Well, I haven't heard it raised as a question and have not seen it addressed as one of the silly items in the Health Scare Bill, but I am wondering just how all of this is going to affect all those Long Term Care contracts that people have been paying premiums for over the years.
 
I'm sure that as soon as Otrauma and his Legion of Death appointees figure out that this has slipped through their fingers, they will quickly resolve that oversight!

The following is an excerpt from the July 15, 2009 Town Hall article by Michelle Malkin, entitled “Two Scientists, Two Standards.”

The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.

There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."

Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."

Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."

Now someone please explain to me that we shouldn’t be concerned that Obama is gathering around him all the scarier elements of Nazi-ism (as developed by Adolf and the Gang) and Communism (Soviet and Chinese style).

Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.

There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.

Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist. What do you think?

I received a fund-raising e-mail from the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago, specifically attributed to, and signed by, Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman.  Now, that is not so surprising, as we all get these relatively harmless missives from time to time.   

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I very seldom read these things, and I haven’t, to the best of my memory, ever sent any money to the RNC, either in response to one of these letters or any other request.  You see, I happen to believe that the RNC has no business taking our money and shoveling it like so much fertilizer to the candidates or groups that they (the NRC) choose to support (fairly analogous to what the Government does with our taxes, I guess).  They apparently base their selections on perceived electability as an (R), regardless of whether those candidates are aware of, let alone strong advocates for, the conservative values that the Republican Party theoretically stands for (and that I definitely stand for!). 

Tell me if I am wrong, but did the RNC not strongly back Arlen Specter (spit!) in his last election?  Heck, even all the way down here in Texas, one could see that he has been a traitor to conservative values for several years now. Could those smart cookies at the RNC not see such an obvious thing, or did they not care because he was electable as an (R)?  Either way, they rank right up there with the Government on the list of organizations to which I am willing to hand my money for re-distribution.  At least with the RNC, I can make the decision to exercise a choice without being hounded by the law.

But I did read this one, mainly because Mr. Steele had piqued my interest by showing a little backbone a week or so ago and I thought that we might actually be seeing some real conservative leadership.  Alas, I was fated to reinforce my developing view that the Republican Party and I have almost nothing in common anymore. 

The talking points that were addressed in this email were predictable and, frankly, insulting to the (presumed) target audience.  The only positive aspect was that they didn’t point out how smart Obama supposedly is, even though the evidence seems to suggest that he reads a teleprompter very well (an admirable talent, for sure) but in no way takes those words and converts them into coherent, logical thoughts.  I am struck by the similarity between logical thought/Obama’s teleprompter and logical thought/authors of this email.

Mr. Steele, you say that “last year the Democrats told voters they would bring "change" to Washington, but their version of change has been to push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined,” and assert that that is why you believe America needs the Republican Party now more than ever before.  Are you kidding me? I am sorry, sir, to have to tell you that a lot of us not only imagined, but clearly understood, just how far and fast it would be done.  We just weren’t able to get it through to the “bright” guys who happen to have control of the reins.

You say that “some people who were willing to take Barack Obama at his word when he campaigned as a reasonable, moderate candidate are coming to realize the unfortunate truth.”  Why did you guys not find a way to get the message out about the lies Obama was telling while he was telling them? It is a little late now!

Come to think of it, where were you  when the MSM and the piddle-head Republicans were bashing Sarah Palin during this election you were so concerned about?  Oh, yeah!  I forgot!  Many of those cats were right in the middle of it!

Also, I will believe that you supported the Tea Parties as a “groundswell of popular grassroots opposition” when you can show me that you or your personal representatives helped to develop, fund and advertise them. Until then, I will continue to believe that you are just using the obvious popularity of those efforts to try to hang your fund-raising hat on.  That's another one of those things that we "dummies" can readily recognize -  the difference between sincerity and BS.

And this thing about chiding the Dimmocrats about lack of fiscal responsibility:  What a joke that is!  Have you paid any attention at all to the pork-grabbing, as well as other waste and fraud perpetuated by your Republican buddies?

If this was viewed on high as a stirring call to arms of the Republican proletariat (i.e. those of us whose opinions do not count, but whose votes and money are needed), I would suggest that your viewing device, like the Hubble telescope once did, needs a replacement lens.  Polish it with liberal doses of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Burt Prelutsky, Michelle Malkin, as well as many others who "get it."  Maybe if you actually listen to Rush and Laura and Glenn Beck and even Lou Dobbs, you might get some idea of what we stand for.  Instead, you try to gain favor with the press by taking potshots at those who reflect our real feelings.

Don’t waste your paper or band-width asking for money from me.  I will be looking to vote for and support the party that has a ticket of Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin, or philosophical equivalents.  I’m willing to bet that you and the powers-that-be of the Republican Party can’t even imagine why I feel that way, and very likely do not care.

Trust me!  That has become a mutual feeling.

I have never been a fan of the Saturn automobile line – lack of headroom and legroom having more to do with that than any aversion to the brand.  Nevertheless, I salute Roger Penske and wish him the absolute best in his effort to inject some sanity into this whirling dervish of socialism unleashed.

What we need now is for more of the Penske and Ford approach to managing business affairs (and not just the car business, either).  However, my cynicism (about what Obama and the congressional troglodytes are willing and anxious to do to productive Americans) has reached the level at which I suspect there will soon be a Master of Capitalism Control position created by His Obama-ness.  Reid, Pelosi and the gutless RINO's will, of course, provide ample funding and vacuous verbiage in their continuing effort to bask in The Glow.

Do you really think that Obama and the troglodytes can, or will, allow any capitalistic efforts to succeed against their state-run “Lada mills”?   From Wikipedia (with links removed): 

The original Lada was a basic car, lacking in most luxuries expected in cars of its time and was patterned after the Fiat 124. Ladas were available in several Western countries during the 1970s and 1980s, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, though trade sanctions banned their export to the United States. Sales to Italy were forbidden by the agreement between the Soviet government and Fiat, to protect Fiat from cheap imports in its home market. Imports to Spain were also prohibited because the local Fiat subsidiary, SEAT, built a version of the same car.

Eerily familiar, isn’t it?  Fiat, low quality vehicles, trade sanctions, suppression of competition.  One wonders if Obama and his Socialist buddies are putting life to the old saying about taking over (literally, in this case) by “Fiat.”

If you are not afraid for our country’s future, it is because you are either:  totally ignorant of the depths to which these people are willing to take us (inexcusable if you can read and/or think for yourself), incapable of understanding what is really going on (understandable, but sad), or a willing and fervent supporter of the planned destruction of the greatest country in the history of mankind (in my mind, this defines the most insidious form of treason).

 

NOTE:  Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.


Do you think I am racist just because...I don't respect Barack Obama and am never likely to, and it is not all due to his shady associations.  I reserve the right to change my mind, and will gleefully do so, if he turns out to be a president who governs in a manner that preserves and protects our Constitution.

I have seen absolutely nothing from Barack Obama that gives me any reason to respect him.  There is the matter of being a smooth talker, but all of the great con men of the world are smooth talkers (e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even Al Gore at times).  As it has with those others, only time will tell if the smooth talk is backed up by wisdom and insight, or just by some brains and a lot of cunning.

I don't respect him because of his penchant for using people and then leaving them by the wayside, particularly members of his own family.  He has the temerity to talk in terms of waking up to family responsibilities, and yet he doesn't make even minimal attempts to better life for his own flesh and blood.  To me, this reveals a certain shallowness of soul. 

I don't respect him for deviously bringing race into the campaign, just to get an edge. 

I don't respect him for agreeing to use matching funds, and then backing out.  Very cunning move, that, and it worked well for him, but it was not the act of an honorable man.

Most of all, I don't respect him because I perceive that he and the Dems are going to make every effort to lead this country down a path to socialism.  God help us, and moreso, our future generations!

We are seeing a number of post-election articles extolling the sudden advancement of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency.  The tone and intent of these articles vary widely, for instance, Harry R. Jackson, Jr. (Race Still Matters, Townhall.com, Nov 10, 2008) presents a positive suggestion for the coming together of churches to effect a faith-based approach to closing the racial divide.  On the other hand, Ken Connor (Still a Long Way to Go for Equality, Townhall.com, Nov 9, 2008) lectures us about how we have now shown that we are no longer a racist nation by this election.  I am afraid that Mr. Connor is being a little devious, in that the real purpose of his article seems to be to get us to give up our bigotry towards other areas of human rights.  You should read his article, as he makes some valid points.  Indeed, his concerns are, to me, much more valid than his introductory point.  I may be a little sensitive here, but it seems that his use of the "racism" term to bring attention to his real agenda smacks of – racism.
    
These particular articles are, by no means, being questioned as to the intent or sincerity of the authors.  They are simply convenient examples based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away.  Racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we should all be better off for it.  Those of us who understand and applaud the fact ARE better off for it.  

Those individuals and groups, black and white, who perpetuate, and try to profit from, the practice of systematic racism need to look deep within themselves and learn to accept people on their merits, not use or mis-use them because of skin color.  Will this election put to rest the prejudices and abuses of these people, who truly are racist, no matter their color?  Left to their own devices, probably not.  After all, even racists have most of the rights in our country.  Ironically, it seems that the black proponents of racism (the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons) will likely be more affected by this election than the hate-mongers on the white side.  It may be a little harder for them to sell their “snake oil” in the light of facts, such as we have elected a black president.  I would suggest to the new president and his old party that, rather than pass a lot of new laws to control the white racists, just ignore them and let that particular brand of hate die with them.  It is dying out, you know?

So, all of the above is provided to set the stage for a series of questions and/or comments that I plan to introduce, and hopefully to get some feedback,  detailing those things that I think many people attribute as racist attitudes simply because they in some way are connected to a minority.  I will define the point and then try to give you my thoughts on the “racial” connotations.  I am, obviously, hoping to generate some good discussion, but, if that does not occur, I will have gotten my thoughts down in writing  

I am doing this as an informal poll.  If you choose to participate, just give me your answer and add any comments you may have.  Instead of trying to cram all of the questions into a single post, I will present additional questions in subsequent posts.  In that way, we can give each of the subjects its appropriate level of attention.

Do not be mis-led by the seemingly lighthearted approach to my poll.  Rest assured that the specific questions or points raised in this effort have been of major concern to me for many years.   

For the sake of limiting the tedium, there are a few guidelines on participation:  

1. I, and other readers, do not know you and are, therefore, likely to judge your intelligence by the clarity and civility of your writing.  Only you know how you want to be viewed by others, but I will appreciate everyone keeping it clean and civil.

2. Remember, we would like to have the benefits of your own thoughts, so no cheating or referring to Talking Points from either party.  That will keep us from having to read through the same boring “intellectual stimuli” over and over;

3. Please do not read just the first few words and jump straight to a conclusion.  The idea is to generate some thought and maybe even a little discussion;

4. Likewise, maintain a little intellectual honesty in your thought processes.  Unless you are using group-think, the only person you will be lying to is yourself;  

a. According to exit polls, 47% of Americans think it is pretty dumb to do that (lie to yourself, that is), 33% asked if there was any alternative, 15% said that sounded racist to them and 5% voted “present”  

b. The margin for error is impossible to calculate because a number of self-proclaimed moderates changed their responses several times.

c. I used the Washington Ethical Behavior Standard  (WEBS) in developing these statistics, so don’t waste your time trying to verify them, or my time (and that of the other readers, if we have any) in trying to refute them

5. Main stream media types, there is no need for you to use your valuable Palin research time (and/or Obama worship time) to participate in our little project.  I have already written down your collective “yes” simply because I am a white male, born and raised in an extremely small Southern town;

6. Bill O’Reilly should not vote because it will not sell any books for him.  If you want to know the depths of my admiration for this court jester, you can read a couple of my previous posts;

7. Carl Cameron should not vote because no one will be whispering in his excitable little ears for a “major” scoop (see the next item).  Need to vet those sources a little better, Carl.  You are dangerously close to being grouped with Chrissie Matthews in the “tingly-leg media,” and

8. McCain campaign staff twerps will not be blamed or credited with the results here, so there is no need to clutter Carl’s telephone with whispered un-sourced accusations that Governor Palin is funding this with her lingerie allowance.

Otherwise, all Americans, including those who let themselves be hyphenated and are proud of it, those who abandoned their party and conservative principles when the going got a little tough, and those narrow-minded liberals who never open their thought processes to anything that moveon.org doesn’t tell them, are welcome to interject their Two Cents’ Worth, as it were, into the discussion.
    
We will, of course, be willing to provide the results to Bill Ayers for inclusion in his soon-to-be-award-winning education reform efforts for the Chicago schools.  One only has to look at the state of education in Chicago schools to see that his endeavors are at least as deserving as Al Gore (his personal carbon footprint is growing at an astounding rate) and Jimmy
Rabbits-are-meaner-than-Iranians Carter.

So, here we go:

How many of you think I am racist  just because…I voted for John McCain (actually, of course, I voted for Sarah Palin but it has the same force and effect) instead of Barack Obama (and the piteous Joe the Biden)?

The prevailing theory in Democrat circles (including the msm) and the Republican turncoats such as Colin Powell seems to be that everyone who did not take this historic opportunity to vote for Obama did so only because of overt racism (isn't that racist in itself?  Oh, of course not, blacks can't be racists, can they?). 

However, let me clue you in on a dirty little secret - if Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Lynn Swann or J. C. Watts were running for national office, I would support them in a heartbeat.

You see, it has to do with the agreement that you have, or do not have, with their core beliefs.

In "Top 10 Recipients of Fannie and Freddie Cash," theWire, page 16, Townhall magazine, November 2008, the information is revealing and frankly, disgusting!

It has been fairly widely trumpeted by everyone in the country except John McCain, his campaign, and the main stream media that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the top two recipients of bribe money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wealth distribution officials.  Even Bill O'Reilly managed to work up some indignation over that until the cameras were turned off (and he realized that it was not going to sell any books).  It was somewhat lesser known that John Kerry is number three.  Disgusting, but not the least bit surprising, I would say.

What did surprise, and absolutely infuriate, me is the fact that three Republicans (Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Spencer Baucus and Rep. Roy Blunt) are numbers four, five and six on that list.  In addition, Republican Senators Christopher Bond and Richard Shelby have the dubious honor of filling the eighth and ninth slots on this distinguished list of scumbags.

It reveals more than a little about why there was no hue and cry to tree the perpetraitors (new word that) and pick them off one by one. 

I was not the least bit surprised about the Democrats.  In fact, until I saw the Townhall article, I just assumed that the remainder of the Top 10 would be populated with less accomplished Dem grifters.

But, hold on, Mabel!  That was a dumb assumption!  I feel absolutely ashamed by the presence of five Republicans on this list.   I am not a generally a naive person, and would not have been surprised at one, or even two, but I did think that there were some limits on such behavior, and that we could depend on our party to hold its members to a higher standard.  The only difference between this bunch and William Jefferson is that he owns a freezer.

I personally will never see or hear one of those five names again without gagging.

Out with such trash!

Buffoon!

While you and Luntz are sitting there preening and slapping each other on the back, your supposed journalistic credentials are falling down around your ankles.

Indeed, Obama scored high with the little group of "independent voters."  And you high-fived one another that he hit a home run with his promise to give all citizens the same insurance coverage that Congress has.  Well, as a retired civil servant, I paid, and still pay, about $400 a month for my insurance coverage.  The Government pays some amount (probably about the same) as their share of the benefits package that was a part of my total compensation for my work for 30 years.

So you are impressed with the popularity of his answer that potentially translates into about $10-12,000 a year of our tax money for each family which receives it.  I'm willing to bet there were no more than one or two people in the room who had a concept of the cost associated with that little promise.  And there are no journalists who would even think of questioning it.

Your claim to be looking out for the people is as shallow as your willingness to dig into the facts.  I never expect a straight answer from Obama, and I guess it's too much to expect you to try to get one.  But, he looked you in the eye and you know he would only speak the truth to you, right?

You, sir, are a buffoon.

By the way, where does your hard-hitting expose of B Franks and the other thieves stand?  Just more bloviating, I guess!

I see where Obama The Charma is doing some community organizing.  He has asked that his followers take off on Election Day (to honor him, I suppose).  At least it would not result in a big loss of productivity, since approximately 40%* of his Kool-aid drinkers don't have a job, and another 42%* can't think for themselves well enough to be productive, anyway.

*Based on approximations provided by all the professional pollsters. 

When Vornado-mouth Biden made his brag/guarantee that a president Obama-the-One would be tested on the world stage within six months of his inauguration, every one assumed that it was just another of his self-defining gaffes.  Note that he also asserted that it would look as if they had made an incorrect response but that everyone should be cool and it would be revealed to us that the all-knowing, all-seeing, chosen one would have everything under control.

One has to wonder if there have already been meetings (without pre-conditions, one assumes) with one or two of their socialist friends to generate plans for a little bit of a "crisis" in order to establish the foreign policy bona-fides of the new administration.

Why do I think this is not only possible, but probable?  A couple of things lead me to it:

1. This was a compound-thought "gaffe" from a man who, although highly developed in the gaffe tradition, is not seemingly capable of stringing thoughts together without at least one of them being a fabrication.
2. These assertions did not sound like the usual Biden exaggeration.  They sounded more like a message to the base (see "bin Laden" for the approach and style).
3. How could he know what their response would be to a supposedly undefined "crisis" that, even assuming he is correct in his estimate of the timing, is six to nine months in the future?
   

 I may very well be wrong about this, but, frankly, it fits so well with the Obama philosophy and background that I just can't shake free of the nagging thought.