Friday, July 31, 2009
Because he lives in the United States, he has a 99% chance of surviving prostate cancer for five years or longer.
Under universal health care, in England, his chances of surviving prostate cancer for 5 years would be only 74%.
The data is here (LINK).
The difference in cancer survival rates isn't due to English doctor's being inferior to their American counterparts, becaue they are not. The difference is because under nationalized medicine, English doctors are forced to practice medicine with their hands tied behind their backs. Under nationalized medicine the state decides which treatments are most cost effective for the state. Treatments that are deemed 'too expensive' are denied. In a nutshell, nationalized health care is bad health care.
"At least 7 factors drive overuse [of medical care], 4 related to physicians and 3 related to patients. First, there is the matter of physician culture. Medical school education and postgraduate training emphasize thoroughness. When evaluating a patient, students, interns, and residents are trained to identify and praised for and graded on enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. The thought is that the more thorough the evaluation, the more intelligent the student or house officer. Trainees who ignore the improbable 'zebra' diagnoses are not deemed insightful. In medical training, meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded.
"This mentality carries over into practice. Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians. The prudent physician is not deemed particularly competent, but rather inadequate. This culture is further reinforced by A UNIQUE UNDERSTANDING OF PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS, SPECIFICALLY, THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH'S ADMONITION TO 'USE MY POWER TO HELP THE SICK TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND JUDGMENT' AS AN IMPERATIVE TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE PATIENT REGARDLESS OF COST OR EFFECT ON OTHERS." [emphasis added].
Those are the words of Ezekiel "Zeke" J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D. (1957-) is an American NIH bioethicist and fellow at the right-to-die Hastings Center, is a leading opponent of state-assisted suicide,and a proponent of a Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. He is the brother of Obama's Chief of State, Rahm Emanuel.
I wish Sen. Dodd God's speed in his recovery. I pray for all of us that ObamaCare fails.
H/T Don Surber
In reference to Obama many have said that you can learn about a person by the people he chooses to surround himself with. You can also learn alot about Obama by observing who he chooses to honor. Carol at No Sheeples Here has the whole sorry story.
You wrote: "While the mainstream media and left-wing blogs constantly tell us that Republicans and conservatives are dead politically, I don't think they actually believe what they are saying."
Actually, some of us remember 1993-94. We assumed you were "dead" then too. We learned a lesson there. Respond. And respond quickly, no matter how absurd or seemingly petty the attacks from conservatives.
This time, Mr. Jacobson, we know you're down and we're going to keep you there. We intend to step on your throat.That's why you're seeing this reaction. You can't get away with your garbage any longer.
Get used to it.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due; if there is anything the Left knows how to do it is step on throats. They have been stepping on the throats of women, Jews, Hispanics, blacks, etc., forever. In fact, any time a liberal talks about giving someone a "hand up" you can bet they've got their foot planted firmly on someone's throat.
Not this time, buddy.
Gator Doug has the story.
Dan Rather calling on President Obama to save “the free press” is irony at its delicious best:
“A truly free and independent press is the red, beating heart of democracy and freedom. This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American press’ traditional role of being the watchdog on power. This is something every citizen should be concerned about,” said Rather.
“The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor,” Rather argued, “and it’s time the government made an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media. If we do nothing more than stand back and hope that innovation alone will solve this crisis,” he said, “then our best-trained journalists will lose their jobs.”
The MSM is tanking because it has abdicated its watchdog roll in favor of partisanship:
We've seen it reflected in nearly every poll over the last 10 years or so and here is another one that confirms the downward spiral in trust of the media. In a press release for a Sacred Heart University poll, those respondents who said they believe all or most of what the media has to tell them fell 8% since 2003. In 2003 27.4% of the poll's respondents said that they trusted all or most of what the MSM reports. In 2007 that number plummeted to just 19.6%. 23.9% said they believe little or nothing that comes out of the MSM with 55.3% saying they believe some of what the media churns out.
"The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S.," stated James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU's Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture. "The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates," he continued.
The public no longer trusts the MSM to inform them and Rather played a role in this loss of trust:
Rather undertook to influence an election by promoting derisory forgeries, from a non-credible source. On September 8, 2004, Rather reported on 60 Minutes that a series of memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record had been discovered in the personal files of Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian.
The authenticity of these documents was quickly called into question by a small group of bloggers, initially based on their being proportionally printed and displaying other modern typographic conventions with limited availability on military typewriters of the time. This led to claims that the memos were forgeries. The accusations then spread over the following days into mainstream media outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times.
Rather tried to use his position as a journalist to influence the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election. His actions back fired and cost him his job but his colleagues in the media missed the lesson. From a Rasmussen poll taken in August of 2008:
A full 55 percent of likely American voters think that media bias is more of a problem than campaign contributions in the presidential race, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday.
This poll follows another Rasmussen poll conducted July 19 which revealed that 57 percent of likely voters think Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has received the best treatment from the media so far, while 21 percent or respondents think Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has received the best media treatment.
What Dan Rather really wants isn’t a free press but a comfortable press. He wants to be able to vex those he sees as powerful, but only from inside an established newsroom, with a regular paycheck, a cushy retirement plan, plenty of prestige, and twice-yearly awards dinners. The only problem with that is you can’t really “afflict the comfortable” if you’re comfortable yourself.
What Rather wants is his brand of “journalism” to enjoy government subsidized status quo. He, and others like him, betrayed the public trust. That is not a problem that government largesse can fix.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
During a difficult financial period, it is wrong for the government to take working people’s money and give it, under the guise of “stimulus” to the National Endowment for the Arts. It doesn’t matter if the NEA distributed our money to programs that are admirable or not. The arts are a want, not a need.
Too much that has come out of the Stimulus Plan has been spent on foolishness. The government was never meant to be a Sugar Daddy or an enabler. When American taxpayers are sacrificing and re-prioritizing to meet their families’ needs, government should do no less. We work too hard to have our money spent on rewarding this administration’s buddies and funding wish lists. Further, the administration’s spending spree today endangers their ability to meet our needs tomorrow.
This administration is paying us a lousy return on our dollar. We should return the favor by exposing the fraud that this administration supports and depends upon.
All you other influential liberals and MSM "elites", you had your fun- and probably almost broke your arm patting yourself on the back when you got the Dear Leader elected by helping to convince the plebes he was some super-human-being that could help the country... rather than the arrogant, inexperienced Bolshevik thug that he actually is.
Now you are getting the taxes you deserve, as Barack Obama is going to bleed you dry. And you can forget writing off those local taxes on your overpriced eastcoast/leftcoast home mortgage... you'll be paying more on that, too. Plus here's the kicker: you'll be sending a lot of that money to people in red states... to people whom you can't stand.
Yeah, but at the time the thought of screwing over the rubes in the red states was half the fun, wasn’t it? You might want to rub some salve on your ass, those bite marks look nasty.
H/T Riehl World View
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
In Death of a Doctrine Michael Gerson explains ‘Obama Diplomacy’:
The Obama administration lacks a foreign policy ideology as a matter of ideology. Speaking recently at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted, "Rigid ideologies and old formulas don't apply." The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- tempered by pragmatism, proud of its ad hockery and willing to consider everything on a case-by-case basis.
But even lacking an ideology, the administration does have a doctrine. The defining principle of President Obama's foreign policy is engagement with America's adversaries. Much of the president's public diplomacy has been designed to clear a path for such talks -- expressing respect for legitimate grievances, apologizing for past wrongs and offering dialogue without preconditions.
Think of it as the “Wuss Doctrine”, whose main components are: flattery, self-abasement and the generous use of the words “pretty please” and “anything you say”. We may not wring any concessions out of N. Korea but when Kim Jong il refers to our Secretary of State as “by no means intelligent” he says it with a rather pleasant smile. True, N. Korea hasn’t responded as well we’d expected, or Gerson states, North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation." , but once they get that Guittard™ Chocolate we are expecting to see a major change in our relationship.
We have also sent gifts to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though he is proving to be a hard nut to crack. Seems that those habits he picked as a student during his university days have stuck with him. On the other hand, we have noticed a warming trend as Ahmadinejad has begun applying the affectionate term, “Little Devil” whenever he speaks of President Obama.
While it is too soon to tell if the Administration’s efforts will pay off over the long run, both the President and Secretary Clinton believe that with enough scrapping and bowing, we will be eating out of Iran and N. Korea’s hands in no time.
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Earlier, 1973, Holdren co-authored Human Ecology with Paul and Anne Erich. Holdren and the Erlichs call for “de-development”:
"The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge," they wrote. "They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being."
“Redistribution “ is a re-occurring theme for Holdren:
“Angry opposition to de-development can be expected from some technologists who are used to having their schemes for progress accepted without question by a dazzled public," the authors wrote. "SSTs (solid state technologies), space colonies, thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems, geodesic domes over cities, fission power, giant automobiles, plastic wrappings, genetic engineering, disposable packages and containers, synthetic pesticides, and the like are supposed to be accepted as self-evidently desirable.”
“However, many technologists now correctly perceive that, if the ODCs are to be de-developed and civilization is to persist, the halcyon days of unquestioning public acceptance of technological ‘progress’ must disappear forever.”
Holdren doesn’t address the role that technology has played in the improvement of human life. For instance, would the average woman be able to enjoy the career she has today if after work she was required to provide dinner for her family using only the technology available 50 years ago? Technology, including the dreaded “disposable packages and containers”, microwave ovens, dishwashers are convenient and provide the user, most often a woman, with a better quality of life and the ability to pursue options that would not otherwise be available.
Holdren seems to advocate that quality of life be sacrificed for the preservation of natural resources, yet he doesn’t recognize or perhaps believe, that the greatest of all natural resources are our human resources. Further, through the use of redistribution, Holdren would prefer to see quality of life lowered in developed countries rather than improved in undeveloped countries. I find it odd that as a scientist Holdren seems to view technology as a detriment rather than an important tool in improvement of the human condition.
Whatever Holdren’s priorities, it seems clear that as Science Czar he is in a position to “de-evolve “ the American lifestyle.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
When I first learned of the arrest of my colleague Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates after he stood up to the fascist jackboots of a declasse, ill-educated Cambridge police officer, I was of course angered -- but scarcely shocked. L'Affaire Gates simply aired, in public, the dirty 100-thread-count table linen of an American culture where Harvard faculty assholes still face a daily struggle against profiling, abuse, and insolence.
It will come as no surprise that Skip's arrest was the talk of the Douchebag Room at the Harvard Faculty Club last Friday. I and a group of colleagues had assembled for our weekly lunch; I opted for their competently-prepared Ahi Tuna Tartare and an amusing glass of '05 Hospices de Beaune Premier Cru Cuvee Cyrot-Chaudron. I had noticed that the Frantz Fanon Memorial Booth -- Skip's long-reserved lunch spot -- was uncharacteristically empty, and asked our waiter Sergio for an explanation.
Jimmie on this one. Afterall, when you need to come up with a trillion dollars, it's best to put everything on the table.
The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes. The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some “interesting,” “creative,” and “kind of fun” ideas.
According to the IRS, deductions for procedures such as reconstructive surgery due to cancer or laser eye surgery would be allowed. But nose jobs, liposuction, teeth-whitening procedures and Botox injections to smooth wrinkles would be prohibited under Sec. 213 and subject to the new tax.
Emphasis mine. Panic Pelosi’s.
In What Happened to the Moral Case for Health-Care Reform? Ezra Klein comes so close to understanding the objections to ObamaCare but he is too invested in his own ideology to recognize the flaw in his argument.
First, he will never win the argument by dismissing concerns of the health care plan’s economic impact as morally lacking. The latest Rasmussen Poll shows that 49% oppose the health care reform and 41% strongly oppose it. Many of those who oppose the reform believe it is immoral to spend a trillion dollars on a plan that they fear will result in a lower standard of health care.
Second, most people when asked if their neighbor “deserves” health care would answer in the affirmative. However, when the debate is whether everyone in America should have health care versus should every American have health care, the outcome changes. Many feel no moral obligation to provide taxpayer paid universal coverage to people who are in the country illegally.
Third, many Americans do not believe that universal coverage will provide equal coverage for all. Much of the public fully expects rationed care under the Administration’s proposal and those beliefs are based on statements that have come from within the Administration. The proponents of ObamaCare are not on the higher moral ground.
Lastly, Mr. Klein should realize that his attitude towards people who express concerns about this massive undertaking is demeaning. The 49% who oppose reform are not opposed to the idea that our system needs to be reformed, they are opposed to this reform. Wouldn’t it make sense to scrap this plan and return to the table with an open mind and some respect for the American public?
Their wives told The Associated Press in an interview at the time that the couples had U.S. roots but the United States was a country of "kafirs" – Arabic for heathens.
Jim Stephenson, a neighbor of Daniel Boyd in Willow Spring, said he saw the family walking their dog in the neighborhood and that the indictment shocked the residents.
"We never saw anything to give any clues that something like that could be going on in their family," Stephenson said.
Democracy broke out at a townhall tonight. I’m betting Sen. Claire McCaskill hates when that happens:
Missouri Senator Claire "ACORN" McCaskill arranged for her district director, Michelle Sherod to meet with constituents (after calling the cops on them two weeks ago) at a town hall meeting on Monday night at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis. Americans for Prosperity's Carl Bearden moderated the meeting and Ms Sherod took questions for the Senator.They were expecting around 100-150 people... Hundreds showed up.It was so crowded they were forced to move the meeting down to the cafeteria.
It looks like the day of the meek and quiet voter has passed. Must come as quite a shock to elected officials who have ignored their constituents for way too long.
Gateway Pundit has all the details.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Dr. Melissa Clouther is exactly right:
So, this a contrived issue, a red herring, meant to distract the public from the actual important issues of the day. Then logically it would follow, that the MSM, acting as the Administration's lapdog, is aware of the inherent weaknesses of Obama's policies and through misdirection is shielding the man behind the curtain. Sound about right?
Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon is a 41-year-old career military officer. He is the chief spokesman for the most controversial outpost on the planet, the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base.
And, if you're to believe a letter he sent to the Miami Herald last week, veteran Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg so scandalized poor Jeffrey that he considers himself sexually harassed and can't go on with life unless Rosenberg is barred from reporting from Gitmo.What a load of shit.
Well, there’s some charming, insightful and unbiased opinion for you. Elfrink continues:
If you want to read Gordon's full letter to Herald editor Anders Gyllenhaal, it's postedhere. But trust us, Gordon's complaints basically add up to this: "Waahh, Carol made a mean joke about us torturing detainees. Sob, sob, Carol made a joke about how ugly I am. Booo-hooo, Carol isn't nice to the CNN reporters."Surely, the letter has nothing to do with the fact that Rosenberg has been a thorn in Gitmo's side for more than four years. She has broken more news from the tightly controlled base than anyone else, including her scoop two weeks ago about a prisoner protest. (You can read all of her Gitmo coverage here.)
I note that Elfrink doesn’t confront Gordon’s charges directly. Probably for the best since it could prove difficult to explain how Rosenberg’s questions concerning anal insertion, enjoying anal insertion and hanging out in South Beach could be misconstrued as professional or pertinent to either her job or Cmdr. Gordon’s.
Also writing in the Miami New Times, Kyle Munzenrieder concedes that Rosenberg made snarky remarks about Cmdr. Gordon’s sexuality but his only lament is that Rosenberg may have given ammunition to the “wingnut crowd.” Then Munzenrieder goes on to “theorize” about Gordon’s sexuality.
Newsbuster, which is always patently ridiculous (and in this case is flat-out wrong in saying there's a lawsuit involved) simply says, "apparently Carol Rosenberg really hates the U.S. military!" A number of other blogs have also jumped on this angle.
As one of the wingnuts linked in that paragraph, aside from being flattered to be grouped with Newsbusters, Instapundit and RightJuris, I'd like to point out that neither Elfrink nor Munzenrieder wrote anything that would dispel the accusations of media bias. In fact, just the opposite.
If either of them, or Rosenberg, has anything factual to say then by all means, have at it. Otherwise, is no reason to launch personal attacks against the men and women who serve in our military.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Is this the direction we want to go as a country? Do we want to lift up, admire, hero-worship the very people who condemn our most vulnerable citizens to death?
I admire and respect a woman I’ve never met. She carried me for nine months and then put natural selfishness aside to insure that I would be raised in a happy family. I respect and admire my friends Angela and Luis, Lydia and Joe and Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband Todd, who when they received the test results recognized the value of their child’s life. I respect and admire the doctors and staff at Brandon Regional Hospital and St. Joseph’s Hospital who worked so tirelessly to save my grandson, Justin, and my friend’s Mike and Annie, son James. Justin and James are physically away, but the love they inspired is always near.
We have so many heroes in our country but Dr. Tiller is not among them.
How best describe Thomas Friedman’s carbon footprint? Sasquatchian!
Friedman is a Platinum Level member in Al Gore’s Do What I Say, Not What I Do Club
While Gore uses 20 times the energy of the rest of us schmucks, Friedman favors economy killing gasoline taxes to keep the unwashed proletariat down. He’s even gone so far, in the mother have all vocabulary bastardizations, to rename the gas tax “Freedom Tax”. Friedman asked, “Who’s Afraid Of A Gas Tax.” Certainly not his chauffer.
UPDATE: Prof. Jacobson has some intelligent thoughts on "global warming", a subject that is too often dominated by useful idiots or hypocrites, two groups who are not mutually exclusive.
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
They aren’t use to Conservatives exercising the First Amendment rights given to us by our Founders. They aren’t used to seeing Conservatives standing on the streets. They believe that the First Amendment is the property of Code Pink, Anarchists, Anti-war protesters and Acorn. They are the Left and they are wrong.
Conservatives have awakened. We see threat to our free market system. We see the threat to our health care. We see the very real threat to our freedom . They can label us radicals. They can label as terrorists. But they can not back us down.
The above video is from The Tea Party Patriots of Long Island. The story is at the link. The best way to show our support is to bring this fight to our own communities.
Additional information can be found at:
The Daley Gator asks very good question, why does Obama hate the police?
No Sheeples Here checks out The Dead Voter’s Society. Plus I really love the new look!
Smitty says, “I must be an idiot.” We, if you are, we all are, but we’re not and neither are you.
Track-A-’Crat isn’t shedding any tears for New Jersey.
Prof. Jacobson examines Race and Class in Harvard Square.
Cynthia is much to kind to Obama by calling him a “sociopath”
Remember the team water boy in high school? Paco has his adult world equivalent
Say it isn‘t so, the Dem leadership lied to the Blue Dogs?
Stacy McCain says it best, “It won‘t work.”
El Campeador posts on the arrest of Bryant Neal Vinas, American born Al-Qaida recruit.
Pundette has a round up of the best of the best.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Boxer says that she doesn’t regret the recent episodes — and that any attention her political opponents devote to them will help her in her 2010 reelection bid.
“That only revs up my people,” she told POLITICO. “I use that to send them letters and say, ‘Help me.’ So I get millions of dollars because these people are attacking me in the most ridiculous, unfair way. The more they do it, the more I get energized for my [reelection] race, and the more my supporters help me because they think it’s so ridiculous and unfair.”
Whoa, wait a minute. Boxer treats people who deserve her respect like crap and then plays herself off as a victim to her supporters? Well that certainly speaks volumes about Boxer and the quality of her supporters.
I take back the prostitute remark and apologize to prostitutes who are much more honorable than Boxer could ever be.
The next time someone tries to say that media bias doesn’t exist, you can crush their argument with two words, “Carol Rosenberg.” Rosenberg, a reporter with the Miami Herald, asked the following of Navy Commander Jeffrey Gordon:
"Have you ever had a red hot poker shoved up your [butt]? Have you ever had a broomstick shoved up your [butt]? . . . How would you know how it feels if it never happened to you? Admit it, you liked it."
Gordon has filed a formal sexual harassment complaint against Rosenberg. Gordon alleges that Rosenberg "routinely labeled my colleagues in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Justice Department, as well as her peers in the press, as 'bitches,' 'stupid,' 'lazy,' 'incompetent,' 'Nazis,' 'Saddam Hussein-like,' etc."
Gordon and Rosenberg crossed paths at Gitmo. No doubt Rosenberg has strong feelings concerning the Gitmo detentions, the war in Iraq and the military in general. The Liberal media hasn’t exactly been supportive of America’s war on terror. But Rosenberg’s job is to report facts, not harass and abuse a naval commander because her personal political prejudices. If Ms. Rosenberg is incapable of doing her job in a professional manner she should be re-assigned to cover a story less likely to enrage her liberal senses. I would suggest a few months on the traffic beat but that would put her in contact with another group that is often the target of liberal bias, the police.
Moe Lane comments:
It goes on. It’s the usual stuff from antiwar enthusiasts: attacks on sexual orientation, causal profanity, verbal attacks on appearance and habits, accusations of various fetishist behaviors, calling soldiers Nazis, nothing really out of the ordinary for that sort. On the off chance that the Miami Herald does something meaningful about this, she’s going to be a shoo-in for MSNBC’s nightly lineup.
Yesterday I wrote about President Obama’s long standing affection for surrounding himself with shady characters. It appears there is a new entry in the rogue’s gallery of Obama’s long standing friends: Henry Louise “Skip” Gates, Jr. Dan Riehl:
A Gatesgate At Henry Gates' "Bogus" Charity?
Henry Louis Gates, Jr controls a tax-exempt, non-profit charity, Inkwell Foundation, Inc, that managed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct support in one year, yet only gave out $27,500 in grants, the bulk of which went to Gates' employees and Harvard colleagues. Also, as recently as September 2008, the Boston Globe reported that Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law for failing to register the proper paperwork, despite the charity existing since 2005. The charge at the time was that it was "bogus," as you'll see below. In fact, the state Attorney General's office told the Globe the charity was likely either inactive, or dissolved. Yet, documents below show the charity is healthy, wealthy and active.
Is it possible that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was acting strange when law enforcement showed up at his door because he didn't want the story below to come out? It may take a tax lawyer to answer that question, but based on this research, it can't be ruled out. We know the press has questioned Gates about the charity in the past and gotten no response.
Hmm, a tax-exempt, non-profit charity setup for the sole financial benefit of the man who controls it? Is that legal?
The last thing I would do is have a beer with a man who called me a racist or with someone who said I had behaved stupidly. In fact, I would be insulted by the mere suggestion which smacks of a man giving his wife flowers thinking it makes up for his spending the afternoon in a hotel room with a hooker. Sgt. Crowley as every right to tell Obama to stick his invite where the sun don’t shine. Barring that, Crowley could use the opportunity to ask the President why, as someone who favors using taxation to re-distribute wealth, he surrounds himself with tax cheats.
Others blogging this story:
The Other McCain
No Sheeples Here
The Daley Gator
Friday, July 24, 2009
If my baby = George, does that mean Obama = Kramer?
Who is Holdren’s intellectual mentor, Harrison Brown? He was a “distinguished member” of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about – you guessed it – world population and fertility. Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience. In “The Challenge to Man’s Future,” Brown envisioned a regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.”
Brown exhorted readers to accept that “we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artifical means must be applied to limit birth rates.” If we don’t, Brown warned, we faced a planet “with a writhing mass of human beings.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”
Birds of a feather. The next time Obama starts preaching compassion, remember, this is a man who chooses to associate with people who favor a culture of death.
So now some people think that hot dogs should come with warning labels. Look, when I dive in to an utterly perfect chili cheese dog I'm sure that it is pretty self evident that health concerns are not 'thought one.' Do these people enjoy anything besides pissing on my good times? I've got their damn warning labels!
Napoleon believed in government "for" the people and rejected the concept of government "by" the people. His France was a police state with a vast network of secret police and spies. The police shut down plays containing any hint of disagreement or criticism of the government. The press was controlled by the state. It was impossible to express an opinion without Napoleon's approval. Sound vaguely familiar?
The most accurate pollster from the 2008 presidential election has President Obama’s approval under 50% for the first time. Only 49% of Americans somewhat approve of President Obama’s performance.
Perhaps He, Whose Name Shan't Be Spoken, would cut the crap it would help.
I'm not sure where the contemporary Rick Perry was when Social Security arose, zombie-like, to start devouring the essence of America. Such a fellow may have been Amish.
To pay social security tax, the Amish say, is to admit that the government has a responsibility for aged Amish members, and to admit this is to deny the faith. They know that this alliance with government would make future generations dependent on the government. Federal means of providing for these needs are viewed as purely secular, if not sinful.
Mark Steyn has pointed out that Americans insist on having a choice when picking out a new car or a breakfast cereal but when it comes to the big decisions, such as their children’s education, their retirement or their health care, people rely on government to make that choice for them.
The irony, as the Amish seem to understand, is that ceding these decisions to the government is tantamount to ceding your freedom to the government. Allowing oneself to be dependent on the government for basic needs is incompatible with freedom.
Even IF ObamaCare were not prohibitively expensive, even IF it would not lead to rationing and a lower standard of care, it should STILL be opposed by anyone who values their freedom.
Fortunately, in the internet age new travels fast and bad news travels faster. Word of Section 1233 has already leaked as well as the Dems refusal to exclude abortion coverage from ObamaCare. Abortion is only medically necessary to save life in the most extremely rare cases and therefore, has no place in a "health care" bill.
Looking at what is being included in the various versions of the bill it is not a stretch to conclude that ObamaCare is more about limiting health care as it is about providing it. Including both "end of life" and abortion in the bill provides a very clear picture of where the Administration's priorities lie.
Consider this posted at RedState:
Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a “chilling” corruption of medical ethics.
Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.
Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup’s request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup’s pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.
Under ObamaCare every American will be subject to this kind of "health care."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I found Obama’s health care presentation so impressive — so much command of the issues — that it had me worried. If I really like a politician’s speech, isn’t that an indication that he lacks the popular touch? (A couple of points off for “incentivize” — what ever happened to “encourage”? — but never mind.)
Seriously, it’s really good to see how much he gets it.
Yeah, he gets it. He gets that the cost will crush the economy. He gets that health care will be rationed. Most important, he gets that ObamaCare confiscates power from the individual and transfers it to the government. Krugman and Obama think of themselves as the educated elite, who, by virtue of their superior intellect, should rule over the “regular” folks. Cass Sunstein, slated to be Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” put it this way:
People often make poor choices - and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself.
Basically these people believe that we don't get it. They believe that we are not intellectually advanced enough to act or think for ourselves without their guidance. I would rather be free to make my own decisions, and mistakes, tahn surrender my choices to the government.
Obama's poll number have 9 points since June and health care reform is tanking. If you listen, Obama is now substituting "insurance reform" for "health care reform." He is shifting the debate because the polls show that most Americans are happy with their current health coverage and see no reason to change. Just as Obama talked about profits and bonuses in an effort to turn Americans against Wall Street and the financial institutions, he is now employing the same tactic against health insurance companies.
This debate is all about Obama. He wants this program passed and he wants credit for. If it does pass, will he also take ownership of the costs and rationing?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Yesterday I received a call that my elderly father was being rushed to the hospital because he had fallen and the paramedics believed that he may have broken his hip. Before leaving for the hospital I took my sweet baby Precious, an adorable Maltese, for a walk, made sure that she had food and water and explained to her how much I loved her and that Mommy would be home as possible. When I got to the hospital I learned that my father did break his hip and that he had suffered a major heart attack in route to the hospital. Obviously there was nothing I could do at the hospital so I immediately left and went home to my beautiful baby, Precious.
Precious was so upset that I had left her all alone that she number two’d on the floor and chewed my absolutely favorite to die for Jimmie Choo sling backs. I apologized repeatedly but this morning I was subpoenaed. My baby Precious is suing me for neglect and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. I am beside myself. Can a d. o. g. sue me? Precious is very special but I didn’t know even a d. o. g. as perfect and wonderful as my Princess Precious could do a thing like this.
Signed: Ashamed but Confused
Dear Wretched and Selfish Puppy Mommy:
You disgust me! You traumatized an innocent little Maltese just so you could rush off to the hospital to hang out with an elderly man who doesn’t deserve medical treatment to begin with? Can you be sued? If I have my way! As I’ve said before:
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s choice for Regulatory Czar and a supporter of animal rights who favors bans on hunting and eating animal products.
So today on the Huffington Post, Deepak Chopra published yet another anti-American screed – this time lamenting the fact that we’re the last remaining superpower. He says the world would be a better place if the US just packed it in as a leader, and to quote Lennon, “give peace a chance!” In it he writes, “America leads the world in arms dealing, starting wars, and developing new methods of mechanized death,” conveniently leaving out all the incidental stuff that comes with being a heavily armed, supercool, superpower. Meaning, saving millions of lives by ending world wars, getting rid of dictators, stopping famine and assorted civil conflicts, and preventing mass disease. Chopra also hilariously vomits that “Peace is achieved by being peaceful, no matter what the military-industrial complex claims to the contrary.”
Tell that to the Iranian voters, jackass.
Nancy Pelosi thinks the members of the House should skip the August recess and just keep chugging along on health care:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said she's open to keeping the House in session through the August recess to pass its healthcare overhaul.
"I think 70 percent of the American people would want that," Pelosi said. "I want a bill."
That stance contradicts House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who said Tuesday that he didn't see any point in staying into August if Democrats haven't reached consensus on a bill by then.
But Pelosi also said she believes she has the votes to pass the bill on the floor of the House. Still, she indicated it will be important for members to look at the Senate Finance Committee's version, which is not yet finished. That suggests she may change the House version to more closely resemble the Senate bill.
The Dems may want to take the Speaker up on her offer, if for no other reason than to avoid the town halls
and the Tea Parties.
The best of all possible news comes from Don Surber:
The White House chief of staff said it; it must be true.
I am so glad that the recession is over. I was getting bored by the whole thing — looking at the number of jobs lost every week, the unemployment rate rising every month and how dismal 401(k) has gotten.
We were drowning. Obama threw us
an anvil, er, a life preserver.
Great. Now we can get back to the business of scraping the unicorn droppings off the floor.
Republican House Leader John Boehner, though, is not convinced that President Obama rescued us from the worst recession.
“Madam Speaker, American families and small businesses are hurting. The economy has been hurting, but this morning in previewing the President’s speech tonight, our former colleague, the President’s Chief of Staff, said this: ‘we rescued the economy.’
“Now, I’m sure that the 9.5 percent unemployment rate that we have in our country today and from most economic experts on its way up don’t believe that we’ve rescued the economy. The 11.1 percent unemployment rate that we have in Ohio, I’m sure those people are looking up today wondering, wait a minute, the President is going to say we rescued the economy? I don’t think so.
“Not only has the stimulus not worked and the economy not been rescued, the President continues to promote policies that will create more unemployment in America. The national energy tax that went through this House last month will cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs over the next 10 years, at 2.5 million per year. And we’re debating the health care plan, the government takeover of health care, which according to the President’s council of economic advisor’s model will cost five million more Americans their jobs.
“I don’t believe that the economy has been rescued. I yield back.”
I for one am feeling much better. Now if President O would just pay my mortgage and put gas in my car…
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
It sounds in the video below that President Hope and Change is empathy deficient when it comes to providing proper health care for our country’s seniors. Your Momma need an operation? The O says take a pain pill and go sit in a corner. We all know we’re going to die sooner or later. Under ObamaCare, it will be sooner.
White male, 81 years old. He has suffered a series of strokes that has left him paralyzed on the right side of his body. His left knee has been replaced; he has a pace-maker and cancer. His every need has been covered under his private insurance.
Erik Erickson, writing at RedState:
Let’s back up for a minute. I noted some time ago Jay Rockefeller went on record to say that at some point the government has to decide whether or not you are allowed to receive any more medical benefits if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.
As Mickey Kaus has noted, both Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are on record agreeing. Kaus writes:
Democratic blogger Ezra Klein appears to be positioning Dem health care reforms as a way to cut costs, on the grounds that a reformed system will be able to make “hard choices” and “rational” coverage decisions, by which Klein seems to mean “not providing” treatments that are unproven or too expensive–when “a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price.” Matthew Yglesias’ recent post seems to be saying the same thing, though clarity isn’t its strong suit.
Erickson notes, as I did in Is The President Telling Us Everything We Need To Know About National Health Care? that Peter Singer, who Erickson correctly labels as favoring post-birth abortion, wrote a lengthy NT Times article arguing in favor of rationing care and euthanizing our elderly.
Look to H.R. 3200, the Democrat’s health care bill itself, and particularly Section 1233 and the Administration’s intent becomes crystal clear. Erickson:
The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.
The section requires that they talk to their doctor, not a lawyer, about living wills, durable healthcare powers of attorney, hospice, etc. Given the progressive intelligentsia already being on the record in favor of euthanizing the elderly, it is no small leap to see where the Democrats are headed with this.
Legally forcing senior citizens to have “death with dignity schedules every few years is just another way to say the government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide to save the system money.
And saving any medical system through encouraged deaths of the elderly or unborn is not a medical system worth having. The Hippocratic Oath requires doctors to “do no harm.” That’s meant toward the patient, not the costs to the government.
In the early 90’s there was a television show called “Dinosaurs”. On the show, elderly were expected to throw themselves off a cliff once they were no longer ‘productive’. Perhaps that was the Democrat’s inspiration for ObamaCare.
Monday, July 20, 2009
SPENDING SCARED: WHITE HOUSE PUTS OFF RELEASE OF BUDGET UPDATE...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $2,531,600 FOR 'HAM, WATER ADDED, COOKED, FROZEN, SLICED, 2-LB'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,191,200 FOR '2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $351,807 FOR 'REPLACE AND UPGRADE THE DUMBWAITER'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,562,568 FOR 'MOZZARELLA CHEESE'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $5,708,260 FOR 'PROCESS CHEESE'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $16,784,272 FOR 'CANNED PORK'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,444,100 FOR 'REPAIR DOOR BLDG 5112'...RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $541,119 FOR 'INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL'...
While Vilsack quibbles over whether he paid a good price for ham, the more relevant question is, how is this stimulus and how does it create jobs? It isn’t hard to argue that the Administration is simply ’winging it’. Surely, this is the most expensive OJT in our history.
Did Democrats Just Figure Out That Their Donors Are Those Evil Rich Guys They've Been Trash Talking?
A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country's richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama's ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.
Friday, two freshmen representatives -- Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado's Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver -- joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama's top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 -- gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million -- to pay for it.
After months of claiming that wealthy Americans are the root of all evil there has been a turnaround. So, has it finally sunk in that the wealthy fuel this country? Well, no. The democrats aren’t concerned about the financial health of the country. They are concerned about the financial health of their re-election purses.
Election gains in some of these affluent regions have helped give Democrats big majorities in the House and Senate. Of the 25 richest districts, 14 are represented by Democrats, according to Congressional Quarterly. In 1995, Democrats represented just five of those districts.
It is no secret that the constituent who holds the donation dollars has the politician’s ear. It appears that freshman democrats are leery of biting the hand that feeds them.
"There could come a time," said Rep. Michael McMahon, a freshman Democrat from New York City's borough of Staten Island, when Democrats are in open rebellion. "We will certainly see in the next few weeks where we are going."
Time certainly will tell whether the democrats are willing sell both their country and their re-elections down the river. One thing is certain, if the democrats end up biting themselves on the butt there won’t be many tears shed.