I was listening to of all things (MSNBC’s The Ed Show), and I could only listen to it for a total of 3.5 seconds when this idiot started talking about a public option that does not have a policy say would be more palateable. Which got me thinking about my football days.

I played football for a Division 1-AA football team (AKA the Football Championship Subdivision, the one not many people don’t pay attention to), and if I could have been in the position where I could have refereed, and been a player, my penalty yards would have been greatly reduced, (I was an offensive lineman, and we always hold, it’s just a matter of getting caught), and I could have pretty much been an All-American.  But alas, in the game of football the referee, for the most part is neutral and calls the game both ways and here I am a lowly computer tech doing the working man thing.

This is analogous to the “public option”.  From what I can see this “option” is going to “compete” with private insurance companies. How is that going to work effectively, when the “public option” will have an unlimited capital pool from which to draw from then any other insurance company, so it would be fine for them to take about 5 years of solid losses, covering everything that the referee (federal govt, the owner of the public option), makes every other insurance company cover, so right there the insurance company, plays against a stacked deck, until they fold, then the “public option” becomes the only player in the game then we are in a “single payer”system.  Then somebody is going to find out that the first 5 years is not sustainable, and then we get the rationing and “economic decisions” of who gets treated or not.

Another thing about this deal is what happens if the private company’s (I know probably a long shot but hear me out), still have the ability to out perform the “public option” by maybe advertising that they can deliver services better than the “public option”, and then doing so.  Is the referee, still going to call the game down the middle, and let the “”public option” die.  No, they are going to change the rules so that the private insurance companies cannot market against the public option, therefore tilting the deck once again in their favor.

This whole healthcare thing as the Democrats are pushing is a raw deal for America as a whole, but for a country that thrived on competition and innovation, these proposals are going to kill it, and we will be under a “single payer” system, and personally, I don’t like my survival chances in that environment.

I hold a bachelor’s degree in Economics and Business from a relatively small (some may call higher end) liberal arts college, and I look at all that Obama has proposed and done, and am shocked at how he thinks this economy is going to improve. I will list some of the policies below.

1. Taxes - It’s been proven time and time again, that when taxes are cut, those that are paying the majority of taxes (damn those evil rich folks), the money that they have in their pocket goes out and buys better things, which goes to the manufacturers of those better things, which then lets those manufacturers hire people at good competitive wages, which those people use those wages to buy goods and services that they desire and need, and the circle continues and continues to a point where we have a productive economy, the whole time a percentage of the economy is paying taxes. Now when taxes get raised, or are expected to raise (letting tax cuts expire), those that are paying the taxes (again damn thos evil rich folks), stop spending the better things, the manufacturers of those things lose money, and hence fire workers, those workers are now not buying the goods and services they need, and you get what we have now of a 9.8% unemployment rate and going higher.

Cap and trade (the no energy, energy proposal)- How do people do any job in this country now. I am a computer geek, my place of employment probably uses a real large amount of electricity to keep our networks up and running so that we can support an maintain our client’s networks, now you are going to make the price of keeping those networks go up, because the electricity supplier is going to have to make someone pay for the fact that the electric use of my company, may push the supplier over the cap and therefore they are going to have to buy the carbon credit from somebody to keep producing the energy. This leaves only one option for my employer which is to cut the only thing that they can control, and my job goes bye bye so that they can keep the lights on, because if they don’t they get sued by the client for breech of  contract.

Also on this front, when we had the tech explosion, and went from using punch cards and dumb terminals, to using PCs and Cisco Routers, and the servers running Microsoft Windows NT, and the Internet, I maybe wrong, but I don’t remember Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or the head of Cisco asking the government to fund their work on an unproven technology until they got it working, but this is exactly what the wind energy folks, solar energy folks, and I don’t know the unicorn fart energy folks are asking us to do.  Sorry, if I were to look at a profit loss statement or a business plan as a private citizen see that company x wouldn’t be worth a pint of my urine let alone an investment of my cash, why should the govenment use my tax money to invest in that.

Spending-Now I hear the govenment complain that credit is not flowing and businesses are not getting loans, and people aren’t getting mortgages, but I know one group that is getting all the credit in the world right now, and thats the Federal Government to the tune of $1.8 Trillion dollars.  A simple look at supply and demand would tell me that if out of all the money that can be supplied for credit could be counted, I am sure 1.8 trillion getting taken out of that lowers the supply for everyone else, which should naturally raise the price of the remaining supply of available money to loan for everyone else, and add to the fact that now you are going to scream if a bank makes a loan that may lower their capital, it is no wonder to me why credit is not getting out to businesses and people, even if they are the most responsible, credit worthy people in the world.

Now again, I don’t have a Ph.D in Economics or Politics, but even with my lowly Bachelor’s degree I can tell that this economic policy would make most of my economic professors puke.  So I have to ask where did the economic education for this administration come from a real place of higher learning or Romper Room

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10256766/Upon-further-review:-The-word-on-Rush

I read this today at work, and just got more and more pissed off about the race-baiting, 21st century version of what happened in the 1950’s during the HUAC, and Hollywood blacklisting.

The only difference is this time, instead of having someone come in front of a committee and either admit to, or denouce being a communist, you don’t even get a chance to defend yourself, you go straight from accused to blacklisted.

As for this article from Jason Whitlock, I got to quote what Warren Ballentine said to Juan Williams, and this is from one black man to another, get off of the porch of your liberal plantation owners.  If you want to ever be seen as a credible journalist, please stop with the 1/2 hearted, “Although the quote may have been wrong, I am still justified in a character assasination”.

I am not the biggest fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I do understand, and most times agree with his point of view, but I would be just as pissed off, and question a bunch of reporters and people, if they tried to drive Olbermann off of the air of NFL Sunday Night, and did it by attibuting quotes to him such as, “Conservatives are satan incarnate”, and, “Republicans are the political arm of the KKK”, knowing that they were false and could only be found in Wikipedia.

I look at it like this, if the HUAC and Hollywood blacklist was wrong, and unamerican, doing what was done to Rush Limbaugh is just as wrong.

I remember reading somewhere I don’t know if it was here or on another blog site, about one of the ALinsky rules was to always argue that there are more than two choices.  For example, in Afghanistan, according to Obama, it is a false choice to either grant the requested troops, or get the hell out of Afghanistan, there is some third blurry choice that will grant success, and that we are just to damn dumb to know what it is. But when it comes to the recent Health Care debate it’s either his plan, or no plan at all.

I constantly hear attacks about how Republicans and Conservatives, don’t have a plan at all (which is false), and that only his plan (public option, mandatory requirement for insurance, stacked deck rules against insurance companies) is the only way to go.

Sorry, but if Obama wants to try to split the baby on Afghanistan, and split the baby on a whole host of other issues, please in Cbama’s infinite Solomon like wisdom, come up with a way to split the baby on health care, or cap and trade, or the whole host of domestic issues instead of the dual choice that Obama is giving us of his way or do nothing.

There is a way to split the baby on health care reform. Things like allowing Interstate commerce of insurance plans instead of insurance company’s needing to taylor plans to mandates of each state, and paying their tributes to each state’s insurance boards, and tort reform which will stop or curtail some of the defensive medicine, and lower the doctor’s malpractice insurance premiums.

There is a way to split the baby on the so called “climate change” action and energy policy, that split is to allow domestic nuclear energy for electricity generation, and domestic drilling for our own oil, and more capacity for refining, (I believe that our ability to refine cleaning outstrips those of many of the 3rd world cesspools that are doing it now).

So, all I ask is a little consistency, if Obama is going to look for the third choice on each issue, then at least look at the third choices that are so blatant that if they were Mike Tyson in a championship fight Obama would be picking himself up off the gound with the obvious punch that he should know is coming.

Listening to the news in regards to Afganistan, and Obama and folks waffling around about sending more troops into it or not, really bothers me.

Afghanistan, according to the debates was the war of necessity, and Iraq was the war of choice.  Now it seems that he and his people are trying anything to get an out of Afghanistan, yet split the baby and show that he is still strong on national defense.  What I don’t think his folks understand, would be if you want to be trusted on national security you better do the things that will secure us, which for me is fighting and defeating the Islamofacists where ever they try to hidey hole, and fight them on their ground so that they got to keep playing the home game, because if they travel for the away game here, we will have 9/11 part 2.

Now, unlike the liberals who tried to cheerlead the U.S. to a loss, if Obama wanted to put in more troops, I don’t think there would be objection one from our side of the fence, and I don’t think many independents would decry the increase, the only people that seem to decry this are hippie maggots like the now senior senator from MA. and the far-left.  As a matter of fact Obama and the Dems would probably be fully supported by us, and we wouldn’t be the ones blaming the deaths on Obama as long as he was fighting this war honestly.

Right now, I see only two options to the whole thing. Option 1, is to surge and surge hard, fight the insurgents, fight the Taliban, and load up the body bags with those that want to kill us.  Option 2, is withdraw everybody, and fortify our home defenses so that they are air tight, which would probably mean having our military on our soil defending our borders.

I was watching the only tolerable show on CNN tonight (that would be the Lou Dobbs show), since if I look at Shepard Smith or hear him for more than 10 minutes I find my self resisting the strong urge to put six holes in my TV, and they were discussing how some Democrats are pissed, because this bill is starting to get slanted to what Olympia Snowe wants instead of going full bore communist

One congress woman from CA (Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)), stating that, “This is the United States of America, not the United States of Maine.”, and when asked for follow up on that, whe proceeds to state, “One senator cannot hold the nations health plan hostage.”  Then queen dunce (my opinion) Shiela Jackson Lee, stating, “The idea that we are going to succumb to the insurance companies’ fears, and then do a trigger, will mean that we will delay our constituency, the American people, a public option”.

Great job Snowe, in her quest to be seen as the “resonable one” and get her head patted like a loyal dog, she now became enemy number 1, and now it’s her turn to get demonized.

Of course, she will probably cry that she needs to be defended by the GOP when she really starts getting attacked, and the outside state money comes in against her in  droves, because she is wanting to limp to socialist healthcare instead of sprinting to it so fast that Usain Bolt looks like a turtle.

Now I hope that Senator Snowe knows how to play this hand and make sure that in the end, that this bill which looks like now is going to pass irregardless, doesn’t do too much damage.  However, My hope dwindles, when I look at her prior record from what I read here.

Enjoy having the target on your back Snowe, and you will now know how the rest of us feel every damn day since Ronald Reagan became president.

Read this in the Cincinnati Enquirer a couple of days ago.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091007/NEWS01/310070003/Stings+expose++gun+show+loophole++

This pretty much was a sting operation done by Mike Bloomberg (R for convience) mayor of NYC, had agents go to a gun and knife show that is held in Cincinnati every year, and go to private sellers, and buy a gun acting like they should in no way be allowed.

They had a guy go to the private collectors table, and state something like, “Yeah, I probably wouldn’t pass a background check”, while the sale is already closed.

Of course we all know that this is going to be used, as a agitprop piece to toughen the private ownership laws.  Which I think is completely rediculous.  First off, if it is incumbent on me as a seller to ascertain if someone could not get a gun through a dealer, when am I opened up to discrimination lawsuits.  I mean, right now, if some hip hop style wearing individual came up to me and wanted to buy my weapon, and I told him no, when is he going to sue me for discrimination.  Second off, I am not sure that a cop shop in one city let alone one state should be able to cross lines to sting legitimate businesses in another state.   Especially New York from Cincinnati, OH, it would be one thing if this was Virginia, or somewhere on the I-95 corridor, I don’t think folks are coming out to Cincy from NY to buy a gun to drop it back on NY streets.

This gave me a big warning sign that if this is not the start, it is an escalation on the war on the 2nd amendment.

It always amazes me how the free market and capitalism gets smeared in the health care debate by the liberals, and how many arguements get missed by the people attempting to stop this debacle from happening.

This my opinion of what the arguments should be on this subject, and I apprieciate any refinements to this points.  My arguements are below.

1.  There should be full interstate competition between insurance companies offering an array of coverages.  Right now each state has certain benchmark of what every insurance company’s policy needs to offer.  These benchmarks are the things that may stop a company like United Healthcare, from covering a person who lives in the state of NJ (this happened to me when I moved from OH to NJ).  What would truly bring down costs would be to allow all insurance companies with all of their options being out there on the free market.  So someone like me, who is a diabetic, and needs certain meds and a level of follow up care with doctors, I would probably look in the market for plans that are like the PPO that I have for work, however, a 25 year old single female, with no physical issues, should have the choice of either buying a plan like mine, at a cheaper rate, or go even cheaper, and buy into a health insurance that only covers catastrophic care.

2.  The price paid for Health Insurance should get the same benefits that companies get for offering health insurance to their employess.  Therefore, any money spent on health coverage should be a tax credit that gets refunded after every tax year.

3.  Health Savings Accounts. Should not only be pretax, but should be interest bearing, and carried over from year to year, and be able to be passed from one generation to the next.

Now I know that the libs heads would explode, especially with my number one point. Well here would be my arguement. This would be the arguement of explaining how captialism and govenment are really supposed to play together.

With this competition, I am not stating that the state insurance commissions go away, but where they are now, it is interfereing with peoples choice on what they can be insured for.  Instead the state insuracne commission should be the referee calling fouls when insurance companies don’t live up to their obligations or when people try to pull a fast one on the insurance company.  They shouldn’t be telling a company what products they need to sell.  So for instance, if I had a heart attack, and am in the hospital for a few weeks, and need some rehab care, and my insurance drops me, then I want the insurance commission to throw the flag and sanction that insurance company, and then I can use that sanction and I can sue that insurance company for damages.  That is the role of government in capitalism.

In conclusion, we don’t need to torch what is already here to make health care better in this country.  It is because of the freedoms that this country has that we have the best health care in the world, and that all the medical innovations start here in the U.S.  We don’t need to change those facts for any reason.  As a matter of fact what is truly needed is more capitalism.  More choices.  If you can’t afford the PPO plan, and don’t need it, you can easily buy the high deductible catastrophic plan, and be on your merry way.

I am sitting here listening to the the Glenn Beck replay on a sleepless night, and he is talking about Pelosi’s comments earlier on, and then some Kennedy dunce, about violent rhetoric from the right wing. However, when there is real violence like the crybabies at the G20 summit get violent nobody says a damn thing.

Which is now leading me to start thinking, who benefits if some violence really goes down?  It would seem to me the far left and those currently in power would benefit.   They would be the ones setting down the new laws to deal with the violence, and I am sure that those laws would be the things to give them the advantages and disinfranchise as many advantages that conservatives would have (anybody say gun bans etc.).

So in conclusion of this thought.  If some violence really goes down.  It is going to take something along the line of O.J evidence before I would believe that anything violent would be sparked by the conservative side of the coin.

I am just reading here at Redstate, and listening to the news and on the overall scale of Obama over just 9 mohths, I have to ask, “President Obama, please tell me what you believe in”. 

On domestic policy he tries to act like a socialist, as far as health care goes, and the takeover of the auto industry, yet it does appear that his administration is all up and ready to bail out banks yet again if and when banks go down the crapper.  So my question is this, “Are you really for the working man, proletariat, ignorant masses, whatever you want to call us, or are you for big business and big finance, which would make you no different that many of the Republicans, that you villified for about 2 years prior?”

On the foreign front, you wanted to pack up and run out of Iraq, and Afganistan was the “right war”.  Now it is taking Obama 2 months after the report from the General he hired and he still hasn’t come to a decision on how he is going to proceed here.  So now Mr. Tough Guy for Afganistan, is looking to try and find a way to run away like the knights in Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail, but until he makes a decision how many more of our soldiers need to die in the battlefields of Afganistan. 

So please, someone enighten me, and I will even tolerate trolls, tell me what this guy stands for. Because soon enough if I can’t figure it out, the term “Mr. President” will probably start to be replace with the words “Mr. Douchebag without an effing clue”.

I just noticed today, that I have had a Redstate account for 1 year 0 months.  I would like to give a big thank you to Redstate for giving me a forum to speak my thoughts, and to know that there are many people here who see things the same way that I do. 

I would like to thank many people also for some entertaining as well as informative discussion on a whole host of issues.  Folks like Achance, who does give a good perspective from Alaska as well as a wizened view of the world.  Mbecker, who can be harsh, but he puts things the way that I would like to say things many times. Moe Lane, whose post scripts on many of his postings, gives that last little knife twist to a point to just cause a little more pain for those that oppose what he is saying, knowing that he is right as well as his creative blamming skills.  Neil Stevens, for keeping the site running as well as offering an insight to many different issues. Vladamir, who offers a great insight to the oil and energy business, and finally to Erick Erickson for being the one who takes the lead of this community, and represents us very well in the public. 

So in conclusion thanks to all for having me and allowing me to share how I feel, and I hope I contribute a fraction of what I have received.

Let me preface this by stating proudly that I am a product of an interacial marriage, with an African American/Carribean Islander father, and a Polish/German/Russian mother. 

With that preface, I am sick and tired of the racism charge being spewed.  I am sick of the cop out by the supporters of Barack Obama that since we are not seeing the wisdom behind trying to run a command economy from everything from car manufacturing, financial institutions, to health insurance, knowing that these things never work, and lead to at best most of those things going black market, to just leading to a collapse of everybody, (can anybody say USSR), we must be racist.  WIthout any thought to the fact that when Hillarycare came along, conservatives opposed that with the same loud voice, and the light up of the congressional phone lines, and that was under a white southerner by the name of Bill Clinton.  This is not about race, this is about knowing what the right way and wrong way of doing things.  The wrong way is to look to government to try to plan anything, basic economics tells you that in the laws of supply and demand, that when you put in a price ceiling a black market will emerge, and when you put so many onerous regulations on financial institutions, they avoid the business that you are trying to regulate, (notice not many people can get loans, but banks are making loads of money on different fees for anything.). 

The other thing that bothers me is the people that are calling the racism charge.  You got folks like the NYT dunce Maureen Dowd.  I am sorry, as a “minority” I don’t need this dumb idiot defending my race from racism, knowing that she probably lives in a neighborhood that if my black ass was driving down the street late at night I would probably be pulled over and questioned.  Same goes for that tatooed unfunny dunce Jenene Garafalo.   My  point being is that I do not need liberal white people trying to defend my race from the racists, because for me, it comes of very paternalistic.

This paternalism reminds me of how some people thought of the slaves after the Civil War.  Many were quoted as saying, “If we don’t have them as slaves, what would they do to survive?.”  I know exactly what I am trying to do. I am trying to work my ass off, to pay my bills, and make a nestegg so that one day, I have enough cash so that I can retire comfortably.  In the meantime I would like a family. I don’t need Berkley, mostly white liberals telling me how to do that, and how they are going to provide it through the force of the government. 

I remember putting on a comment once, and I would like to say it again to some of these people.  Let me meet you face to face, and then I am going to go ahead and punch you in the head, and you can see how helpless I am.  You do Obama no service by dropping the race card at every sense of opposition.  Instead of dropping the racism charge, how about refuting our points if you can. If you can’t that obviously this path is not the path to down, unless you really want to destroy what this country is. 

Me personally, if there are some some people that read Redstate have some racist opinions, I would like to say to them, I would rather have you call me the N-word to my face, and then leave me be, that way you are not affecting me.  When you try to paternalize me to protect me from the evil racist, you are enslaving me more.

I have been listening lately to liberals, and squishy repubs, complain about how Sarah Palin used the words “death panel” and how that was not in the bill and that she was scare mongering. 

In my humble opinion, and I am sure a few others out there, who is doing more scare mongering Palin, or from the power of the Presidency Obama, who constantly states if we don’t do something about healthcare the economy is going to go into the toilet, if we didn’t pass the stimulus, the economy was going to go into the toilet, if we don’t pass cap and trade, the economy is going to go into the toilet and the world is going to come to a screeching halt.  So as far as the scaremongering arguement, goes my response is, “GO SCREW”

But back to the metaphor of “Death Panels”.  Now I know the exact words “Death Panel” are not in the the HR 3200 bill, but what things are in there that would make me think, “Death Panel”. 

1.  End of life counseling- So my mother would have to meet with an end of life couselor who in the interest of keeping costs down would probably be the one counseling my mother to pull the plug on herself if she got to sick. 

2.  A board that is going to tell doctors what are acceptable treatments.  That’s nice, so my doctor has me on a regiment of meds for a condition, and it may be acceptable but not widespread, and a board of 5 coneheads comes up and says that regiment is meds is not an acceptable treatment for that condition, and we will not allow it to be covered, I get switched to the “medically accepted” treatment and I drop dead. 

To me those things constiute a death panel, now it’s too early to tell that Palin is presidential or leadership material, but as far as what was posted in facebook on this issue, I gotta agree that she was dead on, so dead on in fact that some of the language she was referring to, was removed from Senate proposals. 

So to the Libs out there, before you tell a lie read the bill, and remember, what a metaphor is before you start spouting that someone is “fear mongering:

Before the vote took place on Cap and Trade, I wrote a rather pointed email to my congress critter (Steve Driehaus - OH-01).  And below is his reply.

Dear xxxxxx (Name protected):

 

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the cap and trade bill. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue.

 

As you know, on June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives considered major legislation to address America’s energy needs. I gave this legislation and the concerns of the residents of Ohio’s first District serious consideration before making a decision. I voted in favor of it, and the bill passed by a bipartisan vote of 219 to 212. Although you and I disagree on this particular piece of legislation, I would like to share my views with you on the bill and my reasons for voting yes.

 

I believe that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will work to revitalize our economy by creating new, clean energy jobs, strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and protect rate-payers by ensuring there are no spikes in home energy costs.

 

Despite the fact that some of the bill’s critics have claimed the bill would cost Americans thousands of dollars, the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency have reported that is not the case. Additionally, the bill is budget neutral and would not add to the national debt or create any new taxes. While energy prices have always fluctuated, recently causing serious hardships when gas prices spiked, the Clean Energy bill would provide more stability to the market. It will help America end her reliance on foreign oil and make our nation a world leader in new, innovative technology.

 

While I had concerns with the original bill, I worked with other Ohio and Midwestern members of Congress to ensure that our region of the country would not face unfair high energy costs or spikes in energy costs. I was also pleased that the final version of the bill included a provision to create a $30 billion state revolving loan fund, meaning that Ohio can compete for loans to transition to a clean energy economy.

 

Ultimately, the bill garnered the support of a wide variety of groups who came together to champion this ground-breaking legislation despite their often conflicting viewpoints. Some of the bill’s supporters include the AFL-CIO, Duke Energy, the League of Conservation Voters, GE, Johnson & Johnson, GM, Dow, the National Farmers Union, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

Again, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future if I may be of any assistance.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Steve Driehaus

Member of Congress

 

Where do I start with this letter.  First the bi-partisan garbage, (Thanks you traitorous 8 idiots who decided to vote for this bill, you gave them cover yet again).  I love the fact that 8 morons made this “Bi-partisan”.

Second,  The paragraph about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, lowering electricity bills, and strenghting our national security. It is obvious to me, he either didn’t take an economics class or had a real good friend to cheat off of to pass the class.  Capping the carbon, easily adds to our dependence on foreign oil, and now probably adds to our dependence on the refined product. Lower electricity bills, how when you are adding to the cost of production of energy, and the national security thing,  how does that happen when we are going to be more dependent on foreign sources, or having our producers leave outside of the US and selling that energy back into the US. 

Then he puts in the payoff that he helped get for Ohio as the 30 billion dollars for a loan fund for the transition.  Okay, so we are going to have more debt in our total national debt, plus put others in debt to transition to the green economy.  Sorry that doesn’t make sense to me at all.

In conclusion, this letter, when I read it, made me throw up in my mouth because of the total amount of bulls(&t that was crammed into that letter.  I am waiting to see who is going to run against this assclown, and make damn sure that I am helping that person anyway I can.

Hear me out on this, I am probably not the only one that’s mentioned it.  I was thinking to myself, if Roe v. Wade read into the constitution the right to privacy of a woman and her doctor in regards to abortion doesn’t the same apply to all medical procedures and to all people. 

From what I understand part of the universal health care thing is to make patient records more readily available on the public domain.  That would mean that the treatment discussions that my doctor has for me will be public domain records for any body who can access that data, and allows the govenment to make decisions on my treatment based on that.  Maybe I am stupid, but isn’t that the same as the govenment making a medical procedure illegal and violating the right to privacy.

I would think that a court challenge could and should if this passes be brought up on this very point.  Make the “stare decis” democrat idiots argue against the right to privacy for say a 35 year old male diabetic doesn’t exist, but the right of privacy  of an 18 year old college woman out on a bender and who had to do the walk of shame 2 months earlier does exist and is sacrosanct thanks to Roe v. Wade.  I would think that this would bring up that little inconvience called equal protection under the law.  Hence universal health care, unconstitutional based on their own playing boggle with the constitution. (Granted the whole thing is unconsititutional anyway without the Roe v. Wade strawman).

I would really wish the media would call things straight.  I was watching TV tonight, and I stumbled onto the Bill Maher show and he was talking with John Bolten and some other ex-republican representative, and the first words out of his mouth is the rift between republicans, and he mentions Cheney, and then Rush Limbaugh and how the squishes would like to keep them quiet.

It got me thinking.  When I used to lurk on the DKos (what the hell was I thinking), I would see them having about the same arguements about one candidate or the other being too much of a DLC moderate vs. their more likable progressives (read commie scumbag).  However, these fights aren’t all over the media, and republicans never sat there and told the democrats what they needed to do to be more like them to get elected. As a matter of fact it was Chuckie “Schumcky” Schumer who decided to run more Blue Dogs (False advertising) democrats to get the majorites that they got in 2006 and 2008.

Now I don’t know.  In the African-American community, there is a thing about airing the dirty laundry that made people like Bill Cosby pariahs.  Do we need to do a better job of showing a united front, or is this another case of media malpractice where they will want to highlight everything wrong with our side without looking to the other side in what should be a sense of neutrality (I haven’t engaged in any illicit substances to really believe that the media would ever be neutral anymore)? 

I think the next time someone gets interviewed about that we should start showing evidence that the liberal side has the same problems. Just because “they won”, doesn’t mean they don’t have the same infighting, and maybe we need to start exposing those infights when this gets brought up in the media. The main example I can think of right now is the Gillebrand deal in NY or the Specter deal in PA where he is going to get primaried Obama be damned.

I thought a leader was supposed to lead, not whine and cry like a bitch for every hard issue he encounters.  I watched his “significant” speech on national security, and it seems that he spent the whole speech crying about what Bush did.  He states that Bush left him a mess, and that he has to sort through all the judicial decisions that went against the Bush administration.  What jackass does not mention is that it was his buddies and supporters just for policial gain filed those suits into courts that for political gain, played boggle with the constituion and granted rights that should not have been granted in the first place to people that are one non-citizens of this country, two, were unlawful combatants, that could have been summarily executed in the battlefield, and three the constitution does not apply to fighting a war in the first place.  Now he has the job, and is crying that the things that helped him get into the office by undermining Bush is now things he has to deal with as a hindernace.

All I gotta say is too damn bad. Instead of looking at the reality of the situation, he campaigned on and then acted on with the executive order to close Gitmo.  Now even his own congressional members that rode his coattails into their senate and congressional seats now are not going to give him the funding without a solid plan for the closing of Gitmo.  Now I don’t know if this was a way, for them to jump in front of the bullet so the child-president, doesn’t take the bullet for not being able to deliver on closing Gitmo, or if there is (Oh my God it couldn’t be) a stance of conscience from the more moderate Democrats (read liars who will do/say anything to get elected), that they don’t want these people released in the US. 

Come on Obama, you are the golden-boy, smartest man in the room, best president of all time even though you only been in the office for about 4 months.  Come up with a plan and own up to the consequences.  This is a time when you don’t get to vote present on the issue, or did 52% truly vote for a complete coward.

I am listening to FBN today, and I am listening to a congressman from Maryland stating that they want to make newspapers non-profit since they are going bankrupt.  This is utter garbage.  Why should our government support failing businsess any more.  If they can’t hang, they are done.  Are these things that during our “greatest economic crisis” ever should our govenment even be supporting.  I am also wondering why this would be proposed, and the only thing I can think of is payback.  Most of these newspapers that are out there now, probably supported Obambi and the other liberal pols that gave them the power that they got this past election cycle, and they want to pay them back.

Our country needs an national type auditor to audit the tie ins between legislation and who got what and for how much, because this is starting to get really, really, scary.

And so far I have found the whole thing pretty cringe worth.  Our president is committing the 11th deadly sin according to one of my economics professors.  He is beleving his own B(&&^(&t. 

Does he honestly believe that cap and trade is going to help us?  If so, how does that work exactly.  By adding a whole bunch of extra charge to my utility bill. Oh I get it, we can get gas back to 4 - 5 dollars a gallon which started a good part of this mess that we are in.  Oh that’s right we are going to build wind farms and solar panels, oh that’s right we don’t really want to build them where they could actually be efficient (off the coast of Massachusetts, or in the Mojave desert for solar).  So again, explain to me, the great unwashed how does this help the economy overall or me personally.

It is nice to see that a couple reporters of actually asking a few tough questions.  I guess the fawning period is over, I do wonder what he did to piss off the press, or are they trying to get their validity back.  I mean hell CNN is asking questions about expanding debt. 

I am a little sick about him stating how things are his plan, and that there are no other alternatives.  There have been alternatives, however, the press didn’t cover it and during the stimulus bill, republicans were completely out of the process.  Maybe if he didn’t outsource the stimulus to congress, and it appears he is going to outsource the budget as well. 

Now I am listening to him on his tax policies, and I am hearing nothing but lets be fair.  Sorry, but I had years where me and my wife paid over a grand in taxes.  So I am sorry I don’t want my tax rates to go back to the percentages before Bush took office after 2011. This is going to be detrimental to any growth that our economy can have. 

Overall, it’s nice to see the press is finally asking a decent question instead of giving him figurative oral sex, but I still think he is a B&(&^#t artist, that has no concept of leadership.

Lately, I have been hearing about Republican folks like Steele, Megan McCain, Frum, and a few others who seem to want to pick a fight with conservative folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et. al, for control of the Republican party.  It seems it is like a fight between Moderates and true conservatives.

Let’s start the arguement like this.  If you believe in the following thing, you should have voted and backed Republican candidates, and can call yourself Republican, if not, have a Coke and a smile, and get the hell out of my face.

Limited government-In my opinion, and from what I see hear and what I listen to on the radio, that means, that govenement only has a few responsibilities.  National defense, (stopping somebody from shoving am missle up my ass, stopping terrorist attacks on our soil, stopping the illegal migration of immigrants into our country), national infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy delivery, air travel), and international trade.

All the other positions appear to be ancillary and will continue to hound us into permanent minority status, and continued subugation to socialist mores.   It does appear at some times that on our side of the isle there are some who would like to legislate morality of some sort or another, or are more than willing to expand the government power to more than what is above.  I do agree, that abortion should be a state by state issue, instead of a national thing. 

However, the real offenders of the above totally come from the left, and today I found a challenge that I would love our representatives to spit at the liberals.  You have money and influence, if you are so invested in your way being right, then you buck up for it instead of asking the rest of us to do so. For example, healthcare. The left loves to throw around, single payer system, universal health care, and 40 million uninsured talking points.  However, their side of the aisle appears to have some real money on their side (Soros, Oprah, Hollywood stars, mega athletes, etc.). Why don’t you use some of that money to form an organization that can insure and pay for the health care of everyone else, instead of asking the government (and through that me and you) to pay for healthcare. 

Once we get to this starting point of what governement should be doing.  Then we need our representatives to have the balls to defend that position. If they are unable to, then they need to go.