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.

If You Think the Health Care bill is Bad. . . Waxman-Markey Climate Bill impact on Arizona

From the people that brought you the Stimulus Bill that wasn't, the Cash for Clunker's program that dried up, and the Health Care Bill that was free unless you earn an income, comes the Obama administration answer to Global Warming: higher taxes for business. The bill, half again as long as the Health Care Bill before Congress "charges" industries who emit carbon dioxide fumes. Apparently with their new expertise in knowing what you need as far as medical care, the Democrats feel qualified to speak for the air you breathe and the water you drink also. In fact surcharges on drinking water and air for "consumers" are in the works, but that is another issue. By the way, each of Arizona's Democratic caucus wholeheartedly supports the bill.
According to energy and policy experts at the Heritage Foundation, the climate bill will cost Arizona 5.6 billion dollars and raise electricity rates by $620 per household. These are not Republican estimates. They come from independent policy anylists with PhD's in economics behind their names.
The Climate Change bill, sponsored by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, forces businesses to pay for carbon dioxide emissions that plants produce naturally (hence the possibility of taxing individuals). the Congressional Budget Office, taking flack for criticizing the costs of HR3200, has been accused of underestimating the costs of Waxhead's bill, a strictly partisan creation passed along party lines. In fact, efforts by Republicans to moderate the bill included:
# Mike Rogers (R-MI) who offered an amendment that would have cancelled the Act unless China and India adopt similar standards.
# Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered an amendment that would have cancelled the Act if the average price of electricity in a residential sector increases by 10% or more. After defeat, he offered a second amendment that would have cancelled only Title III (the cap-and-trade plan) of the Act if residential electricity prices rise by 20%. After defeat of this measure, George Radanovich (R-CA) offered a similar amendment that would have cancelled only Title III if electricity prices in the residential sector rise by 100%. This measure was also defeated. In the hearing, Bart Stupak (D-MI) called into question the seriousness of these "message amendments." He stated they are only offered to be used by the Republicans to spur sensational headlines about lack of sympathy by Democrats. Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) responded that they were indeed "message amendments" to the American people in an attempt to convey that supporters of the bill care nothing about cost to the ratepayer.
# Lee Terry (R-NE) offered an amendment that would have canceled the Act if average gas prices reach $5 per gallon.
# Fred Upton (R-MI) offered an amendment that would have suspended the Act if the nation's unemployment rate for the prior year reaches 15% as a result of the Act.
All these amendments were defeated, meaning that if the bill passes, there are no restrictions on its impact to the economy.
What is the purpose of this horrendous bill which will strap our economy for the next 30 years? To make up for the Bush administration's snubbing of the Kyoto protocols when the Chinese refused to take part, an embarrassment for liberal groups with international connections. Obama promised to make amends to the international community and please the environmental groups that campaigned for him by grinding the U.S. economy to a halt if necessary.
Do not expect any town hall meetings on this issue. The only hope for defeating Waxman-Markey is in the Democratic controlled Senate. Just remember that Raul Grijalva has decided that 49,000 jobs in Arizona and additional debt to the Chinese (who will not be abiding by the treaty) are worth making a handful of European tree huggers happy.

Let's get Wee Weed Up!

Obama joked today about detractors getting "wee weed up" about health care, thinking somehow that anger about a ten trillion dollar debt, 10% unemployment, and a government takeover of health care are trivial matters. Let's face it, this president is so convinced he can talk his way out of anything that he is willing to trivialize the destruction of our economy, the destruction of our government and the destruction of our health care system like it was a campaign prank. Democrat congressmen (like our own Raul Grijalva) are clinging to him like Rose to Jack on the back of the Titanic. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Millions of Americans who voted for government of the people, by the people and for the people have been duped into turning our government over to the three stooges. Only these stooges will bankrupt our Republic and leave our children with nothing but slavery to the Chinese.
I challenge Americans to "get wee weed up" about what these clowns are doing to this country with health care, with our military and with our future. Starting with Grijalva, let's let the Democrats who pushed us into this hole cry wee wee wee all the way home.

Shadegg wastes time on SANE Health Care Plan

Getting the government out of the health care insurance business is the answer to rising costs, according to John Shadegg, from Arizona District 5. The plan, which offers a stipend to people who cannot afford insurance, allows people to choose their insurance or keep the money, putting the oness on the individual at a much lower cost than the public option proposed by the Dems.

Expect to see any such measure ignored by the Dems:
a) it costs too little.
b) it doesn't create huge amounts of government wastes.
c) Republicans and Libertarians love it.
d) if it works, Americans will want the same type of program for Medicare.
e) did I say it costs too little?

Grijalva repeats threat to Block Healthcare after "Honest debate" with Yumans.

Grijalva repeated his threat to block any health care reform after dodging questions on the issue at a Yuma forum on Wednesday: "The public option is central to healthcare reform. Real reform, which lowers costs and ensures all Americans get the quality, affordable healthcare that they deserve, cannot be accomplished without a robust public option. As we have stated repeatedly for months now, a majority of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will oppose any healthcare reform legislation that does not include a robust public option. Our position has not, and will not, change. As Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop comprehensive legislation that allows all Americans to choose the healthcare plan that’s right for them and their families. But I will not support any bill that does not include a public option."
Grijalva has become the standard bearer for socialized healthcare in the House, but to a Yuma meeting room, prepacked with Somerton supporters carrying preprinted signs his responses to questions was more tentative:
He said including a public option would help create a free market and in turn, help drive down and control the cost of health care.
The idea that somehow the government will create a free market is absolutely prposterous. Grijalva neither knows what a free market economy entails nor wants to; Whle his salary is paid for by you and I, funds for his campaigns come from ACORN and liberal professors at the University of Arizona. This lack of accountability is what allows Grijalva to ignore constituent questions and call people who oppose his views "uncivil" and "undemocratic."
People at the forum were angry, felt like Grijalva was talking down to them, that there was no dialogue.

the fact of the matter is that Grijalva and other Democrats have stopped listening to constituents and are now only listening to Union Leaders and those who contributed to their campaigns.
They do not know how to take responsibility (it's George Bush's fault)
They do not know how to listen (constituents who disagree with them are "unAmerican")
They do not know how to count (the Republicans are blocking reform even though there are enough Democratic votes to pass anything they want)
They do not know how to read ("the bill doesn't say that..." when it does)
They do not know how to use a dictionary (free market means socialism, end of life counseling means hospice, American means quiet)
They do not know what hope (I Timothy 6:17) and change (Matt 18:3)are.

What we are seeing here

Bill Whittle of Pajamas TV has a far-sighted commentary on what we are seeing with the the Obama administration and images.

Questions to ask Grijalva about 'Public Option'

Today, Representative Grijalva will walk into Yuma looking for a fight. I think its time to give him one. Grijalva, a key advocate for HR 3200 in the House, has said he and his Progressive Caucus will not vote for a health care reform bill without a "Public Option." A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK GRIJALVA IS THE QUESTION ASKED BY ZACK Lane of Obama in Colorado several days ago:

There are other questions, that would be good to ask:
How, Mr. Grijalva, can you say that a public option will reduce costs when the two state health care models, Virginia and Massachusetts are millions of dollars in the red?
When the administration can't even administer a car rebate program, and when Medicare and Medicaid are billions in debt, how can we trust you with health care?
How do you propose to pay for it?
Grijalva has already answered these questions, but I think it will be fun to watch him squirm in front of a non-ACORN, La Raza audience.

simple visual of healthcare plan costs

Some high school kid simplified the cost of Obamacare. I like it:

Also, the new Canadian Health care "Czar" says their universal health care system is "sick and imploding."

Grijalva, Obama Enlist 70s Latin Group to Silence Town Hall Crowds

In an attempt to silence angry mobs at Town Hall meetings, the White House has enlisted the help of 70s disco group Santa Esmeralda to open for Democrat representatives and the President at town hall meetings. Here's a preview:


Santa Esmeralda has been booked through the 2010 elections with a playlist that includes:
"You Better Think"
"Respect"
"House of the Rising Sun"
"Money"

It's time for a new contract with America

When president Obama was elected, he made the promise of a new era of bipartisanship and openness in government. His administration has been anything but.
In light of where the health care debate stands, I found the following response to the Obama promises about his health care reform bill:
http://www.classicalideals.com/HealthCareBill8-2009.htm
Essentially, Obama continues to obfuscate, no let's call it what it is, the president continues to lie about the provisions of the health care bill before the House, despite the fact that those who have read it continue to refute his claims. As in the election, he hopes that "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
In 1994, the Republicans running for Congress drew up a manifesto of promises they would keep if elected and Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 50 years. The Contract showed that Americans want elected officials who say what they mean and mean what they say. More recent events show these same voters have little tolerance for politicians who say one thing in front of the camera and something different in the smoke-filled rooms where they negotiate deals with contributors and lobbyists.
The present Congress is not about to make any such promises, but a new Contract with America in 2010 from Republicans and Democrats willing to speak and act FOR Americans and not for their party would go a long way toward restoring American confidence in our elected officials. For the entire content of the Contract with America see http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
Here are a few of its provisions, since rescinded or never enacted, that I think most Americans would agree on:
* require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

* require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

*THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

* THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

* THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

* THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Newt Gingrich, author of the original Contract with America, has started a website called American Solutions. the website promotes ideas and comments from bipartisan positions on a range of topics. Editors respond directly to comments and, in the interest of bipartisanship, they do not address hotly debated topics presently before Congress, like health care.
The website is a step in the right direction, getting past the rhetoric to finding common ground between people on both sides of the issues. Ideally, having a manifesto of bipartisan changes for candidates on both sides of the aisle would go a long way to helping restore some respect for elected officials and curbing runaway spending by Congress.

Long Hard fight over Health Care ahead

A month ago, the Obama administration and Congress were thinking their comprehensive health reform bill with public payer option (government funded) would sneak into law with little debate similar to the much-touted stimulus package. Now the debate has been joined, and Obama has staked his political future on passage of a Health Care bill.
The fight has been joined by voters who see through the lies of the Democratic health reform agenda, but it is not over.
Obama, who just two weeks ago said that health care "wasn't personal," now is telling stories about his grandmother and telling audiences how this, "has become personal for me." The Obama administration will spend millions of dollars in the coming weeks to push passage of a health care bill that will cost trillions, and they will twist the arms of health industry corporations to do the same.
While Obama talks out of one side of his mouth how he will reform the industry, on the other hand his administration is making backroom deals with Pharmaceuticals, promising better profit margins in the bill in exchange for support. This is nothing short of National Socialism, an alliance between government and business to use propaganda to achieve profits and power. there is now big money involved in this and the president is not going to back down short of a complete collapse of the initiative by the industry. His shoring up of that support this week makes that unlikely.
that does not mean that passage of a public option is certain. But people who have come out in droves to town hall meetings cannot just go home and assume this thing is over. The next step is removal of the public option from any reform. Then lower costs of the program. 2010 means midterm elections and senators and reps who tried to push this monstrosity need to pay for it at the polls. It is a long, uphill road ahead, but Democracy is on the side of the people.
Remember the real issues:
1) Who will pay for this?
2) The government cannot be trusted
3) Who will pay for this?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

What it all Means: more power to the powerful

After reading a number of articles from this week's Yuma Daily Sun, and blogs from across the country, I have a better understanding of the Obama administration's plan on health care (and on other issues as well). In short, this administration is only interested in power, in gaining it, keeping it, and in using it to advance the most liberal agenda in the history of this country.
Two things have happened this week in Yuma that reflect a change in the way Democrats are "dealing with the Health care "fiasco" they have created. On Tuesday, the sun published an announcement that State Senator Amanda Aguirre and Assistant House Democratic Leader Kyrsten Sinema would co-host a private forum in Yuma Saturday. the forum was billed as a "Town Hall meeting." I've never heard of a private town hall meeting, maybe they have them in other places (like Russia) but my instinct tells me there are other reasons for this meeting than to hear private concerns about the Health Care bill.
Then yesterday, Raul Grijalva announced a "town hall meeting" scheduled for this morning in Yuma in a small office (probably in response to a massive email assault on his office to hold a meeting here). Again, I am sure there are places on the planet that have public meetings where they don't give the place or time until a few hours before (the meeting wasn't even posted on Grijalva's website, Facebook page, or his reelection website (I like to call that the ra ra ravalia page) but mostly those places are ruled by dictatorial regimes.
Both of these meetings were obvious attempts to 'seem' democratic' without actually having to answer to anyone. BUT I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER AGENDA AT WORK HERE
As I said before, this administration is all about power. The reality is that a leader that wants to stay in power, can't look bad and right now Obama is looking pretty bad. But the evil part of this thing is that he is not about to give in on Nationalizing Health Care. I am pretty certain the Grijalva meeting was simply to shore up support among his hardcore base here in Yuma. If they come to a meeting early, blocking access to anyone who disagrees with the congressman, then they will feel supported, a small victory, but an important one in a Republican stronghold like Yuma.
The saturday meeting is a different kind of shoring of support. Obama has used all of his political clout and arm twisting abilities as president-elect and now president to shore up support for Healthcare reform among the medical community. The unwritten law in the writing of any government legislation that affects your business is to make sure you come out on the right side. If it appears that the Health care bill will fail, then health businesses will begin opposing it, essentially bailing on Obama. I am quite sure the meeting on Friday is to shore up support among health care leaders and is probably happening quietly around the country. the bottom line is that the fight over healthcare is moving away from the front lines and into the back rooms. the Democrats never cared about americans' opinions on health reform from the start, or they would have held town hall meetings before writing this legislation.
Like the National Socialists of the 1920s and 1930s, the Democrats are pushing government control of every aspect of society. They are not concerned about public opinion insofar as poll data, their only concern is that their message seems reasonable and can be justified. They want what they believe is "good" for Americans and are willing to spend us into oblivion to do it. Our opinions do not matter and our votes will not matter to them until next year. That gives them enough time to screw things up and justify and twist the truth after the fighting is over.

Arizona Republicans show Town Halls can be civil

In an article due out today in the Arizona Republic today, Arizona congressional representatives describe the tremendous advantage of town hall meetings in hearing constituents concerns, while Democrats expressed their frustrations. Jeff Flake, Republican for District 6 (wish he would move to District 7 and crush Grijalva, spoke articulately to AzCentral about why debate is important on health care before speaking to a packed gymnasium of 1500 people at Basha High School:


Jeff Shadegg had the following to say after 600 plus attended his townhall on Saturday in Scottsdale:

"I think it's un-American for the speaker of the House to claim that everyone who doesn't like her bill is being paid for by the insurance industry," Shadegg said, riffing off Pelosi and Hoyer's statement. "I also agree that it would be, in fact, un-American to disrupt a town hall."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former presidential candidate who has presided over more than 100 town-hall meetings in the influential state of New Hampshire alone, last week commented on Twitter his appreciation for the format: "Town-hall meetings are an American tradition - we should allow everyone to express their views without disruption - even if we disagree!"

What do Arizona Democrats have to say about townhall meetings? I could describe the comments, but mostly they agree with Nancy Pelosi in describing expressing one's views at these events as "unAmerican" (meaning don't bring your opposing views because you're wrong).
In contrast to Arizona's Rpublican Congressmen, Raul Grijalva, Arizona's District 7 Representative, recommends an Op Ed article by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on his Facebook page. In his article Krugman suggests that protesters anger is racially based.
they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.

"...the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship." He goes on to imply, like Obama did in the primaries, that Republican opposition to Obama is racially based. "...it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites."

Explain how this "theory" fits with reports of attacks on a black teaparty member handing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags outside a town hall meeting in St Louis. Kenneth Gladney, who was not admitted to the Townhall, was set upon by Union thugs (I will not use quotations, these people clearly were, by definition, thugs, invited to the meeting to intimidate and, if necessary remove opponents to the Health Care reform bill).

Is Grijalva, by quoting Klugman, clearly trying to imply that opposition to HR3200 is equal to racial hatred, that Teapartiers and Townhall participants are motivated to deny Health care to low income Hispanics and Blacks? While the idea is preposterous, it sure sounds like Grijalva is trying to motivate his Hispanic and liberal political base by claiming racial hatred. It worked for Obama during the election. While I am reasonably sure that, in the words of a former president, now Secretary of... (no wait, Hillary IS the Secretary of State), That dog won't hunt, expect a lot more of it in the coming days and months.

Grijalva Concerned Americans may feel left out of Debate on Healthcare?

Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva is concerned that "backroom deals" by the Obama administration may make Americans feel "left out" of the debate on health care. " If they feel like there is no debate, if they feel left out, they will not support healthcare."




What about your own constituents in Arizona, Raul? No townhall meetings. No comments, not even a press conference.

Public Option=Single Payer=Socialized Medicine

The problem with a “public option” for a consolidated Health Care program is not rationing (the government never rations anything). The problem is competition. The public option in the bill before the house would pay for most medical procedures (even if they are rationed) at public expense, much like Medicare and Medicaid do now. Most insurance companies could not compete with the “bottomless pit” of the government’s wallet. That would leave only Walmart-sized regional centers like the Mayo Clinic as private options, forcing most Americans in rural areas to depend on the government public option. The Progressive Caucus, led by Southern Arizona’s own Raul Grijalva, has forced the public option on Congress as a form of Trojan Horse that will lead to “single payer” healthcare (ie. government run, see Barney Frank’s comments on Youtube)This is what has people who recognize what it means in an uproar. Eventually, the majority of health care in this country will be in the hands of the government if there is a public option. In Europe this is called “Socialized Medicine.”
Why is Socialized Medicine a problem? Costs. When has the government ever run a program with any kind of efficiency? (Check out Medicare, Medicaid, the Obama stimulus package, Cash for Klunkers, etc.). The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the proposed HR3200 plan at $10 trillion over the next ten years IF the majority of health care remains in the private sector. The estimates beyond ten years are astronomical. Furthermore, these estimates do not include the ballooning costs that go with every government program. The public option is simply a bad idea, rationing aside.
Why isn’t District 7’s Raul Grijalva coming to Yuma this month to hear our voices on the proposed plan? Because he doesn’t need to hear our opinions. Our opinions do not matter to him on this issue. As the leader of the Progressive Caucus, his only concern is ‘getting to’ a single payer system, no matter what the cost to taxpayers. Government-funded healthcare is “progressive” and that is all that matters.
The problem for the Progressives’ plan for healthcare is that there are better researched, more cost effective programs out there, notable, those proposed by the Heritage Foundation. Rather than involving the government as payer, they emphasize competition and standardization, leading to reduced cost, not more and more choices, not fewer by putting responsibility in the hands of Americans and not Progressives in Washington. They would strengthen our health care system, keep the choices you have, and avoid the problems already encountered with Medicare and Medicaid. Rationing would be your choice, not the governments.

Why taxing the rich STILL doesn't work!

Seventy five years of economic data have shown that taxing the rich does not work, yet President Obama and House Progressives continue to push for increased taxes on the 'wealthy' to pay for their extravagant spending, to the tune of 10 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. They use data from the Uberliberal Citizens for Tax Justice, who's founder, Steve Wamhoff, has tied himself to outdated keynesian economic models. These models have never worked effectively during a recession, because they are based on the idea that business and investors are making so much money, skimming a little off the top shouldn't be a problem. During a recession, however, investors look for tax shelters and businesses look to cut costs and find tax-friendly markets (hence the fantabulous economic growth of Arizona over the last 30 years while California's huge economy has lagged). A complete explanation of this idea, borne out in the economy over the last 30 years, comes from the Heritage Foundation. Written by independent economist Curtis Dubay of the Tax Foundation, the arguments are based on what has worked in government political practice for raising revenue, not proposals based on balance sheets and thought up by a college student. In truth, the connection between Wamhoff and Raul Grijalva is much more laughable than the policy statements Wamhoff has been paid by the Arizona Congressman to write. Using a donor's relative to write policy statements smacks of conflict of interest, Raul, but such are the ways of Community Organizers.

Government vs Creativity: Real solutions to economic crisis

The economic recession has hit everyone, but it has hit local governments and school districts the worst. Tax income for cities and school districts is at its lowest level in 30 years. While the state of Arizona can increase the state sales tax or cut highway funds with little effect on most individuals, local governments and school districts already operate on tight payroll and tax revenue formulas. Local funding problems will not be solved by massive federal government handouts like the Obama stimulus package. the trillions of dollars which the President hangs hopes for a recovery and votes for Democrats in 2010 will be a drop in the bucket for cities like Phoenix and Mesa that have closed facilities. There is simply not enough money to be printed to 'fix' the economy. In order for local governments to continue to function, there needs to be creative solutions, not government handouts.
I recently saw an example of creativity at work in Yuma's Parks and Recreation Aquatics programs. Like many Arizona cities, Yuma Parks and Recreation saw shutting down its pools during the winter as easy savings. When resident lap swimmers and competitive clubs showed up at council meetings in droves, they were shown the figures, the city could not afford the costs to keep two heated pools open for so few programs.
enter two individuals, Coach Rich McClure of Cibola high school and Alan Anderson of the Yuma Heat. McClure proposed adding fee programs to the new Valley Aquatics Center in order to keep its doors open. Anderson, concerned that losing winter pools would mean the end of USS Swimming in Yuma, proposed that the HEAT operate Abe Marcus Pool during the winter months and work with the city to create a plan for a more efficient solar heating system for the pool in future years. The city has agreed in principal to Anderson;s proposal and is looking at details for the Valley Aquatics Center proposal by McClure.
For a nominal cost to the city compared to past years, it looks as if Yuma will now have two pools open during the winter months instead of one with increased programs during a year when many cities of comparable size are closing their pools. Economic hard times drive people to be more creative. When our backs are against the wall, we Americans come up with solutions rather than looking for government handouts.
The problem with 'stimulus packages' is the same as when I was a teen and wanted to take the car out on Friday night. If I had already spent all my money, I would go to my dad. With money from my father, there were always strings attached, mowing the lawn, helping him with his fishing boat, painting the house. But if I found a way to earn the money myself, it was my own. What Americans need is not another stimulus bill, or nationalized health care, or town hall meetings to show us what we want. what Americans need is a chance to be creative with our resources, not borrowing from the Chinese until they begin eyeing Arizona as debt payment for an offloading site for their deep seaports in Mexico.

Facts are Stubborn things

Below is my email response to the new White House watchdog address flag@whitehouse.gov. Their Witch Hunt response to the growing criticism of Obamacare smacks of Big Brother strong arm tactics:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

In response I wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I am sending this email to turn myself in. I have read the significant portions of HR 3200 and disagree with major parts of it, especially the Public Payer option. I believe that Ronald Reagan spoke correctly when he said "Government is not the solution to the Problem, government is the problem." I believe President Obama has spoken erroneously about many provisions of the bill and the intent of the legislation as presently written. I believe the Constitution gives me and others the right to speak our mind publicly about political issues whether those opinions go along with the President or not. I believe, furthermore, that we have the right to go to rallies, to ask questions of the individuals who represent us in Washington, and the right to expect that their answers will be truthful. I believe the President made statements that he would, in effect, be such a representative to all Americans when he was elected. Unfortunately, I now believe he feels the need to misrepresent the legislation before Congress in order to get it passed without the full support of the majority of Americans just because he has the power to do so. He has the right to influence policy. That is the way politics works, I understand that. However, please do not demean my right to disagree with policy and do not try to intimidate myself and other Americans from voicing our concerns publicly.

I too believe, like John Adams, that "Facts are Stubborn things..." Unfortunately the blogger who posted these words did not quote the entire statement, which reads:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

The context of the quote is that no matter how passionately one feels about an issue, no matter how much of a wrong we think we are correcting in our sense of justice, the other side must have the right to be heard before judgment is rendered. John Adams offered up his defense to the accused who had no representation. This is a basic right of all Americans, and the White House, in policing public political expression, besmears John Adams and the rights of Americans to be heard by quoting his words in the same article as it threaten to squelch the right of political speech. As John Adams allowed himself to be ridiculed by the people of Boston, I too am willing to stand proudly in defense of those who have been attacked by your office.

Therefore, if there is a list of people who have spoken against health care reform, who believe that the President and Congress are mistaken in their assumptions about the need to indenture our nation to foreign governments in exchange for "health security," then please place my name at the top of the list. If there is a list of those who need to be arrested, to be silenced in order for health care or any other legislation to be passed in this country, then come and take me first. For while I have not been very active in politics until now, the changes I see now have angered me.To heed the words of Dylan Thomas, I will not "go gentle into that good night," but "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" of freedoms being ripped away by politics.

Sincerely,

Arthur Wallace

Southern Arizona too hot for Congressman Grijalva?

HR 3200, the Health Care bill from Hell, is suddenly getting a dose of democracy (with a small d). Constituents across the country are reading the bill and are giving lawmakers an earful.
The worst thing about the proposed Health care bill for Southern Arizona is the lack of input we have. Not One of our three representatives has plans for town hall meetings in the area during their month long recess. Senator MccCain is conducting online surveys, Jon Kyl is visiting talk shows, apparently preparing for a 2012 presidential bid. Worst of all is our District 7 representative Raul Grijalva, who is ignoring phonecalls and conducting Youtube press conferences in the safety of the Capitol in Washington. Grijalva's first appearance in Arizona will be a $200 per plate fundraiser September 13th for supporters only. Yuma residents need to email their representatives asking them to make an appearance to explain their position on this bill and take questions. It's part of their job whether they like what they hear or not.
Grijalva particularly has chosen to isolate himself from his constituents, choosing to communicate only with supporters on his Facebook page in order to avoid the embarrassing confrontations other Congressmen have faced. On this page, he brazenly touts to his supporters how he will withhold his vote from any legislation that does not lead to universal healthcare, despite the trillion dollar price tag.
"A majority of our members prefer single payer," Grijalva and Woolsey say in the letter, referring to a system of government-funded, government-run universal health care

that famously never survived congressional consideration back in 1993 and 1994 — the last time Washington tried to drastically expand coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25784.html#ixzz0NJYYRGQp

Is Grijalva so arrogant to think, first, he represents all of Southern Arizona with his demands for Universal Healthcare and soaring deficit spending, and second, that he can sabotage any healthcare reform if he doesn't get his way? Or is he just afraid to hear what you have to say? Either way, if past experience is any indication, if you disagree with him, he really doesn't want to hear from you. Southern Arizona is too hot in August anyway, so he'll spend it in Washington and hope you forget his arrogance when you go to vote in 2010.

Grijalva threatens to blackmail Americans on health care unless it includes socialist reforms

Raul Grijalva is nothing if not consistent. He is sticking to his guns that health care reform must have a government "public option" in order to work. In fact he has promised to vote against any reform that doesn't include this expensive option, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost over a trillion dollars. (See Youtube). Unfortunately for Arizonans and the rest of the country, Raul knows nothing about health care or economics. Health care experts across the board have repeatedly argued against such a plan. (see Heritage.org,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072809e.cfm for one example).
Why is the "public option" so bad? One word: profits. Health care, like anything else in America, operates on profit. Without profit, there would be no quality televisions, cars, . . . or health care. Liberals hate profits. Like Lenin (founder of the Soviet Union, not the singer, although they both . . . never mind), they believe that all waste is useless and can be eliminated by getting rid of profit. The problem with the present system is that the government mandates costs for certain health care: the poor, retirees, and of course, government workers like Raul at a loss to taxpayers of millions each year. This means that Doctors and hospitals must offer health care insurance to these groups at bottom basement prices for no profit and must still pay outside costs like malpractice insurance which have skyrocketed in recent years. How do medical providers make a profit? Well, since they can't make a profit on government financed health care, they try and make it up with the rest of us through increased charges to private payers and insurance companies (for analysis, see Heritage). The more health care controlled by the government, the more private payers are asked to pay. Contrary to what Grijalva and others may say, it is not the doctors' fault that they are trying to stay in business. It is the government, trying to fix prices, that is the problem.
In 1973, then president Nixon tried the same approach to consumer prices to prevent inflation. Nixon fixed prices on gas and heating oil and other necessary commodities. The plan backfired as prices on other consumer items skyrocketed and companies hoarded commodities waiting for government prices to change. This is why government intervention to "fix" problems in the economy never works. This is why Grijalva and the Progressives, if they get their way on health care, will destroy what is left of the American economy.
I like to call it the Walmart Effect. Here is the way it will work. Obamacare will be implemented in phases, starting with state and local employees and the uninsured and "trickling down" to small businesses in its last few years. Taxes will need to be raised on the corporate owners and small businesses (even though they are not included in the plan until later). These taxes, while destructive to the economy, will not even begin to pay for the program (according to the CBO) and it will need to be supplemented by billions in government spending (Grijalva knows this and is counting on it, government deficits are not a big deal, he says). Like Walmart, the public Payer option will suck up the majority of the providers because it will buy care in bulk and because it is subsidized by the government. Because they can no longer afford to stay in business, many doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will close their doors or limit their services in order to maximize their profit under the government payer system. Competition in health care will decrease if not end completely, the budget deficit will soar, and not only will you not have the same doctor, you will have higher taxes, less security (military and border patrol spending will need to be cut to pay for all this, if you don't believe it ask European nations who started programs in the 1950s when it was cheaper) and you will need to follow government guidelines for doctors visits and hospitalizations that make Orwell's 1984 sound like a hippie commune.

The answer? less government and more competition. Get rid of all government payer options, including medicare and medicaid. Instead, allow states to give all persons wealfare a credit card that can be used for health care with any doctor they choose with a maximum payout per year. Allow small businesses to band together to purchase blocks of insurance. Promote health insurance exchanges at the state level. Reinstate individual medical accounts. Encourage doctors and hospitals to offer discounts for paying cash for services. limit liability claims. A plan, similar to mine, was outlined by the Heritage Foundation and instituted successfully in Massachusetts, is available on their website .
Not only would this cost about 7 billion less, but it will stimulate the economy, and, OMG, limit big government. the only problem with implementing such a plan is that Raul Grijalva's Progressive Caucus will have nothing to do with a plan that does not put the government in charge of your health care.
Never Mind.

Expanding the Cash for Clunkers Program

Obama's stimulus package is a complete failure. The exception is the wildly popular Cash-for-Clunkers program originally budgeted for one billion dollars, which has been committed in the first week of the program. Proponents of the program figured that the cash would keep the program in operation until November. It lasted one week. The bureaucrats in Washington stumbed upon something that works in a sagging economy: Giving people incentives and a choice to keep more of their money!
Congress is so excited about this novel idea that they have added two billion to the Cash for clunkers program and speculations abound about expanding it to other consumer products: Televisions, Computers, recycling services, maybe even taxes. These are all great ideas, but they don't go far enough in fixing what is broken.
I propose we expand the rebate program to government. We'll call it the "Cash for Congressmen" program. Voters in each congressional district can trade their wasteful, cash-guzzling representative in for a more efficient one and save up to $4,500 in taxes each year. The rebate could be based on the voting record of each congressman for failed "stimulus spending" and the money given to the campaign of any candidate running against them who promises to balance the budget and cut the deficit (a radical concept, I know). This program would do two things: it would hold the present members of Congress accountable and would help to stimulate the economy by allowing millions of Americans to keep their money and spend it on what they want. The cap on the program would be 50 billion, a drop in the bucket by the Obama administration spending standards, and would bring real change to America and excite the electorate in an off election cycle. Write your Congressman today!