Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Expanding coverage of exactly what? It would be simple enough to expand the number of people covered by 40-50 million - all that it requires is a stroke of Obama's pen on the Democratic legislation. Swell - now we have 40-50 million more people using existing medical facilities and existing medical personnel!
Jumping over #2 - "reducing costs" (I'll come back to that) - let's go to #3... Improve quality. How do we accomplish that with the same number of hospitals and medical personnel, while providing services to an additional workload of 40-50 million patients? WE DON'T!! You cannot improve the quality of anything by simply increasing the workload. And, if we do not increase the facilities and personnel, the quality - and availability - of treatment will necessarily decrease.
Reducing costs is therefore impossible. You must expand existing facilities and/or build new ones, and increase the number of personnel accordingly. Who will provide the materials and labor for construction without cost? George Soros? NO! Will the medical equipment and supplies manufacturers donate their equipment and supplies? NO! Will the roughly 500,000 additional medical personnel work around the clock without pay? NO! The American taxpayer will pay for these "improvements" by way of higher taxes - that's how 30 million additional citizens, and 20 million illegal aliens will be covered under a national health care program.
The Democrats have no sense of reality when it comes to the government competing with private industry in health care insurance and treatment. The majority of Americans do not want a government health program of any kind. It is not in the government's business to compete with private industry - the government's business is strictly that of legislation and regulation. "Voodoo economics" fixes nothing, yet it is being used to peddle this outrageously expensive health care system just as it was used to "create jobs". Every single job created by the "Stimulus Package" cost the taxpayers more than $461,000.
It is past time to tell the government "Enough!". It's time to tell the government "NO MORE!" A little socialism is way too much!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
2. Abdulmutalla admitted to being a tool of al-Qaida, which relatonship was confirmed by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in a January 2010 speech - "The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes of the ," he said. "America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine," he added. "God willing, our raids on you will continue as long as your support for the Israelis continues." Which brings me to question #2 - WHY did our Department of Justice declare this a criminal matter for the civilian courts to adjudicate, rather than the terrorist act it was, which would have been tried by military tribunal - as it should have been?
3. This brings up question #3 - WHY are we wasting time and money on any trial? We have a confession by the principal that the act was one having been directed by al-Qaida , and confirmed by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Arraign him, find him guilty, and execute him within 30 days. No lengthy, expensive drawn-out trial. No lengthy, expensive incarceration. No lengthy, expensive medical treatment for his self-inflicted burns. Simply justice - sure and swift. You did it, you admitted to doing it, and the fact that you did it was confirmed by a 3rd party - now die!
And, as a parting gift, Abdulmutalla should be made aware that his lifeless body will be wrapped in the skin of a pig prior to removal from "The Green Room", thereby canceling his ticket to Paradise!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Have you ever wondered why Obama is in such a hurry to get things done? Have you asked yourself why legislation consisting of thousands of pages - that nobody will take credit for drafting - is passed without having been read by the House or Senate? Have you not puzzled over why Obama is spending us into fiscal oblivion? Stevie Wonder could see the answer to those questions, and, like so many of our fellow citizens, he may be loathe to admit it - even to himself. EVEN OBAMA RECOGNIZES THAT HE IS ONLY A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT (if his luck holds out)!
Obama has proven himself to be a totally unqualified captain of our "Ship of State", but he is well-qualified for his real job... which is to scuttle her. (For those of you who may not be familiar with the nautical term "scuttle", it means" - 1 : to cut a hole through the bottom, deck, or side of (a ship); specifically : to sink or attempt to sink by making holes through the bottom 2 : destroy, wreck; also : scrap) He is blithely joined in this act of national piracy by his crew of underlings - who control both the House and the Senate. The cargo in the hold of our Ship of State is PORK.
Anonymous legislation gets passed simply because of the Democrats super majority, which translates as "We have all the votes we need to pass those bills without a single 'conservative' vote" being cast in favor of it. A super majority is essentially nothing more than a politically partisan dictatorship.
Creating crises is what Obama is about. It's perfectly in line with the Cloward-Piven Strategy (see my 7/13/09). Create crises and diversions, overload the system, collapse the government, then remake the nation in the desired socialist image.
Rather than go against Obama, Democrats in Congress are retiring, resigning, "walking the plank" (committing political suicide by supporting Obama and going against the expressed wishes of their constituents) and/or "jumping ship" (changing party affiliation).
November isn't that far away - remember what we have seen from the Democrats control of our government thus far and vote accordingly.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Geert Wilders is what we in the USA would call a "maverick". As the parliamentary "herd" moves along in lock-step, Geert tends to drift away from the main body and "do his own thing". This is not necessarily a bad thing. The world needs more mavericks to keep things in balance... especially in a socialist nation such as the Netherlands, where their "liberalism" is applicable only to those things with which they agree.
But then, that is true of any liberal, socialist government. Basically the philosophy is one of, "We will support your right to kill unborn children, but not the right of another to speak out against such acts." Then that philosophy is "broad-brushed" across the entire spectrum of political and social issues. The Dutch government has demonstrated an attitude such that it is acceptable to speak of Islam in glowing terms, but not to find fault with it. Wilders produced a video entitled "Fitna" (I found it for rent at my local video store) which means "strife", a 17-minute anti-Qur'an movie, which features quotations from the Qur'an interspersed with footage of terrorist atrocities and speeches by Muslim preachers.
The controversial MP has also been criticized for writing anti-Islamic articles and letters which were later published in a mainstream Dutch newspaper. As this case progresses through the Dutch court system we will see that it is more than one man that is on trial... it is the entire concept of FREEDOM OF SPEECH (and thought, and self-expression), and - when one loses that freedom - the other freedoms are in danger of perishing as well!
There is no nation on this planet which can, or does, guarantee it's residents the right to never be upset, disappointed, or offended by something somebody else may say or do. Life isn't easy, and human beings are not perfect, so we have to learn to just suck it up and get on with whatever we were doing.
The Qur'an, as with most religious texts, is subject to the interpretation of man. And there is much discussion over the seemingly conflicted instructions given to Muhammad by Allah. There are those verses that council conversion to Islam through beautiful preaching, persuasion, kindness, understanding and forgiveness. Then there are the "Sword Verses" (Qur'an 9:5-9:29), which are believed by the majority of non-Muslims to essentially say, kill the non-believer. These verses are probably the leaders among those sparking controversy. For example, three well-respected Islamic scholars (two Muslims, one western scholar) translate Qur'an 5:29 as:
1. "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
2. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
3. "Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."
With the exception of the final thought in each translation, the interpretations are quite similar. I can see where the Muslim extremists could believe that acts of terrorism are, if not demanded, at least encouraged by 9:5. Which brings us to another problem - the Muslim extremists do not wear signs that allow the rest of the world to differentiate between them and the "moderate" Muslims. Instead they hide themselves among the populations of those (assumed to be) peaceful, moderate Muslims. Another Islamic scholar even said this - "The later verses, known as the “Sword Verses” (9:5 and 9:29), were considered by Muslim scholars to have canceled the previous verses mandating kindness and persuasion. Expansionist jihad became the explicit norm."
Personally, I agree with Wilders' evaluation of the Islamic threat. The goal of Islam is to rule the world. Islam brings with it the draconian Sharia "law" - made in the 7th century and has stayed in the 7th century. Sharia is the antithesis of our constitution and it is the enemy of freedom - especially for women. Sharia is the equivalent of a rules book for social lynch mobs.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Second Amendment is near and dear to my heart. I fired my first rifle 60 years ago, under the supervision of my grandfather and an uncle, and bought my first pistol at the age of 17. Since that time I have owned, at one time or another, in excess of 75 assorted rifles and pistols - none of which have ever been used in the commission of a crime. As much enjoyment as I have gotten from the shooting sports, and, being as enthusiastic a supporter of "The Second" as I am, I have dedicated relatively little space in my blog to that powerful portion of the most powerful document on the planet - our Constitution. Nine entries, in which The Second was mentioned in some fashion, out of two hundred seventy postings. I prefer not to work it to death, and try not to be a one-issue blog, but... if I were only allowed a single issue I might well have chosen The Second.
Let's take it apart for a minute. What qualifies as "A militia"? According to the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia a militia is a -
Black's Law Dictionary identifies a militia as - "
The U.S. History Encyclopedia says a militia is - "a form of citizen-based defense that shaped early American history and created an American tradition of citizen soldiery." Further on the article states, "The militia emerged from the Revolution with its military reputation mixed but its symbolic importance enhanced immeasurably. Americans no longer viewed the militia solely as a practical necessity; instead, republican thought imbued the militia with an ideological role as a guarantor of liberty, particularly in opposition to standing armies."
A militia, therefore, is essentially an armed citizenry, ready to defend itself (and in our case our Constitution) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The role of the "well regulated Militia" has, for the most part, been assigned to our National Guard by the government. But, by virtue of that government assignment and recognition, they no longer meet the technical definition of a "militia". Now that we're all on the same page, let us continue...
The militia was considered as "being necessary to the security of a free State". The individual State units of the National Guard could at least partially fill that role... IF THEY WERE IN THE UNITED STATES! But, even then, their numbers alone would be insufficient to successfully defend our country from an attack. With slightly less than 20,000 miles of combined coastline and north-south land boundaries, and approximately 400,000 combined Army and Air Guard personnel, that would be a dispersal of 20 per mile, or one Guardsman every 264 feet, with zero depth. (The Japanese chose not to invade the United States during WWII because they envisioned "there is a gun behind every blade of grass.")
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you are a native born, English-speaking American, you should have no difficulty understanding that phrase. It's really quite straightforward. We the People, have a God-given right to keep and bear arms so that we may maintain our other Constitutional rights and freedoms. The government cannot and does not give rights - the government can only grant permission. As human beings we are born with rights.
Who wishes to deny us the right defined by The Second? Most of the world - some from envy of that freedom, others from unfounded fear, and yet others who wish to see us subjugated as they are. The largest organized external attack on our Constitution comes from the United Nations. I invite you to watch this video that I borrowed from the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute (see link in left-hand column). It is enlightening...
The UN has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty for decades, but past US administrations have never supported such flagrant attempts by the UN to interfere with our sovereignty or strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
However, the CURRENT administration has reversed the long standing position of the US and has publicly stated that it supports an arms control treaty.
Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty, the Senate would have to ratify it before it could become the law of the land. The Senate has the power to nullify it by refusing to ratify the treaty.
Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.
The Second protects the other 26 Amendments... and all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.
The rest of this news item goes on to tell how poorly Hasan did in medical school, how weak a performer he was as a practicing Army psychiatrist, and how he was promoted on schedule regardless, carefully avoiding asking the question of "WHY?"
Why was he allowed to spend 6 years completing medical training that normally takes 4 years to complete?
Why, if he was a less-than-satisfactory practicing psychiatrist, did his officer efficiency reports fail to reflect that?
Why was he promoted on schedule throughout his 12 year stint in the Army?
Why did his superiors fail to report their suspicions about his radical and inappropriately expressed Islamic religious views?
The obvious answer to each and every question is the exact same answer...
He was allowed to spend 6 years completing his medical training because he is a member of an ethnic minority group in the US, and to treat him as others would be treated could possibly indicate a personal prejudice by a staff member at the school, or a systemic prejudice within the school itself. Political Correctness dictates that we must not criticize the actions or failures of any minority group member.
Because of his status as a member of the privileged "minority" class, none of Hasan's superiors would dare present an honest evaluation of Hasan's substandard performance without jeopardizing his own career aspirations. To write a performance evaluation that failed to praise a follower of Islam would be politically incorrect, and could quite possibly get that superior officer branded as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe".
He was promoted on-schedule for exactly the reasons explained above. Failure to recommend him at the earliest promotion points could be seen as "institutional racism" within our Army, or - again - personal prejudice on the part of evaluating/reviewing superior officers within his chain-of-command. We must, at all costs, be Politically Correct!
To indicate that one has suspicions about the demonstrated behaviors of a member of a minority group, is (within our military organizations) essentially saying, "I'm against Muslims progressing in our military." This is the accepted government mindset! It has nothing to do with his bogus "evaluation reports". The evaluators really had no choice, other than to end their own military career progression by giving Hasan an honest evaluation.
Hasan got a "pass" at every turn because of our social obsession with Political Correctness, and it is exactly that which allowed him to massacre 19 people at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5th, 2009. The radical religious fervor as demonstrated by his behavior, was a definite indicator that something was not quite as it should be within Hasan's mind. This fact does not make Hasan a victim. His actions were a conscious decision - as evidenced by his giving away his belongings in the hours immediately preceding his vicious, intentional execution of 19 unarmed persons. He did not expect to survive the incident, he was on jihad for the glory of allah (intentional lower-case "a"), and would have no further need for earthly belongings.
There are valid reasons for taking actions that are politically incorrect. There are valid reasons for "profiling" - if you are shopping for a baseball how much time would you waste looking in the
frozen foods section? So what if it makes somebody uncomfortable? It is both logical and efficient!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Former FBI agent Errol Southers, while in the FBI, was essentially fired by the FBI for improperly accessing an FBI criminal database in 1987 and 1988. The technical term used was "censured", but that's a career-ender in the FBI. Southers is currently the chief of homeland security and intelligence for the Los Angeles International Airport Police Department.
Southers originally wrote in an October affidavit to a Senate committee that he asked a San Diego police employee to run a background check on his estranged wife's boyfriend and was censured by the FBI 20 years ago for it. Southers wrote to senators last week clarifying "inconsistencies" in his recollection of the background checks. After the committee approved his nomination and sent his name to the Senate, Southers wrote back and said that he actually personally ran background checks twice. You don't "forget" something like that... unless you think you're about to get caught in your lie.
Here we have a man who abused power, ignored established security procedures, is a union sympathizer and a proven liar being considered for a top level security position. Actually, he sounds like a perfect fit in the Obama administration's grand scheme of crippling the country.
Unionizing any positions involved in functions even remotely related to national security is absolute insanity! What happens when they decide to have a work stoppage to demand less of this, or more of that? What's next... collective bargaining for the military? How about this idea: collective bargaining for inmates in federal prisons!
Is there nobody in the intelligence community with a clean record, who speaks the truth, and who can see the obvious folly in unionizing national security positions? There probably is... but such an individual would stand in contradiction to the Obama administration's grand scheme of creating the United Socialist States of America, and therefore would never be nominated. Besides, what upright individual would want to be surrounded by Obama's cadré of left-wing loonies?
Southers professional credentials aren't all that bad... but his demonstrated deficiency of character is! Aren't 40 anti-Americans enough in this corrupt administration?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
At the beginning of the first American Revolution it was proclaimed that "Taxation without representation is tyranny!" Inasmuch as Obamacare will be funded with our tax dollars, and subsequent increases therein, it logically follows that eliminating the Republican party from the process is tyranny! A large percentage of the population is being denied their representation on a tax-dependent issue. If, by design, we do not have full and complete representation, during the process of debate over a bill that will increase our taxes if passed, then we are faced with an act of tyranny.
Or... is there something I don't understand about how a unilateral, partisan government action - one that forces unwanted additional taxes upon its people to support programs which the majority of those people do not want - escapes the definition of tyranny?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Perhaps I have an over-simplified opinion of what it would take to return our nation to the destination which our founding fathers originally intended, but...
It is much easier to stop a runaway train, than it is to reconstruct it after the wreck, and that is exactly what we have going on here - a train wreck in progress. I'm beginning to wonder if Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Erich Weisz (better known as Harry Houdini). David Copperfield must be quite envious of the skills which Obama has demonstrated in misdirection, sleight of hand, and the use of smoke, mirrors and trap doors! "The Great and Powerful Oz" is quite the showman, and that is exactly what he is - a showman - nothing more, nothing less. Obama is all show and no personal substance. He has no accomplishments in his life that are not products of his ability to BS other people into doing his will. He has never - not one day in his entire life - labored for wages... yet he claims to be the champion the working man and our corrupt labor unions. And (this is the truly amazing part) they believe him! But, I digress.
How do we stop this runaway train called the USA Express before it is destroyed? There are only two options -ballots or bullets. Ballots are certainly the preferred method of correcting our course before we are completely derailed, the question is do they truly work for us?
There was that strange bit of business with "chads" in Florida during the 2000 election, compounded by the Electoral College deciding what "We the People" really wanted, even though the popular vote didn't support that EC decision. The Electoral College serves no useful purpose, and should be done away with. The only purpose it does serve is to insure that, if the will of the people goes against that of "The Great and Powerful Oz" (the behind-the-scenes power brokers), the will of Oz prevails through the auspices of the Electoral College. Am I the only person who sees a problem with that arrangement? The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." The EC had no official, documented recognition prior to 1845 when the EC was included in federal law and, until that time, it apparently functioned primarily upon a knowing wink and a friendly nudge.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that the ballot box does actually work for us. How do we correct our course? We vote the incumbents out of office!
We work especially hard to remove those who voted in support of legislation that brought us to this point, and replace them with true conservative traditionalists. The hard part will be discerning between the genuine conservative traditionalist candidates, and the IndePubliCrats. We have only two means of discernment available to us - record and instinct. A record will exist only for those who have a history of "public service" and that allows us to use both means. A political newcomer will have no record available for our review, and we will be forced to rely on "gut instinct" - that nagging feeling one gets when they sense that something is not quite right about what they are seeing or hearing. (We also have to keep in mind that candidates for elected office tend to tell each audience that which they believe that particular audience wants to hear, but in vague, non-specific and wishy-washy general terms which they can weasel out of later.)
At best our election process is flawed and imperfect, but at its worst it is still better than most processes of establishing a government. It is the best of that which is available. A "One World Government" would only rate about a half-point above a global dictatorship.
Bullets become a possibility when the will of the people is repeatedly thwarted by "the powers" - either those elected or those behind-the-scenes. It has been almost 150 years since the "Civil War" (aka: War Between the States), and the thought of Americans once again taking up arms against one another is abhorrent to most of us. However, 224 years ago, when our ancestors were ruled by that British tyrant, George III, they took up arms against the "government" to free themselves and created the Democratic Republic now known as the United States of America. Those who would rule us, rather than govern a free people, should remember that lesson from history, before they are doomed to repeat it. I don't believe that we have become so used to our freedom - because we have known nothing less - that we take it for granted. Are we so complacent in the assumption that no person living within our borders would wish to eliminate those freedoms, that we are no longer vigilant against internal threats? If we were to look closely at the "third world" countries, we would quickly realize that there are tyrants in the world today. Those who would rule their subjects rather than govern their citizens.
Awaken America! Awaken and understand that not all our enemies are foreign, nor are all those within our borders our friends. Our immigration policies - or lack thereof - have made it quite easy for those who wish us harm to locate themselves in our heartland. Case in point: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, United States Army Medical Corps, on November 5, 2009 murdered 13 people and wounded 29 others - ON AN ARMY BASE! Then there's Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who tried unsuccessfully to blow up an Amsterdam-to-Detroit-bound commercial airliner carrying 300 people on Christmas day. Then we have the several hundred illegal aliens from Mexico, who now occupy our prisons for attempted murder, murder, multiple murders, serial murders, and other assorted "capital offenses". But... at least so far, none of the imprisoned, illegal Mexican nationals has been charged with acts of terrorism. I guess that's a point in their favor...
The politically correct "head in the sand" posture does not make threats disappear, it just makes them unseen. That hungry lion will still eat the ostrich, the ostrich just won't be able to see it coming. Have we become a nation of ostriches? We are faced with not just one... but several hungry lions! Ignoring them won't make them go away, it will just reduce the ostrich population. The leftists are a cancer upon America - and, if that cancer is not excised, it will continue to grow until it consumes us. Most of Europe, and all of the third world nations, would like nothing better than to see the USA fail. They would gladly sacrifice the foreign aid we provide them to see us reduced to their condition.