Coulter On Healthcare

Here are a couple excerpts from Ann Coulter's most recent article on health care:

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

And this one:

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Two Faced

Barack Obama responded to Jim Demint's comments saying health care "is not about me".

Yet when the Democrats began asking questions he accused them of trying to "destroy his presidency".

This entire administration is a farce.

When Will I Stop Supporting Sarah Palin?

The question for this post is:

If you support Sarah Palin after she resigned from her governorship, what would she have to do to lose your support?

Here are ten things Sarah Palin could do to lose my support:

1) When she raises the annual budget deficit to far exceed one trillion dollars (by the estimates of committees run by her own party)

2) When she nominates a judge who believed people with certain racial backgrounds were more capable of making decisions than people from other racial backgrounds

3) When she brings the US unemployment rate to 10%

4) When she promises to bankrupt America's energy industries

5) When she travels on international speaking tours and blames America for all the problems in the world

6) When she makes an effort to undermine and attack our allies in speeches abroad

7) When she tries to use massive "stimulus" payments to buy off votes or by passing out free health care

8) When she claims the abortion issue needs to be forgotten when her opinion on the subject becomes unpopular

9) When she attacks AIG for handing over large bonuses when she was exactly the person responsible

10) When she brushes off Russia's aggression into Germany or Iran's brutal attacks on protestors

So in other words I will stop supporting Sarah Palin when she starts to resemble Barack Obama.

Jefferson on Liberty and Government

Tim and I have had a recent discussion on how the founders of the United States understood taxation with respect to whether they just wanted representation in London or if they wanted the government to stay out of their lives.

The other day I came across this Jefferson quote on Ben Smith's blog:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretence of taking care of them.

Sounds to me like Jefferson was ready to join the tea parties protesting the stimulus package.

Revising History

This is an excerpt from a WSJ article by Liz Cheney.

Read paragraph three.

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Instead of politically-correct phrases that cover up the atrocities of the Soviet Union, I wish Obama would object to them frankly. The Soviet Union was an evil empire that killed far, far more innocent people than the Holocaust.

The Rise of America

Our liberal friend from Down Under, Tim, recently commented on the rise of America:

I also don't think it's true to say "America became a capitalist country, and it grew to be such a huge economy, hence capitalism is what made it so large." America's growth was fuelled first by a rapid expansion of natural resources by taking all the land away from the Indians, and then the economic exploitation of other countries (e.g. latin america, south-east asia).

America became a great nation because hardworking Christians were disgusted with the corruption in England and Holland. They came to America because they wanted to build great things instead of mooching off the crowded cities of Europe.

God blessed these people, and to a large extent the Americans living today are enjoying the fruit of their forefather's efforts.

Another factor in America's rise was its opposition to heavy, European taxation. King George was trying to tax everything he could in the thirteen colonies: stamps, tea, and voting. The revolutionary war was fought to free the American economy from the oppression of taxes.

Little did these patriots know that their great great grandchildren would vote in leaders who saw taxes as the Solution to Everything.

"Capitalism" as an ideology did nothing except give people the freedom to enjoy the fruit of their efforts. Capitalism itself did none of the hard work. The risks were taken by entrepreneurs, business owners, and Yankee inventors.

To say that America became great because it took land from the Indians is peculiar to say the least. Were the lands the Americans took full of Indian greatness when they became American lands? Were the Mayan lands full of greatness as they sacrificed their own people to their dark gods?

Many other countries have far more lands (with more natural resources) than America, such as Russia. Is Russia greater than America? Was the British empire greater than America (after 1812)? Was the Spanish empire ever greater than America?

To say America became great as a result of its "economic exploitation" of other countries is also very strange. If US companies (such as Walmart, Kmart, etc.) offered Latin American companies fifteen million dollars in exchange for goods (and those companies had a real choice to accept or reject that offer), then how exactly are they being exploited? The US companies find a market for them to sell their goods, and somehow this is exploiting them?

Has the average lifespan of the Indians, South East Asians, and Latin Americans increased or decreased following the rise of America? What about sanitation? The education of children? Technology? Etc. The way I see it, if these far away places suddenly vanished over night, America would lose valuable trading partners, but America would be fine.

If America vanished overnight a thousand international economies would instantly die.

In summary, Americans became great by trusting God, working hard, and finding favor under Providence. Many economists have presented similar interpretations (i.e. Weber). To credit foreign places (which have never known greatness) as providing the means to greatness for America is a major stretch.

Friedman on Greed

Milton Friedman is asked if he ever has doubts about capitalism when 'it is based on greed'.

He gives a brief, strong answer.

Thanks to Janice and Alan King for sending me this one.

Love IS Blind!

I am definitely the one on this blog that doesn't always use the most, um, how shall we say it, scholarly approach but I could not let this one go because I believe it shows the mentality of Americans right now. TMZ.com got a shot of Our President being less than shall we say, Presidential and yet AMERICANS commented like crazy defending him. Maybe they need to pay more attention to the facts below.

Currently, we have 14 1/2 million people out of work or if you like percentages then the unemployment rate is over 9% and heading for 10%. They, (meaning the Executive Branch) are discussing another stimulus package and the concern is that there will not be enough Senators to stop it.

The stimulus packages are not working. This will create inflation, which Americans seem to not understand that means PRINTING MONEY AND DEVALUING THE AMERICAN DOLLAR. THAT IS A BAD THING. In addition who will pay for this stimulus package????

Now, you would think that Americans might start to get upset with the President. But, they so love Obama that they will defend his every word and action, even checking out a 'young thing'. TMZ.com has a great snapshot of our President looking at a young girls bottom and yet the peoples comments to defend him are hysterical, right down to claiming he was checking out her shoes.
My point is, that if it was any other President Americans would be ready to nail him to a wall and then checking out a chick's bottom, well that would send Americans over the edge. But, they have this LOVE OBSESSION with Obama and he can do no wrong.

THIS SCARES ME. How far in the hole is the country going to go before Americans really start clamoring for CHANGE. YES WE CAN CHANGE!!! BUT,NOW, WE ARE CHANGING RIGHT TO OUR DEATH. WE ARE CHANGING AND DROWNING, SINKING, AND DYING! WE NEED TO STOP THE CHANGE BY OBAMA AND GET BACK TO THE BASICS OF AMERICAN LIVING AND FAST!!!

Stop overspending, let our corporations and small businesses create jobs and Americans need to spend within their limits. We all need fiscal responsibility and the GOVERNMENT should lead the way!!!

Enjoy our President's roaming eyes. Check it out, it is funny!! Lastly, he is not the first President to have a roaming eye but I would dare say he is the first to be so OPENLY DEFENDED FOR IT!!!

New Video Game

Micah Hoover, the guy who pays for our webhosting, has asked me to put a plug in for his new video game, Confusion.

You can download it for free from here.

The game comes in three flavors: Windows XP, Windows Vista, and OS X Leopard.

Apparently there are some cameos involving Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin among others.

What I Think She Is Up To

The coverage on Sarah Palin's resignation has largely glossed over the reasons she gave for leaving.

I find it relevant that she asked her kids if she should pursue her political interests from outside of politics for the time being (which I interpret as meaning 'right now').

Megan Stapleton -Sarah's mouthpiece to the press- has insisted this was not a move to give up political office forever. It is simply an effort to get away from the governor's office for the present.

Most people don't realize how restrictive it is to be the governor of Alaska.

You're basically not allowed to collect any income outside of governor's salary. With a book coming out soon, this would severely limit the amount of funds she could collect from book sales and making appearances.

Leaving the state as governor has opened her up to a lot of attacks from the Democrats (and competing Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, who is not at all happy about the resignation news btw).

Her political action committee, SarahPAC, has been receiving more money than usual after the announcement.

Obama's approval rating is VERY low right now. We're only six months into his presidency and he's fighting to keep 59% approval. Rasmussen has charted the disapproval against him as being HIGHER than the approval for him (for one day at least).

I think the Republicans can run just about anyone. They should nominate a true conservative like Sarah Palin.

Let Loose

Sarah Palin announced her resignation as governor yesterday.

It was a surprise and people are trying to figure out what it means, but no one is sure.

With the headline: "Palin makes herself the true frontrunner", John Bachelor makes a good attempt at explaining understanding her political possibilities:

Rather than a blow to a career, Sarah Palin's decision to resign underlines her self-awareness.

It continues to say she is the unmatched 2012 primary frontrunner. And inside the article:

What is going on right now in the Republican Party—even as the professionals scramble to react with grins and snorts to the news of Palin’s Alaska resignation—are the early scenes of the 2012 campaign for the presidency with Sarah Palin as the once and future hero. Like Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth Regina, and, skipping four centuries of quarrelsome princes, Margaret Thatcher, the Republican Party has already decided that the governor of Alaska will rescue the GOP from its ruination. What Sarah Palin begins with an announcement from Wasilla is not only a campaign, it is an Iditarod of a crusade—first woman, first mom, and second moose-hunter into the White House.

He is certainly right about the grins and snorting -the language of liberal pundits.

Conservative pundit Mark Stein suggested this was just a wholesome person giving up on politics. He thinks there's a long shot chance this could help her in a 2010 senate race.

AP writer Rachel D'oro writes that this is a 2012 move.

Also, check out Ben Smith's post interpreting Palin's resignation. He claims it was too much "scrutiny" (more like 'vicious, nasty attacks' I'd say, if 30% of democrats said the media went too hard on her!).

Obama Endorses Capitalism

At least in words.

Folks who are struggling don't simply need more government bureaucracy; that top-down, one-size-fits-all program usually doesn't end up fitting anybody. People don't need somebody out in Washington to tell them how to solve their problems, especially when the best solutions are often right there in their own neighborhoods, just waiting to be discovered.
June 30, 2009

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Although I find that very hard to reconcile with nationalizing the US auto and banking industries, stiff health care and carbon taxes, and massive pork barrel spending.

Seems to me like the Obama administration has done little else than increasing government bureaucracy.

Source: Ben Smith