Obama and Post-Modern Rascism

A thoughtful article yesterday by Shelby Steele in the Wall Street Journal suggests that the Emperor has no clothes. Steele says:

I think that Mr. Obama is not just inexperienced; he is also hampered by a distinct inner emptiness - not an emptiness that comes from stupidity or a lack of ability but an emptiness that has been actually nurtured and developed as an adaptation to the political world.

The nature of this emptiness becomes clear in the contrast between him and Ronald Reagan. Reagan reached the White House through a great deal of what is called "individuating" - that is he took principled positions throughout his long career that jeopardized his popularity, and in so doing he came to know who he was as a man and what he truly believed.

He became Ronald Reagan through dissent, not conformity. And when he was finally elected president, it was because America at last wanted the vision that he had evolved over a lifetime of challenging conventional wisdom. By the time Reagan became president, he had fought his way to a remarkable certainty about who he was, what he believed, and where he wanted to lead the nation.

Mr. Obama's ascendancy to the presidency could not have been more different. There seems to have been very little individuation, no real argument with conventional wisdom, and no willingness to jeopardize popularity for principle. To the contrary, he has come forward in American politics by emptying himself of strong convictions, by rejecting principled stands as "ideological," and by promising to deliver us from the "tired" culture-war debates of the past. He aspires to be "post-ideological," "post-racial" and "post-partisan," which is to say that he defines himself by a series of "nots" - thus implying that being nothing is better than being something. He tries to make a politics out of emptiness itself.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Smarter Security, not More Money

The Heritage Foundation published an article this morning regarding how our bloated Federal bureaucracy is responding to the recent foiled terror attack. Read the article; here's a tidbit from it:

"The Flight 253 attack was the 28th foiled terror plot against the United States since 9/11. What is notable is that of the 28 failed plots, 26 were stopped by intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. Only two were stopped by citizens on the scene - Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in 2009, and Richard Reid in 2001. In both these cases, America just got lucky - the plots were clumsy and the passengers and crew responded bravely and quickly. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from the failed Christmas attack on a Detroit-bound airliner; throwing more money at airline security is not one of them."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Tiger and Barack

Lisa Schiffren wrote an article on the American Thinker back on December 8 titled "Tiger, Barack, and the Law of Transitivity." It's quite interesting in its premise: the squeaky-clean image of Tiger Woods was a creation of businesses interested in extracting money from the public, and is very similar to the image created for Barack Obama leading up to the election of 2008. In both cases the image that was created, and widely believed, was significantly different from the personal reality of the individual. Give it a read.

"If I were watching the public's disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the West Wing, I'd be concerned. Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a political character as this nation has seen. His meteoric rise, without the inconvenience of a public record or accomplishments, and the public's willing suspension of critical evaluation of his résumé allowed his handlers and the media to project whatever they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Hentoff: America under Obama

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute conducts an interview with Nat Hentoff, of whom Whitehead says, "he has angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the trouble it stirred up."

Hentoff speaks to many of the issues of the day, including government health care, unemployment, public education, and the Fourth Amendment.

"What Were You Thinking?"

An Overdue Debunking

Cal Thomas's column in today's paper carried the title indicated above. In the archives, it's titled "The Flathead Society." Either way, if you have an interest in joining the debate over global warming you would do well to give it a read.

Cal cites an essay by Dr. Leonard Weinstein, a NASA research scientist with over 30 years of experience.

Attack on America Redux

"What Were You Thinking?"

American History, as mis-told by Harry Reid

There's no shortage of lunacy and outright lies coming from the left side of the political spectrum. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) recently mis-represented the women's suffrage and emancipation movements as having been blocked by Republicans. In fact, it was members of his own party that blocked and obstructed such advances.

Read John Fund's story in the Wall Street journal, setting the record straight.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Mr Independant

Mr. Lieberman notes that the public option serves no other purpose: "It doesn't help one poor person get insurance who doesn't have it now. It doesn't compel one insurance company to provide insurance to somebody who has an illness. And . . . it doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of insurance."

Mr. Lieberman dismisses Democratic arguments that it is necessary to keep insurers honest. "Sometimes the private sector does things that are wrong, and when they do, you regulate—sometimes you litigate," he says. "But never in the history of America . . . have we tried to keep one industry honest by having government go into that business to compete with the industry."

Read Joe Lieberman's article in the Wall Street Journal.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation

A message from Abraham Lincoln, delivered on October 3, 1863...

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

 

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

 

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

 

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

 

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.

 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

A far cry from the current administration.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Mindless Mantra of "Diversity"

Read what Ann Coulter has to say about diversity at WorldNetDaily. Here's a blurb to whet your appetite:

"Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare - I mean the beautiful mosaics - in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central L.A.

'Diversity' is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: 'Cancer is a strength!' 'Pollution is our greatest asset!' "

"What Were You Thinking?"

The Winds of Change

"What Were You Thinking?"

Reagan's Role

This morning from the Heritage Foundation:

On June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and said: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

On November 9, 1989, just two years after Reagan made his Brandenburg Gate speech, the people of Germany did tear down "this wall" and in so doing they freed hundreds of millions of people from the tyranny of communism. Reagan by no means single-handily brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall, but his leadership against despotism was widely recognized by the victims of communism. When he visited Poland in 1990, a dissident leader presented Reagan with a sword explaining: "I am giving you this saber for helping us to chop off the head of communism."

But the leftists in America do not want us to remember Reagan’s role in history. That is why President Barack Obama (the same man who found time to jet to Copenhagen at the drop of a rumor that his presence could win the Olympics for his hometown of Chicago) could not be bothered to attend the 20th anniversary of the wall’s fall last night. Instead, President Obama taped a video message that completely failed to mention Reagan or British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

More than petty partisan slights are at stake here. President Obama’s refusal to recognize the role President Reagan’s and Prime Minister Thatcher’s leadership played in defeating despotism goes to the core of Obama’s foreign policy priorities. Heritage scholar Nile Gardiner explains:

Barack Obama simply does not view the world as Reagan did, in terms of good versus evil, as a world divided between the forces of freedom on one side and totalitarianism on the other. For the Obama administration the advancement of human rights and individual liberty on the world stage is a distinctly low priority, as we have seen with its engagement strategy towards the likes of Iran, Burma, Sudan, Venezuela and Russia.

We commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall to celebrate the collapse of communism, to honor those who died resisting communism, and to resolve that never again will peoples and nations allow so evil a tyranny to terrorize the world.

Yet, at a time when the United States currently faces challenges as complicated as those confronted by Reagan (war in Afghanistan, the global fight against Islamist terrorism, the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran) Obama is bent on apologizing for our nation’s actions, betraying Cold War allies, and dithering on troop deployments.

"What Were You Thinking?"

November 7, 2009: a Day that will Live in Infamy

You can find a link to the text of H.R 3962, the Pelosi health-care bill passed by the House of Representatives, HERE. You can read a short summary of what's in those 1,900+ pages, by Betsy McCaughey at Wall Street Journal, HERE.

If you think people ought to be thrown in jail for not buying insurance, you'll probably love the bill. If you think old folks are getting off easy today, you'll love what's gonna happen to them when this bill goes into effect. If you think that all the uninsured will get free health care, you're sadly mistaken. If you think that you personally will benefit, you're probably wrong about that, too.

"Every Medical Insurance Decision will be subject to Rationing by Politics!"

"What Were You Thinking?"

WSJ on ObamaCare

If you're the sort of person that wants to know what's going on in the debate over health-care reform, you might consider looking at this Wall Street Journal web page. They have links in one place on many (all?) of the articles they've published on this issue.

"What Were You Thinking?"

'Obama Is Average'

The German news magazine 'Der Spiegel' presents an interview with noted conservative collumnist Charles Krauthammer.  Here's a teaser where Dr. K offers an opinion of Obama's foreign policy:

SPIEGEL: You famously coined the term "Reagan Doctrine" to describe Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. What is the "Obama Doctrine?"

 

Krauthammer: I would say his vision of the world appears to me to be so naïve that I am not even sure he's able to develop a doctrine. He has a view of the world as regulated by self-enforcing international norms, where the peace is kept by some kind of vague international consensus, something called the international community, which to me is a fiction, acting through obviously inadequate and worthless international agencies. I wouldn't elevate that kind of thinking to a doctrine because I have too much respect for the word doctrine.

 

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that diplomacy always fails?

 

Krauthammer: No, foolishness does. Perhaps when he gets nowhere on Iran, nowhere with North Korea, when he gets nothing from the Russians in return for what he did to the Poles and the Czechs, gets nowhere in the Middle East peace talks -- maybe at that point he'll begin to rethink whether the world really runs by international norms, consensus, and sweetness and light, or whether it rests on the foundation of American and Western power that, in the final analysis, guarantees peace.

 

SPIEGEL: That is the cynical approach.

 

Krauthammer: The realist approach. Henry Kissinger once said that peace can be achieved only one of two ways: hegemony or balance of power. Now that is real realism. What the Obama administration pretends is realism is naïve nonsense.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Pay Cuts!

"What Were You Thinking?"

Black Scholars speak to Our Times

Allan Erickson, on his "Goodness World Life Blog," recently posted a letter written shortly after the 2008 presidential election by Dr. Anne Wortham, an associate professor of sociology at Illinois State University.

 

Read Dr. Wortham's letter here: http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/two-black-scholars-speak-to-our-times/ 

This blog post also includes the text of a speech by Justice Janice Rogers Brown given to the Federalist Society at the University of Chicago back in 2000.  Also included are links to relevant articles by columnists Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Larry Elder.

 

Here's a quote from Justice Brown to whet your interest:

         "Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is 'The Road to Serfdom.' He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire, all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

         It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse - whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism - has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people."

Here's a quote from Dr. Sowell regarding the government-based health-care/medical insurance debate:

         "Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.

         If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate."

You can find the Thomas Sowell archives here, the Walter Williams archives here, and the Larry Elder archives here.  I commend them to your reading if you would understand more of the direction in which our country seems headed.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Cash for ... Golf Carts?

Did you like the "Cash for Clunkers" deal that Congress came up with for us?  Did you replace your old car with a new one?  Did you know that a golf cart qualifies as an "Electric Car" under new government regulations and that you can get a tax credit when you buy one?  Just one more example of the Unintended Consequences that happen over and over again when Big Government tries to use taxpayer money to curry favor.  Is this really the bunch you want in charge of your health care?

 

Read the Wall Street Journal article here.  Then go out and find yourself an "electric car."

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Obamacare and Abortion

In Thursday's article, the fourth in a week-long series on "Obamacare," the Heritage Foundation discussed what some might call dishonesty coming from the White House.

 

While Obama has made public promises -- "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" -- no specific language has been put into the legislation currently being considered.  White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has been less than forthcoming on the issue.  a quote from the article:

"Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the "compromise" the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to FactCheck.org), it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country."

Friday's article discusses another ramification of the so-called health-care reform, the way that such reform will be implemented.  They expect to reduce the number of uninsured by 29 million, but the devil is, as always, in the details.  Here's a quote:

"..of those 29 million with new insurance coverage, almost half (14 million), will get their coverage through the welfare programs Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  That is equivalent to adding every resident of Ohio and Nevada to the welfare rolls.

 

In other words, for half of those Americans who are being promised health reform, they are going to be stunned to find themselves in a welfare office applying for Medicaid. Under the current baselines for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be 76 million individuals served by these programs for at least some part of the year in 2019. If the SFC proposal becomes law, the number on Medicaid/SCHIP will top 90 million. So why do Obamacare supporters want to put 90 million Americans on the welfare rolls? It is cheaper than providing them with real quality health care."

This is nothing less than cost-shifting, plain and simple.  Another quote:

Medicaid was originally created to provide access to health care for families on welfare. Medicaid pays providers 20-25 percent less than does the private sector, forcing doctors and hospitals to subsidize Medicaid through lower rates. This deters doctors and hospitals from participating in the program, creating a lack of access that itself is a form of rationing.

"What Were You Thinking?"

 

The Cost of Health-care Reform 2 & 3

You can find subsequent parts of The Heritage Foundation's week-long series on the costs of health-care reform at their blog, The Foundry.  They have an entire category of health care, with articles they have generated as well as links to enough other sources to give the interested reader an admirable breadth of information on the issues involved with the current debate.

 

Part Two is titled "Obamacare sends Deficits Off Cliff" and quotes an article at the Washington Post titled "Health Reform Shell Game." The Post article cites "smoke and mirrors" in the Baucus bill that you should find interesting. Neither are long reads, both are well-researched and have enough evidential citations to satisfy even the most discriminating (or biased) reader.

 

Part Three is titled "It's All Downhill From Here."  Here's a quote:

"The scariest part about yesterday's Senate Finance Committee vote passing its version of Obamacare, is not what is in their bill (to the extent that it even exists), but that the Finance Committee bill promises to be the high water mark for "bipartisanship" in health care reform.

 

Now all of the other bills will be merged together behind the closed doors. All the bills are fundamentally flawed and will only get worse as the leaders in the House and Senate have to commit to actual details."

"What Were You Thinking?"

The Baucus Bill

The Senate Finance Committee has passed chairman Max Baucus's pet bill out to conference. Now a small group of politicians will try to bring about a resolution between this and HR 3200 and whatever ideas that Obama and his White House cabal see fit to bring to the table.  What do these proposals portend for the people of the country?

 

Here's a quote for your consideration:

"Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

 

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse."

Here's another line from this Wall Street Journal editorial:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

 

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible. This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect. According to my analysis, premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years - and 90% will again fall on the middle class."

It is amazing to me that seemingly intelligent people will ignore evidence such as this and still believe that they will benefit from this massive  new entitlement program.  Read the entire article here.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

 

The Cost of Health-care Reform

The Heritage Foundation begins a week-long report on how "ObamaCare" will affect each of us.  This first segment makes interesting reading, even for those who support this political initiative into the private sector.  Here's a teaser for you:

The Senate Finance Committee bill written by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) (the Baucus bill) first drives up the cost of health insurance for all Americans and then forces everyone to buy it or face tax penalties or jail time. While the Baucus bill does cap out-of-pocket costs based on a person's income, the effect on American families is still staggering. According to the Center for Data Analysis, the Baucus bill would:

• For individuals making $34,140 (three times the Federal Poverty Level) the Baucus health care proposal could mandate up to $4,097 in annual premiums, a sum which could have been spent on over nine months of food, almost four months of housing or well over a year of utilities.
• For a family of four making $69,480 (300% above poverty) the Baucus bill mandates annual health insurance premiums of $8,338, which would be worth the equivalent of over ten months of food, four months of housing or almost two years of utilities.
• For individuals earning $45,520 (400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $5,462 for health insurance, or over a year of food, four months of rent or a year and a half of utilities.
• For families earning $92,640 (400% above poverty) Baucus mandates $11,117 in health premiums, the equivalent of over a year of food, five months of housing or two years of utilities.

And those numbers include the subsidies for health insurance in the Baucus bill. To pay for all this new health care spending, plus the massive expansion of Medicaid, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will collect $4 billion in fines from those who do not purchase insurance, $200 billion taxing health insurance companies with generous health plans, and $25 billion in taxes on employers. Not to mention the billions in cuts to Medicare payments to hospitals which will result in significant cost shifting to consumers.

Read the article at http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/12/morning-bell-obamacare-invades-your-wallet/  or  http://bit.ly/nnYOU and then ask yourself, "can I afford free health care?"

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Global Climate Change

What's your take on the issue? Do you believe, as that great climatologist AlGore preaches, that we are in a man-caused time of warming that requires us to drastically curtail our economy in order to "save the planet?" Or do you perceive climate change as naturally occurring, a cyclical series of warming and cooling that has been going on since God created the earth?

Well, you might be interested in an interview with someone who has vastly more credibility than AlGore, a man with years of experience in the field of climatology. It may well be that this man is right, and that the public has been fed a 'bill of goods' for less-than-honorable purposes by politicians eager to control their lives. Read the interview with Dr. Reid Bryson, a man who holds the 30th PHD ever granted in the field of Meteorology. Read his credentials, consider what he says, and then ask yourself why Al Gore refuses to debate anyone who holds an opinion at odds with his own.

You might also, if you're a thinking person who would rather make up your own mind, consider this article at the American Thinker that calls into question the motivation of those who would lead us back into the dark ages. Oh, and be sure to read the comments.

"What Were You Thinking?"

The Role of Mothers in Society

There were three special ladies on the Glenn Beck show today.  Three mothers who are, as are many of us, concerned about the future we will leave to our children and grandchildren.  Each of them has established a blog or website where they share their opinions on the great issues that face our nation, it's citizens, and our leadership.  Each of them offers the perspective of a mother on these issues, and I commend their writings to you.  I also suggest that you consider joining the "Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots."

 

Mary Baker - http://marymbaker.blogspot.com/

Mary is a mother of seven, a Christian Conservative who says, "This blog has been created to bring a Christian Biblical and Conservative prospective about events and issues of the day."

 

Mary Conley - "As A Mom... A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots" - http://asamom.ning.com/

 

Barbara Curtis - "Mommy Life" - http://mommylife.net/

Barbara, who is a mother of twelve, says, "..I'd judged Christians harshly all my life. But I discovered being a Christian wasn't about following Christians - it's about following Christ."

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Busy, Busy, Busy!

"What Were You Thinking?"

Medicare and Gag Orders

A short, interesting bit in the Wall Street Journal this morning, one you likely didn't hear about if you only pay attention to what was once the "Mainstream Media." Here it is, in its entirety, for your edification. It is sad enough that our elected legislators do not read the bills they vote on; it is truly unfortunate that those who write the laws for our country don't think that we have the right to find out the truth from other sources. Do yourself a favor; read the first and last paragraphs a couple of times. The article is sub-titled "Humana gets whacked for telling the truth; AARP gets a pass for spreading falsehoods."

Maybe Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus should put a gag order on Douglas Elmendorf too. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office director told Mr. Baucus's committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage - the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options - will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.

Imagine that. Last week Mr. Baucus ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for trying to educate enrollees in its Advantage plans about precisely this fact. Jonathan Blum, acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said that a mailer Humana sent its customers was "misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, who may believe that it represents official communication about the Medicare Advantage program."

Mr. Blum has also banned all Advantage contractors from telling their customers what Mr. Elmendorf has just told Congress. Mr. Blum happens to be a former senior aide to Mr. Baucus and a health adviser on the Obama transition team.

Meanwhile, we have the case of the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP), and its fanciful Medicare claims. The self-styled seniors lobby is using all its money and influence to cheer on ObamaCare, even though polls show that most retired persons oppose it. AARP has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and bulletins and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters over Labor Day. The AARP Web site claims that it is a "myth" that "health care reform will hurt Medicare," while it is a "fact" that "none of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress will cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs."

So why hasn't AARP also come under CMS scrutiny? Could that be because AARP, which markets its own branded Advantage plans with United HealthCare that have 1.7 million enrollees, is a reliable liberal ally? Certainly its claims are "misleading and confusing" - given that in this instance it is empirically untrue, unlike Humana's attempt at edification. Seniors might even think AARP's falsehoods represent official communication about the Medicare Advantage program. But don't expect Mr. Baucus or CMS to impose its gag rule on the AARP's pro-ObamaCare advocacy.

We don't think AARP should be muzzled in a political debate, but neither should the insurance industry - especially by an influential Senator getting favors from his crony in a supposedly impartial regulatory agency that has enormous power to harm or destroy private companies. Seniors have a right to know how they may be affected by Washington's health-care planning.

So, for the record, CBO's Mr. Elmendorf says that cuts to Medicare Advantage "could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Economic Vandalism

Probably not a lot of folks on this side of the pond read The Economist, one of Britain's premier news and business magazines. That's a shame. The current issue (September 19th-25th 2009) has an article entitled Economic Vandalism, investigating the potential cause and effects of the President's recently enacted 35% tariff on tires imported from China. The Economist calls this "A protectionist move that is bad politics, bad economics, bad diplomacy and hurts America." How about a few teasers before you click the link to read the entire article?

You can be fairly sure that when a government slips an announcement out at nine o’clock on a Friday night, it is not proud of what it is doing.

In every other way the president’s decision to slap a 35% tariff on imported Chinese tyres looks like a colossal blunder, confirming his critics’ worst fears about the president’s inability to stand up to his party’s special interests and stick to the centre ground he promised to occupy in office.

..no one can seriously imagine that any American tyre-making job will be saved; firms will simply import cheap tyres from other low-cost places like India and Brazil.

The tyre decision needs to be set into the context of a string of ominously protectionist policies which started within weeks of the inauguration with a nasty set of "Buy America" provisions for public-works contracts.

Besides these sins of commission sit the sins of omission: the president has done nothing at all to advance the three free-trade packages that are pending in Congress, with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, three solid American allies who deserve much better.

In a section headed "Dumb and Dumber" are these comments:

Evidence of a weak president being pushed leftward might cause investors to worry whether he will prove similarly feeble when it comes to reining in the vast deficits he is now racking up; and that might spook the buyers of bonds that finance all those deficits. Looming large among these, of course, are the Chinese.

Under the relevant trade laws, Mr Obama had the absolute discretion not to impose the recommended tyre tariffs on the grounds of overall economic interest or national security. Given everything that is at stake, his decision not to exercise it amounts to an act of vandalism.

If you think, "well, that's just one tariff. What harm could that do?" Here's another article, this one in the Wall Street Journal today, that talks about a similar tariff enacted in the early 1960's that still causes problems and significant waste as businesses find ways to get around the onerous tax that are still in place long after the situation that brought it about has been made moot.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Medicare for All?

The Top Ten reasons Medicare should not be a model for Health Care reform:

1. Medicare is going bankrupt.
2. Private payers are bailing out Medicare.
3. Expansion of entitlement programs threatens our economic security.
4. Low administrative costs are a mirage.
5. Medicare is rife with fraud.
6. Medicare short-changes seniors.
7. Medicare's model is obsolete.
8. Payments are too low.
9. Medical decisions are made in Washington.
10. No one is running the show.

Read the article, which includes an explanation of these reasons, in the September 11, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal.

When Obama made his statement about number five in his speech to congress, I immediately asked, "If you know there's fraud, why aren't you doing something about it now? Why must you wait for this obscenely abusive "reform bill" before acting?" Estimates of fraud range from three to ten percent of all health care spending.

"What Were You Thinking?"

The President's Promises

Obama made a lot of bold promises during his speech to Congress last week. He will likely make more on Sunday, when he hits every morning talk show except the one place where he might be asked some probing questions. The question we need answered is, was Joe Wilson right? Is this guy telling us the truth or not? Perhaps you're not one of those "true believers" who accept every word from his mouth. Perhaps you prefer to look at the evidence and make up your own mind. This Editorial at Investor's Business Daily a week ago examines those promises and points out some significant discrepancies. I find it interesting that while Obama spoke all evening about "My Plan," he hasn't revealed any of the details of it. The only bills we can examine are HR 3200 from the House of Representatives, and the proposal by Max Baucus (D-Montana) from the Senate. This one has no Republican endorsement; neither have any endearing features to this reader.

So take a look at the IBD examination of Obama's speech. Make up your own mind. Don't let anyone; politician, personality, reporter, whoever; tell you what you should think about this important issue. If the provisions of HR 3200 and Baucus's bill are passed by congress, get signed into law, and you should happen to live long enough to have to deal with the consequences, you want to at least be able to say "I knew what was coming. I told you so!"

"What Were You Thinking?"

Are we indeed Ignorant?

Nobel laureate Friedrich A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty:

"All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Compared with the totality of knowledge which is continually utilized in the evolution of a dynamic civilization, the difference between the knowledge that the wisest and that the most ignorant individual can deliberately employ is comparatively insignificant."

This should give us all hope, eh?

Whose Decision?

"Some lives may indeed be impossible to save. But what we have here is a government bureaucracy that has the power to determine—as a matter of policy—not to save lives thatcould be saved. In essence, determining whose life is worth the expense.

The proper, biblical role of government is to protect the well-being of its citizens—to provide security and promote justice, not to usher them into the next world by denying them medical care.

Do we need health care reform? Of course we do; I've said so before. But as Christians, we must not assent to giving unaccountable bureaucrats the power to determine the value of a human life—or to withhold medical care from those whose survival is somehow deemed outside the national interest."

From Charles Colson's Breakpoint column, Sept 18, 2009.

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_849993.html to read the entire column.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Lloyd Marcus, American

Read the experiences of a black conservative here; then watch the video.

"What Were You Thinking?"

"Government Can Fix It"

"What Were You Thinking?"

Cancer Treatment or Assisted Suicide?

Who is more sympathetic to the plight of the patient, Big Government or Big Business? Watch this video to the end before you decide.

This is "health-care" in the state of Oregon, a pattern many in the Federal Government think ought to be extended to the rest of the country. Government makes the decisions about treatment, not the doctor, certainly not the patient. I don't think I care to participate, thank you very much. Is this the sort of "health-care" that our president says we are owed as a right? The Declaration of Independence says we have a right "to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Notice that Life comes first; without Life, the others don't mean much.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Health-Care Secrets

There's an old saying in Texas, used when one perceives that he's not being told the truth: "Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining!" That's exactly what's going on in town halls around the country. In the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, there's this little blurb about how the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (chaired by Chris Dodd, D-Conn), passed out an amended $1 trillion health-care bill back on July 15. Earlier this month, Senator Arlen Specter (D-Penn) told a town hall meeting that those opposed to the present monstrous HR3200 are "just wrong; the Senate doesn't have a bill yet." Well, the only true part about that is they haven't turned over their cards yet. The Democrats in the senate have known since the middle of July what they intend to inflict on us, but they haven't seen fit to tell us. They haven't even shared it with the Republican senators. And you really believed these clowns when they promised an "open, transparent government?" Do you really think they want an open, honest government when they pull this sort of crap and then expect to pass the legislation without allowing time for public commentary? My friend, they were peeing in your ear then, and they're doing it now.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Dick Morris on Joe Lieberman

On Tuesday the 25th, Dick Morris wrote a piece on comments by Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) regarding HR 3200 -- the Obama/Democrat Party proposal to reform health care. A couple of interesting paragraphs:

If the elderly are worried about the projected $500 billion cut in Medicare and Medicaid over the ensuing decade and conservatives fret over socialization of healthcare, the average American can relate most easily to the concerns over the size of the debt and the deficit that Lieberman articulates.

Lieberman’s critique gives moderates a place to go in the healthcare debate. Caught in the tug between the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries and the more conservative voices that may prevail in November, centrist Democrats can rally easily around the “not now” approach of Joe Lieberman. It is obvious that, despite the Obama majorities in Congress, this is the exact wrong time to embark on a major new government spending program.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Read the Bill!!

Can you imagine what HR 3200 will do to our National Debt?

"What Were You Thinking?"

Obama's Summer of Discontent

Fouad Ajami has an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today, pointing out the emptiness inherent in the election of the current occupant of the Oval Office and suggesting that Americans who value substance over style are now coming to understand the enormity of what they have done. I only hope that there are more of us who understand and prefer substance than those who would rather think they can get a free ride off the successful part of the.

Click the link above and read the article; here are the last two paragraphs:

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Voter Intimidation

So what is it: illegal intimidation of registered voters by thugs, or just another tool in the arsenal of Democrat operatives? Why did the Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Halder, choose to drop a case against members of the New Black Panther party in Philadelphia, when they had a slam-dunk winner?

President Obama is a lawyer; AG Holder is a lawyer; doesn't it seem odd that these two, both of whom have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and, by extention, the Law of the Land, have seen fit to ignore this law against voter intimidation?

There are larger questions here, deserving of answers. Wall Street Journalist John Fund provides more information... if you're interested!

"What Were You Thinking?"

Death by Bureaucratic Fiat.

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal today that should be read by anyone who contemplates a need for medical care in their future, and who wonders how they might fare under a nationalized health care system. Obama's independant panel will, under HR 3200, decide who receives care and who does not, and it's not a pretty thing to think about. Imagine yourself coming before the panel, asking for medical care that will save and prolong your life. Imagine their answer.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Democrat's Worst Nightmare

..or maybe it's just a Republican response to ACORN agitators.

What Does HR 3200 Actually Say?

If you don't want to read the entire 1016 pages of House Resolution 3200 - the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" - then you might consider a summary by someone who has done the homework that we each should have already done.

 

http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm was put together by Dr. John David Lewis, professor of Classical History and Political Economics at Duke University.  He provides questions, the applicable sections from HR 3200, and his evaluation of the proposed law.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Support for Health Care Reform

So what level of support is there for a major change in Health Care in this country? An article by Scott Rasmussen in the Wall Street Journal reports some interesting statistics from recent polls, just a day after the current resident of the Oval Office said that those who oppose the idea should keep their mouths shut.

 

So what do the people think?

- Obama says the plan he's selling will reduce costs, but 53% of the people believe it will have the opposite effect.

- 74% rate the quality of care they currently receive as good or excellent.

- 50% of people fear that if this plan is passed, it will result in a decline in quality of care.

- By a factor of two to one, people think that no matter how bad things might be, congressional action will only make them worse.

- 78% of folks agree that passage of the current congressional plan is likely to mean higher taxes for the middle class

- Although 63% of voters agree that all Americans should have "quality, affordable health care," only 28% are willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that goal.

- Although 25% of voters strongly support the reform effort, 41% strongly oppose it.

- 48% of voters now rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. This is up from 29% a year ago.

- 19% of voters now rate the U.S. health-care system as poor. This is down from 37% a year ago.

- Currently, 76% of Democrat voters favor the reform plan being touted by Obama and the congressional Democrats.

- Currently, 35% of unaffiliated voters favor the plan, versus 60% who are opposed.

- Of these unaffiliated voters, only 16% strongly favor the plan, while 47% strongly oppose it.

 

The House Resolution, euphemistically called "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," can be found here. Please read it.

Mr Rasumssen's data can be found here.

Rasmussen's Op Ed piece can be found here.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"