Stimulus Dollars, TARP Funds, And A Flu Shot Fiasco
by Austin Hill
Where did the swine flu vaccinations go?
.
They went the way of the "stimulus money" - that is to say, they were sent here, and shipped there. And, of course, they were "administered" and "disbursed" and "distributed" by high ranking officials who work in very important positions in vital departments of our U.S. Government.
.
But nobody in our government - no one, specific individual - can say with certainty how many flu shots there are, or where they are, or where they might be headed. And the same is true for the billions of dollars that were entailed in President Obama's all-important, so-called "stimulus bill."
.
On a weekend where the U.S. Congress is inching closer and closer to legislating (against the collective will of the American people, I might add) a government-run healthcare system, the flu shot fiasco should provide a vivid illustration of just how inept government is - our U.S . Federal Government specifically in this case, but government, in general, as well - at distributing vital goods and services.
.
Owing to the discovery of "swine flu" here in the U.S. by the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano declared a "Public Health Emergency" during the last week of April. A few days after making her "emergency" declaration, Secretary Napolitano, in a seeming contradiction, stated in a press conference on May 4th that the "swine flu" is actually no more dangerous than "the regular flu."
.
Then in July, federal health officials stepped-up the "emergency" rhetoric again by announcing that 160 million doses of a swine flu vaccination would be available by the end of October. On October 7th, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius assured Americans that the vaccination is "safe and secure" and admonished all Americans to get a shot. And on October 25th, President Obama himself declared, not a "Public Health Emergency," but this time a "National Emergency" over the swine flu.
.
Yet by October's end, the promised 160 million doses of swine flu vaccination had only amounted to 30 million known vaccinations in the U.S., prompting Senior Obama Adviser David Axelrod to declare on national television that "we overpromised." This, of course, prompted Secretary Sebelius to jump back in to action, so she penned an op-ed for the Nashville Tennessean newspaper assuring readers that, as a mother, she herself "understands the frustration and anxiety that parents feel" when they can't get a vaccination, and declared that "without question, we need significant improvements in vaccine production..."
.
Depending on whose count you accept, somewhere between two and four thousand Americans have died from the flu this year. That's more than the number of lives lost in the carnage of Hurricane Katrina. Yet in both scenarios, our U.S. Federal Government has demonstrated an incredible inability to respond to the needs of the American people - even, as in the case of the swine flu vaccinations, when it has made explicit promises to do so.
.
President Obama's so-called "economic stimulus bill" highlights this incompetence as well. Minutes after Vice President Biden delivered remarks in Phoenix last Monday about how the numbers of jobs that have allegedly been "created or saved" by the stimulus bill, the Obama Administration was stung with analysis from ABC News revealing that Biden's remarks - and information posted on the Administration's recovery.gov website (a website that cost the Administration $18 million to create) - were false. Both were reporting alleged "jobs" in congressional districts that don't exist, and the website was even listing "stimulus success stories" from congressional districts in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - two U.S. territories that don't have any congressional districts at all. And as of today, roughly nine months after the passage of the bill, the national unemployment rate is even higher than President Obama predicted it would be had the Congress NOT passed his bill.
.
So where is the "stimulus" money? What happened to that crucial $787 billion that President Obama had to spend, to "get the economy rolling again?" We are told that only a portion of the money has been spent thus far, yet the Obama Administration has taken legal steps to prevent Obama's "recovery czars" from being questioned about the money by Congress.
.
Recklessness and incompetence of this magnitude, with such enormous amounts of other people's money, would be grounds for immediate termination among private sector executives and managers. And the problem doesn't begin and end with Democrats: recall that the $700 million "TARP" program was created by Republican President George W Bush last year, and Bush himself was the first to violate the intended purposes of the program by handing-over nearly $14 billion in loans to Chrysler and G.M. (Obama continued doing this after he took office, until the two companies met their inevitable fate of bankruptcy).
.
Government does NOT exercise wise stewardship over economic and material resources. It's sad that each new generation has to re-learn this basic truth, but Americans are in a painful process of re-learning it again right now. And the managers overseeing these resources - the President, and the Congressional leadership - deserved to be fired for failing to uphold their most basic fiduciary responsibilities.
.
.
Remember this the next time you go to vote.
.
.
Email: Austin Hill
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Pray To Save The Nation!
.
.
Pray For Obama
Psalm 109 :8*
.
.
..
*May his days be few,
may another take his place.
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WqtchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Austin Hill: Obama Has A "Boundaries" Problem
Obama Has A "Boundaries" Problem
by Austin Hill
Does President Obama have “boundary” problems?
That’s a fair question, because of his apparent unwillingness – or perhaps it’s an inability – to confront the deadly threat posed by many self-described Muslims.
I say “many self-described Muslims,” because I’m not interested in debating who is a “real Muslim,” or whether or not “all Muslims” pose threats to civilized society. I simply want to pinpoint a serious problem facing our President, and our nation, and in so doing I am taking people at their word. There are self-described Muslims in our midst who want to destroy America, and the President should not pretend otherwise.
President George W. Bush repeatedly asserted that Muslims are “peace-loving” people, and President Obama has made this idea a central theme of his presidency. Yet Bush was also willing to confront what he called a “radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world” (those were Bush’s words, not mine), and it just so happens that this “radical ideology” emanates from people who identify themselves as Muslims. Call it “militant Islam,” call it “Islamo-fascism,” call it what you will – it is dangerous and deadly. And thus far, President Obama seems committed to ignoring it.
Borrowing a popular metaphor from the realm of family psychology, I have previously noted that Obama is ignoring the “elephant in the living room” – the obvious problem that is out in the open and that everybody can see, but nobody wants to acknowledge. Yet there may be more wisdom to glean from the world of psychology that can illuminate Obama’s dilemma, and this, in turn, may help enlighten us all.
But what does this have to do with “boundaries?” Well, “Boundaries: When To Say Yes, When To Say No, To Take Control Of Your Life,” is a wildly successful “self-help” book authored by Southern California-based Clinical Psychologists Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud. Originally published in 1992, it has been translated into multiple languages, and sold in excess of a million copies, and I suspect it might offer some insight for our President.
Drawing from the concept of boundaries within the physical world – “property lines” as the Doctor’s refer to – Townsend and Cloud explain how this concept applies to a proper understanding of the human individual: “Boundaries define us” the Doctors write. “They define what is me, and what is not me. A Boundary shows me where I end, and where someone else begins, leading me to a sense of ownership…”
As Townsend and Cloud explain it, a proper understanding of one’s self, which necessarily requires a proper grasp of one’s personal “boundaries,” leads one to take responsibility for things that lie within one’s boundaries. My talents, my problems, my relationships, my feelings, my needs – these are all things that belong to me, and, thus, are all things that I must take responsibility for. Additionally, the Doctors explain that while individuals must be responsible for themselves, they must also be responsible to others with whom they are in relationships. And if people do not assume responsibility in these sorts of ways – or if people make the mistake of trying to take responsibility for things that do not lie within their boundaries - then, according to Townsend and Cloud, things can get severely out of whack.
So, beyond the fun and enjoyment of engaging in a bit of psychobabble, what does any of this have to do with our current President? Well, if we can apply the “boundaries” concept to the office that Barack Obama currently occupies, then we can say that Obama has responsibilities to the people of the United States of America. Whether or not he likes our nation and its heritage, his task is to defend America and its interests. And the interests of the entire world do not lie within Obama’s boundaries – in fact, sometimes the interests of the world are in conflict with the American interests that he must uphold.
Similarly, President Obama is not responsible for the entire Muslim world. He has spent considerable time and effort (and political capital) assuring the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemies, reiterating that American values and Muslim values are compatible, and treating Muslim terror suspects more nicely than his predecessor. Yet he is not deity, and he cannot simply speak things into existence. Similarly, it is not his job to convince the Muslim world to like us. His priority must be to fulfill his responsibilities to the United States, and to ensure that our collective national “boundaries” aren’t violated, and that our nation doesn’t get incinerated.
It’s interesting that the Psychologists Townsend and Cloud use an economic principle - the principle of private property ownership - to metaphorically illustrate a very basic and essential principle of human development. And for a President whose economic policies reflect a flagrant disrespect for private property rights, this concept of “personal boundaries” may seem foreign to Barack Obama.
But how much longer can America afford to wait, while President Obama figures out where his boundaries are?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
by Austin Hill
Does President Obama have “boundary” problems?
That’s a fair question, because of his apparent unwillingness – or perhaps it’s an inability – to confront the deadly threat posed by many self-described Muslims.
I say “many self-described Muslims,” because I’m not interested in debating who is a “real Muslim,” or whether or not “all Muslims” pose threats to civilized society. I simply want to pinpoint a serious problem facing our President, and our nation, and in so doing I am taking people at their word. There are self-described Muslims in our midst who want to destroy America, and the President should not pretend otherwise.
President George W. Bush repeatedly asserted that Muslims are “peace-loving” people, and President Obama has made this idea a central theme of his presidency. Yet Bush was also willing to confront what he called a “radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world” (those were Bush’s words, not mine), and it just so happens that this “radical ideology” emanates from people who identify themselves as Muslims. Call it “militant Islam,” call it “Islamo-fascism,” call it what you will – it is dangerous and deadly. And thus far, President Obama seems committed to ignoring it.
Borrowing a popular metaphor from the realm of family psychology, I have previously noted that Obama is ignoring the “elephant in the living room” – the obvious problem that is out in the open and that everybody can see, but nobody wants to acknowledge. Yet there may be more wisdom to glean from the world of psychology that can illuminate Obama’s dilemma, and this, in turn, may help enlighten us all.
But what does this have to do with “boundaries?” Well, “Boundaries: When To Say Yes, When To Say No, To Take Control Of Your Life,” is a wildly successful “self-help” book authored by Southern California-based Clinical Psychologists Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud. Originally published in 1992, it has been translated into multiple languages, and sold in excess of a million copies, and I suspect it might offer some insight for our President.
Drawing from the concept of boundaries within the physical world – “property lines” as the Doctor’s refer to – Townsend and Cloud explain how this concept applies to a proper understanding of the human individual: “Boundaries define us” the Doctors write. “They define what is me, and what is not me. A Boundary shows me where I end, and where someone else begins, leading me to a sense of ownership…”
As Townsend and Cloud explain it, a proper understanding of one’s self, which necessarily requires a proper grasp of one’s personal “boundaries,” leads one to take responsibility for things that lie within one’s boundaries. My talents, my problems, my relationships, my feelings, my needs – these are all things that belong to me, and, thus, are all things that I must take responsibility for. Additionally, the Doctors explain that while individuals must be responsible for themselves, they must also be responsible to others with whom they are in relationships. And if people do not assume responsibility in these sorts of ways – or if people make the mistake of trying to take responsibility for things that do not lie within their boundaries - then, according to Townsend and Cloud, things can get severely out of whack.
So, beyond the fun and enjoyment of engaging in a bit of psychobabble, what does any of this have to do with our current President? Well, if we can apply the “boundaries” concept to the office that Barack Obama currently occupies, then we can say that Obama has responsibilities to the people of the United States of America. Whether or not he likes our nation and its heritage, his task is to defend America and its interests. And the interests of the entire world do not lie within Obama’s boundaries – in fact, sometimes the interests of the world are in conflict with the American interests that he must uphold.
Similarly, President Obama is not responsible for the entire Muslim world. He has spent considerable time and effort (and political capital) assuring the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemies, reiterating that American values and Muslim values are compatible, and treating Muslim terror suspects more nicely than his predecessor. Yet he is not deity, and he cannot simply speak things into existence. Similarly, it is not his job to convince the Muslim world to like us. His priority must be to fulfill his responsibilities to the United States, and to ensure that our collective national “boundaries” aren’t violated, and that our nation doesn’t get incinerated.
It’s interesting that the Psychologists Townsend and Cloud use an economic principle - the principle of private property ownership - to metaphorically illustrate a very basic and essential principle of human development. And for a President whose economic policies reflect a flagrant disrespect for private property rights, this concept of “personal boundaries” may seem foreign to Barack Obama.
But how much longer can America afford to wait, while President Obama figures out where his boundaries are?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
We Honor All That Have Served, The Veteran's
Generations of Valor
Marilyn Ferguson
Of all the lessons in this life
We must remember this
The many men who gave their lives
When war had gone amiss.
.
A bright young soldier far from home
Tried to find his way
A lanky lad so strong and brave
Gave up his life today.
.
A young recruit in army gear
.
A young recruit in army gear
Sent out across the sea
Took a bullet to the chest
Died for you and me.
.
Air Force fighter in the sky
Smoke was all around
Frightened voice cried out for help
Before they shot him down.
.
Navy sailor dressed in blue
.
Navy sailor dressed in blue
Rides upon the sea
Missile launched, ship went down
Perished in the sea.
.
Other soldiers, Semper Fi
Came home in distress
Legs were severed, vision gone
Their lives were such a mess.
.
Many soldiers fought and died
.
Many soldiers fought and died
Upon a distant shore
The men who marched on foreign soil
Are heroes of the war.
.
The nightmares of the ones who live
Can never be erased
In bed at night, they toss and turn
Memories are encased.
.
Untarnished by the hands of time
The years blend into one
Two soldiers join together
A father and a son.
.
Their kindred hearts are tightly knit
They share and reminisce
United in a bond of love
When war had gone amiss.
.
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Austin Hill: "Tolerance" And The "Other" American Muslin Tragity
"Tolerance," And The "Other" American Muslim Tragedy
by Austin Hill
“... America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings...”
Those remarks were uttered by President Barack Obama on June 4th of this year. And I wish I could believe that they were accurate.
by Austin Hill
“... America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings...”
Those remarks were uttered by President Barack Obama on June 4th of this year. And I wish I could believe that they were accurate.
Obama was, of course, speaking at Cairo University, and making good on his campaign promise of “delivering a speech from the capitol of a Muslim nation.”
Yet, despite the immense power of Obama’s oratory skills (and his incredible confidence in his skills), he nonetheless appears to be merely human, and does not seem to possess the supernatural ability to “speak things into existence.”
Thus, Obama simply declaring that America and Islam “overlap,” and that Muslims and Americans share “common principles of justice and progress,” does not guarantee that this “sharing” and “overlapping” actually occur.
By now, the horrific profile of Army Major Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is widely known. And despite President Obama insisting that we must not “jump to conclusions” about this American Muslim man, the picture is still horrifying: an American soldier who openly disagreed with the policies of two American Presidents (the “Hawk” George W. Bush and the “Dove” Barack Obama), who complained about deployments, and made “outlandish statements” against his nation and its government, was nonetheless allowed to rise through the ranks of the U.S. Army.
The obvious question – the “elephant in the living room,” to use a term from the world of family psychology – is “why was this kind of behavior tolerated and apparently overlooked?” And the only obvious answer, at least at this point, is simply “because he is a Muslim.”
Our government and our President will make their “conclusions” when they make them. The rest of us who are private citizens and who want our unique American style of human freedom to continue, must begin communicating clearly, and honestly, about the Islamic problem in our midst. And that means getting beyond the “kid glove” approach we typically utilize in speaking about minority groups, and being willing to speak the truth about Muslims – even if that results in “hurt feelings” for some, or cries of "intolerance" from others.
The unwillingness (or perhaps it’s a matter of inability) to speak the truth on these matters is often painfully apparent in both local and national media. Several days before Major Hasan became a mass murderer, a series of misconstrued, soft-pedaled press conferences and news reports unfolded in Phoenix, Arizona about a man who murdered his own daughter by running over her with his Jeep suv.
Faleh Hassan Almaleki, an immigrant from Iraq living in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria, had become angry about his 20 year old daughter Noor Almaleki. Noor had set-up accounts for herself on Myspace.com and Facebook.com, had posted “alluring” photos of herself on a webpage for aspiring actresses and models, and was living with her boyfriend and her boyfriend’s mom. This all meant that Noor had become “too westernized” for the tastes of her Muslim father, so Faleh Hassan Almaleki ran over his daughter (along with the boyfriend’s mom) as a means of committing an “honor killing.”
Before dying, Noor was hospitalized and remained in a coma for several days. And just like the Muslim men we have seen on video recordings who hide their identities with masks when beheading “infidels,” Faleh Hassan Almaleki sought to “hide” by fleeing the country after he ran over his daughter.
Immediately after the incident, the Peoria police department briefed the local media. And in what seemed to be an overarching attempt to avoid saying anything that may have cast the Muslim father in a bad light, it was explained that the motive for the crime appeared to have centered on the fact that the daughter was living in such a way that she was inconsistent with “her family’s values.” Shortly thereafter, the statewide Arizona Republic newspaper published a report entitled “Lifestyle May Have Put Woman In Hospital.”
A 20 year-old woman in Arizona who was in pursuit of a job, a college degree, and a husband of her own choosing was murdered by her own dad. Yet, law enforcement and media professionals, perhaps in an attempt to express “tolerance” or to show respect for the “diversity” of Islam, were suggesting that Noor’s choices and “lifestyle” were to blame for her death.
Generally speaking, American non-Muslim fathers don’t run over their children with their cars and call it “honorable.” And American non-Muslim military personnel don’t intentionally kill their fellow soldiers. There is a pattern of very dangerous, deadly behavior with Muslims in America and around the world.
.
Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does.
Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
In The Era Of Obama, Americans Have Become The "Evil Doers"
In The Era Of Obama, Americans Have Become The "Evil Doers"
by Austin Hill
“…People have declared war on America and they have made a terrible mistake… My administration has a job to do and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers."
Those words were spoken by President George W. Bush on September 16, 2001, five days after “9-11.”
While meeting with reporters at the White House on the first Sunday following the terrorist attacks, Bush further stated that "I've never had more faith in America than I have right now… People will be amazed at how quickly we rebuild New York…The markets open tomorrow. People go back to work. And we'll show the world…"
Those were some bold and optimistic statements from a President under duress. They conveyed an unending confidence in our country, and its people.
Granted, it is over-reaching to think that the world will ever be completely rid of “evil-doers.” And unfortunately, the markets dropped the next day, on Monday September 17. But in those remarks, the former President was juxtaposing “us,” with those who had attacked us (the “evil doers”), and he was reassuring us that we had the capacity to survive and recover.
He was also sending a message to the rest of the world: “Don’t Mess With America.”
I’ve had my share of criticisms of President Bush. And although I believe that history will judge him favorably (in much the same way as President Truman has been judged), I’m not attempting here to launch a Bush nostalgia movement.
I am, however, nostalgic for the days when the American President seemed to be fond of his country, and its people. This is largely because I have increasing doubts that our current President is fond of either one.
In the years following “9-11,” President Bush would continue to frequently juxtapose “us” with the “evil doers.” He also frequently spoke about our nation’s mission with respect to terrorists, in as much as it was his goal to “hunt them down and bring them to justice.” Bush didn’t explicitly state that our nation was “good” when speaking of the threats of terrorists, and he didn’t need to. It was implicit, and it was understood that ours was a nation of good people, and worthy of defense.
But can anyone – even Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters – honestly say that our current President believes that Americans are, in a general sense, “good people,” and worthy of defense? Both his words and actions would suggest that America might someday become good, but only if he can first bring us to justice.
Seven days after his inauguration – and before he would again speak to his fellow Americans – our new President delivered a regionally televised speech to the Muslim world, wherein he reassured Muslims that “Americans are not your enemy,” and acknowledged our many “mistakes.” And since that address on January 27th, President Obama has continued with a pattern of characterizing for the world an America that is a very guilty nation – guilty of oppression, arrogance, greed, unilateralism, materialism, and, perhaps above all, guilty of insufficient respect for Muslims.
Indeed, both President Obama’s words and deeds convey a very different perspective on the nation he leads – very different from those of our previous Presidents. And just as sure as President Bush declared that those who attacked us made a huge mistake, President Obama has assured the world that the mistakes are all ours.
President Obama has conveyed this sense of American culpability and insufficiency on the domestic front, as well. Private Americans are incapable of running corporations in a “just” fashion, so President Obama – operating through his “Corporate Compensation Czar” Kenneth Feinberg, of course – must determine who should receive pay cuts, and pay raises. And Americans have most certainly “abused their rights to free speech,” and thus, President Obama – operating through his “Regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein – must seek ways to control the internet.
And who are the worst among the “evil doers?” At varying points this year, President Obama has singled out a variety of individuals and groups from among the broader American populous, and in his own peculiar way has attempted to, shall we say, “bring them to justice.”
In no particular order, the list of “evil doers” has included: Rush Limbaugh, Medical Doctors who allegedly perform unnecessary procedures for presumed financial gain, “rich people,” shareholders of the Chrysler Corporation, the Fox Newschannel, executives of American corporations, Republicans, the insurance industry, Glenn Beck, hedge fund managers, attendees of congressional town hall meetings, oil companies, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Indeed it would appear that for our current President, America’s real enemies are within. His task is to apologize for our behavior abroad, while administering our just penalties at home.
Email Austin Hill
Comments arew invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
..
by Austin Hill
“…People have declared war on America and they have made a terrible mistake… My administration has a job to do and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers."
Those words were spoken by President George W. Bush on September 16, 2001, five days after “9-11.”
While meeting with reporters at the White House on the first Sunday following the terrorist attacks, Bush further stated that "I've never had more faith in America than I have right now… People will be amazed at how quickly we rebuild New York…The markets open tomorrow. People go back to work. And we'll show the world…"
Those were some bold and optimistic statements from a President under duress. They conveyed an unending confidence in our country, and its people.
Granted, it is over-reaching to think that the world will ever be completely rid of “evil-doers.” And unfortunately, the markets dropped the next day, on Monday September 17. But in those remarks, the former President was juxtaposing “us,” with those who had attacked us (the “evil doers”), and he was reassuring us that we had the capacity to survive and recover.
He was also sending a message to the rest of the world: “Don’t Mess With America.”
I’ve had my share of criticisms of President Bush. And although I believe that history will judge him favorably (in much the same way as President Truman has been judged), I’m not attempting here to launch a Bush nostalgia movement.
I am, however, nostalgic for the days when the American President seemed to be fond of his country, and its people. This is largely because I have increasing doubts that our current President is fond of either one.
In the years following “9-11,” President Bush would continue to frequently juxtapose “us” with the “evil doers.” He also frequently spoke about our nation’s mission with respect to terrorists, in as much as it was his goal to “hunt them down and bring them to justice.” Bush didn’t explicitly state that our nation was “good” when speaking of the threats of terrorists, and he didn’t need to. It was implicit, and it was understood that ours was a nation of good people, and worthy of defense.
But can anyone – even Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters – honestly say that our current President believes that Americans are, in a general sense, “good people,” and worthy of defense? Both his words and actions would suggest that America might someday become good, but only if he can first bring us to justice.
Seven days after his inauguration – and before he would again speak to his fellow Americans – our new President delivered a regionally televised speech to the Muslim world, wherein he reassured Muslims that “Americans are not your enemy,” and acknowledged our many “mistakes.” And since that address on January 27th, President Obama has continued with a pattern of characterizing for the world an America that is a very guilty nation – guilty of oppression, arrogance, greed, unilateralism, materialism, and, perhaps above all, guilty of insufficient respect for Muslims.
Indeed, both President Obama’s words and deeds convey a very different perspective on the nation he leads – very different from those of our previous Presidents. And just as sure as President Bush declared that those who attacked us made a huge mistake, President Obama has assured the world that the mistakes are all ours.
President Obama has conveyed this sense of American culpability and insufficiency on the domestic front, as well. Private Americans are incapable of running corporations in a “just” fashion, so President Obama – operating through his “Corporate Compensation Czar” Kenneth Feinberg, of course – must determine who should receive pay cuts, and pay raises. And Americans have most certainly “abused their rights to free speech,” and thus, President Obama – operating through his “Regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein – must seek ways to control the internet.
And who are the worst among the “evil doers?” At varying points this year, President Obama has singled out a variety of individuals and groups from among the broader American populous, and in his own peculiar way has attempted to, shall we say, “bring them to justice.”
In no particular order, the list of “evil doers” has included: Rush Limbaugh, Medical Doctors who allegedly perform unnecessary procedures for presumed financial gain, “rich people,” shareholders of the Chrysler Corporation, the Fox Newschannel, executives of American corporations, Republicans, the insurance industry, Glenn Beck, hedge fund managers, attendees of congressional town hall meetings, oil companies, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Indeed it would appear that for our current President, America’s real enemies are within. His task is to apologize for our behavior abroad, while administering our just penalties at home.
Email Austin Hill
Comments arew invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
..
Friday, October 30, 2009
What You Should Know About The "Pelosi Health Reform Bill
The Pelosi Health “Reform” Bill (H.R.3962) is 1990 pages of fine print and is loaded requirements that the House Madam does not want you to know!
You may read the bill, if you wish by clicking on its title as follows:
“Affordable Health Care for America Act”
Some of the major concerns that have revealed at this point are listed below (along with Page references):
Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the "Lewin Group" would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care. (In fact the Bill excludes Congressmen and their staffs from ALL requirements under this Bill)
Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits
Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central "promise" of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign
Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an "analysis" by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts
Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs
Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage
Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000
Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000.
When you learn what "Health Care reform is going to do to your health care, it is not hard to understand why the impact of these "reforms" will be delayed until after the 2012 elections.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
You may read the bill, if you wish by clicking on its title as follows:
“Affordable Health Care for America Act”
Some of the major concerns that have revealed at this point are listed below (along with Page references):
Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the "Lewin Group" would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care. (In fact the Bill excludes Congressmen and their staffs from ALL requirements under this Bill)
Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits
Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central "promise" of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign
Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an "analysis" by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts
Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs
Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage
Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000
Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000.
When you learn what "Health Care reform is going to do to your health care, it is not hard to understand why the impact of these "reforms" will be delayed until after the 2012 elections.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
You Can Vote --Fox vs. Whitehouse
The White House staff claims that FoxNews greatly distorts stories, rather than reporting the news.
FoxNews says that they are fair and balanced; asking the questions that the propaganda media fails to ask.
ABC News is conducting a poll to see how you, the American public feel on the issue
FoxNews says that they are fair and balanced; asking the questions that the propaganda media fails to ask.
ABC News is conducting a poll to see how you, the American public feel on the issue
.
.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Austin Hill: Obama Is Out Of Control - Are Democrats Okay With That?
Obama Is Out Of Control - Are Democrats Okay With That?
by Austin Hill
I reiterated to my interview guest that three Obama Administration appointees have expressed their appreciation for communism. Van Jones, the former “Green Jobs Czar,” was terminated by President Obama when it was discovered that Jones once identified himself as an “avowed communist,” and White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and “manufacturing czar” Ron Bloom have both expressed their fondness for the murderous dictator Mao Tse-Tung.
.
by Austin Hill
I reiterated to my interview guest that three Obama Administration appointees have expressed their appreciation for communism. Van Jones, the former “Green Jobs Czar,” was terminated by President Obama when it was discovered that Jones once identified himself as an “avowed communist,” and White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and “manufacturing czar” Ron Bloom have both expressed their fondness for the murderous dictator Mao Tse-Tung.
.
And then I asked my guest, “what do you and your colleagues make of this?”
.
My guest was Representative Walt Minnick, the first Democrat elected to Congress from the state of Idaho in roughly fifteen years. Personally and professionally, Mr. Minnick is a respected businessman in Idaho, and is highly regarded in the Boise community.
.
Politically speaking, Minnick is authentically a “moderate Democrat” (he identified himself as a “Blue Dog Democrat” on my program at Boise, Idaho’s 580 KIDO radio), and, he has frequently voted against his own party. I believe him to be a good man, and I probably have more agreements with him that I have differences.
.
I invited Congressman Minnick to appear on my program so as to address a variety of issues, mainly the on-going debate over healthcare legislation. On that topic, Minnick bristled at my reference to “nationalized healthcare,” and noted that some of the legislative proposals could prove fiscally disastrous. He then went on to articulate what was, generally speaking, a free-market oriented approach towards “reforming” the healthcare industry.
.
But I also wanted to know from this respected moderate Democrat what the Democratic Majority in the House – or Democrats anywhere else, for that matter – actually think and believe about this “communism” theme in the Obama White House. Do Democrats, generally, feel the same about communism as many of Obama’s associates apparently do? Is this the “hope” and “change” that a majority of Democrats envisioned for America’s future, as they rallied to elect Barack Obama last year?
.
For his part, Minnick’s response to my “communism” question was quite telling. After a second of silence, the Congressman assured me that he affirmed President Obama’s right to select whomever he (Obama) wanted to be his advisers; that some of the choices had been better than some of the others; and that, in any event, Obama is no advocate of communism himself. In fact, Minnick asserted passionately that Obama believes in our capitalist economic system – that Obama both grew up in American capitalism, and is one of American capitalism’s many success stories.
.
For the record, I said nothing during this interview about capitalism, nor did I ask about Obama and his upbringing. I merely raised a simple question to the Congressman about the recurrent touchstones to communism among Obama’s staffers.
.
And it was the Congressman, himself, who responded by “defending” Obama, assuring us that our President was both raised in, and accepting of, capitalism.
.
This situation illustrates an ugly reality – an “elephant in the living room,” to use a family psychology metaphor – about which congressional Democrats can no longer remain in denial. And the reality is this: the worldview, “values,” and ideology that are apparently under girding this presidency are a dramatic departure from those of most Americans. Likewise, the policies of this President weaken private citizens in a variety of different ways, while fortifying the agents of our government – namely, President Obama himself.
.
Washington’s current-day “values” and policies and tactics may be a good fit in Obama’s Chicago, or in Pelosi’s San Francisco. But they are quickly beginning to alienate elsewhere -even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been complicit with the Obama agenda, is now suffering the consequences of his actions in his home state of Nevada.
.
On economic and fiscal issues, it is nearly impossible to believe any longer that President Obama is seeking to “create jobs” or “stimulate” the economy. He has, however, created more government dependence among private citizens. And as a result of his “corporate bailout” policies, he has created a scenario wherein he (Obama) is now an ad hoc C.E.O. of multiple American companies, including GM, Chrysler, and several banking institutions, and is now determining the salaries of executives running those companies.
.
On basic human (and Constitutional) freedoms, Obama also provides a radical departure. Using the full force and authority of the presidency itself, Mr. Obama and members of his Administration have repeatedly sought to demonize and discredit multiple private American individuals and institutions who have dared to disagree with him. The list includes, among others, Rush Limbaugh, Executives with the AIG Insurance Corporation, the Fox Newschannel, private share holders of the Chrysler Corporation, Glenn Beck, the insurance industry, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
.
In roughly three years, Americans will again select a President. Until then, the only people who can affectively “limit” President Obama are members of the U.S. Congress. As such, congressional Democrats must make a decision: does their party have any regard for individual liberty any longer? Or has their agenda devolved into merely basking in the glow of a charming and charismatic leader, while quenching his undying thirst for power and control?
.
Democrats – you must decide.
.
.
.
.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
Monday, October 19, 2009
Is Obama Planing To Cede US Sovereignty?
Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
The simple answer is, YES! Read on:
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
.
The simple answer is, YES! Read on:
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
.
For the full 95 minute speech Click Here
.
For a Draft Copy of Treaty Click Here
.
For Obama's UN Speech on Climate Change Click Here
.
To oppose Cap and Trade Ci ck Here
..
Have you noticed that every action taken by the Obama administration is aimed at bringing America down?
..
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog@MindlessAndSpineless.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
