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.

I watched a majority of the president’s speech last night and will say, I think he can give a good speech, but what is he really saying and can he govern.  I personally don’t have confidence that he can.  In my opinion he already proved that he can’t govern by outsourcing the “stimulus” plan to Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of congress, and it seems that he is willing to outsource healthcare, education, and fiscal responsibility to them as well. 

I was only in 1st grade when Reagan became president, but was in high school, when the Berlin Wall came down, and the USSR finally just tapped out.  Regan exemplified leadership by doing one thing, that I don’t think Obama has the balls to do, and that is to tell the leaders of party and congress to STFU.  If I remember properly, the “evil empire” remark drew critics from both sides of the aisle as being too tough, but Regan stuck to it, and through his policies and tough negotiating the USSR tapped out, and I got to spend my formative years not worrying about a nuclear holocaust or a Russian missle being shoved up my ass.  

Until Obama can do that, I cannot and will not hope that he gets an upswing in this economy that he can thump is chest and say it is his leadership and agenda that did it, when I know deep in my heart with the learning I obtained with my Bachelor’s Degree in Economics that what he is proposing has no way of working.  His raise taxes on those making over 250,000 a year and on corporations, will do nothing but cause more unemployment, and even he is clear as mud on that. Because if he says he is cutting my taxes (Me and my wife make less than 250,000 a year), however lets all of the Bush tax cuts expire, that will turn into a net increase and makes us overall poorer than we were.

On the foreign policy side he is showing zero leadership, and contradicting himself, how can you state that you want to keep us safe from terrorists, but cut the military.  Now it sounded good to say he wants to cut weapons spending on weapons from the cold war that are no longer being used, but they weren’t being used because we did not have an enemy to fight, thank you Ronald Reagan, but now we do have a fight on our hands with these scumbag terrorists, and on top of that Russia is starting to pop off again because they felt they were going to return to greatness thanks to the goop under the ground, (that has since changed).  We got Iran wanting a nuke, and we are stripping our military.  How the hell do you do that. 

In my final analysis, he gives a real pretty speech, but so do actors everyday, but what are they really saying and what is he really saying.  Also he leaves doubts for me as to whether he is ignorant of what is happening, or he really wants to be a part of changing us to a govenment run economy, and weakly secured country. Either way he is no leader that I want.

As I was getting dressed this morning, I was talking to myself, and realized that in a capitalist society we have three classes in this economy, (I use the word class here not to say rich or poor, but as a classification).  The first class is the Entrepenuer, the one that comes up with the new idea or new technology that other people would be interested in buying.  The second class is the investor, the one that doesn’t neccessarily have the idea, but has the money to give to the entrepenuer so that they can the entrepenuer can use that money to implement their idea, all the investor asks is for a return on investment.  The third class is the worker class, this class provides the labor that makes the good that the entrepenuer came up with and designed, and all they ask for is the wage that the entrepenuer will pay for their services.

Now from what I have observed the crisis of confidence is coming from the investor class, which in turn is affecting the the access of the entrepenuer to funds, and hence not allowing the entrepenuer to hire the working class to work. 

Where the Democrats get it horribly wrong is that they believe that they can stimulate the working class and regulate the the investor and entrepenuer class.  This type of thing is prone to utter and abject failure.  They do not seem to understand or get that without the confidence of the investor getting a good return on the risk that they are taking to invest in the entrepenuer’s idea, that the entrepenuer only has a design on a piece of paper, hence can’t hire workers.  Things such as letting the cap gains taxes rise or stay high, is the exact thing, that tells the investor class to take their ball and go home. 

In my mind there are two solutions to this issue.  1. Cap gains tax cuts or elimination, I don’t understand how anybody expects an economy to grow when we tax the same dollar two to three times, I mean think about it, someone makes a dollar through a job or by whatever legal means, and gets it taxed, then takes that dollar and invests it in something, and when he pulls it out, it gets taxed at a cap gains rate, if it made a return, and also gets taxed as personal income. That alone would make me think twice about the return I am getting on my investment, if most of that return is being confiscated by the government.

The second solution is for the government to get out of the business management business for which they know nothing about.  They want to tell banks how to run their business, however never been bankers, and want to tell automakers how to run their business without probably knowing what end of a claw hammer is the one that pounds the nail in, instead of which end helps pull the nail out.

Unless the attitude changes, we are indeed in for a long haul, hopefully they can’t do too much more damage in a year and 8 months.

Watching the news about this stimulus bill I keep hearing them talk about how, “They need 60 votes to pass the thing.”  Now in just my observations that is not true, but we all know how the media would cover it, because it would give cover to their bosses, namely the Democrat Party. 

My understanding has been that the Republicans could easily vote for cloture, but then vote against the bill.  However, we all know which vote would be broadcast all over the media for the lemmings to listen to, and only those that really know what the hell is going on would know the difference. 

I pray to God, that someday, our media would get back to actually reporting the news properly and help in educating the public, like it should be doing, instead of cheerleading the liberal agenda and the subsequent death of this country.

If I am wrong in my observation, please let me know.

It appears with the recent “Stimulus Plan”. That the Democrats are crying that not one Republican voted for it in the house.  My question to that insert unflattering expletive here Nancy Pelosi is why the hell should they have voted for it.  She has always played the game of it’s the Republicans fault when things went bad, but when things go good, no credit given to Republicans. In fact that was one of the main reasons why Republicans and Conservatives took a beating in the last two election cycles. 

So now no cover is given to them when this stimulus thing gets signed into law and all it succeeds in doing is giving a bunch of Liberal special interests a whole bunch of cash. Give states money to build start on infrastucture projects, however, thanks to the Envrio-wipes, that money will stimulate no one’s wallet except some lawyers who will need to represent the city or state against the pro-bono unlimitless representation of the envrionmental movement. 

I read Moe Lane’s post earlier, and I agree with him, the Democrats have overwelming majorities in the House, set up draconian rules that the Republicans have nothing to say, and are one or two squish Republicans away from filabuster proof majority. Yet they still want the politacal cover when things go badly. If they are so sure it is going to work, take the credit for the good, as well as the blame for the bad.

It is quite hypocritical to me, to win an election cycle on Republicans suck and can’t do anything right, then expect them to support you and your goals, especially when those goals do nothing to help an already bad situation.

I have been mulling this over in my head te past few weeks when the Isreal/Hamas fight broke out, and Isreal just went full bore into the West Bank.  One question bothers me.  How can Hamas, who was getting repeatedly punched in the face, and a mudhole stomped in them get to dictate terms of ceasefires, etc.  That would be like me getting into a fight over lets say a girl, getting my behind handed to me, and still be able to negotiate with the person to say let me take her out on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. 

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I have no sympathy for Hamas, or the Palestinians, when they decisided to elect Hamas as their ruling government, and then allow Hamas to put weapons and things within their neighborhoods knowing that they would be targets.  I would like to believe that in this country if our government starting doing so many outlandish things, that there would be enough of an uprising that it would stop immediately.  Secondly, if I am in a fight for my life, and someone pulls a knife, you best believe I am pulling a gun.  The same goes for Israel.  Hamas was lobbing rockets either of the RPG nature, or mortar round nature, into Israel, and Israel in turn went full bore into stopping it.  I don’t see anything wrong with that. 

Alas, thanks to the feckless UN, (Which I believe we should run out of this country and give the building to the homeless), the liberal media, that played the poor baby game with the Palistinan casualties, and a limp wristed response by us which should have been to Israel, have fun, instead of this is wrong.  Israel once is again is less safe than it was.

Well, so far this week heading into the New Year I have seen the following.

1.  We must live in Bizarro world, when people will actually take the side of terroristic savages like Hamas over Isreal when all they ever tried to do was live in a peaceful existence, within the little sliver of land that was given to Jewish people, after it was pretty much found out that wherever they go, they face anti-semitism.  I just flip through my XM and hear a person on the American Left Channel, talking about how we needed a more “bargaining type” solution than an “Ideologically based” solution.  Pretty much stating that Isreal should give up more land to those savages as opposed to what Bush was trying to do, in thinking these savages are rational, and that they would put people in power that would work to help them become at least somewhat prosperous, instead of leading them down a path of poverty and war.   My personal thought at this point is to return the favor that Hamas is trying to give Isreal and push them into the depths of the Mediterranean (Spelling error here probably) Sea.

2.  Lurking on the blog this week I saw the issue about Chip Saltsmann sending the Rush Limbaugh parody song “Barack the Magic Negro”, and the false outrage and painting with the broad brush that all republicans and conservatives are racist. 

Here are my two cents on that point.  Firstly, any body with half a brain should see that the paraody was not racist in the intent of denegrating Obama or anyone else over their race, but was about showing how Obama would be considered a safe enough black person to vote for in regards to white liberals and pointing out at how this started out when Hillary was still the prohibitve favorite how some people in the Black leadership had their reservations about Obama.  Secondly, I am black myself, at least 1/2 black, (My father was black and served this country for 31 years in the Army, my mother is white, I usually like to qualify that, because unlike Obama, I don’t drop parts of my heritage to satisfy anybody), and I was turned on to libertarianism/conservatism in college, pretty much looking at things and realizing that as a black person why would I want to give power to a government that can give and take from me at will and continue to be a political football.  Why would I not vote for people that will realize that they just need to have the government get out of the way since it cannot lead, nor has the sense or humility to follow.  Which leads me to another debate I was seeing on the board about how the conservative movement can package their message.

I personally believe the conservatism can package the message with blacks by pointing out positions that effect blacks, point out what the liberals are currently doing, and how it is not working, then explain how our position on freedom and less government is better. 

Example:  Education.  A huge issue for many African American families that live either in failing inner city schools or working class neighborhood schools that just can’t compete.  Show that the Liberal Democrats policy of throw money at it, and placate the NEA and other teacher’s unions, is not working and actually perpetuating the issue further. Then explain our position of school choice either through vouchers or charter schools, and how that will positively affect them. 

I personally believe that we can get about 30 – 40 percent of the African American vote if we can do that.  Again, we do have to start with pretty much demonizing the liberals for what they truly are which are closet, nanny statist, racists.

3. This morning, I thought that the following link from MSNBC.com was pretty pretty funny, and just goes to show that the NYT is looking at the death watch. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28438884/?gt1=43001

Looks like the lobbyist the NYT all but accuesed of having an affair with John Mccain is looking to sue their asses off.  Now as a conservative normally I do feel that our court system is overly abused with frivolous lawsuits, but in this case, let the dog of the courts bite the NYT in the ass as the courts have bitten conservatives in the ass more times than not.

Your thoughts are apprieciated on this.

Sitting here after work, watching CNN because my wife has it on, and watching the Campbell Brown show, and they have a segment on how the Republican party is in “tatters” and what are they going to do. Every one of these people said about the same thing, “the republicans need to moderate, and they need to show that they support Obama”. One of them was supposedly a Republican consultant.

My response is WTF. Why should we give an Obama presidency, a Pelosi/Reid congress any quarter, when as soon as Bush took office with a Republican House and Democrat Co-opted senate (thanks to Jeffords flipping from Repbublican to Independent and caucused with the Democrats), there was nothing but vitriol, hatred, and obstruction.

Now I know the Republicans, can’t obstruct just to obstruct, but there are two things that I feel we need to do.

1. If Obama has a good idea, or the congressional legislation will improve the country they need to back it, and immediately go to the local media outlets in their districts and let them know that they were working for the best of the country, however, if it is a bad idea, vote against it, and make the case why they were against it and hang it on the Democrats.

2. Keep pounding and pointing out, the Obama, democrat promises and when they are broken. When Pelosi tries to ram rod something without going through the proper committees, make the case, again to the local media outlets, (MSM nationally too biased), that the “bi-partisanship” promise is being broken.

Keep the feet to the fire, it’s our only way for 2010 and 2012.

Let me know what you think.