My considered response to the president's speech last night

I can't say it any better than what Sarah Palin said:

Sarah Palin: Response to the President's Health Care Speech

Response to the President's Health Care Speech

Today at 9:25pm

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.

Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

- Sarah Palin

Just who works for whom!

This should explain alot about why Washington is in a mess. These son's o bitches have lost sight of who works for whom!

It's HIS town hall meeting. And you're not going to tell him how to run HIS congressional office!!!!!

Asses and Moses

Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel " pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land".

Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, " Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a camel, this is the promised land".

Now Obama has stolen your shovel , taxed your asses, raised the price of camels, and mortgaged the promised land to China.God help us.

I haven't read all of this...

...but I like the way it starts out.

Why is this president always doing the opposite of what needs to be done?

Instead of supporting Iranian protesters, he snubs them. Instead of snubbing the ousted Honduran would-be dictator, he invites him to Washington. Instead of leading the world, he apologizes to it. Instead of offering a new vision, he resurrects hoary clichés. Instead of promoting liberty, he bows to kings and hugs tyrants.

Some think he acts like an enchanted prince; others think he's a spoiled brat. But there's a method to this madness; its logic should be obvious to anyone familiar with antiquated leftist clichés, which Barack Obama seems to have smuggled into the White House without as much as pausing to brush aside the decades-old creepy cobwebs.

A Russian saying suggests that "everything new is well-forgotten old" - which may also explain the voting pattern of recent public school graduates who think that nothing existed before they were born. However, as far back as 500 BC, Heraclitus cautioned that you cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. To paraphrase, Obama shouldn't apply old ideas to new circumstances, for the unintended consequences shall expose the absurdity of his leftist doctrine. Yet that is exactly where he is heading - and it could actually be the good news.

Interesting eh?

Go read the rest and tell me what YOU think.

If nothing else, I like the artwork over there!

The doctrine of the three percenter, aka the Threeper

Here it is in a nutshell:

"We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we'll shoot back.

And we are not going away.

Your move."

For a more complete explantion go to Sipsey Street Irregulars or Western Rifle Shooters Association and read everything you see there.

Do it! While there's still time!

Maybe Americans ARE beginning to awaken!

Okay...Black Star News (I'll let their name speak for itself) publishes an editorial calling Van Jones the "Victim of hate Broadcast Terrorism". Uh huh...you're thinking the same thing I'm thinking, just by reading the title.

But so there's no doubt, here's a sample of that editorial:

Make no mistake, these hate-broadcast terrorists want to undo the results of the 2008 election. They will oppose the president on everything he does; not out of principle or the national interest, but simply because they hate the fact that the base for their narrow partisan views continue to shrink.

What a hoot! Go read the rest of it if you can stomach it!

Ahhhh but the real fun begins in the COMMENTS. By a huge majority, the bulk of the commentors tear this "editorial" to ribbons! Here's a couple of examples:

Date: September 7th, 2009
Name: BOB
Subject: YOU SUCK!
Comment: HELLO IF YOU SEE VAN JONES ASK HIM WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE GLENN BECK'S BITCH!

Date: September 7th, 2009
Name: jerry
Subject: racism, Van Jones and YOU
Comment: Its clear from your derision to these comenters that you are actually the racists. It's clear that any thoughtful rebuttal of your Van Jones whitewash is greeted with editors notes like OK Massah and the like. If anything, Black folks like you are the wedge drivers and I think you know it and I also think that is exactly what you want. I could care less what color Barack's skin is. I'd vote for a purple person with three legs if they would lead this country conservatively.

Date: September 6th, 2009
Name: Patriot Czar
Subject: Dude - Get Your Facts From Somewhere Else...
Comment: Milton, your reporting is pathetic. Get the facts - Try the Truth next time.

Date: September 6th, 2009
Name: R. Shouse
Subject: van jones
Comment: Ha! Sucks to be you guys! Commies going down all over the place!

And finally....here's a reasonable comment that is followed by a response from the Editor:

Date: September 6th, 2009
Name: Peter
Subject: Van Jones
Comment: Conservatives see through your race baiting news. You do Blacks a disservice to howl race when this is clearly an ideological issue. Right Wing vs. Left Wing. Nothing more. MLK fought to have Blacks included in the political discussions and now that you're here you whine like children when you can't get your way. Grow up Black America.

Editor's Note: Okay, Massah

I guess that's what passes for well-reasoned debate from the Left these days.

Tom Coburn educates the sheeple on the public option

I don't know this guy, but I SURE like his attitude!

What I'm currently reading

Review by Thomas Sowell

Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.

Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.

This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time -- and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.

Because the word "fascist" is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that "Liberal Fascism" begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.

The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.

Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.

Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.

Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics."

Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini -- as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.

Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.

W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.

Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order."

As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."

In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.

Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.

Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.

The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement.

Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is too rich a book to be summarized in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions about who is on "the left" and who is on "the right." It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.

A movie review - Inglourious Basterds

I've long been a fan of action films, but don't let the hype suck you in on this one! It's a pure stinker in my opinion.

Remember the spaghetti westerns of the 60's? Specifically, do you remember the final gunfight scene of The Good Bad & The Ugly? Remember the LOOOOONG buildup to the shootout with the camera focused inordinately long on the antagonist's eyes and gun hands? Well Tarintino used that same gimmick about three times in IB. Once was plenty!

Also...forget ANY resemblence to reality whatsoever!

Hey I LOVE gratuitious violence in action films, but there MUST be a minimum degree of plausibility and realism for me to "make my escape" into the film. IB never comes close to achieving that minimum degree. Instead I kept checking my watch and wondering "How much longer must I endure this crap?"

Israeli Prime Minister disappears for 10 hours

I wonder what the Israelis are planning. Most experts believe the Iran is just months away from developing a nuke, and that nutcase in charge has made plain his hatred and contempt for both America AND Israel.

Gone are the days when the US posed a credible deterrent to ANYONE. So I'm sure Israel realizes they are on their own now.

I seem to recall that Israel gave Iran a deadline to stop nuclear development sometime last year. That deadline expires on September 15th.