Letting the Patriots of the Past Speak for Themselves

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

I have always been inspired by the quotes of our founding fathers and great leaders of the past. These leaders speak truths that put the petty politics of today into their proper context. In the spirit of that inspiration, I will endeavor of the coming weeks and months to include a quote each post from our nation's history and legacy.
The first is from Samuel Adams, rebel leader and beer maker of the revolution that brought about American independence. His was the idea of getting together a bunch of "red necks" disguised as Indians and dumping tea into Boston Harbor. It is said that his cousin John Adams was the mind of the Revolution, but Sam was the heart. His response to rhetoric was action. Today he would be in the middle of the Tea Partiers, the Town Hall shouters. Sam was a "partier with a purpose."

Giving Obama a "Kill Switch" for the Internet, What's the Worry?

This last week, Senate Democrats proposed giving President Obama power to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," over "private computer networks." The bill, if passed, gives the President power to shut down portions or all of the internet.
The bill, discussed by Kim Kommando on her Saturday morning radio show, received 140 responses within the first few hours. Fox News had over 1200 hits after running a story about the bill on Friday. Liberal blogger, From the Wilderness has followed the bill for sometime and gives the background of First Amendment violations by the Federal government. This is an issue that liberals and Conservatives can agree on. Suffice it to say, this is bad legislation, which gives the President unwarranted authority to shut down public dissent and political thought. It needs to be stopped before becoming law.

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."
John Adams

Fidel Castro gives libs their marching orders

Anyone wonder where liberals in Congress get their ideas from? Accusations from Grijalva of Conservative racism seem to be in cinc with Fidel Castro, now an expert on American politics.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSB30869920090825
Before you say, hey wait a minute, you can't lump liberals in with revolutionary communists, read Ron Radosh's editorial on Pajama's Media this week about Van Jones, Obama's "Green Energy Czar." The White House is not denying reports by Glen Beck about Jones' radical past. Unfortunately, the mainstream media was never concerned that Obama had chosen a radical revolutionary for "special adviser to the President."

Fairness Doctrine, More Fair than Ever

In their never ending attempts to intrude on American's lives, the Obama administration is making overtures towards re instituting the once declared unConstitutional (only they won't call it the Fairness Doctrine so now it will be Constitutional. The logic of libs continues to amaze me).
According to the Heritage foundation, FCC officials and the Obama administration had promised to abide by a Federal court interpretation which struck down the guideline, which required radio stations to give equal time to all opposing viewpoints of any opinions expressed. However, according to Heritage, Marc Lloyd was recently put in charge. of the review board that oversees this area. Lloyd has spoken favorably about re instituting Fairness Doctrine rules under a different name.
According to Lloyd, the FCC won't edit content, just threaten to take away licenses of stations who don't show "diversity" and give them to applicants who are better able to serve the "public interest":
"There are still more people who want these licenses than the government is able to satisfy. In exchange for this very valuable and scarce license, and federal protection against “pirate” (unlicensed) radio operators, broadcasters are supposed to operate in the public interest. That’s the deal. The broadcasters like the free license and the free protection, but they just don’t want the public involved in telling them whether they are actually serving the public interest."
So be prepared. KBLU in Yuma is already bowing to pressure from FCC regulators for having to many conservative talk show hosts. Starting in September, former Democratic legislator Teresa Ulmer (now a "community organizer/political consultant) will host a show with "alternative" views on weekday mornings.

Grijalva says Republican's aren't being Bipartisan Enough in Supporting Socialized Medicine

Oh, this is just a Hoot. Our own Raul Grijalva is all sticking out his chest that he got to put in a Democratic response to a USA Today editorial, La dee da, our Congressman must have worked half the night spell-checking this one. It is short, so I will refute our esteemed representative line for line.
Republicans don’t want middle ground; they want to kill reform.


Reforming health care in this country is an urgent matter. For decades, we have endured a broken system that restricts and denies coverage when individuals need it most, leaving many of us one illness away from bankruptcy.
Government provided healthcare does not deny coverage of the poor. The real issue is health care costs, not insurance. Grijalva and the Democrats don't even address the skyrocketing costs of insurance because of lawsuits, let alone the costs of treatment, which is why their bill is estimated to cost 10 trillion dollars in the first 10 years (adding to the new estimate of 10 trillion this year).
I am open to bipartisanship on legislation when it yields action and solutions. However, I am not in favor of bipartisanship when the other side's principal intention is to delay progress and undermine a bill.
This is a flat out lie. Grijalva has never been in favor of bipartisanship. he is the furthest left of any representative in Washington. He has never coauthored a bill with a Republican or attached his name to one. Furthermore, I see nowhere that Republicans are attempting to undermine HR3200. Republicans are listening to their constituents, holding townhalls in large venues, offering alternative plans that are based on valid research data. but Republicans are no where to be seen on this bill. The Democrats problem is within their own party members who are afraid of public reaction if they create another government monstrosity by taking over healthcare.
Let's call it like it is. Most of what the Republicans want in the health care reform bill represents a victory for well-financed, private-interest greed. It's a gift to corporations, not consumers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Right now Health Care corporations and drug companies are drooling over the steady profits promised to them by the Obama administration. Republicans can't get them on the phone because these companies know where the money is coming from in this bill, it will be coming from the Health Czar or whatever he/she is called (God forbid Kathleen Sibelius gets the nod if this thing passes).
Moreover, introducing ideas that do not improve health care for the American people holds up the reform process. This, too, is an underhanded tactic. Delaying the process is not about making a better bill; it is about killing health care reform.
Again this statement is full of rhetoric and disinformation, something Americans are sick of and mad about. Health care for American people is the best in the world. Grijalva's public option would destroy it according to every single expert I can find. Republican ideas are focused on reducing costs through private competition as opposed to artificially reducing costs by having taxpayers foot the bill. Bad legislation deserves to be delayed and this bill, despite all the rhetoric Grijalva and the Democrats have tried to mount, is bad legislation because of the single payer/public option.
The basic principle of any bipartisan deal must be to ensure that health care is about the individual, not the corporation. We can achieve this through a public option.
Then why did the Obama administration only listen to corporations and radical theorists when designing this bill and why are the poo-pooing the public as "all wee-weed up" when they have reservations about it? Recent polls indicate 53% of Americans want to start over on health are reform without the public option. Republican support is obviously irrelevant, how is pushing this bill through without public support for a public option about anyone but the liberal agenda behind it?
Thus far, Republicans have refused to look at the public option through a bipartisan lens. Instead of giving it a solid evaluation, they have waged a war of words in an attempt to discredit something they do not seem to fully understand.
Again, I have not heard loud boisterous Republican congressional leaders speaking out. If they are, no one is listening. Grijalva shouted down his town hall participants as "uncivil birthers." who is waging a war of words to discredit what they don't understand. Dwight Eisenhower said it well: "Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
For example, this month the Republican attacks on the public option have been rife with doublespeak. In one breath, we hear that "the government can't do anything right" while, in the next breath, we hear that "the government would run a public option so well and so inexpensively that it would knock out competition." Which is it?
Both. Medicare and the VA are two examples of the effect of government-run healthcare or "public option." Prices are set by Medicare for procedures, so doctors increase rates to private payers to cover costs. People on private plans have to pay more while taxpayers are stuck with the bill for a bankrupt Medicare system. At the VA, to keep costs down, veterans must wait weeks to see a physician with limited treatments. A public option would cut competition by fixing prices which the program couldn't afford until it became a primarily single payer program where costs could be controlled by limiting benefits. Raul knows that single payer is the ultimate goal, so why the rhetoric about "doublespeak" when he knows the only way to pay for a public option is going to single payer or socialized medicine?
The public option that so many of my colleagues and I support is not the downfall of health care, as Republicans would have you believe. Rather, it is what will end the insurance companies' monopoly and control over our individual health.
No it would merely make them dependent on the government for funding. More rhetoric; a monopoly is when one company controls the means of production or limits access. Insurance companies do neither, they are simply trying to make money, and they don't make that much. The costs of Health care is the root of the problem and the solution requires tort reform and increased competition, neither of which the Democrats are willing to address because. . . well their Democrats and Democrats are lawyers and community organizers: competition and tort reform bad, government good.
The public option is one of the choices that individuals would have as consumers of health insurance. Furthermore, studies have found it to be cost effective for all taxpayers, as it would lower the cost of subsidies while preserving private coverage for most people.
Notice Grijalva doesn't cite these studies--because they do not exist. However, numerous examples and studies exist of how the public option would double costs and limit competition. Notice Grijalva says it would preserve private coverage for most people. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation predicts 40% of private companies would drop their insurance if a cheaper public option was available. Again Grijalva is drawing his logic out of thin air.
The Republican agenda is to stop health care reform and, specifically, the public option; the Trojan horse of malpractice and frivolous litigation is part of that strategy.
No, the trojan horse is the public option. 100 liberal congressmen have threatened to derail the bill without it, not because it is good policy, but because it will lead to single payer or socialized medicine, giving government complete control control of healthcare.
Grijalva doesn't want to hear how much health care will cost because he is convinced that eventually a single-payer socialized health care system with limited benefits will bring down costs. It will do that, but you won't be keeping your doctor because he/she may move to a country where competition is encouraged and their expertise is valued.

Diaz-Balart Runs intellectual circles around Grijalva in Univision Interview

Something you won't see on a major American network, Raul Grijalva having to defend the administration's health care reform to Hispanic Americans. Republican Rep. Diaz-Balart exposed numerous problems with HR 3200 to a dumbfounded Grijalva, who was confronted with his own inconsistencies about the price and payments for the bill, recently on Univision:

The

Grijalva Blames says Town Hall anger just White Hatred at Losing Election to a Black Man

Grijalva thinks thousands of angry people at town hall meetings across the country are just angry "Birthers" who think Obama stole the election.
Grijalva, taking softball questions during an interview with liberal Arizona Illustrated said:
"I think many of the people showing up, there's an underlying sense of fear, there's a sense of illegitimacy with our President, and therefore I think much of the irr is the fact we lost and we can't deal with it."

Grijalva must be spending too much time in Washington, surrounded by Nancy Pelosi groupies. To say that thousands of people (including a black man who was beaten by union thugs in St. Louis) who are concerned about the cost and failure of current government-run health care are just Republican agitators, is like saying Woodstock was a government hoax. Grijalva and his progressives got caught trying to force a juggernaught socialist bill on Americans and they don't want to have to explain or justify it. Grijalva's own irr was clear in his statement just prior to his angry birther comment:
"For eight years, I served under President Bush, did I . . . chafe under it? Apsolutely. But that's the system. That's democracy. You tolerate it and you wait for your day."
See, it's not the Republicans who are angry about losing the election, it's the liberal Democrats. Grijalva and the liberals are still stuck back in 2000, when, in their minds, Al Gore should have won, their liberal agenda would have already had eight years to ferment, without the cost of the Afghan and Iraq Wars (because terrorists don't attack progressive countries, only imperialistic hate filled war-mongering ones). If you take the time to read Grijalva's slow meandering speeches, you will find these opinions peppered throughout his comments. Grijalva is convinced that the Progressive liberal agenda is far more important than national security or debt. Terrorism is Bush's fault. The Deficit is Bush's fault. A mine in Santa Rita would be Bush's fault. It is the liberal's turn now, America, shut up, quit wee-weeing yourself, don't bother us, go home, lock the doors and let us run the country.