like the "one party government rule" where the democrats feel they can do whatever they want and it doesn't matter what the American want. If Brown wins, and I think he will, could potentially stop Obamacare by stopping the fillibuster proof majority the socialists democrats enjoy. Of course, the democrats are shady characters and could try to pass a bill other ways. However, they know that this could be a serious career ender for a lot of democrats next November. I heard Ed Schultz on his program on MSNBC, stating that if was a Massachusetts voter, he would try to vote 10 or 12 times. This is right out of the democrat's playbook. Dishonesty is the best policy. I heard Chris Mathews, host of MSNBC's Slimeball Hardball, chimed in on whatever it took to secure a win for the democrats. I hope the American people observe this dishonest approach to one of our country's most sacred rights. I hope this time tomorrow night, Scott Brown is U.S. Senator Scott Brown. "Change the rest of us can believe in."
Curt Schilling & Doug flutie stump for Brown:
Obama stumping for Coakley:
Daft statement of the day:
“I’d cheat to keep these bastards out”
MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Massachusetts senate race.
I have a dream, too
By: Joseph Farah
Posted: January 18, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
Martin Luther King had a dream.
He told about his dream shortly before an assassin cut his life short:
"I have a dream today.
"I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
"This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, 'My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.'
"And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
"Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
"Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!
"But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
"Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
"Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
"When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"
Freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom. That was the King message. Martin Luther King talked a lot more about freedom than he did rights. He was clear on where true freedom and rights came from. That distinction has been obliterated in today's teaching about him.
Why? Because freedom cannot be doled out by government. Government would prefer to define the limits of your freedom by arbitrarily creating new "rights" and disabusing us of the notion that rights are God's unalienable gifts to all humanity.
I, too, have a dream.
I have a dream that America will return to its heritage of freedom.
I have a dream that America will rise to greatness, again.
But before that dream is realized, we've got to recall what freedom means. We've got to understand that "rights" are not goodies to be appropriated by government. We've got to remember that with freedom comes responsibility. And we've got to learn that government's power in a free society is limited to safeguarding liberty and the ability of citizens to govern themselves.
The rights we experience in America, our founders taught us, are God-given, unalienable rights. They don't descend from government. They are not given out through acts of Congress. They cannot be invented by man. They are inherent, universal, permanent.
This is such a foundational point of understanding American civic life, history and government. We would do well to reflect on this today and throughout this critical year in American history.
Rights are inherent. Privileges are something that can bestowed by government and taken away by government.
Today, government and many of our cultural institutions are trying to blur the lines of distinction between rights and privileges.
For instance, they want to persuade you that health-care insurance is a right.
It's not. It's not even a concept the founders would have understood. Like food, health care is something an individual works hard to provide for himself and his family. If individuals are dependent upon government for necessities of life like food and health care, there's going to be a lot of starvation and needless death and suffering.
It's just that simple.
I have a dream today that America will awaken once again to these foundational principles.
Health Care, Safeway Style
The Washington Post unwittingly makes a case against ObamaCare.
ShareThis7:06 PM, Jan 18, 2010 ·
BY Jeffrey H. Anderson
On Sunday, the Washington Post tried to discredit the Safeway model of health care reform — clearly hoping to make ObamaCare look better in comparison.But if one reads the story carefully, it offers further evidence of the wisdom of the Safeway approach and the folly of ObamaCare.
The Post takes Safeway CEO Steven Burd to task for claiming that Safeway held health costs “constant” for four years. In fact, the Post reports, Safeway’s costs actually rose 2 percent over that period — or 0.5 percent per year. If only the Democrats’ claims about ObamaCare were accurate within that margin of error.
Then, as the Post notes, Safeway’s costs rose 8.5 percent last year — a somewhat predictable short-term rise, as aggressive health screening prompted employees to seek treatment for newly detected problems. On page 4 (the final page) of the online version of the story, the Post gets around to noting — still obliquely — that this means Safeway’s costs have now risen 11 percent over five years, compared to an average of well over 30 percent for other plans nationally.
How has Safeway kept costs down? The Post writes (again, on page-4), “In 2006, [Safeway] restructured its benefits to make employees more cost-conscious. Under the new structure, the company would pay the first $1,000 of a family's annual medical expenses, and the employee would generally be responsible for the next $1,000. It began covering 100 percent of the bill for preventive measures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. It paid people to complete health questionnaires, encouraged use of generic drugs and in 2008 increased the limit on employees' out-of-pocket expenses.”
In short, Safeway gives individual Americans a skin in the game and more control over their own health-care dollars — which is the way to keep down costs without rationing care.
The Post also reports on page 4 that Safeway employees are now less likely to be obese, overweight, have high cholesterol or blood pressure, or smoke.
And yet, the Post concludes, “Any number of changes in the company's benefits plan might contribute to the explanation” of Safeway’s success. The Post makes it clear that it thinks further research is in order.
Very well. But this begs the question: How many decades of research on ObamaCare are in order prior to voting on whether to make it law?
Then, again, as polls have shown nationwide, Americans have a way of sniffing out particularly bad ideas without the benefit of years of exhaustive research.
Healthcare Crisis:
Pictured below is a young physician by the name of Dr. Starner Jones. His short two-paragraph letter to the White House accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a "Health Care Crisis". It's worth a quick read:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.
Dear Mr. President:
While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.
And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", aculture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".
Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD
Kill Bill Vol. III
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/
CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!
Green Piece:
An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing
By jim_robbins
Jan. 10, 2010 into Water Cooler
A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.
Polls we can live by:
27% Strongly approve of President's job performance.
39% Strongly disapprove.
47% Somewhat approve of President's performance.
52% Somewhat disapprove.
38% Favor Healthcare reform.
56% Opposed to Healthcare reform.
Writings of our Founding fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 1
For the Independent Journal.
To the People of the State of New York:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.
Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.
I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:
THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.
It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. [1] This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.
PUBLIUS.
Quote du jour:
"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired."
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
Joseph Farah
Jeffrey H. Anderson
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.foundingfathers.com/
Jim Robbins
Dr. Starner Jones
http://www.climategate.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment