Tag Archives: Constitution

Is Maryland Ready For A New Day?

My twitter moniker and the name of this site have a lot to do with where I currently reside, and obviously that’s the crabbing state of Maryland.  In fact the little play on words is the fact that I, as well as so many others, are crabby in regards to the political situation facing us and the generations coming up behind us.

I recently attended a tea party in front of Governor Martin O’Malley’s mansion, and the sentiment was a passionate one shared by everyone standing there on that cold, wintry night; we are tired of one party rule in Maryland, the gerrymandering, and the corruption.  This wasn’t the only time I have experienced this sentiment in the blue state of Maryland – after I attended a town hall held by Ben Cardin on the health care debate, I asked several people if they had ever done anything like this and 99% said NO.  They had never protested, they had never been politically active, and many were too scared to speak out about their principles because the state was so liberal.  I have discovered there are many conservatives, maybe even more so than liberals who are living in blue states – but gerrymandered districts or those who stay quiet and don’t vote allow for one party rule.

There is one particular individual who has been in office for 28 years (the same age as me!) He is over 70 years old and continues to make comments that are offensive and lack common sense. I am talking about the  House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer.  It would be a tough road to hoe running against such an established politician when he already brings home the bacon to district 5 and holds senior positions, however, it isn’t impossible.  Steny Hoyer has made a lot of slip-ups recently, whether it is being tied to Nancy Pelosi, authoring an article that called protesters un-American, saying “it’s good for people to make money because then they can pay taxes”, or showing us how out-of-touch he really is when stating he didn’t believe in a pay freeze for members of Congress.  Comments and actions such as the ones Steny is making, show the public that he has always been about himself; a partisan politician that wants to stay in power for as long as possible.  Acting in such a manner during a time of unpredictability and hardship in the lives of so many Americans gives people pause come election time.

Photobucket

Now is the time when people are truly looking for change and for politicians that stand on principle.  I know that politicians and principle may seem like an oxymoron to many, but there is one candidate who is as down-to-earth, as honest, and as charismatic as anybody I have met even in national politics recently.  His name is Charles Lollar.  Charles has the uncanny ability to speak off the cuff and from the heart.  He has a passion and a desire to serve the people of Maryland and not his own interests.  He has a wonderful family, is a marine in the reserves who served in Kosovo – and most attractive of all – he has worked in the private sector for most, if not all, of his life.

Photobucket

If you are interested in changing things in Maryland or if you are at least willing to give somebody who is fresh and still has their integrity intact, a chance, please check out Charles’ site or help donate to the Money Bomb so we can dump Steny.  Any help – even if it is just getting the word out to others would be greatly appreciated.  Charles is an up and comer that people need to watch – Trust Me!

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Congress, Constitution, Establishment, Tea Party

Cass Sunstein Is Certifiable; Absolutism, First Amendment New Deal & More Executive Power

Cass Sunstein is one of the scarier of Obama’s czars and the fact that he was confirmed by the Senate makes it 10x worse!  Sunstein may be a very nice man, but when it comes to ideology, theory, ideas, and his views on the constitution, it makes me want to pull my hair out and scream.  I’m not sure what it is about the world of academia and the absolute detachment from reality that many hold, but it’s time for America to get past the status  of holding ivy league degrees; the superficial, and vote for people with real world experience.  Teachers do live in the real world, but my question would be whether not they have actually worked in a job or a place where they have implemented these ideas first to see if they actually work and help people, not hurt.

Besides, Cass Sunstein’s idea of Internet regulation, whereby a panel or individual of some sort would decide what is inaccurate or false and ban content via their own opinion (more detail on this can be found in his book entitled On Rumors), he has also argued that animals should be able to have a lawyer and sue humans, and guns and hunting should be banned.  There is much more to Cass Sunstein and his regulatory ideas in Nudge, another book penned by the newly approved czar.

More information about Sunstein is slowly but surely beginning to trickle out as time passes.  Cass Sunstein is a proponent of absolutism which really is a sick, twisted theory of “no liberty without dependency”:

You owe your life — and everything else — to the sovereign. The rights of subjects are not natural rights, but merely grants from the sovereign. There is no right even to complain about the actions of the sovereign, except insofar as the sovereign allows the subject to complain. These are the principles of unlimited, arbitrary, and absolute power, the principles of such rulers as Louis XIV. Intellectuals have assiduously promoted them; think of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes.

A new intellectual champion of absolutism has now emerged. Mild-mannered University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein has been advancing the radical notion that all rights — including rights usually held to be “against” the state, such as the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned or tortured — are grants from the state. In a book co-authored with Stephen Holmes, The Cost of Rights, he argued that “all legal rights are, or aspire to be, welfare rights,” that is, positive grants from the state. There is no difference in kind between the right not to be tortured and the right to taxpayer-subsidized dental care.
In his new book, The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein seeks to give constitutional status to welfare rights. The title comes from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, in which he proclaimed that “necessitous men are not free men” and proposed a “second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all.” Among the rights FDR proposed were the rights to “a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment,” and “a good education.”

To further understand the radical nature of Sunstein’s theories, it’s imperative that we also take a look at his proposed First Amendment New Deal which would act as a new Fairness Doctrine, following the same lines of his Internet regulation ideas.

President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a “First Amendment New Deal,” a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Until now, Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

In the book – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “fairness doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

It appears that Sunstein and Lloyd are two peas in a pod.  Both of these men believe that commercial broadcasting companies should fund strictly public broadcasting.  He also proposes more “democratic” means of control like “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Believe it or not, that’s not the worst to come out of Sunstein’s mouth or from his pen lately.  Sunstein actually believes that Obama and those working as part of his administration should interpret federal laws, not the federal courts.

“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws.

See why I’m pulling my hair out and screaming? This is sheer insanity and the man still argues that this is all constitutional!

2 Comments

Filed under Big Brother, Constitution, Czars, Establishment, Fairness Doctrine, FCC, Media, Net Neutrality, Obama Administration, Progressivism, Radicals, Sunstein

Hands Off My Radio

On Friday of last week the new FCC Chief Diversity Officer stated that he intended to create a new type of fairness doctrine which would require private radio to fund public radio.  Private radio stations would have to pay a fee of 100% of their operating budget to their public competitors who would pay nothing.  In essence private radio would pay 2x it’s budget and hope that it makes 201% of it’s original operating budget, which probably will not happen.

An operating budget is usually set based upon estimates that are either from history or known costs that have an 85% chance of occurring.  No company expects to make 100% x it’s operating budget, but at least some percentage above their costs/budget that will provide the organization a profit.  This new regulation would drive businesses out of the communications/media industry, and I have to believe this is on purpose. 

Net Neutrality, the Fairness Doctrine, Hate Crimes Legislation, Localization, Cass Sunstein, who believes in regulating free speech if deemed untrue (by his own opinion), and now a brand new FCC diversity panel that was created right after Obama’s inauguration, will create some type of ban on conservative views one way or another.  A new type of fairness doctrine will be created, it will just be under another name.  It will be one of those alternatives that tricks people through semantics as Saul Alinsky stipulates in rule 12.

Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.

[…]

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”
 
Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.

I also wonder if many have heard of the performance tax?  This is another idea coming out of Washington in connection with the record label companies that would require local radio stations to pay a tax on any and all music played.  Many radio stations play a variety of music, provide local traffic updates, news, and other information, all of which could find itself on the chopping block if this tax is passed.  It’s estimated that this tax would cost local radio stations anywhere from $2-7B annually.  Radio stations already pay fees to purchase music, as well as use online streaming, but record labels are not satisfied because they are still seeing a decline in their sales now that everything has gone digital. 

In short, the money would flow out of your community and into the pockets of the record labels – the great majority of which are foreign-owned. The record labels would like for you to think this is all about compensating the artists, but in truth the record labels would get at least 50% of the proceeds from a tax on local radio.

This is beginning to sound more like that wonderful idea; cash for clunkers.  I thought we were supposed to pump money into our own economy and not into foreign ones to see a real recovery?  So I was curious to see what party was looking to levy this tax on our radio stations – it comes as no surprise that the tax and spend party and the party who is backed by the liberal music industry believes this performance tax to be a good idea.  But I must give credit to several Democrats and the Republicans who are attempting to stop this idea from passing: 

There are currently two bills pending in Congress that would levy a performance tax on local radio – H.R. 848, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI-14) and S. 379, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Your members of Congress need to hear that you strongly oppose these bills.

Additionally, anti-performance tax resolutions have been introduced in the House and Senate in support of local radio. In the Senate, Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced S. Con. Res. 14, and in the House, Reps. Gene Green (D-TX-29) and Mike Conaway (R-TX-11) introduced H. Con. Res. 49. Both are known as the “Local Radio Freedom Act.” Encourage your senators and representative to cosponsor these resolutions. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Economy, Media, Obama Administration, Progressivism, Republicans

Updated: Sebelius Misspoke, Either Way It’s All Gov. Health Care; Health Care: Semantics and ‘Fear’

UPDATE:

A spokesperson for the administration stated that the media misplayed Sebelius’ statement, but others are stating that she misspoke when she said the government option portion of the bill was not essential.  The backlash this statement caused across the blogosphere and twitter from Obama’s base could be felt far and wide.  Either the administration never intended to change it’s stance or the semantics of the bill, or they flip-flopped. 

Whether we call it a co-op or a public option, it’s all the same.  Let me also add, I find it strange that the administration has stated that the media misplayed all of this…

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

“Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn’t misspeak. “The media misplayed it,” the third official said.

ORIGINAL:

The White House appears ready to drop the government option in the health care bill.  At least this is what is being reported in many of the newspapers today.  It would be nice if I felt as though I could trust my government or my president, but as we have seen thus far, even over the last couple of years, no matter what side you are on, that’s not the case.  I am  incredibly skeptical of what the government is waving around in one hand, but doing behind the scenes in the other.

If President Obama dumped the government option from the bill what would be the point?  This is something that the progressives in this country, including himself, and almost everyone in his cabinet are proponents of, at the very least.  The government option didn’t even seem to cut the cake for some, who technically see a single-payer plan for everybody in America, as evidenced through various speeches that officials have given over the last decade. 

People on the right need to be wary and not believe we have ‘reached’ some type of victory in this debate.  It doesn’t make much sense to me that they would be willing to just dump a major liberal policy, one that their base has desperately wanted for a very long time.  That’s why when you read further into what they are saying, it’s just a change of semantics, which is typical from this administration.  Remember how the health care reform bill was changed from just that, to health insurance reform?  When liberals are losing the debate on one issue they change the name to make the policy sound less intimidating and brand new. This truly is Houdini as president. 

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s almost 50 million uninsured, but Republicans remain steadfast in arguing against it.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the showdown.

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Obama’s top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.

[…]

“It’s not government-run and government-controlled,” he said. “It’s membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that’s why it has appeal on both sides.”

As proposed by Conrad, the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep to handle unexpectedly high claims.

The new term being launched by the administration is a Co-op, not a government run health system.

So what exactly is a co-op?  I wanted to look up the historical meaning of the term and what political system it stems from.  Without any shock and surprise it arose from the Democratic socialist party and also split off during the Marxist era in Russia.  Co-ops are socialist programs whereby there are certain types of co-ops that exist.  The technical definition of a co-op is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.

The rise of Marxism at the end of the 19th century accelerated the political split between different forms of socialism: anarchists were committed to libertarian socialism and advocated locally managed cooperatives, linked through confederations of unions, cooperatives and communities; Marxists were committed to state socialism, and the goal of political hegemony through the state, either through democratic socialism, or through what came to be know as Leninism.  Both Marxism and anarchism sprang from utopian socialism, which is based on voluntary cooperation, without the emphasis on bitter class struggle. With the collapse of state socialism in the USSR, other forms of socialism have reasserted their importance and influence.

Social cooperation or co-ops is another term to reach a type of social Utopia as a utilitarian belief for the good of all.  This particular co-op would be considered a Type A Social Co-op because it has a particular social purpose to provide health insurance for individuals, working in cooperation with the government, insurance companies, and the people. 

The Cato Institute also provided more information on what a co-op is, and in this case, what our government intends to do in a brief write-up that it made today:

It is suggested that the “co-ops” would be nonprofits, and therefore would offer better service and lower costs. But many insurance companies, including “mutual” insurers and many “Blues,” are already nonprofit companies. Furthermore, states already have the power to charter co-ops, including health insurance co-ops. In fact, health care co-ops already exist. Health Partners, Inc. in Minneapolis has 660,000 members and provides health care, health insurance, and HMO coverage. The Group Health Cooperative in Seattle provides health coverage for 10 percent of Washington State residents.

If the new co-ops operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?

And there’s the rub. Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates.  As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.”

If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name.

Historically speaking, the term co-op originated in England so I was therefore, curious, since England is in fact a democratic socialist country, what exactly would be an example of a co-op?  Well, low and behold, the NHS, or their government-run health system, is in fact utilizing co-op values within NHS

I don’t have much faith in NHS although there was a massive twitter campaign called #weloveNHS to interject on behalf of the US political debate.  The campaign itself was started by the man who created the character, Father Ted.  This campaign  consisted of a lot of spam, repeating the same exact mantra – I was surprised any real individuals for NHS actually existed, but found about 5 who did.  It’s hard to believe that their opinions aren’t biased when many work for NHS since they have now become one of, if not the, largest employer of the UK.  I find it amusing that recent economic reports, including this one from the National Center for Policy Analysis has stated that NHS is putting the patient last or the recent statistics that show nearly 46% of women diagnosed with breast cancer die in the UK as opposed to only a 25% death rate in the US.  Mammograms are required and insurance companies here cover them 1/year, where the government in the UK, who holds the purse strings, only allow mammograms 1/2 years.

It is incredibly disingenuous for a President in an op-ed of the NYT, no less, to write that people are using fear to politicize and change the debate on health reform.  There is plenty of fear when the government involves itself in the lives of individuals.  Nowhere in our constitution is health care a right, in 1776 and not until the 20th century, was health care an option. It has only been through the capitalist structure of our society that pharmaceuticals and operating procedures have thrived and been on the cutting edge.  Incentivized systems, such as our own, have driven innovation for years, it would be a disaster if all of that was taken away to pay for the supposed 46M who do not currently have health care.  Those 46M by the way, have never been explained to the American public.  The number of illegal aliens included in that number are nearly half, there are those who can also afford health care but elect to pay for it out of pocket because they can, children are also included in that number, and no, they do not have their own health care because their parents cover them, and we also have those who qualify for federal programs but refuse to use them.

I tend to find fear emanating from both sides of the debate, but given my skepticism of government and the convoluted legalese within the bill, I err on the side of caution.  The fear-mongering of the left is making it appear that a crisis will ensue if we do not pass this bill NOW.  If  85% of people like their insurance and over 50% do not want government interference what does this tell us?

Obama warned of us “not acting;” well some may beg to differ on that sentiment and actually feel that doing nothing would be better than rushing a bill that most representatives haven’t even read all the way through.  Mr. Obama also chose to use his op-ed pulpit to bash those evil insurance companies again.  I am finding it funny, yet at the same time very frustrating, hearing the same insurance company demonization, but no mention of trial lawyers, tort reform, or the fact that Obama just made a back-door deal with those very same insurance entities. 

Obama has also been espousing plenty of lies and other scare tactics.  The hypocrisy from the left during these current debates is laughable.  Obama continues the mantra that doctors are cutting out tonsils for money, amputating feet, and now he is using Otto Raddatz as an example.  First and foremost, let me bring up tonsils – I get tonsillitis nearly 5-7 times/year and I will be 28 years old soon, but none of the doctors I have had, either in Connecticut, Virginia, or Maryland, have let me get surgery; why? because I do not have tonsils that swell across my throat and therefore, are not life-threatening.  In fact, the greatest threat is surgery, as you get older, every surgery becomes tougher to recover from.  Obama’s big lie in all of this is his story surrounding Otto Raddatz, the man cited as having died in the midst of chemotherapy due to gall stones that were not disclosed to his insurance company, however, here is what really happened:

In President Obama’s recent speeches and in his editorial in the New York Times today, he has continued to mention the sad case of a man who lost his health coverage during life saving chemotherapy and consequently died because he did not disclose a previous condition of gall stones.  Quoting his editorial in the New York Times, “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance discovered that he had gall stones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”

Unfortunately for the president, the story is not true. The man received his life saving operation and lived an additional three years. The man in question is Otto Raddatz, an Illinois businessman. He became a central focus in a hearing on June 16th entitled “Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies” held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the Energy and Commerce committee. His sister, Peggy Radditz, testified on his behalf. She testified that the insurance company Fortis dropped his coverage right before a life saving stem cell transplant because he failed to notify the company of pre-existing gallstones and an aneurysm.  Soon after, he was mentioned all over the left blogosphere as having perished because he did not receive this treatment.

For instance a blogger on Slate states“Otto Raddatz, a restaurant owner in Illinois, was rescinded in 2004 by FortisInsurance Co. after he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Fortis said this was because Raddatz had failed to disclose that a CT scan four years earlier had revealed that he had an aneurysm and gall stones. Raddatz replied—and his doctor confirmed—that he had never been told about these conditions (the doctor said they were “very minor” and didn’t require treatment), but Fortis nonetheless refused a payout until the state attorney general intervened. The delay in treatment eliminated Raddatz’s chances of recovery, and he died.”

The president was quick to pick up this meme and it has become part of his healthcare reform stump speech and at his town halls. The only problem with his narrative is that Otto Raddatz received his treatment and lived another 3 years. According to the meeting transcripts found here.

[…]starting on page 4, “… Otto Raddatzwas a 59-year-old restaurant owner from Illinois who was diagnosed withan aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. He underwent intensive chemotherapy and was told that he had to have a stem cell transplant in order to survive. With coverage provided by his individual insurance policy, he was scheduled to have the procedure performed. But then his insurance company suddenly told him it was going to cancel his insurance coverage. Otto could not pay for the transplant without healthinsurance.  The stem cell transplant surgery was cancelled.  The insurance company told him that it found when he applied for his insurance, he had not told the company about a test that had shown that he might have gall stones and an aneurysm, or weakness of the blood vessel wall. In fact, Otto’s doctor had never told him about these test results. He didn’t have any symptoms, and these conditions did not have anything to do with his cancer, but the insurance company was going to rescind his policy, effectively tearing up the contract as if it never happened and it would not pay for his stem cell transplant. Otto made a desperate plea to the Illinois Attorney General’sOffice seeking help to get his insurance company to reverse its decision.  He told them, and I quote, “I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. It is a matter of extreme urgency that I receive my transplant in 3 weeks. This is an urgent matter. Please help me so I can have my transplant scheduled.  Any delay could threaten my life.”

The Illinois Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation, confirmed that Otto’s doctor had never even told him about the test findings and sent two letters to press the insurance company to reinstate his policy. The company relented and Otto received his stem cell transplant. He was able to live 3 more years before passing away earlier this year.”

Now certainly the insurance company looks bad in this instance and should not have rescinded the policy, but the doctor looks even worse since Otto was left in the dark. But why does our President need to embellish and outright lie to try to bolster his case. His arguments should stand on their own merit.

I find the accusation of scare tactics and fear-mongering offensive.  Take for example Sarah Palin’s statement that the end-of-life counseling and p. 354 section 1177 of the bill would ensure that bureaucrats would decide the futures of the elderly and that of her disabled child, equating them to death panels, was a lie and a right-wing tactic.  But I ask, then, why did the House Financial Services Committee take that section out of the bill last week, if it wasn’t in fact true or at least vague enough to be used as such? 

Lies exist on both sides, some perpetrated on purpose and others because of confusion, misinformation, and convoluted legalese. It’s important to understand the current game in DC.  It is a game and a competition “to the victor goes the spoils”, or as Obama likes to say “I won.” It’s silly to take one person’s word over another when politics as usual are a dirty, dirty game.

1 Comment

Filed under Congress, Constitution, Czars, DeathCare, Double Standards, Health Care, Hypocrisy, Obama, Obama Administration, ObamaCare, Op-ed, Progressivism, Sarah Palin, Tea Party

The Hypocrisy of the Left

I have been extremely troubled by the rhetoric that has come out of the Democrat majority in Congress as well as the Commander in Chief over the last couple of weeks.  If there is one amendment to the Constitution that trumps all others, it would be the first one.  The first amendment is one in which truly separates the free, from the oppressed, and for our own government to denounce healthy dissent and outspoken opposition (whether they agree or not) is just wrong.

Maybe I was delusional over the last 8 years, but as I recall, and even at a much younger age; Bush was demonized as BusHitler, a chimp, an imperial emperor, a dictator, and any other fascist besides Hitler.  I do not recall the Bush administration or those in Congress stooping so low as to turn the attention onto the protesters and accuse them of being such vile groups, names, and of all things: Astroturf. 

Photobucket

Photobucket

It’s true that during the Bush years the media was on the side of the protesters, so that is already one mark against Obama’s opposition, however, more and more are beginning to awaken to the joke that is called the US mainstream media, or the 4th column of the DNC.  Democrats can’t even take half of these channels seriously because they know that even some views that they may tend to agree with aren’t questioned, just sugar-coated.  The media loved the 6 woman protest that sat out front of President Bush’s yard, against the Iraq war, they loved the huge global warming protests, the unions/ACORN protesting banks to force them into making risky loans to those who would otherwise not have the proper credit or income to buy a home.  The media loved all the anti-war protests, where people dressed as Hitler, brought props like guillotines with Bush’s head in a basket, or devil horns on an American-Israeli ally.  All of these and more were acceptable to the media, and even prominent personalities voiced similar opinions (i.e. Keith Olbermann), but now, all of a sudden, those who disagree with their own views are cast out as “tea-bagging, racist rednecks;” sounds  fair and balanced to me.

Photobucket

Photobucket 

The hypocrisy comes from the past 8 years where speakers and special guests on college campuses were shouted down, fists thrown through windows to end a lecture, or pies thrown in faces.  The last 8 years had people walking around the White House in orange jumpsuits with black bags over their heads.  The last 8 years had Code Pink groupies shouting during Congressional hearings or holding anti-war protests and blocking people from entering recruiting centers.  The last 8 years was a large scoop of insanity with sprinkles of dissent, and as much as I disagreed with where they stood, and at times, how they went about doing it, they still had that one very basic American right: The freedom of speech.

William Jacobsonput things into perspective when he wrote, “So this is what it comes to. After eight years of protesters hanging George Bush in effigy, calling him a Nazi, disrupting conservative speeches on campuses by taking over stages or throwing pies, creating websites and movies that wished for Bush’s death, and a myriad of other indignities…. After all this time, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer discover what it means to be ‘Un-American.’”

I recall a not so distant past where Democrats railed against Bush and his unconstitutional Patriot Act, but the ‘true’ supporters are somehow able to turn a blind eye to a President violating a US code and American privacy rights when asking for people to snitch on their neighbors by sending emails about ‘fishy’ comments regarding health care to flag@whitehouse.gov.  The White House is caught in a horrible conundrum since it can neither collect data on individuals, nor can it purge the data once it’s received.  This sounds fairly similar to Bush’s wiretapping, if not worse.  The worst part isn’t even the fact that Obama has actually expanded the wire-tapping program, but that many Democrats are unable to see their own hypocrisy.

The very same could be said about those in the House and the Senate. The White House & Democrat leadership is upset that ‘misinformation’ about the health care bill is out in the public, however, nobody, not even Obama, has been able to clearly articulate the specific clauses and sections of the bill – most likely because many still have not read it.  Misinformation did not seem to be an issue for Democrats in Congress during the Bush administration or the media:

Democrats’ concerns about allowing all viewpoints to be heard accurately would be a lot more credible if they had not been silent when those on the right were being silenced and demagogued.  In many cases leading Democrats were not silent, but actively participated in the demagoguery, spreading misinformation far and wide with the assistance of their friends in the media.

There have been many such examples over the past few decades.  Remember Democrats’ claims that Republicans wanted to starve old people and school children? You know, back when they used to tell Americans on a regular basis that an increase in spending was really a cut if it was not as big an increase as Democrats wanted?

I could write for days about misinformation: Today, it seems as though every liberals’ go-to entities to hate are the evil insurance companies.  I’m sure they all know that insurance companies pay off Democrats and have currently made a deal with Obama to run ads for health care as well as a drug deal similar to Bush’s.  I also enjoy the snippets from politicians and radio show hosts that are taken out of context to make immigrants think that Republicans hate them.  In fact, I just so happened to run into someone who was misinformed, but agreed with every other platform of the Republican party. However, she didn’t vote Republican because of the unfortunate propaganda she had heard.  I disclosed that Republicans believe in immigration; LEGAL immigration.  They believe that those coming to this country should pay taxes, go through the proper paperwork, and abide by the laws of the country they come to, not a free ride for doing things illegally – it’s that simple.  There was also the misinformation about blood for oil.  I guess we will be able to use the term blood for green soon enough.  In my opinion, the worst offense was that, which was propagated by supposed leaders in our government: the war in Iraq was lost, but Democrats had no problem voting for troop support or military supplementals. 

I’m saddened that people who are getting involved politically for the first time are being called astroturf and un-American.  When Democrats put out ads on craigslist or pay off union members to attend protest events, that is astroturf; but not when housewives, nurses, doctors, coal miners, financial analysts, IT engineers, graphic artists, small business owners, and mechanics go to their first protest.  Is it really that difficult for Democrats to believe that there are people in this country who strongly believe in the founding principles of this nation and are tired of the elitist snobbery emanating from Washington?  It’s a sad day when people, even those who disagree, are disappointed to see American citizens getting involved in politics, government, and the future of the nation.  It’s despicable when one party is ashamed of Democracy.

2 Comments

Filed under Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Double Standards, Health Care, Hypocrisy, Obama, Obama Administration, Pelosi, Progressivism, Protests, Tea Party