NEWEST Things Posted Printer-Friendly Page
11-12-09 Thursday 8:30 am (ET)
Friends, Romans, Countrymen,
Forty "All Things Political" and eleven "Religion/Culture/Morals" articles have been posted....
"All Things Political" articles
1) Sarah Palin And Newt Gingrich: The Visionary And The Hack - Claude Sandroff
2) Why Won't Obama Celebrate Freedom's Victory? - Carol Platt Liebau
3) Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax (Higher Taxes, Lower Research Spending, And Pink Slips For Scientists) - Deroy Murdock
4) Rush On Fox News Sunday (With Chris Wallace) - Rush Limbaugh
5) The 'Costs' Of Medical Care - Thomas Sowell
6) The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part II - Thomas Sowell
7) The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part III - Thomas Sowell
8) The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part IV - Thomas Sowell
9) Can The Tenth Amendment Save Us? - Cal Thomas
10) How Will Obamacare Affect The Average American? - John Shadegg
11) Three Reasons The Conservative Movement Should Be Grateful To Rush Limbaugh - John Hawkins
12) Rush Limbaugh's Remarkable Consistency - Chris Davis
13) Twenty-Five Years After The Reagan Landslide - Bruce Walker
14) Forget The 2-1 Spin; It Was A Rout - C. Edmund Wright
15) The Dede Media - Brent Bozell
16) The Double Standard About Journalists' Bias - John Stossell
17) The Health Care Disaster In Canada - Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
18) The GOP Elite's $1 Million Object Lesson - And The Message Of NY-23 - Michelle Malkin
19) Conservatism Didn't Lose In NY-23: The Limbaugh Take On What Really Happened In NY - Rush Limbaugh
20) Communism's Enablers And Excusers - Cal Thomas
21) Fox Fever -- The Latest Pandemic - Larry Elder
22) Will The Left Try A Kamikaze Rush? - James Lewis
23) Maine Marriage Victory Proves Americans 'Aren't On Board' With Same-Sex Marriage, Says Expert - Catholic News Agency
24) Multicultural Illusions Kills - No Strategy To Defend Against Ideology - Mark Steyn
25) The Death Of Deliberative Democracy - Michelle Malkin
26) Why Obama Is Blind To Terror... & Freedom - Kevin McCullough
27) Memo To ABC: There's A Reason He's Not Called Smith - C. Edmund Wright
28) Why The Berlin Wall Fell - S.A. Aiyar
29) Who Are 'They'? To Obama, "They" Are Responsible For All Our Troubles. Problem Is, "They" Are Most Of Us - Victor Davis Hanson
30) Senior Democrat Is 'Confident' Stupak Amendment Will Be Stripped - Michael O'Brien
31) Were They Duped Or Were They Stupid? - Bruce Bialosky
32) Liberals Will Get Abortion Covered: Pro-Lifers Need To Oppose The Whole Bill Out There - Rush Limbaugh
33) House Massacre O Health Care; Don't Buy That It's DOA In Senate: This Bill Is Going To Harm Us All, Young And Old - Rush Limbaugh
34) GOP Moves To Six-Point Lead In Generic Congressional Ballot - Rasmussen - Freedom's Lighthouse
35) The Road Ahead: Senate Republicans Explain Their Plans To Block Obamacare - Robert Costa
36) A Tale Of Two Shootings - Scott Wheeler
37) 4 Reasons The American Dream Will Be Over Unless We Act - John Hawkins
38) Random Thoughts - Thomas Sowell
39) The U.S. House Of Presumptuous Meddlers - John Stossel
40) Obama: The Iceman Plummets: Cold, Detached President Has Lost His Magic Appeal - Rush Limbaugh
"Religion/Culture/Morals" articles
1) Read This BEFORE You Get Married - Fumare
2) To Trace All Souls Day - Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J.
3) Director Of Planned Parenthood At 40 Days For Life Birthplace Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound; Planned Parenthood Seeks Restraining Order - Kathleen Gilbert
4) Updated: Dominican Community Apologizes For Nun Caught Acting As Abortion Escort: Three Bishops Now Discussing Ways To End This Many Years Ongoing Scandal - Peter W. Smith
5) Students Protest At Planned Parenthood Clinic To Conclude 40 Days For Life - Christendom.edu
6) Italian Minister Responds To European Court: 'We Will Not Remove Crucifixes From The Classroom' - Catholic News Agency
7) Spanish Cloistered Nuns See Surge In Vocations - Catholic News Agency
8) On Theology Of The Heart Or The Mind: "To Make Truth Triumph In Charity" - Pope Benedict XVI
9) Exorcist: The Devil Is Afraid Of You - Catholic Herald
10) A Look At The Mass From A Biblical Perspective - Frederick Manligas Nacino
11) Weak Negotiating Fathers - Mike Adams
Take care -- and have a very Happy & Blessed Thanksgiving,
Tom
"All Things Political" articles
1) Sarah Palin And Newt Gingrich: The Visionary And The Hack
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/sarah_palin_and_newt_gingrich.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2375732/posts
11-1-09
Claude Sandroff
Two weeks after Sarah Palin's unique exit from public office, Newt Gingrich
offered up some unsolicited counsel for the former governor in an interview
with POLITICO. Apparently, Newt was certain that Palin's reputation needed
serious burnishing, and he was all too ready to provide it by offering
substantial details on the range and style of speeches that would be most
appropriate for Palin to deliver to various audiences in order to sustain a
public revival. Exactly why he felt she needed his help remains a bit of a
mystery, except that Gingrich, like Karl Rove, seems absolutely certain that
the world is always on edge awaiting his next tactical stroke of genius.
Now that an intense internecine battle is raging over how Republicans should
react to Doug Hoffman's Conservative Party bid for New York's 23rd , one
thing is certain: it is Newt whose reputation is in shambles, and it is he
who should seek political advice from Palin as to how he might regain his
lost stature. And this will remain true whether Mr. Hoffman wins or loses.
By unconditionally supporting the Republican machine candidate Dede
Scozzafava -- one of the most liberal candidates ever offered by the party
in any race -- Newt has forfeited any remnant of respect he might have
retained as the standard-bearer of the conservative congressional revolution
of 1994.
Scozzafava supports the same extreme political positions (card-check, Obama
stimulus) as any adolescent left-wing blogger. She maintains deep alliances
with the most radical and odious groups (Acorn, Working Family Party)
associated with the Democratic Party. By standing with her, Newt Gingrich
has earned that dreaded label he once affixed to Nancy Pelosi. Newt has
become a partisan and trivial politician. He has become a common hack.
In contrast, Sarah Palin just compiles conservative esteem. When she railed
against the compromised Republican machine in its support of Scozzafava, it
felt like a stiff, clean, purifying breeze. In her October 24th Facebook
Note announcing her support for Hoffman, Palin argued with deep
philosophical references to conservative ideals. Her support and conviction
were not products of a focus group. The note moved many a radio talk show
host who read it aloud, from Mark Levin to Tammy Bruce. It was the reasoned
stance of a visionary.
Palin evoked Ronald Reagan, mentioned the importance of establishing sharp
contrasts with opponents, and stressed the primacy of principle over party.
Palin continues to be the antithesis of the trivial politician. She has
that unique ability to convey the highest sense of personal honor without
ever projecting any of the usual political pomposity. Perhaps the highest
compliment we can pay Palin is that she is always interesting and always
surprising.
This is the reason so many political junkies from the right and left have
undisclosed part-time jobs as Palin observers. You can never get enough of
authenticity. Near the end of her farewell speech, Palin promised that by
removing the confining yoke of office she'd be able "to work even harder for
you. For what is right. And for truth."
What she meant by those almost biblical cadences wasn't clear then, but now
it is coming into focus. And what is most stunning is that she is attaining
her goals not by speaking in front of audiences, but through her writing. We
all know how mesmerizing she is on the stump. But none of us had any idea
that she was a gifted prose stylist: succinct, witty, and memorable.
But she has chosen Facebook, not YouTube, as her preferred mode of
communication, at least for now. And over and over again, she has proven
highly effective and influential, whether discussing health care, energy,
China policy, defense, or congressional elections.
It's an effectiveness gained through focus, a focus that we can only hope
other politicians begin to emulate. Free markets, individual liberty, small
government, strong national defense, and low taxes are the constant themes
she invokes. Along with those values, she makes constant mention of the two
political giants of the 20th century who embodied them, championed them, and
communicated them tirelessly: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
While pundit after pundit argues that we should throw Reagan over the side
in pursuit of Obama-lite, Palin is bringing us back to the principled,
universal roots that Reagan shared with the Founders. While many columnists
anguish over immoderate candidates, Palin warns against "blurring the lines"
and writes a Facebook birthday tribute to Margaret Thatcher.
A recent Gallup poll shows that in America, conservatives outnumber liberals
by two to one. We know from history that conservatives can win landslide
elections. But conservatives need to be confident to be resurgent. None of
us knows what Sarah Palin has in mind for 2012 and beyond. But if she is the
force that helped us regain the confidence of our convictions, then she will
have given us a gift beyond repayment.
2) Why Won't Obama Celebrate Freedom's Victory?
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2009/11/02/why_wont_obama_celebrate_freedoms_victory
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2376677/posts
November 2, 2009
Carol Platt Liebau
On a November evening back in 1989, it was impossible to take one's eyes
from the television screen. There it was, the seemingly impossible - the
Berlin Wall falling as East Germans, intoxicated by the promise of freedom,
scaled its once-forbidding face. Americans heard the singing, saw strangers
singing, crying and embracing, and realized they were witnessing history.
The end of the Cold War was at hand, and the United States - and the forces
of freedom - were victorious.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was part of a chain reaction, as repressive
Soviet-satellite dictatorships in Hungary, East Germany, Romania,
Czechoslavakia and Poland fell. Even a year or two earlier, no one would
have foreseen the rapidity and thoroughness of the Iron Curtain's
disintegration. It marked a glorious moment in the history of the world,
when liberty replaced tyranny, and dictators yielded to democracy.
Next week, Germany will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall's
fall - recalling the peaceful events that sparked a new birth of freedom for
a country that had been split in half, dividing family, friends and even the
world since 1961. The commemorations will go forward, however, without
America's president.
Remarkably, President Obama, who could find time to fly to Copenhagen to
lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid, declined the invitation from German
chancellor Angela Merkel to attend the festivities. That's notwithstanding
the central role that America played in the ultimate destruction of the Iron
Curtain - and the bipartisan nature of its efforts, from the Berlin airlift
to President Reagan's famous exhortation to his Soviet counterpart to "tear
down this wall!"
No one but the President and members of his inner circle know the real
reason that President Obama has refused to go to Berlin. It's hard not to
suspect, however, that his reluctance springs both from a misplaced
sensitivity to the feelings of our former Soviet adversaries - and worse
yet, from a misguided sense of shame about America's Cold War triumph.
Since his inauguration, after all, President Obama has bent over backward to
appeal to America's most virulent adversaries. He has listened without
objection as a madman like Hugo Chavez excoriated the United States in the
ugliest of ways. He's handled American-hating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with kid
gloves. To curry favor with the Chinese, he's stiff-armed the Dalai Lama.
And in a complete inversion of President Ronald Reagan's policies in the
years leading up to the Berlin Wall's fall, Obama has sought to please
Russian president Putin by scrapping plans for a missile defense system in
the former Soviet satellites of Poland and the Czech Republic. Given his
manifest concern for the tender feelings of America's adversaries, it's not
hard to imagine Obama shrinking from a celebration that he might feel they
would interpret as American triumphalism.
That's bad enough. But could it also be that the President himself doesn't
truly feel comfortable celebrating the end of the Cold War? After all,
America's victory marked a high-water mark for its prestige and power in the
world, comparable only to its status in the wake of World War II. A
president who has deemed it necessary to apologize repeatedly to the world
for our country's shortcomings before he assumed office - and who seems far
more comfortable pointing out America's faults than extolling its virtues -
may not necessarily recall those days with particular fondness. And surely a
man who has insisted to the assembled United Nations that "No one nation can
. . . dominate another nation" is bound to be profoundly uncomfortable at an
event symbolizing Eastern Europe's collective repudiation of Soviet
domination.
But however glibly President Obama justifies his refusal to go to Berlin -
and however real his discomfort about the celebration there - it's a
mistake. It's not just a political one, though it is that. After all,
visiting Berlin would have offered the President the opportunity to explain
America's ideals - a nice counterbalance to his tendency to apologize for
its actions. It would likewise have provided the President with a way to
showcase his commitment to democracy - a much-needed contrast to his refusal
to support Iran's pro-democracy protestors.
Most damning of all, Obama's decision to stay away from the Berlin Wall
celebration highlights the narrowness of the President's historical
understanding of America's place, and his own. As Eastern Europe threw off
the Soviet yoke, they looked to America the Beautiful - the "land of the
free" and a "city on a hill" - for guidance and inspiration. And ultimately,
whether he wants to or not, it's the President's job to understand the
greatness of the country he leads - and to be willing publicly to embrace
it.
3) Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax (Higher Taxes, Lower Research Spending, And
Pink Slips For Scientists)
National Review
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjBkNGYyNzljMzNjM2ViNDNmYzA5YjI2MGVmYTY5ZmM=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2376524/posts
11/2/2009
Deroy Murdock
Obamacare promises to make medicine cheaper by making it costlier. Case in
point: The Senate Finance Committee proposes a brand-new tax on medical
devices.
Manufacturers of pacemakers, stents, heart valves, artificial hips,
motorized wheelchairs, and other therapeutic instruments may have lobbied
this tax in half. But whether they endure the $40 billion now in the Finance
Committee's bill or a $20 billion backroom bargain, Obamacare foolishly
would hike taxes on companies that generate health-advancing, life-saving
mechanisms.
This Senate measure would slap a ten-year, $4 billion annual tax on medical
implements that retail for $100 or more. "The $4 billion excise tax works
out to a surcharge equal to $11,000 per year for every American worker
employed by our industry," Braun Medical CEO Carroll Neubauer wrote in
October 22's Huffington Post.
This $4 billion yearly tax exceeds the industry's $3.7 billion in
venture-capital receipts for 2007 and is more than 40 percent of that year's
sector-wide research-and-development outlay of $9.6 billion.
This tax approximates one-sixth of annual industry profits. How exactly will
those who make hearing aids, extended-wear contact lenses, and more
manufacture today's products, pay current staffers, hire new employees, and
invent tomorrow's cures - all while this tax devours nearly 17 percent of
profits?
"The bill that came out of the committee last week makes absolutely no sense
and would be very damaging to Boston Scientific, and the medical device
industry as a whole," Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott told journalists
October 20. He predicted: "In a nutshell, it would raise costs and lead to
significant job losses. It does not address the quality of care, but the
political scorecard of savings." Elliott foresees Boston Scientific's tax
liability doubling - between $150 million and $200 million - triggering
layoffs of 1,000 to 2,000 employees.
Money aside, this new tax would jeopardize patients' health and threaten
their lives.
"Many of our therapies reduce procedure time, decrease hospitalizations, and
empower patients to manage their diseases themselves (insulin pumps, for
example) which provides significant cost savings to the system," Medtronic
spokesman Steve Cragle tells me.
Insulin pumps offer diabetics major flexibility in what they eat and when.
They can exercise without doubling down on carbohydrates. They also inject
themselves one tenth as often as those who use old-fashioned needles. In one
recent European study, 100 percent of pump users recommended that apparatus,
while only 63 percent of syringe-using diabetics endorsed that approach.
Implantable defibrillators are a 98-percent-effective treatment for
ventricular arrhythmias that can cause Sudden Cardiac Death, an ailment that
kills 233,000 individuals annually. Obamacare's tax will make defibrillators
and pacemakers pricier to acquire and also to refine over time. At the
margins, this stupidity increases cardiac deaths.
America and Earth need more such inventions, plus continuous improvements
after introduction. Why can't diabetics enjoy pumps that automatically
monitor blood sugars and inject insulin - essentially artificial pancreases?
Every dollar this proposed tax whisks to Washington is one less dollar
available for the research and development needed to make such medical
dreams come true.
"Clearly, the Democrats are looking for any way to offset the cost of their
proposed health-care plan," says New York financier Brett A. Shisler, a
member of the Manhattan Institute's Young Leaders Circle. "However, they may
have neglected the fact that these devices not only save lives, but cut
overall health-care costs. As a diabetic who uses a Deltec CoZmo insulin
pump to manage my glucose levels, I visit the doctor half as often,
eliminated my annual hospital visits, and likely reduced any future
diabetes-related complications, as compared to when I was administering
insulin through daily injections."
"The situation all comes down to shared responsibility," Senate Finance
Committee chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) told journalists on October 19.
"We're all in this together as Americans. That means individuals, providers,
hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry - and medical device manufacturers."
Baucus is correct. Medical-gear makers should underwrite their fair share of
whatever health-care reform might become law. They should do this by paying
their corporate taxes, just like any other company. Period. Taxing this
industry to overhaul health care is as boneheaded as charging police-car
manufacturers a dedicated anti-crime tax.
These enterprises help Americans enjoy longer, happier, healthier lives. Why
do Democrats want to give them 40 billion lashes, rather than applaud their
priceless work?
Obama, Baucus, and too many Democrats have an almost touching naïveté about
how the world works. Pounding this industry with punitive taxes will yield
fewer - not more - life-extending and life-enhancing innovations.
Higher taxes, lower research spending, and pink slips for scientists:
Democrat beatings will continue until medicine improves.
4) Rush On Fox News Sunday (With Chris Wallace)
RushLimbaugh.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2376049/posts?page=31#31
11-01-09
Rush Limbaugh
WALLACE: Now to our interview with Rush Limbaugh. Whether you love him or
can't stand him, he is a major player on the American political scene. For
three hours a day, five days a week, he tells listeners exactly what he
thinks on more than 600 radio stations across the country.
We traveled to Palm Beach this week where Rush does his show, for a rare
interview discussing everything from politics to whether he's really worth
that huge amount of money he makes.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Rush, welcome to Fox News Sunday.
RUSH: Thank you. Appreciate it.
WALLACE: This week it will be one year since Barack Obama was elected
president. In that time, what has he done for and to the country?
RUSH: I think it's all "to," I don't think there's any "for." Chris, I'm
really, really worried. We've never seen this kind of radical leadership at
such a high level of power in the country. I believe that the economy is
under siege, is being destroyed. Anybody with any economic literacy would
not do one thing this administration's done to try to revitalize the private
sector. They're destroying it. And I have to think that it may be on
purpose, because this is just outrageous what is happening: a denial of
liberty, an attack on freedom. I mean, just a couple days ago, they talked
about these 650,000 jobs that they've created or saved. There's no such
thing as a saved job. Besides that, they've destroyed jobs. They've lost 3.3
million jobs in this country since Obama's stimulus plan, and it's going to
get worse.
WALLACE: But wait a minute. How about save the country from a financial
abyss, 3.5 percent growth in the third quarter in GDP?
RUSH: There wasn't any growth in the private sector. That 3.5 percent came
from two things: government spending on Cash for Clunkers. They just moved
fourth quarter auto sales into the third quarter, and the first-time home
buyer thing. GDP equals CIG -- that is, consumers, the investment of
business, and government. And it's all G. It's all government. There is no
private sector growth. There were no new jobs being created. We're losing
them.
WALLACE: How about kept the country safe for nine months?
RUSH: I don't know how safe we are. Iran is nuking up. Everything that we've
asked them to do they are forgetting. They're not going to move their
plutonium, their enriched plutonium -- uranium out of the country like they
said so. We can't make up our minds what we're going to do in Afghanistan.
We're dithering there. I don't think we're any better off in any way it
could be measured.
WALLACE: You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama "the man-child president."
RUSH: Right.
WALLACE: What does that mean?
RUSH: He's a child. I think he's got a five-minute career. He was in the
Senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however
number of years. He really has no experience running anything. He's very
young. I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego. He's very narcissistic.
And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That description
is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature,
inexperienced, in over his head.
WALLACE: Let's talk about a couple of the big issues the president is
dealing with now, first of all, Afghanistan. You suggest that he is taking
all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing
base on board for health care reform.
RUSH: Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it.
I think once...
WALLACE: Oh come on.
RUSH: No, see, I know this is going to sound controversial, but I don't
think he cares. Chris, if he cared about -- we've got soldiers and their
families worrying about what we're going to do. The general on the ground
said we need some more troops. The policy that he implemented in March he
now doesn't like and is trying to figure out how best to make everybody
happy here politically on his side of the aisle and also for his image.
Democrats have a tendency to be seen as weak on defense, so he's battling
with that.
But again, if he cared about victory -- remember, he said about Afghanistan
victory is not something he's comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him
of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very
uncomfortable. He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says
these things. I don't know if people actually listen and have them register
when he does.
WALLACE: But you say you don't know that he really cares. Do you at least
give him credit for going to Dover, Delaware to honor the remains of
soldiers, dead soldiers, who came back from Afghanistan?
RUSH: You know, see, the politically correct thing to say here would be,
"Oh, yes, I am very impressed that President Obama decided to go show his
concern for the remains, troops who've given their lives for freedom in this
country." It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he's having
big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one
family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did. And of
course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to
promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression
that he has all this great concern, but Bush did this with no cameras.
WALLACE: I don't know that he ever went to Dover, Delaware.
RUSH: No, he went to see the families.
WALLACE: Yes, he certainly went to see the families.
RUSH: But he didn't make photo ops out of it.
WALLACE: Well, but the argument would be that it was political of Bush not
to be seen with the coffins because he was trying to hide it, hide the cost
of war from the American people.
RUSH: Well, I have the benefit of knowing George Bush a little bit, and I've
seen him cry talking about missions that he's ordered. I think he has a
great, profound, deep respect for the families of all military personnel,
and those who have died...
WALLACE: But I don't disagree with that...
RUSH: ... and he's not going to use them.
WALLACE: But you don't think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for
our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?
RUSH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat
Party which actively sought the defeat of the US military. They convened
hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would
not work. Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag, "This war is lost."
Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John
Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the
homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaeda or
whoever was there.
Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question
their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the US
military. They'll put their political survival and their political power
being gained over anything else. They'll use anybody and throw anybody away
in order to achieve it.
WALLACE: You also say that the president should give the generals, the
commanders on the ground, as many troops as they need to win. But a staunch
conservative like George Will says, "Look, Afghanistan has been a
dysfunctional country. It's a corrupt country," and that we can beat the
Taliban and beat Al Qaeda without this huge commitment of new troops.
RUSH: Well, I don't know that. I don't have the benefit of knowledge that
George Will has, so I trust the experts, and to me they're the people in the
US military. You know, the surge in Iraq -- same thing. It worked. The
Democrats were the ones opposed to it. They said it would fail, it wouldn't
work. And by all measure it did. Now the basic same theories are being
suggested for Afghanistan. The thing that bothers me about this is we're
there. You know, whether we should have gone or what we've done heretofore
is now irrelevant. There's only one thing to do, win. You know, what about
Afghanistan? Easy. We win, they lose.
WALLACE: Let's turn to health care reform.
RUSH: Yeah.
WALLACE: You have made no secret of the fact you oppose the public option,
government-run health insurance to compete with private insurers. With tens
of millions of Americans still uninsured, do you think that the government
has any moral obligation to find some way to cover them?
RUSH: There is a way to insure the uninsured without doing any of what we're
doing. If that were the objective, then I'd be full for it. This is not
about insuring the uninsured. This is not about health care. This is about
stealing one-sixth of the US private sector and putting it under the control
of federal government. And when they get this health care bill, if they do,
that's the easiest, fastest way for them to be able to regulate every aspect
of human behavior, because it will all have some related cost to health
care -- what you drive, what you eat, where you live, what you do. And
there'll be penalties for violating regulations. It's going to be the
biggest snatch of freedom and liberty that has yet occurred in this country.
WALLACE: And in 30 seconds, how do you insure the insured without this big
overhaul?
RUSH: I've run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that want
insurance is 12 million. Take some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85
percent of the stimulus unspent. Take some of it. For 35 to $40 billion a
year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not $1.4 -- if that's
the objective, do it now.
WALLACE: Do you think the individual mandate is constitutional? Do you
think...
RUSH: No, I don't think the...
WALLACE: ... do you think the government has the right...
RUSH: No.
WALLACE: ... to tell people, "You're going to get health insurance, and if
you don't get it, you're going to pay a penalty?"
RUSH: I do not think it's constitutional. Chris, these are dark days for the
country. This is deadly serious stuff. This is a total attempt to remake the
country as founded and constituted. And it worries me greatly.
WALLACE: We asked our viewers for some questions.
RUSH: I love Fox viewers. I love them.
WALLACE: Well, George Heplin sent this, "If President Obama would agree to
an interview, what would be your first question?"
RUSH: Why are you doing this? Why? What do you not like about this country
that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?
WALLACE: Lucille Golman sent this question, "Did you vote for John McCain in
the 2008 presidential election?"
RUSH: I did.
WALLACE: Really?
RUSH: Of course.
WALLACE: But you've been so critical of John McCain.
RUSH: Yes, but you weigh the two. There are a lot of people, Chris, that are
saying there's no difference in the two parties. I know a lot of people
think that, and they really, really believe it. But I don't know of any
Republican who would try to take over one-sixth of the US economy. I don't
know one Republican who would put forth this irresponsible cap-and-trade
bill. I don't know one Republican who would actually do that as something he
initiated.
WALLACE: Let's talk about the state of the GOP. A recent Fox News poll found
that the approval rating for the president has dropped to 49 percent, but
meanwhile, only 25 percent of people approve of congressional Republicans.
As voters have growing doubts about the president and his policies, why
aren't they turning to the opposition? Is there something that the
Republican Party lacks in the way of a positive, affirmative agenda?
RUSH: The Republican Party needs to learn something. If it goes country club
blue-blood moderate, it's going to lose. If it goes Reagan conservative and
commits to it, it's going to win landslides.
WALLACE: To press my question, why aren't people turning to the Republicans?
RUSH: Well, right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and
there's no central Republican message. The Republican messages is sort of
muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama.
WALLACE: And is that enough?
RUSH: Well, it may be in 2010. I mean, I actually do think that there's
going to be a revolt against the Democrat Party and against Obama, even if
voters in 2010 have nothing to vote for.
WALLACE: So do you think that the Republican Party -- do you see it as a
big-tent party or small-tent party?
RUSH: Big tent.
WALLACE: But you sound like you're kind of saying to the moderates,
particularly on social issues, "If we lose you, too bad."
RUSH: Well, when I say big tent, I look at the United States of America.
I'm an American. I love this country. I want everybody in it to do well. The
conservative message is not, "OK, Hispanics, we have this plan for you.
Women, we have this plan for you." That's what the Republican Party's trying
to do, and emulate group politics. And the history is why be Democrat lite?
Let them handle that. Let's go after the big tent that is the country, and
let's go get every person in this country -- I don't care what their race
is, what their gender is, what their sexual orientation. If they are told
that there is somebody that's going to lead this country or party that is
actually going to strengthen them, give them the tools, get out of their way
and let them make this country work, the Republican Party can attract a
majority like they haven't seen since the '80s.
WALLACE: In the Time Magazine article about Glenn Beck recently...
RUSH: Oh, yeah.
WALLACE: ... they write just as you found your place as the triumphant
champion of the age of Reagan, that Beck is tapping into the fear and anger
on the right today. Is that why you think he's struck such a chord, because
he taps into the fear and the anger of the conservatives today?
RUSH: There is a lot of fear. There's a tremendous amount of fear in the
country over what is happening in Washington to individual liberty and
freedom. He may well have tapped into that. The anger, I think that's
sometimes overplayed because it's become a cliche for the left to say angry
white men as a way of denigrating conservative energy and ideology. But
there's no question there's a lot of anger. And if he's tapped into that, I
wouldn't be surprised.
WALLACE: When you look at Glenn Beck and you see this explosion, what do you
feel?
RUSH: Well, I'm kind of proud.
WALLACE: No envy, no competition?
RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. My radio audience is astronomically high. Look it,
in 1988 there was nobody doing what I'm doing. Nobody. CNN was the only
cable network, and you had the three networks and the newspapers. And now
look. Now look what's out there, all of this conservative media,
conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere.
I mean, in one way, if I wanted to have my ego to be as big as Obama's is, I
could say, "Look what I created." So any success out there on my side,
conservative media, damn, if it's going to help us get this country back,
bring more in.
WALLACE: Let's talk about you. You said recently, "I actually thank God for
my addiction to pain pills because I learned more about myself in rehab than
I would have ever learned otherwise." What did you learn from drug rehab?
RUSH: One of the things that I'd always had trouble with in my life was
trying to be what other people expected me to be or wanted me to be, in my
personal life, because I wanted to be liked. And everybody's raised to want
to be liked and to want to be loved. Nobody wants to grow up being hated.
Now, interestingly, my radio career -- I don't care. You know, I figured
that out. It was a tough thing, Chris, to learn to take as a measure of
success being hated, you know, by 20 or 30 percent of the country, because
nobody's raised for that.
But in my personal life, the thing I learned most was that the only way to
have real intimacy with people, real solid relationships, is to be who you
are. That will attract the kind of people worthy of having intimate
relationships with, good friendships with.
WALLACE: And without putting you on the couch, are you saying that the
addiction came from some sense of personal inadequacy?
RUSH: Oh, of course. Yeah. I wasn't good enough. I was masking unhappiness
elsewhere, not dealing with the real reasons I was unhappy in my personal
life. I had never experienced the kind of euphoria that I got from a pain
pill. I think the only time with all the success I've had, the only time
I've had the kind of euphoria is when I made the high school football team
as a sophomore. I was never prouder of myself.
But all my career achievements did not create that for me, because you've
got to maintain it every day. It's not something you earn and that it lasts
forever. And I don't look back. I don't stop and think about what I've
accomplished because there's always tomorrow, so I don't have time for the
euphoria. I don't have time for that. I'm too busy trying to meet
everybody's expectations tomorrow. So the pain pills came along and they
masked all these feelings of inadequacy that I had. Now, after just seven
weeks of this place in Arizona, I have zero feelings of inadequacy. It has
not been replaced by an irresponsible ego. It's just a confidence in who I
am.
WALLACE: You signed a new contract last year, eight years, reportedly $400
million.
RUSH: Reportedly, right.
WALLACE: So I'll go to the horse's mouth. True?
RUSH: It could be true. You know, I'm a guy who earns a percentage of what I
generate every year. There are some guarantees, but the $400 million is not
guaranteed. I have to earn that. So far...
WALLACE: But you could earn $400 million.
RUSH: I could. I'm ahead of schedule, in fact.
WALLACE: And don't get me wrong.
RUSH: Right.
WALLACE: I think you're a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth
that kind of money?
RUSH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do
what you do. I'm probably worth more. I'm not complaining. Do not
misunderstand. But you know, this whole question -- see, because I'm a
capitalist. You're worth whatever you can get. You're worth whatever your
value is, and that's determined by what somebody's willing to pay you for
it. And the only reason I get that money is because the people who invest in
me get results beyond their expectations.
WALLACE: All right. You believe in the free market.
RUSH: I do.
WALLACE: Let's talk about the NFL and the decision to drop you as a possible
owner. What about the argument, "Look, this is a bunch of billionaire owners
sitting around and saying, 'Rush Limbaugh isn't good for business.'" Is that
the free market?
RUSH: Yeah, but that didn't happen. It never was allowed to get to that
point. My name was leaked as being part of a group. Roger Goodell, the
commissioner, goes out and cites a six-year-old quote that I made about
Donovan McNabb, got it all wrong.
Jim Irsay of the -- I call him "Hearsay" because he's repeating things that
weren't true -- the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, joins the chorus. I
never got past first base. I mean, we...
WALLACE: So what do you think that was about? What do you think happened?
RUSH: Well, I think it's actually about the fact that the NFL is about to
lose its current collective bargaining agreement with the players. And guess
who happens to be the new executive director of the Players Association? A
guy named DeMaurice Smith, who is Obama. He's part of his transition team.
He has suggested that the Congress, the White House, might get involved to
stop a player-owner lockout. And he got involved in this, too, you know. He
was out participating in the spreading of quotes I didn't say, warning
Goodell and the owners what might -- I think this was a warning shot across
the bow, saying to the NFL, "Look, we're going to be close to running this
league, not you. We don't want this guy here." I don't really take this
personally, but I do think it was a bunch of cowardice all the way around.
WALLACE: Let's do a lightning round -- quick questions, quick answers.
RUSH: All right.
WALLACE: You started talking about Vice President Biden this week, and you
said to your producers, "Now, get the bleep button, because I may go over
the line," and then you censored yourself. So I'll ask you, what do you
think of Joe Biden?
RUSH: Pompous, a bit of a windbag and wrong.
WALLACE: About?
RUSH: Pretty much everything. I mean, he was a guy in July who says, "Well,
we guessed wrong on the stimulus jobs." We guessed wrong? Anybody with a
brain could have told you the stimulus plan wasn't going to work. I mean,
he's a walking comedy of errors.
WALLACE: Sarah Palin -- you say that you admire her backbone. Do you really
think she's ready to be president?
RUSH: Well, yes, I do. See, one thing I do not do is follow conventional
wisdom, and the conventional wisdom on Sarah Palin is she's not smart
enough, she needs to bone up on the issues, she's a little
unsophisticated -- Alaska, where's that? Doesn't have the pedigree. She's
the only thing that provided any kind of a spark for the Republican Party.
This is not an endorsement, but I do have profound respect for Sarah Palin.
There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's been
put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. I mean,
this woman, I think, is pretty tough.
WALLACE: Finally, some politics. You predict a possible blood bath for
Democrats in 2010.
RUSH: I really do. I know that there is an eruption waiting to happen at the
ballot box. I know that a majority of the people in this country are opposed
to every single major agenda item that Obama has proposed and is trying to
get passed. The mainstream media doesn't do it, doesn't know it. They think
they need a visa to go to Missouri. You know, they're not in touch with
what's happening out there, and in fact, if they do find out that there's
this kind of angst, they look at the voters with contempt: "Well, you're not
sophisticated to understand how brilliant Obama is and how magical his
agenda" -- they don't want any part of it. And it's going to be bigger than
anybody thinks, especially if health care gets passed, and if they get cap
and trade, and they start going down this global warming fiasco track and
get something passed on that, there will be a revolt at the polls.
WALLACE: If you had to bet now, does Barack Obama win re- election in 2012?
RUSH: If I had to bet now, he will not.
WALLACE: Have you got a name of somebody who's going to beat him...
RUSH: No.
WALLACE: ... can beat him?
RUSH: No. I have no clue about that.
WALLACE: If he does win, how is Rush Limbaugh going to handle seven more
years of Barack Obama?
RUSH: You know, I'm glad you asked me that, because one of the questions I
always get is, "Rush, isn't Obama -- aren't these Democrats in power good
for your business?" The way I go about my business, I'm out to get the
highest ratings I get every day. I'm going to attract the largest audience I
can regardless the news. It's my talent that draws the crowd. The news is
incidental to it. No. I'm worried, seriously worried, about the future of
the country. I would never put my personal success in front of what I think
is something that's disastrous for the country.
WALLACE: And seven more years of Barack Obama would...
RUSH: Well, it would be painful. It would literally be painful. Every day
you get up and there's a new potential threat to liberty and freedom being
launched by this man and his administration. I'm in radio and some days I
feel like I'm in the trenches in a war -- no bullets being fired, but
trenches in a war. I mean, it's really intense, you know, I love this
country. To have this kind of passion, and, you know, I'm Paul Revere. I
want as many people to hear what I think the problems are, because I believe
the people of this country eventually will make it work and get what they
want. I do believe in the democratic process and the vote.
WALLACE: Rush, thank you.
RUSH: Thank you, Chris.
5) The 'Costs' Of Medical Care
Jewish World Review
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110309.php3
Free Republic (excerpted) Posting
November 3, 2009
Thomas Sowell
We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" -
either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing
that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and
much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.
There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting
costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not
reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes -
or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and
services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on
businesses that pass those costs on to you.
Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would
undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me
alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in
generations past.
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and
Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists
regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them
alive - but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means
that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is
no free lunch.
Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one
of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others.
Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free
lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance - and fewer people
who can afford it.
Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies
or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services
are the costs of producing them.
If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical
companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little
difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were
cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through
years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the
overhead costs of running doctors' offices.
What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to
take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that
investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with
government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.
Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century
and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries
where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors'
income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those
costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.
Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own
lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for
rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without
consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.
There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced
but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of
medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those
costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to
pay them.
The high costs of "defensive medicine" - expensive tests, medications and
procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits,
rather than to help the patients - could be reduced by not letting lawyers
get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.
If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are
bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those
who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees
and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who
get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to
do this.
Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political
stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?
6) The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part II
Creators Syndicate
http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/thomas-sowell/the-costs-of-medical-care-part-ii.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377774/posts
November 3, 2009
Thomas Sowell
Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk,
nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is
cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher
quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or
higher quality goods.
Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little
attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to
"bring down the cost of medical care."
There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by
having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has
already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.
In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for
patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no
longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced
the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care,
just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk
would cost.
Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce
medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already- and
seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a "duty
to die."
A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the
elderly or their families, and thereby "bring down the cost of medical
care." A stranger's death is much easier to take, especially if you are a
bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.
At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of
starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on
their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs
are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment,
and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car
or truck, to talk about a "duty to die" so that younger people can live it
up is obscene.
You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as
is already being done in Britain's government-run medical system. You can
save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or
MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run
medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.
But reducing these things is not "bringing down the cost of medical care."
It is simply refusing to pay those costs- and taking the consequences.
For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is
that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western
nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.
Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing
very different things- namely, "health care" and "medical care." Medical
care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don't do in the way we
live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so
than what doctors can do to provide medical care.
Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction
than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what
doctors and medical care can do about that.
If we are serious about medical care- and we should be serious, since it is
a matter of life and death- then we should have no time for clever
statements that confuse instead of clarifying.
If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United
States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems,
then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such
as survival rates of people with cancer.
The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the
world- and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.
We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But
all of this can change- for the worse- if we listen to clever people who
think they should be running our lives.
7) The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part III
Creators Syndicate
http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/thomas-sowell/the-costs-of-medical-care-part-iii.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377860/posts
November 3, 2009
Thomas Sowell
One of the strongest talking points of those who want a government-run
medical care system is that we simply cannot afford the high and rising
costs of medical care under the current system.
First of all, what we can afford has absolutely nothing to do with the cost
of producing anything. We will either pay those costs or not get the
benefits. Moreover, if we cannot afford the quantity and quality of medical
care that we want now, the government has no miraculous way of enabling us
to afford it in the future.
If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating "waste,
fraud and abuse," as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question
is: Why haven't they done that already?
Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be
rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new
government medical program will do what existing government medical programs
have clearly failed to do?
If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs
now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical
drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a
government-run medical system?
Nothing is easier for politicians than to rail against the profits of
pharmaceutical companies, the pay of doctors and other things that have very
little to do with the total cost of medical care, but which can arouse
emotions to the point where facts don't matter. As former Congressman Dick
Armey put it, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics.
Economics and politics confront the same fundamental problem: What everyone
wants adds up to more than there is. Market economies deal with this problem
by confronting individuals with the costs of producing what they want, and
letting those individuals make their own trade-offs when presented with
prices that convey those costs. That leads to self-rationing, in the light
of each individual's own circumstances and preferences.
Politics deals with the same problem by making promises that cannot be kept,
or which can be kept only by creating other problems that cannot be
acknowledged when the promises are made.
Price controls are a classic example. At various times and places, in
countries around the world, price controls have been put on any number of
goods and services- going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire
and ancient Babylon.
Price controls create lower prices for open and legal transactions- but also
black markets where the prices are higher than they were before, because the
risks of punishment for illegal activity has to be compensated. Price
controls also lead to shortages and quality deterioration.
But politicians who take credit for lower prices blame all these bad
consequences on others. Diocletian did this in the days of the Roman Empire,
leaders of the French Revolution did this when their price controls on food
led to hungry and angry people, and American politicians denounced the oil
companies when price controls on gasoline led to long lines at filling
stations in the 1970s. It is the same story, whatever the country, the times
or the product or service.
The self-rationing that people do when prices are free to convey the
inherent impossibility of any economy to supply as much as everybody wants
is replaced, under price controls, with rationing imposed by government,
which cannot possibly have the same knowledge of each individual's
circumstances and preferences- least of all when it comes to medical care,
where patients differ in innumerable ways.
Here, as elsewhere, there is no free lunch- even though politicians get
elected by promising free lunches. A free lunch in medical care is one of
the most dangerous illusions of all.
Waiting in long gasoline lines at filling stations was exasperating back in
the 1970s, but waiting weeks to get an MRI to find out why you are sick, and
then waiting months for an operation, as happens in countries with
government-run medical systems, can be not only painful but dangerous.
You can be dead by the time they find out what is wrong with you and do
something about it. But that will "bring down the cost of medical care"
because you won't be around to require any.
8) The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part IV
Creators Syndicate
http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/thomas-sowell/the-costs-of-medical-care-part-iv.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377933/posts
November 3, 2009
Thomas Sowell
What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that
we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are
not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed
through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance
to read it?
Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care
system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of
reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital
emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.
Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This
very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.
If the government has some magic way of reducing costs- rather than shifting
them around, including shifting them to the next generation- they have
certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government
when it comes to costs- of anything- is more alarming than reassuring.
What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does
anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?
Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for
medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical
systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get
the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your
choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.
However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with
elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned,
it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care
that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."
But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned
money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you
want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow
you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an
elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other
politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking
point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the
uninsured indicate that many- if not most- of them choose to be uninsured.
Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.
Free loading at emergency rooms- mandated by government- makes being
uninsured a viable option.
Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large
medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy
big-ticket items like cars or houses.
This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to
rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is
not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.
Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so
expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover
risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not
risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.
In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility
treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with
risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of
having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.
But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when
politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance.
These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already
promising more mandates on insurance companies- which means still higher
costs and higher premiums.
All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply
provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What
politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private
insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path
toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.
9) Can The Tenth Amendment Save Us?
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/11/03/can_the_tenth_amendment_save_us
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377314/posts
November 3, 2009
Cal Thomas
Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government
excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power
and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the juggernaut of
czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this administration and
Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution?
The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring individuals would
have the opportunity to become all that their talents and persistence would
allow. The Left has put aside the original Constitution in favor of a
"living document" that they believe allows them to do whatever they want and
demand more tax dollars with which to do it.
Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the Tenth Amendment
offers the best opportunity. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so that
it became open to broader interpretation. Rob Natelson, professor of
Constitutional Law and Legal History at the University of Montana, has
written that even before Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing scheme, it was
changing the way the Constitution was interpreted, especially, "how the
commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-down, the necessary and proper
clauses and incidental powers, the false claim that the Supreme Court is
conservative, how bad precedent leads to more bad court rulings, state
elections as critical for constitutional activists, and more."
While during the last seven decades the court has tolerated the federal
welfare state, Natelson says it has never, except in wartime, "authorized an
expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now.
And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices -- even
'liberal' justices -- have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond
which Congress may not go." ... "Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that
if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a 'pretext' for assuming an
unauthorized power, 'it would become the painful duty' of the Court 'to say
that such an act was not the law of the land.'"
It would be nice to know now what those boundaries are and whether Congress
is exceeding its powers as it prepares to alter one-sixth of our economy and
change how we access health insurance and health care.
Natelson makes a fascinating argument in his essay, "Is ObamaCare
Constitutional?" (
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-constitutional),
using the Court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe, he writes, the court
struck down state abortion laws that "intruded into the doctor-patient
relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant
compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB3200.
'Global budgeting' and 'single-payer' plans go even further, and seem
clearly to violate the Supreme Court's Substantive Due Process rules."
Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford
Institute, tells me, "Although the states surrendered many of their powers
to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and inviolable
sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. The
Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and
through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and
federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The
Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the federal government may not compel
the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."
Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand which seeks to
circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult to
circumvent the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which state
unambiguously where ultimate power lies: "...or to the people."
Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing
money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their
country returned to its founding principles, must now exercise that power
before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment is one place to begin. The
streets are another. It worked for the Left.
10) How Will Obamacare Affect The Average American?
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnShadegg/2009/11/03/how_will_obamacare_affect_the_average_american
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377284/posts
November 3, 2009
John Shadegg
So Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are adamant that Congress pass their
health care bill. They've dismissed the August protesters and are pushing
for passage as soon as possible. But, what does this mean for the average
American (we'll call her Mary Smith), a single mother of two struggling to
get by in a down economy. She hears terms like "individual mandate,"
"employer mandate," and "CBO score." But none of this helps her understand
what health care reform means for her.
Mary wants to help the uninsured, but why is Congress talking about changing
her plan? And why does every report now indicate her premiums and her taxes
will go up--and her employer could be fined or forced out of business?
President Obama said his plan would control cost. She worries about losing
the health plan she has and the doctors her children know. What about her
job? What if her employer can't continue to afford coverage? Will decisions
about her family's coverage and medical care be made by her or someone in
Washington? Will it be a radical change that rations care?
Unfortunately, Washington politicians are ignoring the concerns of average
Americans. Mary Smith's family's health care is about to change
dramatically.
Mary gets her insurance through her employer. She has a plan that suits her
needs, and has a great relationship with her doctors. She'd like more
personal say in her plan, but like 83% of Americans, she's basically happy
with her care. Why don't the politicians just fix what's broken-cover those
without care and people with pre-existing conditions? Instead, they are
forcing her to change her plan. H.R. 3200, the House bill, changes every
plan in America. Some are outlawed sooner, but virtually all are
disqualified in five years.
Mary's parents also lose the coverage they know, understand, and like. They
have Medicare Advantage, which provides benefits they like over and above
regular Medicare. Under Nancy Pelosi's proposal and the Senate bill, that
program will disappear.
What's worse: when Mary goes shopping for a new plan, it will have been
designed by a government bureaucracy, even if the so-called "public plan"
isn't adopted. These new, "government-approved" plans will make her pay for
services she doesn't need, and can't afford, like alcohol and drug
counseling, even if these aren't health care concerns for Mary or her
family. She'll be forced to buy services she doesn't want because it will be
illegal to buy just what she needs. It's like being forced to buy a
multipack of cereal boxes when you know you're only going to eat the corn
flakes.
The government will dictate coverage requirements, reimbursement rates,
prices-even "approved" marketing practices and "free" wellness coverage.
"Free" wellness coverage? Who's kidding who? She knows nothing is free. Of
course costs will go up. Like it or not, Mary's family will lose the plan
they have and maybe the doctors they like and trust. And, the government is
serious about making that happen. If Mary doesn't comply and purchase a
"government-approved" plan, she'll be fined. If her conduct is willful,
she'll be guilty of a misdemeanor. When did health care "reform" become
about punishing people instead of controlling costs and helping the
uninsured?
With thousands of pages creating 53 new boards and bureaucracies, Mary will
lose the freedom to make her own health care decisions. Washington
politicians are seizing the power to control health care for their political
gain.
Instead they should be giving Mary and millions of American families the
ability to make their own choices, imposing discipline on health insurers
and providers to control cost.
Mary won't even be able to keep her Health Savings Account (HSA). For years,
she has been putting money away tax-free to help cover future medical
expenses. Why is Congress outlawing HSAs through the fine print of a 1,502
page bill?
Even her 22-year-old daughter, who is looking for her first job after
college, will be hurt. She'll be compelled to buy insurance at rates that
subsidize the elderly. That's right: the "government-approved" plans set the
rates for the youngest and oldest, and Mary's daughter's policy will cost
far more than the actual cost to insure a 22-year-old. Because the bills
also compel all employers to provide coverage, the cost of hiring employees
will go up and hurt her daughter's chance of finding a job.
For their own political gain, career politicians are rushing this
legislation through so fast the Congressional Budget Office doesn't have
time to evaluate it. The most recent score politicians are touting counted
only seven years of expenditures against ten of revenue. Even Mary's family
budget would look good if she could "score" it that way! House Democrats are
being told to vote for this massive, new, untested health care regime-or
else. Those who are worried about Mary risk career-ending retribution if
they even think about opposing their leadership.
Mary started listening to the health care debate because she was worried
about the rising cost of care. It sounded like reform would make her care
more affordable. It doesn't sound like that any more. Now, as Mary balances
her checkbook, she has to worry not just about cost, but about her job, and
her ability to make choices, and now, how it will hurt her daughter. But,
the politicians will look good.
11) Three Reasons The Conservative Movement Should Be Grateful To Rush Limbaugh
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/11/03/three_reasons_the_conservative_movement_should_be_grateful_to_rush_limbaugh
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377223/posts
November 3, 2009
John Hawkins
Conservatives owe a lot to great men like Barry Goldwater and William F.
Buckley who helped keep the fires of conservatism burning when the movement
was barely holding together. Without their efforts conservatism would likely
not have gotten this far, this fast. That being said, in the last 30 years,
conservatism has become considerably stronger, more popular, and more
effective than it was in Goldwater and Buckley's heyday. There are three men
who deserve to be heralded for that success above all others.
Of course, Ronald Reagan deserves the lion's share of the credit for proving
that conservative ideas work in practice. For engineering the Contract with
America and the Republican takeover of the house in 1994, Newt Gingrich
earned his spot in the pantheon of conservative heroes as well. The other
man that all conservatives owe a debt of gratitude? That would be, much to
some people's dismay, Rush Limbaugh. Why Rush?
1) He helped inspire a new generation of conservatives: Personally,
I'm a conservative because of Rush Limbaugh. You see, back in college, I
knew very little about politics, but wanted to learn more. So, I listened to
my college professors to get the liberal perspective. It was an eye-opening
experience to be told that America needed to abandon its military and use
non-violent resistance as a defense strategy. Learning that I was a
"fascist" for saying that America should retain the right to do a
nuclear-first strike against the Soviet Union was quite a surprise as well.
That's what I was hearing from my liberal college professors. I wasn't very
impressed.
To find out what conservatives believed, I decided to listen to the most
famous conservative I knew of at the time: Rush Limbaugh. After being
exposed to his pragmatic, common sense ideas about how our government and
country should work, I realized that I was learning more listening to his
show that I was in any of my college classes. Soon thereafter, I started
thinking of myself as a conservative and the rest is history. Having spoken
to a number of other conservatives about how they came by their political
beliefs, I can tell you that my story is by no means unique. Rush Limbaugh
is undoubtedly personally responsible for bringing millions of Americans
over to our cause.
2) Rush Limbaugh made the conservative media feasible: Before Rush,
there was no widespread conservative media presence. The blogosphere didn't
exist, Fox didn't exist, and AM talk radio was a dying format. It was Rush
who blazed the trail that other conservative talkers followed. Quite
frankly, he probably even deserves a lot more of the credit for Fox News and
the blogosphere than he gets.
Personally, when I started blogging, my goal was to go full-time, despite
the fact that I didn't have a journalism degree and almost no one else was
doing it. My thought process? It was, "If Rush Limbaugh can do it, why can't
I?" Today that dream is a reality and I am not sure it would have happened
without Rush. How many other bloggers thought the same way? Along similar
lines, ask yourself if Fox News would have considered bucking the trend and
having a slightly right-of-center cable news network without Rush Limbaugh
and his imitators proving that it could work? With or without Rush Limbaugh,
a new conservative media was destined to eventually form. However, if Rush
hadn't come along, it might have taken years or even decades longer to come
into being.
3) Rush's ability to entertain and explain: In our natural
environment, we political wonks can be a dull, humorless bunch. Every issue
is life and death based on some principle or rule that the average person
doesn't quite seem to comprehend.
Although Rush certainly isn't the only conservative to illustrate absurdity
by being absurd or to make our ideology more accessible to the average
person, he has played a crucial role in popularizing the idea that politics
should be fun.
Rush is often called an "entertainer." He is -- and that's exactly why he
has made such a spectacular impact. When you can make people laugh at the
mockery of your political enemies or get them as fascinated with a political
issue as they are with the latest sitcom, you're ten times more effective
than any dry political commentator who always believes that politics should
be deadly serious business. It was Rush's inspirational embrace of humor
that played a major role in helping make conservatism more accessible to the
average person.
12) Rush Limbaugh's Remarkable Consistency
Elective Decisions
http://electivedecisions.wordpress.com/rush-limbaugh%E2%80%99s-remarkable-consistency/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2377696/posts
11/03/09
Chris Davis
Staying consistent in politics takes the constitution of a rhinoceros.
Unfortunately, it is that rhinoceros which is so aptly destroying the
Republican Party-a party that looks uglier flip-flopping than Barack Obama
did flipping those Iowa pancakes.
Not only does the Republican Party have any constitution, but it hasn't
shown any consistency on issues that really matter to the American people.
And when it does show consistency, it's for removing conservatism from the
party. Colin Powell is a perfect example of just that-an individual that
wishes to remove conservatism from the Republican Party.
But the symbol of the Republican Party is an elephant, and elephants have
long memories. It is then a foregone conclusion that the elephant will
trample the rhinoceros when the leadership it so long awaits arrives in
Washington, D.C. Conservatives, however, are becoming impatient.
They no longer wish to wait for a conservative to get their act together and
arrive on the D.C. scene. So, they turn to Rush Hudson Limbaugh III. Why?
Because he's demonstrating leadership skills that seem to have been lost in
the Republican Party and he's taking a beating for it.
But "America's Piñata" is not going to stop. He is going to continue to
advance conservatism no matter how hard the body blows are that he's taking.
Why? Well, he has the memory of an elephant, the constitution of a
rhinoceros and is remarkably consistent. And he's been that way for more
than twenty years.
And it will be that consistency that will trample those rhinoceros that are
trying to destroy the Republican Party. With an army of up to 20 million
listeners, it's a result that just about any intelligent individual will
conclude. And if I were one of those rhinoceros about to get trampled, I'd
be lining up to determine which butt cheek Limbaugh wanted kissed.
Elective Decisions has taken a look at this remarkable consistency that has
lasted for more than twenty years. In 1988, Rush Limbaugh wrote the "35
Undeniable Truths of Life" as part of an article for the Sacramento Union.
To this day, he stands firm on those principles.
For the first example of Rush's consistency, we take a look at the first
truth of life he wrote, in which he updated in 1994, saying, "There is a
distinct singular American culture - rugged individualism and
self-reliance - which made America great."
In 2009, Rush has not wavered from that statement, echoing those same
sentiments on an April 2, 2009, show, in which he took a call from Michael-a
journalism student at the University of South Florida. He told his caller
about the liberal hatred and the suppression of the American individual at
American colleges.
"The thing is here, college professors want to teach the obedient. College
professors do not want to deal with independent, thinking adults. I mean
they will, but I've had so many of them call here, people that disagree with
the professor, and they're worried sick what's going to happen to them
because they disagreed. Professors want obedient children. All these kids,
all these kids do the standard rebellion to one degree or another, full of
individualism, they are going to take control of the world, they're going to
grab it by the tail, and within a week of the first semester, they're
robots, willingly. And that's what this poor guy at University of South
Florida is facing, mobs and mobs of programmed robots, filled with rage,
hatred, irrationality."
Rugged individuality isn't something new. It's a time tested tradition in
the Limbaugh family-from his grandfather, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, to his
father, Rush Hudson Limbaugh II, and finally to both David Limbaugh and Rush
Hudson Limbaugh III. But rugged individuality isn't all he's been consistent
on.
He's also been consistent on abortion as well. In his original article in
1988, Limbaugh wrote, "Abortion is wrong." And on a May 15, 2009 airing of
The Rush Limbaugh Show, he talked about a Gallup Poll on abortion, saying,
"The Gallup poll has the most interesting result out today. "More Americans
'Pro-Life' Than 'Pro-Choice' for First Time - Also, fewer think abortion
should be legal 'under any circumstances' - A new Gallup Poll, conducted May
7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves 'pro-life' on the issue of
abortion and 42% 'pro-choice.' This is the first time a majority of US
adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this
question in 1995. Now, look at me. The Republican Party, at this very
moment, is in a tug-of-war between the country club blue-blood Rockefeller
types (made up a lot of people, bunch of wealthy country club types) who
want the Republican Party to get abortion out of the party. They don't want
it to be an issue. They don't like the Christians being in the party. I've
told you the stories."
"I don't need to repeat 'em," Limbaugh continued, "but I've told you the
stories how in New York in the nineties, all these well-to-do Republicans
would come up to me and say, "What are you going to do about the Christians
and abortion issue? It's killing us." When I was out in Los Angeles, Beverly
Hills, three weeks ago for a Milken Institute Forum, prior to going out on
stage in the greenroom, I was talking to a bunch of Republican types who
said that they had gone to a cocktail reception the night before at the home
of a wealthy Republican in Beverly Hills, and the entire subject matter was
devoted to how the party has got to get rid of abortion if it is going to
have any chance of coming back and beating Democrats."
"So what is the Republican Party going to do now with this news," asks
Limbaugh. "And what are these country club blue-blooders going to do with
this news? And why do you think this is happening in the first place? See,
I've always known that abortion was a 50-50 issue. I don't think it was ever an
80-20 pro-choice majority. It never was. Just like there were never three
million homeless. But the number was out there, and the assumption - because
the Drive-Bys and the Democrats dominated news cycles, the assumption was -
that everybody that was 'enlightened' and everybody that was informed and
educated and sophisticated was pro-choice. And make no mistake about it:
pro-choice means pro-abort."
Pro-choice does mean pro-abort, and for more than twenty years, Limbaugh has
remained consistent on abortion. But there's got to be something out there
he's flip flopped on-right? What about the environment? Well, Elective
Deicisons dug to find if he so much as blinked an eye on Mother Earth.
In 1994, he wrote, "The Earth's eco-system is not fragile." And on April 22,
2009, Rush spoke about irony and the founder of Earth Day, Ira Einhorn-a
murderous, kook bucket thug. "We're talking here, if you just joined us,
about the founder of Earth Day. But as the writer, Michael Tremoglie, at the
Philadelphia Bulletin says, 'There is a little mentioned irony about the
Einhorn saga. Ira Einhorn was arrested for murder March 28, 1979, the day
the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident occurred. Ira Einhorn,
environmentalist, was charged with murder during the same period as one of
the greatest environmental accidents in United States history.' But the real
irony is that more people died in the apartment of Ira Einhorn, co-founder
of Earth Day than at Three Mile Island. The environmentalist killed more
people than the so-called environmental disaster. Happy Earth Day."
Rush has proven that the environmental movement certainly has its fair share
of whackos, harming far more people than it helps. And his consistency on
the environment spans far more than just a decade, but once again proves
left wing nut jobs wrong again.
Much to Elective Decisions' surprise, he has even proven consistent on
feminism, writing in 1988, that "feminism was established to allow
unattractive women access to the mainstream of society." But there's no way
he could still hold that same position he held in 1988-could he?
Well, on September 2, 2008, Sarah Palin and Jennifer from San Diego gave
Rush another opportunity to show us just how consistent he is on feminism.
"I am so happy that you called. Because yesterday I made mention of the
fact-and I did it very illustratively and I got some people upset with me,
but I said that one of the reasons, one of the many reasons she's (Palin's)
hated is rooted to my Undeniable Truth of Life Number 24, which is that
feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to
the mainstream of society. And I said one of the reasons that she's hated is
that she can wear skirts and get away with it among these old feminist
lions, and that she's a babe."
But how consistent has Limbaugh remained on taxes? Surely he's seen that a
growing government is now what Americans want, and that an increase in taxes
will certainly be what's necessary for government to solve all America's
problems.
In 1994, Limbaugh wrote, "No nation has taxed itself into prosperity." But
that was then, and today things have to be different. Right? How then can
Rush claim that Americans want taxes low? After all, Colin Powell-the
titular head of the Republican Party-says that Americans want a bigger
government, not a smaller government. And with increased spending comes
increased taxes. No one can possibly suggest that taxes should stay low.
Could they?
El Rushbo did. On March 30, 2009, Rush did just that. He spoke about
Governor Patterson and his plans for a tax increase on New York's rich. He
also spoke on the debilitating effects that Obama and Patterson would have
on New York's budget deficits.
"This is just one of the elements of a $121 billion spending deal that the
governor and legislative leaders forged in secret in a race to make the
April 1st budget deadline. A lot of other taxes and fees, including
expanding the deposit law to include plastic water bottles," Rush stated.
"The tax on tobacco is skyrocketing. Now it will be up over a dollar a pack.
That happens also in April. But I want you to see if you can follow
something here. They're going to raise taxes on all these people -
dramatically, 31% in New York State-who earn over $500,000 a year. At the
same time, the Obama administration is moving directly against one of the
industries that pays people that much to limit their bonuses, to limit their
salaries, to limit how much they can be paid, and to limit how they can run
their businesses. So if the Obama administration succeeds in reducing
salary-they want a $1 million cap on these people, a salary cap."
Rush continued slamming New York. "I'm telling you, these people have been
paying a lot of tax freight. There is no way Governor Paterson's going to
raise $4 billion a year on this. Because, folks, it's axiomatic: when you
raise taxes on an activity, you reduce that activity. People start doing
that activity less. In this case: working. When you reduce taxes on an
activity, then that activity increases. When you reduce taxes on income,
people start working harder to earn more. Governor Paterson needs to cut
taxes on people. He needs to spur investment. He needs to get people going
and working. It's just the exact opposite. Governor Paterson is like most
other liberal Democrats: zero-sum game. The economy is a pie. It never
grows. Somebody gets their slice; somebody gets their slice."
And El Rushbo finally wrapped up the effects on the economy, noting, "If
somebody's slice is bigger than somebody else's it means that somebody else
is being cheated. So we gotta even this out. Obama looks at it the same way.
So massive tax increases in New York-and, of course, in New York City. And
over all spending in New York will go up over 9%, almost 9%, overly spending
will go up almost 9% while tax increases go up like 31% to a little over 8%
in New York for the 'super rich.' (interruption) I don't know what the
breaking point in New York is, Mr. Snerdley when people leave."
If enough rich leave New York, the state will be really up the creek without
a paddle, leaving the state to go bankrupt under the same failed policies
that Democrats always leave us with.
From rugged individuality to taxes, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III has remained
remarkably consistent. But far more than anything else and what endears
Americans and conservatives to him the most is his love of America. His
endless optimism and unwavering consistency on America has propelled him to
success more than anything.
In 1988, Rush wrote, "You should thank God for making you an American; and
instead of feeling guilty about it, help spread our ideas worldwide." On
June 2, 2009, he said this about the greatest country in the world: "All
right. We can't impose our values on the rest of the world, right? That's
what President Obama said. Sure as hell sounds like the rest of the world
can impose their values on us. They don't like Gitmo, we have to shut it
down. They don't like what we've done, fine, Obama will run around and
apologize. I'm telling you, folks, it is not the United States of America
that serves as Barack Obama's role model. It's other socialist nations that
have failed and the concept of socialism that is his role model. I'll tell
you what, stupid little community organizer, organize this. These values he
talks about, universal, freedom, democracy. Why are they universal? Answer
me that, Snerdley. Why are freedom and democracy, representative
republicanism, why are those universal? Exactly right. It's because we have
fought with blood, sweat, and tears to make 'em so, and many Americans have
given their lives for those enduring universal principles that are not worth
imposing on anybody, of course. Our values of freedom just didn't bloom on
their own. Now, freedom is the natural state, I think, of the human as
created. But tyrants, other men as leaders are the ones that curtail and
lasso and constrain that freedom."
Rush Limbaugh has remained remarkably consistent for more than twenty years,
and this is why he has become "America's Piñata." It's no wonder why the
left hates him so much. He has done nothing but refute their lies year after
year, and all it gets him is to become the focal point of their rage.
Well, at Elective Decisions, we praise Rush Hudson Limbaugh III. He is a
patriot in every since of the word. He does nothing but praise those that
would defend this nation against all enemies. He promotes the ideals of
liberty as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. He galvanizes the
conservative movement, he has given us leadership when no one in Washington,
D.C. would dare to do so, and he will trample the rhinoceros that threatens
conservatism today with his army of conservatives that are thirsty to return
to power. He will leave them covered under a steaming pile of elephant dung.
Now, conservatism will be on display for all Americans to see. In the states
of New York, New Jersey and Virginia, conservative Americans are laying
siege to liberalism for posterity's sake. In the end, it will be Rush
Limbaugh and conservatism's consistency that will have won the day.
So thank you Rush Hudson Limbaugh III. We thank you for all that you have
done and for all that you will do the next twenty years. We thank you for
being on the right side, the conservative side, and for the American cause.
13) Twenty-Five Years After The Reagan Landslide
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/twentyfive_years_after_the_rea_1.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377196/posts
Bruce Walker
11-3-09
Election Day, 1984 -- twenty five years ago -- many thought that the
ideological battle of America was won. President Reagan, the disciple of
"Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater ran against Walter Mondale, the disciple
of "Mr. Liberal" Hubert Humphrey. Reagan got into politics with "The
Speech" endorsing Barry Goldwater. Here is what Reagan said in 1964:
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity
for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and
confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan
our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right.
Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's
only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in
individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of
totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian
motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on
this downward course.
Reagan stayed with that theme, regardless of whether it cost him primary
victories or elections. When America had the chance to vote for the
conservative Reagan or the liberal Humphrey in 1984, Reagan won every state
except Mondale's Minnesota, which Reagan almost won. In many states across
the nation, Reagan carried every county in the state. Twenty-five years
ago, the ideological war seemed clearly won.
What has happened in the last quarter century? The conservative ideal still
overwhelmingly prevails in America: the 59% percent of the vote which Reagan
got in 1984 is exactly the percentage of the American people who have
defined themselves in "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative" in the
last fifteen consecutive Battleground Polls. (The respondents in these
polls can also choose "moderate," "undecided," "somewhat liberal," or "very
liberal.")
Too many Republicans since Reagan presumed that the party, not conservatism,
mattered. They saw the two political parties, not the ideology of freedom,
as the crux of politics. The Republican bureaucrats believed pragmatism and
compromise were what made America great. They were wrong. Goldwater nailed
the matter when he said in 1964: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice." That short phrase summed up the greatness of America. That was the
message of Goldwater and Reagan in 1964 and the foundation of the Reagan
Landslide in 1984.
Republicans before Goldwater and Reagan and Republicans after Goldwater and
Reagan did all they could to purge the clarion call of liberty from the
business of partisan politics. The party should care about winning, and if
it won power, then a set of "core values" could be constructed after the
fact.
Republican presidents after Reagan could break "no tax pledges," pick
ideologically indifferent judges to the Supreme Court, dismiss Reagan's
legacy in pursuit of a "kinder, gentler America" or "compassionate
conservatism" (as if conservatism itself -- the celebratory defense of
liberty -- was not the essence of political compassion) and create
"practical" government solutions to problems, rather than embrace the truth
that government itself is usually the problem.
The result was as predictable as the dreary study of all rulers: it is not
that power corrupts -- power derived from free market competition purifies
and liberates -- it is that power derived from the state corrupts the
greater it grows. Republicans, in power and unconnected to principles,
began acting like Democrats, then a criminal class of Republicans like Bob
Taft, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney began a corruption of partisan power
which had long been the hallmark of Democrat one-party rule.
It is not odd that the rebirth of political opposition has come less from
the Republican Party than from citizens acting in the spirit of Reagan and
Goldwater. The revolt last May in California was one such example (as was
the earlier recall of Gray Davis, however poorly his replacement performed.)
The sprouting of tea party demonstrations spontaneously throughout the
nation is another example. And, of course, the success of citizen
candidates like Doug Hoffman, whose political party is the Party of Reagan,
personifies that spirit.
It is not odd that the rhetorical opposition to growing statist power and
its close sibling partisan dominance has come from people disconnected with
the Republican Party or from people like Sarah Palin, Republicans treated
disdainfully because of their principled commitment to limited government
and Judeo-Christian morality by Republican "regulars," who actually
represent that much greater part of America than the Republican Party.
Twenty-five years after Reagan almost swept every state in the nation, his
guiding ideals, so clearly captured in his speeches, his manuscripts, and
his books, burn just as fiercely in the hearts of most Americans as ever.
That is why Rasmussen polls show that Americans today are turned off by
every political figure today...except Reagan. The principles he championed
are the same that Washington, Madison, and Henry defended. It is not a
question of "right" or "left." Reread what Reagan said in "The Speech"
about this myth:
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or
right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or
right.
Once all Americans understood that the greatness of our land was simply
liberty. The vast majority of Americans now, as in 1984, still know this
truth in their hearts. The Founding Fathers, rightly, loathed political
parties. The last twenty-five years have reminded us why they felt that
way. But one quarter of a century after the political landslide of liberty,
the mandate for liberty still remains.
14) Forget The 2-1 Spin; It Was A Rout
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/forget_the_21_spin_it_was_a_ro.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378564/posts
November 4, 2009
C. Edmund Wright
The Democrats did not lose a 2-1 squeaker last night. They lost two huge
races, saw an overall evaporation of 25 basis points of support -- and lost
by nearly 500,000 cumulative votes in the three high-profile elections.
Or put another way, Republicans won two races decided by millions of
voters -- and Democrats won a small race dominated by party operatives. In
addition, the GOP made some historic gains in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Washington state special elections to boot.
In the context of Bob McDonnell's huge win in Virginia and Chris Christie's
surprisingly comfortable win in New Jersey, of all places, the fact that
Bill Owens scraped up enough votes to win NY-23 is a testament to the
superior political insider maneuvering of the Democrats over the
Republicans. So you mean the GOP party apparatus stinks? Well yes, but I
think we knew that already.
What we did not know was just how overwhelming the anti-Democrat tide would
be among voters. In the three talked-about races, it was a blowout of
something like 55%-42% overall in precincts that voted for Obama 56%-44%
just a year ago. The raw totals will end up a tad under 2.4 million GOP
votes to 1.9 million for the Democrats in round numbers.
So don't buy into any 2-1 split-decision analysis. It was a stunning
reversal of a full quarter of the electorate in one year's time.
For the record, Barack Obama "voted present" by not even watching the
election returns -- let alone commenting -- as his party suffered the
massive 25% reversal. (Okay, I don't believe White House reports that he
didn't watch, but who could blame him a little fib considering the magnitude
of the actual loss?)
The stunning stat of the night might be this: that McDonnell beat Creigh
Deeds by a thousand times the margin he did in 2005. Or it might be that
Christie overcame a 700,000 party voter disadvantage to win a race with
about two million total voters. Or it may be that all this happened with
zero references to "reaching across the aisle" or mavericks. So what does
this mean?
It means Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and "big tent" politics just
suffered a huge electoral defeat. Likely the same can be said of whatever
this week's Obama-Baucus-Bogus-Consumer-Ponzi-Care bill is being passed
around these days. To quote CNBC's politically-minded financial analyst
Jerry Bowyer, the 1,900-page health care bill is "now pulp." He made that
call before 8 p.m. eastern.
None of this will be in the White House spin, of course -- but at the risk
of offending the sensibilities of the suddenly decorum-focused Pelosi -- any
attempt by the Democrats to candy-coat or minimize what happened last night
is nothing less than a bunker-mentality fantasy.
Here is the breakdown race by race:
VIRGINIA: The result could be the name of a Star Wars Droid: R 60 D 40.
This was almost like an actual generic ballot election. Populous Northern
Virginia is heavily dominated by the Washington media, and national news and
voters responded to that. Virginians voted loud and clear to reject Obama
and his party as McDonnell routed Deeds by almost 19 points. For those
scoring at home, that's a 26-point swing towards Republicans -- or away from
Democrats -- in precisely one year. The last time McDonnell ran against
Deeds for Attorney General in 2005, McDonnell won by only 323 votes
statewide. That was the closest race in Virginia's history. Last night, he
won by over 320,000 votes.
And there is much evidence that what mattered was the party symbol, not the
candidate's name. Actually, the symbol that mattered was the D -- and
Virginians voted against the D. Some are saying that the key was a very
disciplined and down-the-middle campaign by McDonnell against a poor Deeds
campaign. Maybe. But that does not explain why all the down ballot races
almost exactly mirrored that of the Governor's race.
Even a Frank Luntz focus group -- not known for attracting conservatives or
particularly knowledgeable voters -- said it was about national issues and
the Obama agenda by an overwhelming majority. In short, this was D versus R,
or at least D versus anything else.
And you can bet that three so-called "blue dog" Democrats in Congress are
taking a look at the tallies. According to Michael Barone, McDonnell won the
three districts where freshman blue dog Democrats live by 62%-38%, 61%-39%,
and 55%-45%. I think ObamaCare might have just lost three blue dogs in the
Commonwealth.
NEW JERSEY: This win carries a lot of weight!
In Democrat stronghold New Jersey, the revulsion and rejection factor of
Democrats continued in a major way. While Christie was given a decent chance
in recent polling, in historical context this is a stunner. In a state where
Obama carried 59% of the vote in 2008, incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine
struggled to reach 44%. Corzine publicly hitched his wagon to the Obama
White House, and whether or not the White House likes it, they are in the
mire of this incredible defeat.
Corzine had twice as much money, a lot more Democrats to mobilize, the
multiple Obama appearances, and a third-party candidate hand-picked to mess
up Christie -- and yet he still lost. Even Juan Williams admitted this loss
"was big" for the Democrats. Sure Corzine is wealthy, corrupt, and a
tax-raiser, but that never stopped Democrats from winning in New Jersey
before. Almost all of them are all of those things in the Garden State.
NEW YORK 23: The Obama White House machine was far superior here to an awful
local Republican Party.
Without a doubt, Hoffman's loss takes a bit of sheen off the night. Having
said that, a single race involving roughly a hundred thousand voters in odd
circumstances is not the equal of multi-million vote governors' races. Don't
let the Obama spin fool you with all the talk about the GOP losing a
district they had held since the Civil War. Obama carried that district by 5
points in 2008. Moreover, he tapped the Republican House Member from this
district for a minor cabinet post for the express purpose of hoping the Dems
could win an open seat. That was good tactical politics.
When local Republicans anointed the extremely liberal Dede Scozzafava
without a primary, they were asking for trouble. You can call that awful
tactical politics. Scozzafava's endorsement of Owens validated conservative
activists and those like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson in backing Hoffman.
That an inexperienced candidate -- with much of the official local GOP
machinery pouting on the sidelines -- lost to a suddenly very well-funded
Obama-machine candidate is really no surprise. For all the national hoopla
about Hoffman, the on-the-ground reality is that the Obama hacks beat the
GOP hacks in the game of turnout and tactics. Is anyone surprised that the
local Republican operatives would be outplayed?
In short, the night showed that the tea party movement and the palpable
bubbling up of a conservative ascendancy is no joke. It would seem to
indicate that a repeat of '93-'94 (fueled by HillaryCare) is at least
possible in 2009-2010 (fueled by ObamaCare and all other symptoms of
malignant government). Certainly last night was superior to those in 1993
when the GOP swept Democrats out of state houses in Jersey and Virginia by
any statistical measure.
And it needs to be. Our Republic is in more danger than we were in 1993 --
by any statistical measure. We won bigger, but it was absolutely necessary
that we did. And that's the proper spin of election night 2009.
15) The Dede Media
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozell/2009/11/04/the_dede_media
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378161/posts
November 4, 2009
Brent Bozell
The New York Times editorial page is a perfect weather vane for the way the
liberal media's hot air is blowing. In an Oct. 26 editorial called "Torching
the Big Tent," they lamented: "The feeble pulse of moderation in the
Republican Party is in danger of flat-lining in the Nov. 3 Congressional
election in upstate New York."
The feeble "moderate" the Times was backing for Congress was Dede
Scozzafava -- pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-union power, pro-tax hike.
The Times found these positions to be proof of "refreshing tinges of
centrism." The Times lectured the conservative movement to embrace this
candidacy, since "creative ideas and candidates, not right-wing zeal, are
the obvious way to get back in the game of democracy."
Any New Yorker foolish enough to follow the political advice of The New York
Times deserves what he gets.
What if the Times portrayed this battle for the 23rd District of New York
the opposite way? What if the surging campaign of conservative Doug Hoffman
was portrayed as "Revenge of the Irate Moderates?" Liberals would rub their
eyes in utter disbelief. But just three years ago, the Times editorial page
was using those exact words to describe the hard-left forces behind Ned
Lamont, who upset moderate Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the primary, only
to lose to him in the general election.
The idea that Ned Lamont was a leftist was downright ludicrous to the Times.
Lieberman "tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals
who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the
Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It's hard to
imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as
an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr.
Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics,
leading that kind of revolution."
Ned Lamont was Cindy Sheehan in drag, whose only "steady habit" was lashing
out at Bush. But the press corps as a whole couldn't have been water-boarded
into acknowledging in their copy that Lamont was even a "liberal." Instead,
he was consistently described as merely an "anti-war" idealist.
A non-ideological national media would acknowledge that both Democrats and
Republicans over the last several decades have shunned centrism and embraced
a bolder ideological approach. A nonpartisan press corps would report that
self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in a
landslide. But our liberal media are transparently partisan. Instead we get
two very differing and self-serving portraits. The Republicans are in a
"civil war," on a "disastrous turn toward extremism." For Democrats, their
embrace of hard-core leftists is an "opportunity" and revenge of the
"moderates" upset by "deeply unmoderate" conservatives.
Conservatives have heard enough of this siren song over the years to ignore
it. The same cannot be said for the Republican Party, with its Helen Keller
approach to the obvious. In presidential elections, every time Republicans
nominate the kind of moderation-embracing D.C. dealmaker the media would
select for them -- think Bob Dole or John McCain -- they've been trounced.
Yet they continue heeding the advice of The New York Times by endorsing the
likes of Scozzafava. How thoroughly embarrassing it was for them when
Scozzafava petulantly left the race and endorsed the Democrat in this
district. She was even less than a Republican In Name Only.
The biggest head-scratcher in this game was Newt Gingrich, who embraced this
Democrat-in-GOP-clothing as the "best" the Republicans could do. Is this the
way Gingrich built a majority in 1994, by identifying a "revolution" of
Arlen Specter wannabes across America? No. Through his lectures and cassette
tapes, Gingrich built a cadre of conservative candidates who could stand
behind the idea of rolling back an overweening federal government. He didn't
lead a slithering surge of centrists eager to go to Washington and stick
their fingers in the wind to protect their own careers.
There can be a robust debate over the advisability of a supporting moderate,
even liberal Republicans over liberal Democrats in blue-state districts.
What is settled, however, is that conservatives will no longer blindly
embrace "moderates" like Scozzafava when there's an open seat in a staunchly
Republican district.
Every Republican should know that there are two divisive forces in the
Republican Party that always threaten to break it apart and ruin its
chances. The first is the insincere consultants in the "news" media that try
to rule it from the outside. The second is the consultants in the party that
listen to them.
16) The Double Standard About Journalists' Bias
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/11/04/the_double_standard_about_journalists_bias
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378157/posts
November 4, 2009
John Stossell
I made The New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would
be proud.
Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr.
Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias
on the part of Fox."
Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I
wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC
as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of
journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional
journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans
for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group."
It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very
same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that
"shameful."
But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm.
It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.
I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job
with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on
TV -- and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter --
the former was a good thing.)
I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate
bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was
invited to speak at journalism conferences.
Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats
consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create
something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for
honesty and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more.
As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the
national stage -- "20/20" and "Good Morning America" -- it was hard to find
comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But
they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But
there aren't.
I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep
scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive,
and bad ones atrophy. Regulation barely deters the cheaters, but competition
does.
It made me want to learn more about free markets. I subscribed to Reason
magazine and read Cato Institute research papers. Then Milton Friedman,
Friedrich Hayek and Aaron Wildavsky.
My reporting changed. I started taking skeptical looks at government --
especially regulation. I did an ABC TV special, "Are We Scaring You to
Death?" that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about
chemicals, pollution and other relatively minor risks. Its good ratings --
16 million viewers -- surprised my colleagues.
Suddenly, I wasn't so popular with them.
I stopped winning Emmys.
I was invited on CNN's media program, "Reliable Sources," to be interviewed
by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and an indignant Bernard Kalb. They
titled the segment, "Objectivity and Journalism: Does John Stossel Practice
Either?" It was in big letters over my head.
Apparently, I had broken the rules.
On the air they told me that I was no longer objective. I was too stunned to
defend myself effectively. I said something like: "I've always had a point
of view. How come you had no trouble with that when I criticized business?"
In hindsight, I wish I'd said: "Look at the title on the wall, you
hypocrites! It shows you have a point of view, too. Many reporters do. You
just don't like my arguments now that I no longer hew to your statist line.
So you want to shut me up."
But I didn't.
So I'll say it now: Reporters who think coercive government control is
generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally
better, both have a point of view.
So why am I the one called biased?
I like what "Americans for Prosperity" defends. I'm an American, and I'm for
prosperity. What creates prosperity is free and competitive markets. That
means limited government.
And I will speak about that every chance I get.
17) The Health Care Disaster In Canada
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/11/04/the_health_care_disaster_in_canada
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378147/posts
November 4, 2009
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
After more than a decade of public health care with mandatory coverage, so
many Canadian doctors have left the practice and so many young people have
entered other fields that Canada ranks 26th of 28 developed nations in its
ratio of physicians to population. Once, Canada ranked among the leaders in
the number of physicians -- but that was before government health care drove
doctors out of the practice in droves.
The fundamental fact is that we cannot cover 36 million new patients without
more doctors and nurses, much less with the declining census of medical
professionals the Canadian experience points to.
A recent survey of doctors by the Pew Institute found that 45 percent of all
practicing doctors would consider retiring or closing their practices if the
Barack Obama health care bill passes. This scarcity of medical personnel
heightens the likelihood of draconian rationing, lengthy waiting lists and
lower quality medical care for all of us, particularly for the elderly.
This physician shortage leads to massive and never-ending waiting lists. In
1993, for example, there was an average wait of 9.3 weeks from the time a
patient got a referral from a general practitioner to the time he could see
a specialist in Canada. By 1997, the wait was up to 11.7 weeks. Now it's
17.3 weeks -- over four months just to see a specialist!
In Canada, unions control the entire health care process. In Manitoba, for
example, there is an eight-month wait for colonoscopies, yet the unions do
not permit weekend or evening procedures, thereby extending the waiting
lists.
The unions are doing to health care in Canada what they have done to
education in America -- stifling creativity, reinforcing bureaucracy and
extending waiting times.
Because of these long waits for colonoscopies, there is now a 25 percent
higher incidence of colon cancer in Canada than in the United States. And,
because the leading drugs that we routinely use to treat the malady in the
U.S. are banned in Canada because of their high cost, 41 percent of
Canadians who get the cancer die of it, compared with only 32 percent in the
United States. Overall, the cancer death rate in Canada runs 16 percent
higher than in the United States. Cancer does not wait for waiting lists to
clear.
The potential of health care changes to shrink the doctor population,
exacerbating scarcity and extending waits, is even worse now that it is
apparent that we have overestimated the number of doctors in the U.S. Where
we once thought there were 840,000 doctors, the total is now estimated to be
only 760,000.
The proposed $400 billion cut in Medicare raises the probability that more
and more of those doctors who do practice will refuse to accept Medicare
patients, aggravating the doctor shortage among the elderly, the population
that needs them the most.
As Obama's program moves through Congress, despite the fierce opposition of
a majority of American voters in virtually all the polls, it becomes clear
that those moderates who vote for it will face harsh retribution at the
polls from their outraged constituents. A kind of suicide-pact mentality is
gripping the Democratic majorities in Congress, akin to that which came over
it when Congress passed President Clinton's tax package in 1993.
This disregard for the will of the marginal voter may make sense for those
who come from safe districts -- it makes none for those who come from swing
districts. For them, suicidal conduct leads to political demise.
18) The GOP Elite's $1 Million Object Lesson - And The Message Of NY-23
Michellemalkin.com
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/04/the-gop-elites-1-million-object-lesson-and-the-message-of-ny-23/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378127/posts
11/4/2009
Michelle Malkin
Conservatives owe NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman immeasurable gratitude. He
overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two
points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition.
National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race
on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned
around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name
still on the ballot after she dropped out.
Conservatives' money went to pay for specious attack ads against Hoffman run
by the NRCC.
Conservatives' money went to support a GOP candidate who shares the same
socialist alliances with fellow SEIU/ACORN/New Party/Working Families Party
activist Patrick Gaspard, the Obama White House political director who
intervened in the race to secure Scozzafava's endorsement of Owens.
Hoffman's candidacy illuminated the stark difference between GOP political
opportunists willing to pimp out their endorsements to any old
ACORN-embracing, Working Families Party-consorting, Big Labor crony who puts
an "R" by her name - and movement conservatives who refuse to "mooooderate"
for the politically expedient sake of mooooderation as dictated by
out-of-touch Beltway party leaders. The NRCC/RNC's $1 million debacle will
cost much more than that.
As I've repeated many times over the last several weeks:
One thing is guaranteed at the conclusion of the NY-23 special congressional
election: The Beltway Republicans who endorsed radical leftist Dede
Scozzafava are going to have indelible egg stains on their faces. And GOP
establishment fund-raising organizations will be the poorer for it.
To illustrate the point: This blog now has a regular feature spotlighting
readers' RNC rejected solicitation forms of the day.
Today's rejected RNC donor form comes from reader Bud:
Which brings me to my syndicated column today.
Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for
conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited
government principles. Scozzafava, who was endorsed by far Left blogger
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and backed by Planned Parenthood, the National
Education Association, and card-check-promoting trade unions, was denied the
congressional seat because movement conservatives refused to support Arlen
Specter in a skirt. This is a victory of principle.
Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in
elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP.
Moreover, NY-23 is a victory for conservatives who refuse to be marginalized
in the public square by either the unhinged left or the establishment right.
A humble accountant from upstate New York exposed the hypocrisy of GOP
leaders trying to solicit funds from conservatives by lambasting Pelosi and
the Dems' support for high taxes, Big Labor, and bigger government - while
using conservatives' money to subsidize a high-taxing, Big Labor-pandering,
bigger government radical. The repercussions will be felt well beyond
NY-23's borders. Conservatives' disgust with the status quo has been heard and felt.
They have been silent too long. They will be silent no more.
The GOP leadership knows it cannot afford to rest on its laurels, continue
business as usual, and bask in yesterday's electoral victories without
confronting its abysmal abdication of principled conservative leadership in
NY-23.
As Hoffman said in his concession speech, "This is only one fight in the
battle."
Onward. Upward. Rightward.
19) Conservatism Didn't Lose In NY-23: The Limbaugh Take On What Really Happened
In NY
RushLimbaugh.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378773/posts?page=4#4
November 4, 2009
Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: These are my thoughts on New York 23. In the first place I'll have to
double-check this but I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest
percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or
Senate candidate. I think Hoffman had a higher percentage of the vote than
even James Buckley, who won his US Senate race against this Goodell guy,
Charles Goodell, in the seventies. So that's one thing. But the right
message... We cannot forget how this whole thing happened in the first
place. There was not a primary. The right message here would indict the
way party bosses, Republican Party bosses and these "big thinkers" like
Newt, screwed the whole thing up from the get-go. From their standpoint --
and I think this is probably still true today -- they'd rather say that
Reagan conservatism can't win in New York and that we need more David
Brooks-type Republicans.
Meantime... I mean that's probably what they're thinking today on our side,
"Yeah, you see, Reagan conservatives can't win in New York. We need Chris
Shays-type guys. We need moderates like David Brooks-kind of Republicans to
win." But if the party... See, this is the dirty little secret: If the
party had gotten behind Hoffman from the beginning, he would have won going
away. I have no doubt about that. I'll tell you something else. People
are now talking about Hoffman's lack of charisma and familiarity with local
issues. The huge story of New York 23 is the shambles the Republican Party
made of it. They nominated a horrendous candidate: A liberal Republican.
She was far more liberal than this Owens guy, who ended up winning.
They stuck by her for too long. They basically told over half of the
Republican voters in this district, "Screw you! We'd just as soon you not
show up. We're making a stand here with our naming of this candidate." They
were trying to define themselves. The big thinkers, the party bosses were
trying to define themselves -- once again to the Big Media types they so
want love and respect from -- by putting up this Scozzafava babe. And then
when she left, they praised her, even as she turned around and endorsed the
Democrat! Now, I think it seems strange to start offering explanations for
what happened without even mentioning what happened; and this is what
happened, and she remained on the ballot. In fact, she was on the ballot
twice. This is screwiest looking ballot. I just got this.
Here's the ballot: Democrat Owens, Republican Scozzafava, Independence
Scozzafava, Conservative Hoffman, Working Families Owens. There were five
parties on the ballot. Two of them endorsed Owens -- the Democrat Party and
the Working Families Party -- and two of them endorsed Scozzafava, the
Republican Party and the independents party. Only one of them endorsed
Hoffman. So Scozzafava's name not only appeared twice on the ballot, but
because the Independence Party drew more voters in the previous governors
race than the Conservative Party did, her name appeared twice on the ballot
before anybody even saw Hoffman's race -- and she was out of the race. She
got 5% of the vote because her name was still on the ballot. So there's a
lot to be said here. But what did not lose, what did not lose was
conservatism. What lost was Republican ineptitude and incompetence in
selecting the wrong candidate from the get-go, staying with her for too long
and then sending her off packing while she endorses the Democrat.
RUSH: By the way, let's not forget also that the GOP gave Dede Scozzafava
$900,000. They gave her $900,000 to run the campaign, and she dropped out.
She dropped out and she endorsed a Democrat. Now, I'll tell you something
else about this. If this doesn't silence all the third-party people out
there, it should. People were mistakenly looking at this as a third-party
race, and it wasn't a third-party race (as I keep saying) because there was
no primary there. Had there been a primary who knows who would have won.
Hoffman might have won. See, New Jersey is a great contrast. In New
Jersey, they had a primary. There was a guy that was more conservative than
Christie, Steve Lonegan. They had a primary and Christie won the primary and
the party got behind the winner.
That's how it happens. There was no primary in New York 23. The "smart
people" wanting approval from whoever it is they want approval from picked
the absolute most horrendous candidate they could, and then she ends up
bombing out and dropping out, and then endorsing the Democrat. If there'd
have been a primary up there, Hoffman would have won that thing and the
would have party gottten behind him, bam, bam, bam. This would not have been
close at all. So don't... In fact, strangely enough, there is one person in
the state corrode media who comes close to getting New York 23 right and I'm
going to probably inflict great harm on her reputation by pointing her out.
Her name is Deborah Feyerick. She works at CNN. And this morning on CNN
she said this.
FEYERICK: An unknown coming out of nowhere to catch the attention of party
conservatives like Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh. Doug Hoffman
getting more than 40% of the vote. Now, had the moderate Republican who
pulled out of the race just a couple of days ago and who threw her support
to the Democrats --had her name not been on the ballot -- it's very likely
that Doug Hoffman would have done even better than he did because her name
on that ballot ended up being the spoiler and shifted the race in favor of
the Democrats. Now, I spoke to a journalist who's covered politics in
northern New York for more than 30 years. He tells me that he was surprised
by the depth of anger within Republicans in this area. He had not seen
anything like it before saying that the message of conservatives is they
want to take back this country.
RUSH: I know it's hard to believe, folks. You gotta trust me. That's CNN's
Deborah Feyerick getting it right. Scozzafava's name was on the ballot
twice! Owens' name was on the ballot twice! She got 5% of the vote. And
had that not happened, why, Hoffman would... This is a textbook case in how
not to select a candidate and how not to run a campaign.
RUSH: Charlie in Boulder, Colorado. Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks, this is a big honor. I heard you first back in
'87 or '88 when you were still in Sacramento, I believe.
RUSH: Yeah, that's right. That would have been the case.
CALLER: We've loved you ever since because you say what we already believe,
not because you turn us into mind-numbed robots.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
CALLER: You're welcome. Let me get to my point. I think the real lesson
of New York 23 is the sentiment, the same sentiment that hates Sarah Palin,
and that is the self-anointed, whether Republicans or Democrats, they will
not tolerate an average person standing up and running for office. The
Republicans would rather have a Democrat win than have that happen and have
the people that are supposed to be the ruled standing up and taking our
country back.
RUSH: Well, you know, I hate to agree with you about that with the
Republican Party, but I think you're right about a lot of people in that
party, average people not welcome, gotta have the pedigree. Now, I never
like to make this program about me. It's becoming harder and harder not to
but, folks, I got audio sound bites of the media, "Oh, big loss for
Limbaugh! Big loss for Sarah Palin!" The New York Daily News, every
sentence is a prediction of mine come true yesterday about this. It's the
snarkiest thing. They're all over the place and I, of course am just an
average guy. I don't come from any pedigree. I come from the Midwest, a
little town of 30,000, well, 25,000, some people have moved in since I moved
out. But you're right. I think certainly the Democrat Party. And they are
the real hypocrites about it, Charlie, because they're the ones who claim to
be for the little guy.
CALLER: That's right. And I think this bolsters your point, Rush, which is
the message to the leaders in the Republican Party is, don't put up these
establishment folks because we will defeat your candidate even if it means
the Democrat is going to win and they need to learn that lesson.
RUSH: You know what, I was reading Erick Erickson today at RedState.com,
and he was the real first behind Hoffman guy. I mean, he was really pushing
it on his blog, and he wrote today -- I'll paraphrase it -- he wrote, "Look,
the message out of this is we took out a horrible Republican. We kept a
horrible Republican from possibly winning and totally redefining the party
in a way that would make it a permanent minority party." So in Erick's
view, yeah, it would have been great if Hoffman won, but the real victory
was making sure that a Republican-in-name-only did not win, and that
dovetails here with what Charlie said.
RUSH: By the way, folks, one more thing about New York 23, when this all
started look at where Doug Hoffman was. He was down there in last place,
nobody had ever heard of him. He was at 20%. And despite all the
incompetence and despite the party being against it, remember the Republican
Party ran ads against Hoffman. Remember this now. And he still climbed,
with 45% of the vote, he still ended up there. Now, I'm telling you, the
percentage of the vote that Hoffman got has put the fear of 2010 in the mind
of every Blue Dog and in a lot of RINOs. This guy almost pulled it out with
his own party running ads against him and endorsing a liberal Republican,
and then praising her when she leads and then she endorses the Democrat.
And all this is done in 30 days? You need to keep all this stuff in
perspective about New York 23 and again not buy into the media template on
this at all.
20) Communism's Enablers And Excusers
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/11/05/communisms_enablers_and_excusers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2379088/posts
November, 2009
Cal Thomas
On Nov. 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was pulled down to the consternation of
leftists, who still had faith socialism could work with the right leaders,
and to the delight of conservatives, who believed that socialism and
communism guaranteed mutually-shared poverty.
Two years later, the Soviet Union crumbled. Soviet communism might not have
endured for 70 years had it not been for enablers in academia, religion and
journalism. Lloyd Billingsley has written about them in "The Generation That
Knew Not Josef," as in Stalin.
When the wall fell, leftists could not bring themselves to admit they had
been wrong, much less apologize for their misplaced faith. So they did what
they do best: they made excuses.
The Media Research Center (MRC) has compiled reports, editorials, articles
and commentary that extend over the last 22 years revealing how the pre-Fox,
pre-talk radio liberal media were the handmaidens of one of the greatest
totalitarian evils to strike the planet. The underlying myth in much of
their "reporting," notes the MRC's Rich Noyes, was that free market
capitalism was a greater threat to human happiness than communism.
Reading these quotes, in light of history, resembles a "Saturday Night Live"
comedy skit.
In 1987, before the wall collapsed, CBS anchor Dan Rather said, "Despite
what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or
Western-style democracy."
Strobe Talbott, then of Time magazine and soon to be an influential member
of the Clinton administration, wrote on Jan. 1, 1990, "(Soviet leader)
Gorbachev is helping the West by showing that the Soviet threat isn't what
it used to be, and what's more, that it never was." How is it possible to
simultaneously have been a threat, but not a threat? The millions who died
in gulags, starved to death or were assassinated might have a different
interpretation of Russian history under communism.
After the liberation of Eastern Europe, according to the MRC, some
journalists attacked capitalism for "exploiting" the newly freed workers. A
Los Angeles Times reporter touted "communism's 'good old days,' when the
hand of the state crushed personal freedom but ensured that people were
housed, employed and had enough to eat."
In fact, Soviet communism spread misery through its own 12 time zones and in
many parts of the world, though NBC's John Chancellor refused to see it. In
1991, as the Soviet coup unraveled, Chancellor said, "the problem isn't
communism; nobody even talked about communism this week. The problem is
shortages." Wait, according to the Los Angeles Times reporter, there were no
shortages because everyone was housed, employed and had enough to eat? Both
can't be true.
Ted Turner, the former CNN mogul, is always good for an outlandish quote and
when it came to Soviet Russia, he offered a cornucopia of self-deluded
statements, none better than this one: "(Gorbachev is) moving faster than
Jesus Christ did." But Time magazine bested him with this howler when it
described Gorbachev as both "the communist pope and the Soviet Martin
Luther."
Never ones to admit failure for their favorite theories, the Left still
refuses to acknowledge their errors. They simply moved on to new errors, in
this case to Cuba. In 2006 an Associated Press story said, "For all its
flaws, life in Cuba has its comforts. Many Cubans take pride in their free
education system, high literacy rates and top-notch doctors. Ardent Castro
supporters say life in the United States, in contrast, seems selfish,
superficial and -- despite its riches -- ultimately unsatisfying." Is that
why so many Cubans have risked their lives to reach America?
Again, Ted Turner on North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il: "I saw a lot of
people over there. They were thin and they were riding bicycles instead of
driving cars." An incredulous Wolf Blitzer replied, "A lot of those people
are starving." Turner said, "I didn't see any brutality."
The point is not only to hold the media accountable for its past sins, but
also to remind them they are making the same mistakes today with different
enemies -- radical Islam and the Chinese brand of communism. No wonder the
public trusts them about as much as they trust Congress.
21) Fox Fever -- The Latest Pandemic
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/11/05/fox_fever_--_the_latest_pandemic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2379010/posts
November 5, 2009
Larry Elder
I spoke at a recent town hall forum. The many issues discussed included the
Obama administration's attack on Fox News. Later, one of the audience
members came up to me and sneered, "Well, even you must admit that Fox News
is biased in favor of Republicans."
Separate the opinion guys from the news deliverers. Does Fox focus on stuff
that the others -- MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS -- do not? Yes. Is that stuff
more critical of liberals and less critical of conservatives? Yes.
The best gauge is who watches these stations. Fox News Channel, as a
percentage of viewers, includes more self-described libs and indies than CNN
or MSNBC includes self-described conservatives and indies. Pew Research
Center recently studied the cable channels' viewers' politics. CNN?
Fifty-one percent liberal, 23 percent independent and 18 percent
conservative. MSNBC? Forty-five percent liberal, 27 percent independent and
18 percent conservative. Don't know about the "fair" part, but Fox's
audience was the most "balanced," with 39 percent conservatives, 33 percent
liberals and 22 percent independents.
I know from my appearances that the audiences differ -- at least as to the
e-mail I receive.
When I appear on Fox, as I did to promote my latest book, "What's Race Got
to Do with It," I get mostly approving e-mail. When I get one that
disagrees, the writer points out -- using facts, information or analogies --
what, in his or her opinion, undermines my position. But when I appear on
Wolf Blitzer's CNN show -- oh, man! Hundreds of hostile e-mails accuse me of
everything but the Lincoln assassination. Only rarely, such as when someone
took exception to the book's premise -- that white racism no longer poses a
potent or even significant factor in America -- does anyone argue
intelligently, with facts or information. It's snarl, attack, name-call.
On a recent appearance on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show, I opposed Obamacare -- or
tried to, given the host's interruptions. The e-mails I received were
unprintable.
The White House loathes Fox News. President Obama pointedly excluded Fox
while appearing on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Obama's communications director,
on CNN, complained about Fox's year-old coverage of Obama's campaign. But a
Pew Research Center study found that during the last six weeks of the
campaign, 61 percent of CNN's stories on John McCain were negative, compared
with 39 percent on Obama. On MSNBC, 73 percent of McCain stories were
negative, while only 14 percent of stories on Obama were negative. But 40
percent of Fox News' stories on Obama and 40 percent of those on McCain
aired during the final six weeks of the race were negative. So, of the three
major cable news networks, who can legitimately claim to be more "fair and
balanced"?
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, Fox News slants toward
conservatives. On one side stand conservative talk radio, Investor's
Business Daily and some conservative/libertarian publications, writers,
bloggers and, yes, Fox News. On the other stand The New York Times, the Los
Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution and even the news section of The Wall Street Journal,
as well as the editorial pages of virtually every big-city newspaper. It
includes PBS, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. In the 1992 presidential
election, for example, almost 90 percent of Washington-based journalists
admitted to voting for Bill Clinton for president.
But because Fox News is allegedly biased in favor of conservatives, critics
whine like children whose lunch money got snatched. Conservatives have been
pummeled for decades. Now that Fox News and conservative talk radio give
people alternatives, critics squeal as if being sodomized.
Is Fox skeptical about the "bailout" and Cash for Clunkers or more likely to
blame government rather than "greed" for the housing meltdown? Yes. Does Fox
appear to focus more on Obama's dithering over his top Afghanistan
commander's request for the troops the general thinks necessary to succeed?
Yes. The better question is, why aren't the others doing the same thing? The
double standards and pro-liberal negligence are mind-boggling. If media
malpractice were a crime, many "reporters" would be on death row.
When the Obama administration claimed 640,000 jobs were "saved or created"
with $159 billion of the "stimulus," many "news" outlets blithely "reported"
this. Do you know that comes to $250,000 per job?!!! And the administration
claimed half the jobs were teachers. How many teachers make $250,000 per
year? Very little skepticism. Why didn't "journalists" immediately challenge
this as a matter of who, what, where, when and why? If George W. Bush had
done this (God forbid he'd have supported an $800 billion stimulus package),
the mainstream media would have -- and should have -- said, "Why, that comes
to $250K per job!!!!!"
But as to Fox News, it's BMW -- bitch, moan and whine. Oh, the humanity!
22) Will The Left Try A Kamikaze Rush?
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/will_the_left_try_a_kamikaze_r.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378957/posts
November 5 2009
James Lewis
Dick Morris thinks Mob-O-Care is dead after the Democrat electoral fiascos
in the last week. I sincerely hope that Morris is right, but I'm not so
sure.
The trouble is that Obama and the Democrats have no other game plan -- their
other ideas, like the suicidal Carbon Tax, are even more likely to get them
tossed out of office. Obama's power has peaked -- and judging by the Clinton
backlash of 1994, when the GOP won the House for the first time in forty
years, it's downhill from here on out. Nothing in politics is certain, and
Obama will certainly try to recover power, as Bill Clinton did in the '90s.
But Obama and his dead-enders have to reckon with the likelihood that they
will never have more power than right now.
So it's not out of the question that the Democrats in the House and Senate
will go for a kamikaze rush to push MediCoup through Congress as quickly as
possible. It would not be difficult. Normal Americans think we can defeat
the "Blue Dog Democrats" at the polls, and that is true. But Obama just has
to pick up the phone and tell the Dogs he will guarantee them jobs even if
they are defeated. How about Ambassador to Upper Slobbovia? How about a nice
job in the Soros Empire? Or in the case of Leon Panetta, how about a
university center named after you, and funded by the Feds to study,
umm...the art of politics? For the real high flyers like Rahm Emanuel,
there's always a part-time job on the Board of Freddie Mac for several
million bucks.
Everything we know about these people suggests that they are single-minded
fanatics with basically only one game plan, which is to consolidate as much
power as possible as quickly as possible. Everything flows from that. In
Europe, the socialists have insulated themselves from elections. That's how
they can do outrageous things time and time again and still stay in power.
Right now the analogy to the Japanese at the end of WWII is strikingly apt.
The Japanese Empire was at dead end. Emperor-worship was still the public
face of Japan; everybody had to pretend they agreed, even if they privately
thought it mad. Japanese defeat was therefore unthinkable, and rather than
let the Emperor be defeated, thousands of young men were trained and
indoctrinated into the logic of banzai charges and suicide dive-bombing on
U.S. Navy ships. Those kamikazes were last-ditch warriors, but they took a
bloody toll.
The Blue Dogs don't even have to suicide electorally. All they have to do is
vote for Mob-O-Care as soon as possible, knowing they will be defeated, but
also knowing that the Machine always takes care of its own. Just ask
Hizzoner da Mare. Or look at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's nice retirement home.
That's what's got me worried right now.
Mob-O-Care is still the big banana. The Democrats can still carry it over
the top and then take their losses in elections to come with the faith that
no Republican Congress will dare to infuriate all the Victim Groups of the
Left by repealing free medical care for forty percent of the population. Or
whatever they settle on. Remember that the actual dollar figures have never
been believable, and Medicare and Social Security are operating as
accounting fictions even now. So this has all been media drivel from top to
bottom. All they have to do is pass a shell of a bill, set up the
bureaucracies, and expand them in future Democrat-dominated Congresses.
The socialist parties in Europe have done it by taking over the medical
sectors of their economies. Once they control medical care for all, every
political argument comes down to who makes bigger promises to buy more for
the voters. The actual pie might shrink because of rationing, but that
doesn't matter. Most people don't think long-term, but socialists do. In
Britain, a Labourite just confessed what many of us have suspected for
years: that the socialists deliberately imported hundreds of thousands of
Third World people, including unnumbered Islamist radicals from the
Northwest Territories of Pakistan with nothing but a tribal warrior culture.
Using their control of the BBC and the media, the socialists accused every
British critic of this practice of racism. That's how they nailed the
Conservative Party.
That is also why Britain today is covered with CCTV cameras wherever people
live, and why the schools are sending in mandatory reports on racist remarks
by children from the earliest years onward. It's madness, and the only
so-called solution, is for Britain to become the Western Province of the new
European Union of Socialist Republics. That has been the goal all along for
the Leftist radicals, and nobody knows how to stop them now.
Obama is the same. He is a third-world socialist, which is no different from
all the other kinds. His real identification is not with this country, but
with "transnationalism" -- the corrupt and conscienceless elite of the U.N.,
the EU, and a Vast Left-Wing Corruptocracy around the world. Saul Alinsky
was a big fan of the Chicago Mob, and the de facto alliance we see at the
United Nations combines an awful lot of Islamists with Leftists with
corruptocrats. Witness the Oil for Food Scam, run right out of the
Secretary-General's office at the U.N. during the Saddam years. Witness the
criminal cases in France today against Dominique de Villepin and Jacques
Chirac.
Don't believe the Democrats don't see that as a model. If it worked in
Chicago, in Europe, and at the U.N., they figure it will work in Washington,
D.C.
23) Maine Marriage Victory Proves Americans 'Aren't On Board' With Same-Sex
Marriage, Says Expert
Catholic News Agency
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17615
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2380186/posts
November 6, 2009
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, spoke
to CNA about the victory of Question 1 in Maine, which repeals previous
legislation legalizing gay 'marriage.' Gallagher said that the victory,
which defies statistics and expectations, "is very heartening to marriage
supporters and disappointing to gay 'marriage' advocates."
Noting that the supporters of same-sex marriage were surprised and upset by
this victory, Gallagher analyzed the circumstances leading up to the
election. "The gay marriage advocates," she told CNA on Thursday, "had a
three-year head start. They put millions into building an extensive
grassroots organization." She also noted, "Maine was a socially liberal
state. and they have the entire political establishment on their side."
Also important in the preparation for the election, was the experience and
information gathered from the failure of Proposition 8 in California. "They
ran the kind of ads that the critics said would have won in California,"
Gallagher said. But the voters in Maine rejected the proposition by an even
larger margin than they had in California.
Question 1, an initiative which overturned the Maine legislature's decision
to recognize homosexual couples as married, passed on Tuesday by a margin of
52.9 to 47.1 percent.
The results of Monday's election represent "a change in the social narrative
they were trying to create," says Gallagher. Despite all the preparation,
the extra time, and the incredible financial advantage, the American people
have made it known that "they aren't on board with this gay 'marriage'
thing," she concluded.
24) Multicultural Illusions Kills - No Strategy To Defend Against Ideology
Dakota Beacon
http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/mark_steyn_multicultural_illusions_kill_-_no_strategy_to_defend_against_ide/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2380112/posts
November 6, 2009
Mark Steyn
Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the US military in
Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in Texas,
in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a processing
center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to combat overseas,
it is not merely a "tragedy" (as too many people called it) but a glimpse of
a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have called, since 9/11,
the "war on terror". Brave soldiers trained to hunt down and kill America's
enemy abroad were killed in the safety and security of home by, in essence,
the same enemy - a man who believes in and supports everything the enemy
does.
And he's a US Army major.
And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity - as
if believing that "the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
aggressor" (ie, his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet paeans to
the "noble" "heroism" of suicide bombers and, indeed, objectively supporting
the other side in an active war is to be regarded as just some kind of
alternative lifestyle that adds to the general vibrancy of the base.
When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal Malik
Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of posts with
the striking formulation: "Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic] by his
actions and not by his name."
Concerned tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that -
and not just in the sense that The New York Times' first report on Major
Hasan never mentioned the words "Muslim" or "Islam", or that ABC's Martha
Raddatz's only observation on his name was that "as for the suspect, Nadal
Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, 'I wish his name was Smith.'"
What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name were
Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions that
allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and into the
heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about the essence
of this man.
Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
actions - flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
or Tikrit. And on the whole we're effective at responding with action of our
own - taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
Toronto and Dearborn.
But we're scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
"radical Islam" or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
"radical extremism". But we never make any effort to delineate the line
which separates "radical Islam" from non-radical Islam.
Indeed, we go to great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in
that woozy blur the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army
psychiatrist, Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated
from Viriginia Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to
the best part of half-a-million dollars' worth of elite education. But he
opposed America's actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made
approving remarks about jihadists on American soil. "You need to lock it up,
Major," cautioned his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee.
But he didn't really need to "lock it up" at all. He could pretty much say
anything he liked, and if any "red flags" were raised they were quickly
mothballed. Lots of people are "anti-war". Some of them are objectively on
the other side - that's to say, they encourage and support attacks on
American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter category
are US Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised? Azad Ali, a
man who approvingly quotes such observations as "If I saw an American or
British man wearing a soldier's uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because
that is my obligation" is an advisor to Britain's Crown Prosecution Service
(the equivalent of the US attorneys). In Toronto this week, the brave
ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on flying from the US to
Canada, she was questioned at length about the purpose of her visit by an
apparently Muslim border official. When she revealed that she was giving a
speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her: "We are not to question Sharia."
That's the guy manning the airport security desk. In The New York Times,
Maria Newman touched on Hasan's faith only obliquely: "He was single,
according to the records, and he listed no religious preference." Thank
goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas says the major had "Allah" and
"another word" pinned up in Arabic on his door. "Akbar" maybe? On Thursday
morning he is said to have passed out copies of the Koran to his neighbors.
He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
But don't worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there's no
terrorism angle.
That's true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the same
pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the end
his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive western education, his
psychiatric training, his military discipline - his entire American
identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
Arizona, arrested last week after fatally running over his "too westernized"
daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two US
residents - one American, one Canadian - arrested a few days earlier for
plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki's brother
shrugs that's just the way it is. ""One thing to one culture doesn't make
sense to another culture," he says.
Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of us
are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don't conspire
to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their
fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make it a
legitimate topic of analysis. Don't hold your breath. We'd rather talk about
anything else - even in the army.
What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible symbolism:
Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on the planet
gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took seriously. And
that's the problem: America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but
no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy - in
Afghanistan and in Texas.
25) The Death Of Deliberative Democracy
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/11/06/the_death_of_deliberative_democracy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2379838/posts
November 6, 2009
Michelle Malkin
In 2006, the minority party in Congress issued a dire report on the
"unprecedented erosion of the democratic process." Democratic Rep. Louise
Slaughter, then the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, authored
the scathing document. She blasted the majority Republicans' violations of
"procedural fairness," short-circuiting of debate, and late-night meetings
"to discourage members and the press from participating" in legislative
deliberations. My, how history repeats itself.
Fast-forward to 2009. The Imperial Congress has returned. The oppressed have
become the oppressors. Democrats have met the enemy of deliberative
democracy, and it is they.
Three years ago, the Democrats complained of House Republicans rushing
through conference reports "before members could read them." Sound vaguely
familiar? They urged their colleagues in power to "spend more time on major,
substantive legislation" instead of ramming things through. Deja vu, anyone?
The Slaughter report pleaded for more transparency and public access:
"Regular order should be the rule, not the exception." Instead of meeting
late at night or early in the morning, the Dems called on the majority to
operate "during regular 'business' hours so that members and the press can
attend and participate."
Three years later, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is jamming a
1,900-page health care takeover bill through Congress for a hasty Saturday
vote while members of her own party revolt against strong-arm tactics.
Upward of 40 pro-life Democrats have objected to the plan's government
subsidies for abortion. Majority leaders evaded sunlight by keeping a
compromise amendment on the matter out of the version of the bill made
available to the public. As of Thursday afternoon (fewer than two days
before the scheduled vote), Pelosi had yet to decide whether to permit an
abortion ban amendment to her health care bill.
Pelosi's "most ethical," open and transparent House ever ordered Capitol
police to block a GOP staffer from attending the public unveiling of the
health care reform plan last week. A week before that, Democratic Rep.
Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee room to prevent them from meeting when Democrats
weren't present.
In June, Pelosi's Imperial Congress severely curtailed debate on the House
cap-and-tax bill and rammed a 309-page manager's amendment through the
legislative grinder at 3 a.m., which no one read before the vote just hours
later. As GOP Rep. Mike Pence pointed out on the House floor, the "debate"
was a "travesty." So much for procedural fairness: 224 GOP amendments were
denied by the majority.
In April, the House passed a $3.6 trillion federal budget in the middle of
the night with phony fiscal restraint amendments that leaders all admitted
would be thrown out during a closed-door conference.
In February, House and Senate conferees larded up the stimulus bill with
pork galore behind closed doors while President Obama denied the existence
of earmarks with a straight face. South Carolina Rep. and House Majority
Whip Jim Clyburn snuck in a provision intended to punish governors who chose
to turn down federal stimulus funds. The Democrats broke their high-minded
pledge to give Americans 48 hours to read the bill before passage. "Urgency"
demanded it.
On the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid is playing Harry Houdini with
his health care package. After announcing a deal last week and telling the
public that he was sending his proposal to the Congressional Budget Office
for scoring, there is still no actual bill to review. When 40 Republican
senators demanded to see the bill, he played "you show me yours" and then
admitted that, indeed, "there is no bill to release publicly -- it does not
exist."
Emitting more vapor than an industrial humidifier, Reid still holds out the
possibility of abusing the budget reconciliation process to force the
government health care takeover through with a simple majority and limited
debate.
Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., performed an end-run around debate
over her massive global warming bill on Thursday by using a "nuclear option"
maneuver on the Senate Environment and Public Works. She and 10 Democrats
rammed through the legislation without considering amendments and in
defiance of GOP protests.
The 2006 minority Democrats' report on the death of deliberative democracy
condemned the then-GOP leadership for becoming "the arrogant and corrupt
majority they despised and condemned in their minority days." And now? Et
tu, majority Democrats? Same as it ever was.
26) Why Obama Is Blind To Terror... & Freedom
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/11/08/why_obama_is_blind_to_terror__freedom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381434/posts
November 8, 2009
Kevin McCullough
In the hours following the shooting at Ft. Hood, President Obama
demonstrated resolute apathy to the greatest issue of our time. His callous
and apathetic beliefs caused some rather unbecoming behavior for a United
States President. And worse yet the American people are the one's who will
suffer... And they noticed.
Roughly two and a half hours after the shooting that took the lives of
American service personnel, on American soil, President Obama was scheduled
to deliver a speech to a Tribal Nations Conference being sponsored by the
U.S. Government. Once the President was told of the Ft. Hood shooting, the
White House team made the decision to go forward with the conference and
that the President would deliver his previously prepared remarks.
Once the President was given the stage, the news networks of the world
zoomed in on the otherwise little-noticed conference. The President spent
several minutes at the beginning of his time giving introductory remarks. He
gave "shout-outs" to his "homies" in the crowd. He also apparently
attributed a Congressional Medal of Honor to someone in the room. The only
problem being that the man in question had not in fact ever received the
Congressional Medal of Honor.
Eventually he turned his remarks to the violence of the afternoon and laid
some less than "Obama-esque" sentiment on the gathered crowd and the
watching networks.
But the rank and sophomoric way he began the speech was off-putting.
Commentators for NBC even wrote in shock at the President's lack of
protocol, sensitivity, or even awareness of the pain the nation was feeling
at that moment roughly two hours after the drama began.
But if all that was merely an innocent mistake by an increasingly
wet-behind-the-ears rookie some nine months after taking office, what was to
be revealed within the hour would be stomach churning.
In his remarks President Obama called for everyone to remain calm and to not
jump to conclusions about the cause, rationale, and motivation behind the
shooting incident.
Evidently what President Obama meant was for the average American to
disengage their mind from the truth his lying eyes and ears easily showed
them.
Within the hour Stephen Hayes reported on "the panel" on Fox News' Special
Report that sources inside the Obama administration's FBI leadership had
confirmed that the investigation was not to be giving any discussion to the
possible merits of connecting the shooting at Ft. Hood to terrorism.
Incredible...
A man yells, "Allah Akbar" before unloading his weapon, after posting
repeatedly on pro-terrorist web-sites for months, and had been ranting about
not being forced to serve in Iraq nor Afghanistan because he objected to the
purposes of the U.S. Military in those regions, but his connections to
terrorism were not to be "considered."
How could such a posture come about in the FBI? We real Americans would like
to know.
Only a day previous the President demonstrated that he had genuine
perception problems as it related to another concept: freedom.
After Prime Minister Angela Merckel's gracious visit the Obama
administration went out of their way to publicize the fact that the
President would have no part in recognizing the anniversary of the fall of
the Berlin Wall.
The Berlin Wall of course represented everything America stood in opposition
to, and it was an American President and not a Soviet agent that ultimately
caused it to fall. So why wouldn't President Obama wish to do the simple act
of honor to his OWN nation and the cause of liberty universally and pay
homage to a date the unified the German people after many years of
separation?
Perhaps it very simply boils down to the fact that this President does not
make a distinction between a free state, and an enslaved one. Perhaps this
President does not believe that life under Soviet cruelty was something we
should pronounce a judgment about. Perhaps this is also the reason he sees
little difference between the dictators in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela,
Cuba and countries that seek to live under self-determination, democracy,
independence, and liberty.
I believe that in our President's way of thinking there is no moral
distinction between America, our service men and women, our citizens, and
the masses gathered at the university of Cairo in Egypt. It was in that
speech after all that he equated the values of Islam and America as one and
the same. He calls us one of the largest Muslim nations on earth. (We are
80th on that list.)
If President Obama cannot see the value of the freedoms we cherish, why not
throw some "shout outs" in light of national suffering?
After all we're not considering it a terrorist attack... right?
27) Memo To ABC: There's A Reason He's Not Called Smith
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/memo_to_abc_theres_a_reason_he.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381389/posts
November 8, 2009
C. Edmund Wright
Diane Sawyer - either espousing her editorial fantasy or a quoting a third
hand comment from an anonymous "military wife" -- was dreadfully upset that
the mass murderer from Fort Hood was not named Smith. One can only imagine
how thrilled she'd have been had he been named something like, oh I don't
know, Palin.
From what I can deduce, had his name been Smith it would be much easier for
the Diane Sawyers of the Jurassic media to cover up what they fear really
went on here. (In perhaps a related story, none of the 9-11 attackers were
in the Smith family either.) And what appears to have gone wrong is that a
poster child for every wrong headed politically correct liberal program our
great military has been forced to accept blew a gasket and took 13 un-armed
American soldiers out. Predictably blew a gasket I might add.
While many facts are yet to be determined, what we do know is that a man not
named Smith -- but named Hasan -- had some decidedly un-Smith like beliefs
and he was rather adamant about espousing them. That is to say, this well
paid U.S. Army Major held some beliefs strangely coincident with the very
people that most U.S. Army Majors are fighting against. Call me old
fashioned, but I prefer the idea that sympathy with the enemy is called
"treason" rather than the modern touchy feely idea that it is simply a
"healthy diversity."
Such diversity wasn't too damned healthy for about 45 soldiers, now was it?
According to the coroner's report, many are even beyond sensitivity training
at this point. Where is George Patton to slap some sense into someone when
you need him?
We also know that a major who happens to be a devout follower of Islam --
the well documented religion of peace -- strode into one of the principal
gathering points at Fort Hood and shot 40 some unarmed military personnel.
Among them was a pregnant woman.
We also know that Major Hasan, quite consistent with many who follow
Islam -- that well documented religion of peace -- was quite taken with the
idea of the Middle Eastern homicide bombers. He is known to have compared
them with valiant U.S. soldiers throwing themselves on a grenade to save
buddies. Now I hate to quibble, but isn't a suicide bomber actually the
opposite of those diving on a grenade?
And while we're on the subject of Islam -- that well documented religion of
peace -- Hasan apparently agreed with Bin Laden's PR department that what
the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is occupation. Further, the U.S.
military is just a bunch of infidels. Hasan has indicated he was in favor of
our losing the wars in both theatres.
Now in a country that would not stand for the idea of Derek Jeter switching
to Philly red in the middle of the World Series, what sense does it make to
have Major Hasan in our military? For crying out loud, "don't ask don't
tell" should not apply to the notion of whose side you are on!
In reality though, this was not even a case of don't ask don't tell. No one
had to ask Major Hasan to get him to tell people what he believed. He was
against the war in Iraq, against the war in Afghanistan and allegedly
verbally pro-Allah as he was gunning down unarmed American soldiers.
Imagine in World War II if an American officer had shouted "Heil Hitler" as
he was killing un-armed soldiers. Would there be any soul-searching debate
about "PRE-traumatic stress syndrome" and other gobbledy goop? And if his
name were Schmidt -- oddly close to Smith actually -- would Diane Sawyer be
in a snit?
Of course, this would never have happened in WW2. Things are different
today. Somehow our military remains the best in the world while
accommodating all kinds of fast track programs for psychiatrist officers
whose name sounds a lot like those on the roster at Gitmo while ignoring the
detail that he might be anti-American.
And that's the real story here. He was not named Smith. He didn't act like a
Smith or talk like a Smith or have allegiances like a Smith. He was so
not-a-Smith that someone should have noticed. Or more to the point, our
military should not be so eaten up with political correctness that the many
who did notice were forced to shut up about it. This was so utterly
predictable, which is to say utterly preventable.
That's not to say folks named Hasan should not be in the military. It just
might be a good idea if they held onto some mudane Smith type attitudes,
like perhaps being pro-American. This is not discrimination. ALL soldiers,
regardless of their name, should be pro-American at a minimum. Surely this
is logical.
Of course, what else is predictable is how the media is covering it. In the
words of an NPR report: "we know he took his faith seriously, but we can't
say for sure that was a factor." Right. That's exactly what they say about
anyone who bombs an abortion clinic, as we know. Finding out that Hasan is a
follower of Islam is harder to discover in most reports as was the fact that
Eliot Spitzer was a Democrat.
Equally predictable is our President -- who is also not named Smith by the
way. Barack Hussein Obama was giving "shout-outs" to folks at a speech
related to native Americans at the Department of the Interior shortly after
the news of the Fort Hood tragedy broke. This is not George Bush rapidly
finishing a two-minute story to the school kids he was already in front of
after hearing the horrific news of 9-11 whispered into his ear. No. This was
a President who had time to delay, cancel or at least, reprogram a very
non-crucial photo op in light of the news.
The only thing missing was Jeremiah Wright hootin and hollerin about
"America's chickens" and high fiving and so on. I mean, God bleep America,
we deserved it, didn't we? At the very least, Obama's reaction can
charitably be characterized as cold. And not cool at all.
Now all we can hope is that the Army and the FBI will have the courage to
look into the reasons his name was not Smith, and what light that might shed
on what happened. Like many, I suspect that there is a relationship there.
We can only hope that the FBI will reverse their decision to not even
"discuss" the idea that terrorism was involved.
28) Why The Berlin Wall Fell
Times Of India
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/entry/twenty-years-later-why-the
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382734/posts
11-9-09
S.A. Aiyar
Twenty years later: Why the Berlin Wall fell
We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the fall of Communism. This
comprehensively refuted the Communist claim to represent the people. Yet,
the claim continues, sometimes dazzling a new generation of youngsters with
no inkling of why the Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989.
In democratic Capitalism, said Karl Marx, the rich became richer and the
poor poorer. Marxism inspired young idealists for over a century. Lenin's
revolution in Russia in 1917 was hailed as a new dawn. Stalin's invasions
brought Communism to Eastern Europe. Communist governments there pledged to
create a paradise for workers, who would be freed from exploitative
Capitalists and instead work for the state, which would give them full
employment and welfare.
Czech author Milan Kundera says of the Communists, ''They had a grandiose
plan, a plan for a brand new world in which everyone would find his place:
the creation of an idyll of justice for all. People have always aspired to
an idyll, a garden where nightingales sing, a realm of harmony where the
world does not rise up as a stranger against man, nor man against other
men.''
Problem: this supposed paradise was imposed at gun-point. Nevertheless
leftists cheered, dismissing objectors as Capitalist elitists. These
elitists would deservedly be decimated, but the masses would get equality
and fabulous benefits in paradise.
Alas, this equality was a sham: equality is not possible between those
imposing the rules and those imposed upon. Eastern Europeans found that the
supposed paradise was actually a cage in which they were fed and watered,
but denied basic freedoms to speak, act or move. Masses of youngsters began
emigrating from the Communist paradises to the supposed hell-holes of the
West.
Migration was easiest from East Germany to West Germany. Official migration
touched 197,000 in 1950, 165,000 in 1951, 182,000 in 1952 and 331,000 in
1953. It was impossible to pretend that all these youngsters were just
greedy Capitalist reactionaries.
So, Communist countries closed their borders and jailed those seeking to
escape. Kundera says the Communist paradise was supposed to be a place
''where every man is a note in a magnificent Bach fugue; but anyone who
refuses his note is a mere black dot, useless and meaningless, easily caught
and squashed between the fingers like a fly. Since by (Communist) definition
an idyll is one world for all, the people who wished to emigrate were
implicitly denying its validity. So, instead of going abroad they were put
behind bars.'' Escape from paradise was forbidden: it might lead to the
unthinkable notion that Communism was not paradise after all.
The Communist dilemma was worst in Berlin city, divided between a Communist
east and democratic west. Escape was easiest and most massive here. So, in
1961 the Communists built the Berlin Wall through the entire Berlin border.
Unlike most security walls, this did not aim to keep outsiders out: it aimed
to keep citizens caged within. Nevertheless, thousands of East Berliners
sought to cross, and hundreds were gunned down.
The Brezhnev Doctrine of the Soviet Union held that once a country became
Communist, Soviet arms would keep it Communist. Soviet tanks crushed
uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The same doctrine
took Soviet tanks into Afghanistan in 1979. But they suffered a humiliating
debacle.
When Gorbachev became Soviet president, he withdrew from Afghanistan, ending
the Brezhnev Doctrine. In 1989, he told Communist rulers in Eastern Europe
that they could no longer depend on Soviet tanks to thwart popular
uprisings. Within three months, popular uprisings ousted Communist regimes
right through Eastern Europe.
In August 1989, Hungary dismantled border barriers with Austria. Within
days, hordes of Eastern Europeans, including 13,000 East Germans, escaped
into Austria. Mass demonstrations against Communist rule erupted across
Eastern Europe. To soothe public anger, the Communists opened the gates of
the Berlin Wall on November 9. Within days, Berliners had chipped away and
broken the Wall, amidst delirious cheering. Soon after, the Communist
government fell.
Communists and socialists everywhere, including in India, were dismayed.
They could not understand why East Germans blessed with income equality,
free social welfare and full employment should flee to the highly unequal
West, which bristled with unemployment and social perils. An answer came in
a letter to a newspaper editor.
''My daughter's hamster (a pet white mouse) has food, water, shelter and
even medical care, and a cage full of fun curly tubes. The hamster responds
by constantly trying to chew his way to freedom. I think we all understand
what freedom is, and it is not a gilded cage.''
29) Who Are 'They'? To Obama, "They" Are Responsible For All Our Troubles.
Problem Is, "They" Are Most Of Us
National Review Online
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUyOGEyZTUzNjAxMWFjNWI1NzJiYWM0MzIwNTZhN2Y=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382264/posts
November 9, 2009
Victor Davis Hanson
Barack Obama ran a healing campaign. He offered sonorous themes of a country
no longer to be divided by blue-state/red-state animosities, by race, by
income - or by much of anything.
In turn, we were to suspend disbelief over his past hardball campaigns for
the state senate and sthe U.S. Senate. The young, charismatic, post-racial,
post-political inheritor of Camelot could not really have compiled the most
partisan record in the Senate. We were to think away his tough-guy
Chicago-style associates. His pastor at the time, the venomous Rev. Jeremiah
Wright, was an aberration. And when candidate Obama occasionally derided
George W. Bush, it was considered rough, but deserved.
Alas, the first nine months of this administration have proven the most
polarizing in memory. Polls show a 61 percent partisan gap. Obama is now
rated as the most divisive first-year president in the past four decades. As
this week's elections suggest, even in liberal New Jersey and moderate
Virginia, voters are becoming tired of being caricatured as either saints or
sinners, depending on the degree to which they embrace the Obama vision. No
wonder. As a Manichean, he increasingly envisions the world as "us" versus
"them."
Who are "they," who have raised the bar on everyone else?
First, of course, "they" are the rich in perpetual war against the poor.
"They" made out like bandits under Bush, so "they" should have their federal
income taxes raised to make "them" "pay their fair share" in "patriotic"
fashion. Forget that currently about 5 percent of taxpayers shoulders nearly
half the federal income-tax burden. It matters little that a greater
percentage of households (well over 40 percent) now pays no federal income
tax whatsoever.
On the Obamist reading, the record federal deficits are not due to waste and
fraud. Nor are unnecessary government spending and excessive entitlements
the culprits. A bankrupt Medicare and soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security,
congressional pork-barrel projects, and interest due on past profligate
spending did not cause our budget crisis. Instead, the red ink is almost
entirely due to a shortage of revenue, and brought on by the greedy who have
the capacity, but not the caring, to fork over more.
"They" should be targeted as well by the states, many of which have rightly
raised their tax rates - in California, to over 10 percent. "They" are
easily able to pay a new health-care surcharge, the greedy few lending a
helping hand to the virtuous many. "They" surely have enough to pay the full
15.3 percent FICA tax on most of their income over the current $106,000 cap.
Add it up, and soon state, federal, FICA, property, and sales taxes will
reach 60 to 70 percent of "their" incomes.
But that is a tolerable bite since income is now seen as inherently
arbitrary and rigged. How compensation is calibrated is somehow illegitimate
in the first place - and thus it cannot properly belong entirely to the
earner. At least, I think that conjecture reflects the president's own past
unguarded references concerning the need for "redistributive" change and his
exhortations to "spread the wealth."
Who exactly are "they"? The selfish Chamber of Commerce. The profit-driven
doctors who cut out tonsils unnecessarily. The rapacious insurance
companies, which jack up health-care costs. Wall Street, of course, which
ruined the economy. Those who do not have overdue accounts on their credit
cards, who pay their taxes in full, and who meet their mortgage payments do
so not because they live by a particular code and forgo some discretionary
spending, but only because "they" somehow have more income than others.
"They," however, are not always quite defined by income alone. Barack Obama
himself lived in a spacious home. His populist advisers David Axelrod and
Rahm Emanuel have used their insider contacts to make millions. So has a
surprising number of other high-ranking administration officials, from Larry
Summers to Timothy Geithner. Populist Obama supporters Charles Rangel and
Chris Dodd both found sweetheart deals to finagle vacation homes. Compliance
with the tax code is not a characteristic of an Obama cabinet appointee, or
of a liberal congressman who lobbies for higher tax rates. "They," in other
words, means every American who makes over $250,000 (or is it $200,000? or
really $150,000?) - but does not support Barack Obama.
In this world of "them" versus "us," an individual is not so responsible for
his own circumstances. All those without health insurance, but who have
money for cell phones or plasma televisions, nonetheless face a veritable
"murder" by the neglect of the affluent. Illegal aliens, who choose to send
$50 billion annually back to Latin America, are forced to live in the
shadows without adequate federal entitlements. The young over 23, who choose
to spend some of their disposable income on cars, plasma TVs, or cell
phones, obviously don't have a dime for a catastrophic insurance plan. In
this new world, wealth and poverty are judged in relative fashion - to be
impoverished is not to have as much as "they."
A second binary is the vicious and cruel political opposition. Fox News is
not a news organization at all: It is "opinion journalism" like "talk
radio" - and thus to be ostracized at all costs. The White House
communications director said nicer things about mass-murdering Chairman Mao
than anyone in the administration has said about Rush Limbaugh. To Barack
Obama, the opposition "does what they're told." To his former green czar,
Republicans are "a---s." If you rally or protest, you become the mob,
Nazi-like and astroturf-like. Town-hall protesters are to be derided by the
media with the graphic sexual slur "teabaggers."
Abroad, good things happen because of Obama's inspiration, bad things are
the residue of George W. Bush. To be an Obama diplomat is to start a speech
by trashing the prior president of the United States. There is no sense of
decades of a unified foreign policy, and no memory that Democrats during the
Bush administration authorized everything from two wars to the Patriot Act.
Unfortunately, race is also an Obama-administration binary. The tell-tale
symptoms of the campaign have now grown into a clear pathology. In a moment,
white police can become stereotypers who act "stupidly." America suddenly is
"cowardly" on matters of race. Black congressmen or state governors who are
unhappy with their political fortunes take their cue from the Obama
administration and cite "racism" for their troubles.
If protesters at town halls are not proportionally representative in racial
terms, they are of course "racists." In the world of Obama favorite Van
Jones, whites steer pollution into black communities, and white suburban
kids are more likely than black urban kids to commit mass murders. Valerie
Jarrett, arguably one of the most powerful women in the world by virtue of
her access to the president of the United States, in her war against Fox
News resorts to the coded civil-rights trope of "speaking truth to power."
Apparently, in this cosmic struggle, by virtue of her race and her anointed
vision she has perpetual truth on her side, while others, less saintly, have
perpetual power, which is to be assailed.
When 97 percent of African-American voters preferred Obama to a liberal
Hillary Clinton in the primaries, that does not suggest racialism, but a
modest majority of whites voting for John McCain likely does.
Racism, cited during the last weeks of the campaign as the only reason why
an otherwise shoo-in Obama might lose, now often explains Obama's falling
popularity. Indeed, to the degree that Barack Obama gets what he wishes, the
country is deemed to be on racial probation; to the degree he does not, it
is considered recidivist and back to Jim Crow days.
But race, wealth, and politics are not the only good-guy/bad-guy
dichotomies. Obama has somehow managed to inject divides even into the most
mundane things we do. Buy a car? Purchasing a Ford now means something
politically different from buying a Chevy. Get an NEA grant? If so, you are
part of the solution; if not, you're not. If you're behind the DMV counter
wearing a purple union T-shirt, you're a progressive and for the "people" -
even if you care little about the long lines of waiting customers. An oilman
who finds precious natural gas to fuel an energy-starving America is not of
the same moral sort as a "green" visionary who garners federal subsidies for
an inefficient solar-panel project.
One America, now out of power, did all sorts of terrible things that require
atonement and apology overseas; another America, now in power, did all sorts
of good things that explain our current status and influence. In the age of
Obama's apologetics, innocence would require a plea like, "But my family was
from the North. But I wasn't alive in August 1945. But my grandmother was
1/16 Cherokee. But I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry."
As we saw in the elections in purple state Virginia and blue state New
Jersey, the problem with Obama's various binaries is that they are beginning
to overlap. In short, those finding themselves on the bad "them" side of the
equation are growing in number, while the anointed "us" shrinks.
30) Senior Democrat Is 'Confident' Stupak Amendment Will Be Stripped
The Hill
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66969-senior-dem-confident-stupak-amendment-will-be-stripped
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382241/posts
11/9/09
Michael O'Brien
A House Democrat leader said Monday she's "confident" controversial language
on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats' chief deputy whip in
the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work
to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal
funding from going to subsidize abortions.
"I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that
that language won't be there," Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance
on MSNBC. "And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly
the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case."
The amendment, offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), won the support of
Republicans and dozens of centrist Democrats in the House, but revealed a
deep divide in the Democratic caucus over abortion.
Sixty-four Democrats voted for Stupak's amendment, without which the House
healthcare bill would not have won final passage in a 220-215 vote.
Stupak's language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public
insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private
plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accepts people
who are receiving government subsidies.
Allowing the vote represented a major concession by Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) to Stupak and other pro-life Democrats who had threatened to
oppose the bill. But it came at the cost of angering liberals in the
Democratic conference.
Abortion-rights supporters called it a "de facto" abortion ban and mounted
an intense but unsuccessful lobbying campaign against it.
The conference between the House and Senate bills after the upper chamber
passes its bill will present an opportunity to strip the Stupak amendment,
and liberal Democrats have vowed to work hard to get rid of that language
during that stage of the legislation.
"It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that
contained that kind of restriction on a woman's ability to make her own
reproductive choices," Wasserman Schultz said.
Republicans over the weekend signaled they'd seek similar language in the
Senate bill, where several centrist. Democrats are already wavering over the
bill.
It's not clear how the abortion debate could impact a final vote in the
House on the healthcare bill, but it could be difficult for many of the
centrists who supported Stupak's amendment to vote for a healthcare bill
that did not include his language.
In addition, the only Republican vote for the legislation; Rep. Anh "Joseph"
Cao (R-La.) said the Stupak amendment cleared the way for him to support the
legislation.
But it's also possible liberals could drop their support for the bill if the
language is not changed.
31) Were They Duped Or Were They Stupid?
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBialosky/2009/11/09/were_they_duped_or_were_they_stupid
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382100/posts
November 9, 2009
Bruce Bialosky
In the 2008 presidential election, young adults voted overwhelmingly for
Barack Obama. This voting pattern has generated much discussion and no small
amount of head scratching, principally because the main consequence of these
young adults' electoral choice appears to be a huge tax on them. Ultimately,
the question becomes: Were they duped or were they stupid?
In late 1999, I went to Washington, DC, for a political forum that included
all the Republican presidential contenders. Each candidate made a
presentation followed by questions and answers. My question was for Senator
John McCain. A significant element of Mr. McCain's political platform was
campaign finance reform. His proposal was similar to what eventually became
the McCain-Feingold Act passed in 2001, which limited the amounts that
individuals and entities could contribute to campaigns.
I had the first question: "Mr. McCain, I have a deep respect for you as an
American and Senator, but could you please explain why you are proposing a
law that appears to be contrary to Republican principles?"
This question deeply upset the Senator. He turned to the moderator and
mumbled "And when did I stop beating my wife?" As I edged my way back to my
seat, Mr. McCain followed me down the stage giving me an earful about how
the youth of America was not voting, and that the reason they were not
voting was because the campaign financing system in our country was broken
and corrupt.
Senator McCain never really answered the question, but he was profoundly
incorrect about why America's youth wasn't voting, and - trust me on this -
I remember being a teenager much better than he does. It really is abnormal
for anyone who is 18 years old to be concerned about our electoral system.
If they are still students, they are often focused on graduating high school
or getting into college. Many of them, regrettably, are more interested in
getting drunk and finding someone to bounce around with on Saturday night.
People like myself who were interested enough to work on campaigns were the
exception - not the norm.
When these young adults finish school, they become most interested in
building the foundation of their careers and their future life. It's usually
only when they settle down, buy a home, start a family, and begin to make
progress in their careers that they start to realize how expensive
government is, and begin to get involved in the political process. It has
been this way for generations and is validated by voter turnout.
Barack Obama changed that and it had nothing to do with campaign finance
reform. The under-30 crowd identified with him and voted heavily for him.
And what has he done to reward that commitment? He is attempting to saddle
them with a huge tax increase to cover his health insurance plan.
Most people in this age group carry health insurance. But approximately 18
million do not, because they have made a decision that they would rather
spend their money elsewhere. They realize that they have very little need
for health care, so they spend their money on other priorities or save it
for a down payment on their first home. I did the same thing when I was
their age. When I visited a doctor, I wrote a check.
Mr. Obama, Senator Baucus and Nancy Pelosi do not want to give them that
choice. They have targeted this group to fund the Democrats' plans. They
have decided that these young folks should pay for the older Americans who
actually use most of the health care. It is an easy group to pick on, and no
one really believes they will show up at the polls in 2010 without Obama on
the ballot.
I believe these young adults should carry catastrophic insurance, at which
they would probably not balk, because the cost would be minimal. However,
the proposals that are being floated by the Democrats would require them to
purchase full-blown insurance that carries a hefty price tag. While this
additional revenue would help make the health insurance scheme work, no one
is considering the effects of that money being taken out of the economy from
where the young adults currently spend it. In particular, nobody is giving
any thought to the negative effect upon the housing market caused by the
delay of entry-level home purchases because the prospective homeowners will
be forced to put their money into the health care system instead of a home.
In addition to being targeted with a large part of the cost of the health
insurance proposal, the Obama Administration has put another yoke around
their necks. The consequences of the skyrocketing budget deficits will be
thrust upon them as they reach their peak earning years, and they will also
have to bear that crushing burden.
The 18-30 crowd happily went to the polls to vote for Obama. Political
groups that deliver for a winning candidate usually expect benefits after
the election. Unions, for example, have already received billions of dollars
in federal goodies and trial lawyers have been dutifully rewarded by the
absence of even a hint of malpractice reform in the health insurance
legislation. The under-30 voters were seduced by Obama, but have now become
his whipping boys. His most significant policy proposal is aimed directly
between their eyes - and they are soon to be his biggest victims.
Young voters are quickly learning about the electoral process and how it
really works. Which brings us back to the question - Were they duped or were
they stupid?
32) Liberals Will Get Abortion Covered: Pro-Lifers Need To Oppose The Whole Bill
Out There
RushLimbaugh.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382656/posts?page=6#6
November 9, 2009
Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: Watching this vote and watching these Democrats cheer, this is the
biggest assault on freedom and liberty yet to occur in the United States
Congress. And then to learn that the Stupak amendment was part of this,
that the pro-lifers ended up buying into this whole thing because funds were
going to be taken out of health care to buy abortions when you know they're
going to go back in? We have a Democrat congressman already saying it's
going to go back in. I love the pro-life community, I'm pro-life myself,
but single-issue politics is just deadly. I mean, what are we supposed to
do? Are we all supposed to support the bill because it has this Stupak
amendment in it?
RUSH: I'm looking at the call screener, the roster of callers. It says the
next caller is a woman named "Bruce." So, Bruce, welcome to the EIB
Network. It's great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: I'm a guy, not a woman. Sorry.
RUSH: (laughing) No, it's a Snerdley typo. Bruce at Fort Wayne, Indiana.
By the way, great to have you here, Bruce.
CALLER: Always a pleasure, sir. I want to know why the Republicans voted
for the Stupak amendment. If they voted against it, it would have put the
so-called Blue Dog Democrats on the spot to vote for the bill. They should
have voted against it, but they were afraid of some sort of campaigning in
2010. Why did they vote for it? Were they myopically focused on it? I
mean, what's with this?
RUSH: It is an important issue to a lot of people, therefore to many people
it's the only issue that counts. Single-issue politics. This is one of the
problems I have with it. I've always railed against this, by the way. I've
railed against single-issue politics. Because in this case, Bruce, they
should have known that this is not going to survive in the final version of
this bill. They should have known this was a trick in order to get the
pro-life votes. The thing that really frosts me about this is that this
whole bill is about death. This whole bill is about rationing who gets
coverage and who doesn't and under what circumstances. It is the single
greatest tool the government will have to regulate every aspect of behavior.
This is a freedom-killing -- and it is going to end up being a
life-threatening -- bill. Human beings will die earlier than normal, than
necessary, because of this bill! There will be bureaucratic institutions,
bureaucracies, which will make decisions on who gets treated and what kind
of treatment they get, and who doesn't get treated. But because they
thought the bill had been improved to say that no money would be used to
fund abortions, then it was okay to support the bill.
The whole thing could have been killed. The whole thing could have been
killed if they'd have just ignored this. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is
one of the most strident feminists in the Democrat caucus (and she's from
Boca) was on MSNBC today, and she said, "I'm confident that when it comes
back from the conference committee that that language [the Stupak amendment]
won't be there.. And I think we're all going to be working very hard,
particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case." Now,
some people think the bill would have passed regardless, whether the Stupak
amendment was there or not, and because Pelosi would have found some other
way to get the votes. And that probably is the case. But this... This was
just unfortunately shortsighted.
RUSH: Greg in Moline, Illinois, great to have you on the program. Hello,
sir.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Can I first say that you have single-handedly helped
shape my view of life in the last 15 years I've been listening to you?
RUSH: Why, thank you very much for that. I hope you have a decent outlook
on life?
CALLER: Well, politically primarily, but you have been a true hero of mine,
and I just want you to know how much I appreciate that.
RUSH: Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
CALLER: I am a strong pro-lifer and support the causes of many of those
organizations, but ever since they started asking us to send petitions to
say "include language that excludes abortions" I thought: This has been a
great ploy of the Democratic Party to -- last minute, as what happened on
Saturday -- say, "Okay, we'll drop the abortion as long as you vote for the
bill," and I think they've been planning this for months, to use this ploy.
Do you agree?
RUSH: I wouldn't be surprised. I know that Pelosi would do anything to get
this passed, and she's not -- I'll tell you something else that she did.
There are seven Democrats... I've got somewhere here in the stack; I'll just
try to tell you this from my memory, paraphrasing it. There are seven
prominent Democrat members of Congress who, apparently, unbeknownst to
anybody (until Saturday), were facing ethics investigations or charges in
the House. And just somehow, a staffer's computer had the file sharing
turned on and the memo talking about the possibility of these seven
Democrats being investigated was released to the media. One of the
Democrats was Jane Harman from California who is not... I mean, she and
Pelosi are at odds. So she put an order out that everybody had to be on the
House floor to vote or else. So she used the taint of corruption. I mean,
the Speaker of the House determines the speed at which ethics investigations
take place. The Speaker of the House runs the show. So that's another
thing she did. If just three of those people had not even shown up, or if
they had voted some other way, then this whole thing would have failed. So,
you know, the vast majority of the votes here were not for this. These
votes were coerced or they were tricked or they were strong-armed or
something.
And now because this one Republican, this "Cash" Cao guy from Louisiana,
from New Orleans -- this is a guy that replaced Congressman William
Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana), "Cold Cash Bill" ["Dollar Bill"], had the 90
Gs in the freezer, and they finally ran him outta there -- and so this guy,
Cao, Joseph Cao, C-a-o is how you spell it. "Cash Cao" is his new nickname.
If you go to his website you find Obama bought him off with the promise of
increased Medicaid payments (or Medicare payments, one of the two) to some
people in his district. So we got one Republican vote for it. How many
Democrats voted against this thing? Was it 39? She couldn't lose 40. She
had 39 Blue Dogs, I'm pretty sure, vote no on this to save themselves.
Other Blue Dogs had to vote yes. So she needed 39. She couldn't lose 40. She
got 39 Democrats. She got this one guy, this one guy with Obama. So now one
Republican votes for this thing and the media and everybody out there
talking about it -- honestly, folks -- as a bipartisan result. Not that 39
Democrats voted against it, but that one Republican voted for it, Joseph
"Cash" Cao from New Orleans, which makes the bill bipartisan. I mean, it's
just...
So to answer your question out there, Bruce: To me there's no question that
there was any kind of chicanery -- and I bet, you know, even if they hadn't
tried the trick on the Stupak amendment, that they would have found
something else to engineer the votes. She was going to get them one way or
the other. Now we're "dead on arrival" in the Senate. DOA. Do you believe
that? I'm not sure I do.
33) House Massacre O Health Care; Don't Buy That It's DOA In Senate: This Bill
Is Going To Harm Us All, Young And Old
RushLimbaugh.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382656/posts?page=8#8
November 9, 2009
Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: Last Saturday, House Democrats had the unmitigated gall to show up on
a Saturday night when nobody was paying attention -- after the unemployment
number at 10.2% -- and commit a Saturday night massacre on this country.
It's nothing other than a Saturday night massacre. After securing the vote
to destroy the best health care delivery system in the world and replace it
with a massive, big-government trillion-plus-dollar job-killing
monstrosity -- and I gotta tell you something here, folks. That Stupak
amendment? I don't want to ever hear anybody tell me again that Nancy
Pelosi's stupid. She pulled a giant trick on pro-life Republicans and
Democrats. Single-issue politics came roaring to the top here, and when she
put in the Stupak amendment that convinced pro-lifers, "Hey, hey! Abortion
is not going to be funded. We gotta vote for it," it was silly. I guess now
we should all get behind this bill because of this? Well, that's what
they're telling us. I mean, for crying out loud! One of my concerns,
ladies and gentlemen, always was: You put abortion in it and forces will
rally. Then you pretend to take it out, and those people suddenly think
they have to be for a bill. This abortion stuff, I just scratch my head.
Okay, so we've been fooled. The House has been fooled into thinking that
abortions are not going to be federally funded under health care. But, for
crying out loud, when you look at the rest of the bill, it's about nothing
but death. It's about the death of the living.
This is the most profoundly anti-life-at-all-ages piece of legislation that
has ever passed the US House of Representatives. I mean, it's anti-life
depending on your age, depending on the severity of your illness, depending
on your party affiliation probably, depending on a whole lot of things. It
is anti-freedom, and without that you're not going to have a pro-life
movement at all. And of course abortion funding is going to get back in
there. It boggles the mind. It boggles the mind. It was a bad move. This
bill is going to harm everybody. It is going to endanger the very ill and
the elderly -- and nothing is going to stop Pelosi from going back in there
after they get this law and changing that language in a year or two or
three. Kill the bill because it's bad for human beings. It's bad for
fetuses. It's bad for human beings. You kill the bill! But now I guess we're
supposed to get behind the bill because it's got this Stupak pro-life thing
in it?
RUSH: You know I was just thinking here at the top of the hour. Remember the
interview I did with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday? I said, "Every day I
get up here and I feel like I'm in the trenches in a war. No bullets are
flying, but it's intense. It never stops. Every day you get up and you find
out the Democrats are doing something to assault liberty." I was watching
this House vote Saturday night, and those Democrats started cheering like
they had just saved the world from something. It was the biggest cheer
since Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky had been convinced by Clinton to change
her vote on his big tax increase. I'm watching and I'm saying to myself,
"In a sane world, these Democrats -- a number of them, a large number of
them -- have just voted themselves out of office." In a sane world. I
actually think, folks, it's going to happen. I actually think that a lot of
them are going to be defeated in 2010. There's a rage about this that's
happening all over the place.
RUSH: Now, I said before the break at the bottom of the hour that Lindsey
Grahamnesty and others, particularly Grahamnesty, cannot be counted on at
all. The health care bill that passed the House is "dead on arrival" in the
Senate. It doesn't have a chance. It's already being called dead on
arrival, doesn't have a chance, and they're playing up the story that Dingy
Harry is having trouble. He may not even be able to get to his vote before
the end of the year. Joe Lieberman was on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Chris
Wallace said, "The House passed the bill. What do you think of the bill
they passed? And do you still intend...? If there is a public option and if
there's this tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, would you support a
Republican filibuster on final passage?"
LIEBERMAN: There are millions of Americans who don't have health insurance,
but I'm afraid that our colleagues in the House added a lot on to that, that
subtract from the genuine purposes of health care reform -- and one was to
create a public-option plan. The public option plan is unnecessary. It has
been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to
take over all of health insurance. They've got a right to do that. I think
that would be wrong. But worse than that, we have a problem even greater
than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt: $12 trillion today
projected to be $21 trillion in ten years.
WALLACE: So at this point I take it you're a "no" vote in the Senate?
LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience
I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote.
RUSH: Okay, now, that sounds pretty firm to me. It sounds pretty firm to
me, but they can always pass... Well, the public option was a big deal in
the House. If they take it out in the Senate as a trick to put it in later,
it's going to anger some of these nut jobs in the House once they get this
thing to conference. So he sounds pretty adamant there. These are
Democrats. At the end of the day, whether they're Blue Dogs or whatever
they are... Well, he's an "independent" but he's a Democrat. They're
Democrats at the end of the day. And I don't doubt that he means exactly
what he said yesterday on Fox News Sunday, as of now. He's exactly right in
everything he says in this bite. In fact, I was watching television on
this. Fox was running graphics. Even with this bill -- which is going to
add up to being $3 trillion before it's all said and done, even at that --
by 2019 there are still 18 million uninsured! There are 51 million
uninsured by 2016 or some such thing. Which I always thought was the
ostensible purpose of this is to insure the poor uninsured in this country.
It doesn't even do that, because it's not really about that. And when
Lieberman says, "There is no reason to create a public option, it's
unnecessary," now, he's in Connecticut. That's the insurance agency, but I
tell you something else.
The public option is the only reason that any Democrat's doing this. It's
the only reason. I know, I know, this stupid trigger. Let me tell you, our
old buddy Olympia Snowe back in action here. "Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe
of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given
the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government
plan, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health
insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the
'trigger' option." Well, a few big companies? Premiums keep escalating?
That's like saying, "Are we going to need air to breathe? If we don't need
any air to breathe next week then I guess we won't have to trigger it but if
we need air, we'll have to trigger this option."
So she's predictably backing out on this. What I was going to say is look
at all these groups. Big Pharma gets involved here because they think
they're buying protection. Big Insurance got involved. Big Insurance got
involved. The insurance lobby got involved because they first thought that
this bill was going to require everybody to go out and buy health insurance,
so they saw a whole bunch of new customers. All of these companies that ran
to get involved with this didn't give a rat's rear end about the country.
They cared about themselves and they cared about positioning themselves
better than their competitors. They basically just succumbed to the notion
the government's going to run our business. "We're going to have jobs here
but Obama's going to tell us how to run our business and what to do, but
we'll have less pain if we go along with it." You look around and you don't
see the people that you would usually expect to stand up for the country
standing back up.
RUSH: "What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says," Betsy McCaughey in the
Wall Street Journal. A health bill that Pelosi is bringing to a vote -- and
this is November 7th, so this is before the vote. It passed at 11 o'clock
Saturday night on the weekend of a terrorist attack on our country.
Section 202. "What the government will require you to do." Now, no
editorial comments are necessary. This just the language in the bill.
"Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a 'qualified
plan.' If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a 'grace
period' to switch you to a 'qualified plan,' meaning a plan designed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance,
there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon
as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or
benefit." This is why Obama's lying through his teeth when he says, "If you
like your coverage you'll be able to keep it." You won't.
"Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a 'qualified plan'
covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a
banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the
interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later. On Nov. 2, the
Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An
individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will
have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket
expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income.
A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000
premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20%
of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these
amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer."
Oh, and the "Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp
(R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation
(JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to
buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as
amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that
Americans who do not maintain 'acceptable health insurance coverage' and who
choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of
income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including
criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. In
response to the JCT letter, Camp said: 'This is the ultimate example of the
Democrats' command-and-control style of governing -- buy what we tell you or
go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.'" You
go to jail if you don't buy the proper amount of insurance.
We'll link to Betsy McCaughey's piece at RushLimbaugh.com. It's from the
Wall Street Journal. But the death panels are back in this thing, too.
They were never out of it. That's the dirty little secret about all this.
RUSH: Here's a blog post at the New York Times today: "Lawmakers Detail
Obama's Pitch -- In an odd coincidence, the House debate on Saturday to
overhaul health care took place on the third anniversary of the 2006
election that gave Democrats majority control after 12 years of Republican
dominance. It fell to President Obama and to Congressional leaders to
persuade those Democrats still sweating the final vote that it would not
prove the party's undoing in next November's midterm elections." So they had
Obama come up there and said: Go ahead! You think you're going to lose the
election? You ain't gonna lose the election next year because of this.
"Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized" the
election of this Owens fellow, New York 23, "and then posed a question to
the other lawmakers."
The source for this, by the way, is a Democrat member of Congress. Obama is
up there trying to talk these recalcitrant Democrats into voting for the
bill and he's trying to assure them that it will not mean their defeat next
November. "According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who
supports the health care bill, the president asked, 'Does anybody think that
the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring
down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit' Democratic voters
'and it will encourage the extremists.'" So they're "bitter...clingers," as
stated in a San Francisco fundraiser during the campaign and now tea parties
are "teabag people," the teabaggers, which, of course, is a pejorative term
applied to certain rituals in the homosexual community. And, let's see,
anti-government people aren't going to support them. "'All it will do is
confuse and dispirit' Democrat voters...'it will encourage the extremists."?
Teabags, extremists, bitter clingers. So if you oppose President Obama, you
are an extremist. No matter where else you fall in line, you are an
extremist.
RUSH: Ed in Columbus, Ohio, welcome, sir, to the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's nice to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you. Mega small business owner dittos, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Yeah. I know how people can understand what's going on here with
our government, and that is... Even though I'm a conservative all my life, I
think I want the Democrats to win the House and Senate again in 2010 so that
if the economy is still in the tank in 2012, the people will understand,
rise up, and vote 'em all out of office in 2012!
RUSH: Well, I don't think we have time for that. I have been hosting this
program... I don't know how long you've been listening to it, Ed, but I've
been hosting this program for over 21 years. And numerous times in various
election cycles there have been people who have offered the theory, "You
know what, Rush? We need to lose. Let the Democrats in. Let them implement
all this! Let the American people see what a disaster they are and people
will rise up in opposition," and I reject that happening each and every time
the theory is proffered, especially now. If we cede 2010, you can kiss the
country good-bye as you know it. You can kiss it good-bye. There won't be
an uprising. And even if there is an uprising and even if Obama is defeated
in 2012, it's... Look, I remember during the Reagan years, one of the big
things conservatives said they were going to do is dismantle the Department
of Education. Has that happened? The people said, "Well, we'll get up
there and we'll reverse all this." That doesn't happen much, folks.
Entitlements, new bills don't just get canceled. They don't just get
reversed or rescinded. You've got to stop them before they happen. And if
we cede the 2010 election? Disastrous! No way.
34) GOP Moves To Six-Point Lead In Generic Congressional Ballot - Rasmussen
Freedom's Lighthouse
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/11/gop-moves-to-six-point-lead-in-generic.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2383572/posts
November 10, 2009
Rasmussen Reports quietly put out the Generic Congressional Ballot poll this
afternoon showing the Republican Party with a six-point lead over the
Democrats at 43%-37%. That's a two-point jump since last week, and an
eight-point swing from one year ago.
Interestingly, an average of four key Generic Congressional Ballot Polls
just days before the 1994 mid-term election gave a six-point margin for the
GOP over Democrats.
Those four polls were:
ABC: --- 47-46 in favor of the Dems (a 6-point swing in the last week toward
the Dems)
Gallup: --- 51-44 for the GOP (a 4 point swing in the last week toward the
Dems)
NBC: --- 46-35 for the GOP (a 2 point swing in the two weeks toward the
Dems)
Times Mirror: --- 48-43 for the GOP (a 7 point swing in the last month
toward the Dems)
That was the year Republicans swept to a massive win, taking 54 seats away
from Democrats and gaining control of the House of Representatives.
Obviously, it is way too early to draw conclusions right now. But the trend
is strong for Republicans right now, and it will bear watching closely as we
get into the summer and fall of 2010. If the trend stays at 6-points + for
the GOP, it will certainly make a lot of Democrats nervous about what may be
coming.
35) The Road Ahead: Senate Republicans Explain Their Plans To Block Obamacare
National Review
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTU2MzNmZmVhZWI0OWExZjZjYjE5NDRjMmRkYmFkNTU=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2383070/posts
11/10/2009
Robert Costa
After passing in the U.S. House of Representatives by a 220-215 vote on
Saturday, Obamacare heads to the U.S. Senate this week, where it faces five
major obstacles. NRO spoke with Republican senators and numerous aides on
Monday about potential roadblocks in the Democrats' way as they try to
cobble together 60 votes.
1. Time. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican
Conference, tells NRO that time is on the GOP's side. Let the Senate debate
go on for a couple months, he says, and the American people will become
fully aware of what's actually in the bill. "Then there will be a
revulsion," he predicts.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are struggling to agree on a soft deadline for
getting a bill to the president's desk. The White House would very much like
to see a bill passed before the winter recess, in order to avoid the chance
that fence-sitting senators will change their minds after a couple weeks of
hearing from constituents back home.
2. President Obama. Though still the Democrats' greatest political asset,
President Obama is also quickly becoming a handicap for numerous Democratic
senators who are worried about their re-election campaigns next year, from
Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.).
As the White House continues to push hard on issues like the public option,
leery Democrats see the president as their Don Draper - a fabled salesman
who seems to have lost his touch.
"This is very much an uphill climb for the president," says Sen. John Cornyn
(R., Texas). "I have a hard time seeing this end well for the Democrats.
They're looking at some serious challenges in 2010. That kind of pressure
has a tendency to focus the mind."
Sen. Mike Johanns (R., Neb.) agrees. "I was in Pres. George W. Bush's
cabinet during the second term, when the honeymoon was, shall we say, long
since over," he says. "President Obama seems to have hit that difficult
position very early in his administration. He's in a real pickle."
3. GOP Amendments. As the bill heads to the Senate floor for debate, the
Republicans, though only numbering 40, are preparing a strong amendment
strategy that they hope will overwhelm Democrats, forcing them to confront
every aspect of the bill. "Senator Mitch McConnell is working on a
coordinated package of amendments," says Cornyn. "We're trying to do this
thematically, looking at various parts of the bill, from taxes to Medicare
to malpractice reform, to make sure the American people see all the angles."
4. Abortion. After the Stupak amendment split the House Democratic caucus,
Senate Republicans predict a similar fight among Democrats in the Senate.
"The Democrats need 60 votes," says Cornyn. "The Conference of Catholic
Bishops helped to push the House bill along, but on abortion, the bill is
only as good as the final product." If the Stupak amendment gets stripped
out in the Senate, "watch for some cold feet in the conference," he says.
"If they water this down, it will be a lynchpin issue."
The Stupak amendment is "right on," adds Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.,
Tex.). "I hope the Senate keeps that amendment to keep Democrats like
Senator Casey from Pennsylvania comfortable with the bill," and perhaps,
others uncomfortable.
5. The public option. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.), a member of the
Democratic caucus, already has said that if a public option is included, he
will not support the bill, leaving the Democrats with only 59 votes.
Lieberman has been "very strong and principled on this," says Hutchison.
Others may follow suit, she says.
These five issues are just the beginning. With the Congressional Budget
Office said to be coming out with a new score of the bill later this week,
other wary Democrats such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of
Louisiana, and Evan Bayh of Indiana probably already have a much longer
checklist of concerns.
36) A Tale Of Two Shootings
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/ScottWheeler/2009/11/09/a_tale_of_two_shootings
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382882/posts
November 9, 2009
Scott Wheeler
Obama's remarks upon hearing that abortionist George Tiller was shot--- "I
am shocked and outraged" contrasted with his statement on the news that 12
unarmed soldiers were gunned down at Ft. Hood Army Post: "I would caution
against jumping to conclusions" about the motives of the gunman.
Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says her Department is
now working to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following
Thursday's rampage by a Muslim soldier. This is the same Napolitano that
issued a report earlier this year cautioning against the domestic threats of
"right-wing extremism" and right-wing groups that might use issues such as
abortion as a recruiting tool. Were Obama and Napolitano concerned about
backlash against pro-life advocates in the wake of Tiller being shot? It
turns out that there was reason for concern, though you would not know from
the mainstream media but pro-life activist James Pouillon was murdered with
virtually no media attention just a short time after the massive coverage of
Tiller's murder.
The media, except for Fox News Channel and very few others, played right
along with Obama's Fort Hood narrative, failing to mention reports that the
Army Major Nidal Hasan screamed "Allahu Akhbar" as he murdered more than a
dozen and wounded over thirty other unarmed soldiers. Imagine the media's
coverage and the Obama Administration's outrage if the man who shot
late-term abortionist George Tiller had yelled "Hail Mary" as he shot
Tiller.
US Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey further promulgated this
bizarre approach on the Sunday talk shows saying, "I am worried.that this
increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim
soldiers."
So far there have been two incidences of Muslims murdering their fellow
soldiers in the peaceful confines of a military base or encampment. There is
not one single solitary incident of a non-Muslim soldier shooting an
American Muslim soldier to date. So why is it that when a Muslim shoots
dozens of his fellow American soldiers Obama, Casey and the media are
concerned for Muslim soldiers?
It would seem that the non-Muslim soldiers are in more danger than our
Muslim soldiers. We're now allocating resources to try to protect Muslim
soldiers that would be better spend shifting policy to try to prevent any
similar incidents from occurring. And of course we will be told that we must
recognize the importance of sensitivity to Muslims in the military, after
all, many of them are translators for the languages spoken by the radical
Islamist enemy. I don't suppose it would occur to General Casey that if
Islamist soldiers would murder their fellow non-Muslim soldiers that they
might also sabotage the translation of documents and communications of the
enemy.
The real problem with our government and military's handling of events such
as this is that it is further evidence that they simply do not understand
Fourth Generation Warfare, the type of non-military tactics the jihadists
are using against us. If we recognize this act of internal treachery for
what it clearly and obviously is, an Islamic jihad attack from within our
own ranks, then we deny the enemy a propaganda victory. We can deter them
from claiming Americans "are turning on their own" which allows them to
recruit more Islamic extremists to carryout these attacks.
When the first Islamic attack occurred in the 101st Airborne Division by
Sgt. Asan Akbhar, many warned of the enemy within. I was one of them in an
April 2003 article in Insight Magazine I quoted former Assistant Secretary
of Defense Frank Gaffney stating "If [extreme] Islamists have infiltrated
into the [armed] services it is a matter of grave concern because, by
definition, Islamists are engaged in advancing an agenda that is inimical to
this country and what it is and what it stands for, and its security most
especially."
The Islamic jihadists who are waging this war against America want our
soldiers to not feel safe where they sleep; the tragedy is that our own
military and civilian leaders may allow them this great success.
37) 4 Reasons The American Dream Will Be Over Unless We Act
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/11/10/4_reasons_the_american_dream_will_be_over_unless_we_act
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382851/posts
November 10, 2009
John Hawkins
"Make no mistake about it, this generation is a generation of thieves and
the people who stole their parents and their children's money to make their
own lives cushier are at it again. This time the target is their
grandchildren." -- Evan Sayet
Throughout American history, generations of our countrymen took pride in
leaving the country better than the one they grew up in. Their attitude
about sacrifice was summed up by this classic quotation from Tom Paine:
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have
peace."
That is no longer the spirit that animates our leaders or much of our
country. Today, it's, "If there must be trouble, let our children and
grandchildren handle it, so that I am not inconvenienced."
History is full of great nations that have fallen from their lofty perches
back into the ranks and the United States is likely to be among them unless
we change our attitude about the following issues:
1) Takers Vs. Producers: "In 1985, just 16.5% of filers paid no income tax."
Today, "roughly 120 million Americans - 40 percent of the U.S. population -
are outside of the federal income tax system."
Meanwhile, the top 50% of income earners pay 97% percent of the income
taxes. "In 1945, 41.9 workers supported each (Social Security recipient),
while today only 3.3 workers support each retiree." That number will
continue to shrink.
In other words, we're developing into a two-tiered society. Some people like
to think of it as the "haves" and "have nots." However, it would be more apt
to describe it as the people who pay the bills and the people who live off
of the fruits of their labor.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous development for our country. It makes
us overly dependent on workers and entrepreneurs who may flee the country or
simply stop working as the burden on them grows. It also leads to class
warfare, with the producers becoming increasingly resentful of an ever more
demanding class of sows dining at the government troth.
Of course, it's easy to be demanding when you don't have to pay the full
value of the services you receive. It's also easy to be resentful when you
don't get your money's worth in government services and are treated as
selfish for wanting to keep more of the money you earned for yourself. This
is not a recipe either for societal stability or for long-term prosperity.
2) A degenerating society: America's success has been because of our people,
not because of our government. It is almost impossible to overestimate the
value our country has gotten out of having a hard working, honest,
charitable, patriotic, culturally homogenous population.
Yet, the cultural elements that have made this a great nation are under
attack on every level. The stigma for taking government assistance is
fading, government is taking over the role of charity, many liberals mock
the idea of patriotism, divorce rates have grown perilously high, support
for gay marriage has increased, the percentage of the population that's
Christian is dropping, and multi-culturalism and even dislike of America is
replacing the idea of the Melting Pot.
The culture of a nation often tends to be more resilient than people
realize, but that doesn't mean it can be taken for granted. If the bonds
that hold us together disintegrate or the fundamental decency of the
American people is no longer a given, our nation will no longer be great. As
Samuel Adams said back in 1779:
"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow
the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the
people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their
virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external
or internal invader."
3) Mounting debt: There's no peril greater to this country's future than our
rapidly increasing debt. We have no idea how to pay for our Social Security
and Medicare obligations, we seem to be running larger and larger deficits
every year, and neither political party has the guts to make significant
cuts in spending. Meanwhile, the politicians in DC are so irresponsible that
they're obsessed with adding yet another cripplingly expensive entitlement
program on top of the others we already have now, despite the objections of
the American people.
Could this lead to hyperinflation that dramatically lessens the worth of a
dollar? Could it, over the long haul, give nations like China so much
economic leverage over us that it would be difficult to refuse them? Could
the amount of money we have to pay in interest on the debt become so odious
that it could dramatically reduce economic growth? Sadly, all of these
scenarios are becoming more plausible by the day.
4) Nuclear proliferation: If we don't have the will to stop a "death to
America" chanting terrorist regime run by religious fanatics from getting
nuclear weapons, then we don't have the will to stop any nation. That's how
it will be read across the Middle-East and across the world as well if Iran
gets nukes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and company wouldn't be alone either. If
they get nukes, we should expect at a minimum Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia to also build nuclear weapons. Once that genie is out the bottle,
it'll never be put back in and the United States will suffer horribly as a
result.
That's not just because of the much greater potential for nuclear war and
nuclear blackmail, but because the strongest of all nations will always have
a target on its back. Imagine terrorists smuggling nuclear bombs into Los
Angeles, DC, Chicago, and Houston and then, after the explosion, not even
being able to determine which rogue nation produced the weapons that killed
millions of Americans. That's the future we're headed towards unless Iran is
stopped and the consequences will be more devastating than most Americans
can imagine.
38) Random Thoughts
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/11/10/random_thoughts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382755/posts
November 10, 2009
Thomas Sowell
If politicians stopped meddling with things they don't understand, there
would be a more drastic reduction in the size of government than anyone in
either party advocates.
It was fascinating to see Barack Obama warning us not to leap to conclusions
about the killings at Fort Hood, Texas-- after the way he leaped to
conclusions over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, when he knew less about
the facts than we already know about the massacre at Fort Hood.
My first column, more than 30 years ago, was titled "The Profits of Doom."
Recent news stories about the millions of dollars that Al Gore has made out
of his "global warming" hysteria suggest that some things haven't changed
much in three decades.
Although the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation backs up bank accounts, a
recent audit suggests that the FDIC does not have enough money in its own
account to do its job. No doubt more money will be printed in Washington if
necessary. But what this means is that even the record-breaking federal
deficit understates the government's real financial liabilities, because
agencies like FDIC and the Federal Housing Authority are likely to need
increased amounts of money to keep going.
An e-mail from a reader says that liberals like to take the moral high
ground, even though their own moral relativism means that there is no moral
high ground.
I doubt whether the man responsible for the massacre at Fort Hood will pay
with his life for the lives that he took. He may well be free again someday.
We can only hope that he does not get a hero's welcome when he arrives in
some terror-sponsoring country, the way the Lockerbie bomber did.
A recent study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights showed that, after the
housing boom and bust, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asian Americans and
American Indians all reduced their subprime mortgage loans. Only politicians
seem not to have learned anything from the economic disaster, and to persist
in the reckless policies that brought it on.
Baseball has too many close plays and too many judgment calls to have
wholesale instant replay that could add hours to a game. However, there is
no reason why there can't be some device to show automatically whether any
part of a ball went over any part of the plate, before an umpire can call it
a strike. How wide the strike zone is shouldn't depend on what umpire is
behind the plate.
Among the many infirmities of age is omniscience.
What I most remember about the late Irving Kristol, aside from his wisdom--
which is much rarer among intellectuals than one might expect-- was that I
never saw him angry, either in person or in the media. And he lived in a
time when there was much to be angry about. Those of us who are getting
along in years are unlikely to see another like him, and even those who are
younger will be lucky if they do.
No statement is more unnecessary than the statement that the government
should "do something" about some issue. Politicians are going to "do
something," whether or not something needs to be done, and regardless of
whether what they do makes matters better or worse. All their incentives are
to keep themselves in the public eye.
There is no point dwelling on all the foolish mistakes we have made in our
lives. For one thing, it can be very time-consuming.
One of the few advantages to the country in having Congress overwhelmingly
in the hands of one party is that the lack of need to compromise lets the
leaders of that party reveal themselves for what they are-- in this case,
people with unbounded arrogance and utter contempt for the right of ordinary
people to live their lives as they see fit, much less the right to know as
citizens what laws are going to be passed by their government. The question
is whether voters will remember on election day in 2010.
Even if this country can survive intact and unharmed after the Obama
administration-- or, heaven help us, two terms of Obama-- the gullibility
that led to his being elected in the first place will still be there for
some other slick demagogue to come along and get the power to put the
American way of life, and even our physical safety, at risk again.
39) The U.S. House Of Presumptuous Meddlers
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/11/11/the_us_house_of_presumptuous_meddlers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2383702/posts
November 11, 2009
John Stossel
As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.
I'm embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.
It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.
The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by "experts" means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.
Government cannot do simple things efficiently. The bureaucrats struggle to count votes correctly. They give subsidized loans to "homeowners" who turn out to be 4-year-olds. Yet congressmen want government to manage our medicine and insurance.
Competition is a "discovery procedure," Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek taught. Through the competitive market process, we producers and consumers constantly learn things that force us to adjust our behavior if we are to succeed. Central planners fail for two reasons:
First, knowledge about supply, demand, individual preferences and resource availability is scattered -- much of it never articulated -- throughout society. It is not concentrated in a database where a group of planners can access it.
Second, this "data" is dynamic: It changes without notice.
No matter how honorable the central planners' intentions, they will fail because they cannot know the needs and wishes of 300 million different people. And if they somehow did know their needs, they wouldn't know them tomorrow.
Proponents of so-called reform -- it's not really reform unless it makes things better -- have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:
1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches -- without controversy -- that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.
2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that. Once the planners' mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy -- or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).
3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.
4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.
Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?
Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians' refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won't solve our problems.
Freedom will.
40) Obama: The Iceman Plummets: Cold, Detached President Has Lost His Magic Appeal'
RushLimbaugh.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2384293/posts?page=6#6
November 11, 2009
Rush Limbaugh
Maybe we need to call President Obama The Ice Man. He has no emotion, he doesn't show any emotion. Look how he reacts to unemployment. He's utterly unaffected! It's like it doesn't bother him at all. I want to share with you some excerpts of this piece by Toby Harnden in the UK Telegraph. "Barack Obama's reaction to bad news is to play it so cool that Americans yearn for a bit more drama -- and some even for his predecessor, writes Toby Harnden in Washington.
"During the election campaign, Barack Obama's cool detachment was a winning quality, the 'No Drama Obama' a welcome contrast with the 'Mr Angry' John McCain, never mind the hot-headed 'I'm the decider' President George W Bush," which, by the way, is a characterization I never understood. I never understood Bush being thought of as a hothead. Bush said, "You're either with us or against us." That's no different than Reagan saying, "We win, they lose." You know, Bush was just direct. Bush violated political correctness, at times. That's, I guess, what people consider to be hotheaded. We wanted hotheaded, by the way, after 9/11! We wanted hotheadedness. That's the whole point of Toby's piece here.
"A year into his presidency, however, Mr Obama seems a curiously bloodless president. If he experiences passion, he seldom shows it. It is often anyone's guess as to whether an event or issue truly moves him." No passion. Perfect word for Obama: The Ice Man. "He has spent more than two months considering a troop increase but do we know how he really feels about the Afghan war?" Yeah, we do. He doesn't like victory. He's "not comfortable," Toby, with the concept of victory. Yeah, we know how he feels about it. "In a sign that the Obama honeymoon truly is over, I began to hear this week the first stirrings of a wistfulness about Mr Bush. 'I never thought I'd hear myself say it,' one Democrat told me. 'But Obama makes you feel that at least with Bush you knew where he was on something.'
"When Mr Bush's Republicans were defeated in the 2006 mid-term elections, it was the President himself who stepped up and declared that his party had received 'a thumpin''. The Democratic defeats on Tuesday were not on anything like the same scale but Mr Obama acted as if nothing at all had happened. ... It took Senator Mark Warner of Virginia to admit that his party 'got walloped'. For three days, Mr Obama maintained a studied silence about the results while his aides blamed them on local factors that had nothing to do with the President. And to think that it was Mr Bush who was always accused of being 'in denial'. More serious perhaps was Mr Obama's strange disconnectedness over the Fort Hood massacre of 13 soldiers by an Army major and devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," and was still in our military, somehow, "had praised suicide bombing and shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as he opened fire," and the president says we don't have any idea why this happened! The president says these kinds of things are "inexplicable."
"Maybe Mr Obama had been reading the American press, much of which somehow contrived to present the atrocity as a result of combat stress due to soldiers going on repeated war deployments (though Major Nadal Hasan had not been on any) and therefore, no doubt, Mr Bush's fault," and, in fact, I do believe, ladies and gentlemen... I thought I had a sound bite where it's Bush's fault. Maybe, yes, I do. Let me check the roster. I've got over 34 sound bites today. Let's see... Nah, can't find one. So I'll stick with the Toby Harnden piece. "When the television networks cut to the President, viewers listened to him spend more than two surreal minutes talking to a gathering of Native Americans about their 'extraordinary' and 'extremely productive' conference, pausing to give a cheery 'shout out' to a man named Dr Joe Medicine Crow.
"Only then did he briefly and mechanically address what had happened in Texas. On Friday, when most of the basic facts were available, Mr Obama tried again. It was scarcely any better. He began by offering 'an update on the tragedy that took place' -- as if it was an earthquake and not a terrorist attack from an enemy within... Completely missing was the eloquence that Mr Obama employs when talking about himself. Absent too was any sense that the President empathised with the families and comrades of those murdered. It was a reminder that for the past 16 years Americans have had two Presidents who would often extemporise and express emotion. President Bill Clinton could certainly 'feel your pain' while Mr Bush sometimes struggled to hold back tears. Mr Obama is more like President George Bush Snr, who famously communicated his concern for people by blurting out: 'Message -- I care.' ...
"With unemployment now above 10 per cent, Mr Obama needs to show Americans that he can relate to what they're going through, and take responsibility. It could do him good to show he has a bit of fire in his belly. Perhaps he might make a decision or two based on gut instinct ..." Toby, I'll tell you why this isn't going to happen. Barack Obama once said to Harry Reid, "Harry, I've got a gift." Obama thinks it's his speeches! Obama... Folks, you do not understand the ego of this man, the narcissistic ego of this man. The hardest thing for him to do every day is to turn away from the mirror after he gets dressed. And he thinks that his speeches soar and lift people's souls and inspire them to great actions and deeds -- his Berlin speech, his Cairo speech, the fake columns acceptance speech in Denver at Invesco Field at Mile High. They're all over the speech.
This speech yesterday, I'm sure he thinks that it was one of the greatest ever. But speeches, folks? Speeches are words. Speeches are not going to convince the Iranians to un-nuke! Speeches and words are not going to persuade the pot-bellied little dictator in North Korea to give up his nukes. Speeches are not going to change anything happening in Venezuela or other dictatorial outposts all over the world. So he's not going to stop making these empty speeches. In fact, I've gotta find this out during the break. There's a story I missed from over the weekend in the New York Times by Peter Baker in which this whole point was made: Mr. President, these speeches are starting to sound tired and the same and... Yeah, yeah. Here it is. I just happened to find it.
"The President Whose Words Once Soared," November 8th, Peter Baker. "As the most gifted orator of his generation..." He's not an "orator," he's a teleprompter reader! "As the most gifted orator of his generation, President Obama finds speechmaking perhaps his most potent political tool. It propelled him to national prominence in 2004 and to the White House in 2008. And whenever he needs to calm economic fears or revive stalled health care legislation, he takes to the lectern." He isn't calming anybody. This is the point! "But the limits of rhetoric were on display last week when the president could not rescue two foundering candidates in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Has Mr. Obama lost his oratorical touch? Is the magic finally beginning to fade?
"Does the White House rely too heavily on his skills on the stump to advance his priorities? It may be too soon to reach such conclusions. The Democrats who lost last week, after all, had fatal flaws all their own. But the results do suggest that Mr. Obama's addresses these days may not resonate quite the way they did. Speeches that once set pulses racing now feel more familiar," 'cause they are the same thing! They are the same thing regurgitated over and over again. "We live in an era of divisiveness! We live in an age of cynicism! We live in an age of selfishness. My country sucks, but now that I'm here, it's going to get better, and we're going to work hard, and we're going to find jobs, we're going to..." These speeches do not inspire anymore. This is the New York Times on Sunday questioning Obama's one true gift. Here's the dirty little secret: People are sick of speeches. People want jobs!
RUSH: If you read this whole New York Times piece from Sunday, "The President Whose Words Once Soared," what you learn is that the New York Times is really, really worried. They know this is the only gift the guy's really got; that's how he gets people mesmerized to vote for him, and he's losing it. "The risk for any president is that at some point the public begins to tune out."
"Religion/Culture/Morals" articles
1) Read This BEFORE You Get Married
Fumare
http://fumare.blogspot.com/2009/10/read-this-before-you-get-married.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2376132/posts
October 29, 2009
Rev. Know it All
This article appeared in the weekly parish bulletin column of St. Lambert's
Church in Skokie, IL. The author is "The Rev. Know It All" the resident
apologetics personality of the pastor Fr. Richard Simon.
Here it is in its entirety:
**********************************
Warning:: THIS EPISODE OF THE REV. KNOW IT ALL IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE. IT IS
NOT ABOUT YOU OR ANYONE YOU KNOW. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. THE REV.
KNOW IT ALL IS NOT OPPOSED TO ALL WEDDING CELEBRATIONS. HE IS NOT TALKING
ABOUT YOUR WEDDING
WHICH WAS A TRIUMPH OF PERSONAL SANCTITY AND GOOD TASTE. HE IS PROBABLY JUST
HAVING A BAD DAY.
Dear Rev. Know it all,
I visited your church once and am thinking about having my wedding there.
How long is your main aisle?
Mary O'burne
Dear Mary,
I am often asked that question, and never quite understand it. Are brides
curious about the length of the aisle because they think a longer aisle may
give them a few more minutes to back out of the whole thing? Or, as I
suspect, does a long aisle prolong the glorious promenade of which a young
girl dreams as she thumbs through bridal magazine as she contemplates her
special day, when all eyes focus on her as she approaches her enchanted
prince and all the world thinks she's gorgeous and knows that she has bagged
her man just as surely as a Wisconsin bricklayer bags a deer and ties it
onto the roof of his pick up truck? I have certainly seen a few grooms who
look like a frightened deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck.
Why is it that weddings cause people to spend so much time, energy and
money? And more money.
The average American wedding costs almost $29,000, according to "The Wedding
Report", a market research publication. $29,000!" Oh, by the by, the usual
donation to the church is about $200.00. That $200 goes to the church, not
to the priest. The usual gift to the priest is a hearty handclasp. The usual
cost of the photographer is $2,000.00. All this tells me that the
photographs are one hundred times more important than the grace of the
sacrament, in most peoples' estimation. The usual fee for the DJ is
$1,500.00. I am consoled by this. It means that painful, occasionally
obscene music loud enough to cause brain damage is only 75 times more
important than the grace of the sacrament.
You must be thinking why is this guy so down on weddings? I am down on some
weddings because I am very "up" on the sacrament of matrimony and really in
favor of marriage. That's why the modern method of marrying and the wedding
industry make me crazy. They militate against marriage.
Here is the heart of my complaint. IT IS STUPID TO SPEND MORE TIME AND MONEY
PREPARING FOR THE WEDDING THAN YOU DO PREPARING FOR THE MARRIAGE!!! I have
known people who are still paying the credit card bills generated by the
wedding years after the marriage is over.
The Modern Method of Marriage, a Reprise. The following is taken from my own
experiences and things people have told me (outside of confession, you'll be
glad to know.) Here goes.
A young man and a young woman meet and have a few dates. They go for a
weekend at a bed and breakfast where they bed one another, and then have
breakfast. If he isn't too much of a jerk and she isn't too picky, they are
then an item. She goes to the doctor gets a prescription and goes on to a
more permanent form of birth control. At some time during this stage, the
uncomfortable meeting with the parents happens. Everyone is polite and
"supportive." Secretly the father of the young woman who knows exactly
what's going on, contemplates buying a gun and the mother of theyoung man begins
gossiping with whomever will listen about how her little boy could do
better.
After a while, if things hold up, they begin to have the conversation about
taking their relationship to the "next level" by which they mean shacking
up, as we used to call it. Now, I think it's called moving in together.
Mom and Dad buy housewarming gifts in an attempt to, once again, be
supportive. They don't want their little dears to hate them and besides,
it's what everyone is doing these days, so it can't be wrong. They have vague
thoughts about getting married at that point and mom explains to grandma and
to friends at church that they are just doing it to save money for the
wedding. At this stage an engagement ring may appear. At some point, when
they think about getting the house and the kids, because that's what you do,
they decide to have the wedding. They rent the hall and then go see the
priest. He tells them there are four other weddings that day and they
respond, "but we've rented the hall already."
Someone suggests a garden wedding if the church is occupied. The priest says
we can't do garden weddings. (More on this later.) The young couple begins
to complain about how narrow minded the Church is with all these rules and
regulations. They eventually pick a date. Then the bottom drops out.
It seems the groom is not Catholic. He was baptized in the First Reformed
Church of the Druids, though he never practiced. This means there must be a
dispensation for the marriage, another irritating Catholic invention, and
the wedding date cannot be confirmed until the dispensation is received. The
bride goes back to her doctor, this time for a prescription for valium. Her
mother joins her on this visit. Finally the dispensation is granted, The groom's druid will do one of the readings at
the wedding, the loans are taken out, the banns are published. Then there is
the rehearsal and rehearsal dinner. The best man comes to the rehearsal
drunk out of his mind, the groom only slightly tipsy. The bride is furious
at everyone for some reason known to her alone. Probably because the groom
is far more interested in drinking and watching the football game on hishand
held computer thing than he is in gazing lovingly into her eyes in
anticipation of the great day. In fact they haven't been, well... friendly
in weeks. It is, after all, football season.
The special day comes, the best man is still drunk, the groom is hung over,
no one knew about that interesting tattoo that the maid of honor had way low
on her back, now revealed by the plunging back of her dress that is held up
only by wishful thinking. Grandma, upon reading the logo of the maid of
honor's tattoo, has fainted.
Somewhere in all this the vows are exchanged, and quite a few of the wedding
party receive their first Holy Communion that day, however one of the ushers
puts the host in his suit pocket not having a clue what it is. (This
actually has happened to me twice.) The pictures have been taken. The noise
level in the church reaches that of an English soccer match after the riot
has broken out. The children are jumping off the altar and the priest is
scowling at everyone. Now on to the pictures in the forest preserve, a
"must" at every wedding. There the wedding party is attacked by mosquitoes,
one of the children falls into the lagoon and the bride is having a hard
time smiling for the photos. The best man passes out. On to the reception.
The bride loses it because the shade of fuchsia in the floral center pieces
clashes with the shade of fuchsia in the wedding party's outfit. The groom
adjourns to the bar where the game is on the television. The wedding dinner
is served as music is played at a mind numbing volume. Grandma is better
now. She has turned off her hearing aid. The priest is seated with the pious
relatives in plaid suit coats and leaves shortly after the grace before
meals. The best man makes the toast which drones on about how he loves the
groom and one begins to wonder. The college roommate/maid of honor does the
same for the bride, going on for fifteen minutes about how she knew the
bride would find eternal marital bliss the moment she met her in the third
grade and they have been like sisters ever since.
Then at some point, there is a video presentation of embarrassing photos not
unlike the ones that are now shown at wakes. The bar opens up again.The
music reaches levels that cause blood to drip from some peoples' nose and
ears. The joyous event ends with the bride and groom being the last to leave
the hall. They are slow to go up to the room they have rented in the hotel
because nothing new or beautiful awaits them there. The groom promptly falls
asleep, being heavily sedated already, and, as he snores away, with his
shoes still on, our blushing bride, having shed her dress of virginal white,
thinks back on this day, her special day, the most important day in her
life, the day she has dreamt of since she was a little girl.
They will stay an extra day at the hotel, but cannot afford the time or
money to go on a honeymoon because on Monday they will both be back at work
in order to pay off the colossal bill that their special day has incurred.
For some reason, the bride is depressed. Perhaps she is realizing that the
high point of her life is now past and the rest of it will be spent with the
lump that is now snoring beside her with whom she has never really had a
serious conversation, except about the proper shade of fuchsia for the
floral centerpieces. So it is that we celebrate the marriage of Christ and
His Church in these enlightened and tolerant times.
Remember, none of these things happened at your wedding, thank God and don't
think from reading this that I am down on marriage or even weddings. I love
a wedding celebration when there is something to celebrate. Also, it is
never too late to begin again by taking Christ and His gospel seriously.
PLEASE SPEND MORE TIME AND MONEY PREPARING FOR THE MARRIAGE THAN YOU DO
PREPARING FOR THE WEDDING.
Yours,
The Rev, Know it all
P.S. Garden weddings. They look good in all the bridal magazines but they
are just opportunities to feed biting insects and suffer from sunburn. It is
however amusing to watch the bridesmaids sinking in the mud as they try,
after a few margaritas to maneuver the newly laid sod in spiked heals. The
bride is generally exhausted from not having slept for three weeks as she
worries about the weather reports which are promising a 50 percent chance of
typhoons and earthquakes that day. And destination weddings. Don't get me
started on Destination Weddings! You want to be married with just your
closest friends on a beach in Maui. That means that Grandma can't go because
she hasn't flown since the Hindenburg Disaster, and is thinking of cutting
you out of the will, and all the friends and relatives who aren't with you
on the beach in Maui realize they aren't very close to you after all. And I
haven't a clue how long the aisle is here at St. Dymphna's.
2) To Trace All Souls Day
Insight Scoop
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/11/to-trace-all-souls-day.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2376958/posts
November 2, 2009
Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J.
As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger once said so well, one major difference between
Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics pray for the dead:
"My view is that if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent
it." Why?
"Because few things are as immediate, as human and as widespread-at all
times and in all cultures-as prayer for one"s own departed dear ones."
Calvin, the Reformer of Geneva, had a woman whipped because she was
discovered praying at the grave of herson and hence was guilty, according to
Calvin, of superstition". "In theory, the Reformation refuses to accept
Purgatory, and consequently it also rejects prayer for the departed. In fact
German Lutherans at least have returned to it in practice and have found
considerable theological justification for it. Praying for one's departed
loved ones is a far too immediate urge to be suppressed; it is a most
beautiful manifestation of solidarity, love and assistance, reaching beyond
the barrier of death. The happiness or unhappiness of a person dear to me,
who has now crossed to the other shore, depends in part on whether I
remember or forget him; he does not stop needing my love."
Catholics are not the only ones who pray for the dead. The custom is also a
Jewish one, and Catholics traditionally drew upon the following text from
the Jewish Scriptures, in addition to some New Testament passages, to
justify their belief:
Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adulam. As the
seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom,
and they kept the sabbath there. On the next day, as by that time it had
become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen
and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their
fathers. Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred
tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And
it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. So they all
blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things
that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which
had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted
the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their
own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He
also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand
drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering.
In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the
resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would
rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who
fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made
atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
Besides the Jews, many ancient peoples also prayed for the deceased. Some
societies, such as that of ancient Egypt, were actually "funereal" and built
around the practice. The urge to do so is deep in the human spirit which
rebels against the concept of annihilation after death. Although there is
some evidence for a Christian liturgical feast akin to our All Souls Day as
early as the fourth century, the Church was slow to introduce such a
festival because of the persistence, in Europe, of more ancient pagan
rituals for the dead. In fact, the Protestant reaction to praying for the
dead may be based more on these survivals and a deformed piety from
pre-Christian times than on the true Catholic doctrine as expressed by
either the Western or the Eastern Church. The doctrine of purgatory, rightly
understood as praying for the dead, should never give offense to anyone who
professes faith in Christ.
When we discuss the Feast of All Souls, we look at a liturgical
commemoration which pre-dated doctrinal formulation itself, since the Church
often clarifies only that which is being undermined or threatened. The first
clear documentation for this celebration comes from Isidore of Seville (d.
636; the last of the great Western Church Fathers) whose monastic rule
includes a liturgy for all the dead on the day after Pentecost. St. Odilo
(962-1049 AD) was the abbot of Cluny in France who set the date for the
liturgical commemoration of the departed faithful on November 2.
Before that, other dates had been seen around the Christian world, and the
Armenians still use Easter Monday for this purpose. He issued a decree that
all the monasteries of the congregation of Cluny were annually to keep this
feast. On November 1 the bell was to be tolled and afterward the Office of
the Dead was to be recited in common, and on the next day all the priests
would celebrate Mass for the repose of the souls in purgatory. The
observance of the Benedictines of Cluny was soon adopted by other
Benedictines and by the Carthusians who were reformed Benedictines. Pope
Sylvester in 1003 AD approved and recommended the practice. Eventually the
parish clergy introduced this liturgical observance, and from the eleventh
to the fourteenth century it spread in France, Germany, England, and Spain.
Finally, in the fourteenth century, Rome placed the day of the commemoration
of all the faithful departed in the official books of the Western or Latin
Church. November 2 was chosen in order that the memory of all the holy
spirits, both of the saints in heaven and of the souls in purgatory, should
be celebrated in two successive days. In this way the Catholic belief in the
Communion of Saints would be expressed. Since for centuries the Feast of All
the Saints had already been celebrated on November first, the memory of the
departed souls in purgatory was placed on the following day. All Saints Day
goes back to the fourth century, but was finally fixed on November 1 by Pope
Gregory IV in 835 AD. The two feasts bind the saints-to-be with the
almost-saints and the already-saints before the resurrection from the dead.
Incidentally, the practice of priests celebrating three Masses on this day
is of somewhat recent origin, and dates back only to ca. 1500 AD with the
Dominicans of Valencia. Pope Benedict XIV extended it to the whole of Spain,
Portugal, and Latin America in 1748 AD. Pope Benedict XV in 1915 AD granted
the "three Masses privilege" to the universal Church.
On All Souls Day, can we pray for those in limbo? The notion of limbo is not
ancient in the Church, and was a theological extrapolation to provide
explanation for cases not included in the heaven-purgatory-hell triad.
Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of its being set aside, and it does not
appear as a thesis to be taught in the new Universal Catechism of the
Catholic Church.
The doctrine of Purgatory, upon which the liturgy of All Souls rests, is
formulated in canons promulgated by the Councils of Florence (1439 AD) and
Trent (1545-1563 AD). The truth of the doctrine existed before its
clarification, of course, and only historical necessities motivated both
Florence and Trent to pronounce when they did. Acceptance of this doctrine
still remains a required belief of Catholic faith.
What about "indulgences"? Indulgences from the treasury of grace in the
Church are applied to the departed on All Souls Day, as well as on other
days, according to the norms of ecclesiastical law. The faithful make use of
their intercessory role in prayer to ask the Lord"s mercy upon those who
have died. Essentially, the practice urges the faithful to take
responsibility. This is the opinion of Michael Morrissey:
Against the common juridical and commercial view, the teaching
essentially attempts to induce the faithful to show responsibility toward
the dead and the communion of saints. Since the Church has taught that death
is not the end of life, then neither is it the end of our relationship with
loved ones who have died, who along with the saints make up the Body of
Christ in the "Church Triumphant."
The diminishing theological interest in indulgences today is due to an
increased emphasis on the sacraments, the prayer life of Catholics, and an
active engagement in the world as constitutive of the spiritual life. More
soberly, perhaps, it is due to an individualistic attitude endemic in modern
culture that makes it harder to feel responsibility for, let alone
solidarity with, dead relatives and friends.
As with everything Christian, then, All Souls Day has to do with the mystery
of charity, that divine love overcomes everything, even death. Bonds of love
uniting us creatures, living and dead, and the Lord who is resurrected, are
celebrated both on All Saints Day and on All Souls Day each year.
All who have been baptized into Christ and have chosen him will continue to
live in Him. The grave does not impede progress toward a closer union with
Him. It is only this degree of closeness to Him which we consider when we
celebrate All Saints one day, and All Souls the next. Purgatory is a great
blessing because it shows those who love God how they failed in love, and
heals their ensuing shame. Most of us have neither fulfilled the
commandments nor failed to fulfill them. Our very mediocrity shames us.
Purgatory fills in the void. We learn finally what to fulfill all of them
means. Most of us neither hate nor fail completely in love. Purgatory
teaches us what radical love means, when God remakes our failure to love in
this world into the perfection of love in the next.
As the sacraments on earth provide us with a process of transformation into
Christ, so Purgatory continues that process until the likeness to Him is
completed. It is all grace. Actively praying for the dead is that "holy
mitzvah" or act of charity on our part which hastens that process. The
Church encourages it and does it with special consciousness and in unison on
All Souls Day, even though it is always and everywhere salutary to pray for
the dead.
3) Director Of Planned Parenthood At 40 Days For Life Birthplace Resigns After
Watching Abortion Ultrasound; Planned Parenthood Seeks Restraining Order
Life Site News
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110204.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2376852/posts
November 2, 2009
Kathleen Gilbert
The director of the Texas Planned Parenthood abortion mill where the 40 Days
for Life campaign began has resigned, saying she experienced a conversion
after watching an ultrasound video of a child being killed by abortion.
"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that
hit me and I thought that's it," said Abby Johnson in an interview with
local news network KBTX 3.
Johnson had been affiliated with Bryan's Planned Parenthood facility for
eight years, and worked as its director for two. She said she began to feel
uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood's business philosophy after the
organization, suffering from the economic downturn, told her to try to bring
more abortions in the door. "The money wasn't in family planning, the money
wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with
that," said Johnson.
But the turning point for Johnson was reportedly when she witnessed an
actual ultrasound image of an abortion being performed on an unborn child.
"I feel so pure in heart. I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden
on me anymore," said Johnson. "And that's how I know that this conversion
was a spiritual conversion."
Johnson resigned on October 6th, near the beginning of Bryan's sixth annual
40 Days for Life campaign, and she has since joined up with the nearby
Coalition for Life to begin praying near her old workplace. Coalition for
Life is the local group that began 40 Days for Life, the national prayer and
fasting campaign that was ongoing at the time of Johnson's resignation.
"This is by far the most amazing thing that has happened to the Coalition
for Life throughout its entire history ... we thank God!" wrote Coalition
for Life director Shawn Carney, who has been working with Johnson since her
resignation, on the group's website.
40 Days for Life national director David Bereit said that Johnson's "amazing
conversion demonstrates the importance of a constant, peaceful prayer
presence in front of abortion facilities."
"From that first campaign in 2004, we've prayed for Abby - and for all
abortion workers - that they would come to see what abortion really is, and
that they would leave the deadly business. In this case, those prayers have
been answered," said Bereit. "We are so proud of Abby's courage to leave
the abortion industry and publicly announce her reasons for leaving."
The story is receiving broad attention after it was posted on the Drudge
Report website today.
Planned Parenthood reacted with legal action on Friday by filing for a
temporary restraining order, seeking to prevent Johnson and the Coalition
for Life from disclosing confidential information. "We regret being forced
to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our
clients and staff; however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary,"
said Planned Parenthood in a statement.
A hearing for the restraining order has been set for November 10.
Johnson is one of eight abortion industry workers who left their jobs during
the fifth coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign that concluded yesterday in
212 cities. She was the highest-ranking of the eight. Others who quit their
clinic jobs included nurses, office staffers and security personnel.
In addition, a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Kalispell, Montana
announced that it will close its doors on November 20, citing a decline in
business as the reason for the closure. That clinic was the site of a 40
Days for Life prayer vigil this past spring.
4) Updated: Dominican Community Apologizes For Nun Caught Acting As Abortion
Escort: Three Bishops Now Discussing Ways To End This Many Years Ongoing
Scandal
Life Site News
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110302.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/-news/2377811/posts
11-3-09
Peter W. Smith
A congregation of US Dominican nuns has publicly apologized for the scandal
caused by one of its members acting as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area
abortion facility, who now faces severe canonical penalties including
excommunication and the possibility of dismissal. LifeSiteNews.com (LSN)
first broke the story about Sr. Donna Quinn, O.P., a Dominican nun who is
outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, who had been identified by
pro-life witnesses as an escort for the ACU Health Clinic.
Sr. Quinn's religious community, the Wisconsin-based Sinsinawa Dominican
Congregation, admitted in a press release posted on their website that they
were informed of the allegation several months ago, and, after having
completed a period of investigation, the Congregation's leaders have
informed the pro-abortion sister that "her actions are in violation of her
profession as a Dominican religious."
The congregation reports that its leaders "are working with Sr. Donna to
resolve the matter appropriately" and regret the public scandal caused by
her actions. The Sinsinawa Dominicans took the opportunity to re-affirm
unequivocally their commitment to the Catholic Church's core teachings, as
well as the necessity to witness to the sanctity and dignity of all human
life from conception to natural death.
"We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through
the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a
holy and just society," read a statement issued on behalf of the
congregation. "As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of
the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from
conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence
that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that
witnesses to support of abortion."
ChicagoCatholicNews.com reports that three Catholic hierarchs are meeting to
discuss what remedial action must be taken to correct Sr. Quinn: Cardinal
Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Bishop J. Peter Sartain of
Joliet, Illinois and Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin. An
anonymous aide to Morlino said the three were involved since Sr. Quinn's
motherhouse is located within Bishop Morlino's territory, but Sr. Quinn
resides in the Chicago Archdiocese, while the abortion clinic where she gave
formal assistance to abortion as an escort is situated within Sartain's
diocese.
Formal cooperation with abortion is considered a grave sin in the Catholic
Church that carries an automatic penalty of excommunication or
excommunication latae sententiae as it is called within the Church's canon
law (Canon 1398). Earlier in July, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith reiterated the penalty of excommunication applied to all parties
formally cooperating in abortion, emphasizing that the penalty was an act of
mercy, because in that way the Church "makes clear the gravity of the crime
committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as
well as to the parents and the whole of society."
All three prelates will have to take that matter into consideration when
they consult, but canon lawyer Edward Peters on his blog says that Sr. Quinn
faces the possibility of dismissal from her order if matters are not
reconciled. "Canon 695 calls for the mandatory dismissal of a religious
guilty of the delict of abortion described in Canon 1398," writes Peters.
The case would be made that Sr. Quinn is an accomplice to abortion under
Canon 1329, which would then make Canon 695 applicable. "The novelty of
nuns serving as murder mistresses at abortion clinics means that there is
not much jurisprudence for such cases, I grant, but it is still a theory
worth exploring," Peters remarked.
Another possibility would then be Canon 696, Peters continues, "dismissal
from religious life can be imposed against one who gives 'grave scandal
arising from culpable behavior.'" That leaves either Sr. Quinn's superiors
or the three bishops with the option to pursue Sr. Quinn's dismissal in the
Church's courts. With American Archbishop Raymond Burke as the head of the
Apostolic Signatura, the Church's supreme court of appeal for canon law
cases, it is doubtful that Sr. Quinn could acquit herself of the charges in
light of long-standing evidence regarding her support for abortion.
Chicago-area pro-life witnesses informed LifeSiteNews.com that Sr. Quinn has
acted as escort for "six years, at least" and they were finally able to
identify her after her picture appeared in an article for the Chicago
Tribune.
Sr. Quinn has also spoken out in favor of legal abortion for decades and is
a coordinator of the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), an
organization which opposes the Catholic Church's position on abortion,
homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
5) Students Protest At Planned Parenthood Clinic To Conclude 40 Days For Life
Christendom.edu
http://www.christendom.edu/news/2009/11-3-megashield.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2377734/posts?page=6#6
November 3, 2009
Christendom College's pro-life student group, Shield of Roses, held its
biggest protest in over 30 years of existence. On October 31, over 200
students, faculty, staff, and visitors traveled to Washington, D.C., to
peacefully protest their opposition to abortion at the Planned Parenthood
clinic, located just north of the White House, on 16th Street.
The group protests at this same clinic each Saturday morning during the
academic year, but normally only around 20-30 students make the trek into
D.C. on a weekly basis. Once a semester, the group's leadership organizes
what it calls a "Mega Shield" event and encourages as many of the members of
the College community to participate. Last year, Mega Shield events drew as
many as 125 students, and prior years' record up to 150 participants.
"All of the members of our college community are, of course, pro-life," says
Shield of Roses President Paul Wilson, who will be graduating this May, "but
getting college students to give up their Saturday mornings to drive 75
miles to Washington to pray four rosaries and a Divine Mercy Chaplet and to
drive another 75 miles back to campus all before lunch is a lot to expect -
even for Christendom students. But once a semester, when we organize Mega
Shield, the members of our community really get fired up."
According to a woman identifying herself as Professor Foxy, writing for an
online blog on feministing.com, Christendom College students are really
making an impression on those who work at the abortion clinic and are
changing the face of "anti-choice" America.
In her article, entitled, "Thank you Dr. Tiller," Professor Foxy, who says
that she works as a pro-choice clinic escort at the Planned Parenthood
clinic where the Shield of Roses group prays, writes: "Over the years, the
antis [anti-abortion protesters] have stayed the same and they have changed.
When I started, almost all the antis were 45 plus, white, male and slightly
disheveled. These antis still exist, but they are now joined by the younger
antis. Some of these younger antis are hip, especially the Bound for Life
crowd. We also have many, many students who come from local colleges, the
most prominent being Christendom College. They drive in from Front Royal, VA
every Saturday morning (leaving in time for Saturday brunch) to stand
outside the local Planned Parenthood. Most of them pray (ending each
Saturday with a rousing Viva!), but a few of them approach the patients.
Nervously approaching the women entering the clinic, the Christendom kids
tentatively say 'we can help you save your baby. Each baby is a blessing
from God.'"
"It really makes you think," says Admissions Director Tom McFadden who
attended the October 31 Mega Shield. "I've been to the annual March for Life
in D.C. probably over 20 times and it's hard to tell what effect it has on
saving the lives of unborn babies. But this past Saturday, being there,
kneeling on the grass in front of the abortion clinic, made a difference.
Through the grace of God and our physical presence, we ended up saving the
lives of two babies because their mothers chose not to enter the clinic that
day. It doesn't really get much better than that!"
Shield of Roses has been protesting at this particular Planned Parenthood
clinic for the past ten years, and over the past five years, members of the
pro-life group have built relationships with some of the pro-choice clinic
escorts, even offering some of their rosaries for these same clinic escorts.
And whichever of the other many clinic escorts Professor Foxy is, she is
obviously affected by the Christendom students.
Christendom College's pro-life student group, Shield of Roses, held its
biggest protest in over 30 years of existence. On October 31, over 200
students, faculty, staff, and visitors traveled to Washington, D.C., to
peacefully protest their opposition to abortion at the Planned Parenthood
clinic, located just north of the White House, on 16th Street.
The group protests at this same clinic each Saturday morning during the
academic year, but normally only around 20-30 students make the trek into
D.C. on a weekly basis. Once a semester, the group's leadership organizes
what it calls a "Mega Shield" event and encourages as many of the members of
the College community to participate. Last year, Mega Shield events drew as
many as 125 students, and prior years' record up to 150 participants.
"All of the members of our college community are, of course, pro-life," says
Shield of Roses President Paul Wilson, who will be graduating this May, "but
getting college students to give up their Saturday mornings to drive 75
miles to Washington to pray four rosaries and a Divine Mercy Chaplet and to
drive another 75 miles back to campus all before lunch is a lot to expect -
even for Christendom students. But once a semester, when we organize Mega
Shield, the members of our community really get fired up."
According to a woman identifying herself as Professor Foxy, writing for an
online blog on feministing.com, Christendom College students are really
making an impression on those who work at the abortion clinic and are
changing the face of "anti-choice" America.
In her article, entitled, "Thank you Dr. Tiller," Professor Foxy, who says
that she works as a pro-choice clinic escort at the Planned Parenthood
clinic where the Shield of Roses group prays, writes: "Over the years, the
antis [anti-abortion protesters] have stayed the same and they have changed.
When I started, almost all the antis were 45 plus, white, male and slightly
disheveled. These antis still exist, but they are now joined by the younger
antis. Some of these younger antis are hip, especially the Bound for Life
crowd. We also have many, many students who come from local colleges, the
most prominent being Christendom College. They drive in from Front Royal, VA
every Saturday morning (leaving in time for Saturday brunch) to stand
outside the local Planned Parenthood. Most of them pray (ending each
Saturday with a rousing Viva!), but a few of them approach the patients.
Nervously approaching the women entering the clinic, the Christendom kids
tentatively say 'we can help you save your baby. Each baby is a blessing
from God.'"
"It really makes you think," says Admissions Director Tom McFadden who
attended the October 31 Mega Shield. "I've been to the annual March for Life
in D.C. probably over 20 times and it's hard to tell what effect it has on
saving the lives of unborn babies. But this past Saturday, being there,
kneeling on the grass in front of the abortion clinic, made a difference.
Through the grace of God and our physical presence, we ended up saving the
lives of two babies because their mothers chose not to enter the clinic that
day. It doesn't really get much better than that!"
Shield of Roses has been protesting at this particular Planned Parenthood
clinic for the past ten years, and over the past five years, members of the
pro-life group have built relationships with some of the pro-choice clinic
escorts, even offering some of their rosaries for these same clinic escorts.
And whichever of the other many clinic escorts Professor Foxy is, she is
obviously affected by the Christendom students.
6) Italian Minister Responds To European Court: 'We Will Not Remove Crucifixes
From The Classroom'
Catholic News Agency
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17587
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378718/posts
November 4, 2009
Italy's Minister of Education, Mariastella Gelmini, has rejected the ruling
by the European Court of Human Rights in favor of removing crucifixes from
public schools. She stated, "Nobody, much less a European court that is
steeped in ideology, will be allowed to strip our identity away."
The court ruled the presence of crucifixes in classrooms could be a "bother"
to students who practice other faiths or who are atheists and that the State
should abstain from imposing beliefs in public places. "Religious neutrality
should be observed in the context of public education," the court ruled.
The case was filed before the court by an Italian mother of two boys ages 11
and 13 who attended public school from 2001-2002 in the town of Abano Terme
in northeastern Italy. Crucifixes were hung in each classroom.
After losing in the Italian courts, the woman filed her suit before the
European Court, which ruled in her favor and ordered that she be paid 5,000
euros in damages. Italian officials said the ruling would be appealed.
Minister Gelmini rejected the ruling and told reporters, "The presence of
crucifixes in the classroom does not signify adhesion to Catholicism, but
rather represent our tradition."
"The history of Italy is full of symbols and if they are eliminated, a part
of us will end up be eliminated," she said.
After noting that nobody "in this country wants to impose the Catholic
religion," she noted that the Italian constitution "rightly recognizes the
value of the Catholic religion for our society."
Italy's Minister of Agriculture, Luca Zaia, also deplored the ruling and
said, "The Court has decided that crucifixes offend the sensibilities of
non-Christians. It's the Court that is offending the sentiments of the
European peoples who have their origin in Christianity. What an
embarrassment!"
In addition, former Minister of Culture, Rocco Buttiglione, said the ruling
was "abhorrent." He called for it to be strongly rejected saying, "Italy
has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us
should understand and accept this culture and this history," he added.
7) Spanish Cloistered Nuns See Surge In Vocations
Catholic News Agency
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17602
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2379476/posts
November 5, 2009
A 43 year-old prioresses has revolutionized an old Poor Clares convent in
Spain, turning it onto a magnet for dozens of young professional women.
Sister Veronica joined the Poor Clares Convent of the Ascension founded in
1604 in Lerma (Spain) at at time when it was going through a vocations
crisis. It was January 22, 1984, and Marijose Berzosa - Sr. Veronica's name
prior to entering the convent - decided, at age 18, to leave behind a career
in medicine, friends, nightlife and baketball.
"Nobody understood me. There were bets that it would not last, but they did
not feel the force of the hurricane that drew me in," says Sr. Veronica. "I
was a classic teenager looking for a way out ... and I made a decision in
just 15 days."
Sr. Veronica joined the convent which had not seen a new vocation in nearly
23 years.
Sr. Pureza de Maria Lubian, 70, now abbess of the convent in Burgos, was her
formation director and remembers her Sr. Veronica as "a lovely girl."
"Very noble and very good," recalls Sr. Puerza de Maria. Sr. Vernoica "was
18 and had a future. She left everything. She followed the call of God. She
had a rich personality. She was always a leader. And, spiritually, she had a
great vocation."
Sr. Puerza de Maria also notes that though Sr. Veronica faced many
"struggles and difficulties," she perservered and submitted to God's plan
for her life.
The Spanish daily El Pais, one of the newspapers most sympathetic to the
current Socialist government's campaign against the Catholic Church in
Spain, could not resist publishing an extensive report on Sr. Veronica.
According to the newspaper, she "has become the biggest phenomenon in the
Church since Teresa of Calcutta," as "she has made the old convent of Lerma
into an attractive recruiting banner for female vocations, with 135
professional women with a median age of 35 and 100 more on a waiting list."
The paper adds that Sr. Vernoica has also "opened a house in the town of La
Aguilera, 24 miles from Lerma, at a huge monastery donated by her Franciscan
brothers."
"It is an unexpected boom in vocations when the Jesuits have just 20 novices
in all of Spain, the Franciscans, five, and the Vincentians, two. And it's
happening at a time when nuns are being imported from India, Kenya or
Paraguay to prevent the closure of convents inhabited by elderly nuns, and
when most of our priests are above the age of 60," the report indicated.
On weekends the convent welcomes hundreds of pilgrims: families, young
members of ecclesial movements and church groups arrive in buses to attend
the prayers, theatrical plays and talks on fully living the Christian life.
According to El Pais, the majority of the young sisters who have been
attracted to the cloister "have been in relationships and had careers." The
women are strong in their knowledge of theology, and are "urban and
educated."
In addition, "None are immigrants. There are five sisters from the same
family, eleven pairs of blood sisters and a few twins. Most are from the
middle class. And they have college degrees. This community offers a
complete roster of lawyers, economists, physicists and chemists, roadway
engineers, industrial workers, agricultural workers and aeronautics
engineers, architects, doctors, pharmacists, biologists and physical
therapists, librarians, philologists, teachers and photographers."
One of the sisters in the community interviewed by El Pais defines the
cloister as "an house open to those who knock on our door. We want to share
our faith, to make known what is happening to us. And if they see Jesus in
us, go ahead. Spain is so pagan that we need to share our faith, not live it
alone. It is time to act."
The growth of the cloister since the arrival of Sister Veronica has been
explosive: in 1994, when she was appointed mistress of novices at the age of
28, nearly 30 sisters entered. In 2002 there were 72, in 2004, there were
92. In 2005, the number rose to 105. Late last September there were 134.
Originally in a 16th century convent built to accommodate 32, the sisters
are being leased the monastery of La Aguliera by the Franciscan Friars of
Lerma. It is located adjacent to the sanctuary and the tomb of St. Peter
Regalado.
The monastery is quickly being renovated to provide a modern, functional and
well-lit space, with energy obtained through solar panels.
The new monastery has 100 cells, each with bed, table and kneeler, while a
parlor with a capacity of 400, a hospice, bathrooms for visitors, and a new
chapel are currently being constructed.
Recently, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, Preacher of the Papal Household,
preached to 140 Poor Clares in Lerma. The visit by the Italian Capuchin was
broadcast by the RAI network (Italian Radio and Television) in prime time in
Italy.
8) On Theology Of The Heart Or The Mind: "To Make Truth Triumph In Charity"
Zenit News Agency
http://www.zenit.org/article-27438?l=english
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2378939/posts
November 4, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI
Here is a translation of Benedict XVI's address today during the general
audience held in St. Peter's Square.
* * *
Dear brothers and sisters,
In the last catechesis I presented the main characteristics of 12th century
monastic and scholastic theology, which in a certain sense we could call,
respectively, "theology of the heart" and "theology of reason." A wide
debate, at times fiery, took place between the representatives of each
current, represented symbolically by the controversy between St. Bernard of
Clairvaux and Abelard.
To understand this confrontation between the two great teachers, it is good
to recall that theology is the search for a rational understanding, insofar
as possible, of the mystery of Christian revelation, believed by faith:
fides quaerens intellectum -- faith seeking understanding -- to use a
traditional, concise and effective definition.
Now, whereas St. Bernard, typical representative of monastic theology,
places the accent on the first part of the definition, that is, on fides --
faith, Abelard, who is a scholastic, stresses the second part, that is, the
intellectus -- on understanding through reason. For Bernard, faith itself is
gifted with a profound certainty based on the testimony of Scripture and on
the teaching of the Church fathers. Faith, moreover, is reinforced by the
testimony of the saints and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the
soul of each believer. In cases of doubt or ambiguity, faith must be
protected and enlightened by the exercise of the ecclesial magisterium.
So for Bernard it is difficult to agree with Abelard and, more generally,
with those who subjected the truths of the faith to the critical examination
of reason, an examination that, in his opinion, entailed a grave danger,
intellectualism, the relativization of truth, discussion of the very truths
of the faith. Bernard saw in this way of proceeding an audacity to the point
of lacking scruples, fruit of the pride of human intelligence, which
attempts to "grasp" the mystery of God. Pained, he wrote thus in one of his
letters: "Human wit grasps everything, leaving nothing to faith. It
confronts what is beyond it; scrutinizes what is superior to it; invades the
world of God; alters, more than illumines, the mysteries of the faith; it
does not open what is closed and sealed, but eradicates it, and what is does
not find viable, it considers as nothing, and refuses to believe in it"
(Epistola CLXXXVIII,1: PL 182, I, 353).
For Bernard, theology has only one end: that of promoting the intense and
profound experience of God. Therefore, theology is an aid to love the Lord
ever more and better, as states the title of the treatise on the Duty to
Love God (De diligendo Deo). Along this way, there are different degrees,
which Bernard describes in detail, up to the highest, when the soul of the
believer is inebriated on the summits of love. The human soul can attain
already on earth that mystical union with the Divine Word, a union that the
doctor mellifluus describes as "spiritual espousals." The Divine Word visits
her, eliminates the last resistances, illumines her, inflames her and
transforms her. In this mystical union, [the soul] enjoys great peace and
sweetness, and sings to her Spouse a hymn of joy. As I reminded in the
catechesis dedicated to the life and doctrine of St. Bernard, for him
theology cannot but be nourished by contemplative prayer, in other words, by
the affective union of the heart and mind with God.
Abelard, on the other hand, who is precisely the one who introduced the term
"theology" in the sense in which we understand it today, places himself in a
different perspective. Born in Brittany, in France, this famous teacher of
the 12th century was gifted with a very acute intelligence and his vocation
was study. He concerned himself first with philosophy, and then applied the
results obtained in this discipline to theology, which he taught in Paris,
the most cultured city of the time, and subsequently, in the monasteries in
which he lived. He was a brilliant orator: His lessons were followed by true
and proper masses of students.
Of a religious spirit but of a restless personality, his life was full of
dramatics: He refuted his teachers, had a child with Eloise, an educated and
intelligent woman. He was often in controversy with his theological
colleagues. He also suffered ecclesiastical condemnations, though he died in
full communion with the Church, to whose authority he submitted with a
spirit of faith.
In fact St. Bernard contributed to the condemnation of some of Abelard's
doctrines in the provincial synod of Sens of 1140, and he also requested the
intervention of Pope Innocent II. The abbot of Clairvaux rejected, as we
recalled, Abelard's too-intellectualist method, which in his eyes reduced
the faith to a simple opinion detached from revealed truth. Bernard's fears
were not unfounded, but were shared, moreover, by other great thinkers of
his time. In fact, an excessive use of philosophy made Abelard's Trinitarian
doctrine dangerously fragile, and thus his idea of God. In the moral field
his teaching was not lacking in ambiguity: He insisted on considering the
individual's intention as the only source to describe the goodness or evil
of moral acts, thus neglecting the objective meaning and moral values of
actions: a dangerous subjectivism. This is -- as we know -- a very pertinent
element for our times, in which culture often seems marked by a growing
tendency to ethical relativism: only the "I" decides what is good for me, at
this moment.
However, we must not forget the great merits of Abelard, who had many
disciples and who contributed to the development of scholastic theology,
destined to express itself in a more mature and fruitful way in the next
century. Some of his intuitions should not be undervalued, as for example
when he affirms that in non-Christian religious traditions there is already
a preparation for the acceptance of Christ, Divine Word.
What can we learn today from the often heated confrontation between Bernard
and Abelard and, in general, between monastic and scholastic theology? Above
all I believe it shows the usefulness of and the need for a healthy
discussion in the Church, especially when the questions debated have not
been defined by the magisterium, which continues to be, however, an
essential point of reference. St. Bernard, but also Abelard himself, always
recognized, without doubting, its authority. Moreover, the condemnations
that the latter suffered remind us that in the theological field there must
be a balance between what we might call the architectonic principles that
have been given to us by Revelation and that, because of this, always are of
prime importance, and the interpretative principles suggested by philosophy,
that is, by reason, which has an important function, but only instrumental.
When this balance between the architecture and the instruments of
interpretation diminishes, theological reflection runs the risk of being
contaminated with errors, and then it corresponds to the magisterium to
exercise that necessary service to truth that is proper to it.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that, between the motivations that induced
Bernard to place himself against Abelard and to request the intervention of
the magisterium, was, also, the concern to safeguard simple and humble
believers, who must be defended when they run the risk of being confused or
led astray by opinions that are too personal and by theological
argumentations without scruples, which might endanger their faith.
Finally, I would like to recall that the theological confrontation between
Bernard and Abelard ended with full reconciliation between them, thanks to
the mediation of a common friend, Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, of
whom I spoke in a previous catechesis. Abelard showed humility in
acknowledging his errors; Bernard used great benevolence. There prevailed in
both what should truly be in the heart when a theological controversy is
born, that is, to safeguard the faith of the Church and to make truth
triumph in charity. May this also be the attitude with which there are
confrontations in the Church, always keeping as the aim the pursuit of
truth.
[The Pope then greeted the people in several languages. In English, he
said:]
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Today we continue our comparison of the monastic and scholastic approaches
to theology which we began last week, by looking again at Saint Bernard of
Clairvaux, this time in comparison with Abelard. Both of them considered
theology as "faith seeking understanding"; but whereas Bernard placed the
accent on "faith," Abelard emphasized "understanding." Bernard, for whom the
aim of theology was to have a living experience of God, cautioned against
intellectual pride which makes us think we can grasp fully the mysteries of
faith. Abelard, who strove to apply the insights of philosophy to theology,
saw in other religions the seeds of an openness to Christ. The respective
approaches of Bernard and Abelard -- one a "theology of the heart" and the
other a "theology of reason" -- were not without tension. They therefore
illustrate the importance of healthy theological discussion and humble
obedience to ecclesial authority. Theology must respect the principles it
receives from revelation as it uses philosophy to interpret them. Whenever a
theological dispute arises, everyone, and in a particular way the
Magisterium, has a responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the faith.
As we strive to deepen our understanding of the Gospel, may God strengthen
us to extol its truth in charity.
I am pleased to welcome the English-speaking pilgrims present at today's
Audience. I particularly greet priests from the dioceses of England and
Wales celebrating Jubilees, pilgrims from the Diocese of Wichita, students
and teachers from Catholic schools in Denmark, and Catholic nurses from the
United States. God's blessings upon you all!
[He added in Italian:]
I greet, finally, young people, the sick and newlyweds. Today is the
liturgical memorial of St. Charles Borromeo, famous bishop of the Diocese of
Milan, who, animated by ardent love for Christ, was a tireless teacher and
guide. May his example help you, dear young people, to let yourselves be led
by Christ in your daily choices; may it encourage you, dear sick people, to
offer your suffering for the pastors of the Church and for the salvation of
souls; may it support you, dear newlyweds, in founding your family on
evangelical values.
9) Exorcist: The Devil Is Afraid Of You
Catholic Herald
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000682.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2380174/posts
November 6, 2009
An American exorcist has said the film The Exorcist led people to believe
wrongly that the devil could "come and zap them" when in fact the devil is
afraid of the power of Jesus inside them.
Mgr John Esseff, retired exorcist of the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
told an audience of 400 students at Bowling Green State University, Ohio
that the power of Jesus within them was "enormous".
He said: "The devil is afraid of you - if you would just awaken to who you
are."
In describing one of his exorcisms, he said: "As she came in, she saw me and
she shrieked - and the language and the growls - and then she slithered
across the floor and was going up the wall. Well, there was obviously a
force here, a presence. And I just simply silenced her in the name of
Jesus."
Mgr Esseff said that each baptised person was united to Jesus by the power
of the Holy Spirit. He read passages from the Gospels in which Jesus
exorcised demons and then sent his disciples to do the same.
He said that Jesus ultimately defeated Satan through his death and
Resurrection and then sent the power of the Holy Spirit to his Apostles at
Pentecost.
"When God looks down, he sees Jesus in you," Mgr Esseff said. "You have that
power as baptised, confirmed Christians. And so when he [Satan] sees you, he
hates what you would discover about that power that is within you."
He suggested that each audience member had been tempted that day because
temptation was the ordinary activity of the devil.
"Your soul is a battlefield because there is also someone who hates you," he
said. "That one is the devil. The devil knows who you are and what you have.
God passed him by. God did not choose to become one of the angels. God chose
to be one like us."
But just as each person was tempted, Mgr Esseff said, another spirit also
was at work.
"In your life today, this very day, has been the Holy Spirit," he said. "God
is in you. God the Holy Spirit is operative in you. God the Holy Spirit
wants to bring into your heart love. God wants to bring you peace."
Mgr Esseff also told students of the power of angels and encouraged them to
renew their devotions to their guardian angels.
"His [the angel's] job is to protect you all through this world. And when
you close your eyes, he wants to deliver you to God," Mgr Esseff said.
Earlier in the evening Mgr Esseff invited students to invoke angels to fill
the area and make a perimeter around the talk for protection.
The event was hosted by St Thomas More University parish and Veritas, the
Catholic student organisation at Bowling Green State University.
JonMarc Grodi, president of Veritas, said: "One of the ways I sold it [the
event] on campus was that, regardless of what people believe about good and
evil, the devil, etc, this is a guy that has been around the world and
experienced some of the lightest and darkest moments of the human
experience, and so his is a perspective that everyone should hear out."
In addition to serving as the official exorcist of the Scranton diocese Mgr
Esseff has travelled extensively around the world, working in Latin America
and Lebanon and accompanying Blessed Mother Teresa for a period of time.
It was Mother Teresa, he said, who directed him to his current work, which
focuses on the formation of priests.
After the talk Megan Dowell-Howko, a first-year student, said she now had a
better understanding of how she experienced temptation, and that she would
remember she could say no to the devil.
She said: "I guess I'm taking away a renewed confidence that the devil only
has as much power over me as I give to him," she said.
Before the event Mgr Esseff said he saw three indications of Satan's
presence in the world: money, lies and war.
"I think one of the greatest things he has done is have people forget he
exists. People deny he exists," he said
10) A Look At The Mass From A Biblical Perspective
Celledoor Bible
http://celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/Bible/data/roman_missal.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2382171/posts
2009
Frederick Manligas Nacino
A Biblical Comparison of the Roman Missal
Rev 4:2-4 ...And immediately I was in the spirit. And behold, a throne had
been placed in heaven... And surrounding the throne were... smaller thrones.
And upon the thrones... elders were sitting, clothed all around in white
vestments... And there were ... burning lamps before the throne..
INTRODUCTORY RITES
The Entrance
Rev 4:10 -- "You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and
power. For you have created all things, and they became and were craeted
because of your will."
Greeting of the Altar and of the People Gathered Together
Mt 28:19 -- "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit..."
2 Cor 13:13 -- "...The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of
God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all..."
Eph 1:2 -- "...Grace and peace to you from God the Father, and from the Lord
Jesus Christ..."
2 Tim 4:22 -- "...May the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit..."
The Act of Penitence
Jas 5:16 -- "...confess your sins to one another, and pray for one
another..."
Dan 9:4-6 -- "...I beg you, O Lord God, great and terrible, preserving the
covenant and mercy for those who love you and keep your commandments. We
have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we acted impiously and have
withdrawn, and we have turned aside from your commandments as well as your
judgments. We have not obeyed your servants, the prophets, who have spoken
in your name..."
The Kyrie Eleison
Ps 122:3 -- "...Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us..."
The Gloria
Lk 2:14 -- "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good
will."
1 Pet 1:7 -- "...praise and glory and honor, at the revelation of Jesus
Christ..."
LITURGY OF THE WORD
2 Tim 3:16 -- ...All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice, so
that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good
work...
Rev 5:7 -- ...And he approached and received the book from the right hand of
the One sitting upon the throne...
The First Reading
The second reading is typically a pericope taken from the Old Testament.
Responsorial Psalm
The responsorial psalm is a hymn typically taken the Davidian Psalters
The Second Reading
The second reading is typically a pericope taken from the epistles. It is
not usually read on weekdays.
Verse before the Gospel
The verse before the Gospel is a hymn adapted from a verse related to the
Gospel reading.
Rev 5:13 -- "...to the Lamb be blessing, and honor, and glory, and
authority, forever and ever."
The Gospel Reading
Gospel pericopes cover almost all of the four Gospels if read from daily in
a three year cycle. Gospel readings are cycled through the synoptic gospels
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Gospel of John is covered throughout the
year and major feast days.
The Profession of Faith
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of
the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through Him all things
were made.
For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven: by the power of
the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became Man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and
was buried.
On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He
will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom
will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceeds from
the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and
glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
The Prayer of the Faithful
Rev 5:8 -- ...living creatures and the ... elders... each having... golden
bowls full of fragrances, which are the prayers of the saints...
Ps 83:9 -- ...O Lord, God of hosts, hear my prayer...
LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
Mal 1:11 -- ...For, from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name
is great among the Gentiles, and in every place, a clean oblation is being
sacrificed and offered to my name. For my name is great among the Gentiles,
says the Lord of hosts...
The Preparation of the Gifts
Rev 8:3 -- ...And another Angel approached, and he stood before the altar,
holding a golden censer. And much incense was given to him, so that he might
offer upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God, the prayers
of all the saints. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints
ascended, in the presence of God, from the hand of the Angel...
Institution Narrative
1 Cor 11:23-25 -- "...on the same night that he was handed over, took bread,
and giving thanks, he broke it, and said: "Take and eat. This is my body,
which shall be given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Similarly
also, the cup, after he had eaten supper, saying: "This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of
me."
Rev 4:8 -- ...And they took no rest, day or night, from saying: "Holy, Holy,
Holy is the Lord God Almighty..."
Isa 6:3 -- ..."Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts! All the earth is
filled with his glory!"...
Mt 21:9 -- ..."Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the
name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!"...
Memorial Acclamation
Rev 5:6 -- ...and behold, in the midst of the throne... a Lamb was standing,
as if it were slain...
1 Cor 11:26 -- "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
proclaim the death of the Lord, until he returns..."
1 Cor 15:3-22 -- "...Christ died for our sins... Christ has risen again from
the dead... in Christ all will be brought to life..."
THE COMMUNION RITE
The Lord's Prayer
Mt 6:9-13 -- "...Our Father, who is in heaven: May your name be kept holy.
May your kingdom come. May your will be done, as in heaven, so also on
earth. Give us this day our life-sustaining bread. And forgive us our debts,
as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But free us
from evil..."
1 Chr 29:11 -- "...Yours, O Lord, is magnificence and power and glory, and
also victory; and to you is praise. For all the things that are in heaven
and on earth are yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are above all
rulers..."
The Rite of Peace
Jn 14:27 -- "...Peace I leave for you; my Peace I give to you..."
2 Cor 13:12 -- "...Greet one another..."
Jn 20:19 -- "...Peace to you..."
Communion
Jn 6:54-59 -- Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in
you. 55 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up on the last day. 56 For my flesh is true food, and my
blood is true drink. 57 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in
me, and I in him. 58 Just as the living Father has sent me and I live
because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because
of me. 59 This is the bread that descends from heaven. It is not like the
manna that your fathers ate, for they died. Whoever eats this bread shall
live forever."
Jn 1:29 -- ..."Behold, the Lamb of God. Behold, he who takes away the sin of
the world..."
Mt 8:8 -- ..."Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but
only say the word, and my servant shall be healed..."
THE CONCLUDING RITES
Gen 28:3 -- "...And may God almighty bless you..."
Num 6:24-26 -- "May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord reveal his
face to you and take pity on you. May the Lord turn his countenance toward
you and grant peace to you."
Mt 28:19 -- "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit..."
Judg 18:6 -- "Go in peace. The Lord looks with favor on your path, and on
the journey that you have undertaken."
Deut 10:11-12 -- "...Go forth... and love him, and serve the Lord..."
Rev 14:2-3 -- ...And the voice that I heard was like that of singers, while
playing on their stringed instruments. And they were singing what seemed
like a new canticle before the throne...
11) Weak Negotiating Fathers
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/11/09/weak_negotiating_fathers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382055/posts
November 9, 2009
Mike Adams
The other day I was sitting at a deli having some breakfast and drinking a
cup of coffee. A man was walking out of the deli with his kids when his son,
who looked to be about three years old, asked his dad whether they were
going to the park. The dad said "no" because, apparently, they had somewhere
else to go. That's when the boy turned and starting swinging his arms
striking his father repeatedly around the groin area.
What happened next also annoyed me. The father leaned down and, in a gentle
voice, began to explain why the child's actions were inappropriate. The
father wasn't at all successful. The kid just kept swinging away and making
a scene. The father patiently pleaded with his son "Please stop that, you're
hurting daddy."
Previously, I observed something similar at the grocery shore. A man was
shopping while his two boys ran wildly up and down the aisles. One boy was
pulling items off the shelves and throwing them at his brother who had to
catch them lest they crashed to the ground. When he tried to toss the items
back to his brother - to put them back on the shelves - the
instigator/brother would just run away laughing.
The boys' father stopped the instigating son - obviously the older of the
two boys - and began explaining to him why his actions were wrong. After he
was finished making sure his son understood his position - that there was no
"communication breakdown" - his son simply resumed with his disruptive
behavior.
Right now, I'm waiting to board a flight in the Minneapolis airport. A young
boy who is about two years old is throwing a tantrum and his father is
pulling out a bag of goodies in an effort to appease him. The waiting areas
in the A terminal of the Minneapolis airport are pretty small so I can't get
away from the noise. I'll have to resume writing this column later.
The take off of our flight to Lincoln, Nebraska was delayed for a few
minutes. The little boy who threw a tantrum in the terminal refused to stay
seated with his seatbelt on before the take-off. After his dad buckled him
up he started to scream. So his dad unbuckled him and let him just stand up
in his chair and scream. The flight attendant finally told the father that
we were not going anywhere until he held firm and showed the boy that he was
going to win this battle.
I don't think the flight attendant really understood just how profound a
statement she had made. A society with weak negotiating fathers is one that
has little hope of going anywhere. It just sort of gets stuck on a runway
while everyone grows impatient wondering what the problem could be and
whether there's some expert who could figure it all out.
It's temping to over-simplify the problem by saying that most fathers are
afraid to discipline their children in public because there are cameras that
record their actions and that those actions are increasingly monitored by
the criminal courts. It is true that many acts we once called discipline are
now called misdemeanors. But the problem is much broader.
The civil courts have been so hijacked by radical feminism that a father's
right to see his own child is now seen as a privilege. Unless the mother
actually murders her children she will get custody of them. The father who
sees his children every other weekend won't risk losing custody altogether.
That is why any semblance of discipline often dies along with the marriage.
And it's tempting to stop here and pretend we haven't oversimplified the
problem. But the war on fathers in the legal system really isn't war. It is
a battle in a larger war on men in our society-at-large. No one understands
that war better than those of us who teach in higher education.
In the halls of academe feminists are pushing the idea that there are no
inherent differences between men and women. The idea is simply too stupid to
believe - even for most feminists. But feminists are no different than
sorority girls in the sense that they will pretend to be stupid if it means
they can get something without working.
Their plan is simple: If male/female differences are all the result of
patriarchal oppression, not biology, they can better argue for social
engineering and the social welfare it entails.
The feminist war on males reminds me very much of the war on Christians I
once waged as an atheist. I enjoyed pointing to the hypocrisy of Christians.
But I only did it because bringing them down to my level was much easier
than lifting myself up to theirs.
And that is really what is happening with the current epidemic of weak
negotiating fathers. It is not about uplifting our children. It is about
bringing the fathers down to their level.
But at least we are moving in the direction of equality. It gives us
something pleasant to consider while we're sitting on a runway waiting for
the experts.
Saint Alberic Crescitelli | Favorite President George W. Bush Pictures | Website Home Page/Index | Fr. Seamus Hogan Homilies Archive
"All Things Political" Archives, 1999-2004 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2004-2005 |
"All Things Political" Archives, 2005-Present
"Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 1999-2004 |
"Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 2004-Present | Computer-Related Stuff
NEWEST Things Posted Printer-Friendly Page | NEWEST Things Posted | Favorite Websites
Religious Denominations In The United States
TOP OF PAGE
