Obama's Health Plan...Well, Willard Scott will be out of a job...

Once you read this blog, you will find that title in poor taste. You might even find the title repulsive. Hate the title. Hate the message. And remember, I am only commenting on the truth. I am hoping you people will forget Governor Sanford. I hope you will ignore the platitudes and bumper sticker slogans. I hope you will see past the garbage that is the main-stream media and their, to borrow a title from an EXCELLENT book about the 2008 campaign by Bernard Goldberg, Slobbering Love Affair with Barack Obama.

Open your eyes. Read between the lines. The lines are becoming more and more spread apart because Americans have become apathetic. Americans have their heads buried in the sand. If we don't reclaim America, and do it fast, while we have our heads in the sand, might as well raise up about 30" and go ahead and kiss our butts goodbye.

We are losing America. The greatest threat to freedom is the smooth-talking car salesman in the White House. He would smooth-talk most people into slaughtering their first born to help reduce the deficit he is expanding by the millisecond.

Am I overreacting? Am I propagandizing? Am I letting racist tendencies cloud my judgement?

MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and the 24-hour-Obama network (this week, anyway) ABC, would have you think so. The New York Times, if I had more than my modest readership, would accuse me of being responsible for killing Dr. Tiller and being a racist like the moronic piece of excrement that shot up the Holocaust museum.

But, I am not. I am an American. I am proud of my country, a great (though imperfect) nation. I love freedom and small government. I love the idea that I know better how to run my life than some stiffs in suits in Washington, DC. I think that if a woman has sex, she has made that choice with her body and that the killing of the pregnancy is MURDER. If you don't want kids, keep your legs closed....that is your choice, lady. If a woman is attacked, either physically, virtually, or in print, the person doing the attacking is scum (much like the scum who wrote the hate f**k list).

I also love and cherish the idea of previous generations making impacts on lives long into their golden years. I believe that the elderly have opportunities to contribute until they take their final breath, and we should do everything to ensure there are as many breaths in that lifetime as medically possible.

Obama and his health plan spell out different fates for the elderly. His plan would deny health care, critical, life-saving health care to elderly. Hence, the title of my blog...Obama's plan would lower the average age of the United States by decades as people would be dying sooner and sooner. Thus, putting Willard Scott out of a job announcing the 90-100+ seniors' birthdays.

Am I overreacting? Let me explain.

A woman told a brief anecdote about her grandmother.

The grandmother was 100 years old in 2004. She was failing in health, but had a "spirit" and lived an active lifestyle. The granny participated in many activities and kept the word "live" in alive. She was very spunky (my word) and had a lot more living to do, but just needed the lifesaving implantation of a pacemaker. Several doctors denied the operation. Finally, because of the grandmother's spirit, one doctor did the lifesaving operation. Guess what? 5 years later, in 2009, granny is still going strong, thanks to the doctor that looked at the individual and saw there was a life being lived...a life that needed saving.

The question posed to Obama from the woman, who had talked about her grandmother being saved and living a full life after the life-saving operation 5 years ago, asked if there would be, under the Obama plan, room for a doctor's judgement to determine that, despite age, a person's spirit and determination and ability to live a full life is worthy of taking the risk to save their life with an operation like a pacemaker.

The all-knowing, all caring, all seeing, great orator of our time answered as eloquently as he could without his teleprompter, answered this question in the coldest, meanest, most soul-less way possible. Forgive me as I paraphrase, but you surely can find the actual clip online.

To answer this woman's question as to whether her spunky grandmother would have lived those extra 5 full years under the Obama plan, Obama, the chosen one!, told this woman the following. He said that "spirit" is a very subjective idea, an idea that is hard to measure. He said that there have to be "rules" to determine whether a life-saving operation is feasible...RULES. RULES to determine whether we will save a life. Black and white, non-subjective RULES. He continued that those rules would determine whether the doctor would save the life, or "just give her a pill for the pain."

Do you get it? Do you see? I have been so outraged...so sickened...so worried about our future, I could not put fingers to keypad until 1am CDT two days later. I cannot believe what we are on the cusp of seeing enacted in the United States of America. Its bad enough children are shucking their responsibility to their aging parents and buries so many seniors in decrepit nursing homes, but now we are talking about a cut-off age for life-saving operations.

"Oh, sorry, you just turned 66. If you'd come in two weeks ago, you could have gotten the pacemaker. Here's a pill. Thank you, come again!"

Do you see? Can't you see where we are heading? Are you scared yet? Look at your grandparents...even your parents...under Obama-care, they better get sick young, or they will die slowly with survivable medical conditions because of Obama's RULES.

God help us if this passes.

The Hate Mongering of MSNBC and the Left

Watch Keith Olbermann use his post on MSNBC to spread his own version of hate, venom, and propaganda. MSNBC is the mouthpiece of left, liberal hate of conservatives.



Instead of covering it as a tragedy and addressing the true decency and heroics of the security guards, Olbermann uses this 6 minute segment to group all right wingers into the same group as the evil jerk that opened fire in the Holocaust Museum.

The evil dirt bag that opened fire is plain evil. He is called a terrorist several times by Olbermann, which is the only thing I agree with in the whole rant. However, the rant's purpose to is to lump all conservatives into the same category. I am aghast at the hypocrisy.

First, and most troubling, given our current plight thanks to the President that MSNBC (and Chris Matthews' tingling feelings in his legs) helped elect, is the fact that this guy, whose name I refuse to repeat in hopes that he is forgotten and not immortalized in print any more than necessary, is in fact a terrorist. A hate monger. A killer. An evil creature. Olbermann vilifies him, correctly. Where was this same scrutiny of William Ayers? Ayers did much the same type of domestic terrorism, yet MSNBC ignores that terrorist because they want to protect Barack Obama.

Ayers gets a pass because there was no right-wing ties. Without knowing who or what this Holocaust Museum shooter stood for, believed in, or who he allied with, he is automatically labeled right-wing.

Now, let's look at the coverage Olbermann gave the shooting of an American soldier on American soil by an American Muslim-convert.

...

...

...

Exactly.

No coverage. No denouncement. No attack on the killer of young kid who was fresh from boot camp. The kid hadn't hurt a soul. He gets gunned down by an evil, sick Muslim convert. Yet, nothing. (Not even the PRESIDENT, the COMMANDER in CHIEF denounced the killing of the soldier.)

This African-American Muslim is not even being called by his Muslim name. The media buries this story, yet you have irresponsible jokes for a commentator like Olbermann ranting and raving about a lunatic and putting all right wingers into the same group.

It's all part of a trend that is painfully obvious. People with a microphone or a computer with the power of major media outlets to promote their sludge (NY Times, Time, Newsweek, Playboy, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) feel free to say or do whatever they want against conservatives.

Hate {sex} lists are okay. If we get upset with the idea that millions of people are going to see a list that details violent, hate-driven sex acts against women, its our fault because the intent was misunderstood. Violent, hate-driven acts, sexually or otherwise, are blatantly wrong. To promote them, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, is morally decrepit.

Saying a Governor of a state looks like a "slutty flight attendant" is okay, as long as she is conservative. Saying her daughter, 14 years old, would probably get knocked-up by A-Rod is okay. The girl, though not a public figure herself, is the offspring of a conservative, so guilt by association. Sorry, Willow, because we hate your mom's ideals and principles and the fact that your mom married one man, is happy, has 5 kids, and a career, AND IS CONSERVATIVE, we are going to call you and your older sister a whore. And it is okay. If we get mad, its our fault for misunderstanding. (Letterman did apologize, but a week too late and not out of sincerity, but out of pressure.)

A US Soldier is gunned down by a hate-mongering Muslim in front of a crowded shopping center in Arkansas. We will bury that story behind the guinea pig in Rhode Island that recycles soda cans. No need to admit that the hate spewed by Democratic Congressmen and people like Olbermann might have inspired and further motivated the hate that led to the killing. Hell, it was just an American Soldier. We only care if they are killed in Iraq because we can blame it directly on George Bush. (I know I am not alone in that I noticed the giddy manner in which the networks had a countdown to the various 'milestones. Almost 1,000 dead! Almost!!! Almost 3,000!!!! Almost 4,000!!!)

Even the bowing-before-other-leaders, friends-to-unrepentant-terrorists, friend-and-business-associate-of-convicted-criminals-like-Rezko, spend-tax-dollars-like-a-spoiled-rich-girl-with-daddy's-stolen-credit-card, power-mongering, fear-mongering, but charismatic President Obama is directly pushing the hate. Throughout the campaign, he spent more time directly attacking Sean Hannity than giving details on how he was going to pay for his proposals. He continued his focus on attacking Fox News earlier today when, during an interview, he lamented on the fact that a "certain network" spends all day "attacking" his administration. He said you can watch all day and not see a positive story about Obama. Well, sad to say, originally crafted, the media and the press were designed to be an outlet to control the government by spreading the truth to the people. There is not, nor ever should be, a quota on positive stories about a President's administration. To suggest that a network should include positive stories means two things: he is for control of the media because he does not appreciate opposing voices, and that he, as the leader of the free world, spends a lot of time focusing on the media and what Fox News has to say. Shouldn't he be doing more important things?

Wait...perhaps he needs to watch MORE TV. Might keep him occupied so he cannot ruin any more of my country.

America....WAKE UP!

We are quickly entering into the development of the Orwellian society depicted in "1984." Big Brother is on its way. The government already runs the banks, the mortgage and loan industry, the car industry, and, coming soon to a socialist government near you, HEALTH CARE!.

WAKE UP!

2010 might be the last chance we have to save our nation.

I Met a Hero Today.

At the outlet mall today, I met a true hero.

I met a man with the honor, strength, and courage that even the most legendary heroes of lore would pale in comparison.

I met a man with the humility and humbleness of the greatest underdog characters in your favorite stories.

This man stood tall and proud...yet he is currently confined to a wheelchair.

His ailment came courtesy of an enemy attack. The hero rides, son in lap, in a wheelchair decorated in stickers of favorite rock bands and other statements of normalcy. Oh, and let us also notice the patch embroidered the back of his chair. The patch states that this strong, courageous, heroic, yet humble and proud hero has been awarded the Purple Heart.

I met a Purple Heart recipient.

I met and talked with a man who risked his life for me. He, like thousands others, is a parent, sibling, child, cousin, friend, and relative to many people in his life. They all put so much on the line for you and me.

This man, whose name I do not know, put his life on the line for me, a name he does not know.

So many Americans forget these people. They walk past them in a hurried rush as they have to get to the next store or meeting or where ever they are heading. They make a tight passing move round the slow-moving wheelchair, sometimes even with an audible sigh of frustration, making sure the driver of the chair on wheels knows that they have somehow inconvenienced you by simply being.

This man, with his young wife and son, were out at the outlet mall, doing what normal people take for granted. Enjoying a day in decent weather under the blanket of freedom his sacrifice helped knit. Hundreds of faces he may never see again passing by, ignorant of his sacrifice. The nameless masses taking for granted the freedoms his, and so many others', sacrifices have provided since the 1700s.

As I spoke briefly, not wanting to impose on a family day out, but long enough to make sure I let him know I was sincere, he spoke with humility and pride, decency and not a hint of pessimism. He told me he had gotten blown up and that is how his leg came to be in a full-length brace, confining him to his chair. I offered condolences and apologies, which were shrugged off, as if I were offering condolences for a bug-bite. I wished a full-recovery on his leg, to which he responded that he will probably lose the leg from mid-calf. He said it without a twinge of self-pity, fear, or negativity. It was as if he were telling me he was going to have to shave. No big deal. It happens.

Here is a young man, even younger than me, with a family, who risked life and limb, literally, for America. And he will have to pay the price of losing a large portion of his right leg. And he talks about it dismissively, showing that amazing and inspiring combination of courage and humility that can only be found in the American Soldier.

I left feeling uplifted and proud to be an American. I met the REAL soldier. Not the pranksters the media still plasters all over from Abu Garhib. Not the bold-faced lies of people like John Kerry, John Murtha and others, who have called out soldiers "terrorists" and "rapists" and "pillagers" and "murderers."

I met a real hero today. And I thanked him. I hope you will thank one of our heroes when you have the chance.

The Supreme Court: It is not SUPPOSED to be Empathetic

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be an agenda-forwarding body. The Supreme Court is not a political toy. It is not supposed to be a body that determines the future of the nation based on personal feelings, experiences, backgrounds, ethnicities, or any other personal fiat.

The job...the duty...the responsibility of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the law as it applies to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not a higher power than the Executive or Legislative branches of the federal government. No branch of government is supposed to answer to or beholden to the whims of nine people on the bench of the highest court in the land.

Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial to each case they hear. They are to take themselves out of the case and judge each case on its own merits, and apply applicable laws to the case. The laws from which they are to draw are supposed to be exclusively from the Constitution of the United States.

For the last century or so, the Supreme Court has veered far, far left of center and has led the way for activists to enact change in the United States, and, in the process, has usurped the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

With the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama has opened a Pandora's Box of issues with this Judge's idea of her responsibilities. As I am sure you have heard, Sotomayor made some questionable remarks about ethnicity and ability to judge cases.

First, I agree with the arguement that had the roles been reversed, no matter what the context, and a white male had said his experiences allow for wiser decisions that a Latin-American woman, he would be vilified until he would have to step down from any bench he could concievably sit upon. That man would no longer be able to touch a gavel in a United States court. A white man saying he is better at anything than a woman, minority, or a minority woman would lose everything he has ever worked for because he would be labeled, attacked, and crucified in the media and by even his closest political allies. Sotomayor, like any minority, gets a pass because white males have no rights and no protections from racist or hate comments. Its true. White males are not protected. We have no protections, no right to get upset, no inclination to fight and complain when we are attacked and left out for no other reason than our gender and color.

I can get over that. It's the hip thing to down white guys nowadays. We are the political whipping boys anymore. Fine.

My real problem with the comments is that Sotomayor is telling us that she relies on her background to interpret the law. Not her studies. Not her familiarity with precedents and the verbage of the Constitution (you know, the document that is the basis upon which ALL Supreme Court decisions should be made). Instead, because she is a Latin American woman, she has the experiences to make judicial decisions.

So, getting back to the original points at the beginning of this rant. The job of a judge, regardless of level, whether it be the Tazewell County Courthouse in Virginia, or the 9th Circut Court in California, or the US Supreme Court, is to use the words and meanings of the Constitution of the United States.

Not the laws of England. Not the governing documents of France or Germany. Not the laws and precedents of courts in South America, Europe, or Asia.

The US Constitution, and then the individual states' Constitutions.

Nothing else.

Not empathy for individuals. Empathy is fine, but it should not determine justice. Lady justice is blindfolded for a reason. She does not have one eye exposed to look down mercifully upon a purposed victim. Lady Justice weighs the evidence and the rule of law. That's it.

It is all well and good to show pity, empathy, and compassion on an individual basis. In fact, I encourage it. I think that it is truly American to help those in need when possible. I do not think it is the job of a Supreme Court justice to show caring and concern with their binding decisions on the court.

And neither did the framers.