Category Archives: Politics

Iran, Media, Politics, United Nations

United Nations, For The Wrong Reason

It has been an interesting couple days in the UN General Assembly, as has the media coverage of it. After suffering through 96 minutes of drivel from Muammar Gaddafi, I was hard pressed to find out what nations, if any, demonstrated their approval/disapproval by leaving the chamber. A tradition of that body since its inception. Where Gaddafi is concerned, I can’t find any evidence that the US delegation walked out.

When Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke his insane bit, the US delegation did walk out.  And I share Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s frustration with the UN for giving Ahmadinejad a platform, and with the delegations there that sat to listen to him deny the Holocaust.

“To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. … Have you no shame? Have you no decency?”

The media coverage of the walkout is remarkable.  German media Deutsche Welle put it this way. Canada who refused to attend the speech, and 11 delegations left the speech.   According the Associated Press, Ahmadinejad spoke to a half-empty chamber. So out of 192 member states, only 12 showed their disapproval. Does that sound like a half-empty chamber to you?

The whole experience does demonstrate the ineffectiveness, if not unwillingness, of the United Nations to live up to its charter and how the media props them up.

The fact that President Obama is now head of the UN Security Council, a first for a US President, does not give me any hope that the UN will change. His ’round-the-world apology tour, like his speech to the UN General Assembly, validates that his idea of foreign relations is just like theirs. And for our sake, I hope I am wrong.

links:

Economy, Energy, Politics

Don’t Be Fooled, It’s A Tax

Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax. Make no mistake about it. His comprehensive health care reform scheme will add a financial burden on 100% of the American people. Ditto with the President’s ‘Cap and Trade’ scheme.

As a percentage of income, both will impact the poor way more than the rich. His pitch that 95 percent of Americans, the middle class and the ‘working people,’ will not get a tax increase is pure spin.

Are you old enough to remember The Who’s 1971 song ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again?‘ ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,’ as attempts are made to repeat history.

From Wikipedia:

“Won’t Get Fooled Again” is a song by the rock band The Who. Written by Pete Townshend, it combines guitar power chords with heavily processed organ and synthesizer sounds to create a textured, atmospheric introduction that explodes into the verse. It tells of a “revolution of revolutions” in an endless cycle, where “the change it had to come, we knew it all along” but each successive new regime turns out to be just like the old one, so that straight away it’s time once again to “pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, then I’ll get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again“.

We'll be fighting in the streets, With our children at our feet.

 

AP link: FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

Economy, Politics

Five Major Faults With The Health Care Bills

Did you know that the Democrat health care bills in the senate and house share the same five major faults? An analysis of those faults and the recommended fix are presented here by Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation.

Current efforts by Congress to “reform” the health care system are centered on several flawed policy initiatives that will transfer more power and decisions to Washington and away from patients and families.

Rather than create a massive government-based health care system and dislocate people from their existing private coverage, policymakers should focus on putting the health care system on a path where individuals and families are in control of their health care dollars and decisions.

Shortfalls of the Health Care Bills

The following five provisions are the cornerstone of the House and Senate bills and unavoidably result in legislation taking health care reform in the wrong direction.

1. New Public Plan and Federal Exchange. Both the House and Senate bills would create a new government-run health care plan through the establishment of a federally run national health insurance exchange. The result: widespread erosion of private insurance and substantial consolidation of federal control over health care through the exchange.[1] As is evident in the details of the House bill (H.R. 3200), there is no level playing field for competition between the government plans and private health plans. Plus, the incentives in the legislation guarantee that millions of Americans will lose their existing employer-based coverage.

2. Federal Regulation of Health Insurance. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. Moreover, it would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington.[2]

3. Massive New Taxpayer-Funded Subsidies. Both the House and Senate would expand eligibility for Medicaid, but they would also extend new taxpayer-funded subsidies to the middle class. Such commitments would result in scores of Americans dependent on the government to finance their health care.[3] This is unfortunate because Congress could have reformed the tax treatment of health insurance to enable people to keep their existing private coverage and buy better private coverage if they wished to do so.

4. Employer Mandate. Both the House and Senate bills would impose an employer mandate for employers who do not offer coverage and for those whose benefits do not meet a new federal standard. An employer mandate would hurt low-income workers the most and would also stifle much-needed economic growth.[4] Employer mandates are passed on to workers in the form of reduced wages and compensation. This is exactly the wrong prescription for businesses, especially during a recession.

5. Individual Mandate. Both the House and Senate bills would require all people to buy health insurance. There is no doubt that such a mandate would result in a tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance does not meet the new federally determined standards. This means that Congress will, for the first time, force Americans to buy federally designed packages of health benefits, even if they do not want or need those benefits.

It also means that health benefits will tend to become increasingly costly as powerful special interest groups and representatives of the health industry lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law.

A Better Direction for Health Care Reform

Congress should stop and take a step back from these divisive House and Senate measures. Instead of trying to overhaul one-sixth of the American economy and seize an unprecedented amount of political control over health care decisions and dollars, policymakers should consider proceeding with smaller, incremental improvements. Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately, making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences. There are three broad areas where Members can and should find consensus:

1. Promote State Innovation. Congress should preserve the states’ autonomy over their health care systems and give them greater legal freedom to devise solutions that meet the unique characteristics of their citizens. In addition, individuals should also have the freedom to purchase coverage from trusted sources and not be restricted by where they happen to live. This means that Americans should be able to buy better coverage across state lines. Congress should respect and encourage personal freedom and diversity.

2. Establish Fairness in the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. There is little disagreement that today’s health care tax policy–which favors coverage obtained through the workplace–distorts the market and is inequitable. Instead of expanding government-run programs like Medicaid, policymakers should offer tax relief to those individuals who purchase private health insurance on their own, regardless of where they work.

At the same time, Congress should make sure that tax relief goes only to taxpayers. Congress should also devise a voucher program, giving low-income citizens the opportunity to get private coverage if they wish to do so. There is a broad bipartisan consensus that Congress should help low-income working families with direct assistance to enable them to get health insurance.

3. Get Serious About Entitlement Reform. Medicare and Medicaid, the giant health care entitlement programs, are not only increasingly costly, but they are also not delivering value to the taxpayers. The best way to secure value to patients (not government officials) is to compel health providers to compete directly for consumer dollars by allowing seniors and the poor to choose the coverage that is right for them using the money that is already available to them in these programs. This will “bend the cost curve” while at the same time allowing private-sector innovation to flourish.

Consumer-Driven Reform

Americans want to fix the problems in the health care system–but not at the expense of their own coverage. It is time policymakers recognize the lack of support for a major overhaul. But instead of continuing to protect the status quo, Congress should advance improvements that put the health care system on a path to reform.

Such improvements should be focused on increasing choice and competition not by turning control over to Washington but by empowering individuals and families to control their health care dollars and decisions.

Nina Owcharenko is Deputy Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Robert E. Moffit, “A Federal Health Insurance Exchange Combined with a Public Plan: The House and Senate Bills,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2304, July 30, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare
/bg2304.cfm.

[2]Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Micromanaging Americans’ Health Insurance: The Impact of House and Senate Bills,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2558, July 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2558.cfm; Dennis G. Smith, “Undercutting State Authority: The Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2559, July 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2559.cfm.

[3]Dennis G. Smith, “New Taxpayer Subsidies: The Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2564, July 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2564.cfm.

[4]James Sherk and Robert A. Book, “Employer Health Care Mandates: Taxing Low-Income Workers to Pay for Health Care,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2552, July 21, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research
/HealthCare/wm2552.cfm.

link: Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills

Politics

How'd We Ever Make It This Far?

A little reality never hurt anyone with the presence of mind to recognize it. Thomas Sowell likens the so-called health care ‘crisis’ and all manifestations of it to a childhood fable. A good read that makes just too much sense.

Here’s a snippet . . .

While I was told a story in my childhood to help me understand something about the real world, today adults are being told things to reduce them to childish thinking.

The most childish of all the things being said in the august setting of a joint session of Congress last week was that millions of people can be added to the government’s health insurance plan without increasing the federal deficit at all.

link: Fables for Adults

Media, Politics

GOP's Alternative Health Care Plan

It is STILL a well kept secret, not mentioned in the so-called paper of record, the New York Times, and something that President Obama is STILL lying about. Nearly two months after the Republican plan was introduced, our President is still out there saying ‘they don’t have one.’

Democrats in Washington put up another disaster of a health care bill, over 1,000 pages, only a much more expensive government controlled solution.

At the beginning of President Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress last week, a truism was spoken about ‘comprehensive’ (that’s political-speak for government controlled) health care. President Obama said . . .

A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

The truism that seems to escape Democrats is that for sixty-five years, they continue to ignore the will of the people. That socialized medicine is one thing that Americans do not want, and it’s time to move on.

A better plan exists. A plan that has what most Americans want, a private sector solution, that doesn’t balloon the national debt, and that includes tort reform. The title is more aptly named too. Empowering Patients (as opposed to empowering government) First Act. And it’s not over 1,000 pages long. It is 63 pages long.

The Empowering Patients First Act, or H.R. 3400, would allow:

  • Individuals to choose their health insurance (no mandates)
  • Deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of who pays
  • Employers to provide flexible health-insurance options to employees
  • Health insurance coverage for low-income families (300 percent of the federal poverty level)
  • Health insurance for high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions)
  • Sale of health insurance across state lines
  • Expansion of Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs
  • Individual membership association health insurance plan
  • Association Health Insurance Plans
  • Medical liability limitations (Tort reform)

Unlike Democrat-care, the Republican alternative would not impose fines on workers or employers, require cuts in Medicare, increase taxes, require a new government bureaucracy, require a “government health insurance” option nor add $1 trillion or more to the national debt.

As an aside, if the President really believes what he is saying, then he ought to be confident enough to also say that if his plan does not increase availability, and does not increase the quality of care, and does not decrease the cost, and does increase the debt, then he will scrap his nationalized health care before his term ends and would enact H.R. 3400 and see how that works. Sound reasonable to you?

The Republican alternative is simply less government, fewer taxes and more choices, whereas Democrat-care is just another attempt to hijack more of our liberties.

Regarding President Obama, you have a decision to make. Is he lying about there not being a Republican alternative, or is he that far out of touch that he doesn’t even know it exists? Which one works for you?

related links:

Media, MRIOTD, Politics, Race Relations

Is Jimmy Carter Right?

Does opposition to President Obama’s policies and agenda exist because of his skin color? Don’t know. Let’s examine this proposition a little closer.

Here is what Jimmy Carter, CNN, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine and the brilliant thinkers on the American Left would have you believe of Americans right now:

  • We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white.
  • We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white.
  • It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white.
  • We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors … if the president just didn’t have dark skin.
  • We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn’t been black.
  • Most Americans – even ones that don’t pay income taxes now – would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked … so long as they are asked by a white president.
  • We would have been thrilled, I tell you … THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion.
  • It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes … we’re only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it.
  • Deficits? We don’t care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president’s spending habits … just so long as the president isn’t black.
  • Government pork? Like we actually care? Look … you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want – how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs? – just make sure it’s not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.
  • We wouldn’t care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census … just so long as the president isn’t black.
  • Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we’re upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.
  • Every single member of the president’s cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we’re concerned … just so long as the president is white.
  • Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don’t like is that a black president is pushing this idea.
  • Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It’s about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We’re only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.
  • More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to … just so long as the president is white!
  • Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

Upon further examination, I may be going out on a limb, being conservative and all, but I’d say that Jimmy Carter is wrong. Like he always is btw. Because if there were a white president trying to do all the above, I would still be against him, or her. I feel better about myself now. No white guilt or anything.

But I do weep for where this President and his party has taken this country. His party using the race card against any and all opposition to advance their agenda is a disgrace. Which may explain to some extent why the media has been more a cheerleader than an inquisitor when it comes to the President and his policies. Otherwise they would have to characterize themselves as being racist.

There is nothing post-racial about Obama’s administration, Democrats in Congress, and his supporters. And every second that passes where Obama himself does not talk it down and put an end to it, is just digging their racial hole deeper.

For his part in indicting over half of all Americans as racists, former President Jimmy Carter wins the Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day award.

h/t Neal Boortz

Immigration, Media, Politics

Obamacare And Non-US Citizens

As a follow-up to the post How The Left Tolerates Free Speech, we will examine how the Left and the President use the English language to deceive the American people when it comes to the President’s health insurance/health care initiative and illegal aliens. Since the mainstream media refuses to do their job with a minimal amount of investigation into who is really lying to the American people, let’s examine the argument right here, right now.

When the Left says that illegal aliens will not be covered in his plan, they are referring to a section of H.R. 3200 on page 143 that has to do with a form of welfare assistance called Individual Affordability Credits under Title II – Health Insurance Exchange, IE., the government-run health insurance program. Not the receiving of health care. Despite what they would want you to believe, these are two different and distinct issues. When the President says illegals will not be covered, he is either talking about what is not yet written or lying about what is written. In either case, the proof is in the actions of the Democrats in Washington.

Sec. 246 plainly states . . .

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

That’s fine. Obviously, cutting checks or issuing credits for illegal aliens would be problematic for a whole host of reasons not the least of which would be no Social Security Number to attach a check or credit to. They are not US citizens. They are citizens of some other country.

As for illegal aliens receiving health care under H.R. 3200, it is not that they are explicitly included but rather that they are not explicitly excluded as described on page 50, Sec 152 pertaining to prohibiting discrimination in health care. Not payments or credit, but in the providing of health care.

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

The legalese in this section is what prompted the Heller Amendment, proposed by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev) in July 2009. The bill would require using the same database that is used to verify employment eligibility that verifies social security numbers on job applications, The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS), and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).  The Heller Amendment was defeated along party lines.

Why do you suppose the bill would have been defeated if it were not the intent of the Obama administration to include non-US citizens? And why do you suppose the Obamamedia doesn’t seem to be the least bit curious about it either? Oh that’s right. The media watchdog died last year.

related links:

Economy, Fair Tax, Politics

The Truth About The FairTax

For someone who writes an article like this ‘The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair,’ it would help if its author, Laurence M. Vance, had his facts straight.

Coming from his premise that the FairTax ‘has the most vocal and intolerant proponents,’ I’m detecting a certain aire of superiority from him. Intolerant? Really?

The FairTax turns the current taxing system and taxing power on its head. It represents the largest shift in power from the federal government back to the people since the Declaration of Independence separated us from Mother England.

The FairTax is the result of $22 million worth of research by credible economists from around the country whose task was to come up with another way to fund the operations of the government. The task was qualified to the extent that the result would be ‘revenue neutral.’ That is to say the system must be able to generate as much money as the government is currently generating with the current system through federal withholding and payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, alternative minimum tax, estate and gift tax, and capital gains tax, all of which would be replaced by the Fair Tax. And from that point as the economy grows, so grows the treasury. It is a pro-growth, as opposed to punitive growth, taxing system.

The prebate is NOT an income redistribution scheme

First, the current system is not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. All the payroll-related taxes are taxed on a poor person’s first dollar. When that person gets another job to help make ends meet, he is taxed again. It is the prebate of the FairTax that eliminates this phenomenon. It totally un-taxes not only the poor but EVERYONE up to the poverty level (fair), actually helping them to rise up the socioeconomic ladder and realize the American dream. And when their spending exceeds that of the poverty level, they pay the same taxes as everyone else. What makes the FairTax a truly progressive tax is that the more one spends, like on yachts and private jets, the more ‘taxes’ will be paid.

The tax base expands to everybody in the United States

Also, and this consequence is often overlooked, EVERYONE who is in this country enjoying what there is to enjoy about it, WILL CONTRIBUTE to funding the government when they buy anything new or purchase a service.  This includes foreign tourists, the foreign diplomats in the UN and elsewhere, and all who are in the country illegally. Including those in the underground economy. The tax base is greatly expanded and is not limited to just legal citizens that legitimately work. (fair) Conversely, if you don’t want to pay any tax, simply don’t buy anything new. Under the FairTax, the people have control over what, how, and when they will pay their taxes, not the social engineers in Washington. Transparency in taxation will return. The amount you pay will be on your receipt instead of being stuffed into ‘deductions’ on your paycheck as it is now.

A taxing system that rewards, not punishes, achievement

The question of the ethics of making people pay taxes is a philosophical one, but in reality, and as corrupt as it is, it does take money to fund the government to do what is necessary to keep us safe and sound.  It is up to us to keep Washington in check on how they spend that money. The FairTax does not have any bearing on how the tax revenue is spent. It is strictly a plan to fund the federal government. And instead of punishing success, it actually rewards it. The FairTax is fundamentally, economically, stimulative. The term ‘take-home pay,’ coined by the creation of the current taxing system, becomes history. Under the FairTax, your gross pay is your take-home pay. YOU get what YOU make, and YOU spend it as YOU see fit. (fair)

Promotes economic development, investments, savings, and jobs

Other consequences of the FairTax which are also overlooked, is the effect it would have on the estimated $13 trillion in business, each year, that has fled this country to escape the tax code. That business would come back. That would not happen under a flat tax.  By the elimination of all the taxes on business and employment that you accurately list above, the US would become a tax haven to the world. And foreign business that don’t have a business unit in this country would have a powerful incentive to come. And 90% of those surveyed on that proposition say they would setup a business unit in the US if the FairTax was in place. The job creation and economic development that would result would go a long way toward bringing the country back towards economic solvency, all without any borrowing from China or anyone else.

No double taxation, no FairTax & income tax

Also, the ‘two-headed hydra’ that you mention will not happen under the FairTax. That’s because it calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment so the political class will not be allowed to double dip. Were that to be the case, the FairTax would expire and we would return to the same abortion of a tax code that we have now.

There are no exemptions for government under the FairTax. They operate the same as everyone else and the same as every other business. There are no taxes on business-to-business transactions. That applies to government business the same as it applies to normal capitalistic businesses. (fair)

The FairTax is not on TOP of, it is INSTEAD of

Lastly, and this is no small point, the research that went into the FairTax came up with a 23% tax that would be revenue neutral, not 30%, and it is inclusive, not exclusive like in your example. Here’s where it gets confusing and, easily demagogued. To be factually accurate, you have to know the difference. Otherwise you’ll be comparing apples to oranges.

The inclusive vs exclusive debate becomes easier to understand when you realize that companies do not pay taxes. The final consumer is the one that pays the taxes. We currently pay all the taxes that producers must pay in terms of all the taxes that would be eliminated under the FairTax that you correctly listed above. The over $20 million of research that went into developing an alternative federal revenue generating system determined that, on average, all of those above-mentioned taxes amount to 22% of the price of the goods and services we buy. Those are  embedded taxes, inclusive. Under the FairTax, those taxes go away. If nothing else happens, the prices would drop by (on average) 22%. Under the FairTax, those are replaced by a 23% tax, which would be inclusive to the price of the item. Not added to it as though the 22% embedded tax was still there, ie. exclusive. Competition in a free market would make sure that this would be the end result.

Fairness Doctrine, Media, Politics

How The Left Tolerates Free Speech

In two words, THEY DON’T. They hate free speech. They don’t have any room for it. Eventually, they will do to you what they did to me, if by no other means than by bringing in the Fairness Doctrine through the back door. However, the spineless bed-wetting liberals at Air America Radio are not so subtle about it. I am now blocked from their website. (spoiling all my fun)  Read on for a little truth.

I enter a cogent and on-topic comment about a post on Air America Radio’s website regarding Rep. Joe Wilson’s ‘you lie’ comment. No name-calling, just the facts that I know they’ve not heard before. Here is an original screensave of the post.

The title of the post was ‘truth hurts, Wilson was right.’ The content follows . . .

Obama brought disgrace to Congress, using his own scare tactics. Basically carrying his campaign to the joint session of Congress. He did it by chastising all who disagree with his socialist design for health care that would not exclude illegal aliens.

He’s lies every time he says Republicans have no plan. Try looking at H.R.3400 in the 111th Congress. He’s lying to you, me, and everyone else. Yes, Joe’s right. Obama lies quite readily. Bringing disgrace to the office of the President.

He accused opponents of using scare tactics. Then said this:”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 the most. And more will die as a result.” It was scare tactics like this that got his ‘economic stimulus’ bill passed.

But I digress, the Heller Amendment would have insured a citizenship test, by verifying Social Security numbers against the employment check database. It was shelved by Democrats.

So yes, Obama lied when he said that illegals would not be participating. H.R. 3200, the only bill in writing says that. And Joe Wilson told the truth.

On July 17, 2009, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated (on party lines) a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.

It’s President Obama that is bringing disgrace to the nation.

The author of the Wilson article, Beau Friedlander, carries the water to make the President’s case this way.

What was it the man said? “You lie!” That’s it. What immediately preceded this ejaculation was an assurance from the president of the United States that health care reform did not include free medical assistance for illegal immigrants. The assurance was true. Wilson was mistaken.

The assurance may be true, and it also is true that H.R. 3200 does not say verbatim that illegal aliens are included. It doesn’t have to. Because it does say that they may not be excluded. See PG 50 Section 152 in H.R.3200 – health care will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

This includes personal characteristics like citizenship. That is precisely why the Heller Amendment was proposed. And precisely why Democrats shot it down. It was defeated along party lines.

My original entry, which happened to be the very first entry in the comment thread was entered on Sept 10, 2009 at 11:05 pm CST, (Sept 11, 12:05 am EST) was deleted. As you can plainly see now, the first comment shown is dated September 11, 2009 – 2:40am.

Knowing these people like I do, I did a screensave of the original post just because I can substantiate what I’m accusing Air America Radio of doing. But the lesson here is it’s not about Air America Radio in particular, it is about the flaming liberal Left in general, which are plentifully represented in the Obama administration.

Having seen that my post from yesterday was omitted, I re-entered it today. They apparently missed it, because it is still there, as this screensave shows. You can expect to see that also deleted as soon as one of their good little lemmings call it to their attention.

One other thing this screensave shows after I attempted to login. My handle there is ‘hmfwic.’ Guess who has been blocked from commenting on Air America Radio’s website? Yep, me.

That’s exactly the way the far left deals with opposing dialog, even when true . They hate free speech when it is speech that they don’t agree with. You’ll be hearing the Left’s influence on capital hill, and Obama’s Czars, doing their best to carry it on to talk radio (an industry in which the Left are ‘miserable’ failures), and certain cable TV channels.

One of the commenters / lemmings there called socialistfrogg challenges me for proof. It’s not uncommon for commenters like that to be so lazy as to not look it up for themselves.

Provide proof

where it says that illegals will get free healthcare. Cant do it, can you? You are a liar. But you always lie, dont you? Keep it up, right wing extremists! You will be even a smaller minority after the 2010 elections and Dem controlled redistricting.

You people will defeat yourselves for us, again.

* Login or register to post comments By socialistfrogg September 11, 2009 – 10:22am

That won’t happen. Not by me anyway, since I’ve been banned. The fool doesn’t even know that Air America Radio is limiting the information he could otherwise get. Another of the rabid Left’s tactics. The lemmings are kept in cocoons, free of convincing, albeit opposing points of views, even when true. They don’t realize they’re being cultivated into mind-numbed robots.

related links:


Politics, War On Terror

Let's Never Forget

Let’s never forget the first 3,000 casualties in the war on terror on this day eight years ago, September 11, 2001. May God bless and comfort them, their families and friends for this tragic loss.

The war is not over. Actually, the war on terror began long before Sept 11, 2001. We have lost our citizens and soldiers long before that date at the hands of these very same Islamofascists. No matter how you choose to characterize the war or the enemy, the fact is, there is a war being waged against us by an enemy that wears no uniform and hides among otherwise ‘innocent’ civilians. Suffice it to say, it is a very unconventional war being waged by an ideological enemy that thinks they are doing the bidding of Allah by killing so-called non-believers. That would be you and me.

Fighting this war and keeping Americans safe requires using capabilities that were not available in previous wars. The tools available now incorporated in the Patriot Act are tools that have been effective. They are also tools that are slowly but systematically being put back in the toolbox by the Left.

In fact, the Obama Justice Department is now exploring whether to prosecute our own people for serving and fighting this war using every tool in the toolbox.

There’s no better time to highlight the most searched post here on The Lunch Counter written two years ago. This isn’t spreading fear, and its not hyperbole. This is unfolding before your very eyes.

Democrats Soft On Terror

And one written five years ago puts it all into perspective.

Free, But Not Free To Kill, Patriot Act