Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Historic Special Election -- January 19th

   On January 19th, Massachusetts will hold a special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Why this election isn't getting more national attention, I don't know. The reason why it's so important, and so historic, is that if the Republican candidate were to win, he'd provide the critical 41st vote in the Senate, slowing the tsunami of Democrat over-legislating.

   The Republican candidate is Scott Brown, a fiscal conservative, and he was recently endorsed by Mitt Romney. If Brown were to win, he'd become the first Republican senator from Massachusetts since Edward W. Brooke 30 years ago.
   Our founding fathers wisely recognized the need for a two party system with checks and balances. This past election, we unfortunately handed all the power to one party, effectively eliminating those checks and balances. And we're now suffering the consequences mightily.
   Check out Scott Brown's new television ad, tailored for a liberal Massachusetts audience, and consider clicking thru to donate. If ever we needed to restore some balance to the legislative process, now's the time.



   You can donate to Scott Brown's historic campaign at: www.BrownForUSSenate.com

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Terrorism: Is It Profiling, or Common Sense?

   Take a look at the photo below. It's an image of Nigerian born terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a plane as it flew from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas day.

    ABC news is reporting here, that the kid says there are many more like him in Yemen and they'll be striking soon. He stitched the makings of a bomb into his underwear and snuck it past security. Then tried to ignite it during the flight.
   Director of Homeland Security, Janet Nepolitano, originally declared that, "The system worked." Even though it's hard to imagine in what way. She later backpedaled and had to admit that, well, really nothing worked all that great, and if it wasn't for luck and some angry passengers, we would have had a real tragedy on our hands.
   Look at that picture again.
   You know what it doesn't look like?
   It doesn't look like the 80 year old white lady in a wheelchair that I incredulously saw pulled out of line for a 'random' security pat down the last time I was going through airport security. I couldn't believe my eyes -- the poor lady could barely stand, and TSA representatives were giving her the once over with a purpose.
   I was pretty sure she wasn't a terrorist. But maybe they knew something I didn't.
   Here's another picture.

   This is Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, who tried to blow up American Airlines flight 63 from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001 by igniting a bomb hidden in his shoe. To the best of my recollection, that old lady in a wheelchair didn't look like this guy either.
   One last picture...

   John Walker Lindh, now known as the 'American Taliban,' is white, but he too doesn't look much like that 80 year old woman I saw getting a once-over in the interest of passenger security. By the way, as a curious aside, there's an interesting blog here that details how President Obama nominated John Walker Lindh's defense attorney to the prestigious position of assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. That's right, another member of Obama's circle of friends with shady ties to radical Islamic sympathizers...but I digress.
   The original point of this blog was to suggest the obvious: maybe we should actually consider who we're pulling out of line at airports for additional security screenings? We're so damned conditioned to be politically correct that the terrorists are playing us for fools. It's almost like security will avoid pulling a young middle eastern man out of line for fear of even being CONSIDERED culturally insensitive.
   Wake up, people. A little common sense here, freed from the shackles of political correctness, could go a long way toward making us all safer in a complicated and dangerous world.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Obama Learns to Slow His Tongue?

   Politico reported yesterday that Obama is laying low, following the failed terror attack on Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Politico's article states that Obama has kept mum these past few days because: "That's his approach in this type of situation," according to aides. "To seek a fact-based assessment. So for the first few days Obama left the public comments to senior members of his administration."
   Really? That's his approach in these types of situations?
   Well, that's a refreshing change of pace, especially following his knee-jerk reaction to professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home when he became unruly with an investigating police officer.
   In that instance, Obama quickly opined: "I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
   His quick denouncement of law enforcement in that instance caused a national furor from which he had to backpedal. A ridiculously staged multi-cultural beer hoisting at the White House was offered up as recompense to an embarrassed nation.
   Obama also didn't score too many presidential points for his "shout out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow at the Tribal Nations Conference before formally addressing the terrorist attack on Ft. Hood.



   Given his stellar performance on those two counts, I guess we should feel lucky that he's decided to slow down and give a little thought to what he's going to say. Now if he'd just urge the Congress slow down and take a good hard look at the atrocious 'health care' bill they're rushing through...
   Sometimes it's good to take things slow.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Harry Votes Against It, Before He Votes For It

   In what might prove to show the true feelings of many of the folks who just voted for the massive waste of taxpayer dollars which is currently being sold as 'health care reform,' but is actually a monumental giveaway to health insurance companies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accidentally voted NO on the bill before reversing his vote a few moments later.



   Although later making a joke about how he was simply trying to introduce a spirit of bipartisanship into the proceedings, if only for a moment, the simple truth is that either Harry Reid is an idiot of the highest degree, or he, like so many elected officials from the left, is devoid of true principle and simply can't remember where he stands on the issue du jour.
   It's not at all unlike John Kerry's infamous, "I voted for it before I voted against it," speech.



   And it's quite similar to Barack Obama 'accidentally' proclaiming his Muslim faith before being corrected by his sympathetic interviewer:



   When you don't truly believe in anything except soundbites for your next election campaign, then it obviously becomes quite easy to get tongue-tied and say the 'wrong' thing at the right time.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Unexpected Consequences -- Redux

   So I'm driving up California's I-5 freeway, heading to my parents' for the holidays, and I begin to see signs every couple of miles which read: "Congress Created Dust Bowl." They're all of a consistent design and they're quite adamant.
   Obviously somebody had a beef with the Congress and was making their displeasure known. I stopped and snapped a picture on my handy cell phone:



   When I checked into a Motel 6 in Redding for the night, an internet search of the signs turned up a quick explanation: On August 31st, 2007, US District Court Judge Oliver Wenger ruled that Delta Smelt, a 2 inch endangered fish, be protected by limiting the amount of water that can be pumped into the San Joaquin valley for the growth of crops.
   This imposition of water rationing was further exacerbated by a June 4, 2009 Obama administration mandate that as much as 500,000 acre feet of additional water be diverted away from the central valley for the preservation of salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and killer whales, per a request by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
   Now this is clearly a VERY complicated issue, with water rights implications and the very real conundrum of allocating limited water resources for multiple needs. Namely: wildlife preservation, and food production. It's even more complicated by the fact that declining Salmon reserves ALSO impacts livelihoods and food production.
   The website PovertyAndHunger.org has a pretty comprehensive rundown on the issues. They tend towards the belief that food production for the world outweighs the life of a minnow, and I agree, mostly. But it is complicated.
   This is not a situation with an easy and partisan answer, no matter how much certain parties would like to make it so. Sean Hannity has discussed it several times on his show. Here's his segment on the topic:



   As angered as I am by the left, and as much as I'd like to say that Hannity's assessment is an indictment of the lefties in congress, exposing their ineptitude, the fact is there ARE other sides to this argument and they all need to be addressed in a responsible manner in order to preserve our food supply and our other natural resources.
   To paraphrase our illustrious genuflecter in chief, perhaps the answers to this perplexing problem are above my paygrade. However, it seems to me that once again, if nothing else, this congressional action demonstrates what is perhaps becoming the most common denominator of my blogs: pay attention to what you're doing, because when government gets involved, unexpected consequences occur.
   Always.
   Without exception.
   And with the Senate so gleefully ignoring the wishes of the majority and rushing through a largely unread and mostly obscure 'health care' bill in the thick of night, I hope we don't find ourselves in a congressionally created dust bowl of medical mediocrity.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Awesome, Nothing Else to Say...


-----
   Now if the liberals would just realize that passage of their health plan is going to ruin this kid's life, maybe they wouldn't do it.
   That's a joke.
   Sort of...

Threatening America's Exceptionalism


   If you're the president of the United States, you have an obligation to protect yourself and your constituents from embarrassing blunders that undermine the stature of our nation in the eyes of the global community. This isn't just blind patriotism on my part. It's imperative the world have a patriarchal leader to look up, particularly in times of crisis, as we are now.
   In short, act the part. If the world believes in American exceptionalism, then America is exceptional, and the world is indeed better for it. 
   Strong leaders realize this. Bush realized this. The world may have 'hated' him, but they certainly respected him as a leader; he didn't attend meetings until the outcome was certain. He didn't negotiate with terrorist despots directly. He didn't attend Chinese 'press conferences' where the press wouldn't be allowed to ask questions. He acted like an important leader, he presented himself as an important leader, and the world therefore treated him as an important leader.
   Compare that to our current Genuflecter in Chief, Barack Obama. On multiple occasions he's embarrassed our nation with deep bows to other leaders when a mutually respectful hand shake was all that was required. The more it happens the more I worry for the man's spinal constitution; are his back muscles atrophied to the point of going limp, one wonders?
   And now the New York Post is reporting that Obama attended the Copenhagen climate conference and was twice embarrased, quite publicly, by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. First, Jiabao skipped a morning session, leaving Obama to dicker with a group of low ranking mediators. Then, even more embarrassing, Jiabao took a meeting with several world leaders and Obama wasn't even invited!
   When our illustrious president took offense and decided he wanted to attend, he quite ignominiously was forced to literally crash the party, even going so far as to speak out from the doorway, seeking admittance to the meeting. Then, he suffered the indignity of realizing there wasn't even a chair for him in the room!
   This isn't college debate, Mr. President. This is real world stuff here, with the respect of the world in play. Please, for the good of us all, take a lesson from your elders and leave the meetings to people who do them well.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Take the Fight To 'Em -- Where to Donate

   Okay, so here are a couple campaigns I've been donating too. I know most of them are local elections, but you know what? Every win is a win for our great nation. Consider supporting one or more of these candidates so we can take back our country in 2010.

--- Representative Joe Wilson ---

   Famously declared during Obama's healthscare propaganda speech to a joint session of Congress: "You lie!" Truer words have never been spoken. He's been the target of leftwing activists ever since. You know why? Because they're scared of him. Donate now and keep his ideals alive in the Congress.
   He's also demanding an audit of the so-called stimulus bill, so we know where the money went. Gee, that sounds like a good idea, since nobody seems to have a clue.



Donate to Joe here.

--- Carly Fiorina ---

   Carly was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard and brings common sense business smarts to the table. On top of that, she's running against whack-a-mole Barbara Boxer who must go at all costs. If you haven't seen this video of Boxer, berating a four star general, then your eyes will pop out of your head.


   You can donate to Carly here.

--- Meg Whitman ---

   Meg Whitman was CEO of eBay and created thousands of jobs around the world. Again, she brings a sense of responsibility and some actual business smarts to the table. She's actually run something, and that will help get California back on track.


   You can donate to Meg here.

--- Sue Lowden ---

   Sue Lowden is running against Harry Reid in Nevada. Reid is a disaster on a monumental scale and the sooner we can rid ourselves of his brand of 'leadership' the better. I've donated to her campaign and I'd urge anybody wanting to send a message to the liberal leaders of this country to do the same. Current polls show that Sue leads Reid by about 10 points.
   Here's Harry comparing those who are trying to block the abomination of a health bill to obstructionists during the era of slavery. Problem is? It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.


You can donate to Sue Lowden here.

--- Marco Rubio ---

   Lastly, I've been donating to Marco Rubio, in an effort to support his run against Charlie Crist for the US Senate. Crist was long ago deemed the party candidate in Florida, but his free spending ways and way too comfortable embrace of Barack Obama have turned a bunch of people off. Marco is the real deal: a conservative through and through and he'll make fiscal responsibility his hallmark.

   You can donate to Marco Rubio here.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

ObamaCare: A Handout To the Private Insurance Industry


   During the campaign, those of us who weren't enamored of the chosen one often tried to convince those who were that he had no experience; that he voted present without taking a firm stand on any single issue; that it was impossible to know what principles he holds...
   Well now he's found a way to vote 'present' in the current healthscare debate, and the irony of it all is that it amounts to a gargantuan financial handout to the very insurance industry the Dems have fought so hard to vilify in this back-room debacle. By not standing firm on any single principle, including the liberals' much loved single payer system, what we've ended up with is apparently a mandate for every man, woman, and child in this country to purchase health insurance from one of the private insurance companies.
   To add insult to injury, a late amendment to the Senate's bill allows those insurance companies to place 'annual' limits on claim payouts. You can read about it from the Associated Press. While this technically still fits the goal of eliminating lifetime limits on care, it very definitely accomplishes the same goal for the insurance industry of limiting their losses.
   Imagine somebody who's grievously ill and is hospitalized for most of the year. What happens if their care limit is reached at month 8, with 4 months still to go in the year?
   By mandating that everybody purchase insurance, the industry is guaranteed a tremendous surge of income. And by watering down the bill so they can limit their losses in any single year, Nostradamus predicts that we're going to see a tremendous increase in medical bankruptcies accompanied by record-breaking profits for the insurance industry.
   Now I'm not one of those who thinks the insurance industry is evil. In fact I think they do a pretty commendable job of balancing risk and care, and in the end making money. There's nothing illegal, yet, about making money in this country. And left to their own devices, they'd continue to insure people the best they can, while still trying to return a profit for their shareholders.
   What I am saying, is that before this jackass bunch in the House and Senate pass this bill, maybe they ought to slow the hell down and take a good hard look at the, need I say it again...?
   That's right: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!
   They're so hell-bent on passing something, ANYTHING, before Christmas, that it looks more and more like we're all probably going to get a lump of coal in our stocking.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Copenhagen -- The Insanity Continues


   As the politicians of the world have descended on Copenhagen, each trying to outdo the other in their bid to ruin their own economy, while seeking to insure that others ruin their respective economies too, all in a vain and very scientifically shaky attempt to alter Mother Nature's course, Ray Weiss says the numbers at the core of the debate are deeply flawed.
   Weiss is a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. According to USA Today, last year Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that Nitrogen Triflouride, a gas that's 17,000 times more powerful than CO2 as a 'greenhouse gas,' was present in the atmosphere at a density 4 times higher than previously thought.
   According to Weiss, this means that monitoring equipment around the world would have to be radically upgraded in order to even attempt to measure and verify compliance with any arbitrary mandates that politicians might declare at Copenhagen.
   So if these fools actually were to pass a legally binding emissions reduction plan, we wouldn't be able to properly monitor the results, apparently. Then how exactly does a 'legally binding' emissions cut get enforced?
   The US Senate is currently looking at ways to add tariffs and fees onto goods and services imported from non-compliant nations. They do realize the knife cuts both ways, right?
   If we start slapping tariffs on imports, based on flawed science and imprecise measuring, then our trade partners are going to be incensed to do the same to our exports. This is exactly at a time when trade should be encouraged by all means due to an economy that's in the toilet.
   Maybe now's a good time to just slow down and reevaluate the science. And this time let's do it in a truly open manner. Without bias and without the thuggery exhibited in the past decade by the fear mongering left. It wasn't that long ago that these same people were warning of 'global cooling.'
   As Rahm Emmanuel recently said, and as advocated by Marxist hero of the left, Saul Alinsky: Never waste a good crisis.
   Indeed.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Obama's Falling Approvals -- What, Me Worry?


   So at today's White House press gathering, press secretary Robert Gibbs mocked the reliability of and the significance of Gallup's daily Presidential Approval numbers. Mind you, Gallup has been doing the exact same thing since 1938, which makes it the longest continuous poll of presidential approval in the nation's history.
   Gibbs had reason to try and 'delegitimize' the poll, because it shows that Obama has sunk to a new low of just 47% after serving only 10 1/2 months in office. This makes him the lowest regarded president at this point in his tenure in, well, ever...
   Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, is quoted in a Fox News article as saying, "There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy, but there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon."
   You think?

   This White House has tried to do a lot of 'delegitimizing' lately. They tried to 'delegitimize' Fox News for the heinous crimes of pointing out news stories that other networks wouldn't. Stories that happened to be contrary to the administration's aims, but were newsworthy nonetheless. This tactic didn't work out too well for the Prez.
   Then they tried to 'delegitimize' the popular news site, Politico, and that also didn't work out too well for 'em.
   They're still trying to 'delegitimize' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 3 millions businesses (you know, those things which actually employ people?) and whose mission is: "To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility." Of course they'd disagree with an organization with those beliefs; why if everybody thought like THAT, then the dems would NEVER get reelected!
   Now they're trying to 'delegitimize' a 71 year old and highly respected polling institution known as Gallup by comparing their methods to something a six year old would do... The only thing being 'delegitimized' with attacks like this, is Robert Gibbs' and this administrations' qualifications to lead.
   You know, one of the commonly held descriptions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over, while expecting different results. By that measure, I'd say this administration is crazy as a freaking loon.
   I have some advice for this petulant bunch of whiners: rather than wasting your time 'delegitimizing' others, why don't you start defending your positions in a way that makes sense to the public. Maybe your numbers will go up. On the other hand, if you don't feel your positions are defensible, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to ram them down an unwilling public's throat.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Sarah Palin Terrifies the Left


   So, during the last election I signed up for Obama's email list. It's always good to know what the enemy is up to, and occasionally the emails are worth a good laugh. Case in point: A couple weeks ago, when it became clear that Sarah Palin's book tour was going to be a monumental success, Obama's official PAC, Organizing For America, sent the following email.

----- Email Follows -----

Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn.

It's dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term "Death Panels" -- and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform.

As we approach the final sprint on health reform, we can't afford more deception and delay. We need to be ready for anything -- and have the resources to respond with ads, events, and calls to Congress when the attacks come.

So we're setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies. Please chip in $5 or more to help reach our goal.

Earlier this month, Palin publicly said that she hopes health reform will be "dead on arrival." And since then, she's been working fiercely toward that goal.

On Tuesday, Palin went on Rush Limbaugh's radio show where she outrageously -- and falsely -- suggested that Americans could "face jail time as punishment" if they don't buy insurance.

Palin has many more interviews scheduled on Hannity and other conservative shows in the next few weeks, with more platforms to go after the President. As soon as she does, the rest of our opponents will likely parrot those attacks.

We need to be prepared. And we're counting on you help. Can you chip in $5 or more?

http://my.democrats.org/SarahPalin

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
----- End Email -----

   I've never laughed so hard in my life. The bald-faced lies the democratic party is spewing to their own members in a vain attempt to silence Sarah Palin is astounding. The fact is, they're terrified of her. She has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined, and her common sense principles threaten to expose the corrupt and indefensible thinking of the left.
   But rather than ramble on myself, let me offer my first 'guest blog,' from a reader...

The key words here which are being linked to Palin, and which are repeated, are:  Attacking Obama, dangerous, false attacks, extremists, lie, right-wing attack groups, deception, her allies, outrageously, falsely, go after Obama.

If this were an old timey movie trailer it would read like those 40ft high words they wiped on the screen for the next B-movie, like "Murder!!"  "Deception!!!"  "Exciting!!!"  "Thrilling!!"

I love the line "this is the person who coined the term "Death Panels" -- and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks."  The reason she coined the term (which she didn't, the term was around for months before Palin's Twitter message) is because the death panels were in the bill, and she told everyone where they were, page & paragraph.  John Boehner the next day held a press conference and confirmed each one (not that the lame-stream news media covered it).  That very day Democratic & White House operatives removed all mention of them in the bill.  But Democrats act as though they were never in there in the first place.

I also like the often-used phrase that Conservatives are "trying to defeat reform."  Label your evil plan "reform" and you can't go wrong.  Propaganda at its finest.

And the next lie in this short message says Palin "outrageously -- and falsely -- suggested that Americans could "face jail time as punishment" if they don't buy insurance."  Well, this is true, as confirmed by Speaker Pelosi.  So, I don't know where the evil deception is on Palin's part.

The DNC, and their politician members, continue to lie not only to the public in general, but to their membership.  I can't believe they would even try to pass off these, the most obvious lies they could conjure up.  They might as well tell peope the sun rises in the West.  Have they no shame at all?

Let's see real "change," starting in 2010.

-B

Sunday, December 6, 2009

ClimateGate -- Who's Defensive Now?

   The BBC is to be commended for actually mentioning the ClimateGate scandal, when no major news outlet in the U.S. will. However, given the one-sided nature of this interview, one has to wonder exactly how impartial the BBC reporter is.
   Professor Watson from the University of East Anglia gets a full 2/3 of the speaking time, largely uninterrupted by the reporter, while Marc Marono, a leading skeptic from the U.S., is continually interrupted by the reporter and never gets to complete a point -- while it's clear he actually HAS points to make. Add to that, the fact that the UK Climate Secretary gets a full 45 seconds to make his case as part of the package and it hardly adds up to a fair and impartial interview.
   Despite all that, the professor ends up looking like an A1 twit, when at the end he calls the skeptic an asshole, after not addressing a single point himself except to claim some form of 'character assassination' was at the heart of the leaked emails and the follow-on furor from skeptics around the world.
   The science is irrefutable indeed...


   Anybody who wishes to actually see facts regarding this debate, instead of the made up and poorly defended ones from the scare factory, may visit Marc Morano's very informative site: ClimateDepot.com

Birth Certificate -- Again...

   Okay, so a short one today; deadlines at work, and not enough time to get it all done, while also trying to balance relationship, etc. Having said that, this was just too good to pass up, so...



   And before anybody gets all hot and bothered about the nutty 'birthers,' let me just remind you all that the federal government DID drop charges against the soldier who refused to go to Afghanistan because of his firmly held belief that Obama wasn't a citizen and thusly couldn't properly be commander in chief.
   You can read about it here.
   Unless Obama doesn't want the true origins of his original birth certificate (as opposed to his publicly available certificate of live birth, there is a difference) explored in open court, why not hang this guy out to dry? Riddle me that, Batman.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

ObamaCare: A Burden on our Young and Hopeful


   Last fall an army of young, idealistic, naive, liberal college kids showed up at the polls for the first time in history and helped put an inexperienced but charismatic community organizer in the White House. Now they're about to find themselves shouldering the lion's share of Obama's mammoth 'health care' experiment.
   The much ballyhooed CBO report detailing the premium costs for this disaster can be found here.
   Because all citizens will be mandated to carry insurance under this plan, it's estimated in the CBO's own report, that the young will be disproportionately burdened by this plan, because their rates will be higher than under current law, to help pay for the relatively less healthy older population. The premiums for the under 26 crowd are estimated at something around $5,200 per year, when many of them could probably get some form of coverage for much closer to $1,500 per year now, if they cared to.
   Another thing I found interesting about this CBO report is detailed in the section: "Effects of the Excise Tax on High-Premium Insurance Plans."
   One of the ways that's being discussed to help pay for this experiment is to charge a tax on so-called 'premium' insurance policies. Under the proposal that would be an amount equal to 40% of any premium amount over $8,500 per year. The CBO reports, however, that many employers would respond to the tax by offering policies below the threshold to avoid the tax. These plans would achieve lower premiums through: "some combination of greater cost sharing (which would lower premiums directly and also lower them indirectly by leading to less use of medical services), more stringent benefit management, or coverage of fewer services."
   Because of this dynamic, the CBO estimates that premiums would be 'reduced' in 19% of policies which previously fell into the 'cadillac policy' column. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I want my premiums reduced to the detriment of my coverage.
   In the section entitled: "Other Potential Effects on Premiums," there are several speculative comments made about what could make the projected premiums either go higher or lower than estimated. According to the report, Amy Finkelstein suggests that: "the substantial increase in demand for medical services generated by the introduction of Medicare in 1965 accelerated the dissemination of new medical procedures more broadly and could account for about half of the overall increase in hospital spending for the population as a whole that occurred in subsequent years."
   Hmmm. Unintended consequences?
   Determined not to fall into the same trap again, the report goes on to say, chillingly: "The increase in hospital spending that resulted from Medicare’s creation could well have been smaller under a less generous payment system or in an era of more tightly managed care."
   More tightly managed care? Rationing of services, anyone? Whether it's willful on the government's part or not, this plan will definitely create an atmosphere where rationing of medical services is necessary, as evidenced in the very CBO report that the Dems are using to defend their experiment. What other surprises lie in store for us as this huge government intrusion into our lives unfolds?
   I hope the kids who are partly responsible for putting this crook into office are plopping coins in their piggy banks, because they're soon gonna need all the cash they can squeeze to satisfy the government's collection agents.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Ayers Dumps on Obama Afghan Strategy

   Some on the left are making a feeble attempt to discredit campaign allegations that Obama has radical associates as friends, by pointing to a new video of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers protesting Obama's Afghan strategy. Here's the video:


   As far as I'm concerned, this is Ayers being Ayers. Once a radical revolutionary, always a radical revolutionary. One moment of disagreement with the president does not, however, undo years of social and political proximity.
   Although I support Obama's surge strategy, I am forever at odds with the left's proclivity to telegraph exit strategies. Does it make sense to any reasonable person why we should let the enemy know when we plan to be gone? Does that not indicate that, just perhaps, we're not too resolved on the issue?
   When will the left realize the surest way to end a military endeavor in a reasonable amount of time is to allocate the time, resources, and political will that are needed to undermine and defeat the enemy at every opportunity. When we show weakness, they're emboldened, and the recalcitrant insurgents will seize upon that and exploit it for many more years than would have otherwise been the case!

   I'll tell you why we've telegraphed our exit strategy. It's because our Genuflecter in Chief is making yet another lame-o  attempt to appease the lefties who supported his candidacy. It is, after all, no coincidence our troops are meant to be drawing down just in time for the next presidential election.