Friday, November 27, 2009

Grijalva Announces Support For Proposed Budget Cuts, Says White House Must Account Honestly For Health Care Costs (A Parody)

Wednesday November 25, 2009 (Maybe in Bizarro World)

Washington, DC – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today announced his support for a balanced budget proposal, calling it a matter of both moral and financial responsibility. The proposal would create a one percent tax increase on low-income earners, increasing incrementally to five percent for the top bracket.

“If President Obama intends to insure all Americans, it’s time he told the country how he’s going to afford it,” Grijalva said. “Health insurance is not free, and if the White House wants to pay for this with borrowed money, it should keep in mind that every dollar is precious as we try to rebuild our economy.”

Grijalva said his support for a balanced budget did not indicate a change in his overall objection to government intervention into all that is good in America. The president’s widely reported but not yet officially announced plan to force all Americans to have health insurance, when the U.S. has already been screwed by overspending by th Obama administration, is a mistake whether or not a balanced budget is passed, he said. “We have no clear agenda here, and Americans are dying to get rid of a government that has no credibility with its own people,” Grijalva said. “This is an immoral, aimless and unjust legislation, and it should end now.”

However, he added, “If the president is determined to continue this counterproductive campaign, he should be honest and transparent with American voters about how much it will cost us. President Bush spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan that went unacknowledged in standard budget calculations, and President Obama has a chance to let voters see how truly expensive our liberal policies are in comparison.”

Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has proposed a similar surtax, giving supporters hope that an agreement can be reached quickly between both chambers of Congress. “A mega spending increase for health care would come as our country is fighting to improve struggling schools and create badly needed jobs,” Grijalva said. “With or without these additional government programs, we must keep our priorities and our budgets straight as we move forward.”

This is a copy of Grijalva's recent press release about spending on Afghanistan with maybe five words changed. How can our representative be in favor of cutting spending when it comes to our defense (Grijalva has argued in favor of the war on terror to constituents, but now is pulling that support?), yet not bat an eye as he votes for billions in domestic waste for "stimulus" spending that goes to unions and ACORN?  

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Thanksgiving: A Rejection of Socialism, Thanks for Individualism!

 Contrary to Popular belief, The first Thanksgiving was not about pilgrims thanking the Indians for saving their lives, it was the triumph of the system of Capitalism over Socialism as an understanding of the natural order "under God." Richard M. Ebeling of Northwestern University explains it in the words of Governor Bradford, fouder of the colony at Plymoth:

In the New World, they wanted to erect a New Jerusalem that would not only be religiously devout, but be built on a new foundation of communal sharing and social altruism. Their goal was the communism of Plato’s Republic, in which all would work and share in common, knowing neither private property nor self-interested acquisitiveness.

What resulted is recorded in the diary of Governor William Bradford, the head of the colony. The colonists collectively cleared and worked land, but they brought forth neither the bountiful harvest they hoped for, nor did it create a spirit of shared and cheerful brotherhood.

The less industrious members of the colony came late to their work in the fields, and were slow and easy in their labors. Knowing that they and their families were to receive an equal share of whatever the group produced, they saw little reason to be more diligent in their efforts. The harder working among the colonists became resentful that their efforts would be redistributed to the more malingering members of the colony. Soon they, too, were coming late to work and were less energetic in the fields.

As Governor Bradford explained in his old English (though with the spelling modernized):

"For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it."

Because of the disincentives and resentments that spread among the population, crops were sparse and the rationed equal shares from the collective harvest were not enough to ward off starvation and death. Two years of communism in practice had left alive only a fraction of the original number of the Plymouth colonists.

Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.

As Governor Bradford put it:

"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end . . . This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only did many families produce enough for their own needs, but they had surpluses that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and improvement.

In Governor Bradford’s words:

"By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their planting was well seen, for all had, one way or other, pretty well to bring the year about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."

The desire to “spread the wealth” and for government to plan and regulate people’s lives is as old as the utopian fantasy in Plato’s Republic. The Pilgrim Fathers tried and soon realized its bankruptcy and failure as a way for men to live together in society.

They, instead, accepted man as he is: hardworking, productive, and innovative when allowed the liberty to follow his own interests in improving his own circumstances and that of his family. And even more, out of his industry result the quantities of useful goods that enable men to trade to their mutual benefit.

Something for Americans to think about as we contemplate the road to the disaster of Socialism that Obama and followers like Grijalva in Congress are leading us down. 

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Saturday Night Live Reality Check

This week's SNL opened with a barb to Obama's trip to China in light of the U.S. increasing debt-dependence on China. It's hilarious and disturbingly truthful:

Our own Raul Grijalva continues to encourage the kind of deficit spending that will someday get his district handed to China as payment for the billions in debt we owe them.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Health Care Plan to Cover Spaying of Pets

Democrats in the House and the Senate have reached agreement on covering all spaying and neutering of pets as part of the Health Care bill. According to Nancy Pelosi, "When we talk about Universal Health Care, we mean for everyone, even our pets." The provision will affect approximately 200 million pets who currently do not have health insurance through their owners. Raul Grijalva held a press conference praising the plan. "Providing a public option for pets is a no-brainer. It will keep costs down and prevent pet insurance companies from gouging consumers."

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Grijalva Must Really Hate You

Raul Grijalva and his universal healthcare ideologues have already restricted your freedoms with legislation slipped into the stimulus plan. Even if the huge healthcare bill is not passed, this legislation, passed last Spring in anticipation of Obamacare will mean restrictions for Americans in the form of requirements for doctors, surcharges and taxes for years to come. Keep your doctor? Not if he or she doesn't follow the government's guidelines for treatment:

Friday, November 13, 2009

Obama to "Purge" Opposition from Federal Workforce

After winning the White House, after taking control of the House and the Senate, what will the Democrats do now? Not go to Disneyland. In their effort to take total control of Americans' lives, their next step is to completely control the U.S. government. Last week, the Obama administration took steps to change a longstanding (since the first Democrat administration under Jefferson) policy of keeping appointed bureaucrats from previous administrations as career government employees. in the 1790s one of the Supreme Courts' first rulings ruled that an administration could not remove or harass a government official for simply political purposes. Since then the policy of each administration has been to allow appointed bureaucrats from previous administrations to move to non-appointed posts to maintain a smooth transition and a nonpartisan approach to federal policies. The Obama administration is proposing to change that. A memo to all branches of the federal government mandates an "evaluation of each transfer of an appointed post." Rush Limbaugh explains the impact:
Real Clear Politics
The ramifications of political party leaders being able to overhaul every branch of the federal government is monumental. To give you an idea, every dictator in history has competed a similar purge of civil service opposition as a precursor taking absolute power. Hitler used the Night of Long Knives as a cover for removing all opposition party members from government positions. Stalin had a similar purge. Obama's move is a two-bit third world dictator move to grab power. It needs to be stopped.

Where is Military-advocate Grijalva on Fort Hood Terrorism?

In a letter published this week at, an army major describes the betrayal of the American military by their leaders in the name of political correctness. It deserves to be read in its entirety. I wonder, if Raul Grijalva is listening, will he call for a change in military policy that favors "diversity" in exchange for security? Will he demand protection for our military men and women in the way of background checks for Muslims with extreme views? Will he even answer phone calls? Or will he continue to "demand" a public option on health care to the tune of 10 billion dollars while terrorists target our military men and women in what should be the most secure facilities in the country?

An Officer's Outrage Over Fort Hood

By Major Shawn Keller

As an officer in the United States Army, I'm angry for so many reasons over what happened at Ft. Hood. I'm angry that twelve of my fellow soldiers and a contractor were murdered. I'm angry that over thirty people have suffered life altering injuries from which they will never fully recover. I'm angry that the lives of so many families have been forever ruined. I'm angry that this happened on an Army post on American soil where soldiers should be safe. And I'm angry that the murderer was a terrorist who masqueraded as an Army officer for half a dozen years.

But as angry as I am at what happened, I'm even angrier that it was allowed to happen. Apparently, there was no shortage of warning signs that Hasan identified more with Islamic Jihadists than he did with the US Army. From speeches, writings, conversations, affiliations and postings on Jihadist websites, there were more than enough dots to connect that should have exposed Hasan as someone inclined to attack innocent people in the furtherance of a political, religious and ideological agenda. There were more than enough red flags raised that, at a minimum, should have gotten Hasan kicked out of the Army.

But just like September 11, those agencies and individuals charged with keeping America and Americans safe failed to connect the dots that would have saved lives. Jihadist rhetoric espoused by Hasan was categorically dismissed out of submissiveness to the concepts of tolerance and diversity. The Army as an institution has been neutered by decades of political correctness and the leaders in Hasan's chain-of-command failed to act accordingly out of fear of being labeled anti-Muslim and receiving a negative evaluation report. The counter-terrorism agencies knew Hasan was communicating with Al-Qaeda and dismissed it as academic research instead of delving deeper into the probability that a terrorist had infiltrated the ranks.

Even four hours after Hasan stood on a desk yelling Allahu Akbar! and opened fire, the FBI stated that they were not investigating the attack as an act of terrorism even as there were still reports of other gunmen on the loose. Meanwhile, the Army continues to dismiss it as a "tragedy" and an "isolated incident by a lone gunman" while the media has invented the psychological condition of post-traumatic stress disorder by proxy. There is more concern for promoting the appropriate information operation campaign and maintaining the illusion of safety than there is for actually exposing the weaknesses and faults in the system that allowed this to happen. We're even being told that damage to the Army's efforts at diversity would be a greater tragedy than the murder of the twelve soldiers -- how ironic the week of Veterans' Day.

This has nothing to do with being anti-Islamic. After numerous tours to Iraq and working with countless cultural advisors on Ft. Bragg, I know dozens of Muslims who I respect and admire greatly. This has everything to do with force protection and security being trumped by the concepts of political correctness and diversity. This has everything to do with a hypocritical system and culture that breeds timidity and dismissiveness in the interest of career advancement. If I preached a white-supremacist ideology or described Timothy McVeigh as a hero to the cause of freedom and liberty, how long do you think I would still be in the military drawing a salary, receiving educational benefits and getting promoted like Hasan did?

Hasan's radical ideology grew to the point that he committed mass murder because too many leaders were too afraid to lead out of fear of harming their career or the image of the Army. If those leaders don't have the intestinal fortitude, moral conviction or personal courage to stand up, speak up and protect soldiers, then retire, resign or get out of the way and let somebody else do it for you.

Shawn Keller is a Major in the United States Army stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Grijalva Continues to Lie About Public Option

District 7's consummate lair, Raul Grijalva is at it again. Like a credit-card waving teenager, Grijalva is shouting how much the government will "save" through a Medicare-type "public option.":

"I, along with other progressive members of the House, argued strongly during the past few months that a successful public option would structure its payments to doctors and hospitals around Medicare rates. Medicare saves the government money because its purchasing power nationwide is unmatched, giving it leverage to negotiate affordable prices for Americans over the age of 65. It can afford to charge consumers less because it has low overhead and is remarkably efficient at what it does."

No, Raul, the government in all aspects is remarkably inefficient at what it does because it has no accountability and it can siphon off some administrative costs as debt, something private insurance companies are not allowed to do for any length of time. An article by Dr. Robert Book at the Heritage Foundation explains Grijalva Progressive lies:

Advocates of a public plan assert that Medicare has administrative costs of 3 percent (or 6 to 8 percent if support from other government agencies is included), compared to 14 to 22 percent for private employer-sponsored health insurance (depending on which study is cited), or even more for individually purchased insurance. They attribute the difference to superior efficiency of government,[1] private insurance companies' expenditures on marketing,[2] efforts to deny claims,[3] unrestrained pursuit of profit,[4] and high executive salaries.[5]

However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars.

Fuzzy Math

Medicare patients are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease, and as such have higher average patient care costs, so expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs gives a misleading picture of relative efficiency. Administrative costs are incurred primarily on a fixed or per-beneficiary basis; this approach spreads Medicare's costs over a larger base of patient care cost.

For the complete article, which takes apart the progressive arguments for a public option piece by piece see

Sunday, November 8, 2009

New ABC Series "V" Takes Whack at Obama

The media has been fawning all over Obama since his coronation in January. Now a new Sci Fi series takes aim at Obama's liberal promises of a new world order. In the remake series "V" an alien race arrives and promises prosperity and "Universal Health Care" in exchange for "simple resources which are abundant on your planet." The Visitors' charisma-charged leaders' treatment of the media is eerily familiar to those who have watched recent Obama official's tiffs with Fox News:

Turns out the aliens have been here for years, infiltrating the population in preparation for their messianic arrival. Turns out they are really hungry man-eating lizards in disguise, coming to take complete control of the planet in a coup of outwardly goodwill and friendship, while secretly planning the demise of all human life. A priest questions the Visitors' opportunistic offers: "The world's in bad shape. Who wouldn't welcome a savior right now?" then adds when a fellow priest tells him to trust the smiling Obama...Ana,
"No one is saying don't trust the Visitors. But don't they need to earn our trust?"
The series says a lot to those of us who are willing to blindly trust leaders who tell us what we want to hear to earn our trust, only to devour our very souls.

Monday, November 2, 2009

When Presidents Talk About Hope and Change . . . and Mean It

When Ronald Reagan toured Europe, speeches were prepared for each of his stops. At a scheduled stop at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, a speechwriter took the initiative to propose a challenge to then Soviet President Gorbachev to go further in his reforms to open the borders of Eastern Europe. Reagan's advisers nixed the idea, but Reagan reinserted the wording "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Within four years, the Soviet empire was dismantled thanks to Reagan's boldness and willingness to back his statements with action.

Contrasting Reagan's assertiveness with Obama's empty promise of "Hope and Change" while waffling with advisors and polls, we are left shaking our heads. Reagan has ever been given the credit he deserves for ending the Cold War. And yet our present President seeks credit for things he has no right to and does not deserve. Here is the end of Reagan's words at the Brandenburg Gate:

Somewhere Ronald Reagan is looking down on this country and shaking his head.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

If you Like Your Present Doctor, You Can Still See Him . . . In Mexico

Doctors, including a former president, Paul Massano, are pressuring the AMA to remove its endorsement of a public option healthcare plan. The wheels are falling off Obamacare as expected costs of the program increase and benefits decrease. According to Massano, a "Public Option" that is Medicaid-based amounts to price fixing that will drive doctors out of medicine, forcing them into a government pay system and taking away a doctor's right to privately contract for services. Watch Massano's interview on Fox: