In the beginning of 2009 most of the main stream media couldn’t get enough of President Obama. They covered him 24/7, showering him with praise and commenting on how well he spoke to the people and to the press. Very little effort was given at dissecting what he said; instead the media focused on how Obama’s word made you feel (i.e. Chris Matthews: “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg” As Obama Spoke). The honey-moon period has somewhat worn off now and the media is starting to see that Obama is one who avoids giving a clear direct answer; he is a typical Washington politician. He is our ‘Equivocator in Chief’.
It would seem that Wall Street just can’t do right in Obama’s eyes no matter what it does. Obama stated in an interview with CBS’s Steve Kroft for ‘60 Minutes’ that the motivation behind repaying Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was to be able to pay themselves bonuses. In reality the banks see the increasing regulation and restrictions coming down the pipeline and are trying to prepare themselves for the nation’s financial-regulatory apparatus overhaul in one way or another. A lot of people are joining the “hate Wall Street” bang wagon, but it’s really important to note that not all banks are bad and not all banks were involved in the sub-prime lending activities that caused much of the financial failures. There are many loopholes in the upcoming 239-page amendment to the U.S. House of Representatives’ financial regulatory overhaul on banks that will allow some banks to get away unscathed and other parts of that legislation will hurt or penalize the good banks with the bad ones indiscriminately. As it is now, this administration has already overstepped its constitutional powers by overtaking GM and other private businesses; where does this private sector takeover stop?
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” This phrase is more applicable now than ever. For months now Americans have been telling and often shouting what they want and don’t want to their elected representatives with little results. House and Senate Democrats have continued to tell the American public that they know what is best for Americans, regardless how many of us picket their local offices or Tea Party Washington. Bottom line is they don’t want to listen. This healthscare bill is not about helping Americans. It’s about power. If the Democrat’s can get the American public hooked on Healthcare and other social dependency programs, then they feel that they will be able to remain in power indefinably because if people are dependent on the government for life they will vote for the Democratic party. This Democratic controlled 111th Congress and the Obama administration have shown us time and time again with their words and actions over the last year that they see American sovereignty as something that is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, economic status and the well-being of the state. This is statism through and through, and it’s time that the rest of America wakes up from its brainwashed utopia.
I guess this is the best that the White House can come up with; pretend that those who expose you for what you really are do not exist…I see this as a seriously lame attempt to discredit Fox News – the only non-state controlled main stream media outlet and to divert the attention away from issues like jobs and health care. Once again, this is a typical statist tactic of pressure and deflection. Lenin did this in the former Soviet Union; silence all the press, except the ones that support your agenda.
Why are members of this administration discussing non-governmental issues like Rush Limbaugh’s group bidding for ownership of the St. Louis Rams football team on the fllor of Congress? Democrat Congresswoman (Texas – 18th District) Sheila Jackson Lee took it upon herself to vocalize her opposition of Rush and his NFL bid.
Now keep in mind, this the same Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee that answered her cell phone during a tough question at a healthcare townhall. And it’s the same Sheila Jackson Lee (who represents a district in Houston and sits on committees that deal with NASA) who did not know that astronauts had not traveled to and planted flags on Mars – which was seen when she inquired whether the Mars rover would be able to roll over to where astronauts had planted the American flag…therefore I’m not exactly sure how powerful her words really are for the Democratic party.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had previously launched an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to “fail.” Now they are trying to ruin his image by calling him a racist and which ultimately lead to his failed NFL bid. The Left will take any shot that it can at discrediting anyone on the Right. Sure they may have succeeded in stopping Rush from taking ownership of the team, but at what cost? To use an analogy; the problem with throwing the first punch is that you have one less arm to block the incoming counter punch from your opponent, opening yourself up for an attack. The Left better be ready, because Rush Limbaugh is a heavy hitter.
The fuzzy feel good ideologies of the Human Rights movement play on the human conscience and to us feel… warm and fuzzy. No one should go hungry, no one should go without shelter, no one should have to work for minimum wage (a different topic altogether, damn Keynsians), but most of all no one should have to pay for health care. Pay for health care?! How dare you even suggest such a thing. Top notch health care should be provided to everyone free of charge has been the rally cry of many staunch Progressives. Such calls play on the most basic human emotions and have their base in possibly the most impossible calls of the entire Progressive movement, namely equality. In calling for equality Progressives get themselves into a quandary, How is it equal to force one person to pay top dollar for something while giving the same thing to another for free? How is fair to take money from someone that has earned that money and giving it to someone that has done nothing (which is what government supported health care requires)? I want someone to explain that to me. Doesn’t equal mean that everyone has the same standards applied to them? Doesn’t fair mean that you get to keep the benefits of your hard work? Another thing that I find interesting is that the proponents of such reforms are the last to offer real help, the people that say the tax increase is worth it; are the last ones to cut a check (Obama himself until recently only gave close to 1% of his annual income). Michelle Obama in fact made huge sums of money working a an administrator at a hospital in Chicago, if she really cared about affordable health care wouldn’t she have voluntarily cut her income so that the money could have been used elsewhere? Looking at the Obama’s income tax returns it is easy to see what they really care about… themselves. But I regress.
What is a right? Well lets look at some “rights” that have been accepted since the founding of our country. Our founding documents point out several rights that the founders believed where endowed by the creator in all people. There are several qualities that differentiate a right from what the founders called “pursuit of happiness”.
First and foremost a right is inherently found in every individual. Upon birth we have the ability to express our selves any way that we feel inclined, though we may not have the physical ability to do so, the freedom to do so is there. The right to bear arms is the same way, all of us are born with the right, the permission, to bear arms. Both of these rights can be taken away, should we show that we are not using them properly. Dan Rather is a perfect example. During the second campaign of George Bush he ran a story about the President’s history with the national guard. Though he was warned the the facts where not checking out and that the story seemed, and would later prove to be, bogus; he ran the story anyway. As a result his ability to express himself the way he wanted was severely limited. He went from an unrestricted seat on the evening news to a relatively meaningless slot on the weekend desk. He eventually left CBS and is now suing his former employer.
Secondly the right can require nothing from anyone else except that they do not infringe upon the realization of that right in others. The 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution are again perfect examples. Even while I write this I am exercising rights guaranteed to me by the 1st Amendment. I have the freedom to write what I want. I can in fact even write and publish things that are slanderous and outright lies and no one could stop me, though I could be held liable if my words where found to have damaged someone and where also slanderous. The Second Amendment is the same way. Nothing is required of anyone else except that they respect my right to own a firearm. The right to keep and bear arms does not require someone to give me a firearm, nor does it require someone else to instruct me in the proper use of that firearm. But again misuse of this right will result in the removal of the right. Because of the permanency of actions with a firearm the consequences for misuse are comparatively severe.
For most it would be easy to see how the “right to health care” does not fit either of these qualifications. When we are born we do not inherently have health care, if we where left to sit upon entry into this world we would inevitably perish. In less prosperous parts of the world the elderly do not receive the care that they do here and as a result many parish do to lack of medical care. Health care is not something that we are born with it is something that we are given as a result of the conditions that we are born to, or the status that we attain. But some would argue that being human should guarantee a level of care, that people have the “right” to live a healthy life. What is wrong with that idea? My only argument is the classification of health care as a right. As members of the great human race we have a responsibility to help those that are less fortunate than ourselves a basic desire that becomes very apparent when looking at the amount of volunteer time and money that goes into the health care system. But having a desire for people to live a healthy life does not make it a right.
Where does health care come from? Do you care for yourself? Do you purchase health care and are then able to apply it as you see fit with no interference of help from an outside source? No, health care by nature requires the action of someone else. The list of people and resources that are tasked to health care is astounding. A simple doctors visit requires the assistance of several people, many of whom are highly skilled professionals. The appointment need to be scheduled, records have to be made, assessments need to be done on the patient, a doctor will conduct the appointment and a follow up appointment or referral will be made. All of this done in a facility specially built for the purpose of patient care most likely at a great cost. All of this requires the action of someone else for you to get health care and violates the core definition of a “right”.
Health care is not a right. Health care is a warm fuzzy, that we would like people to have, that we even volunteer so that more people can have but ultimately cannot be classified as a right. To force a doctor to see a patient, regardless of the compensation they may receive, is a clear violation of property rights. The Progressive movement is really old school communism, lets just call it what it is. They say “progressive” but what they mean is a society where everything is managed and planned by the government, everything from health care to auto manufacturing to energy, things that have become the commanding heights of the 21st century. The progressive movement is communism, it seeks to undermine the Constitution of the US by saying things like “health care monopoly” and “health care is a basic human right” here is what progressives think about our rights… (see you tube video on right)
(she doesn’t drop the bomb that free speech should only be for the educated, even though she only went to three semesters of college.)
By perverting the definition of what a right is they are making it easier to eliminate the rights that are harmful to their cause. It is important to know what rights are guaranteed us by the constitution as well as what a right is. By being educated on the important issues of the time that we live in we will ensure that those rights are protected, because we will know when those rights are being violated.
There used to be a time when I was proud of our government here in these United States. I was raised in the Midwest, the heartland of America, and I always believed in The American Dream. I’m third generation American-born. My father’s side immigrated from Finland, my mother’s from Mexico, and I knew that there was opportunity for all in this country. I always knew that. It was part of my upbringing as was the value of hard work, perseverance and honesty. I certainly wasn’t born to a life of luxury. In fact, quite the opposite was true.
But, one thing was always there… In the United States of America, you can do whatever you want – with enough hard work and perseverance. I bet your story is slightly different, but still much the same. You knew you had opportunities and you knew you could do whatever you wanted to do when you grew up.
I point this out because I don’t think the politician’s of today understand this part of America. I don’t think we have representatives that either lived like most of the citizens they represent, or they have been in Washington DC so long that they’ve forgotten what America really is.
They think they need to take care of everything for us. They think that we want “their” help to make life easier for us. They think we want bailouts and handouts to make us happy. They are wrong. Mostly, we just want DC to stay out of our lives and let us make our own choices and be rewarded according to those choices.
They need to go! When I say “the politicians” or “they”, I mean ALL of THEM. I mean WE need to replace THEM with US. It doesn’t even seem to matter anymore which political party they belong to. If they’re in the majority, we get more and more laws and oversight but no real change. If they’re in the minority, we get complaints because they can’t get anything done. The problem is that there is a THEY in the first place.
THEY have been in political office for so long that the job of a politician is to make deals, to compromise, to wheel-and-deal to get even the smallest legislation passed, but when in reality, WE don’t want any more legislation anyway. We already have too many laws!
Frankly, I’m sick of hearing about what my representatives want to do for me. I only want to see one thing from them. I want them gone!
I want to see one politician that really believes in America and I want to see that politician prove his conviction to me by introducing Congressional Term Limits. I want representatives, not politicians. I want to elect a person that will go to Congress for a maximum, of say, 8 years, and then come back to us and become one of us again. Maybe then, they would all spend those 8 years making changes that are in OUR best interests instead of making laws to increase the power of a ruling class. I want someone to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for Congressional Term Limits. That person is the one who I will throw my support behind. That person is the representative I am looking for. Until the politicians in my district show me that they are not running for office for their own personal gain but for OUR benefit, then I can’t endorse anyone. We need to break the DC machine and get back to the representative system that this country was founded upon.
Reported September 1, on World Net Daily: the Pandemic Response Bill 2028 is currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature that would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings, and give law enforcement officials the ability to arrest without warrant citizens for noncompliance of quarantine orders. The Bill is so disturbing it’s hard to know where to start!
One of my biggest concerns, as it is with HR 3200, is the idea of mandatory vaccination. The Massachusetts bill allows for “whenever the commissioner or a public-health authority decides it is necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health, they are authorized: to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis (preventative procedure) to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possible communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.” But who is responsible for determining what vaccines won’t lead to “serious harm”. Most vaccines come with an array of possible side effects, including severely devastating side-effects, especially Flu and Swine Flu vaccines-as this bill seems to be in response to the H1N1 virus. During the Swine Flu scare of the 1970s, millions of Americans were given the Swine Flu vaccine and an increase in Guillian-Barre syndrome was the outcome. Guillan-Barre is a disorder that affects the peripheral nervous system and can lead to permanent paralysis and even death. While the new vaccine is different, doctors are being asked to report cases of Guillan-Barre. But are they being asked to warn patients of this risk, no matter how unlikely it may be? Maybe you’re thinking, as long as the CDC and FDA endorse it there should be no problems, right? Let’s look at the Guardasil vaccine, given to young women to vaccinate against the human papilloma virus, as an example. Even though it is backed by the CDC and FDA, Guardasil has been linked with over 1,900 reactions, 39 deaths, and 3 cases of Guillan-Barre and even lists Guillan-Barre as a possible side effect in one of their television commercials. So what won’t the health officials be telling you when they’re forcing vaccines on you and your family during one of these “pandemics”? You are the one who has the right to weigh the risks of a vaccine versus the possibility that it may protect you! Not the government! Well, you’ll just refuse the vaccine right? Think again! Instead “An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined… for as long as may be reasonably necessary.” Forget about ignoring that quarantine order, because if you do: “Law enforcement authorities are authorized to arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order.”
This Bill is yet another example of government over-stepping its bounds and taking away our freedoms as United States citizens. Be assured that you will be seeing scare-tactic methods employed from the government to try and push the N1H1 vaccine on the population. Now, I’m not a doctor, nor do I pretend to be one (unlike some liberals) so I am not arguing that no one should get any vaccine, ever. What I am advocating for is the continued right to be able to make those informed decisions about personal health and safety.
As I was thinking of topics for this website, I decided to create a list. Among the topics was government funding for the arts. It turns out this is a more timely topic than I was expecting. While this may seem to be an issue that’s not that important compared to the other hot button issues of the day, it is yet another symptom of the Obamanation that’s going unchecked and unquestioned by the mainstream media.
As reported by Patrick Courrielche on bighollywood.breitbart.com, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) a federal agency staffed by the administration and the largest annual funder of the arts, now seems to be organizing arts organizations that “played a key role in the President’s election” to create art and art initiatives that focus on healthcare, energy and the environment, safety and security, education, and community renewal. On Aug. 10, Courrielche was involved with a conference call with about 75 other specifically selected members of the art community initiated by the NEA that had a most disturbing agenda of “providing guidelines to the art community on what topics to discuss and providing them a step-by-step instruction to apply their art form to these issues.”
Apparently the Obama regime is no longer satisfied with the majority of media outlets bowing at their feet, they are now intent on expanding their control to other artistic endeavors to elicit even more mass-produced, commercially appealing propaganda to push new flashy catch phrases such as “Hope” and “Change” onto the truly uninformed and indoctrinate the young to spew back these slogans with no real idea of any context or substance behind them. History has already shown us examples of Communist, Socialist, and Fascist regimes using art to glorify their leaders and ensure the masses were privy only to government-approved images. Let’s just take Russia in the late 1920’s as an example. In 1928 all independent art organizations were closed and the work to define the official Soviet artistic method began. The first Congress of the Soviet writers established the doctrine of socialist realism (applicable to all the arts), which was to remain the officially approved artistic method until the dramatic changes initiated by the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev. The idea of the NEA providing step-by-step instruction on how artists should apply their art form definitely has an eerie correlation.
It is also interesting to note that this conference call by the NEA was initiated only 3 days after Courrielche had published an article on the poster pictured to the left that had been popping up around Los Angeles. With President Obama’s face altered to look like that of the “Joker” with the word “Socialism” printed below the anonymous image immediately began the renewed attacks that anyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist with the LA Weekly declaring of the image, “The only thing missing is a noose.”, The Washington Post stating, “So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image.” And Bedlam magazine, the first to comment on the poster criticized the image as “The Joker white-face imposed on Obama’s visage has a sort of malicious, racist, Jim Crow quality to it.” While the initial creator of the image is attributed to Firas Khateeb, another artist apparently was responsible for adding the “socialism” text and plastering the posters around Los Angeles. Bedlam also went so far as requesting anyone with information about the anonymous artist or the “campaign” to E-mail them.
Now, with the NEA’s actions coming under some scrutiny, it has begun to try and distance itself from initiating the conference call yet cannot seem to actually dispute any of Courrielche’s statements as to their intentions to elicit artistic output to promote the Obama administration’s objectives. Among the conference call participants was Thomas Bates the Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote which states right on their homepage “What the F*ck is going on with the health care debate?” and “Enough is Enough. Demand Health Care” and even gives “young people” a script to copy and paste onto their Twitter or Facebook page!
Let’s also take into account who the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts is. Rocco Landesman, appointed by President Obama in May, was confirmed as chairman August 7th and in his first interview (the New York Times was given first access) talked about starting a program that he called “Our Town,” which would provide home equity loans and rent subsidies for living and working spaces to encourage artists to move to downtown areas. I fail to see how this is in any way the established purpose of the NEA which states on its website that it is “dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.”
Now, I’m not some art-bashing critic who fails to see the importance of art in society. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Art History from Arizona State University and enjoy supporting local arts and have many pieces by local Valley artists, including my profile picture which is a self portrait I commissioned from a Phoenix artist. That being said, the increasing role of government in the arts to the point where the government is the patron versus the public being the patron is a scary thing! People who enjoy and appreciate art will patronize and support the arts. The public does not need the government dictating what the artistic current should be. It’s appalling to see artists abandon the idea that “Art is for art’s sake”, and to abandon their responsibility to question ALL political and ideological issues-just as mainstream media has abandoned their duty to impartially and objectively reporting the news. It is ironic that artists are becoming the commercial tool that so many of them claim to abhor. It’s also a sad day when an artist who dissents against President Obama must remain anonymous clearly for fear of reprisals within the art community. It was of course acceptable and evocative to portray President George W. Bush as a blood sucking vampire as well as countless images of President Bush as Hitler or graphic images depicting his assassination. The right to freedom of expression does not come with a clause that says “only if pre-approved by the President of the United States”.
You can contact Rocco Landesman, the Chairman for the National Endowment for the Arts at chairman@arts.gov and voice your opinion on the role of your tax-dollars going to art designed to specifically promote President Obama’s objectives.
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE (Page 50, Section 152) – This is one part of the massive bill that I found very interesting, it’s been discussed in the media before but I wanted to bring it up again because it’s a huge problem within the bill. Basically what this section is stating is that American Healthcare will be provided to everyone regardless of race or other characteristics. President Obama and his supporters continue to state that illegal aliens will not be covered in this bill but they have conveniently left a major loophole in the bill to appease their Hispanic support groups. Since there is currently no system for verification, ALL non-US citizens, illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants as the Democrats like to call them) or otherwise will be covered at the U.S. Tax payers’ expense. Hospitals today do not turn away the ill (even if they are an illegal alien), which is one reason why we are in this mess in the first place. Today about 12 million illegal aliens cost the healthcare industry billions in tax payer dollars annually, money that could be spent in other areas to help bring healthcare costs down.
Some supporters of immigration & healthcare reform say that some of the undocumented immigrants that are here and that have communicable diseases need the healthcare so that they do not contribute to spreading their condition to others. That’s an interesting debate, considering that we wouldn’t have to worry about them spreading their “condition” if they weren’t here illegally in the first place.
It’s also important to point out Page 170, Lines 1-3 which specifically state that the taxes imposed to cover the costs of healthcare will not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien (including their children). Basically giving free healthcare to whoever needs it, at the U.S. Tax payers’ expense. Again the U.S. taxpayers will have pay for the costs of illegal immigrants, just like we do today. Only this time it will be written into a law that we are bound by.
We believe you are entitled to know everything in this bill and how much you stand to lose and how much it will cost you. Click here to see the full bill as it stands and then click here to tell your Members of Congress what you think of this bill.
“He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”
G.K. Chesterton
I open with that quote because it is among one of my favorites and because it helps illustrate my point or rather my inquiry. A question I have been asking myself quite a bit lately as yet another young person, embracing Marxist ideals, acts as though he is somehow some sort of utopian building non-conformist.
How did we ever get to the point where the youth of our country identify with nanny statist authoritarians and turn their noses at the true home of rebelliousness? How is it that the very people who should most embrace individuality and systems that foster creativity, opportunity and freedom turn their back to it and instead align themselves with people who want to tell them how to manage every aspect of their lives from cradle to grave?
It is completely backwards. Modern “liberalism” or statism is so at odds with everything that should attract the young that, if you stop and really think about it, it is staggering. It also shows what a grievous error it was allowing our educational institutions and popular culture to be co-opted by the Marxist movements. While we true Americans were pacified, minds like Bill Ayers were instructing the next generation of minds. As we have now see and as was told to us by the Soviet defector, Bezmenov, in 1985, the beauty of the system is that it is self-replicating. Each generation of useful idiots turns out the next generation of useful idiots. The minds, as Bezmenov points out, are “contaminated, programmed to think and react to certain stimuli”. They typically can not be reasoned with, facts do not resonate.
Each day young minds are bombarded with Marxist ideals. Ridicule is the tool used to ensure their complete demoralization. We see how dissent is treated by the progressives among us in classrooms or the media. Imagine a young mind being twisted and turned by these forces day in and day out. It takes a strong constitution to withstand that sort of scrutiny and humiliation. Most do not have it. Mixed with the idealism of youth and the need to conform, most surrender either in empty assent or hardcore ideological transfigurement.
What is obvious now is that the damage has been done. Our institutions of education, civil service, entertainment and media are filled with minds and ideas hostile to American ideals. How do we undo the damage? Can we undo the damage? How do we stop it going forward? How we get back to a place where our youth is taught principles and ideas that are favorable and in the best interest of American society and founding principles? Is it too late?
Recently Glen Beck did a compelling and informative TV show about Obama’s campaign idea regarding a Civilian National Security force…Glen pointed out that it looks like it may in fact be slowly forming under the guise of groups like STORM, AmeriCorps, ACORN and the like. Many of these groups have received hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding (tax payers money) and are sharing top leaders within their respective organizations.
The word “Force” at the end of the name is a bit concerning for me, considering that “a force is any external agent that causes a change in the motion of a free body”. Beck brought up some valid concerns though…Why exactly do we need a civilian national force as strong as the military? Who will be in it? Who will they report to? And who will they be fighting against exactly?
When I heard Glenn talk about this with his guests, I instantly thought of the fictional corporation called Multinational United (MNU), a private military contractor in the movie District 9. The quasi military like organization was not officially run by the government, but in the end it did the governments dirty work.
Do I think that Obama is trying to create a MNU or Schutzstaffel like organization, no…at least not yet. But I do believe that President Obama and the Democrats are trying very hard to re-shape America into a multicultural-multinational government dependant society…much like Europe.
The past few months have shown us how this administration will deal with those that oppose its agenda, which can be clearly seen with its attack on free speech in regards to Conservative talk radio, Tea Party and Town Hall protesters and even encouraging us to spy on each-other. Anyone perceived to be affiliated with groups (religious, political, social and otherwise) that oppose the Obama camp or Democrat agenda, or is seen to have views contradictory to the goals of the government are labeled, verbally “rounded up” and mischaracterized by the pro-Obama media. So the question of “Who will they be fighting against exactly?” comes up again. Will their goal be to out organize the voices of the Conservative Right, or to shut us up completely?
Every day it seems as if the Obama Administration is secretly doing more behind the curtain, only giving the people bits and pieces of the truth to keep us confused and guessing as to what is coming next. All of this coming from an Administration that promised transparency, full disclosure of its actions, in an open, two-way dialogue directly with the American people. So I ask you this…considering what has happened thus far and what we know is planned for our future, do you doubt the idea of a Civilian National Security Force and are you concerned? You should be.
As I watched TV yesterday I saw a Ford commercial touting the “Cash for Clunkers” program and found the fine print quite funny which stated something to the effect of: this is a government program that may change at any time. Not more than two hours later was breaking news that the C.A.R.S. program would end this coming Monday, August 24, less than a month after its July 27 start date, 2 months before its anticipated Nov. 1 end date and $2 billion over the initial budget.
While the program clearly boosted car sales and President Obama is touting its success, it’s clear that the program was ended due to the many flaws. The first thing that amazes me is all of the statements that nobody thought the program would be so popular. So, the government creates a program that they didn’t think people would take advantage of? Is that what they’re hoping will happen with health care? No one will get sick-it’ll be fine. The C.A.R.S. program initial budget of $1 billion then jumps to $3 billion within just a few weeks. Well, I’m sure they’ll get the math right with health care. Then mysteriously many people’s ”clunkers” that qualified for the program one day, didn’t meet the EPA requirements the next-many by only 1 MPG. National health care equivalent: “I’m sorry sir, I know you qualified for surgery yesterday, but today we just don’t think you’re sick enough.” At least there wasn’t much paperwork involved in the cash for clunkers program right? Dealers filled out 13 page documents that often had to be re-submitted for any minor flaw, 13 pages for $4500 and only about 7% of dealers have actually been re-paid. Of course how could dealers expect to be paid on time when the USTS was well under-staffed and un-prepared to manage this type of program? The program that was slated to run for 3 months and cost $1 billion lasted 1/3 the time and cost 3 times more than expected.
The C.A.R.S. model really should clear up any concerns about government controlled healthcare, it was only: over-budget, over-used, understaffed, required tedious paperwork, delayed payments, rules changed from day to day, and had to be ended 2 months early. Well I’m convinced! National health care will save us all!
