The day’s top political news:
Obama's words about Iran get tougher
President Barack Obama described himself on Tuesday as being "entirely consistent" in his expressions of concern about the disputed Iranian election and the government crackdown that followed street protests. But his language clearly has gotten tougher since his first statement that the suppression of dissent was "of concern to me."
In his news conference, Obama was asked whether he had soft-pedaled his public reactions to postelection unrest in Iraq. The president correctly recalled that he had initially expressed deep concern about the election. And he has consistently made the point that he would not allow the Iranians to use the American government as a foil to undermine the legitimacy of the protesters.
Obama shifted some of his emphasis to condemnation of the violence. In a June 16 statement, for example, he said suppression of peaceful dissent "is of concern to me." On Tuesday he was more forceful, saying the U.S. is "appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments" of protesters. And he cited the "searing image" shown on TV of a female Iranian protester "bleeding to death on the streets."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090623/D990LE0G1.html
New All-Time Lows for Both CBS & ABC Evening Newscasts
Encouraging news for honest journalism and the American people.
TVNewser has learned the CBS Evening News has once again set an all-time low last week with 4.89 million Total Viewers and 1.42 million A25-54 viewers. But it was also the lowest (since records began in the 1991-'92 season) for ABC's World News with Charles Gibson. The Gibson program drew 6.42 million Total Viewers and 1.77 million A25-54 viewers. Both CBS's Katie Couric and ABC's Charlie Gibson were off last week.
Skepticism grows about over-the-air TV network news – especially with NBC having done its love-in with the White House and ABC surrendering its channel to sell Obama care.
Pelosi Flexes Her Muscles
The Speaker Uses Her Capital to Pass an infamous “Climate” Bill
Known as “Cap and Trade” the bill is only a dishonest maneuver through which liberal Democrats will impose a new tax on ALL Americans.
Passage of the bill would constitute another naked violation of an Obama pledge – the one in which he promised no American making less than $250,000 would see a dime in additional taxes. Cap an Trade will impose a tax on almost everyone.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_151/news/36217-1.html
Opinion:
The real healthcare debate quality versus cost. Obama’s government care comes at a cost of quality medicine
Government healthcare will be unable to deliver healthcare with the quality we enjoy today.
Government cannot provide quality in anything. Socialized medicine proves that point in spades. “Quality” as an element also reflects availability. With universal programs,. The system cannot handle the volume. If it’s free, people will come – in droves.
Canada is a case in point. Physicians and medical facilities – especially here in Florida – see waves of Canadians flocking here to get medical attention they cannot get at home. The horror stories of patients having to wait more than a year for procedures are many.
The reasons are obvious – physicians today have an ambition to provide the best care possible because they are motivated by financial considerations – to be sure, they are in addition to honest and honorable instincts to heal the sick – but finance plays a large part in motivation.
Government will deny even the best doctors a fair return for their quality. We see the obsession with “equality” and “level playing fields” throughout the mantras of liberals. In fact, current news stories tell of very stupid (and very liberal – I repeat myself) officials in education concluding the position of Valedictorian should no longer be allowed. The liberal position expresses concern that rewarding one individual for outstanding accomplishment, hurts the feelings of those who don’t win.
Such incredibly stupidity would lead normal people to conclude liberals would see no reason for keeping score in sports during school recess. WAIT! Liberals don’t want competitive sports allowed at school recess. Cant have hurt feelings among those who lose.
Obviously, this sort of thinking is guaranteed to deprive us all of quality…which is the point I am making about government healthcare. Government healthcare is a liberal concept and as is the case with liberal concepts, it flies in the face of common sense.
We are not all equal – and we can thank God for the differences that give us an occasional genius or ace performer. (Of course liberals would also be offended with my mention of God – since they insist there is no God, or those who do believe in God, demand we treat atheists as if they are normal people too.)
The important bottom line of this discussion is the need to simplify and stress the real object of the healthcare debate.
We are choosing between good health care, and inferior health care. The issue is quality and quality cannot be attained by government healthcare operations.
That’s not a political claim, it’s a fact.
Some years back, at the behest of a Medical organization, I worked with George Gallup to determine thinking regarding healthcare. We chose to study the opinions of Floridians since Florida provides a unique mix of demographic groups. We took a position that holds Florida is a viable microcosm for the purposes of our study.
While I don’t recall the actual figures, the conclusion was plain enough to make precise figures unimportant. Overwhelmingly the Gallup study showed that, when given a choice, quality won out handily over cost. People were more concerned with maintaining quality than worrying about cost.
In fact, it led us to developing a theme: “when you or a loved one is seriously ill, only the very best care is good enough”.
I think that theme works today too.
We ought to use it and use it loudly. A trillion dollars wont buy quality. Quite the contrary. Don’t let liberal Democrats tell you otherwise.
Buddy
PS: About “Cap and Trade” – don’t be misled on that issue either. It’s a conspiracy by liberal Democrats to impose a new tax on all Americans. Dishonest, expensive, absurd.
The days top blogs:
1.
10 Questions for the President on Health Care
Washington, DC – In light of today’s collaboration between ABC News and the Obama administration on the topic of health care reform, there are a few questions we’d like the President to answer.
(NOTE: It is time for straight talk on the liberal healthcare scheme. It’s a clear question of cost versus quality. “When you or someone you love is seriously ill, only the very best care is good enough”. Obama’s government care cannot meet that challenge – now or ever.)
Mr. President:
1) During the debate on the so-called stimulus package, your estimates on future unemployment and economic recovery proved to be wildly off-base. Why should Americans now believe you that they will not be forced out of the private coverage they enjoy, as basic economics would dictate?
2) Despite your assertions that health care reform will save money, the reality is that plans proposed by Democrats would cost taxpayers between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. How does this save money and how will you pay for this?
3) If, as you claim, a government-run option is essential to maintaining honest competition in the health insurance market, why is it not also true that we need a government-run competitor in the fast food industry, neighborhood babysitting, or Major League Baseball?
4) Proponents of a government-run option, you included, claim that it will compete on a level playing field with private insurance providers. In that case, will your government-run plan operate under a for-profit model and be forced to pay all applicable state, federal, and local taxes?
5) How do you expect to meet the growing need for physicians and medical professionals if the government-run plan pays lower than market rates to physicians while forcing them to participate or lose a majority of their patients and their livelihood?
6) If the government mandates that all Americans purchase health insurance, it must also define what qualifies as health insurance. Can you provide us your definition (with details please) and explain how this definition will not limit innovation and choice in health care?
7) According to the House Democrats’ plan, a family of four with an income of $88,200, four times the federal poverty level, would qualify for health insurance subsidies. In your view, is this a subsidy for low-income Americans or an effort to use taxpayers to put more health care under the purview of the federal government?
8) The new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is charged with determining what treatments should be offered to patients. Do you believe that these personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, or by unaccountable bureaucrats?
9) Why are there no actively practicing physicians included in the membership of the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research?
10) If the final reform proposal is controversial enough that it will not receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats have left open the possibility of using a procedural move to pass it with only 51 votes. Do you believe massive changes to such a vital area of American life should be pushed through in this manner with only 51 votes?
2.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/
The Democrats' War on Poverty is nearly 50 years old, yet we're told there's too much poverty despite trillions in wealth transfers of every type.
The Democrats have run the education system for nearly 100 years -- with monopolies like the NEA and the AFT teacher's unions, yet we consistently hear that education is broken and that schools need more money.
Government was responsible for securing the southern border since the era of LBJ and it has intentionally failed in order to bolster the Democrat Party's voting base; this has led to the presence of as many as 20 million illegal aliens in the country thanks to Johnson's policies including "chain migration". It has helped result in bankrupted states like California as Democrat policies ensure a culture of dependency.
Democrats were responsible for implementing Medicare and Medicaid, which along with Social Security, are in ruins with approximately $55 trillion in debt. That's nearly a half million dollars for every household in America.
Democrats raped the Social Security Trust Fund -- there is no trust fund.
They raped the Medicare Trust Fund -- there's nothing left.
They raped the Highway Trust Fund -- it's empty.
I could go down a long list of things the government said it would do, but hasn't done. Because the Statist Democrats are liars. They even moved these massive expenditures "off the books" to conceal the damage they've done.
And now the Statist Democrats are launching the most massive attack on the American people in the history of government.
They promise health care for everyone, but they will not -- and they can't possibly -- deliver it.
(NOTE: as mentioned in other articles on this web site, Obama’s healthcare scam also will rob us of today’s quality healthcare. Government WILL take over our healthcare system if Obama has his way, and when it does, the quality of care will be inferior. Lives will be lost. This is not just another political issue – lives are at stake.)
While our health care system is certainly imperfect -- because all humans are imperfect, including doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies -- they are more perfect, more competent, more informed, more capable than all of the bureaucrats to whom they'll be forced to report: a bureaucracy that will make all decisions about your health care.
And it is easy to confirm the havoc that socialized medicine will wreak on American society.
All you need to do is to look at how Democrats are trying to ram home socialized medicine: they're doing it as fast as possible with as little debate as possible.
For the indigent and the poor, we already have programs like Medicaid and SCHIP and dozens of state programs. Yet we're told tens of millions of us must give up our private insurance and pay for a government-run program.
Democrats claim it will be more cost-effective and efficient. That's bulls***. The man who's had the least experience at running anything is going to unleash the most massive federal leviathan in history, nationalizing nearly 20% of the economy.
This has been the dream of the Statist Democrats since FDR: to force each and every one of you, whether you like it or not, into a strait-jacket form of health care. It controls you; the actual being, the person.
Nameless, faceless bureaucrats substituting their decisions for those of your doctor.
Deciding whether you will have an operation or not. Whether you will have an MRI or not. Whether you will receive a life-saving, life-extending drug or not.
And we know this, because this is what occurs in Canada and Britain and other centralized bureaucracies, where you simply can not have access to advanced health care, period.
Where will their new drugs come from, since we produce half of them?
Who will invent the new medical technologies for them, since we invent roughly three-fourths of them?
Who will run the hospitals and what will they look like when the government unions run them?
Who will be responsive in a massive federal bureaucracy, where no one takes responsibility for anything, and yet they're all-powerful decision-makers for your family's well-being?
And for what?
Why would anyone advocate dismantling our health care system for something that won't work and will further bankrupt our nation?
Because it's yet another payoff to the Union bosses and ACORN (but I repeat myself), who owe billions in health care benefits they don't want to pay.
Where will Barack Obama be in ten years, when the rest of us are struggling with a massive, out-of-control, federalized medical system that doesn't give a damn about individuals and is busy rationing?
He will be retired as a very young man; a very wealthy young man, who will have imposed his Marxist ideology upon this society and then walked away from it.
Meanwhile - - -
3.
How much information can the government demand from us?
Bookworm
When I was in law school, I went to a luncheon at which famed legal scholar Arthur Miller spoke. His topic, still a fresh one back in the mid-1980s, was the amount of private information floating around in computers. His target was American corporations. He felt that American corporations were collecting too much consumer data, and destroying the consumers' right to privacy.
I didn't agree with Miller -- or, at least, I didn't feel his paranoia. It was certainly true then, and it's more true now, that corporations track an enormous amount of consumer data. The fact is, though, we don't have to give corporations that data. We do so for our convenience. If I don't want a credit card company to track my spending habits, I can pay cash. If I don't want Safeway to track my product purchases, I don't have to have a membership number. I like the convenience of credit cards and I like the discounts that go with grocery store membership cards, but I can quit playing the game at any time to preserve my privacy.
The stakes are different, though, when the government is involved. When it's the government demanding your information, you have no leeway to say "no!"
I first became aware of this problem in connection with jury questionnaires. I've never been a juror, but I've certainly prepared such questionnaires and I've reviewed those prepared by other council. If you've been on the receiving end of such a questionnaire, it's a true horror. In theory, their purpose is to ask questions closely tailored to the case, so as to screen out true bias. For example, in a murder case, the questionnaire could logically ask whether anyone in the juror's family has been murdered or whether anyone in the family was convicted for murder. A positive answer to either question could hint at a bone-deep bias that might interview with a juror's duty to review the facts impartially.
The problem, though, is that jury questionnaires don't stop there. Each lawyer, fancying himself an amateur psychologist, includes dozens of questions aimed at determining just who you are. The questionnaires ask about your upbringing, your education, your lifestyle, your hobbies, your interests, your religious beliefs, your political beliefs, and on and on.
Nor do you have the choice, as you do in a commercial transaction, to say no to answering these questions. If the questionnaire is in front of you, it means that the judge has already put his imprimatur on the questionnaire. You are required to answer the questions or risk being in contempt of court. In a "heads I win, tails you lose" formulation, there's no benefit to you in answering the questions, but you can go to jail if you refuse to do so. (Although to be honest, I haven't heard of jurors being jailed for contempt. Either, sheep-like, they all answer those intrustive questions or, if a few object, the judge hears the matter in camera and just makes it go away.)
Jury questionnaires are a rather narrow, arcane example of governments demanding that people give them private information. Under the Obama administration, however, two much more serious issues are arising that place the government in a position in which it is demanding deeply private information, and in which the punishment for withholding that information can be severe.
The first situation is Obama's health care plan. We know that, not only will it be unbelievably expensive, it will also destroy private medicine for all but the wealthiest. Because the government will be the largest pot of money, that's where the care will go. And once it's in charge of health care for all Americans, the government will also be in charge of health data for all Americans. It will know if you're sick or well, if you have an "embarrassing" illness, if you're fertile or infertile, if you're vain, if you're stoic or weak, and anything else that used to be between you and your doctor, or between you and the insurance provider of your choice.
Under ObamaCare, you name it an area of physical or mental privacy, and the government will have huge databases with that information. And you can't opt out because there's nowhere else to go. The marketplace is gone. Your choices are bad and worse: Either be treated and give up your privacy, or give up treatment entirely.
Some are already voicing concerns that socialized medicine, aside from being an insanely bad idea in terms of purveying medical care, is also a deeply unconstitutional idea:
Obviously, the government does not have to pay for any and all services individual citizens may desire. And simply refusing to approve a procedure or treatment under applicable reimbursement rules, as under the government-run Medicare and Medicaid, does not make the system unconstitutional. But if over time, as many critics fear, a "public option" health insurance plan turns into what amounts to a single-payer system, the constitutional issues regarding treatment and reimbursement decisions will be manifold.
The same will be true of a quasi-private system where the government claims a large role in defining acceptable health-insurance coverage and treatments. There will be all sorts of "undue burdens" on the rights of patients to receive the care they may want. Then the litigation will begin.
Anyone who imagines that Congress can simply avoid the constitutional issues -- and lawsuits -- by withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over the new health system must think again. A brief review of the Supreme Court's recent war-on-terror decisions, brought by or on behalf of detained enemy combatants, will disabuse that notion. This area of governmental authority was once nearly immune from judicial intervention. Over the past five years, however, the Supreme Court (supposedly the nonpolitical branch) has unapologetically transformed itself into a full-fledged, policy-making partner with the president and Congress.
In other words, socialized medicine isn't just economically and practically foolish, it's truly un-American.
The other area in which privacy is an issue is the upcoming 2010 Census. The Census, as you know, is a Constitutional mandate and, in its original form, it's incredibly pure. All that the federal government is entitled to under the Constitution is numbers, and those numbers are necessary for only two reasons -- taxes and proportionate representation in the House of Representatives:
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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.
The United States Census Bureau, an historically non-partisan office, has long been charged with the responsibility for collecting census data.
Typical for bureacracies, the census has expanded and expanded until it bears no relationship to the original enumeration that the Constitution demands. Now, as the Census Bureau itself states, the myriad questions Americans must answer go far beyond the Constitutional purpose and are, instead, legislatively mandated in order to figure out to manage myriad federal programs.
In other words, in exchange for all Americans handing over their personal information to the federal government, some Americans will get a federal benefit. Please note how different this is from the marketplace situation in which a consumer willingly hands information out for a direct benefit to that consumer. With the government, consumers are forced to hand out information with no promise of any benefit at all.
I've never been a fan of the current nosy census form, but Barack Obama has just raised the ante by handing over to ACORN, a far left activist group, responsibility for collecting data. In other words, this ain't your father's (or, rather the Founding Father's) census anymore:
The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.
A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers."
The bureau is currently employing help from more than 250 national partners, including TARGET and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to assist in the hiring effort.
But ACORN's partnership with the 2010 Census is worrisome to lawmakers who say past allegations of fraud should raise concerns about the organization.
"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."
As you can see from the above article, the big concern about ACORN's involvement is fraud: Are ACORN operatives going to fake numbers that are helpful to the Church of Perpetual Obamatude? Will Republicans mysteriously vanish from the voter roles, while Democrats multiply exponentially? Will political fringe groups suddenly grow in number and power?
Representative Michele Bachmann has raised another concern, though, and that's one that ties in with the privacy issue in this post: Will ACORN's involvement mean that the information we hand over to the government (with no direct benefit to ourselves) falls into the hands of strangers who will use it for their own purposes?
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
(NOTE: Bachnann’s concern is well grounded. ACORN – which is now operating under an assumed name – is known to be a conspiracy designed specifically to support liberal Democrats. It must be assumed that any and all census data they collect will be replicated on Democrat controlled computers for use in political schemes and scams.)
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.
Having voiced her concerns, Bachmann has also drawn a Constitutional line in the sand:
"I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home," she said. "We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."
The U.S. Census Bureau, jealous of its turf, is warning of reprisals:
She [a Census Bureau representative] sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer "any of the questions" on the census can be fined up to $5,000.
So, if you're still with me, here's what we've got: The Founding Fathers mandated an enumerative census (meaning it's sole purpose is to count heads) in order to ensure proper taxes and representation among the several states. Over the years, and especially since the New Deal, Congress has expanded the federal government at a rate the Founders could never have imagined. To sustain that expansion, not only does Congress need numbers for taxes and representation, it also needs detailed personal information in order to fund favored groups. Handing over this information does not benefit most Americans and, with ACORN involved, can seriously harm them. It also likely violates Americans' constitutional right to privacy. Nevertheless, the government position currently is that, if Americans don't hand over this information, they can be fined significant sums of money.
All of which boils down to this question: Is Bachmann right that, while the Legislature may ask myriad personal questions, the nexus of the constitutional right to privacy and the extremely limited government right to a census means that Americans cannot be forced to provide more than numerical information? I'd like to think Bachmann is correct, but with the Supreme Court swiftly on the road to becoming just another wing of the Democratic White House, I wouldn't bet my $5,000 on that answer.
Bookworm is a crypto-conservative living in hostile territory, and proprietor of the website Bookworm Room.
Comments