AutObama Care

Independent radio talk show host Neal Boortz make some good points about the President's comparison of Heath insurance and auto Insurance.

Here's what he said:

I'll try to make this simple ... so that even a Democrat can understand it.
In most states you are NOT required to have automobile insurance unless three conditions are met:
1. You have a valid driver's license
2. You own a motor vehicle
3. You drive that motor vehicle on public highways
Does a 12-year-old riding with a friend to school have to have auto insurance? No. Neither, for that matter, does a 32-year-old. So Obama's ridiculous comparison dies right there.
But wait! There's more! When it comes to auto insurance, most states say that you only must have insurance to protect the OTHER GUY! You buy health insurance to protect yourself.


You can also throw in the fact that we all will need health care at some point in our lives. Not a good business model for insurance, reguardless.

Segregation in the "Shallow North"

But don't assume it's a conclave of “Tea Party” protestors secretly meeting in the dead of night so as to exclude anyone of dissimilar WASP heritage. No, these good folks meet in the halls of the Massachusetts State Legislature during session so as to alter state law with the intent of discriminating against those of dissimilar political persuasion.

Molly Line, FOXNews.com, Sept. 17th , 2009

The Massachusetts House voted late Thursday to change state law to give Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy until a special election is held early next year.

The vote has drawn controversy because a 2004 change in the law stripped then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of the power to appoint a successor if Democratic Sen. John Kerry would have won the presidency. (emphasis added)

So why would the democratic Massachusetts legislature want to change the law in 2004 when Romney was Governor?

JOHN HECHINGER and PHILIP SHISHKIN, WSJ, August 28, 2009
Proponents of changing the law (in 2004) argued that a gubernatorial appointment was undemocratic and that only voters should decide on a replacement. Democrats also feared Mr. Romney would appoint a Republican. (emphasis added)

OK, so an appointment would be undemocratic. But what motivation would they have for changing it back now?

AP, MSNBC, Sept. 20, 2009

"Some people say it's political. Of course it's political," said Rep. Cory Atkins, a Concord Democrat and Kennedy supporter.

For some reason calling such a move “Political” doesn't express the total lack of respect these “Civil Servants” have for the rule of law. I have to stand in agreement with Rep. Barney Frank from Massachusetts when he said recently:

"Public policy questions important to everyone in America shouldn't be decided by a tragedy of death or some other non-electoral factor,"

And an appointment is a “non-electoral factor.”

To make matters worse, Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo told the AP that lawmakers wanted to bar any appointee from also running as a candidate in the special election, but said they could not constitutionally include that provision in the bill. He said House lawmakers instead hoped to pass a separate resolution stating that it is the intention of the House that an appointee not also be a candidate in the special election. That is important if you want the appointee to be willing to vote against his constituents without the fear of not being elected. Effectively nullifying any representation they might have gotten from him.

So who would this appointee be representing?

The same AP article points out that “Obama presidential counselor David Axelrod has contacted Massachusetts officials and the Massachusetts branch of Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, has sent out e-mails advocating for the change.”

Segregation may be gone from the “Deep South”, but it's alive and well in the “Shallow North”.

School officials in prayer case could get jail time

School officials in prayer case could get jail time: Two Florida school administrators were due to appear in federal court Thursday to face contempt charges for saying a prayer at a school luncheon.

It took civil disobedience to end segregation in the US. I must point out that the State, as well as the ACLU, takes the opposite stand when it comes to sexuality. The State injects it's self into the personal lives and beliefs of students when it mandates the teaching of sexual curriculum.

When the State justifies the oppression of one group of people under the guise of protecting the rights of another, justice and equality are threatened.

The Establishment Clause states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is clear that the “free exercise therof” is being “prohibited”. The teacher should not teach his or her religion during class unless the class is an elective focused on that topic. But to say that the mere presence of religious expression on public school property is equal to the State establishing a religion is ridiculous.

All the arguments that one can give to support prohibiting someone from practicing their religion at school can be applied to rooting for you favorite football team. When a school holds a pep rally, I would feel compelled to support the school team. But what if I liked a rival team. Maybe I should call on the ACLU to end all pep rallies?

Quick, Find Another Target!

That's the war cry from the besieged democratic party these days. As the curtain continues to be pulled back on their Culture of Corruption, their only option has been to counter attack. It would be a good tactic if it weren't for a problem of degree.

The right, led by Glenn Beck's relentless dumping of damning information into the public arena of discussion, keeps attacking the democratic oligarchy.

The left couldn't fend off the attacks with rebuttal, so they turned to their secret weapon. A blitzkrieg of “racist” bombs. Every target that even remotely resembled defiance to President Obama was labeled “racist”. Thought police like Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, and Pres. Jimmy Carter proclaimed their ability to read the minds of conservatives, finding racist motives.

But all for naught. They cast the “racist” net so wide the entire free world fell under indictment. That didn't go over too well.

So the democrats had to reach back into the depths of their hearts to find the most despicable demon known to mankind. A label so horrible no one could risk being associated with it. The new target has to be “RELIGIOUS”. And why not? To the democratic party, the word “religious” encompasses so many derogatory terms. Racism, ignorance, bigotry. It's kind of a catch-all smear phrase to them.

So be prepared to hear how the “religious right” is on the rise, promoting their hateful agenda.

But America doesn't like it when you talk about their mama.

From Woodstock to Wallstreet. Did the "Hippies" of the sixties sell out for materialism?

When I was a kid I was told to “keep off the grass”, “you're too young”, and “because I said so”.

But that wasn't so for the Woodstock generation. Their message was simple, “If it feels good, do it.” You can wrap it up in pretty cliches like “free love”, “make love, not war”, and “do your own thing”. But in the end it still had one big false idea behind it. There are no consequences to our actions.

Modern day philosophers glorify the sixties generation for standing up to the establishment. And Woodstock was their crowning achievement. But did they leave the life of “free love” for a mortgage and two car garage?

You had a group of young people that didn't like the way the world was being run. Understandable, considering what they had witnessed. Discrimination, assassination, and conscription. Surly they could do better.

They had one rule. “Don't trust anyone over thirty.” So you had a bunch of children in adult bodies. And as children, they felt whatever they wanted they should have. “Take what you want. Have sex with anyone you want. Get high on anything available.”

Woodstock ticket prices were set at $6.00 single day advanced to $24.00 three day at the gate. But the Woodstock generation would have none of it. "We want a free concert." So the fence came down and the concert became “free”. At least to those who enjoyed the music.

The desire for “things” has been present from Adam till today. The Woodstock generation didn't change. They just can't get what they want for free anymore.

Obama Bush's Third Term?

The “Tea Party Express” rolled into Washington, DC, Saturday. Overall it received positive coverage from the media, although not as much as it deserved.

I have noticed a common theme in the liberal press coverage, though. They point out that what the protesters are complaining about, an overspending and intrusive government, was present in the Bush administration big time. And they ask “Where were the protesters then?”

To them I reply “Hey stupid, they were everywhere!” And they're still out there.

People can't be divided into distinct groups. The sheltered oracles of the mainstream media think anyone that disagrees with President Obama is a right winger. And no right wingers disagreed with the policies of the Bush administration. Not true. Immigration, TARP, AIG, spending, and I'm sure there were others, were all points of contention with many on the right. And many on the left have problems with the same things now under the Obama administration.

They seem to have forgotten that Barack Obama ran on a platform of “Change” from the Bush policies. But it seems now we have gotten the “third term” we tried to avoid.

Obviously the “old media” views everything through sapphire colored glasses.

Most of us just want the politicians to do their job and let us do ours. Keep our laws and taxes reasonable and we'll be happy.

Acorn Prostitute Sting

After watching the video I was interested in what the mainstream media would say. I was very disappointed that CNN's Lou Dobbs had a guest host because I really like and respect him.

The guest host was KITTY PILGRIM, a CNN corespondent. She, KEITH RICHBURG of The Washington Post, and Joe CONASON of SALON.COM all seemed to be more interested in the legality of the act of secretly videotaping rather than the apparent lack of concern that the two women in the video had for child sex slaves. RON CHRISTIE of CHRISTIE STRATEGIES had to spend time trying to convince them that ACORN might need to be investigated.

It is understandable when you think about it. The PIMP and PROSTITUTE they were trying to help can vote. The CHILD SEX SLAVES can't. That's the democratic party for you.

Pres. Obama's Health Care Address

Rep. Joe Wilson called the White House last night to apologize for calling the President a liar during his address on Health Care to Congress. But maybe it's the President who should apologize... to the American People... for lying.

Quote 1: First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.
Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
He then proceeds to tell us how he will change our plan.

Quote 2: There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
If what the president is saying is true, if you are an illegal immigrant and need health care, you won't get it unless you pay for your own insurance or can pay cash. You won't be part of our system. That wont sit well with La Raza.

The truth is today's health care is very good, and very expensive when it comes to life saving medical treatment.

A key concept behind insurance is that all of us pay for it while few of us need to use it. So the President must compel everyone to contribute to the program for it to have a chance to work. The vast majority of those without Health Insurance are unemployed or in low income jobs. And most of those people are in that situation because of being poorly educated. Not all, but most. So a good starting point to cure many of the nations ills is improving public education.

Another possible solution might be to create a Major Medical Bailout plan for those few people who do max out their benefits or are being pushed into bankruptcy. Rather than change the whole system, make a “surgical strike” on the main problems.

As I said, a key concept behind insurance is that all of us pay for it while few of us need to use it. That may work for our automobiles, but it doesn't apply to our health. When your car gets old, you trade it in on a new one. We can't trade in our old bodies. I would if I could. But we all wear out.

At what point do we accept the fact that we are mortal.

You Rightwing Nut jobs!

What has all the “Right Wingers” upset over the President wanting to address our school children? He is the President, after all. Do they really believe he would try to manipulate our kids into pushing his agenda? What on Earth would give them that idea?

Well visit this page. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/kidshome/.

This page was published a few weeks before the national election. It is targeted at KIDS. Especially kids twelve and under. It is a page sponsored by the Democratic National Convention. That is important because we don't want to get the idea that the Obama campaign is solely responsible for it's contents.

Some comments of note:

For the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a place to go and actually vote—through their voice.

Rep. Schakowsky lists a number of reasons why anyone over the age of 65 should support Barack Obama, including his position on Social Security, Medicare and taxes (as well as John McCain's opposing positions on the same). But in the end, she argues, the most effective argument may be an emotional one.

The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.

That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"

...The really great part of this strategy is that everything you could possibly say to your grandparents about how important Barack's election is for you is one hundred percent true.


"One hundred percent true?"  Can kids twelve and under make an informed descision as to whether any of these statements are true?  Most of us stuggle to figure out if what a politician is saying is true or not.

If you want to see the marching orders they have for our kids, look for the banner "The Talk".

So why are all the “Right Wingers” upset?  I hope that will clear it up for everyone. And thanks to all the attention, it will now be the type of speech a president should gove. Supporting education.