Obama: America's Moral Idiot in Chief

Lest anyone think the title is a “wingnut” ad hominem directed toward the president, let’s define a couple of terms.

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Idiot: a foolish or stupid person

Based on these definitions, we see that Obama is not alone. Nor do many Americans escape the combined definitions, if we consider modern man’s contemporary love affair with the Whig theory of history (i.e., man reaches higher states of development with time) and the evolutionary theory that posits the necessity of passing from the simple to the complex. Combined, these two theories (Whig and evolution) require the consequence of a threat to the minimum value necessary to assess the political state.

In essence, man’s contemporary belief and decision to eliminate a higher “truth” than man is the proximate cause of man’s other evil decisions.

And ObamaCare is merely one in a long line of man’s evil decisions. And, yes, ObamaCare is evil and its proponents are moral idiots. As Victor Hanson notes: “One of the stranger things about this eerie first eight months of the Obama administration is how brazenly its supporters have been about the noble ends justifying the disreputable means.”

However, if Obama, his supporters, and the proponents of ObamaCare have noble ends in mind, how can their ends be disreputable? Simply stated, it is the consequence of contemporary philosophy. A belief system and worldview rejecting any biblical basis for moral decision making and the total acceptance that “man created in the divine image, the protagonist of a great drama in which his soul was at stake, was replaced by man the wealth-seeking and -consuming animal.” (Richard Weaver)

These same disreputable ends are found in the supposedly “noble” reason President Obama reversed himself concerning investigating the CIA, a congressman has a constituent removed from a Town Hall meeting, the Lockerbie bomber is set free for future oil, Senator Reid stating Senator Kennedy’s death will help the Democrats advance ObamaCare, and the public statements of a race-baiting congresswoman insisting Americans need to support the president’s health care overhaul because America elected a man “from Kenya and Kansas.”

In other words, morality and the Founding Father’s ethical framework be damned; full steam ahead in meeting the needs of America’s wealth-seeking and -consuming animals.

All of this is, unfortunately, being “sold” to Americans by cloaking the stimulus, bail outs, nationalization, and health care overhaul in what the Communists viewed as logical charity. Except the outworking is completely uncharitable, just as the former Soviet system and current “flavors” of Communism are systems of enslavement that vilify the middle class and render it obsolete. The current culture in Washington (both left and right) is amoral and unequipped to recognize the degraded state of the political system that has no means to perceive and measure the country’s descent into the moral and intellectual abyss responsible for ObamaCare. America flounders as amoral sociopaths lead the country.

Thus, when the middle class questions leadership about its moral decadence, our representatives act incredulous and resentful, lashing out at the very people they serve.

In conjunction with contempt for people who question said decadence, it is nearly impossible to reason with those who support the current leadership at the ballot box and in the public square. Obama’s supporters have fallen prey to hysterical optimism and any rational argument that is contrary to this “hope” is met with histrionics normally reserved for a lynch mob.

Therefore, despite any right or wrong argument for or against ObamaCare, a rational debate is impossible. Modern man’s egotism will not allow the humility needed for rigorous self-examination and self-criticism. Both of which are pre-requisites to debate, but both are long buried, as a result of our country’s lust for running away from first principles.

May God have mercy on all of us.

[Via http://markepstein.wordpress.com]

Fame seeking artist irked his Obama parody is being ignored

By Gloria Teasdale, Senior Arts and Trans Fat Writer

The "Oburglar" poster - not attracting much attention.

MADISON, WISCONSIN – A Wisconsin college student is irate a controversial poster he created mocking President Obama isn’t getting any notoriety.

Collin Davlin, an amateur artist and Bovine Studies major at the University of Wisconsin, created his “Oburglar” poster on Photoshop last month, shortly after a poster parodying the President as the Joker drew headlines nationwide.

“It’s bogus my poster hasn’t created any waves, because it’s really, really good,” Davlin said. “It’s easily ten times more controversial than that stupid Joker picture. I have equated the President with the most notorious villain in the entire fast food world – you’d think someone would be outraged by that.”

Davlin’s Obama poster shows the President dressed up as the Hamburglar, the rascally McDonald’s trickster infamous for stealing hamburgers while mumbling “robble, robble” in a saucy voice. On the bottom of Davlin’s poster is the word “kleptocracy,” a form of government in which the ruling class enriches itself at the public’s expense.

“I designed this poster for two reasons. First, I wanted to raise awareness of Obama’s kleptocratic agenda that’s stolen billions of dollars from the people to line the pockets of his corporate cronies,” Davlin said.

“But more importantly, I just wanted to be famous, and thought this poster would piss enough people off to get me that. Maybe even leverage it all into a book deal. Boy was I wrong.”

Davlin is also upset his other two McDonald’s parody posters – “Mayor McPalin” and “Grimace Joe Biden” – have also failed to generate scuttlebutt.

“I don’t know what else I can do,” he said. “I posted them on my Twitter page. I sent them to all my Facebook friends. I even email them to the major news networks. No response. Nada. People are fickle.”

A brief canvass of Davlin’s fellow University of Wisconsin students seems to bear that out.

“Ew that’s stupid,” said freshman Erica Long when shown the Oburglar poster. “Politics is gross.”

“Why would someone want to diss the Hamburglar, he always seemed alright to me,” said junior Brian Johnson.

[Via http://thewackydeli.wordpress.com]

Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne Only a Kennedy could get away with it

August 29, 2009, 7:00 a.m.

Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne

Only a Kennedy could get away with it.

By Mark Steyn

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 Sen. 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 namecheck 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 U.S. 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, schoolchildren 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 to 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, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn National Review Online – http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZlNjA1MTRmYWViNjMwMDUyNjc1ZTg0NDQwZjk2ODc=

[Via http://bsimmons.wordpress.com]

THE DOUBLE STANDERD BY=ABC and NBC Refuse to Run Ad Critical of Obama Health Care.

Thanks to Emily Miller for this great article in

PoliticsDaily.

ABC and NBC Refuse to Run Ad Critical of Obama Health Care. ABC and NBC have refused to run a national ad critical of President Obama’s health care reform plan. The commercial features a doctor who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to rationing and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare.

The spot has been running for two weeks on local affiliates of Fox, CBS and even ABC and NBC. But the two networks have refused to air the commercial nationally, according to Fox News.

The ad was produced by the League of American Voters, a national, nonprofit group that advocates for accountability by elected officials.

NBC responded to a Fox inquiry by saying it would consider running the 30-second ad if it were revised.

“We have not rejected the ad. We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed,” said NBC spokeswoman Liz Fischer.

In June, ABC was hosted by the White House for a special on health care, which ran nationally in prime time.

But in response to Fox’s question about the network’s refusal to run the ad, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a statement that the network “has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue.”

League of American Voters Executive Director Bob Adams takes issue with ABC calling the ad “partisan,” saying: “It’s a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind. Obviously, it’s a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven’t received yet.”

Dick Morris, the former advisor to President Clinton, is the League of American Voters’ chief strategist. He told Fox he is especially troubled by the hypocrisy of ABC’s refusal to air the spot.

“It’s the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform,” he said. “For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue.”

ABC and NBC are only reinforcing the perception of a liberal media bias by refusing to air an ad that shows the downsides of the Obama proposals. The result is that the American people will learn about both sides of the health care debate from CBS, Fox and their local affiliates.

Follow Emily Miller on Twitter.

Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter

[Via http://lightningbob.wordpress.com]

Obama vows not to forget lessons of Katrina

It has been what FOUR years now sense katrina, and he has been in office now for NINE month, and now seeing what he can do to help the the people down in that part of the country, why did he not do it sooner, well that is probable because taking over this country was more important then the taking care of the American citizen that he swore to protect.

=======================================================

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

OAK BLUFFS, Mass. – President Barack Obama promised Saturday that his administration would not forget what he called … a tragic response to Hurricane Katrina. He said he would visit the still-recovering New Orleans before the end of the year.

Obama has already dispatched 11 members of the Cabinet to the region to inspect progress and to hear directly local ideas on how to speed up repairs to a region destroyed by flooding four years ago this weekend.

“None of us can forget how we felt when those winds battered the shore, the floodwaters began to rise and Americans were stranded on rooftops and in stadiums,” Obama said during his weekly radio and Internet address, released while he is vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts.

“Whole neighborhoods of a great American city were left in ruins. Communities across the Gulf Coast were forever changed. And many Americans questioned whether government could fulfill its responsibility to respond in a crisis.”

Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, 2005, killing more than 1,600 people in Louisiana and Mississippi and leaving behind more than $40 billion in property damage. Hurricane Rita followed almost a month later, with billions of dollars in additional damage and at least 11 more deaths.

Obama acknowledged that recovery has not come at an acceptable pace despite recent moves to speed up the process.

“I have also made it clear that we will not tolerate red tape that stands in the way of progress or the waste that can drive up the bill,” said Obama. “Government must be a partner — not an opponent — in getting things done.”

Obama’s FEMA chief, Craig Fugate, has been cited by Gulf Coast officials and Obama administration officials alike for breaking through the gridlock that has delayed recovery.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., recently said he had a lot of respect for Fugate and his team. “There is a sense of momentum and a desire to get things done,” he said of the career emergency official.

In half a year, Obama’s team says it has cleared at least 75 projects that were in dispute, including libraries, schools and university buildings.

Even so, many towns remain broken, littered with boarded-up houses and overgrown vacant lots. Hundreds of projects — including critical needs such as sewer lines, fire stations and a hospital — are entangled in the bureaucracy or federal-local disputes over who should pick up the tab.

“No more turf wars,” Obama said. “All of us need to move forward together, because there is much more work to be done,” he said.

[Via http://1autolatry.wordpress.com]

Thoughts on Reforming the Provision of Healthcare in the United States: Introduction (Part 1 of 10)

Perhaps healthcare reform seems like an unusual choice of topic to restart (after a few months of silence) this blog on international relations. But political economy is Endgame of History’s secondary topic, and the debate over government involvement with healthcare is, in many ways, a debate on political economy.

An Itemized Critique

One of the many reasons I might have avoided this topic is its breadth. But a template for conveniently collating some of my thoughts on the current debate came in the form of a Wall Street Journal article last week, “New Rx for Health Plan: Split Bill.”

The point of interest to me is the table at the bottom, “Splitting the Bill,” which contains a simplified overview of the major Democratic proposals for healthcare reform (and their potential legislative future). In a conversation with a coworker, I discovered a convenient method of illustrating my perspective: simply arranging the eight proposals from my greatest agreement / least opposition to greatest opposition / least agreement. I didn’t have to come out completely in favor of, or completely opposed to, any specific idea; I merely indicated what bothered me less and what more.

Another advantage of itemizing elements of the proposal is that it increases the likelihood that any two people may find common ground in the debate, even while more clearly understanding where (and, perhaps, why) they disagree. Many pundits lean on itemized analyses, and I hope most congressmen do, but I’m not convinced that many of the most vocal citizens are analyzing healthcare reform piece by piece. (Or, rather, I’m convinced that many are not.)

Is the Opposition Reasonable?

Which leads me to the final reason I decided to blog on this topic. For better or worse (depending on your political perspective), the opponents of the current healthcare reform proposals who are receiving the most media attention are not legislators, professors, or thoughtful “ordinary” citizens. Rather, they are those who are (at least in media portrayals) radically and irrationally against any healthcare reform, allegedly spreading myths and falsely vilifying many current plans and ideas (even those of moderate Republicans) as “socializing” our healthcare system. And while I do think much of the media attention has focused on a minority of poorly behaved, poorly informed opponents (albeit the most vocal), my assumption is that these bona fide loudmouths are the only opponents most healthcare reform advocates are hearing.1

Thus, given the masking noise generated by the most radical healthcare opponents, advocates conclude there is, essentially, no reasonable opposition to—and thus no reasonable concern about—HR 3200 (warning: 1,017-page PDF) and its legislative kin.

The Plan

Returning to the itemized list of healthcare proposals: In the forthcoming series of entries, I will individually examine the eight proposal elements presented in the Journal article, using each as a springboard to discuss the relevant questions and my perspective on the “pros” and “cons” of each. I will examine the proposals in descending order of my personal support.

Also, note that, for mostly practical reasons, these entries will remain almost entirely on the theoretical level (preliminary to statistical analysis). I realize there is a host of studies and reports on healthcare specifics, e.g., the number of uninsured Latino children living in North Dakota, and the data should play an important role in the debate. But given my background and the limitations of time, I believe I am best suited to analyzing the fundamentals of political economy and allowing others to input solutions based on their personal values and the numerical details.

Return soon as I begin posting my examinations of the eight proposals:

1. Cap out-of-pocket expenses
2. Require most Americans to have health insurance or pay fine
3. Prohibit insurers from rejecting customers over pre-existing conditions
4. Set up “exchanges” where people can comparison-shop for insurance
5. Expansion of Medicaid
6. Federal subsidies to buy insurance
7. New taxes to pay for these items
8. Establish public health-insurance plan or nonprofit co-operatives to compete with private insurers

Note

1. I do think the media has misrepresented the opposition, even if only because the loudest individuals generally receive the most attention. If I went to a town hall meeting and said what I plan to say in the forthcoming blog entries, I probably would receive far less media attention than a gun-toting healthcare opponent holding a sign suggesting President Obama is a closet Nazi. However, I do think Democrats have overreacted to some of the “less refined” criticism. While Democrats today bemoan the swastikas brandished in opposition to healthcare reform, I remember no similar outcry at the parade of equally sophomoric Hitler-mustached Bush posters circa (primarily) 2002–2003. ^

[Via http://endgameofhistory.wordpress.com]

Bill Maher and Democrats hate Idiot Americans

The fiends in Washington D.C. are taking their clarion call from people like Bill Maher who calls Americans idiots.

Bill Maher’s recent article says that America hired a smart president but that the country is stupid, on the Letterman show he called Americans idiots and that health care reform should be shoved down this country’s throat. Many politicians believe in this policy.

Maher would have been a great mouth piece for Josef Stalin or maybe he should become Hugo Chavez’s spokesman. The man makes a good living off of lies and hatred. It is no wonder he identifies with Barack Hussein Obama.

The Democrats have voiced that they will pass this bill no matter what the American public says. The dictators in congress keep saying they know what is best for the American citizen. These are rich elitists who keep telling the average American that they are stupid. These people in congress and the man in the White House have one thing on their agenda the destruction of America and the freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution.

So far they have bankrupted the economy at the tune of nine trillion dollars. These politicians are trying their best to destroy the Central Intelligence Agency and the military. They work hard at trying to break the will of the people by such name calling as un-American, racists and idiots. The only ones that lack any brain power here is the elitists like Maher and the Democrats. These elitists would wish that the concept portrayed in the book “Fahrenheit 451” would come to reality. The concept of the story is that all books are burned and the only way to get information was to pay attention to the state controlled media. This way the public was kept stupid and did not live a life of self-worth. This idea by Ray Bradbury was written during the early days of the cold war when the liberals where running the Soviet Union. Using the basis of the book there would be no dissenting opinion against the actions of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Hussein Obama.

It is amazing it is the liberals who scream for their First Amendments rights, but want to deny them to everyone else with an opposing view point. They hire union thugs and ACORN bullies to keep out American citizens at town hall meetings. It has come to the point of who will control this country, the abusive dictators in Congress and the White House or the American citizen? Is the American citizen going to sit back and enjoy being called an idiot?

This is a form of racism not involving color, religion, or gender but between those who have the power given to them by the voice of the people and the people of that voice. It is elitists against the true American. Well it is time to show these despots who really have the brains turn off Bill Maher and make the corrupted politicians listen to the American people. The unions do not control America neither does ACORN. Yes America is becoming an organized community against the dictators in Congress and the White House.

[Via http://tempestvoice.wordpress.com]

The Shill and Doctor Astroturf

- The Public Record – http://pubrecord.org -

The Shill and Doctor Astroturf

Posted By Zachary Roberts – Special to The Public Record

“I don’t know whether I prefer Astroturf to grass. I never smoked Astroturf.”

-Joe Namath

In early August, Sarah Palin made a claim that ObamaCare would create ‘death panels’ – that the elderly would essentially have to make pleas for their life in front of a panel of bureaucrats. Elizabeth ‘Betsy’ McCaughey has been identified as the creator of the ‘death panel’ myth. McCaughey has done this before. She killed HillaryCare more than a decade ago.

The infamous binder

The infamous binder

McCaughey’s goal is to frighten people away from the single payer healthcare option. The last time a Democrat was in the White House trying to pass healthcare reform she was busy inventing stories out of whole cloth about what those reforms would do. In the 90’s, she claimed that government healthcare would be mandatory and that people would be stuck in the program. It was untrue then, as it is now.

Then she claimed that their were ’secret provisions’ in HillaryCare – now the Internet is filled with rumors of free abortions, government databases and of course death panels. There is little doubt that Obama’s people learned from HillaryCare and took as many preventative measures as they could but no amount of planning can compete with a conservative with an agenda.

McCaughey has been all over the networks news shows talking about what she, a ‘researcher’ and former Lt. Governor of New York has found deep, deep in the ObamaCare bill. Only in one interview was she really called out for the scaremonger that she is.

Edward R. Murrow would have been proud. Jon Stewart spent more than 15 minutes with McCaughey in a recent interview for Comedy Central’s The Daily Show. [The full interview can be found here and here.] To her credit, McCaughley believed she could compete intellectually with Stewart. To say she was unprepared would be an understatement. Of course, the last time she attempted this she did not have such a formidable opponent; there wasn’t a late night comedy show reporting “fake news.”

But McCaughley’s been at this game for a long time and she still has a lot of tricks up her sleeve. She knows that one thing that American’s hate more than restricted health care options and death panels is reading. When Hillary was tasked with health care reform the media and the Republicans were obsessed with the President’s bill size (pun not intended). McCaughey didn’t miss the opportunity to use that imagery again – coming onto the set with a huge binder filled with “the first half of the House Bill 3200…” adding “it’s 1018 pages all together.” Please note that HillaryCare was over 1400.

Stewart jumps right into it, asking her the ‘death panel’ question – the infamous page 432, which of course like the plans for the evacuation of New Orleans was no where to be found. Eventually she did find and read the passage from the bill that she claims will endanger senior citizens – a provision that has been endorsed by the AARP and the American College of Physicians among others – followed by Stewart looking a bit befuddled by how McCaughley could have reached that conclusion. Still, Stewart allowed McCaughley to claw her way through his light-hearted (considering her seeming lack of knowledge of the bill) questions for another 13 minutes.

McCaughey ended the interview with the introduction of yet another trick – a claim that doctors are “frightened” of this bill. She quoted an oped written by a “physician from San Francisco,” a Dr. Katherine Schlaerth, who claimed:

“These and other provisions of the health choices act frankly scare me. As a physician, I took an oath long ago to put my patient’s interests above all else, but provisions in the bill have a quality of coerciveness that make me wonder if I can fulfill my oath.”

If McCaughey had read the rest of the article and not just the “moving” part it would have shown where this doctor sits politically. Earlier in the article she selectively quoted Obama discussing choices he made with his Grandmother:

“To quote President Obama, we must correctly inform families who might otherwise approve of “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows (are) not necessarily going to improve care. “My problem, as a physician who has practiced medicine for decades, is that I just can’t predict with certainty what is end-of-life care, nor can I determine for another individual the meaning of “quality of life.”

She left out the important part – as many right-wing commentators have as well – “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

The president’s grandmother was too frail to have the surgery but still this was a choice that Obama’s family had to make because she did not have living will, something that page 432 would have probably solved.

According to Schlaerth, Obama ever the PR man is also concerned about how the death panel plan will look – “The math is obvious. If you kill the disabled and give ‘quality preventive care’ to the well, your health-care statistics will look excellent.”

Schlaerth has taken McCaughley’s problems with page 432 and taken it to the next level in an interview with NCRegister.com (America’s ‘most complete’ Catholic Newsweekly) calling President Obama a fiscal conservative at the expense of the elderly’s lives – “The real reason for these draconian provisions directed against elders who are not terminal, I believe, is to save on Social Security payments as well as Medicare payments,” Schlaerth said.

Doctor Schlaerth is also frightened for her collegues – “Health-care providers, meanwhile, may be forced to give counseling directly opposed to their religious or moral beliefs.” The oath that she is so frightened Obama won’t let her fulfill is, I guess, filled with exceptions for her – since she’s a Christian and against life saving abortions.” Sadly, as a MD her own religious convictions will be taking precedent over the 20,000 some people that die every year do having no heath insurance.

Lastly, a little information about Dr. Schlaerth. She often credits herself with being a Associate Professor at the University of Southern California. She likes to write oped columns. She’s written extensively on abortion, dogs killing children because of allergies, stem cell research among many other hot topic issues and is available for interviews through the Life Legal Defense Foundation. She accepts Cigna, HealthNet, Medicaid, WellCare, Humana, BCBS, United Health Care, Sierra, Wellpoint (also Mastercard, AMEX and Discover)

To clarify her position – she’s an associate professor emeritus – she lost her job at USC, and another one because “she is pro-life and won’t do abortions or dispense birth control pills.” She’s now a practicing physician at Loma Linda University School of Medicine, a private Christian College in Southen California. She believes that stem cell research will “cannibalize our conceptuses for spare parts… There will be precious few paralyzed young supermen opting for baby neurons so they can walk again.”

God bless those treated by Dr. Schlaerth.

Zach Roberts is a contributor to The Public Record. He has produced DVD’s with award-winning investigative reporter Greg Palast including Big Easy to Big Empty and Palast Investigates. Follow him on twitter at zdroberts and on his documentary review feed DocuTweets.

Article printed from The Public Record: http://pubrecord.org

URL to article: http://pubrecord.org/special-to-the-public-record/4119/schill-doctor-astroturf/

Copyright © 2009 The Public Record. All rights reserved.

[Via http://zdroberts.wordpress.com]

Drown KennedyCare for Mary Jo and the Children!

There’s going to come a point where the Democrats have invested so much political capital in this debacle that they have no choice but to plow ahead and pass something.

Senator Ted Kennedy’s body is barely cool and the left is playing the “emotional” card. The Huffington Post is awash with articles on why we must pass KennedyCare for Senator Kennedy’s political legacy, the need for a comprehensive reform of…health-care…as a deeply moral issue, to mitigate the cruel effects of economic inequality, the identity of the Democratic Party, because care shouldn’t depend on your financial resources, and due to more than 70 percent of the American public agrees that a public option for health care is a good idea.

Even the All Obama Channel (ABC) is reporting on “Win One for Teddy.”

How about we “win one” for our children, our children’s children, and Mary Jo Kopechne?

How about we drop the left’s emotional blather and continue examining the vacuous arguments for KennedyCare?

Political Legacy

Senator Kennedy’s political legacy is one of soaring deficit spending, duplicitous bi-partisanship, and an entrenched representation of possibly the most leftist state in the union — Taxachusetts.

Deeply Moral Issue

Ted Kennedy’s moral compass historically pointed to “true South,” as evidenced by his drunkeness and Mary Jo Kopechne’s death.

Economic Inequality

The Kennedy family’s fortune is also awash with booze, and it has been used to foist a far-left political agenda on the country for decades. Only John had the wherewithal to understand freedom, service, sacrifice, and tax equity for rich and poor. Ted Kennedy’s harping on economic inequality is hollow and the blatant racism of the Boston busing debacle can never be forgotten. It can never be forgotten because Ted Kennedy’s constituents were the ones who opposed the busing designed to end economic and educational inequalities. Yet, the left now expects the rest of the country to forget the real attitude of Massachusetts Democrats on the issue of equality, in conjunction with the century-plus Democrat hatred of African-Americans.

Identity of the Democratic Party

The Democrat’s “identity” is already well entrenched. Taxation, immorality, runaway spending, paying-off special interests and large donors with political favors, arrogance, condescension, vilifying average Americans as Nazis, and emotional politicization of issues. If KennedyCare is passed over the objections of Americans, then our children and our children’s children have every right to hate us, the Democrats, and and weak-willed Republicans.

Financial Resources

One can hardly forget the Obama supporter flushed with excitement as she exclaimed she no longer had to pay her mortgage. Of course, Obama is not going to pay the young lady’s mortgage; Obama expects hard working, tax-paying Americans to pay her mortgage. The very same people Obama expects to foot the bill for KennedyCare, trillions in deficit spending, and his radical socialist programs. Financial “perks” and the tax base for those perks earmarked for Democrat supporters are the responsibility of Americans who oppose runaway spending in Washington and who, in Obama’s, Pelosi’s, Reids, and the leftist’s eyes have no right to free speech.

Support for KennedyCare

As the left continues to parade inflated numbers before the American public (courtesy of the mainstream media and left-leaning blogs), the figures the Democrats and their supporters use are blatant lies. First and foremost is the number of uninsured Americans, which includes illegal aliens. Yet, despite their disavowing illegals will be covered under KennedyCare, the millions of illegals are still included int he “uninsured” figure and the Democrats refuse to close the bill’s current loop-hole that would provide illegals care under the current plan. Add to the left’s disingenuous use of a figure like “70% support,” and we quickly see that facts don’t get in the way of the left’s onward march to financial oblivion for generations of Americans.

The Truth

Rush Limbaugh said it best:

No matter where you watch television today – even if you turn on FOX – you are going to get the syrupy – everything they say is going to be predictable: let’s put aside our differences for today and respect the great work and achievements of Sen. Kennedy. I am going to vomit and puke all over everyone with this analysis today.

Although Mr. Limbaugh’s nausea results from the mainstream media’s treatment of a drunken sot who has sought to tax non-Massachusetts residents to death for years, what’s really sickening is the blatant thuggery of the left and its “using” Kennedy’s death to enslave working Americans. KennedyCare is unconscienable. It’s evil. And it’s immoral. As it was when it was known as Obamacare or any other moniker the left has used before attaching health care overhaul to a dead Kennedy’s name.

KennedyCare must be killed. And Kennedy’s legacy demands it be drowned — for Mary Jo and the children.

[Via http://markepstein.wordpress.com]

Anarcho-Cynicism or They Lie, You Die.

It always amazes me how people get indignant when a politician gets caught in a lie or otherwize goes back on their campaign promises. I mean, what the fuck is there really to expect? It just always becomes like some sort of scandalous sideshow bolstering the overall spectacle-it’s like the bastards lie on purpose and let themselves get caught so that can become the focus of attention lest anyone really start to question the system in it’s totality. We’re just not allowed to do that, yet we’re perfectly encouraged to get caught up in minutea and spectacular trivia thus our paralysis is ensured.

And it’s working pretty well for the ruling cabal. I mean, lets face it-this is 21st century Ameriduh, the worst any politician really has to worry about from us rabble is to not be elected to a further term. For serious, people may piss and moan and try to look hardcore at town hall meetings but the fact is aint nobody getting tarred and feathered and run out on a rail. It just aint gonna happen. What will happen is the elections will come and motherfuckers will vote so and so’s out of office…and then the new so and so’s will be their elected officials-and they’ll lie and act contrary to their campaign promises. Then everyone will be all “I can’t believe it, it’s such a scandal! I’ll vote for the other party next time!” and that will be the extent of it, period.

Meanwhile the machine will grind on, everything will become more expensive, people will work more for less pay if they’re lucky enough to get hired, the wars will continue so the military-congressional-industrial complex can make more money, China will continue to buy our debt and move closer to effectively owning this country, the middle class will disappear as our economy is more and more integrated with the third world model…and people will continue to get excited and bent out of shape when politicians-who’s job it is to lie turn out to be as fucked up as most everybody already knows they are.

But besides some bitching and whining nobody is going to do anything about it. The spectacle has perfected it’s methods of control, it forms the very fabric of what passes as political discourse. The State has nothing to worry about because it controls the terrain where people might even think of questioning it’s further existence. Revolution is the last thing on  Jane six pack’s agenda, broad sweeping change and deconstruction of the reigning social order doesn’t even exist an an option in the popular collective mind. People will vote and pick their new king long before they’ll get off their fat asses and do something about a fascistic, corrupt government. Well, until the men with guns come to take them to the FEMA relocation camps, but by that time it’ll be too late.

So, yeah. It’s pointless to bemoan the political spectacle because all the gnarly shit those bastards in power do is part of their job. They’re your rulers, after all, they’re supposed to be motherfuckers.

endnotes:

1) As a disclaimer, of course I don’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government. I actually think it’s far too late for such shenanigans and we all better just realize that we’re fucked and had better start learning to speak Chinese.

2) This post was fueled by the Disfear album Misanthropic Generation and a couple of tracks off of the Cycle Sluts From Hell s/t

3) The inspiration for this whole stupid rant came from this video. Much thanks to my good buddy JW for posting it on Facebook today. You can read his blog here

[Via http://fullmetalgerbil.wordpress.com]