A Blog Dedicated to Freedom, Liberty and the Rights of Man

Health Care Nightmare

I love how the government is already pushing "new recommendations," saying that women can push back mamograms and pap smears a few years.

For years, the mantra was "early detection."  Now, as OBAMAcare is almost upon us, suddenly the mantra is "early detection, but wait a few more years, because the government is paying for it."

Also, my understanding is that the FDA is going to step up its use of "patent exclusivity" for a term of 12 years. Now, mind you - this isn't patent protection, which prohibits someone from copying your product for a period of time. This patent exclusivity would prohibit SIMILAR drugs from entering the market.

Think about it - Company A produces a certain type of drug that helps treat cancer, for example. Company B, for 12 years, can't develop a drug that similarly treats the cancer, but perhaps with less side effects.

This is the antithesis of the free market and exactly what opponents of government-run health care have been worried about: the rationing of care and lack of choices.

Defeat this legislation.

These Folks

Quote from today's New York Post: "White House senior adviser David Axelrod shot back, 'We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City...'".

"Folks" (from thefreedictionary.com):

1. a. The common people of a society or region considered as the representatives of a traditional way of life and especially as the originators or carriers of the customs, beliefs, and arts that make up a distinctive culture.

b. (Archaic) A nation; a people.

2. (Informal) People in general. Often used in the plural: Folks around here are very friendly.

3. People of a specified group or kind. Often used in the plural: city folks; rich folk.

4. folks (Informal)

a. The members of one's family or childhood household; one's relatives.

b. One's parents: My folks are coming for a visit.

***

What did Axelrod mean when he was refering to the Islamofacists (full credit to Michael Savage for that brilliant term) as "folks?"

Under 1a, 1b and 3, he would be implying that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his homicidal, jihadist approach to the Western World was typical for a representative of the Arab community. While this is probably not far from the truth, I'm sure an OBAMA! administration member would never believe that, much less say it.

Under 2, he would just simply be refering to these homicidal Ishmaelite maniacs as "guys" or "people." Much more likely for a liberal to try to scrub their heinous crimes by humanizing these inhuman monsters.

Under 4, Axelrod would be implying that KSM et al. were his family, or his parents. I'm sure that they do not share common lineage (though they might share a desire to destroy America as we know it).

Bottom line, the Administration loses all credibility when it attempts to play "referee" and try to refer to these scumbags in sanitiized terms, almost as if their crime was shoplifting.

These douchebags should not be tried as civilians, since they were captured on foreign soil fighting US troops. Remember what a show the Zacharias Moussoui trial was? These will be more of a mockery.

I ask again, whose side are you on, Barack Hussein OBAMA!?

Why Does Our President Bow to Foreign Authority Figures?

Is this a subconscious gesture, since the US has been made into a "slave" of the Saudis (oil) and Asian Creditors (buyers of Treasury Notes, Bonds, etc.)?

You Can Tell a Lot About a Person by The Company They Keep...

Attorney General Eric Holder has agreed to give a keynote address at an event held by a group that includes a chapter of the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This is despite an FBI ban on having contacts with the organization. Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Despite_ban_Holder_to_speak_to_CAIRlinked_group.html



What might also not be widely known, and full credit is due to Michael Savage for reporting this on his radio show months (if not years ago) is that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal suit alleging that CAIR has supported, financially and morally, terrorist organizations! Source: http://savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html



CAIR also waged an unsuccessful campaign to silence Savage for articulating his viewpoint (which has been continued by the government of Gordon Brown of the UK).



We have an attorney general who allows (encourages) thugs like the New Black Panther Party to intimidate white voters during an election and is ready to give a keynote address to a group of terrorists. Our President is more interested in giving "shout-outs" to people than taking strong action and showing empathy to the victims of the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.



But let's not jump to conclusions...

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Joe Lieberman - the Last Democrat

Joe Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut who was forced out of the Democrat Party, is certainly the last of the Democrats in the Senate (despite being an Independant).



What do I mean by this? It's pretty clear that the Democrat Party has left him. Today's Democrats have been hijacked by radical socialists like Reid and Pelosi who will jam their socialist agendas down our throats, regardless of the effect on the economy. The "health care reform" and "cap and trade" bills are giant tax increases on the US taxpayer, but to Pelosi and Reid, the taxpayer serves them (not vice versa). Typical socialists - destroy the middle class and make all subservient to the elite political class, of which Reid and Pelosi belong. Sorry, utopian Socialists, Communists and Marxists, but this is what every socialist-style government truly is - a nasty form of elitism.



Lieberman has said that, while he is for health care reform, he won't vote for a bill that is as fiscally unsound (to put it mildly) as this one. Good for Joe - at least he has principles still, agree or disagree with him.



The Democrat Party used to be a party of strong national defense and fiscal restraint. Starting in the 1960s, this began to change as the left tightened its grip. They managed to push out Joe Lieberman, and now its coming back to haunt them.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Whose Side Are You On, Barack Hussein Obama?

Obama asked people "not to draw conclusions" regarding the massacre committed by a Jordanian Army Psychologist named Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who shot and killed thirteen of our brave soldiers and apparently was shouting "Allahu Akbar" as he was killing American soldiers.

Yet it is ok for President OBAMA! to jump to conclusions regarding the "racist" Cambridge police department when he said that the police "acted stupidly."  Jumping to conclusions against the police would be OK.  But don't jump to conclusions when it comes to someone of the Religion of "Peace."  You might offend him or her...

Talk about misplaced priorities!

Is Nancy Pelosi Stoned, a Liar or Just an Idiot?

Two quick points - Pelosi said of this year's election night "we won."

She then broke her promiseto post this huge healthcare debacle of a bill online for at least 72 hours.

Maybe she's just a bit too much into the medical marijuana...

 

Pig Crisis

Our Dear Leader has declared Swine Flu a "national emergency." 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_swine_flu, through the Drudge Report.

"The White House on Saturday said Obama signed a proclamation that would allow medical officials to bypass certain federal requirements. Officials described the move as similar to a declaration ahead of a hurricane making landfall."

Frightening.  Bypassing "certain federal requirements" like the Constitution?  I love the way that the AP also tries to compare it indirectly to a Hurricane (like Katrina, perhaps?)  Big difference - you can see where a hurricane is going and predict it within a reasonable margin of error.  Viruses are invisible and affect people differently.  Horrible comparison!

Since when does a relatively mild influenza justify a "National Emergency?"  What sort of emergency measures are required?  Suspension of Habeas Corpus?  Internment camps?  Forced vaccinations?

The use of such language to describe such an outbreak is highly irresponsible at best and intentionally deceptive to mask a power grab at worst.

Carbon Madness

The Drudge Report posted a "developing" story that restaurant items and grocieries are starting to declare the level of their carbon footprint.

I could think of a million more things relevant than carbon impact. How about:

- How good the food is for me, as in nutritional content...

- The level of toxins in the food (i.e., mercury levels for fish)...

- The price it cost the restaurant or grocery store to produce the food item...

- The cleanliness of the location where the food came from...

Frankly, I don't care about the alleged effect my cheeseburger has on polar bear homes. What I care about is that the damn thing doesn't give me the shits, or worse.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Silence is Speech

How interesting that the Cambridge Society invited, then uninvited, Michael Savage from debating via videolink, on the following topic: This House Believes that Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary.

First of all, if there is anyone on God's Green Earth that is an authority on this topic, it's Michael Savage.  Second, I also find it particularly troubling that the Cambridge Society decided to go on with this debate after uninviting Savage.  It's important to note that Savage just recently accepted the debate invitation -- maybe these Brits were shocked and didn't think he'd accept.  If I could be so bold, it seems to me that Dr. Savage is the kind of man who would never back down from a challenge of this sort, debate being right up his alley.

Second, in my mind there is no doubt that the Brithish government is involved in forcing the hand of the Cambridge Society here.  This is very bothersome, especially concerning that the British Common Law has maintained, since the 1700s, that there shall be no "prior restraints" on speech.  What this means is that the government cannot prevent someone from speaking or publishing.  Anglo-American jurisprudence has evolved past that point since then.  If the UK government is involved with censoring Savage by threatening the Cambridge Society, however, it has devolved back to a point before the 1700s.

Now, imagine if someone from the White House was involved in this ban?  Think it can't happen?  Well, just this past week, the Administration backed a UN resolutionaiming to ban speech that is considered "intolerant," "xenophobic" or "racist."  Sounds like the impossible is now becoming possible.