H1N1 and the Uninsured

With so few people dying because of H1N1 and the fact that it appears that most normal strains of flu are equally as lethal, and spread much quicker, why is this rather unimpressive virus still in the news?

Could it be an attempt to push socialized medicine?  Perhaps.

“At top labs, scientists are optimistic they can make a vaccine that’s effective against the new virus. But in a country where one in seven people lack medical insurance, doctors worry that some individuals won’t get needed protection because of cost.”

Yes, the corporations are concerned that one in seven (if we accept that number as truth) people will miss out on a chance to give them money.  Remember, so far this virus hasn’t moved quickly, nor is it very lethal.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., have introduced legislation to pay for temporary medical treatment for uninsured people during a public health emergency. It could be a natural disaster such as an earthquake or hurricane, a bioterror attack, or a medical emergency such as a flu pandemic. “We can’t afford to have barriers that keep people from getting care when an epidemic is sweeping the community,” Capps said. Separately, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has proposed to offer all individuals a free flu shot each year.

Strangely, with a budget busting at the seams, a down economy, and an unstable world, Congress seems to find new ways to spend money we do not have on projects the Constitution does not permit.   A ‘free’ (as if no one pays for it) flu shot every year?   Outstanding for the corporations.   No need to advertise, no need to do anything but lobby government.   Remember President (then candidate) Obama talking about how tired he was of lobbies and PACs?   Good to see Congress feels this way.

The reason this is all being able to be done is because the world is fearing a rather plain virus as if it were a sweeping plague.   Remember: “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

Obama’s ‘Spread the Wealth’ comment, and Emanuel’s comment show their plan…. they lay it before us to see, and we the people fall for it.  They tell us we’re entitled to it, and so many Americans have no sense of self-worth, or understanding of cause and effect, so many Americans swallow it hook, line, and sinker and actually think they are indeed entitled to so many things.  Wake up America, do something for yourselves… and keep doing it.

Small Government is the Only Way

For far too long the federal government has been taking over more and more power and more and more freedom from the people of the United States.   This has happened under Republican and Democrat administrations – neither are immune from criticism.  I have taken time to illustrate many of the actions taking place which are eroding our freedom and I have attempted to explain why it is in our interest to reduce and then enforce the limits put on the federal government by instruments like the Constitution and the judicial system which is supposed to clarify the limit of the federal government.

From many troubling elements of the Patriot Act (most every congressman voted for this without reservation), the Campaign Finance Reform Act (sponsored by John McCain), to most everything President Obama’s administration has done show that were are heading down the road to federal totalitarianism quicker and quicker.    I am not completely against the Patriot Act, and I can even see the need to have passed it in its whole after 11 September and the realization that we were not well equiped to deal with the modern threats to our security, but that time as passed, for a while, it has been an appropriate time to look over all the parts of this legislation – line by line – and get rid of the more questionable and downright unconstitutional elements of the bill.   For instance, the fact that, if I see my neighbor’s house being searched by the feds, the feds can order me to NOT speak about it to anyone or else I myself may face federal charges.   Considering that I am a conservative / libertarian blogger, you can imagine how well that sits with me.

The McCain Feingold Act (Campaign Finance Reform), puts restrictions on both when I can speak and how I can speak regarding a candidate, as well as limiting the amount of money I can give to a candidate directly.   This last part may seem good on the surface, but what needs to be remembered is that the entrenched politicians who cater to the needs of their parties can get soft money from those parties as well as the fact that the parties can run ads and smears against the opponents just fine.   but if I were to run as either an ‘off the reservation’ Republican, or as an Independent, I would not get that money from the party organ, and with the limit people can give me how would I ever be able to compete against the parties in power?  I can not.  I can not get my word out enough, because I can not get money in the same amount as the parties of the status quo.  All this passed with a name as friendly as ‘finance reform’ since so many people thought it was a bad thing to see so much money in politics.   Did it work?  Not at all.  There is more money in politics today than yesterday, and tomorrow will have even more.   The powers-that-be know how to manipulate the system — they wrote the law, but you and I can get hammered if we fall out of line.

President Obama’s administration has taken control of the 19 largest banks, has pushed for the removal of a CEO of a large auto maker, and constantly is having his people push an agenda of growing control — all in the name of us, the people, or more disturbingly, the environment.   This is an incredibly large power grab mixing private business, publically traded corporations, and the government into the same pool where to object is to be moved off the scene.   The same Congress who rallies around these ideas is also the one who gives more money to supporters via pork barrel ear marks, yet complains and fakes outrage when AIG, who was forced to take money, pays some of the better executives it has bonuses that are of a smaller whole value as well as percentage than the pork barrel corruption in congress (versus the bailout money vis a vis budget).  AIG bonuses: Less than 1% of all bailout money given to them, Congress: Pork barrel spending between 1% and 2%.   Millions vs. hundreds of billions.

Complicit in this abuse of power is the media who seem more interested in smearing AIG and the Tea Parties than in asking tough questions and bringing concerns about Congress’ spending and politial theater.  There is a media mentality that truly thinks that it can not be the average citizen who is upset with the government, it must just be those people on DHS’ list of potential threats.    This thought is why they treated the Tea Parties the way they did.

We need less decisions being made in Washington and we need less of our money going to support their spending.   Congress’ addiction to spending our money for what benefits them as well as Congress habit of ignoring their Constitutional limitation shows that the danger is not from extremists on the right or even from the left — the danger lies in the hands and pens of the law makers at the federal level.   We need to remind these politicians who is in charge and who is the servant.

Congress and Corruption – A Tradition Renewed

The Washington Post reports that the lovely Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein and her husband made some ‘lucky’ deals:

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) – the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman – had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum’s private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE’s stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Wow.   Feinstein gives some money to the FDIC, despite not being a member fo the group that determines their funding, magically her husband’s business gets a deal with the FDIC, and then Feinstein’s hubby invests and the stocks magically go up about 40%… in this economy.

In other news, another Democrat (Hope and Change didn’t motivate them I guess), likes to sell out to Israel.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

The phone call ended with her stating, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”  Seems strange to say that if the conversation was above board.  She is denying that all this took place and is trying to act as if it’s all one big conspiracy against HER.  No doubt that it is, and she is a mark of the Republican Smear Machine.

Anti-American former Marine Murtha (wait, ANOTHER Democrat?) seems to be in hot water too:

Spring in Washington is “earmark season” – a busy time for Congressman John Murtha.

“That’s my business,” Murtha said. “I’ve been in it for 35 years.”

As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he’s not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns.

CBS News has learned that this month, Murtha is steering new earmarks toward 10 companies that recently donated to his campaign.

Murtha wants $8 million for Argon ST, a defense contractor whose CEO gave Murtha the maximum allowed by law – $2,400 by an individual. He’s directing a $5 million earmark toward Advanced Acoustic Concepts, which also gave the max – $5,000 for a political action committee – to his campaign. In all, 10 recent Murtha donors are slated to receive $31 million in Murtha earmarks for 2010.

Impressive.  Nice return on another investment by Democrats giving money to or through Congress.  Again, it is to be noted that over 75% of all money from lawyers goes to Democrats, and it is lawyers who write the laws and chase the ambulances LOOKING for ways to swindle.

All of this is happening under the nose of the President of the Hope and Change Club, Barry Obama — and in his own party from his own supporters.   I guess the support is on the surface only because they certainly did not take the idea to heart.  Spread the wealth sure does apply if you’re a member of Congress.

How much longer will we, as Americans, put up with this corruption and elitism?   America voted, and now America is getting exactly what it asked for.

Susan Roesgen, CNN and Bias

Here’s the video

Susan’s comments are telling for certain.

After interrupting someone while asking for their response, Susan then went off talking about how the man is eligible for $400. Not too long afterward the she talks about how Illinois is going to get $50 billion in stimulus.   What is wrong with these two statements?

Susan assumes that people should be happy to get money from other people.   She is confused as to why anyone would turn down money.   She can’t seem to figure out why people would not want handouts.   She is a liberal, she is the problem with America’s mentality.

I’d love dearest Susan to tell us all where, in the Constitution, it says the federal government can take money from person A and hand it to person B.  Liberals do not get the Constitution I guess.

Susan goes out of her way to show her bias in the most pathetic of ways as she acts offended by a portrayal of President Obama as Hitler.  She even mentions that it is offense since he is the president.   Yet as posted on NewsBusters, a big-headed mask of President Bush with a Hitler mustache and devil horns is, to her, a ‘look-alike’ to the actual president.  Not so offensive then?   Any who is hypocritical?

She is a mockery to the idea of being a reporter with her huge bias getting in the way of anything resembling neutrality.   Also, as a side note, she was doing a story about people asking for government handouts and the lack of enough government handouts from Bush.   See a pattern?   Taking money from person A to give to person B is a delightful idea to them, Constitution be damned.

Texas!

The Governor of Texas has spoken!

There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

Texas is a delightful place where people are not afraid to speak their minds, nor are they afraid to dissolve ties when those ties are more like shackles than willful and mutually beneficial connections.  People, all people, need to remember that the United States implies the State are united for a common cause.   As we move forward in time it becomes harder and harder to see what that common cause is.   The Constitution, this document, is an agreement amongst the states and it has less and less place in America, and with that, the union becomes less and less viable.

In Response…

A comment by futiledemocracy to a previous post left me wondering if he ever even thought about what he wrote, or if his words were only cut-and-pasted to anyone who has a problem with the DHS report.

His colorful comments are: “More bullshit from Right Winged America. You guys have labelled [sic] anyone who disagrees with your attempt at global economic dominance by any means necessary – an “extremist” a “commie” or “anti-American” for eight long pathetic years. Stop being hypocritical and bitter and deal with it. He hasn’t attacked the American right, he’s attacked extremism, and he’s right.”

First, ‘you guys’ is not true.  I am alone in my writing, and as far as I care, alone in my opinions.  This comment makes me think the post was a cookie-cutter response, or someone more willing to be inflamitory than actually discuss anything – which is fine, but not very useful.

‘Global economic dominance by any means necessary’?   Wow.   Here I am working my job daily, paying my taxes (today is tax day, isn’t it?), and then I find out I’m trying to dominate the global economy by any means?   My mean sof doing this is called inaction, and it is not working well; perhaps I should try harder to live up to this undeserved reputation.

Anti-American?   Some people are anti-American, though not because they stand in my way of global dominance.

Hypocritical and bitter?  Not really.  Again, I’m simply not pleased with the idea that a government agency is listing so many of my activities which are in line with the Constitution – DIRECTLY in line – as being suspect or to be flagged as being likely used by racists, etc.  I have guns, I like guns, I love the Constitution and the principles for which it stands and those who not wish to follow the Constitution are anti-American, and I do not really care if they are Republican or Democrat…  It just so happens to be the liklihood for someone to cherish the Constitution is a conservative over a liberal so my vote tends to go to the conservatives.  If anyone wishes to comment on the previous administration, I’ll be more than happy to explain my criticisms of it, but right now the more pressing issues lie in the current administration.

He has in fact attacked the right simply because this lengthy and detailed report focuses on RIGHT WING extremists, and it lists many of my own beliefs as being threatening to the United States.  Perhaps not ‘he’, but his administration’s DHS certainly has.

With all this in mind, I don’t see much substance to the comment, but it was funny to read anyhow.

I am a Threat to the United States

So the Department of Homeland Security says under the rule of Janet Napolitano, “The department “is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities,” the report said.”

Yet, the report also says, “DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been “largely rhetorical.””

Let’s count the ways in which I may be considered a threat to Obama’s version of what America should be:

1) White Supremacist Groups

– While I am not racist, I am white and I find Kwanzaa stupid, so I might qualify in the broad new definition soon to follow I’m sure.

2) Anti-Government Extremists

– Government has its place, but not in the way Obama wants it to be, so I’m probably considered a threat to them on this count.

3) Militia Movements

– Not so much, but I do own guns, so that probably qualifies me

4) Oppose Abortion

– See this .   Definitely a strike against me there.

5) Immigration

– Foolish people will not call it ILLEGAL immigration — against which I am.

6) Oppose gun laws

– Ding!

So in the end I found out I am an extremist and a threat to the United States.   No, DHS, I’m  not a threat to the United States, I’m one of those who wish to preserve the United States.

How much longer will Americans elect the types of people who appoint agenda-driven bureaucrats to positions where they have the power to investigate, monitor, or even harass people due to their political and social views?   I’m not the one threatening to destroy Western civilization, nor the United States…  Those views need to be monitored, but the ACLU protects them.  Stop voting these people into power!

Ginsburg Explains Why She is not Fit to be a Justice

Ruth Bader Ginsburg professed that ““I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.”  The article then states that [s]he added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court, as if the Supreme Court has any responsibility to be engaged in foreign decisions.  The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”

Again, the question must be asked where, in the Constitution, does it say that the US Supreme Court must weight foreign designs, decisions, or influences?    It would seem members of our highest court in the land do not understand even the most simple of expectations:  Interpret American law based on American law.    This should not be a strange concept, there should be no confusion, and there should be no desire to be ‘popular’ overseas by having foreign courts cite our Supreme Court.    We should not expect others to listen to us because they have their own courts and their own laws, and their own legislatures to make new laws.   We should not listen to others because foreigners have no vested interest in the United States Constitution, they are not elected by the citizens of the United States, nor were they appointed by anyone from the United States.   Foreigners have no standing in our law, thus citing them is as daft as can be.

Continuing to give weight to foreign decisions she goes on,“The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off,” she said, describing the question presented in the case. “Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.’ ”  The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”

My question comes back, still unanswered:  Where in the Constitution does it talk about torture?   Cruel and unusual punishment is discussed, and that should be the limit.   What Israel decides is for Israel to figure out.  Citing Aharon Barak’s decision is worthless in the light of American law and has no persuasive value in the light of American laws on the books — which is what a justice should be looking at when formulating an opinion.  Why not cite Saudi law about stoning homosexuals?   To them stoning is not cruel or unusual, so is that of value when considering our laws?   Of course not and a former ACLU lawyer like Ginsburg would be crying bloody murder if it were used to persuade, and rightfully so since foreign law is not the product of civil debate in America and enacted into law by an elected legislature in America.  WORTHLESS.

With the election of liberals like President Obama we can look forward to more justices being concerned about how many foreigners cite their decisions in a world of seeminly fragile egos which need to be soothed by popularity contests instead of looking at the body American law in order to determine what is meant by, and what is consistent with, American laws.  How much longer will Wee the People permit our laws to be outsourced to foreign countries?

Congressional Black Caucus in Love with Anti-American Castro

Politico has a number of good stories today.

In this one, it would seem that the Congressional Black Caucus is hugging Castro, “Key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an end to U.S. prohibition on travel to Cuba, just hours after a meeting with former Cuban president Fidel Castro in Havana.”

Amnesty International, not exactly an organ for conservatives to quote at times has this to say about Castro’s Cuba:

One

30 March 2009

“Activist and political dissident Jorge Luis García Pérez, usually known as Antúnez, began a hunger strike on 17 February 2009, in protest at the human rights situation in Cuba. Since 17 March, police and State Security officers have surrounded his house, threatening him, his wife Tamara Pérez Aguilera, Carlos Michael Morales, Diosiris Santana Pérez and Ernesto Mederos Arrozarena who joined him in the hunger strike. All five are in grave danger.”

Two

19 March 2009

“The Cuban authorities took action on Tuesday to suppress peaceful demonstrations marking the 6th anniversary of a crackdown against dissidents. Several members of the Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White) were prevented from travelling to Havana for activities marking the anniversary.
Some were blocked from leaving their homes and one of them was forced to get off the bus that was taking her to Havana and was driven back to her home.
“The Cuban authorities must stop this continuing harassment of activists who are peacefully attempting to exercise their freedom of expression and association,” said Gerardo Ducos, Cuba researcher at Amnesty International. he Cuban authorities arrested 75 men and women for their peaceful expression of opinions critical of the government in 2003. The 75 were subjected to summary trials and were sentenced to long prison terms of up to 28 years. Amnesty International declared them to be prisoners of conscience. Fifty-four remain in prison.”

Three

All print and broadcast media remained under state control.During 2007, the government refused to renew the visas of a number of foreign correspondents because “their approach to the Cuban situation is not one which the Cuban government finds appropriate.”

The practice of using the criminal justice system to silence political dissidents and critics continued. Many were sentenced for a crime known as “social dangerousness”, a pre-emptive measure defined as the “proclivity to commit a crime”. Behaviour such as drunkenness, drug addiction and “anti-social behaviour” is criminalized under this legislation. However, it was almost exclusively applied to political dissidents, independent journalists and critics of the government. Those convicted of “dangerousness” face up to four years’ imprisonment and can be subjected to “therapeutic treatment”, “re-education” or “surveillance by the Revolutionary National Police”.

Harassment of political dissidents, independent journalists and critics for carrying out dissident activities or reporting on the human rights situation in Cuba continued. Some were detained for 24 or 48 hours and then released; others were held for months or even years awaiting trial.

There is more; if interested please visit AI.  With that in mind, please read what members of the Congressional Black Caucus had to say:

“Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro’s later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.”

Shocking that none of the Black Caucus recall calling American society racist when publicly called out on it.   One of two things is true, and possibly both: They are too stupid to realize that Castro would use them to meet his needs and further his ends by promoting to his own people the negative aspects of the United States and having it appear that even black members of the US Congress agree.  And / Or, they will say one thing to Fidel to kiss his posterior and yet another to the American public.   Since they are willing to visit and be entertained by him they are obviously stupid, but they could also be duplicitous.

“It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro’s home to be modest and Castro’s wife to be particularly hospitable.
“In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” Rush said.

Bobby Rush either is not aware of how Castro survives (see above imprisonments, etc.) and should be thought of as a ignorant buffoon or he admires such tactics to stay in power and should never be thought of as a serious American again.

Richardson said Castro knew her name and district. “He looked right into my eyes and he said, ‘How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'”

All salesmen learn about their potential clients, all con artists get information on their marks, even fortune tellers pry out clues to make sure they something they think you want to hear.   But I guess making eye contact makes him honest.   How do such fools get put in office?   I guess other fools elect them.

I didn’t see a response from the Congressional White Caucus.  But that would be because our racist society does not have such an organized collection of people.

It is obvious that the CBC is about as anti-American as Reverend White, Castro, and so many other people who slander and bad mouth the US for their own gain.

Please stop electing these idiots into office.

The White House Thinks Us to be Fools

President Obama bows.

The White House says that is not so.

Did he slip?  Did he need to check his shoelace?

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

If this is the case, then bending so far forward to shake someone’s hand is as demeaning to that person as it would bowing  to a price be demeaning to the Office of the Presidency as being a subject of a prince.  We all know that President Obama likes to go out of his way to pay honor to those who deserve none, so this should not be shocking.

No surprise at all is that The White House’s website does not have any comments on this matter at all at this time.