default blog

HuffPo: Scrap Nuclear Arsenal to Fund Obamacare

In response to an article the Washington Post put out yesterday outlining decisions the Obama administration is facing regarding the future of missile defense, the HuffPo - ever the giants of analytical intellect, offer the following:

"... A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues. That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." (Oh hold on, it gets better.)

They go on to note a proposal from Representative Blarney Frank (D Mass.) regarding what is being called the triad (Sends shivers down your spine doesn't it?) of warhead deployment systems; ground launched ICBMs, submarines equipped with nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs/missiles designed for deployment by stealth bombers:

Frank told HuffPost. "My radical proposal is that we say to the Pentagon that they can pick two of the three, and let us abolish one."

The article closes with this pearl:

"The amount that could be saved by cutting any of the three is likely much higher than the two largest ways Obama has identified to pay for health care reform..."

At the end of the HuffPo article is a poll: "Which one of the "triad" nuclear delivery systems should the U.S. eliminate?" So far, 27% of HuffPo's readers have chosen "All of them."

Aside from the vast differences in the costs of the two programs - around 29 billion dollars a year spent on nuclear weapons and Obamacare expected to cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years (that's 100 billion per year for those of you from Rio Linda) - what could possibly go wrong?

Source:

Unlike Health Care, When It Comes To Nukes, Cost Is No Object -- The Huffington Puffington Post

Repo Men

Looks like a pretty good flick doesn't it? I think I might go see it. Every once-in-awhile I like seeing a good action flick. Good special effects, a little ass-kicking, witty one-liners - it'll get me all pumped up.

I love watching the good guys beat the living crap out of the bad guys. And the bad guys always work for those fucking corporations. Man I hate it when those god damned evil corporations take advantage of the people. That's where we're headed. If we don't change the health care system now ...

But we could easily replace the cliche 'evil corporation' in this story for an evil government. A government that says that you have the right to health care and gives you everything for free - that is until your life depends on it. Then they take you to stand before the board of the "Health Care Fairness Assurance Commission" and they decide your fate by a majority vote. How old are you? The time you have left might not be worth the investment. Some politicians on the board would rather give an old guy a pill rather than allow them into an already overburdened system. Are you disabled? You may have a long life ahead but you might not have the ability to contribute much to the greater good of society. If you've already served out your 8 years in the Citizen Corps there's even less incentive to give you the thumbs up. Are you a supporter of 'The Party'? A Party man might be given leniency. Yeah, you used to be able to go across the border and pay to get your treatment if the board gave you the thumbs down, but when droves of people began pouring out of the country to avoid the long wait just to stand in front the the Fairness Committee they outlawed that. These days if you're on the waiting list and they catch you trying to cross the border the Federal Bureau of Population Retention tracks you down and volunteers you for the organ donor program.

Naaa, that wouldn't make a good movie. It's not historically accurate. Historically it has always been the businesses that become corrupt, tyrannical and end up exploiting the people. Like in North Korea, China, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Iran, North Vietnam, WWII Germany and Japan, the European dark ages...

Huh? Of course we all know there is no historical context for this whatsoever! It has always been the government that fills this role and throughout history never once has business had this kind of totalitarian power! As a matter of fact the truth is the complete opposite of the common narrative! It is impossible for a business to have this amount of power without the blessing and the legal enforcement of the government. And in a free market system that welcomes competition a competitor with a customer friendly business model would quickly run any such abusive 'corporation' out of business. In this case again, only the government that has the power to reinforce a monopoly and perpetuate a business that would otherwise fail (like Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, General Motors, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs...) could make the existence of such a business even possible.

But isn't the fact that this film is coming out right now, right as the Democrats are about to Rahm through health care legislation that will pave the way to total government control of health care industry just a little convenient? Could it be that Hollywood is in bed with the government and is putting out propaganda pieces just at the right time in order to promote a system that is more than a little controversial?

Naaa, couldn't be.

March 4, 2010 - Update:

Wired magazine has also taken notice of this curious coincidence and tends to agree with my assessment of the timing of this film's release. As a matter of fact, they say that Universal Pictures sped up the release date for the film because of the worsening economic circumstances. They refer to Universal's move as 'good capitalism' which I guess I can buy as long as you are including crony-capitalism in the general use of the term. Wired of course being a mainstream zine written by mainstream elitists also appears to buy the baseless narrative of the film and signs on to the idea that 'corporate greed' is the cause of all ills. It is one of life's common grotesqueries, isn't it, that often times the people pushing the notion of 'corporate greed' belong to a corporation of some sort.

The Obligatory Atheist Agenda Article

So I was walking around on campus today and I came across this huge gathering that looked like a political protest. This is my school - of course I want to know what is going on so I walk up and engage one of the bystanders. We quickly pieced together that this is the local infamous �Atheist Agenda� student organization performing their regular claim to fame, �porn for bibles � smut for smut� in which they trade any sort of religious text for a piece of pornography. Much controversy has surrounded this group and I have engaged them before.

Those of you who know me or know anything about who I am, know that I am an atheist but I find these people to be extremely irritating. My argument goes like this, �An atheist believes in nothing. There is nothing to preach and no reason to preach it unlike the religious person whose purpose is to save someone�s soul.� In other words, an atheist has no higher purpose to �evangelize� as a religious people do. Aside from that, it�s counterproductive; if your goal is to win support for your cause, you don�t begin your presentation by spitting in the faces of your audience. Regardless of what your argument is, if you begin in this manner it is very likely that your audience will write you off before it is even heard. The display of disrespect is evidence that the argument is disingenuous. If they are promoting atheism for the betterment of mankind, they would be better salesmen. If on the other hand, their goal is only to make a spectacle and belittle the opposition � well who cares how many people you actually convert? Say anything you want.

As an atheist, I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism. There is no heavenly reward for me if I do so and regardless of what people may want you to believe, we are not a persecuted group who deserve unequal protections. As a matter of fact we have a vast amount of societal and legal defense considering the minority of our numbers.

Once I realized who these guys were, I dismissed them as the sideshow they are and began to walk away passing a much smaller and much less attention-getting group of religious students there to rebut the atheist students.

Now this is the other side of the argument. The way I react to these people goes like this; �I take it as a compliment. It�s like being hit on by a gay guy. Of course I�m not gay but you have to appreciate it when someone tells you that they're attracted to you.� The compliment in this case being that they are taking the time to try to save you from eternal damnation.

So the guy starts talking to me, starting off with the usual arguments about the complicated nature of the world and the historical evidence for Christianity. I let him give his spiel, answer his questions and then give him my spiel. It was relatively peaceful, as it usually is and we ended having a respectful disagreement, as we usually do. As I am about to walk away, another Christian guy walks up and engages me much more aggressively; challenging my philosophical beliefs (he was attacking my belief in an objective reality) and attempting to put me on the defensive. Meanwhile the leader of the �Atheist Agenda� guys walks up and engages the aggressive Christian guy that was talking to me. This put me in the hilarious position of being the neutral voice between opposing ideological factions.

The atheist guy starts off with the usual scientific and historical evidence against religion as well as a bit of religious nonsense like the story of Adam and Eve. The two get into it and I inject that they are both setting up straw man arguments; the atheist has inconclusive science and objectivity on his side (you can never disprove religion as you can never prove a negative) and the Christian has faith and some historical evidence on his side and neither one of them has any willingness to accept the other side of the debate. I then proceeded to accurately predict what the next argument of both sides of the debate would be (and angrily, they both proceeded to use the points I predicted) and they both castigated me and made known that my opinion was no longer wanted. The Christian actually stated that I was �making him angry�. At this point I gracefully dismissed myself.

Despite the rather mundane nature of the event I actually learned something. I always say that one of the reasons I decided that I did not believe in god was because my belief would have been selfish; I would have been following a religion out of a fear of damnation, rather than taking a leap of faith as an honest believer. I deemed this selfish and completely contradictory to an honest relationship with a deity who says that we must commit ourselves with the faith of a child.

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. "
-- Luke 18:16-17

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
-- Matthew 18:3

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
-- Matthew 19:13-14

The people who do honestly follow with the faith of a child; something I call, �true faith� are very rare and when I meet them, I am overcome with respect for their honest commitment. These are the people who don�t go around looking for debates and if somehow end up in one, simply state, �I follow God because he tells me to.� Period. A person who has real faith needs no justification and needs no answer to the controversial questions surrounding his religion. That is why it is called faith! But this Christian, angrily threw me out of the discussion in order to make a much-made point to a militant atheist whose only purpose is to get in his face! I quickly realized that this particular christian�s goal was not any sort of higher purpose, his goal was to make himself feel superior by attempting to defeat the argument of the opposition, which was exactly the same purpose as the belligerent atheist! A person with true faith would not need to bolster their beliefs by engaging in such activities. Why waste time with militant opposition when you have friendly bystanders and others to engage that you could actually score points with?

After exchanging pleasantries and walking away, I saw the two as opposing sides both of whose stated purposes were false! This sort of behavior comes as expected from self-righteous, militant, adolescent atheists who believe in the populist and stereotypical image of the persecuted atheist but I expect more from the self-proclaimed �man of god�.

When I arrived at my destination I noticed the student newspaper whose headlining article covered the event and provided me with another piece of information, �Inside this no-man�s-land, a third party began to form, composed of proclaimed agnostics asking for peace. �Well, we don�t really believe in either side. We believe both foster hate,�� (Note the key use of the word �hate�. One would only use the word, �hate� in this way in order to cast those the word is directed at as evil, thus is a act of taking sides [Yes, you can create a side and proclaim it to be neutral, although, a true neutral party would not take a side would they? The true purpose of this stance is to oppose the other two factions and proclaim superiority. 3 groups all asserting superiority over the other � which to choose?] � or to use a descriptive word, a display of partisanship.)

Yet another organization devoid of higher purpose getting involved and claiming to be above the fray. Like myself I suppose, but I am not protesting (nor protesting the protest). All parties have the right to be there, the right to speak and believe whatever they want to believe. My purpose is to share my experience with you so that you might have more information to dump into your decision making process, regardless of what you believe, as you would like or you would not be reading this. Your religion or lack of religion is not my concern.

Keep on Trollin' Atheist Agenda

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

College is a place where young people solidify their personal beliefs and one of the best ways to accelerate that process is by means of the competition of ideas; butting heads with those of opposing viewpoints. Overall, that is what went down here. But the problem I have is not with the challenging of ideas but with the with fact that many of the people involved did so with malicious intent. If I am a religious person and I am challenging my own personal beliefs through debate with others, my motivation is to refine my understanding of religion or spirituality, and that is a positive, constructive motivation. If on the other hand, I proclaim myself to have arrived at the ultimate conclusion that there is no god and then I proceed to slander religion as a whole and personally attack those who believe in it, my motivation is not the refinement of my own personal values, nor is it for the benefit of others, as mentioned previously, atheism, regardless of what your beliefs are will save the soul of no one. So the motivation is negative; to attack those with opposing viewpoints. By the same token if I proclaim to be a faithful follower of a god and that my purpose is to spread his word or to save other people from eternal damnation, then that is a positive motivation. But if I neglect those who are there seeking a constructive discussion on religion or spirituality in favor of a spiteful argument with a partisan critic, I bypass that positive purpose in exchange for the same purpose as the militant atheist, as stated earlier; personal gratification through the rhetorical destruction of one's political enemies.

But not everything is as it seems here. The kids with the "Atheist Agenda" would probably say that they are countering persecution by religious people and that (ridiculously) they are trying to gain acceptance by society. But if they are so firmly set in their beliefs and feel so persecuted that they must go out and commit outrageous religious blasphemies and slander religion and religious people in an attempt to gain acceptance in the world, why would they only do it in such a proper setting; a college campus? If I were a member of a group that was being persecuted, I would be protesting city hall, the state capitol and the White House. Peaceful college demonstrations are for young people who are trying to refine their own personal beliefs and not for those who have a real beef with the world. Maybe these self-proclaimed atheists aren't as certain of their beliefs as they claim to be.

On an academic note - because this is a college after all, are these people not classic examples of the attention-starved child who will do anything - including outrageously bad behavior in order to garner some attention? What do you bet most of them come from dysfunctional families?

My takeaway here is this; Don't go around challenging the personal beliefs of strangers (especially religious beliefs) if you aren't absolutely certain of your own beliefs and if you must do so, try to do it without insulting them. What business is it of yours what other people's religious beliefs are anyway? There is no better place in the world to be for freedom of religion. Let's keep it that way.

Perhaps the true meaning of the latest bumper-sticker phrase, "coexistence" lies not in the denigration of those who we perceive as hindering our peaceful "coexistence" (by having opposing opinions) but rather in those of us who go about our duties every day without feeling the obligation to butt into other people's personal lives.

March 5, 2010 - Update:

This is how the kids with the 'Atheist Agenda' student organization summed up their last day trading religious text for porn:

"The last day proved to be the most productive out of any of the days. Most people finally learned that we were there to be civil and actually discuss things and the porn was a mere ice breaker."

"Ice breaker?" Yeah, right. I've got another great idea for y'all to use to engage passers by in meaningful dialogue; hurl dog shit at them. It's sure to attract some attention. As I noted before, the whole thing was nothing more than a childish ploy for attention.

Don't feed the trolls.

Debra Medina, 9/11 Truther

Glenn Beck interviewed Miss Medina this morning and following mass allegations by critics, decided to ask her the question on the air to give her the chance to vindicate herself.

She chose the wrong answer.

Beck: Do you believe the government was in any way involved with the bringing down of the world trade centers on 9/11?

Medina: I don't have all of the evidence there Glenn so I'm not in a place - I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There's some very good arguments - and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there so I'm not taking a position on that.

This is Miss Medina's response following the Beck interview:

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

The question surprised me because it's not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.

Regarding the response, I must agree with Ed Morrissey from Hot Air, "No, the question wasn�t whether people �have the right to question our government.� No one is locking up Truthers for asking foolish questions and spinning conspiracy theories." I doubt you will find anyone, especially on our side of the isle who believes that the people should not have the right to openly disagree with their government. But believing that they are responsible for the mass murder of 3000 citizens is an entirely different thing indeed.

Now I have a lot of things I could say about Debra Medina. I actually met and briefly interviewed her in person. As followers of this blog may be aware, I am involved with the Tea Party movement and many of us have been on the fence about Medina; some people quickly embraced her and others like myself have been more reluctant. I will tell you what I told them.

I met Debra following a Tea Party event that basically gave her a forum to speak followed by a Q&A session. I did like her, she shares most of my values but something about her just didn't sit right with me. She seemed not to want to take a position on illegal immigration and the tone of her speech had the flavor of what I like to call a "Ron Paul Republican."

Don't get me wrong, I support Ron Paul but he has denied allegations that the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11. He is sympathetic to his supporters, many of whom are 9/11 truthers but he himself is not a 9/11 truther. So as for Paul let me just say that while I wouldn't support him for President, I am a staunch supporter of having him in Congress.

When I get the chance to speak to a politician I'll ask them one or two controversial questions to find out if they will give it to me straight or if they are going to play politics. If they dodge the questions I can be reasonably certain that most controversial topics will be dodged and that I'll have to be more creative to get my answers. I've found that while most politicians stick to the safe issues and usually only give canned answers, often the campaign crews they travel with are less prepared and will be more open and so if my questions are dodged I will try to speak with the campaign team. Debra answered my questions like a seasoned politician.

Alex Jones Interviewing Debra Medina

After speaking with some of Medina's people I was able to substantiate the fact that her strongest supporters come from the Ron Paul, 9/11 truther side of the Republican and Libertarian camps. Some of them were very active prior to the Obama administration and were strong critics of George W. Bush, the War on Terror and involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the de facto leader of the 9/11 truther movement and "New World Order" conspiracy pusher, Alex Jones, has endorsed Debra Medina as his candidate. Miss Medina apparently believed that Jones was credible enough to grant an interview to.

To my friends, I sum up the situation like this: The U.S. is in a recession, the Democrats are gobbling up freedoms and raising our taxes and in this world of instability and uncertainty I think we need tried and true leadership. I appreciate Medina and what she says but I didn't know who she was, she has no record, no experience and like Barack Obama only had a lot of flowery rhetoric to back her up. I don't think now is the time to experiment.

Now that her views have been exposed, I doubt Medina will have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican primaries. I'm certainly an anti-government guy but believing that the U.S. government played any role in 9/11 is over-the-top to me. As far as I'm concerned its no different than believing in the global warming religion or in any other emotionally formed, baseless belief. The world isn't a dramatic soap opera and everyone isn't out to get you - even the Democrats. But there are serious issues at hand and we need a serious leader to deal with them.

Robert Gibbs Needs Crib Notes to give Press Briefing

White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs apparently needed a little help performing his duties today and so like some of the racist, redneck simpletons we all know - decided to write down what he needed to say on his hand.
The notes most likely weren't used for the Obama followup, for which he used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which he glanced at the hand in question.

But in my opinion that's even worse.

The takeaway is that this press secretary apparently can't remember his supposed core principles or even his daily duties and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about his opinion.

Crib Notes? This Obama White House press secretary and spokesman for "hope and change", and "the one we've all been waiting for" was using crib notes to answer basic questions?

This would mean:

A) That he knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)

and

B) That he still couldn't answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.

You can bet that Tony Snow wasn't reading scribbles off his extremities while he sparred with Republicans and Democrats in an unscripted format during his press briefings.

Gibbs, on the other hand, seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest with smitten liberal journalists.

I'm no fan of the progressive movement - if it can be called such - but if this is their leader's spokesman I actually sympathize with them.

Click here for the large resolution uncut image of Gibbs & his crib notes.

Update:

Fox News caught on to this and blew up the picture. Notice the "hope" and "change" scribbled on his hand. This is likely a joke aimed at Sarah Palin.

Fox News had to steal my thunder :) No worries. Looks like a funny, yet partisan and somewhat unprofessional joke from the spokesman. Huff&Puff hypocrisy still withstanding :)

Update:

It finally all comes together. Gibbs mockingly read the notes off of his hand during the press briefing to make a point of making fun of Palin. These are the guys who are ready to negotiate on health care. Yeah, I believe it.

BUSTED! The HuffPo Catches Palin Using Speech Notes!

Sarah Palin speaking at the national Tea Party convention.

Photo enhanced for your viewing pleasure. The words "energy", "tax", and "budget" are distinguishable along with the phrase, "lift American spirits".

From the Huffington Puffington Post:

The notes most likely weren't for her speech, for which she used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which she glanced at the hand in question.

But in my opinion that's even worse.

The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.

Crib Notes? This potential presidential candidate and "movement" leader was using crib notes to answer basic questions?

This would mean:

A) That she knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)

and

B) That she still couldn't answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.

You can bet that the President wasn't reading scribbles off his extremities while he sparred with Republicans and Democrats in an unscripted format in his recent Q&As.

Palin, on the other hand, seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest with a smitten interviewer and an adoring audience.

I'm no fan of the Tea Party movement - if it can be called such - but if this is their leader I actually sympathize with them.

ROFLMAO! My, my my. The hypocrisy runs long and deep on this one folks but get ready, I'm about to eviscerate the HuffPo like I was on a children's comedy show.

First, there's the obvious:

The HuffPo said the following about Palin and her notes, "this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs", "was using crib notes to answer basic questions" and "seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest." Our actual President on the other hand, Mr. Obama who apparently can't speak to 6 year-olds without using a teleprompter, is the most articulate and intelligent man ever to set foot in the White House.

Palin was participating in a speech / discussion event with her supporters. One can hardly condemn a person engaged in such an event for writing 6 words on on her hand, President Obama on the other hand, rarely engages in any public discussion without his teleprompter. To condemn Palin for 6 words and defend the President for reading his every word is boundless hypocrisy.

The HuffPo also accuses Palin of engaging in a prepared Q&A session onstage, condemns her for it and says that it is even worse than using notes for a speech. Lest we forget...

It was none other than the Huffington Post who engaged in a prepared question and answer session with President Obama during a White House press event! So for the Huffington Puffington Post to be condemning anyone for engaging in answering prepared questions is absolutely incredible.

Honestly though, this comes as no surprise from the bigots at the Huff Post who couldn't see the forest through the trees if you air lifted them above it to show it to them. One of the things I find interesting about the HuffPo is that every time any article is written about Sarah Palin, whether it be this one or about her daughter's ex-fiance or about her latest pair of shoes, it is immediately overrun with comments. Sarah Palin is not a public official at this time. Why all the anger? But of course, you and I already know the answer to that...

I hate to have to agree with a guy like Rahm Emanuel, but some of the liberal activists who come up with of these blatant smear attempts are just "F-ing retarded."

Source:

Palin's Tea Party Crib Notes -- The Huffington Puffington Post

Government Fouls Up, Kills Kid, Liberals Use to Promote Government Healthcare

From the Denver Post:

A Montbello mother says her 9-year-old son's death from severe asthma could have been prevented had Denver Human Services resolved problems with his Medicaid pharmacy benefits.

Advocacy lawyers who met Wednesday with the Colorado Attorney General's Office hold up Lucero's story as an example of how serious the problems are with the state's $243 million computer system that is supposed to manage benefits � and the county human workers behind it.

"The human system fell down," said Ed Kahn, a lawyer with the Colorado Center for Law and Policy, who is among a group of local and national lawyers weighing a lawsuit against the state for delays in getting food stamps and Medicaid benefits to people. "They are responsible for this kid's death."

The Colorado Benefits Management System is run through county human services offices and manages medical and food-assistance benefits for everyone in Colorado. Since its 2004 installation, the system has been beset by problems.

Last March, Lucero went to fill her son's prescriptions at a Walgreens near her home in Montbello. A worker there said Zumante didn't have prescription-drug coverage anymore.

Lucero says she called Denver Human Services every three days for four months trying to get him drug coverage. Each time she called, an automatic computer report was issued and sent to her house usually showing that all of her children � including Zumante � qualified for Medicaid.

But even when she brought in the reports to Walgreens, she was told the computer system showed he wasn't eligible for pharmaceutical benefits.

Throughout months of frustrating phone calls to Human Services' call-center operators, which often left Lucero in tears, Zumante's health weakened. She managed to reach her caseworker only once. The caseworker told her in March that the problem had been resolved.

And this, liberals say, is the reason why we need to give the government total control over the health care system. Yes, if we pass universal healthcare now we can ensure that every man, woman and child is forced to wade through the same bog of bureaucracy that Mrs. Lucero did, thereby bringing equality to all.

Denver Human Services says that Zemante Lucero's medication was covered under Medicaid. The problem wasn't that he didn't have healthcare. The problem was that Zemate didn't receive his government provided benefits due to an all too common breakdown in the bureaucracy!

So lets get this straight, a bureaucratic nightmare of a healthcare system failed to provide intended, needed and available benefits to a dying child because a bureaucrat somewhere in the system failed to enter the word "approved" into the computer. I think I've heard of this type of system somewhere before ... Can you say, "death panel?" If Zemate was 75 years old liberals might be able to tout that their utopian government healthcare system worked as intended but he was only 9 years old. The system failed, but if we force everyone into this system it will be different, dumping 350 million people into the mix will fix it right? The democrats in this country continue to find new ways to refine the definition of Orwellian. You should read the absolutely insane comments pro-obamacare leftists have left under each of these stories!

Source:

Zumante Lucero, 9 Year Old Boy, Dies After State Makes Error Processing Medicaid Case -- The Huffington Post
Denver boy, 9, died after state-benefits error denied him asthma medication -- The Denver Post

AC/DC Gets Real about Self-Promoting Celebrity Causes

From Australia's Herald Sun:

In his only Australian interview, the outspoken singer said he and his Grammy-winning band prefer to help in private with no press conferences.

"I do it myself, I don't tell everybody I'm doing it," Johnson said.

"I don't tell everybody they should give money - they can't afford it.

"When I was a working man I didn't want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa.

"I'm sorry mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done. It just makes me angry. I become all tyrannical."

Johnson said AC/DC's aversion to playing at charity events goes back to turning down a slot at 1985's Live Aid.

"Bob Geldof is a canny lad. He did what he thought was right at the time but it didn't work," he said. "The money didn't go to poor people. It makes me mad when people try to use politics or charity for publicity.

"Do a charity gig, fair enough, but not on worldwide television."

I couldn't agree more Mr. Johnson. If celebrities really cared so much about the causes they support they'd keep their names out of the associated headline. The only reason they put it in there is to promote themselves as humanitarians of the year. Politicians do it, beer companies do it, oil companies do it, cigarette manufacturers do it. Pretty much every major business you can think of has a philanthropic arm. It makes consumers feel good to know that the products they purchase support a good cause. So what's the difference between the cigarette companies and the politicians and celebrities? The cigarette companies are more modest about their charity work. Cigarette companies and oil companies sell a product. Politicians and celebrities are selling an image. Which leads us to the real question; What is an image? Regardless of who's image is for sale, one thing is certain; the image that's for sale is different than the person who is selling it. Personally, I like to keep things simple and call an "image" for what it is; a lie. Prominent examples would be John Edwards or Tiger Woods. The images the media portrayed of these men was the total opposite of who they were in actuality. A regular joe who overtly associates himself with such an image is looking to create an image for himself as well...

Source:

AC/DC's Brian Johnson bags Bono and Bob Geldof for public charity work -- Herald Sun

MSNBCs Ed Schultz Advocates Voter Fraud in Massachusetts

Schultz: I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.

And to think, these are the same people who get so self-righteously defensive when you accuse them of advocating registration fraud via ACORN. The same people who now often talk openly about Bush having stolen both the 2000 and the 2004 elections as if it were a matter of fact.

More of the same from the big thinkers on the fascist left.

The Ego has Landed

As many of you may remember, Republican Chris Christie defeated Democrat incumbent Jon Corzine last November in New Jersey's Gubernatorial race despite 3 visits from on high by the Messiah. Despite the big media political spin on the issue, the fact of the matter is that Corzine ran as a liberal Obama lackey and lost.

"New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine has embraced the president with gusto, regularly invoking his name on the campaign trail and embracing his agenda at every opportunity." -- (Politico)

So why then is Our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama flying out to Massachusetts this afternoon to campaign for Democratic Senatorial candidate Martha Coakley in the run-off election to fill what was previously Ted Kennedy's seat? The conventional wisdom is that if Obama shows up, it must mean that the White House has polling data that shows that either Coakley is winning or that an appearance from The One will push Coakley over the top. But Obama's poll numbers have not been very favorable lately, and considering the embarrassment in New Jersey, not to mention his failed Olympic bid, the conventional wisdom begins to sound more and more like wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats.

Last Thursday Scott Brown, the Republican senatorial candidate, made this statement concerning a possible appearance by Obama, �He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one... The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They�re bringing in outsiders, and we don�t need them.�

When I first heard this story I heard it from a liberal media outlet and of course they were predictably angry about it. But the way they said it made me think - what if Scott Brown considered the left's reaction in advance before he made the statement? What if he knew how angry it would make them? Well, then that would make the statement a dare. Scott Brown dared Obama to come knowing full well that his appearance could only hurt Coakley's campaign and Obama, always the narcissist, took the bait hook, line and sinker.

If I'm right, and Brown actually pulls it off. This will shut down the Obama White House "permanent campaign" and officially reign in the era of the "lame duck" - at least as far as the "Obama brand" goes. That on top of the irony that the "Kennedy Health Care Bill" would be definitively voted down by the very people who elected Kennedy.

Source:

Scott Brown: Obama not invited to this party -- The Boston Herald
Obama making Bay State swing for Coakley -- The Boston Herald

Update:

CNN Senior White House Correspondent, Ed Henry reported this afternoon that the White House believes Coakley will lose the senate race. This tidbit tells us two things; 1, the conventional wisdom was wrong and 2, Obama went anyway. It's starting to look like my assertion about Brown's "dare" was correct.

January 27, 2010 - Update:

While Brown has not admitted to goading The Messiah into coming out to Massachusetts to give Coakley the kiss of death, his decisive victory certainly shows that whatever his plan was, it worked. So it appears that I was right about Brown's triple-dog-dare to Obama but I was wrong about something else.

The Obama administration is not going to give up on it's "permanent campaign", as a matter of fact they've just decided to bring David Plouffe back to ratchet it up even more.The brutal upset in Massachusetts wasn't a referendum on Obama, the liberal elite say. No, Republican senatorial candidate Scott Brown was swept into office by the fiery anger and hatred of President George W. Bush.

It's almost sad in a way, to watch these elitist snobs direct themselves right into a death spiral thinking that it is the very thing that will save them. When they crash I'll be just about a surprised as someone watching the coyote smack against the pavement after diving off of a cliff chasing the road runner. Meanwhile, I fully support Obama's decision to crank up the liberal campaign machine. I hope he is able to provide all of his party's candidates with the same assistance he gave to Coakley and Corzine.