From Euripides Latest

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Camelot
Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy died at age 77 after a battle with brain cancer. I won't be making any rude comments about how much the country will benefit because he is gone. I won't snidely remark about his abuse of power. I won't make any remarks about killing a girl in the Chappaquiddick. I won't even make fun of his little red, inebriated nose.

What I will say is this: Isn't it convenient, now that Kennedy has passed on, that every news media from one side to another memorializes Kennedy and his dream for nationalized healthcare?

Kennedy was a longtime advocate of healthcare reform, a signature issue of Obama's presidency. Obama said on Wednesday he was heartbroken to hear of the death of Kennedy, a crucial supporter of his presidential candidacy. (Reuters)

I'll bet Obama is heartbroken. Really. And I mean that most sincerely.

In the wake of Kennedy's death, who wouldn't have predicted that Nancy Pelosi would start channeling him?

"Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," Pelosi said in a statement.(Breitbart)

Yes, it's politics as usual in Washington, where liberals never let a good crisis go to waste and Nancy Pelosi never lets a comrade's death help to further her own, corrupt agenda.

GLAAD to Protest
Gay activists continue to try and stir up public shame over same sex marriage, despite the fact that their campaign to neuter the institution of marriage has stalled in the public arena, and public support for same sex marriage has declined this past year.

Case in point: GLAAD attempted to make a big deal out of a small, Utah-based newspaper refusing to run a "wedding" announcement for two homosexual men. The St. George newspaper refused to print the announcement, stating its policy to only announce marriages legal in Utah. Of course, the two homosexual men were outraged at being treated so unfairly and turned to GLAAD to help set things right for them. GLAAD, in turn, made some phone calls and the story made it to the news. (AZCentral)

What does the news story turn around and do? Once again, the media vilifies the Mormon church in an attempt to alienate it as a major stumbling block to gay rights.

Let's get to the bottom line on this one. Gay rights is failing, not because of some religious group which has insignificant influence on public opinion, but because Americans are waking up to the fact that gay rights is trying to hijack civil rights. It attempts to equate with race, the sexual preferences of two homosexuals. It attempts to redefine what marriage is to validate homosexuals living together. It attempts to create protected class status for a group based on sexual preference and some nebulous considerations of "fairness" and "love."

Gay activists have offended religious groups, racial minorities and middle America. Let's see if they can turn moderate liberals against them as well.

A Bridge Too Far
In relation to the previous, leaders of Equality California, a gay activist group trying to force neutered marriage in California, announced that it will wait until the 1012 election to try again to push same sex marriage on Californians. (LA Times) Equality California leaders say they want to make sure they can win the next time around.

Why? Because with every failure of the political issue of same sex marriage, gay activists understand that their chances will diminish of neutering marriage and forcing protected class status for homosexuals.

Note that despite gay activists spending millions these past five years or so, despite the constant gay campaign, despite buying off elected officials, despite courting Democratic party favor, despite all these, public support for same sex marriage continues to dwindle.

Apparently, Americans as a whole aren't fooled by the same sex marriage mantra of gay activists.

Liberals and Race
In my article Liberalism's Peculiar Institutions, I asserted that liberalism supports race and class warfare in the US. By clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.

Case in point: New York Governor David Paterson is not doing well in his bid to win reelection next year. Does he blame himself for his heavy-handed policies dealing with the state legislature this past year? Does he blame pushing unwanted liberal programs on New Yorkers? Does he blame his support of unwanted institutions (like same sex marriage)? Does he blame his 18% approval rating?

Heck no. Instead he blames the news media turning against him because of race. (NY Daily News)

Yep, he's spoken like a true liberal. He's bought into the big lie of liberalism, that all failures can be blamed on identity politics, rather than on personal failure. Worst of all, he perpetuates race as a divisive issue in this country, cheapening the real racial problems yet to be solved by wrapping himself up in the protective cloak of race-baiting.

In connection with this approach, Paterson also had this to say:

“The reality is the next victim on the list, and you can see it coming, is President Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system,” Mr. Paterson said. (New York Times)

All of which proves my earlier assertion: By clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.

Castro Knows
Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro says that Obama's trying to make changes in the US but that right-wingers hate Obama because he's black. (Reuters)

Doesn't that absolutely prove what I've said about leftists and race warfare? Absolutely.

By the way, I think that Americans should be really worried when the current administration gets an endorsement from a communist dictator such as Fidel Castro. That's not something I'd point to as a highlight for Obama, even if he did travel to court favor among the most insidious dictators of our modern world.

Deficiter and Deficiter
You heard the news that the Obama administration recently raised the 10 year deficit projection from 7.1 trillion dollars to 9 trillion. (Reuters) This news doesn't surprise me in the least. It does, however, raise a few questions.

• How did the Obama administration miscalculate the deficit by two trillion dollars?
• Why does Obama continue to insist on more expensive programs, such as healthcare, after such news?
• Why do the talking heads in Washington think creating such a huge deficit was good for the economy?
• When (not if) will Obama raise everyone's taxes to help pay for the deficit?
• When (not if) will we get blasted by runaway inflation? (The Hill)
  
• Who is it, exactly, who benefits from all this overspent government money?
  
• How come no one on The Hill, or in the news media, asks these questions?

Along the same lines, Obama's office also announced that millions of Americans face shrinking Social Security payments because of the havoc of the Medicare system that the Bush administration helped screw up. (Breitbart)

Put these two stories together and then ask yourself the question of whether or not you really want government mucking up healthcare even more? What makes anyone believe that government has the answers to such problems?

Kinder, Gentler Interrogation
In a move, sure to appease touchy-feely liberals everywhere, the Obama administration also announced that it will now monitor interrogations of foreign detainees and set new standards for such interrogations to ensure that no more torture be inflicted on any terrorist or potential terrorist.

I don't know about you, but I feel safer already knowing that the White House will now take over the interrogations of Gitmo detainees and other terrorists. The folks in the Obama administration certainly know a lot more about such matters than anyone in the CIA.

Wee Obama Jokes
I just couldn't pass by the week without saying something about Obama's falling out with the national press. Obama commented on the media, saying, "everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." (Washington Examiner)

The news media, responding to Obama's statement reportedly said, "Oh yeah? Well, Obama's just a big poo-poo head!"

Who let this guy into office anyway?

Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Land Wars
In the movie The Princess Bride, Vezzini, the evil mastermind behind the evil plot to kidnap Princess Buttercup, informs the masked man that he committed a great blunder: "Ha ha! You fool!" he said. "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia."

It's too bad that Obama never heard of that classic blunder. He might have saved himself from Afghanistan. Unfortunately for him (and for Bush in Iraq) Obama has now mired himself into a military and political position ideal for al Qaida and for the Taliban.

The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating along with U.S. public support for the war, Washington's top military officer said on Sunday as he left open the possibility of another increase in troops. (Reuters)

Soon enough, Americans will have to ask the tough questions about our increased involvement in Afghanistan and its utility in destroying the Taliban and in rooting out bin Laden.

Stimulation
Finally, the following government-funded projects give us a whole new definition of "stimulus." The National Institutes of Health awarded funds for studies that would:

* Examine "barriers to correct condom use" at Indiana University, at a cost of $221,000.

* Study "hookups" among adolescents at Syracuse University. Study's cost: $219,000.

* Evaluate "drug use as a sex enhancer" in an analysis of "high-risk community sex networks" at the University of Illinois, Chicago. That study will cost $123,000.

* Study how methamphetamine, thought to produce an "insatiable need" for sex among users, "enhances the motivation for female rat sexual behavior." Some $28,000 has been awarded for the University of Maryland at Baltimore study. (NY Post)

It's great to see our tax dollars at work spending so much for so very little.

From the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:

From Euripides Self Evident Truths

It looks like Obama's push for undebated and expensive healthcare legislation is taking its toll. (Along with the stimulus spending bill, a massive national debt, massive deficit spending, the slow economy, no rebound of employment, cap and trade, and his general disdain of the majority of Americans.)

Obama's not only lost the conservatives, but he's seriously damaged his ability to reach moderates in both political parties.

This is good news. It shows that the backlash against the badly written healthcare bill and Congress' insistence on steamrolling through dubious legislation is taking its poll toll.

Will Obama figure it out and get back on track with mainstream America? Not as long as he keeps telling Americans to shut up. Not as long as members of Congress keep calling Americans Nazis, mobs, or stupid. Not as long as Obama continues to act like a monarch.

I hate to gloat about Obama, but we told you so.

From Euripides' Blog

Before the US Civil War, Southerners used to refer to slavery as "our peculiar institution." Peculiar in this case means "one's own," referring to a distinctive trait among the Southerners. Slave owners, seeing no moral ambiguity in their institution, held on to it as necessary and integral to the South's self-definition. Despite the moral imperatives from the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the South clung to its peculiar institution. Slave holders defended it against all argument and moral objection.

We can all agree that chattel slavery is an immoral institution, despite those yesteryear slave holders who defended their "rights" to buy and sell humans as property. Every bit as connected, and stemming from the moral failure of the South's peculiar institution, is the deep rooted and pernicious institution of racism. As current events demonstrate, we, as Americans, have made progress in the dialog of race, yet racism remains.

Modern liberalism, born out of the 1950s and the 1960s, has its own, definitive, peculiar institutions. To modern moralists, and yes, to the religious, these peculiar institutions lack the very moral backing that slavery lacked more than 150 years ago. Social conservatives decry these modern and peculiar institutions of liberalism with the same backing and moral outrage as the abolitionists of old. And, as the old Southerners of antebellum America, liberals cling to their peculiar institutions with all the fervor and zeal as those slave holders.

Also, as the Southerners of yesterday used political power to keep and hold onto their peculiar institution of slavery, modern liberals also skew political power to keep their own versions. Yet, as US history showed us in the mid-1800s, despite the political backing, an immoral institution remains immoral.

Here are a few examples modern liberalism's peculiar institutions:

Abortion
No other social issue defines modern liberalism more than abortion. It has grown to be the definitive issue around which liberalism rallies. Traditionally liberals have renamed the institution in various ways, hiding its true meaning and purpose behind the monikers of "Pro-Choice" or "Women's Rights" or "Reproductive Rights."

How aborting babies came to be so intimately connected with modern liberalism dates back to the early 1900s with its roots in people such as Margaret Sanger. However, it wasn't until the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that state abortion laws in the US were declared unconstitutional and abortion became liberal's peculiar institution.

In one fell swoop, and with a Supreme Court decision that was every bit as convoluted as the antebellum Dred Scott case, modern liberalism succeeded in creating an institution every bit as morally reprehensible as slavery. In essence, Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to privacy (in this case to abort her fetus) is politically more expedient than the morally substantive inalienable right to life.

Yet modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of abortion with all the fervor of a moral imperative, derived from political and economic expediency.

Racism
To say that racism doesn't exist in this country is to turn a blind eye to the modern problem. Racism is divisive, creating legal, social, and economic inequities across the country. Of course, liberalism helped expose the immorality of racism under the moral imperative established by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

How then, did racism become modern liberals' peculiar institution? Simply because of the liberal view that now filters all human transactions in terms of race, instead of viewing the broad range of interactions that humans actually have. In other words, modern liberals stereotype all interactions as racial interactions.

The idiocy of liberal stereotyping, can easily be seen when applied to extreme cases. For example, when the Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and, in turn, decried his arrest as racist. Then, when the president of the US got involved to decry racism and when it turned out that no racism was intended or implied in Gate's arrest, in such a case we see the vacuous stereotyping of liberalism's peculiar institution.

An even more absurd example stems from the current nation-wide protests against Congress' healthcare bill. Members of Congress and the White House have labeled protesters racist. Why? Ostensibly under the definition that anyone who disagrees with a black president, in any capacity or under any pretense, is a racist. When Nancy Pelosi says that protesters are showing up with swastikas, all protesters are condemned for racism.

In another example, gay activists apply the term against anyone who disagrees with them about same sex marriage. The concept attempts to equate homosexuals in terms of race despite the absurdity of such an equation. Yet they make the connection because, according to liberals, all human interactions are racial interactions.

What was once a serious description of a real division between Americans has been trivialized, becoming one of liberalism's peculiar institutions. Liberals fling the term "racist" around like mad carnival barkers attempting to hawk their wares, and by doing so, they cheapen and degrade any real or meaningful discussion about race itself.

Modern liberals also wrap themselves in the cloak of self-delusion, that they are the only ones who are qualified to talk about race (hence making racism liberals' peculiar institution). Yet, by clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.

Liberals perpetuate the peculiar and immoral institution of racial divide to create political expediency, because without racism, liberalism would sputter and die.

Same Sex Marriage
One of the newest peculiar institutions on the liberal scene, the concept of same sex marriage derives its basis out of denying the foundations of the established social institution of marriage based entirely on a disagreement with the moral imperative to preserve it. In other words, liberals claim a right for homosexuals to marry for no other reason than marriage is denied to them. The peculiar institution denies the historical fact of marriage by trying to make marriage meaningless.

It seems inevitable, that liberalism which so desperately clings to race to create political tension, should invent new class struggles to maintain the status quo. Above all else, liberals must fight against the Establishment, whatever the Establishment is. In the case of same sex marriage, liberalism has defined the Establishment by the very nebulous term "the religious." The subject of attack - religion - is obvious. Liberalism is the new Establishment. Hence, other enemies, apart from government, must be sought, other causes must be taken up, liberalism must progress at all costs.

The problem arises from liberalism naming religion as immoral. By doing so, the peculiar institution of same sex marriage, which a majority of Americans views as immoral, is set against the liberal imperative that religion is immoral. Liberals clash with most Americans on this point because, by definition, liberalism claims anyone opposed to same sex marriage is an immoral and religious nut.

All the same, modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of same sex marriage with all the fervor of a moral imperative, when, in reality, it derives from political and economic expediency.

Conclusions
In order for modern liberalism to survive, it must maintain its status quo. However, just as over 150 years ago slave owners clung to their immoral, peculiar institution with all of the fervor of a zealot, liberals also cling to their immoral, peculiar institutions of abortion, racism, and same sex marriage. Without these, liberalism fears the death of its own system.

Yet, as we have seen in US history, even without slavery, the South remained.

It's time for modern liberalism to give up its immoral, peculiar institutions in favor of the core values that made it successful in the first place. Instead, if liberalism maintains its peculiar institutions, it will find itself without the power base it so desperately desires.

From Euripides' Blog

The Democrats in Washington keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into the bottomless pit of healthcare. In an op-ed piece published in that bastion of liberalism, USA Today, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have this to say about "loud" protesters against the healthcare bill:

Insisting at the start of a long and politically heated summer congressional recess that healthcare reform can be achieved this fall, today are calling the disruption of town-hall meetings by vocal protesters "simply un-American."

"We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate." (LA Times)

I've pointed this out before, but here is yet another shining example of the duplicity of leftist liberals. When liberals protest, the media cheers them on. When conservatives protest, the media vilifies them. Pelosi calls them un-American. Didn't conservatives just go through the media flak during the TEA Party protests?

Pelosi's and Hoyer's statement is abhorrent on other grounds, besides its duplicity. Here's a direct quote:

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." (LA Times)

When these two members of Congress call conservatives "afraid" of facts, they spread "disinformation" (a term only a liberal could invent) about conservative Americans. The word we used to use was "lying." (It's interesting to note that the only time liberals used the word "lying" was in reference to Republicans, i.e., "Bush lied." This is yet another example of the duplicitous and deceitful language of the Left. But I digress.)

Moreover, Pelosi and Hoyer, apparently in all seriousness, consider loud protesters at townhall meetings able to drown out opposing views?

Seriously?

Conservatives are drowning out the two most powerful members of the House of Representatives, who write their views in a nationally published newspaper, which is then reported by every mainstream news media in the country?

Conservatives are drowning out the voice of the president of the US, who , like a slick used car salesman, voices complete support for the healthcare bill, and, in a moment of true presidential leadership, tells protesters to shut up?

Conservatives are drowning out the liberal, statist Congress which is determined to pass a healthcare bill, no matter the economic cost, no matter the political cost, no matter the concessions to special interests, no matter how badly written, no matter the permanent damage to the economy?

Really?

Conservatives merely want to be heard instead of shuffled off to the side as the "losers" in the last election. (By the way, the Republicans lost the election. Conservatives, however, still make up a majority of Americans. Please stop confusing the party with the ideology.)

Here's what conservatives want to say:

Americans do not want more government intervention in healthcare. Government had its chance to muck around with the healthcare system and government has broken the system. The fundamental truth is that government cannot pile mandate upon mandate, regulation upon regulation, and create anything but an expensive boat anchor on the American people.

Americans didn't want Hillarycare 25 years ago. We don't want Obamacare now. The only Americans interested in Obamacare are those who think they'll receive free medical care.

Americans are starting to understand that Medicare doesn't do what it was supposed to do. The Bush administration tried to fix Medicare and made it worse. The problem wasn't with Bush specifically, the problem was with government. Conservatives simply have no confidence that government can fix such a complex problem as healthcare.

Americans do not want healthcare with the possibility of abuses that the White House calls "rumors." Until these abuses are addressed - in public - and through the democratic process, conservatives will continue to point out the flaws in the bill. Conservatives are happy that Congress at least slowed down enough for a few people to actually get a chance to read the bill. The "rumors" about the bill stem from badly conceived and badly written clauses within the bill itself.

Despite the liberal lies, most Americans don't really view wealthy people as the center of all greed and evil. This is because most Americans are not Marxists and simply do not agree with Marxist ideals. Gouging wealthy people to provide added benefits for poor people sounds a lot like Marxism to most Americans. Conservatives don't buy into this economic model and, because of the past history of communism, understand that Marxist models have huge flaws and cannot be trusted.

Most Americans do not like government, government controls, government mandates and government intervention. Americans are tired of government. Americans understand that government should work for them, yet increasingly, they see more and more government control and intrusion into our daily lives.

After passing two huge spending bills ("stimulus"), passing the largest deficit budget in recent history, and considering a cap and trade bill that will create the largest tax increase in history, Americans are a bit wary of congressional strong-arm tactics. Many ask the basic question: Should Congress pass another expensive bill in the face of our national debt, federal deficit, and slow economy?

Pelosi and Hoyer ignore these facts when they say loud protesters are afraid of the facts. Yes, there are some crazy rumors running around about the healthcare bill. Obama and Pelosi would have us all believe that those rumors are driving the protests. (Of course liberals, like Rachel Maddow, also blame evil wealthy people for organizing the protests.) That is just smoke and mirrors to cover up their own fear that Americans have discovered the congressional agenda - to foist off another expensive, controlling, and potentially damaging bill on the American people before we realize what they've done.

Obama, Pelosi and Hoyer are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves.

From Euripides' Blog

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

The Joker's on Us
The posters with Obama as the Joker invaded LA this last week. That's old news. Of course the left-wing media went berserk over the whole affair, with cries of racism echoing hollowly off the sides of buildings all along Wilshire Boulevard. This was clearly a case of: "We will vilify Bush all we want because we declared him to be evil since he doesn't think like we do. But no one has the right to even suggest that Barack Obama is anything other than the reincarnation of Jesus/Ghandi/Muhammad/The Buddha/The Bab/Michael Jackson."

What's a little socialism among friends? Why so worried?

Packing Heat
Americans are buying more guns than ever and more applied for conceal carry permits than ever before. (USA Today) While statists on the liberal left find this appalling, I find some degree of interest in the news.

Americans carrying more guns than ever reminds me of canaries.

Canaries happen to be quite sensitive to methane and carbon monoxide gasses. Coal miners used to take canaries down the mine shafts with them. If the canary dropped over, the miners knew gas levels had risen to toxic levels and could get out of the mine before passing on themselves.

Can new gun owners and conceal carry permit holders be trying to tell us something?

Oh Rahm!
Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, was accused of trying to orchestrate an attempt to intimidate members of Congress and governors who raised concerns over the effectiveness of the spending package ("stimulus"). The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent out a press release and a letter to Emanuel demanding an explanation for his intimidation:

“At what point do you believe your practice of Chicago-style politics violates a public official’s right to speak out in favor of alternative policies,” [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell] Issa asks. “The American people have a right to know what role you played in developing the threatening letters to Governor [Jan] Brewer [of Arizona] and whether you intend to continue to engage in these tactics in the future.” (Press Release)

Let's see. Considering all of the media attention against Republicans and conservative American protests, you'd think that something like the White House sending intimidating letters to members of Congress and to certain Republican governors would rank right up there as a news story.

Once again, the leftist media shows its second face - the one where conservatives are vilified and liberal faux pas are quietly forgotten.

Healthcare Battles
The debate over socialized medicine certainly took the front seat this past week. Without rehashing all of the details, or beating a dead horse, here are some of the stories that caught my attention.

Steamrolling Along
If the current Congress is known for anything besides bankrupting the country, it will be known for its strong-arm tactics to pass questionable and expensive legislation as quickly as possible. While Nancy Pelosi couldn't quite reach the necessary votes to pass the healthcare bill, she and Obama succeeded in getting the bill out of key committees before the summer recess. (Breitbart)

For those who oppose the bill, I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the bill won't be reconsidered until September or October, leaving our representatives at the mercy of the people in their states. The bad news is that the bill will be reconsidered in September or October.

At least Congress slowed down enough on this bill to take a vacation. Maybe some of our representatives will actually read it while at the beach. Would that be too much to ask of them? Apparently.

Opposing Voices
Yesterday, I posted a rant video of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow attacking Republicans for daring to speak up against the Holy Healthcare Act of 2009. (I think that is the current name of the bill. The name's changed so many times in the past month it's difficult to keep up.) Here are some prime examples of the concerns Barbara Boxer's well-dressed protesters have with the bill:

Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

It also..."covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children."

The plan would allow...for the collection of information about individuals' health records, both "published and unpublished," and recommend policies for public access to data.

What does this mean for you and me? Under the current version of the healthcare bill, a government agency, with no oversight and no voter control, will have power to determine what treatments we can and cannot receive based on cost, likely success of treatment, and age. It's certainly no wonder why some of the old folks in the country are starting to worry about this bill. At least they dress well when going to protests.

Yet, in the same section, the bill would cover costs for abortions and transsexual surgeries. Think about that one for a minute. Besides the moral concerns, the bill creates protected classes withing the healthcare system. Women who want abortions and people who want to change their sex will receive preferential treatment.

The adage that some people are more equal than others will certainly hold true in this case.

There's more. The bill would give government the authority to determine how many children a couple can have and how long they must wait in between. Is this really the role of government, to administer national birth control? I don't know. It just sounds so...Chinese to me. At least the abortionists will be happy.

The bill would also remove doctor-patient privilege - making your medical records available to government agencies. I can conceive of no argument where such a thing would be desirable. Ostensibly, this would allow certain government agencies to streamline a person's healthcare process. In reality, this would violate privacy and lead to future abuses of government's authority.

Do you know what we used to call governments that dictated what its citizens could and could not do? We used to call them dictatorships.

Stifling Debate
Perhaps the most egregious news this past week is the Left's response to protests against the healthcare bill.

First off is this from President Obama himself:

"But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking." (Breitbart)

Notice how smarmy Obama is in this video. I ask, is this any way to run a democratic republic? Is this any way for the President of the United States to act and speak? Did he really say what we all heard him say?



Take out the bull horns folks, we have a lot of talking to do.

Along these same lines, White House Deputy Chief of staff had this to say about those who dared protest against healthcare:

“If you [meaning congressional Democrats] get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting. (Politico)

That's also a basis for good government - quell the opposition with strong-arm tactics. In response, what do Democrats do? They close the doors on public meetings and push protesters out of the way. This video comes from Tampa, Florida.



Is this how the system is supposed to work? Of course, congressional Democrats aren't to be thwarted by a few protesters. They vow to have their way with healthcare whether we like it or not, or whether what they do is quite in keeping with congressional procedures:

Senate Democratic leaders are promising to push through a health care bill even if negotiations with Republicans fail. (Breitbart)

The saving grace in all of this (was that phrase too religious?) lies in the continued will of Americans everywhere to keep the fires of protest going. As a model, here's a group who take on Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, a practice, by the way, with which I heartily agree. Specter should be booed wherever he appears.



We have only a few weeks left to let our Congress know that the healthcare bill is truly a bad idea. Yet, I'm afraid that this Congress will claim yet another distinction - the most power-hungry Congress ever - and pass the bill despite the best interests of Americans.

Illegal Aliens
No, I'm not talking about Mexicans. I'm talking about the visitors from outer space who apparently took over the White House and decided to encourage the easily confused liberals in our country to forward emails and blogs that took exception to the healthcare bill.

Apparently, the White House collecting information like that is illegal. Remember Watergate? Same difference:

"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday. (FOX News)

Of course, no other news agencies besides FOX News figured this out. They're too busy positioning themselves to be the next Big Brother agency and spread leftist propaganda.

Read My Lips
Raising taxes after promising not to stopped the elder George Bush's presidency. I doubt Obama will suffer the same fate, since liberals all know that whatever he said to appease the conservatives isn't really what he meant.

President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul. (AP)

Seriously, when Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, did anyone really believe him?