Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Steve Cates

Friday, September 18, 2009

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS NAILS HEALTH CARE REFORM

Representative Mike Rogers must be watched!

With an outstanding resume both in the public and private sectors he speaks truth from knowledge because of his background:

A 1985 graduate of Adrian College in Michigan, Mike earned his reputation as a leader, problem solver and “people person” during service as a U.S. Army officer/company commander (1985-88), FBI Special Agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago Bureau’s organized crime unit (1988-94), and in the Michigan Senate (1995-2000) where he served as Senate Majority Floor Leader (1999-2000). Mike also has a strong business background. He is a co-founder of E.B.I. Builders, Inc., a family-owned home construction business in Brighton, and is a member of several chambers of commerce. Mike served in the University of Michigan Reserve Officer Training Corp (R.O.T.C.), belongs to the Society of Former Special Agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and is an honorary member of Brighton Rotary Club.

If only the North Dakota congressional delegation had the guts and knowledge to tell it like it is:

ECONOMIC LITERACY MAKES A COMEBACK: EUGENE GRANER BACK ON RADIO

From Eugene:

For those who have been missing my daily injection of insight and humor on market activity, your wait has ended and Senator Dorgan’s education has only just begun! 

Starting Monday September 21 at 9:53 a.m., I will be back on the radio across most of North Dakota via the Scott Hennen Radio Network out of Fargo on 1100 AM “The Flag”.  Their signal covers the Red River Valley and makes it as far west as Sterling, North Dakota.  The Bismarck affiliate is 1270 AM KLXX, in Dickinson it is 1460 AM KLTC, and in Tioga 1090 AM KTGO (whose signal covers Williston and almost makes it into Minot).  I will be doing a daily 5-minute “Inside the Numbers” market talk without being encumbered by political correctness.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

DORGAN AND CONRAD ADVANCING RADICAL CASS SUNSTEIN!

Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Senators Dorgan and Conrad voted for the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Cass R. Sunstein, to be Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Sunstein has a documented record of anti-gun, anti-hunting, animal rights, private property rights legal extremism!  From Faces of Agriculture web site of Trent Loos:

Take action now to block Cass Sunstein!

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has scheduled a vote for Wednesday, September 9 on a presidential nominee opposed by many American hunters, gun owners, and farmers. The nominee, Cass Sunstein, has been tapped to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) or “Regulatory Czar” as the position is known. The job functions as the “choke point” between the White House and regulations from government agencies including the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.







From the document “Who Is Cass Sunstein and Why Should You Care?” the tip of the iceberg is exposed:

1) President Obama has nominated Sunstein as his regulatory czar—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – to review and shape all major federal regulations; 2) Sunstein believes the way to fix many things is to impose the “right thing” by government regulation, supplemented by private lawsuits to go where government prosecutors haven’t the budget or time and 3) He has written extensively about animal “rights,” believing animals are underrepresented in our legal system and their circumstances are not well enough known by consumers.

If as a regulatory czar wouldn’t be frightening enough, Sunstein has also been mentioned as a Supreme Court candidate,given his legal background and Obama association at the University of Chicago.

In ruing the lack of time and money in most prosecutors’ offices to deal with animal welfare, Sunstein suggests citizens should be able to file lawsuits “directly against those who have violated [anticruelty] law, in “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer.”” ” ...representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced,” (emphasis his). “Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children’s behalf.”

His concession: since some, “because of some kind of ideological commitment to improving animal welfare… might go well beyond what the law actually says,” if such was a “genuine risk,” it might be advisable to force those , “who bring frivolous [lawsuits] to pay the defendants’ attorneys fees.” Wow, bet that would draw HSUS up short - for a nanosecond.

That’s just about better enforcement of current laws.

“But I think that we should go further,” Sunstein said. The law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering (italics his).” He goes on to suggest committees or boards to approve management practices, noting European’s example.

Of course, that’s partially why Europe is now importing meat not exporting.

Sunstein discusses the issue of animals as property:

“If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property.”

“The cruel and abusive practices generally involved in contemporary farming are largely unregulated at the state level,” Sunstein said.

He discusses the concept of animal “autonomy,” that is, animals freed from human control, based on an animal’s ability to “think,” and concludes, ” ... sometimes, [human] interests will outweigh those of other animals.”

Sunstein co-edited a book called “Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions,” a collection of essays that drew a recommendation from the infamous Laurence Tribe, another advocate for animal legal “rights.”

Sunstein’s other writings are equally alarming. Big Brother government is not good enough for Sunstein.

He prefers authoritarian father figures. Written with Richard H. Thaler, “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron,” holds that, “Often people’s preferences are ill-formed” and “paternalism cannot be avoided,” and “libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people’s choices.”

Their libertarian paternalism example involves a “cafeteria at some organization,” where the director has noticed customers choosing more of the items presented earlier in the line. How to order the lineup?

The paper posits four possibilities, with #4 being the cafeteria director putting items earlier in the line she thinks consumers would choose on their own. The authors’ dislike that. Option #1 is Sunstein and Thaler’s choice.

The director should “make the choices that she thinks would make the customers best off ... to promote their welfare, all things considered.” Even under market pressures, they maintain the director would have “a great deal of room to maneuver.” In other words, they believe it is the director’s job to change customers’ tastes and preferences! Lovely philosophy for a federal regulator, that!

Sunstein and co-writer Jeff Leslie in “Animal Rights Without Controversy,” propose their back door way to getting consumers more active regarding animal treatment.

“Consumers should be permitted to express their commitments [to proper animal treatment] through their purchasing decisions.” How?

A label on each package, indicating, for example, the percentage of animals hurt or injured or bones broken when raised by a particular husbandry method. Additional information could include natural daylight hours, bedding, cage or pen size, etc. We assume Sunstein’s classifications would accommodate “things we know,” like “piglets should have toys” and “cows should not be continuously bred.”

So this is Obama’s Big Papa?

1 “Liberty and Freedom,” David Hackett Fischer, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.
2 “Liberty and Tyranny,” Mark R. Levin, Threshold Editions, New York, 2009.
3 “Common Sense,” Glenn Beck, Mercury Radio Arts/Threshold Editions, New York, 2009.

Senator Dorgan:
Washington, DC                   Bismarck
202-224-2551                     701-250-4618

Senator Conrad:
Washington, DC                   Bismarck
(202) 224-2043                     (701) 258-4648

 

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

LOTS OF OIL…....TOO MANY WACKO ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND TOO MUCH FAIRY DUST RENEWABLE DREAMING

About 6 months ago, on a news program on oil, one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together…” Please read below.


The U. S. Geological Survey issued a report in April (‘08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big…  It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ‘95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ;  western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana .... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.

‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’  And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada .  For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.  Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.  However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.  And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006


Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels.  On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news:  We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it’s all right here in the Western United States
.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?  Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped.  That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price - even with this find?  Think again!  It’s all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet?  Hope so!  Now, while you’re thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O’d, do this:

3. Pass this along.  If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices—- because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain.

From over the internet transom…..Thanks Dennis

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

COMMIES IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

The mainstream media has done it’s best to ignore the latest Obama Administration scandal. Van Jones was the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs. He was to have been the man in charge of the distribution of $30 BILLION of your dollars. He was fired early Sunday morning (before the Sunday morning political talk shows could prepare?). The truth is that Glenn Beck outed Van Jones who has been an avowed COMMUNIST! We almost had a man overseeing a huge amount of taxpayer money who likely could not even have obtain a rudimentary security clearance to work for a U.S. Defense Department contractor! Have you ever heard the term, “The nuts are running the asylum”? Here is the proof!

From Wikipedia:

He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics[15] whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism.

He has NEVER RENOUNCED his COMMUNISM!

He is apparently adored by the modern U.S. Democrat Party!





If you do nothing else today BE SURE to watch these two videos. VERY IMPORTANT!

And…

Pat Cadell worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992, is deeply alarmed:

If we learn nothing else (and we will learn precious little from the mainstream media), it is that the term ENVIRO-MARXIST is likely more the norm than the exception. Is it true as it has been asserted that environmentalist are like watermelon? GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE AND RED ON THE INSIDE?

?

Friday, September 04, 2009

NAKED EMPEROR NEWS: ‘OBAMA’S MOTHER OF ALL POLITICAL LIES AND THE TOWNHALL MAYHEM IT CAUSED’

“Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span so that the American people can see what the choices are because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process” – Barack Obama, January 2008

Candidate Obama over, and over promised that health care reform would be the most transparent process ever. He has operated just the opposite. You MUST watch this video.

http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-emperor-news-obamas-mother-of-all-political-lies-and-the-town-hall-mayhem-it-caused/

According to David Axelrod, Obama will go on offense over health care. Obama has scheduled an address before both houses of congress (the 13th such address since 1981). Be vigilant but with Barack Obama becoming the face of reform rather than letting congress take all the arrows is one of the most wonderful developments in this whole fiasco.

How many prevarications will that single speech have?

0-10?

>10?

>20?

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

SIGN OF THE TIMES: ASTROTURF AND SHEEPLE?

Dave Wallis / The Forum

Check out the signage of two respective events. Images of the “Health Care Now”, NDPeople rally show signs of obvious quality and uniformity. It seems as if the supporters of health care reform arrived and someone handed the signs out to everyone. ALL the signs are manufactured and professional in ALL of the images of the rally from the Fargo Forum story of August 30, 2009, entitled “Health care rally draws hundreds”. The articles states explains :

The rally was organized by NDPeople.org, a progressive advocacy group, and garnered support from nearly two dozen labor, children’s advocacy, faith and other groups.

It turns out that these different “groups” were asked to provide people for the rally.

If you have any questions watch this video of the MANUFACTURED FARGO HEALTH CARE EVENT.

Oddly, nine days before the rally Rob Port at Sayanythingblog.com posted a forwarded email in which it was explained that nine days before the rally in support of Obamacare it was well known that SEIU (union who’s thugs beat up townhall meeting participants in St. Louis) was paying for buses from Bismarck, stopping in Jamestown, would provide transportation to Fargo.

SEIU would pay for speakers and other costs including fliers! It is likely that the whole event was a staged and paid for SEIU union manipulated event! Somehow the Fargo Forum reporter thought that NDPeople was all there was to this even though the most read political blog in the state laid the facts out more than a week before the event!

The people at the rally were so concerned about health care that the “organizers” (SEIU/NDPeople) also provided the means to contact elected officials. From the Forum article:

Organizers provided stationery and cell phones for those looking to contact their representatives on the spot. Attendees signed Band-Aid-shaped slots on a petition calling for a public insurance plan option.

Dave Wallis / The Forum

And…

“The power of money is on the opposing side right now,” Morrison said. “It’s an uphill battle to have the voice of ordinary people be heard.”

So, the power of SEIU money does not count? Concern that SEIU union members (ordinary people) are not being herd? Are they being herded? Like sheep?

BY THE WAY, IS NDPEOPLE AN SEIU FRONT GROUP?



On the other hand at the Bismarck Tea Party the only signs were home-made and I may be mistaken but I doubt that anyone rode a bus to the event. Video of the Fargo Tea Party evidences no professional sings, no buses, no union organized rent-a-mob. These people used their own phones, paper, envelopes, and stamps to contact their congressional delegation. Just like…...real “ordinary people”?

I have a possible new name for the union financed, everything-provided rent-a-mob astroturfers who claim to speak for “ordinary people”, perhaps, based on the facts we might refer to them as NDSheeple?

Where is the North Dakota media?......Asleep or flacking for the Union?

Monday, August 31, 2009

OUR TANKING PRESIDENT: WHERE WILL IT END?

Even with fawning coverage of the Obama family vacation in Marxist Vineyard, and the distraction of Senator Kennedy’s death and funeral, the downward spiral continues for The Anointed One. According to the Sunday, August 30, 2009 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll people seem to be on to the Obama double talk with a significant disapproval:

Is the Obama Job Approval drop unprecedented? Is it reversible? Can Obama say anything that is true? Would the truth help his approval rating? Once the country thinks that their president is dishonest is that president’s ability to govern permanently undermined?

Proverbs 13:5, “A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.”

Friday, August 28, 2009

MARK STEYN: AIRBRUSHING THE LIBERAL LION

We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation – or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture – declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Senator Edward M Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.

In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940-1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine:

“Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life…”

That’s the way to do it! An “accident”, “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen – and only to him, nobody else. Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to name check the bit players. What befell him was …a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in The Boston Globe:

“Like all figures in history - and like those in the Bible, for that matter - Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”

Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than “betrayed” him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let’s face it, he doesn’t have Ted’s tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps it’s kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of “tremendous moral collapse”. When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, it’s usually to add insult to fatal injury. As Teddy’s biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy’s “achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.”

You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the Senator changed - he certainly changed Mary Jo’s - but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the Senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history… Who knows – maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?

We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second’s notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty. When a man (if you’ll forgive the expression) confronts the truth of what he has done, what does honor require? Six years before Chappaquiddick, in the wake of Britain’s comparatively very minor “Profumo scandal”, the eponymous John Profumo, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War, resigned from the House of Commons and the Queen’s Privy Council, and disappeared amid the tenements of the East End to do good works washing dishes and helping with children’s playgroups, in anonymity, for the last 40 years of his life. With the exception of one newspaper article to mark the centenary of his charitable mission, he never uttered another word in public again.

Ted Kennedy went a different route. He got kitted out with a neck brace and went on TV and announced the invention of the “Kennedy curse”, a concept that yoked him to his murdered brothers as a fellow victim – and not, as Mary Jo perhaps realized in those final hours, the perpetrator. He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didn’t, he made all of us complicit in what he’d done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation.

His defenders would argue that he redeemed himself with his “progressive” agenda, up to and including health care “reform”. It was an odd kind of “redemption”: In a cooing paean to the Senator on a cringe-makingly obsequious edition of NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, Edward Klein of Newsweek fondly recalled that one of Ted’s “favorite topics of humor was, indeed, Chappaquiddick itself. He would ask people, ‘Have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?’”

Terrific! Who was that lady I saw you with last night?

Beats me!

Why did the Last Lion cross the road?

To sleep it off!

What do you call 200 Kennedy sycophants at the bottom of a Chappaquiddick pond? A great start, but bad news for NPR guest-bookers! “He was a guy’s guy,” chortled Edward Klein. Which is one way of putting it.

When a man is capable of what Ted Kennedy did that night in 1969 and in the weeks afterwards, what else is he capable of? An NPR listener said the Senator’s passing marked “the end of civility in the US Congress”. Yes, indeed. Who among us does not mourn the lost “civility” of the 1987 Supreme Court hearings? Considering the nomination of Judge Bork, Ted Kennedy rose on the Senate floor and announced that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit down at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution…”

Whoa! “Liberals” (in the debased contemporary American sense of the term) would have reason to find Borkian jurisprudence uncongenial but to suggest the judge and former Solicitor-General favored re-segregation of lunch counters is a slander not merely vile but so preposterous that, like his explanation for Chappaquiddick, only a Kennedy could get away with it. If you had an identify a single speech that marked “the end of civility” in American politics, that’s a shoo-in.

If a towering giant cares so much about humanity in general, why get hung up on his carelessness with humans in particular? For Kennedy’s comrades, the cost was worth it. For the rest of us, it was a high price to pay. And, for Ted himself, who knows? He buried three brothers, and as many nephews, and, as the years took their toll, it looked sometimes as if the only Kennedy son to grow old had had to grow old for all of them. Did he truly believe, as surely as Melissa Lafsky and co, that his indispensability to the republic trumped all else? That Camelot – that “fleeting wisp of glory”, that “one brief shining moment” - must run forever, even if “How To Handle A Woman” gets dropped from the score. The Senator’s actions in the hours and days after emerging from that pond tell us something ugly about Kennedy the man. That he got away with it tells us something ugly about American public life.

© Mark Steyn 2009

Thursday, August 27, 2009

OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT ILLEGAL ALIEN HEALTH CARE DECEPTION

By careful choice of words in discussion of a specific aspect of current health care legislation Obama and socialized medicine supporters continue to try and fool Americans about the implications of taxpayers paying massively for the health care of illegal aliens.

Senator Byron Dorgan, Jamestown, North Dakota, August 21, 2009:

“There is not going to be a health care plan passed by the congress that covers illegal aliens, it has been alleged that the plan does, it does not.”

Barack Obama, radio address, August 27, 2009:

“I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the Internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country.

“Let’s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That’s not true.  Illegal immigrants would not be covered.”





Obama is careful to speak here very narrowly about a single aspect of H.R. 3200, Section 246 of the bill. That section deal strictly with insurance subsidies and says: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

This is the oft cited single line of H.R. 3200 that supporters of the bill claim proves that illegal immigrants will not get government health care as a result of the bill’s passage. Section 241 (pages 128 – 132) provides for “affordability credits”, or subsidies, to pay for insurance premiums or annual out-of-pocket health care costs. It is about who by law is limited to obtaining help buy insurance, and that illegal immigrants are not eligible.

THIS DOES NOT SAY THAT NO WAY, NO HOW CAN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GET TAXPAYER FUNDED MEDICAL CARE AS A RESULT OF H.R. 3200!

THIS IS ANOTHER PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION BY BARACK OBAMA!



From the document, “Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200” by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

Illegal noncitizens WILL get health care under H.R. 3200!



In a Human Events article of August 27, 2009, Ernest Istook explains why, “Nothing illustrates America’s distrust of Congress quite like the illegal immigrant provision of the House health care bill, HR 3200.”

Istook cites the attempt by Republicans to amend H.R. 3200 to explicitly exclude illegal immigrants from taxpayer paid health care under the bill:

The House bill not only makes a major expansion of Medicaid eligibility but also restricts (in Section 1702) inquiries about immigration status. Efforts to fix this and to add enforcement provisions to HR 3200 were offered in the Ways & Means Committee by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and in the Energy & Commerce Committee by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), but voted down. No Democrats supported Heller.




Writing about the July 18, 2009 vote, Newsmax.com stated:

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

The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.





Representative Earl Pomeroy voted against the Heller amendment.



So, are Earl Pomeroy and Byron Dorgan going to explain the seeming discrepancies here?

Hold your breath starting right…..NOW!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

JUST WHAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT RUN WELL? ALMOST NOTHING!

An absolutely brilliant article by Barry Goldwater Jr. over at The American Spectator entitled, “Health Care? The Government Can’t Even Run a Railroad” gives the facts point by point about why ObamaCare is doomed if ever enacted:

Medicare and Medicaid has ovr $60 billion in fraud per year!

Medicare has $36 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities!

The U.S. Postal Service lost $7 BILLION last year with major service cost hikes!

It is demonstrable that the Federal Reserve deserves direct complicity in the recent economic meltdown!

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailed out to the tune of $400 BILLION!

After 38 years Amtrak continues an unbroken record of consecutive loses and federal subsidies!

After $2.5 TRILLION spent on drug prohibition it is very easy to get drugs on the streets of America!

The Department of Energy was established 30 years ago to achieve energy independence and we are not even close!

And you, Mr. President, want the federal government to run health care?

URBAN POVERTY USA: CAUSE AND EFFECT?

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1.  Detroit ,  MI 32.5%

2.  Buffalo ,  NY 29.9%

3.  Cincinnati ,  OH 27.8%

4.  Cleveland ,  OH 27.0%

5.  Miami ,  FL 26.9%

6.  St. Louis ,  MO 26.8%

7.  El Paso ,  TX 26.4%

8.  Milwaukee ,  WI 26.2%

9.  Philadelphia ,  PA 25.1%

10.  Newark ,  NJ 24.2%



U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit,  MI (1st on the poverty rate list poverty rate: 32.5%) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo,  NY (2nd, poverty rate: 29.9%) ) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati ,  OH (3rd, poverty rate: 27.8%) )...since 1984;

Cleveland ,  OH (4th, poverty rate: 27.0%)...since 1989;

Miami ,  FL (5th, poverty rate: 26.9%) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis ,  MO (6th, poverty rate: 26.8%)....since 1949;

El Paso ,  TX (7th, poverty rate: 26.4%) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee ,  WI (8th, poverty rate: 26.2%)...since 1908;

Philadelphia ,  PA (9th, poverty rate: 25.1%)...since 1952;

Newark ,  NJ (10th, , poverty rate: 24.2%)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats—-yet they are still POOR!

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”- Abraham Lincoln

..................and Mr. Obama, you are no Abe Lincoln

From Over the Internet Transom - Thanks Gene

Monday, August 24, 2009

HEALTH CARE SPENDING VS. LIFE EXPECTANCY

On NRO, Jerry Bowyer scrutinizes the numbers in his article “Longest. Lives. Ever.” and explains the insanity of the chattering class:

Our chattering classes chatter on about derivative abstractions, such as the increase in the percentage of GDP that we allot to health care. The cable-television pundits remind us that we’re spending about 16 percent of our national output on health care, and conclude that this is some kind of national scandal. Why? What percentage should we be spending? Is 10 percent more acceptable? Is 5 percent?

He then asks that most important question:

Our great-grandparents spent much less than 16 percent of GDP on health care, and they barely made it into their 60s. Would any of you willingly give back 20 years in exchange for less health-care spending?

The argument that health care spending is out of control and way too high is insanity. Are you willing to have the government control “costs” so that you have a shorter more uncomfortable life? Of course not! Do you want technical innovation to slow tremendously with the government in control like it has almost stopped in every other country where socialized medicine is in place?

Friday, August 21, 2009

MARK STEYN: A SIGN FROM THE “ONE”

The other day, wending my way from Woodsville, NH 40 miles south to Plymouth, I came across several “stimulus” projects – every few miles, and heralded by a two-tone sign, a hitherto rare sight on Granite State highways. The orange strip at the top said “PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK” with a silhouette of a man with a shovel, and the green part underneath informed you that what you were about to see was a “PROJECT FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT”. There then followed a few yards of desolate, abandoned scarified pavement, followed by an “END OF ROAD WORKS” sign, until the next “stimulus” project a couple of bends down a quiet rural blacktop.

I don’t know why one of the least fiscally debauched states in the Union needs funds from “the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” to repair random stretches of highway, especially stretches that were perfectly fine until someone came along to dig them up in order to access “stimulus” funding. I would have asked one of those men with a shovel, as depicted on the sign. But there were none to be found. Usually in New Hampshire, they dig up the road, re-grade or re-pave it, while the flagmen stand guard until it’s all done. But here a certain federal torpor seemed to hang in the eerie silence.

Still, what do I know? Evidently, it’s stimulated the sign-making industry, putting America back to work by putting up “PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK” signs every 200 yards across the land. And at 300 bucks a pop the signage alone should be enough to launch an era of unparalleled prosperity, assuming America’s gilded sign magnates don’t spend their newfound wealth on Bahamian vacations and European imports. Perhaps if the President were to have his All-Seeing O logo lovingly hand-painted onto each sign, it would stimulate the economy even more, if only when they were taken down and auctioned on eBay.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, India, China, Japan and much of Continental Europe the recession has ended. In the second quarter this year, both the French and German economies grew by 0.3 per cent, while the US economy shrank by one per cent. How can that be? Unlike America, France and Germany had no government stimulus worth speaking of, the Germans declining to go the Obama route on the quaint grounds that they couldn’t afford it. They did not invest in the critical signage-in-front-of-holes-in-the-road sector. And yet their recession has gone away. Of the world’s biggest economies, only the US, Britain and Italy are still contracting. All three are big stimulators, though Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi can’t compete with Obama’s $800 billion porkapalooza. The President has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet.

Actually, when I say “to less effect”, that’s not strictly true: Thanks to Obama, one of the least indebted developed nations is now one of the most indebted – and getting ever more so. We’ve become the third most debt-ridden country after Japan and Italy. According to last month’s IMF report, general government debt as a percentage of GDP will rise from 63 per cent in 2007 to 88.8 per cent this year and to 99.8 per cent of GDP next year.

Of course, the President retains his formidable political skills, artfully distracting attention from his stimulus debacle with his health-care debacle. But there are diminishing returns to his serial
thousand-page trillion-dollar boondoggles. They may be too long for your representatives to bother reading before passing into law, but, whatever the intricacies of Section 417(a) xii on page 938, people are beginning to spot what all this stuff has in common: He’s spending your future. And by “future” I don’t mean 2070, 2060, 2040, but the day after tomorrow. Democrats can talk about only raising taxes on “the rich”, but more and more Americans are beginning to figure out what percentage of them will wind up in “the richest five per cent” before this binge is over. According to Gallup, nearly 70 per cent of Americans now expect higher taxes under Obama.

But the silver-tongued salesman sails on. Why be scared of a government health program? After all, says the President, “Medicare is a government program that works really well”, and if “we’re able to get something right like Medicare”, we should have more “confidence” about being able to do it for everyone.

On the other hand, says the President, Medicare is “unsustainable” and “running out of money”.

By the way, unlike your run-of-the-mill politician’s contradictory statements, these weren’t made a year or even a week apart, but during the same presidential speech in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. At any rate, in order to “control costs” Obama says we need to introduce a new trillion-dollar government entitlement. It’s a good thing he’s the smartest president of all time and the greatest orator since Socrates because otherwise one might easily confuse him with some birdbrained Bush type. But, if we take him at his word, then a trillion-dollar public expenditure that “controls costs” presumably means he’s planning on reducing private health expenditure – such as, say, your insurance plan – by at least a trillion. Or he’ll be raising a trillion dollars’ worth of revenue. Either way, under Obama nothing is certain but death panels and taxes – ie, a vast enervating statism, and the confiscation of the fruits of your labors required to pay for it.

That’s why the “stimulus” flopped. It didn’t just fail to stimulate, it actively deterred stimulation, because it was the first explicit signal to America and the world that the Democrats’ political priorities
overrode everything else. If you’re a business owner, why take on extra employees when cap’n’trade is promising increased regulatory costs and health “reform” wants to stick you with an eight per cent tax for not having a company insurance plan? Obama’s leviathan sends a consistent message to business and consumers alike: When he’s spending this crazy, maybe the smart thing for you to do is hunker down until the dust’s settled and you get a better sense of just how broke he’s going to make you. For this level of “community organization”, there aren’t enough of “the rich” to pay for it. That leaves you.

For Obama, government health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture in which all elections and most public discourse will be conducted on Democrat terms. It’s no surprise that the President can’t make a coherent economic or medical argument for Obamacare because that’s not what it’s about – and for all his cool he can’t quite disguise that. Apropos a new poll, the Associated Press reports that Americans “are losing faith in Barack Obama”.

“Losing faith”? Oh, no! Fall on your knees and beseech the One: “Give me a sign, O Lord!”

But he has. They’re all along empty highways across rural New Hampshire: “This Massive Expansion Of Wasteful Statism Brought To You By Obama Marketing, Inc.”

© Mark Steyn 2009

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

MARK STEYN: YOU’VE HAD SOME GOOD INNINGS

Some years ago, when I was a slip of a lad, I found myself commiserating with a distinguished American songwriter about the death of one of his colleagues. My 23-year old girlfriend found all the condolence talk a bit of a bummer and was anxious to cut to the chase and get outta there. “Well,” she said breezily. “He had a good innings. He was 85.”

“That’s easy for you to say,” he said. “I’m 84.”

That’s where Obamacare leads: You’re 84, and it’s easy for him to say. Easy for him to say what you need – or don’t need. Relax, he assured an audience of puffball-lobbing plants in Portsmouth, New Hampshire… By the way, when I mock “puffball-lobbing plants”, obviously all such events are stage-managed, but the trick is to make it not quite so obvious. When Nixon was campaigning in ’68, Roger Ailes used to let a couple of dirty no-good long-haired peaceniks into the room so his candidate could swat ‘em down: It ginned up the crowd, made for better TV, and got the candidate pumped. “Thought it went well tonight,” he’d say. “Really socked it to those hippies.” In essence, Ailes stage-managed it to look un-stage-managed. If those who oppose Obamacare are merely a bunch of “un-American” “evil-mongers” (according to, respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid), the cause would benefit from allowing the President to really sock it to a couple of them once in a while. To retreat behind a wall of overly drooling sycophants does not help Obama at this stage in the game.

Anyway, there he was reassuring the crowd that provision for mandatory “end-of-life counseling” has “gotten spun into this idea of ‘death panels’. I am not in favor of that.” Well, that’s good to know. So good that a grateful audience applauded the President’s pledge not to kill them. He has no plans, as he put it, to “pull the plug on Grandma”.

The problem with government health systems is not that they pull the plug on Grandma. It’s that Grandma has a hell of a time getting plugged in in the first place. The only way to “control costs” is to restrict access to treatment, and the easiest people to deny treatment to are the oldsters. Don’t worry, it’s all very scientific. In Britain, they use a “Quality-Adjusted Life Year” formula to decide that you don’t really need that new knee because you’re gonna die in a year or two, maybe a decade-and-a-half tops. So it’s in the national interest for you to go around hobbling in pain rather than divert “finite resources” away from productive members of society to a useless old geezer like you. And you’d be surprised how quickly geezerdom kicks in: A couple of years back, some Quebec facilities were attributing death from hospital-contracted infection of anyone over 55 to “old age”. Well, he had a good innings. He was 57.

This ought to be of particular concern to Americans. As is often pointed out, US life expectancy (78.06 years) lags behind other developed nations with government health care (United Kingdom 78.7, Germany 78.95, Sweden 80.63). So proponents of Obamacare are all but offering an extra “full year” of Euro-Canadian geriatric leisure as a signing bonus.

“Life expectancy” is a very crude indicator. Afghanistan has a life expectancy of 43. Does this mean the geriatric wards of Kandahar are full of Pushtun Jennifer Lopezes and Julia Robertses? No. What it means is that, if you manage to survive the country’s appalling infant mortality rates, you have a sporting chance of eking out your three-score-and-ten. To say that people in Afghanistan can expect to live till 43 is a bit like saying the couple at Number Six Elm Street are straight and the couple at Number Eight are gay so the entire street is bisexual.

Which brings us to the United States and its allegedly worst health system in the developed world. Here’s the reality: The longer you live in America, the longer you live. If you’re one of those impressionable “Meet The Press” viewers who heard Mayor Bloomberg bemoaning US life expectancy and you’re thinking, “Hey, I’m 77. Just about at the end, America-wise. Maybe it’s time to move up north or over to Europe, and get a couple of bonus years”, don’t do it! If you’re old enough to be a “Meet The Press” viewer, your life expectancy is already way up there.

America is the Afghanistan of the western world: That’s to say, it has a slightly higher infant mortality rate than other developed nations (there are reasons for that which I’ll discuss in an upcoming column). That figure depresses our overall “life expectancy at birth”. But, if you can make it out of diapers, you’ll live longer than you would pretty much anywhere else. By age 40, Americans’ life expectancy has caught up with Britons’. By 60, it equals Germany’s. At the age of 80, Americans have greater life expectancy than Swedes.

How can this be? Well, amazingly, millions of freeborn citizens exercising their own judgment as to which of the latest drugs, tests and procedures suits their own best interests has given Americans a longer, better, more fulfilling old age to the point where there are entire states designed to cater to it. (There is no Belgian or Scottish Florida.) I had an elderly British visitor this month who’s had a recurring problem with her left hand. At one point it swelled up alarmingly and so we took her to Emergency. They did a CT scan, X-rays, blood samples, the works. In two hours at a small, rural, undistinguished, no-frills hospital in northern New Hampshire, this lady got more tests than she’s had in the last decade in Britain – even though she goes to see her doctor once a month. He listens sympathetically, tells her old age often involves adjusting to the loss of mobility, and then advises her to take the British version of Tylenol and rest up. Anything else would use up those valuable “resources”. So, in two hours in New Hampshire, she got tested and diagnosed (with gout) and prescribed something to deal with it. It’s the difference between health “care” (ie, going to the doctor’s every month to no purpose) and health treatment – and on the latter America is the best in the world.

President Obama has wondered whether this is a “sustainable model”. But, from your point of view, what counts is not whether the model’s sustainable but whether you are. I am certainly in favor of reform. I would support a Singapore-style system of personal health accounts – and Singapore, for Mayor Bloomberg’s benefit, has the third highest life expectancy in the world. But, under any government system that interjects a bureaucracy between you and your health, the elderly and not so elderly get denied treatment. And there’s nothing you can do about it because, ultimately, government health represents the nationalization of your body. You’re 84, 72, 63, 58, you’ve had a good innings. It’s easy for him to say. And even easier for his army of bureaucrats.

© Mark Steyn 2009

« First  <  10 11 12 13 14 >  Last »
Page 12 of 18 pages