Does the Left Have Any Moral Right To Call Healthcare Protesters Un American?

So, all you liberal "patriotic" war protesters, WHERE IS THE PROTEST? Let me get this straight, for close to 6 years the Left and some on the Right have been decrying the U.S. involvement in starting wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. I get it. I personally believe in military involvement when and only when we are attacked. I also believe that the entire Iraqi debacle was unwise and unethical. We just can't go around and put our noses in another country's business. As we respect our own sovereignty, we must respect others as well. For six years we saw the likes of Cindy Sheehan and A.N.S.W.E.R. protest how corrupt the war in Iraq was and how we must leave IMMEDIATELY. Fine. And when liberals were labled, incorrectly, as traitors for protesting the war, the left correctly retorted that patriotic dissent is American and it is their 1st amendment rights to protest the war. Absolutely, 100% right. Americans have every right to protest whenever they preceive an injustice being made. Even the MSM was in on this "protest." In their way of disguising opinion pieces as unbiased news, the "death tolls" began circulating. "34 U.S. servicwemen died in Iraq today" would be how most news shows would open. We were even seeing news specials on televison marking the 1,000th American death. Anything to remind Americans that we were still engaged in an "unjust" war was fair game. And then I had a few run-ins with liberals when I stated that some, if not most, of the protesting wasn't against the war, per se, but an excuse to espouse hate upon a sitting president. I get it. The left felt betrayed by their government engaging in what they preceived to be selfish, vindictive reasons to invade another country.

Now, flash ahead to August 26, 2009. Barack Obama and the democrats have taken over Washington, D.C. They own all three branches of government through fair and democratic elections. Obama has funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the Omnibus bill and even led a troop surge in Afghanistan to boot. Americans are still dying. Where is the protests? We now hear barely a peep about our involvement in 2 wars in the form of protests when servicemen are still dying. Are their deaths less important now that a liberal democrat is in the WH? Where are the Cindy Sheehan's? Why hasn't she stood out in front of the White House or Obama's family home in Chicago and protest that he get our servicemen home? Where are all the protesters now that a liberal democrat is in the WH? Has both wars suddenly ended? See, this just reinforces the fact that the liberals, while perhaps at one time protesting the war, were now focusing their hate not on protesting the war but on President Bush. And now that we see Americans protest their Government's willingness to stick their nose into my - our - health care and the liberals declare those protesters as "brownshirts" or "racists" is completely hypocritical and, quite frankly, un American. If it is un American to protest at townhalls, as is our fundamental right as American citizens, it is equally un American to protest and espouse hate towards a sitting president and mask it under the false pretense that it was the war. Where are the protesters now? Where are the death tolls? Since there is Obama in the WH, does the left even really care anymore about Iraq and Afghanistan? They sure as heck have no moral ground declaring townhall protesters as racists as the liberals have now shown that all they really cared about was puking their hate upon a conservative president and not the war(s). Where are the protests?

Part One: Why Obamacare is Flawed

There has been a great deal of heated debate over the contents of Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, A.K.A. H.R. 3200, and what is included and what is not. What drives a civil and cogent debate is one where all the facts are on the table. So, in that spirit, I shall expose some surprising issues, cite where in the bill it was located and maybe we can finally move toward some civil debate. Part One will concentrate on some interesting finds inside the bill. Part Two will detail specific issues concernig the elderly and finally, look at physician specific issues and how all of this make H.R. 3200 extremely flawed and in need of a trial run first, just to assure success.

Okay, here we go.

1. Does BO offer paybacks to ACORN and their ilk and use these controversial groups to educate others about H.R. 3200 and therefore become BO’s mouthpieces of questionable honesty? Of Course it does.

Under Sec. 205: (1) OUTREACH.—The Commissioner shall conduct outreach activities consistent with subsection 10 (c), including through use of appropriate entities as described in paragraph (4) of such subsection, to inform and educate individuals and employers about the Health Insurance Exchange and Exchange-participating health benefits plan options. Such outreach shall include outreach specific to vulnerable populations, such as children, individuals with disabilities, individuals with mental illness, and individuals with other cognitive impairments.

And we’re to believe this isn’t a little gift to his buddies over at ACORN?

2. Can the Government come to your house and tell you how to raise your children? Absolutely, yes. Under Sec. 1904, Subpart 3, Sec. 440, Uncle Sam is a better parent than you.

SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES
WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.


3. Will our Healthcare be rationed? Ah yes, the rationing question. According to some out healthcare is already being rationed. While true is some respects, the bottom line is that under our current system of technology driven healthcare, this will not be able to continue as the costs for these very expensive tests and therapies will make insurance unaffordable and therefore outside the scope of H.R. 3200. So, yes, under H.R. 3200, make no mistake, there will be rationing as it is said on page 29 of the bill.

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.— The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average)applicable to such year.

4. Will illegal aliens be covered under this? You bethca! Read this from Sec. 152.

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.— To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

5. Can the IRS impose a 2.5% individual income tax if an individual is under insured? Yes (oui for my French friends).

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of -

So, Part One of deconstructing this behemoth shows that Americans do have reason to worry that their representative congressmen and congresswomen will be passing horrible legislation instead of well thought out solutions to the core problems, ie, how to reduce costs of healthcare. If H.R. 3200 is supposed to be the prototype for affordable and fair healthcare, why would BO not use a few states and have trial runs of this program? Perhaps he already knows what we conservatives already knows: H.R. 3200 is flawed and BO just wants something to sign and say, “Look what BO done. BO write bill. Look at what a reformer BO is.”

Barry H. Obama: Common Sense Forgotten

Why is it that Barack Obama has spent more time deciding which dog is best for him than he did on the “Stimulus” package, GITMO closing, Healthcare or even his cabinet choices. In September of 2008, Michelle Obama stated that her family is looking to get a dog. President Obama later said that there are a few considerations to factor in before they get their dog. First, the dog should be a shelter dog. Second, since Malia is allergic, the dog must be hypoallergenic. In April of 2009, seven months later, the Obama’s welcome Bo to their clan. Sounds like a thoughtful, caring father who loves his family, right? Forget the fact that their Portuguese water dog, Bo, was hardly the shelter dog that Obama said he wanted but an expensive pure breed that was a gift from Senator Teddy Kennedy. Obama is still a thoughtful, thinking man, right?

Well, let’s think this through a bit. Fellow Viners have said that it is refreshing to finally have such a highly intelligent man in the White House compared to the babbling moron, George Bush. After all, Obama came from humble beginnings, excelled at the finest private schools money can buy, graduated from the iconic Harvard Law School and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Heck, some even said his IQ is in the 150’s. Man, that is one smart cookie. It is obvious that by graduating Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude that Obama has book smarts. The question is: does Obama have common-sense. You decide.

1. Obama, on his third day in power, signs a Presidential Order to close GITMO. While this has been talked to death, it is still a salient point as to how Obama thinks. If any CEO worth his weight made important decisions without any logistics as to how it will be accomplished, that person would lose the support of the board and/or his job. Think of it. Steve Jobs says he wants Apple to open 500 retail stores. His board says, “How will you do this as we just have x-amount of money and not enough infrastructure to accomplish such a bold move.” Jobs responds, “We’ll work all that detail mumbo-jumbo out later.” Does anyone think that Jobs made a “highly” intelligent, common sense move? Hardly.

2. Even in the face of the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the ARRA and Americans needing help NOW, Obama still thinks it is a good idea. The CBO said: In the very short run, fiscal year 2009 will be nearly half over by the time stimulus legislation is passed, so while federal agencies and state and local governments can begin the process of obligating (committing) funds, there will be limited time for spending this fiscal year … CBO expects that federal agencies, along with states and other recipients of that funding, would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs. And yet Obama thinks this is the best idea to get America back on track. Combine this with the fact that Obama can’t get the money out to the neediest as was foretold by the CBO, is this good, common sense? Or, is this foolishly naïve?

3. Obama has the chance to help congress write the ARRA, yet he doesn’t contribute ONE word and then has no idea that Christopher Dodd included language that endorsed the AIG bonuses. And to think he promised to read all the bills from start to finish.

4. Obama wants to fix the broken education system yet he cuts educational budget funds and increases tuition for our aspiring college students.

5. Obama wants to heal this nation yet he gets himself square in the middle of the Sergeant Crowley/Dr. Gates fiasco and injects race where race was never a factor. By this mind numbingly stupid move, Obama increases racial intolerance rather than healing it at a time where Americans are adjusting to their first half white/half black president.

6. Obama thinks that when America is broke and trillions in debt the time is now ripe to spend trillions more on questionable projects that appear to just be paybacks to his Chicago buddies and those that live in deep, blue states.

7. Obama wants to seek higher office as a “moderate” yet he associated himself with cretins like Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. And, although he was but a wee lad when he took a picture of himself hitting a doob, one would think that someone with common sense would refrain from this. Heck, I didn't graduate from Harvard but I never even thought of hitting a joint and then pose for a picture smoking it.

8. By every estimate the Iraqi surge was a phenomenal success yet Obama continued to call it a disaster, that is until he was forced to admit that the surged did in fact work.

9. Obama says that he will govern as a moderate yet his voting record was the most liberal in congress and he was the most liberal politician to have ever run for POTUS.

10. Obama gets flack for the highly inept Tim Geithner’s tax cheating and then says he still supports Tom Daschle after he proved to be another tax cheat.

While Obamabots continually praise their Dear Leader’s high intellect, they foolishly ignore Obama’s complete lack of common sense that is so critical in a competent and an exceptional leader. Those that disagree with me and state that it is I, who has no common sense, go for it as I welcome those that deflect. This, however, will not change the fact that Barack Obama is an intelligent man with no common sense and no discernable leadership credentials.

Change. That is what President Barack Hussein Obama promised America. Obama continually said that he intended to change the bitter, hostile tone in Washington, D.C. It was promised to us, the American people, that electing Obama would bring bipartisanship and a new respectful tone to our nation's capital. However, Obama then chooses old Clinton political hack, Rahm Emanuel, for his Chief of Staff. While famous for his political savvy and his Patton-esque personae, Emanuel is a legendary head case, once said to have delivered a pollster a dead fish, sending a message that he didn't like the results of the poll. It is safe to say that Obama's #1 officer is hardly the agent of change that is needed as it pertains to bringing "nicey-nice" back to D.C. This is akin to placing Teddy Kennedy is charge of Liquor inventory at the local 7-11.

Now, I know what most of you are thinking: It's only been 6 months, give the guy a break. Fair enough; however, Obama is going around the globe, whining about the past administration instead of taking ownership and telling people what his solutions are going to be for the future. How is going globetrotting and blaming Bush going to change the bickering or even further his agenda? All this does is show that Obama is not a leader but a complainer. Sure, Bush made a lot of blunders, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, immigration amnesty, increased spending and increased government, vis a vis adding Homeland Security. However, going around the world and whining like a little child is no solution. And, by the way, where was all the good that the USA has done for the world for the last 100 years? Why was any of this ever mentioned? This "appology tour" eroded bipartisanship and made Obama look like a snotty nosed kid.

So, Obama and his acolytes promised change, and by God, I demand it! With that in mind, here are five things that the Left must do in order to keep their promise to Americans and not look like the "say anything to get elected" party that we all know too well.

1.Get rid of, or force changes to, the current democratic leadership. Trade Reid and Pelosi for an old hockey puck bag and a six-pack of Schlitz. Leaders lead, right? Proof that things aren't Eden in D.C.? Heath Shuler (D - NC), one of the eleven that voted against the Nancy and Harry's Porkasaurus Bill of 2009, said that Pelosi failed miserably in her attempt at bipartisanship. Even a democrat sees this bipartisanship for what it really is: fantasyland.

2.Someone needs to advise Obama to quit the "Blame Bush" world tour, state what he will do to help Americans and lead this country into prosperity. Being so involved in the past is not a quality you want in a leader, especially one that says he is interested in a bipartisan and respectful Washington, D.C. While you always want to look at history as an aid, Obama uses the past as his whip.

3.Absolutely refuse to implement Reconciliation, a move Obama intends to utilize that would basically render a filibuster null and void, in order to jam Obamacare down our throats. When the republicans thought about using this same procedure during Bush's court appointees, the Left went hysterical. Max Baucus (D-MT), says, "I think this [Reconciliation] gets in the way … If we jam something down somebody's throat, it's not sustainable."

4.Akin to #2, Obama cannot continue this insane notion of holding a prior presidential administration responsible for actions they took in order to the protect their country, something that both Bush, Obama and every president swears under oath to do. Think of it. If presidents are now supposed to double think their strategy in order to avoid prison time, how many lives can be put in danger for making the wrong but "safe" decision.

5.Democrats and republicans must want this. If the liberal bloggers on the Internet are any indication, they might speak for the need of bipartisanship out of one side of their mouth but on the other side they trash people like 14 year old Willow and 18 year old Bristol Palin, call people like Rush and Sean all of the most despicable, hateful names in the thesaurus and constantly beat the dead horse that is "Bush is a war criminal." C'mon. There are some very serious freedoms that Bush and Cheney trampled on; however, Obama promised to be better than this - above the frey. Where is he now?

Blowhard's Ravings 1.1: Can We Get the President a Teleprompter, Please!

Am I the only one who has noticed that every time our president, Barack “Can I Just Eat My Waffle” Obama, says things - absurd things like he toured all 57 states or that the friend of Israel is Israel or Iran is small country and therefore no threat to the U.S. - he is sans teleprompter? Interesting isn’t it? While Obama is surely a more gifted speaker than Bush, the things that come out of BO's mouth sometimes seem Bush-esque. Or is it honesty coming through? Face it; nobody really knows who this man really is. Nobody ever really bothered to vet him. Why? The liberal media was in the tank while thrills were going up everyone’s leg. The more I hear Obama speak off the cuff he more he divulges more of his personality than he wants to let on.

Remember Joe the Plumber? While running around campaigning for president, Obama did a little quaint impromptu meet and greet in Ohio. While going around shaking hands and kissing babies, along comes the Plumber and asks the most famous question of the 2008 Presidential elections, “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” If that was the most famous question asked during the elections than Obama’s answer is the most telling, “You’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Spoken like a true socialist.

And there is Obama speaking in the very liberal California city of San Francisco in April of 2008. He was there campaigning in the primaries. Concerned for his chances in Pennsylvania (polls showed him behind Clinton), Obama offers up this gem: "In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Spoken like a true elitist.

Finally, there is the now famous Dr. Henry Gates. To quickly summarize the evidence:

1. Gates arrives home and can’t get into his home as his front door was previously jammed from a prior break in.
2. Gates jimmies the front door lock to no avail.
3. Neighbor sees this and calls the police.
4. While the police were on their way Gates walks behind his house and lets himself in the back door.
5. Sergeant James Crowley arrives and asks what is going on and for Gates to show ID. When he gives the ID to Crowley, Gates begins to claim racism.
6. All through this encounter with Crowley, Gates is unhinged, uncooperative and downright rude.
7. Crowley ends up arresting Gates for disorderly conduct. This was Crowley's only mistake. This arrest was directly related to Gates behaving like a loon, not disorderly conduct.
8. Obama gets on television and snipes, “I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that." And yet Obama, the president who is highly influential, comes out against the police and in favor of race baiting and demeaning the police. Of all the things to be against as president of the United States, the police should not be one of them.
9. Obama, as a seasoned and well honed race baiter, uses this “identification” strategy at every turn. This Identification Strategy is bunching everyone into categories, thereby setting the groundwork for pitting one class versus the other in order to get his way. Gay? Straight? Asian? African-American? These are all liberal classifications.

Summary

Barack Obama and his advisors finely crafted his image by telling his touching story of poor boy going to college, becoming a lawyer and helping communities through his agitation – oops – community organizing. Here we have a guy that turned his back at making a living as a highly paid litigator for communist agitation - again, oops - community organizing. Real sweet isn’t? When his voting record was examined it showed him being to be the left of Comrade Bernie Sanders, a self avowed socialist. Yet, Obama and his acolytes promised that he would govern from the middle and that these socialist attacks are unfounded and rude. Now, throughout the entire political nominating process we hear Obama tell people that he will take your hard earned money and “spread the wealth” with it. And then as President he takes over the auto industry, he spends $3.37 trillion over the next 10 years on a stimulus bill that is really a payback to his buddies, he wants Cap and Screw to pass (with a price tag that could reach $4,500 per household) and Obamacare that will cost $1 trillion and still leave tens of millions uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This my friends is a socialist and those that do not see this are blind or just too far into their Kool Aid-Induced Hypnosis (KAIH) to separate fiction from reality. All these speeches were WITHOUT HIS USE OF TELEPROMPTERS, ladies and gentlemen. Obama needs to come clean about his true political philosophy before it is too late. After all, too many more of these inadvertent "truth-fests" might make him unelectable in 2012. If so, what a glorious year that will be.

Blowhard's Raving 1.0: No Taxation Without Adequate Representation

As a conservative Libertarian I am most interested in the protection of our individual rights and freedoms as well as to absolutely guarantee that Americans receive the best representation on the planet. Are we truly represented like the Framers, especially, James Madison, envisioned? Well, do you feel that your representative hears what you have to say when writing him or her? For me, I have sent many emails and a few letters to my representatives here in Michigan. You want to know how many responses, other than the “we received your email” form letter … NONE. ZIPPO. NADA.

It might help if there weren’t hundreds of thousands of constituents for every one U.S. Representative. Maybe if each congressional district contained no more than 30,000-40,000 constituents for every U.S. Rep., our congressmen and congresswomen would be better equipped to respond to EVERYONE instead of lucky few. One of the very few times that our Representatives hear us was during both the Immigration bill and the recent Obamacare socialized medicine debacle. In both cases, the congressional switchboards went apoplectic with activity, eventually shutting down due to massive activity. It is a shame that the only time our representatives respect their constituent’s wishes is when there is massive outrage. What would life be like in America if our reps ACTUALLY heard from most of their constituents and governed accordingly?

James Madison, considered by many to be the "The Father" of the Constitution, argued for a small government that did not take an active role. This view was most undoubtedly due from his own view of Great Britain and how he wanted to avoid big government that Great Britain represented. With that in mind, Madison proffered to start the newly formed United States of America with 65 United States Representatives in totality. This relatively low number of representatives was to control the size of the congressional districts. Madison felt that, these 65 Reps wasn’t a static figure. To the contrary, Madison argued that every ten years there should be a census, in order to adjust taxes and representatives across all the states proportionally, the number of representatives of each district will adjust according to population increases/decreases within each district.

For example, Congressional District X had 3 U.S. Reps and 90,000 people according to the 1990 census. Now, the 2000 census shows that Congressional District X has 120,000people, a 30,000 increase, with still just 3 U.S. Reps. According to Madison, District X would now apportion 1 more rep, giving the district a total of 4 reps for 120,000 people or a ratio of 1:30,000. Under this method of apportionment, Madison showed that, if done in this manner, representation would be spread out equally amongst Americans at a 1:30,000 ratio thereby assuring Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, “One man, One Vote.”

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

Now, let’s flash forward to 2009. Do we have properly apportioned representatives that Madison and the Constitution required? Hardly. Where Madison’s idea of apportionment on population would, every ten years, change the number of congressmen in order to keep the 1:30,000 ratio. Today, due to a 1929 congressional bill, government was forever to have a set 435 congressmen, period, no care to as to how large the districts become. Out of this entirely arbitrary set number of 435, congress adjusts representation accordingly. For example, the 1990 census shows that California had 52 U.S. Reps and a population of just shy of 30,000,000. The 2000 census showed an increase in population to the tune of 4,091,548. While using Madison’s goal of 1:30,000 apportionment, California would have added 136 representatives. Under the current mode of apportionment, California got just one. ONE! Adding just one stinking rep for 4 million additional people is appalling.

Summary

1. There are just too many people in congressional districts without proper representation. Having 200,000-700,000 people per one U.S. Representative is the epitome of under representation. How in the world can one man adequately represent hundreds of thousands of people? Would you let you child swim in a pool with 10,000 other children while there’s just one lifeguard?
2. James Madison argued that having a low ratio of congressmen and constituents would lead to superior representation where the people and the rep would not be so estranged from one another. This “close” feeling between each would cause the congressman to take an active role with his voters.
3. No taxation without representation was a key and vital philosophy within James Madison’s “nation founding” mental framework. As such, Madison thought that a ratio of 1:30,000 was just large enough to foster good and fair representation. Currently, in 2009, we have an immense and highly under represented ratio of 1:690,000
4. While technically in violation of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 or “One Man, One Vote, because there is at least one representative in all states, the districts are considered properly apportioned.

Final Remarks

As you can see from the facts presented, we Americans need to be more vocal and demand to be properly represented. Americans went to war over no representation, should we not march on Washington, D.C. over under representation? Look at what this close-knit “country club” of 435 members has wrought: Bridges to nowhere? Stimulus bills? Obamacare? I would wager that it would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to pass “pet projects” and other such nonsense if there were 1,600 reps rather than 435. Food for thought, for those of you who still think the House impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a right-wing witch hunt, would the Republicans have had the needed 801 votes (simple majority) if there were 1,600 congressmen voting? It would have definitely been a more daunting task.