About Us

Name: Stefano
Location: Clayton, MO
Biography
Name:
Email: tectonic.stl@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is It Time to Take Back the Democrat Party?

 I have been thinking about this idea for some time. I would be curious about what your thoughts might be on this subject. Please think about it and comment.

I was once a Democrat. I must say that the thing that drove me from the party was when McGovern declared that he would go to Hanoi on his knees if necessary to gain peace with the communists. That was the last straw. Later, the collapse of the party into rank liberalism confirmed the validity of my decision to leave. There must be millions of citizens in this country who have experienced the same thing, although the catalyst for their move might have been different. The Democrat party has become an “outlaw” in our republic. Their policies and philosophy are antithetical to what the founders of this nation had in mind when the constitution was ratified. They use whatever deceit is necessary to achieve their goals. They place jurists in positions of authority who give lip service to the clear written words of the founding documents, while at the same time they are reading their own subjective feelings and beliefs into their decisions. They give every indication through massive, expensive boondoggles like national health care and climate change bills that they have no respect for our personal liberty and freedom. The Democrat party is now controlled by a leftist fringe that, with respect to the Constitution, is American in name only.

It seems that the most effective current rhetorical mode of gaining political advantage is an appeal for change. Obama used this to good effect last year and he continues to attempt to invoke that tactic in the health care debate by deceptively invoking the charge that those who are opposed to his program want the status quo, not change. Another mode of attack is the “Take back”.   That would be to take back the country or take back the reins of power, as if those in power were there illegitimately. That tactic has been very effective in the recent tea party movement and, of course, was effective during the last national election. 

Is it time to take back the Democrat party? Is it time for change in the Democrat party? There is already a thorn in the side of that party represented by the group known as the “Blue Dogs”. I don’t know if the “Blue Dogs” are truly fiscally and socially conservative as they claim to be, but some no doubt are. The success of the “Blue Dogs” suggests that the Democrat Party is very vulnerable right now to a conservative revolution from within its ranks. 

I believe that it is time to take back the Democrat party from its liberal wing. It’s time for a return to the ideals of the type of Democrats personified by Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson. I am not endorsing everything these guys stood for, but their policies are light years away from what we face now with the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Baucus. The knee jerk socialist anti-defense, high tax Democrat Party of today bears no resemblance to the party of history. Granted, the socialist overreach of FDR with Social Security and Truman with the takeover of the steel industry reveals a dangerous socialist tendency, but historically the party has never been characterized by the all out crass socialist agenda that we see today. The high tax anti-growth agenda of the majority in Congress has now sparked a grass roots movement that reaches across many demographic lines and is in the process of gutting a vital constituency of the Democrats: senior citizens. The removal of 500 billion dollars from Medicare is more than even a yellow dog democrat can take. Obama has now attempted to bribe seniors with a $250 government check to keep them on his side of the political ledger.  In those states where voters can cross party lines to vote in primaries, the Democrats could be particularly vulnerable.  Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” last year showed that crossovers can be a very effective strategy. I believe that it might be time to recruit conservatives to run against democrats in the democrat primaries. It seems that whenever an “independent “runs, it is as a Republican or Libertarian. The Democrats get a free ride to the general election. We should be challenging Democrats in their own primaries with independent, conservative, fiscally responsible non politician candidates in the mode of conservative democrats of the past and blue dogs of the present time. It’s time to flush as many liberals and bogus blue dogs out of the Democrat party as possible.

If a large number of conservatives were to decide to run against congressional Democrats through next year’s Democrat primaries, the result might include but not be limited to: 

    1. 
Some liberals might be defeated, resulting in two conservatives running in the final November election. That would be a good thing. 
    
    2.
  The independent might be defeated in the primary, in which case, that person would have the option of endorsing and campaigning for whichever party has the most conservative candidate. 

    3.  
Incumbent Democrats would be forced to drain money from their campaign funds to combat a threat from a conservative independent opponent, resulting in their loss of funds for the general election.     

    4. 
“Blue Dogs” who are currently in Congress would be forced now to respond to health care bills, energy bills, stimulus bills, budget bills and earmarks in a fiscally conservative manner.

This tactic could have beneficial effects right now as listed in #4 above. Simply by announcing that an exploratory committee has been formed to decide whether to run might drive current “Blue Dogs” to stand by the promises they made when running last year for Congress. It could drive a stake into the heart of the ill-advised Obama Care program and the Cap and Trade boondoggle. It might cause current conservative Democrats to make true bipartisan coalitions with Republicans to advance a healthcare reform bill that doesn’t take a wrecking ball to our current system.

Perhaps this is just a pipe dream, but I suspect that the comments to this post will be interesting. 


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Bending the Truth? No - He's lying.

Our President is like a kid who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  The lies come out of his mouth faster than he can talk.  He can lie numerous times in a single sentence.  George Washington was known for speaking the truth.  Obama is the Anti-Washington if ever there was one.  After his oblique reference to Sarah Palin and his explicit use of the word "liar" directed toward her, I see no need to mince words with this President.  Here's just one small section of his boring 800th health care speech, this one was last night to Congress.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true."

"Everyone in this room knows" - That's a lie. The Democrats think they know. The Republicans and Blue Dogs know that the President is full of rhetorical baloney.

"if we do nothing" - That's a lie. This is the straw man argument that's been used ad nauseam. The opposition wants to do something. They want to fix what's broken. They do not want to take a wrecking ball to the part of the system that works. 

"Our deficit will grow." - CBO says Obamacare will grow the defict massively forever. Doing nothing would actually be superior to doing Obamacare with respect to the deficit.

"More families will go bankrupt." - I thought the mortgage relief program would take care of that. Oh yeah, the Administration screwed that up. Let's give them health care to screw up too.

"More businesses will close." - Doing nothing would actually be superior to doing Obamacare with respect to businesses closing. Doing "cap and tax" will cause massive business failures and personal bankruptcies.

"More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most." - nonsense

"And more will die as a result." - No one gets out of this world alive. Under Obamacare, everyone will be leaving earlier because Obama will recommend that folks "just take a pill."   This reminds me of the nonsense passed off by the left saying that Christopher Reed would walk if we passed unrestricted embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

"We know these things to be true." - That's a lie. What we know is that Obama doesn't have a clue about economics or health care. He's a cheer leader trying to rally a losing team with a losing policy.

Call your Congressman tomorrow and tell him to deep six this piece of garbage.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

British NHS Death Panels?

We are continually assured that the "public option" will not lead to socialized medicine.  We are continually assured that "death panels" are not part of the Democrat plan. We are accused of fear mongering if we claim the contrary.  The British NHS, the name of the socialized medical system in the U.K. also says there are no "death panels" in their program.  Now a group of physicians are apparently "fear mongering" with a letter (   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6133157/Dying-patients.html  ) to the Daily Telegraph that says that patients are being denied water and nutrition after possibly being inaccurately diagnosed as "close to death."
 
From the article:

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph
a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death. Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,"they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
 
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
 
Would I be fear mongering if I said that the "public option" is the first step in the slippery slope toward socialized medicine and this kind of euthanasia? I think not.  Is it a leap to say that the NHS program is a "kind" of death panel?  I don't think so.  The problem is, once you have socialized medicine and "death panels", how do you get rid of them?  The answer is that you don't get rid of them without something akin to a revolution. 
 
The public option, the trigger to the public option and the "co-op" stealth public option are all unacceptable provisions in any health care reform because of the inevitable progression to panels making decisions that are not in the best interests of patients.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Does God Think About America’s Health Care Debate?

The following article was written by Doug Merkey of Churches for Life.  It is a scholarly treatment of the current health care debate in the light of Christian scripture.  This might be effectively used for gently enlightening your Christian friends who are in favor of what is being proposed in the House and Senate.  A link to a PDF file is available at the bottom for use in printing the article.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               What Does God Think About America’s Health Care Debate?
 
All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the people of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work(2 Timothy 3:16-17, emphasis added) 
“God, do you actually mean that Your Word is relevant to the current work our federal government is doing regarding health care?”
“Well, do you think your government’s work on health care is included under ‘every good work’?”
“Hmm… when You put it that way, I guess so....”
“You got it! My Word actually is more important to this subject than all the polls, trends, global norms, statistics, and economic factors you tend to lean on for guidance. As a Christian, it’s especially relevant for you so you can know your part in the government’s work on health care.”
“Oh… OK. So, what do You have to say about it, then?”
“I’m glad you asked!”
                 
God on the Role for Civil Governments in General
 
God’s design for Israel’s civil government during the Old Testament era was a theocracy.  In this structure, God Himself was King and the church and civil government were intimately intertwined under His leadership to harmoniously fulfill His will. With the first advent of Christ, biblical theocracy as an ordained governmental form ended and the responsibilities and relationship between the civil government and the church changed. In the New Testament era, both the church and the civil government have an interest in the well-being of people. Yet today they operate “as planets moving in concentric orbits.”1 The church’s interest and authority is spiritual, does not include the use of physical force, and is framed directly by the Scriptures. A godly civil government is framed by Scriptural principles, human reason and providence, and includes the use of physical force in carrying out these broad mandates: 
  1. Restrain evil.2 God gives the civil government the “power of the sword” for the express purpose of restraining evil/evildoers as He defines it/them. A government that uses the sword (physical force up to and including death) to perform, promote, or protect evil/evildoers is itself doing evil in God’s sight.
  2. Promote human welfare.3 While the application of this mandate varies, the overwhelming biblical emphasis points to promoting justice, especially for the defenseless and weak. A government that performs or promotes harm to its citizens (as God defines “harm”), especially the weakest in its midst, is doing evil in God’s sight.
  3. Provide freedom.4 Freedom, defined biblically, is the ability to do that which conforms to God’s Word. Though exact methods for carrying this out are not mandated by Scripture, the most God-honoring governments work to foster, not hinder, this type of freedom. A government that curtails freedom or encourages lawlessness (cf. anarchy or relativistic indulgence in individually-defined values) as God defines it is doing evil in His sight. 
God on America’s National Health Care Initiative in Particular
 
If the three tenets above are true, then a God-honoring government can and perhaps should be involved in caring for the health of its citizens, at least to some degree. Yet how a godly government does this must coincide with God’s prescriptions, above. If a government’s involvement in health care is godly, its work must restrain evil, promote human welfare, and provide freedom as God defines such things in His Word. For example, it is obviously ungodly for a government to “care” for its citizens’ health by allowing harm or directly harming or killing its weakest members.  
 
In this light, how does the present health care legislation being considered by America’s federal government measure up? This question focuses on two federal health care bills backed by President Obama: (1) HR3200 in the Federal House of Representatives, and (2) The Kennedy Bill (named for its sponsor, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the U.S. Senate. It is predicted that these bills will be revised and brought to the floors of their respective houses for a vote in September, 2009. Together, they would create a national government-run health insurance plan often called the “public plan” or the “public option.” These plans will compete with private insurance providers and will be run entirely by the federal government. Enrollees will pay premiums to the federal government which will subsidize the cost of care through taxes.
 
On the positive side, these 1,017-plus page bills may show that our federal government is seeking justice, welfare, and freedom for its citizens. That is commendable. However, the brand of justice, welfare, and freedom it is seeking is riddled with evil. In fact, while there may be provisions in the present legislation that adhere to Scriptural principles, there are several items which grossly violate God’s mandates for civil government, and are therefore an affront to His character and authority.    
  • In the Kennedy Bill at least, medical services deemed as “essential benefits” or as “medically necessary” include elective abortion.5
  • HR3200’s funding stream does not pass through the Hyde Amendment sieve which would restrict taxpayer funding for abortions. HR3200 allows federal tax funding for abortion. 
  • The Capps Amendment to HR3200 requires that premiums paid by enrollees for the federal health plan include the cost to cover abortions. There is no provision to opt out of this facet of coverage.
  • HR3200 establishes an office called the Health Choices Commissioner that will establish standards for services and providers. Abortion is one of those standards.
  • Section 1233 of HR3200 includes provisions for prescribing euthanasia6 as an end-of-life treatment.
  • There is nothing in these bills that protects a provider’s right of conscience. So, if standards are set by government agencies (e.g. Health Benefits Advisory Committee mandating euthanasia as a “medical necessity”) conflict with a provider’s conscience (e.g. a Christian hospital or medical practitioner whose beliefs disallow providing euthanasia), that provider must either deny his conscience or be denied eligibility under the federal plan. 
What Now, God?
 
Based on the biblical analysis above, the present health care legislation being considered by our federal government violates God’s mandates for civil government. Therefore, it is right and reasonable for Christians to graciously oppose it by remembering these biblical insights: 
  1. Reconnect with the gospel.7 Before expressing your opposition, check the gospel in your own heart. Remember that you, too, violate God’s mandates and therefore deserve His wrath. Remember that God graciously saved you from this self-deserved fate by His free mercy in the gospel of Christ. As this gospel washes over your heart, it will diffuse any creeping self-righteousness, condescension or pride that might lead to inflamed, indignant, or disrespectful words and actions on your part. The gospel-filled heart carries no stones to hurl at others, even those caught in evil.
  2. Honor leaders.8 God installs kings and governments Himself, and commands us to honor them at all times because He has installed them. In fact, how we treat our leaders directly reveals and reflects how we treat God. We are especially called to pray for our leaders.
  3. Speak the truth in love.9 True “freedom of speech” as God defines it is the ability to say what is biblically edifying in ways that are humble and gracious. Whether it is calling, emailing, writing, or visiting legislators, do it in love… to God’s glory!
  4. Equip Others. If you are a pastor, a Life Team, or someone others look to for guidance, share this article with them. It is important for Christians in particular to be equipped with a biblical worldview on such important matters in a way that leads to godly action.

1 PCA Book of Church Order, 5th edition, 1997, chapter 3, see also Matt. 22:21, John 18:362 Rom. 13:1-9
2 Rom. 13:1-9
3 Ex. 23:6, Deut. 24:17ff, Luke 3:14, Rom. 13:1-9, 2 Pet. 2
4 Spiritual freedom – freedom from sin - is in the foreground of Scripture (Rom. 6:14-23, Col. 1:13, John 12:30-33, Gal. 2:4, 4:5, 5:1). Political freedom is not highlighted, but can be deduced from various incidences like God’s delivering Israel from Egypt in Exodus (Ex. 2-14, Isa. 61:1, Luke 4:18), the glory of His Word (Ps. 19, 119) and from His moral character and mandates in general.
5 Abortion is the killing of a human being, and therefore blatantly violates God’s imperative to promote human welfare and provide freedom for an entire class of citizens. To enact a plan that condones by paying and legally endorsing/protecting abortionists (e.g. “evildoers’ in God’s sight), the civil government is using it’s God-given “power of the sword” in ways totally contrary to Scripture. Condoning abortion is particularly offensive to God because it involves a deadly assault on the weakest of all citizens whom the civil government is called to protect.
6 Euthanasia, as defined by Encarta World English Dictionary (1998-2004), is the act or practice of killing somebody who has an incurable illness or injury, or allowing or assisting that person to die. The government’s condoning this practice by listing providers and allowing this act as a “medical treatment” violates all the mandates for godly civil government.  Like abortion, condoning euthanasia is particularly offensive to God because it involves a deadly assault on the weakest of all citizens whom the civil government is called to protect.
7 John 8, Rom. 5, esp. vv. 1 & 8, Rom. 12, Gal. 6:1-2. Also, consider singing the great hymn, Amazing Grace.
8 Num. 16:41-50, Josh. 5, Acts 26, 1 Tim. 2, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thes. 5:12-13, also look at Jesus’ ministry in the gospel and how He spoke with people in general and ignorant leaders in particular.
9 Ps. 82, Prov. 15:1, 24:11-12, Matt. 5:13ff, John 13:34-35, 1 Cor. 13, Eph. 5:11, James 3, 1 Pet. 1:22
 
Here is a link to this article in PDF form for printing: 
 
   http://www.getintolife.org/Portals/3/PDFs/God%20on%20Americas%20Health%20Care%20Debate,%20reprint.pdf
 
 
Churches for Life mission details:

CFL’s Vision - the long-term result of God’s working through CFL

A holistically life-affirming America resulting from a Gospel-driven, holistically life-affirming American Church.

CFL’s Mission - the concise and practical, yet broad summation of what God’s wants to accomplish with and through CFL

Churches for life exists to nourish churches as gospel-driven champions of life.

CFL’s Strategiesspecific categories of ministry that contribute to God’s accomplishing His mission and vision for CFL

1. Establish Life Teams (LTs) in local churches.
2. Encourage local pastors and church leaders.
3. Embolden denominational and ecclesial leaders.
4. Equip seminal institutions.
5. Endow life-affirming agencies with skills to partner with all the above.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AARP Receives Copious Dissent on Health Care from Its Members

Today I received a letter from AARP looking for a new member.  I typed up the letter below and put it into the post-paid envelope.  It will go out tomorrow at their expense.  I recommend this to you if you receive a missive from them.  If you don't want to write a letter, just send back an empty envelope or cut their letter in two and return it.  That should increase their expenses at no cost to you. 

August 26, 2009

Dear AARP:

I will not join your organization because of your support of the Obama health care plan. I know that you claim to not be in support of any particular legislation, but your actions speak louder than your words. You have become a pawn of the Democrat Party instead of a voice for your members.

I recently attended a town hall meeting here in St. Louis with Representative Russ Carnahan. The subject of the meeting was senior services and aging. The first speaker, who was a local leader of AARP, gave an in-your-face diatribe in favor of Obama health care reform. It was not only off the subject of the meeting, it was a provocative presentation that incited the crowd to jeer and cheer and disrupt the gathering. This type of representation by your employees gives credence to the fact that your organization is not impartial in this debate. You are, in fact, hip deep in the court of the Democrat Party and a partner in the attempt to foist politician-run health care on the American people. You should be ashamed of your constant regurgitation of the talking points of the Democrats. Supporting a plan that will cut $500 billion from Medicare over the next decade is a despicable thing for an organization that claims to be an advocate for senior citizens.

Take me off of your mailing list NOW.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
If you go to the AARP site and browse around their comments to articles and videos, you will find that the natives are restless with respect to health care.  The letters chastising the organization include about 90% of those submitted. Many folks are asking to be removed from the membership list.  Here's a link to one comment string with large numbers of members dumping on the AARP CEO, Barry Rand:
 
 
 
Here are a couple of typical member letters from the AARP site related to health care:
 
"CapeCodger says:

Where is the map that shows AARP members who are against this administration's assault on our health care rights? We don't want big government telling us what we can and can't do with regard to health care. The elite are attempting to strengthen their power base yet again by stripping individual choice. There are 1.267 million AARP sheep signing on to authorize the government to tinker with our health care rights. Wise up AARP members!!!

Consider these government initiatives and project out a few short years:

Soc Security = bankrupt
Medicare = bankrupt
Amtrak = bankrupt
Post Office = bankrupt
Freddie Mac = bankrupt
Fannie Mae = bankrupt
Blue States = bankrupt
Hospitals = bankrupt
Auto industry = bankrupt
Banks = bankrupt
US Gov’t debt = almost bankrupt

National health care = ???

Is there a trend here?

Sincerely,"
 
"babyjag says: 
The reality of implementing a national health care plan is a disaster waiting to happen. Just think about the magnitude of government employees, subcontractors, systems, facilities and affiliated services required to run and coordinate such an operation. It would take years to design and implement this huge boondoggle, wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars before the program even gets launched. If the UK employs over 1 million people to manage their system, just imagine what it would take here in the U.S. And you can be sure that those millions of government workers would be exempt from the peon plan - they would be entitled to the same gold-plated private-insurer plans now in effect for all government workers and congress. Just think about the screw ups you have now with bureaucracies, the DMV, insurance billing, credit card billing, stolen I.D.s, stolen government computers, etc. This proposed health care reform plan is and will be a nightmare staight from hell." 
Posted: August 26, 2009 1:29PM EDT
Videos on British and Canadian politician-run health care:
 
 
 
For more information and videos on government run health care go to this link:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama, the Status Quo, Boomers and War Babies

Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard on-line says that a majority of Americans now prefer "nothing to Obama care."

"For Obama, there's still worse news. Not only has he lost ground, but public support for his health care proposal has collapsed to the point that a majority of Americans prefer no reform at all to his plan. And the more he stumps for it, the less support it attracts. Rather than a peripheral phenomenon, the noisy opposition in congressional town hall meetings turns out to be a reflection of the deep national suspicion of Obamacare."

The President has frequently used the straw man argument that "some people want us to do nothing" or "some would support the status quo" where health care is concerned. Of course, many would like to see a reasonable targeted reform that doesn't use a wrecking ball on our current system, replacing it with a politician-run health care system. So when Obama uses his deceptive "status quo" rhetoric, he now is actually talking about a majority of Americans who prefer nothing to the Democrat proposals in the House and Senate. This is a major setback that may signal an impending defeat for socialist dreams.

Another roadblock to Obama care is rapidly growing among senior citizens. According to Rasmussen Reports, while 44% of Americans strongly oppose Obama care, among seniors, that number rises to 49% strongly opposed. If you've been to any town hall meetings or if you watch closely on TV, you have seen that more than 50% of the attendees of these love fests have been seniors. The Democrat party is beginning to bleed seniors because of a promised Obama care cut of $500-600 billion from Medicare and the strangling of Medicare Advantage. If the Dems keep this up, the baby boomers and war babies of the twentieth century will deep six the progressive socialists to a minority status on a par with what the Republicans experienced after the Great Depresson. We can only hope.


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Abortion Included in the Politician Run Health Care Bill?

We keep hearing assurances that abortion services are not mentioned in the different politician-run health care bills being considered in Congress.  I have heard such assurances from Congressman Russ Carnahan and Senator Claire McCaskill here in Missouri.  If you go to this link you will find the two amendments that were considered in the House Energy and Commerce Committee for the House government takeover of health care bill: the Capps amendment and the Pitts amendment. 
 
      http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/07/abortion-kabuki-dance-and-heal.html  
 
The Capps amendment was ultimately adopted and the Pitts amendment was rejected.  My take on this is that the Capps amendment basically allows a provider to provide abortion services as long as no part of the premium is used for abortion services.  A "Commissioner" will determine and make sure that providers comply with this provision.  Additionally, if at any time in the future the law restricting use of federal funds for abortion is repealed (Hyde Amendment), the doors will open wide to allow abortion on demand funded by taxpayer dollars. 
 
One Senate talking point is that the Senate bill does not mention abortion and the Senate will not be voting on the House bill but rather the Senate bill.  Of course, the two bills will be brought together in a conference committee after passage in its respective chamber.  Who knows what will be added in the conference committee.  In committee, anything is possible including earmarks for John Murtha's district.
 
 
 
 
Watch this clip of Carnahan.  He is a question dodger but not a particularly agile one.  Did he read the bill?  Does he say he'll come under the bill and its public option?  Is Medicare efficient?  On the subject of abortion, the question is phrased "should abortion be covered..." rather than "is abortion covered...".  This gives him weasel room. Does Carnahan goof on his prepared abortion talking point by saying "no" the first time he states it?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Answer to drpete on Medicare/Employer Health Ins.

I am over 65 and have as primary

an employer-provided medical insurance. Medicare (Part A) is automatically my secondary. I'll not sign up for Medicare Parts B or D until I lose my current primary.

It is my belief that your question, Stefano, while cute, isn't germane. Gray Ghost's question is spot on. Also, why is it that retired and no-longer-working federal legislators have their own medical insurance program rather than Medicare?

Dear drpete:
 
Thanks for the comment.  Answering it has required further study on my part and I hope you'll comment again if you see anything out of line below.
 
My mother is 93 and is still on my father's retirement plan although he's deceased.  In my case, I'm 64, retired by federal regulation at 60 and I'm on my employer's retirement medical.  They will cut me loose at 65 into Medicare.  I recognize that employer's can continue to provide insurance to those working past 65 and to retirees, just as GM and other auto companies did, and still do in some cases.  Many of those companies would love to dump that expense, and a public option would give them that opportunity if they are contractually able to do so.

The cute question that I think you're referring to is whether our Congressmen and Senators over age 65 have chosen the Medicare option available to them on the roster of insurance choices.  I know that they have the choice of private or Medicare after age 65, according to Spector's office and Bond's office, both of which I called.  We keep hearing from Democrats how wonderful the public option is under the House proposal and how Medicare is a model for that wonderful option.  My question isn't meant to be cute, but rather to ascertain, through the choice of Democrat members of Congress, where their true beliefs lie when they have a clear choice of  a provider between a public or private insurance option.  I don't believe that  legislators have to pay a portion of the premium, so the taxpayers must pay for it; therefore, the cost of either public or private is a pure choice of competing qualities.  If the majority of them have chosen the private option for their primary coverage leaving Mecicare as a backup, it undercuts their claims of the high quality of Medicare coverage which is a public option. 

On the subject of federal legislators' insurance coverage after retirement, I checked with the above Senators' offices and they both said that their private choices expire and are no longer available when they leave office.  They are on Medicare if over age 65 after leaving office.  I don't know if they have a short term Cobra option or something else if under age 65. 

I have not done an exhaustive search for the availability of  individual (non-employee provided) primary private insurance in lieu of Medicare for the general public over age 65, but I checked with my American Family agent and was informed they only had supplemental policies for age 65+.  If you check esurance.com for availability by filling out the search form, you will find that the 7 insurance providers listed have no primary policies for age 65+.  I have not studied the history of this but Medicare seems to have driven out most if not all individual primary health insurance policies for those over sixty-five.
 
I am not familiar with public employee health insurance policies, and I do not know if they are under Medicare after age sixty-five.

 Stefano

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Town Hall, Medicare, Deceptive Politicians, etc.

 I attended the Claire McCaskill, Hillsboro, Missouri town hall yesterday where the merits of politician-run health care were discussed.  Although the citizens were loud at times, I thought they were pretty respectful.  It reminded me of British Parliament on C-Span when the Prime Minister is questioned by members of Parliament.  There's lots of yelling and mocking and the Prime Minister doesn't seem to mind.  He gives it as well as he takes it.  Tony Blair was particularly good in this forum.  Our Democrat politicians need to grow a thicker skin.  Some are such wussies that they are cancelling scheduled meetings.
 
It was interesting that yesterday Pres.Obama, Sen.Cardin of Maryland and Sen. McCaskill all used Medicare as proof that government can run a program well.  At least 2 of them also used the UPS, FEDEX, USPS argument.  This is the argument that claims that private companies can compete with money losing U.S. Treasury backed government enterprises.   McCaskill, in at least two of her most recent meetings, has also used a deceptive technique to attempt to sway people.  She asks anyone on Medicare to raise their hand.  Then she asks everyone who wants to give up their Medicare to raise their hand.  Then she says "you see, all of these people love their government run Medicare."  What she neglects to say is that there are no primary health insurance policies for folks over 65 other than Medicare.  Just check esurance.com and you'll see that if you're over 65, you're stuck with Medicare.  In that sector of the health system (age 65+), the public option has driven the free market out of existence.  That's something that they claim won't happen with the public option in the proposed government takeover.  That claim is just more deceptive nonsense.
 
I checked with MO Senator Kit Bond's office yesterday and found that Medicare is an option in the Congressional health program for those over 65. It is part of the roster of HMO's and insurance companies they can choose from.  I would love to know how many Congressmen and Senators over 65 have chosen the Medicare option.  My guess is that there are very few which would give evidence to the assertion that Democrat Congressmen don't really believe in the public option when they make the choice for themselves.  Let me suggest that if you have a Senator or Congressperson over 65, ask that person if he/she optioned into Medicare for their health insurance choice.  Leave a  comment identifying that politician.  That could make for an interesting post.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Didn't see what you Saw

I would hesitate to paint all of the left as deceitful, but the temptation to do so after watching the video below is enormous.  I remember seeing a TV skit where a guy is caught in bed with another woman by his wife.  He handles the situation by simply denying every accusation, even though his wife can see the woman with her own eyes right in front of her.  This is the type of blatant wholesale deception that is being foisted on the American people by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the truth-challenged Democrats in the Congress and the Obama Administration.  Obama even has a "Minister of Propoganda" type person in former ABC reporter Linda Douglass who in effect says you didn't see and hear what you saw and heard after watching the video of Obama saying that he was a proponent of "single payer" politician-run health insurance.  It's no wonder that people are disrupting town hall meetings across the nation.  Very few people are enthused about the prospect of  Politician-Run Health Care.  Get a load of this video from Verum Serum: 
 
 
Verum Serum              http://www.verumserum.com/?p=7675
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

St. Louis Supports Vendor Beaten Up by SEIU Thugs

A vendor of "Don't Tread on Me" flags and buttons was beaten up by  SEIU union thugs last Thursday night after a boisterous town hall meeting sponsored by Representative Russ Carnahan.  The African-American vendor, a conservative named Kenneth Gladney, was addressed with a racial slur by an African-American male wearing a purple t-shirt with an SEIU logo, the apparent uniform of the day for those sent in by the union.  Shortly thereafter the union thug punched the Gladney in the face.  When he fell to the ground, he was kicked in the head and body by up to 4 people, according to witnesses.  Police arrived after the fight and arrested 6 people on various charges, including assault and interfering with police. 
 
I was at the event which was supposed to be on aging and senior services.  The crowd was relatively quiet, even when Carnahan initally started speaking.  When Carnahan began to introduce folks, cheering and booing from opposite sides of the issues ensued.  The first speaker was an AARP bigwig.  His introduction was greeted by opposing cheers and boos.  As he gave his speech the volume of cheering and jeering increased exponentially.  This was because he gave an in-your-face speech about Obama Care including straw man arguments like "opposers wanting to keep the status quo" and "wanting to do nothing" instead of a presentation on senior services.  This guy was nothing but a shill for Obama Care and the content of his speech may have been a scheme to provoke the protestors and put them in a bad light.  It backfired when envoys from Obama's SIEU union allies severely beat an African-American conservative complete with racial slurs.  You see, it seems that in the eyes of the SIEU and other Obama allies, freedom of speech applies only to black liberals, not to black conservatives. 
 
On Saturday at noon, St. Louis Tea Party sponsored a protest at SEIU headquarters in St. Louis in support of Kenneth Gladney.  More than 200 protestors showed up and conducted a peaceful demonstration.  Gladney, whose attorney is preparing a lawsuit against the union thugs involved in the beating arrived in a wheel chair for the event.
 
 
video of Post Dispatch reporter's arrest:   http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=5489769
 
Post-Dispatch article on Saturday protest.  Be sure to watch the video at the top right where Gladney describes the attack:  http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/7C2B91CFCB7B4D398625760D0008E6EA?OpenDocument#tp_newCommentAnchor
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CBO Health Care Bill estimates Shown to be Far Too Low

An independent study conducted by HSI Network, LLC shows that the House and Senate politician-run health care bills will cost far more than even the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.  HSI Network, LLC has consulted with politicians from both sides of the aisle.  The CBO does not have current models to compute expenses based on innovations in the health care industry that have occurred in recent years.  This has resulted in a downward biased estimate of projected expenses.  The Executive branch under President Obama says that the plans will be revenue neutral.  Who do you believe? 

The Impact of the 2009 Access to Quality Affordable Health Care for All Act - House Bill 

 http://www.hsinetwork.com/HSI_Report_on_HR-TRICOM_07-22-2009.pdf

   The Impact of the 2009 Affordable Health Choices Act - Senate Kennedy Plan

http://www.hsinetwork.com/HSI_Report_on_Kennedy_06-13-2009.pdf

video -first decade cost  

 http://video.foxbusiness.com/6286007/?category_id=8e68cac0753d4e8bd71174d41c674e48f15e1331

video - out year costs  

 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Embraces the Memory of Eugenics Proponent Margaret Sanger

A post by Judi Lake at:     http://www.resistnet.com/group/iresisttheantilifeagenda/forum/topics/hillary-in-awe-of-margaret-1
tells of a recent speech by H. Clinton where she speaks in great admiring hyperbolic terms about Planed Parenthood founder and eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger: 
 
“…Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. "
 
We can now rest assured that the our government will be borrowing money on the public credit card to fund abortions all across the globe, thanks to the Obama administration and H. Clinton.  The goal of Margaret Sanger to eliminate the poor and feeble through progressive eugenics will go forward with pride and joy and money borrowed in your name.  That's certainly worth going into debt for.
 
"I am also pleased to tell you that we announced that the United States will once again fund family planning through the United Nations. (Applause.) We are going to fund a contribution of $50 million this fiscal year. That's a 130 percent increase over our last contribution, which was made in 2001. Congress has also approved the Administration's request for $545 million in bilateral assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs this year. And this is a significant increase over last year. Because I and the Administration are not wavering in our commitments to development assistance even in these tough economic times. (Applause.)"
 
Should our economic woes slow down our push to abort unborn children across the world?  H. Clinton doesn't think so, even if we must borrow on the public tab to do so.
 
"Now, some might ask, well, we've got problems here at home - and we sure do. Unemployment is rising. People are losing not only jobs but their homes. We're seeing small businesses that were flourishing a few years ago shut their doors."
 
Amazingly, through her cockeyed thinking, international abortions funded by the taxpayer debt tab will help the U.S.A. in areas of national security.  Go here to read the speech and prepare to be astonished:  http://newsblaze.com/story/20090328122708stat.nb/topstory.html
 
In these videos, Hillary Clinton has her feet held to the fire by Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry.  She uses clever misdirection rhetoric to weasel out of the applied pressure.  Shades of Bill.
 
H. Clinton compares Jefferson and Sanger.
 
 
It's quite interesting that when the pro-life folks compare the evils of slavery and abortion, the pro-choicers scream like stuck pigs, particularly when the Dred Scott case is invoked. In this case, H. Clinton uses Jefferson's ownership of slaves as something to condemn him for while still admiring him. She uses that to say that Sanger's eugenics promoting activities, while bad, are not enough to cause one not to admire all of the good things she did.

No pro-lifer would ever support slavery or abortion, or support the choice to have slaves or the right to choose abortion. You can safely infer that H. Clinton supports the choice to have an abortion but not the choice to have slaves. She is inconsistent here if freedom of choice is paramount. She is absolutely opposed to slavery but she supports abortion. In order to reconcile these inconsistent positions, she must on the one hand oppose the Dred Scott decision that declared that Africans were not persons and on the other hand affirm the Roe vs Wade decision that declared that unborn humans are not persons. The key to the argument is the personhood of the unborn. Margaret Sanger is not part of the core argument but invoking her dispicable record can lead one to the inconsistencies of the pro-choice for abortion proponents.

The Creator, science, and ethics are on the pro-life side of the argument. The pro-choice side is stuck with death, blood, destruction, evil and cognitive dissonance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rasmussen Polling - "79% Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead"

This is an interesting statistic from Rasmussen polling.  If true, does it demonstrate that Obama is dead wrong when he says that the U.S. is not a Christian nation?  

Here are some interesting statistics from the report:

 "...88% of adults nationwide think the person known to history as Jesus Christ actually walked the earth 2,000 years ago."

"Eighty-two percent (82%) also believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins."

"...79% believe the central claim of the Christian faith--that Jesus Christ rose from the dead."

"While most adults are believers in Jesus Christ, just over half (56%) of adults say they will attend a church service to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection."

Access this report at the following link:



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Update on TARP/TALF Money Laundering

   I sent an email to the authors of the Wash Post article.  Mr. Cho answered with this:

"Hi Joe, two committees on capitol hill are looking into this. We'll be writing about this again soon."

That's a good start.  We'll be following up later.
 
 
The Financial Times reports that hedge funds are seeking to avoid TALF restrictions on foreign workers and massive federal TALF paperwork along with the pay/compensation restrictions and government equity investment requirements.  They are forming special purpose vehicles (SPV) that will act as middle-men entities and will then pass the money on to the hedge funds to evade the recent law passed by Congress and signed by the President.  SPV's are the type of entity that Enron used to hide their nefarious activities.
 
 
I say that Congress should admit that their bombastic nonsense about pay and bonuses was a sham and repeal the law restricting pay and bonuses.  Otherwise, enforce the law and hold those to account who violate the law.
 
Additional Update
 
From Patrick O'Connor at All Cap Blog:
 
 http://blogs.navellier.com/all_cap/entry/is_geithner_sneaking_money_to_executives_at_companies_that_received_bailout/#When:20:28:00Z
 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-NY, wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner asking for information regarding reports that Treasury is attempting to circumvent restrictions on executive pay at firms receiving bailout funds.  Here is Chairman Towns’ letter:

---

April 6, 2009

Dear Secretary Geithner:

I am writing to express my deep concern over recent reports that the Treasury Department may be attempting to circumvent statutory restrictions on executive pay at companies receiving federal bailout funds.

According to an article that appeared in the Washinglon Post on April 4,2009,the Treasury Department “is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay . . . .” Allegedly, Treasury has set up special entities to serve as middlemen, which would receive federal bailout funds and then channel the money to corporate recipients, thereby avoiding restrictions on executive pay and requirements that the U.S. obtain an ownership interest in the bailout firms.

I hope these allegations are not true. ‘We now know that extraordinary compensation was paid to bank executives even as they led their companies to the brink of collapse and later sought and received billions of dollars in federal funding. It would be unconscionable and irresponsible for the Treasury Department to permit excessive pay practices to continue at companies that have been rescued by the taxpayers.
 
Read the rest of the letter to Geithner at the link above.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567Next »