The more I learn about the cadre of czar loons that surround the President, the more I am beginning to believe that Obama has an agenda to radically transform America into his warped and twisted view of reality.
You won’t find this czar on the front pages of any newspaper, but you really should. His name is Kevin Jennings. Fifty-three House Republicans on Thursday, Oct. 15th, urged the President to fire his "safe schools czar," citing their concerns that Kevin Jennings wants to promote a "homosexual agenda" and that as a schoolteacher years ago he did not report that a young student told him he was romantically involved with an older man.
Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, has described in writings and speeches how a high school student confided to him in 1988 that he was having a relationship with an older man.
I won’t get into the details of all of this because it just would add accelerant to the smoke and fire surrounding a number of Obama’s closest advisors. However, after the controversy surfaced, Jennings -- the director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools -- admitted late last month that he "should have handled [the] situation differently" when the boy confided in him.
House Republicans, operating under the assumption that the student was 15 years old when Jennings spoke with him, accused the safety czar of "ignoring the sexual abuse of a child."
They added that Jennings has "played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools," and they criticized Jennings for "his own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse."
To which Jennings replies that his past drug use makes him qualified to help students and teachers confronting those issues.
Yup, that’s like asking Bernie Madoff to head up Bank of America.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
It’s Bush’s Fault
I kid you not. Senator Roland Burris said: “You know who is to blame for us losing the Olympics? Bush.” Senator Rowland Burris of Illinois, the Senator who was appointed to fill President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, blamed George Bush for Chicago not getting the Olympics in 2016. Burris stated in an interview, shortly after the announcement, that the image of the U. S. has been so tarnished in the last 8 years that, even Barack Obama making an unprecedented pitch for the games could not overcome the hatred the world has for us as a result of George Bush.
Yup, there you have it. Even the awesome-charismatic-gifted speaker-messiah come to save us-chief apologizer for the U.S.-mess cleaner upper-rootin’ tootin’ Mr. President Obama himself couldn’t persuade the Euro Olympic Committee that Chicago was the place for the 2016 Olympics.
Gosh, he played the game well. Oh well, it’s not about winning or losing, but how you play the game.
Now let’s see…Bush was complicit in 9/11 according to loons like Van Jones, former Obama czar. Bush caused Katrina. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. Bush caused the recession. Bush stole his own election. Bush loved to listen in on phone conversations of U.S. citizens. I think if a Democrat accidentally ran over a puppy in their own driveway, they would blame Bush for not requiring a leash law, or for not funding the organizaton to control the pet population.
Let’s face it. For the rest of our natural lives, George W. Bush has been, is, and will be the cause of everything bad in America. Get used to it. History revisionists will tell the tale forever.
But, as we wait for things to improve under the “Change President,” we are entering an unprecedented 10 trillion dollar debt load, moving toward a nationalized-everything-that-moves country, and a list of ever-changing promises of “savings by spending” global mentality that finally has been rejected in the latest German elections.
Gee, I just can’t wait to get up every morning!
Yup, there you have it. Even the awesome-charismatic-gifted speaker-messiah come to save us-chief apologizer for the U.S.-mess cleaner upper-rootin’ tootin’ Mr. President Obama himself couldn’t persuade the Euro Olympic Committee that Chicago was the place for the 2016 Olympics.
Gosh, he played the game well. Oh well, it’s not about winning or losing, but how you play the game.
Now let’s see…Bush was complicit in 9/11 according to loons like Van Jones, former Obama czar. Bush caused Katrina. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. Bush caused the recession. Bush stole his own election. Bush loved to listen in on phone conversations of U.S. citizens. I think if a Democrat accidentally ran over a puppy in their own driveway, they would blame Bush for not requiring a leash law, or for not funding the organizaton to control the pet population.
Let’s face it. For the rest of our natural lives, George W. Bush has been, is, and will be the cause of everything bad in America. Get used to it. History revisionists will tell the tale forever.
But, as we wait for things to improve under the “Change President,” we are entering an unprecedented 10 trillion dollar debt load, moving toward a nationalized-everything-that-moves country, and a list of ever-changing promises of “savings by spending” global mentality that finally has been rejected in the latest German elections.
Gee, I just can’t wait to get up every morning!
Friday, September 25, 2009
World Peace Visionary or the U.S.’s Naysayer?
This week, as the Senate debated some 600 amendments to the proposed healthcare reform, the President was front and center on the world stage.
On Wednesday (Sept. 23rd), the President laid out his four goals for the world in his address to the UN General Assembly: “Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.”
Sounds like a true visionary, and if that will become the legacy of the President, wonderful. However, he was addressing the UN, seeking its cooperation. In an ideal world, with leaders whose only motivation would be peace and the advancement of opportunity for all, the President’s four goals would be worthy of universal agreement.
However, as Steve Hayes, senior writer for "The Weekly Standard" pointed out… “ The United Nations is a broken institution. You have Muammar Qaddafi, a rogue dictator, a crazy man, speaking -- supposed to speak for 15 minutes, ends up speaking for some 90 minutes…The United Nations was never able to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. It is not able to enforce its resolutions on Iran. It is not even able to keep Muammar Qaddafi from talking for more than 15 minutes.”
Hayes’ evaluation notwithstanding, Qaddafi did highlight the ineffectiveness of the UN. At one point, Qaddafi grabbed hold of the UN charter and threw it over his shoulder in obvious disdain, and chastised the international body for failing to intervene or prevent some 65 wars since the U.N. was founded in 1945.
However, back to the President’s address…as he welcomed the repeated applause of the world community, he had this to say:
“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.”
I guess he was talking about NATO in his reference to “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.” I have no idea what the “divisions of nations of the South and the North” means, other than the U.S. and Latin America…or maybe between North Korea and South Korea. The President often uses these Ciceronian metric cadences with words that one glosses over without understanding what he means…if he even knows what he means.
It is no wonder that former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, the only Ph.D. historian ever to serve in the House, turns to Charles Krauthammer for his insights into the political news of the day.
Krauthammer had this to say about that portion of the President’s speech:
“You had a president of the United States actually saying no nation can or should try to dominate another.
“I will buy the ‘should try to’ as kind of adolescent wishful thinking, but no nation can dominate another? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?
“But the alarming part is what he said in the same paragraph where he said that it is -- makes no sense anymore-- quote, ‘The alignments of nations that are rooted in the cleavages of the cold war.’
“Well, NATO is rooted in the cleavage of the cold war. The European Union is rooted in the cleavage of the cold war. Our alliances with Japan and Korea and the Philippines, our guarantees to Taiwan and Eastern Europe are all rooted in the cleavage of the cold war.
“Interesting noun, incidentally. So he is saying that is all now irrelevant. What does he think our allies are going to think who hear this?
“Obama's speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone.
“It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say as every president has said before Obama that we stand for something good and unique in the world.
“And it is not the equivalent, for example, of the alignment of Chavez with Ecuador and Bolivia and Nicaragua and Russia and Cuba and Iran.”
Rhetoric will never achieve the four lofty goals of the President. Nor will abrogating our country’s destiny to lead the world of friendly nations in its never-ending confrontation with those countries and movements which wish us harm.
Obama will have friends in the world community, but his kind of friends may ultimately turn into what they already are…our worst enemies.
On Wednesday (Sept. 23rd), the President laid out his four goals for the world in his address to the UN General Assembly: “Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.”
Sounds like a true visionary, and if that will become the legacy of the President, wonderful. However, he was addressing the UN, seeking its cooperation. In an ideal world, with leaders whose only motivation would be peace and the advancement of opportunity for all, the President’s four goals would be worthy of universal agreement.
However, as Steve Hayes, senior writer for "The Weekly Standard" pointed out… “ The United Nations is a broken institution. You have Muammar Qaddafi, a rogue dictator, a crazy man, speaking -- supposed to speak for 15 minutes, ends up speaking for some 90 minutes…The United Nations was never able to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. It is not able to enforce its resolutions on Iran. It is not even able to keep Muammar Qaddafi from talking for more than 15 minutes.”
Hayes’ evaluation notwithstanding, Qaddafi did highlight the ineffectiveness of the UN. At one point, Qaddafi grabbed hold of the UN charter and threw it over his shoulder in obvious disdain, and chastised the international body for failing to intervene or prevent some 65 wars since the U.N. was founded in 1945.
However, back to the President’s address…as he welcomed the repeated applause of the world community, he had this to say:
“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.”
I guess he was talking about NATO in his reference to “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.” I have no idea what the “divisions of nations of the South and the North” means, other than the U.S. and Latin America…or maybe between North Korea and South Korea. The President often uses these Ciceronian metric cadences with words that one glosses over without understanding what he means…if he even knows what he means.
It is no wonder that former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, the only Ph.D. historian ever to serve in the House, turns to Charles Krauthammer for his insights into the political news of the day.
Krauthammer had this to say about that portion of the President’s speech:
“You had a president of the United States actually saying no nation can or should try to dominate another.
“I will buy the ‘should try to’ as kind of adolescent wishful thinking, but no nation can dominate another? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?
“But the alarming part is what he said in the same paragraph where he said that it is -- makes no sense anymore-- quote, ‘The alignments of nations that are rooted in the cleavages of the cold war.’
“Well, NATO is rooted in the cleavage of the cold war. The European Union is rooted in the cleavage of the cold war. Our alliances with Japan and Korea and the Philippines, our guarantees to Taiwan and Eastern Europe are all rooted in the cleavage of the cold war.
“Interesting noun, incidentally. So he is saying that is all now irrelevant. What does he think our allies are going to think who hear this?
“Obama's speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone.
“It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say as every president has said before Obama that we stand for something good and unique in the world.
“And it is not the equivalent, for example, of the alignment of Chavez with Ecuador and Bolivia and Nicaragua and Russia and Cuba and Iran.”
Rhetoric will never achieve the four lofty goals of the President. Nor will abrogating our country’s destiny to lead the world of friendly nations in its never-ending confrontation with those countries and movements which wish us harm.
Obama will have friends in the world community, but his kind of friends may ultimately turn into what they already are…our worst enemies.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Healthcare and the President’s 30th speech on the subject
As many Americans did, I watched the President deliver his touted speech to members of Congress and the country Sept. 9th. It was an eloquent and masterful composition of ideas on improving the healthcare system. No one has ever doubted both the need for healthcare reform and the eloquence of the 44th leader of our country.
Cleverly drawing from ideas of Sen. McCain, and implying his outreach for compromise with Republicans in Congress, and promising competition in the private health insurance field, was there anything new in his 30th speech on the subject?
Sadly, no.
Just an unusual outburst after Obama stated: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber. Apology offered and accepted. Racial implications? Crazy. Apologize to the House? Crazier.
If you’ve ever watched the non-stop outbursts from MPs when the House of Commons meets with the Prime Minister in Britain, our presidential addresses to both houses of Congress seem like sermons in places of worship…no dialogue allowed.
However, was the President totally truthful in his speech?
Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Economist Martin Feldstein takes a hard look at "the exploding path of fiscal deficits," which would be made far worse by Obamacare. So much for a reform that pays for itself. He writes:
“For starters, $1 trillion of extra debt-financed spending would cause the government to pay about $300 billion of extra interest in the next decade. Moreover, the CBO's method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn't recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior.
“The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created "insurance exchanges," but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO's cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.”
The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the "insurance market" is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that’s true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire "insurance market."
Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.
But on to any new ideas in his speech….
Tort reform? No. Nothing new there.
The ability to purchase health insurance plans across state lines? No. While promising competition to drive down premiums in the private health insurance industry, he carefully avoided what could truly drive down the cost of private health insurance by not mentioning THAT change.
As a conservative I am not too far away from the president in three areas: No pre-existing conditions, affordable catastrophic health care with a kick-in of a form of Medicaid subsidies to private insurance companies derived from filing tax returns, and mandated catastrophic coverage for young adults. $50 a month is around the going rate in Michigan. Young adults spend that on a couple of movies. One of the areas where I differ from many conservatives lies not only in mandated health coverage in two areas: First, if someone should not want to purchase their own health insurance (as in requiring the purchase cost for a driver’s license to drive,) they should be taxed 2X, or more, the cost of catastrophic health insurance premiums to help cover costs incurred should they need medical care. Second, if the 12 million illegals file income tax returns, they should qualify to purchase private health insurance. However, no illegal, unless given a waiver, would ever do that for fear of deportation. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has ruled that, in true emergencies, healthcare cannot be denied illegals, costing the U.S. taxpayer billions each year.
If the President wants healthcare reform, it has to be done incrementally to correct the present system with true bipartisan dialogue. To throw HR3200 to the American public as the preferential outline for reform, which still is the President’s preferred plan as far as I could tell from his speech, is to offer a plan that certainly all conservatives reject, as well as an increasing number of senior citizens and small businesses.
Cleverly drawing from ideas of Sen. McCain, and implying his outreach for compromise with Republicans in Congress, and promising competition in the private health insurance field, was there anything new in his 30th speech on the subject?
Sadly, no.
Just an unusual outburst after Obama stated: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber. Apology offered and accepted. Racial implications? Crazy. Apologize to the House? Crazier.
If you’ve ever watched the non-stop outbursts from MPs when the House of Commons meets with the Prime Minister in Britain, our presidential addresses to both houses of Congress seem like sermons in places of worship…no dialogue allowed.
However, was the President totally truthful in his speech?
Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Economist Martin Feldstein takes a hard look at "the exploding path of fiscal deficits," which would be made far worse by Obamacare. So much for a reform that pays for itself. He writes:
“For starters, $1 trillion of extra debt-financed spending would cause the government to pay about $300 billion of extra interest in the next decade. Moreover, the CBO's method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn't recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior.
“The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created "insurance exchanges," but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO's cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.”
The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the "insurance market" is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that’s true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire "insurance market."
Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.
But on to any new ideas in his speech….
Tort reform? No. Nothing new there.
The ability to purchase health insurance plans across state lines? No. While promising competition to drive down premiums in the private health insurance industry, he carefully avoided what could truly drive down the cost of private health insurance by not mentioning THAT change.
As a conservative I am not too far away from the president in three areas: No pre-existing conditions, affordable catastrophic health care with a kick-in of a form of Medicaid subsidies to private insurance companies derived from filing tax returns, and mandated catastrophic coverage for young adults. $50 a month is around the going rate in Michigan. Young adults spend that on a couple of movies. One of the areas where I differ from many conservatives lies not only in mandated health coverage in two areas: First, if someone should not want to purchase their own health insurance (as in requiring the purchase cost for a driver’s license to drive,) they should be taxed 2X, or more, the cost of catastrophic health insurance premiums to help cover costs incurred should they need medical care. Second, if the 12 million illegals file income tax returns, they should qualify to purchase private health insurance. However, no illegal, unless given a waiver, would ever do that for fear of deportation. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has ruled that, in true emergencies, healthcare cannot be denied illegals, costing the U.S. taxpayer billions each year.
If the President wants healthcare reform, it has to be done incrementally to correct the present system with true bipartisan dialogue. To throw HR3200 to the American public as the preferential outline for reform, which still is the President’s preferred plan as far as I could tell from his speech, is to offer a plan that certainly all conservatives reject, as well as an increasing number of senior citizens and small businesses.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Fairness Doctrine
“In Venezuela, with Chavez, you really had an incredible revolution — democratic revolution — to begin to put in place things that were going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — worked, frankly, with folks here in the US government — worked to oust him. He came back and had another revolution, and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in his country.”
Words of a Chavez supporter? Commentary by pro-Chavez talk radio host in Venezuela? Not really.
They are comments by Obama’s new “Diversity Czar,” Mark Lloyd. 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.
Huh? Licensing fees equal to their total operating costs? That’s a 100% charge to fund public broadcasting. Who the heck pays 100% of operating costs to the government to fund a competitive corporation in our society? WIAA in Interlochen would benefit, not for broadcasting classical music, but for providing more of public broadcasting. So would CMU’s public broadcasting station in Mt. Pleasant. That is if they were dumb enough to see what’s really going on here: Silence conservative talk radio.
Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America,” published by the University of Illinois Press.
Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.
The CPB is a non-profit entity that was created by Congress and that currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies each year. In fiscal 2009, it is receiving an appropriation of $400 million.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book.
“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.
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.
“In addition, educational programs for children and adults, and diverse, independent personal and cultural expression should be encouraged,” he wrote.
Hey, I’m all for fairness in politics, news reporting, and the like. This garbage is coming from the guy who now has power to make his version of “diversity” stick.
A famous leader, whose name begins with “S” and who lived in Russia, once said ““Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”
If you, as a liberal who believes in the radical agenda our president is laying out for this country, wanted to promote that agenda…the death of conservative talk radio would be one more step in state-run domination of the news…all in the name of “fairness and diversity.” How hypocritical and how dangerous, as the advisors to Obama seek to control one more media outlet.
Words of a Chavez supporter? Commentary by pro-Chavez talk radio host in Venezuela? Not really.
They are comments by Obama’s new “Diversity Czar,” Mark Lloyd. 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.
Huh? Licensing fees equal to their total operating costs? That’s a 100% charge to fund public broadcasting. Who the heck pays 100% of operating costs to the government to fund a competitive corporation in our society? WIAA in Interlochen would benefit, not for broadcasting classical music, but for providing more of public broadcasting. So would CMU’s public broadcasting station in Mt. Pleasant. That is if they were dumb enough to see what’s really going on here: Silence conservative talk radio.
Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America,” published by the University of Illinois Press.
Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.
The CPB is a non-profit entity that was created by Congress and that currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies each year. In fiscal 2009, it is receiving an appropriation of $400 million.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book.
“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.
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.
“In addition, educational programs for children and adults, and diverse, independent personal and cultural expression should be encouraged,” he wrote.
Hey, I’m all for fairness in politics, news reporting, and the like. This garbage is coming from the guy who now has power to make his version of “diversity” stick.
A famous leader, whose name begins with “S” and who lived in Russia, once said ““Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”
If you, as a liberal who believes in the radical agenda our president is laying out for this country, wanted to promote that agenda…the death of conservative talk radio would be one more step in state-run domination of the news…all in the name of “fairness and diversity.” How hypocritical and how dangerous, as the advisors to Obama seek to control one more media outlet.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Are We Headed Toward a Form of Eugenics?
The term eugenics comes from the Greek roots for "good" and "generation" or "origin" and was first used to refer to the "science" of heredity and good breeding in about 1883. Within 20 years, the word was widely used by scientists who had rediscovered the work of Gregor Mendel. Mendel had meticulously recorded the results of cross-breeding pea plants, and found a very regular statistical pattern for features like height and color.
Local eugenics societies and groups sprang up around the United States after World War I, with names like the Race Betterment Foundation. The war had given many Americans a greater fear of foreigners, and immigration to the United States was still increasing. In 1923, organizers founded the American Eugenics Society, and it quickly grew to 29 chapters around the country. At fairs and exhibitions, eugenicists spread the word and hosted "fitter family" and "better baby" competitions to award blue ribbons to the finest human stock -- not unlike the awards for prize bull and biggest pumpkin.
Eugenics was seen as such a great idea that the government got into the act. In 1924, the Immigration Act was passed by majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. It set up strict quotas limiting immigrants from countries believed by eugenicists to have "inferior" stock, particularly Southern Europe and Asia. President Coolidge, who signed the bill into law, had stated when he was vice president, "America should be kept American. . . . Biological laws show that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races."
Well, folks, it looks like we are back at this idiocy again. Enter our “regulatory czar” Cass R. Sunstein. Mr. Sunstein, who for years was a colleague of Mr. Obama at the University of Chicago, co-authored a book with Richard Thaler, also of the University of Chicago, entitled “Nudge” in 2008.
In their book and in a blog (nudges.wordpress.com), Mr. Thaler and Mr. Sunstein favor nudging people to save more, eat better, weigh less, invest more sensibly, pay down debt, avoid hazardous mortgages, drive safely and wear bike helmets — a list that expands as new ideas and new problems conducive to nudging emerge.
Brilliant! Common sense…no? Orwellian? Lots of opinions about Sunstein, who now has real power to “nudge” people into “better” choices in their daily lives.
Let’s suppose that we have a single-payer health care system in the U.S. The question of prioritizing costs comes before Mr. Sunstein. As “regulatory czar” he has influence with the President.
Now, if we look at Obama’s remark the other day about “grandma” taking a pill rather than getting a pacemaker, we can see where Sunstein’s influence might suggest that the elderly are a fiscal drain on the new health care system. And are we going to have a plethora of “baby boomers” that will fall into that category!
So, let’s see where this scenario leads us…Twenty-year olds are less likely to need pacemakers, expensive medication, etc. However, at about age 55, according Sunstein’s own research, costs for health care begin to increase.
Now comes the eugenics part. If we had less elderly folks, the government could cover all the health care needs of the active, pre-60s workers. So, maybe this fact would necessitate extending Medicare benefits to those who turn 70, instead of 65…how about the broken Social Security system? Let’s not give benefits until a person turns 68 or 70. In a worst case scenario, let’s just authorize money for pain pills for the 85 year-old who needs a knee or hip replacement.
Oh, and by the way, let’s limit the number of children born so the government doesn’t have such a big health care bill.
Obama has appointed John P. Holdren as his science czar. This crazed maniac penned a book with Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 1977 titled Ecoscience. In this book he mentions compulsory population-control laws, laws including compulsory abortion, and that these could be sustained under the existing constitution.
He also goes on about taking children from single mothers and placing them with married couples, adding a chemical that would sterilize humans to drinking water or to staple foods.
Below are some quotes by these goofballs from their book:
From page 786:
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
From pages 786-7:
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
From pages 787-8:
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
From page 837:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
From page 838:
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”
Maybe as a 68 year-old male who has fathered nine children, I would have been required to exercise reproductive responsibility under a new health care system…gee, wouldn’t that have been nice…no sleepless nights, diaper changes, etc. Nah, my wife did all those things…
What kind of “nudge” will it take to get this President and his buddies out of the business of governance? Maybe voting him out of a second term would be a good start.
Local eugenics societies and groups sprang up around the United States after World War I, with names like the Race Betterment Foundation. The war had given many Americans a greater fear of foreigners, and immigration to the United States was still increasing. In 1923, organizers founded the American Eugenics Society, and it quickly grew to 29 chapters around the country. At fairs and exhibitions, eugenicists spread the word and hosted "fitter family" and "better baby" competitions to award blue ribbons to the finest human stock -- not unlike the awards for prize bull and biggest pumpkin.
Eugenics was seen as such a great idea that the government got into the act. In 1924, the Immigration Act was passed by majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. It set up strict quotas limiting immigrants from countries believed by eugenicists to have "inferior" stock, particularly Southern Europe and Asia. President Coolidge, who signed the bill into law, had stated when he was vice president, "America should be kept American. . . . Biological laws show that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races."
Well, folks, it looks like we are back at this idiocy again. Enter our “regulatory czar” Cass R. Sunstein. Mr. Sunstein, who for years was a colleague of Mr. Obama at the University of Chicago, co-authored a book with Richard Thaler, also of the University of Chicago, entitled “Nudge” in 2008.
In their book and in a blog (nudges.wordpress.com), Mr. Thaler and Mr. Sunstein favor nudging people to save more, eat better, weigh less, invest more sensibly, pay down debt, avoid hazardous mortgages, drive safely and wear bike helmets — a list that expands as new ideas and new problems conducive to nudging emerge.
Brilliant! Common sense…no? Orwellian? Lots of opinions about Sunstein, who now has real power to “nudge” people into “better” choices in their daily lives.
Let’s suppose that we have a single-payer health care system in the U.S. The question of prioritizing costs comes before Mr. Sunstein. As “regulatory czar” he has influence with the President.
Now, if we look at Obama’s remark the other day about “grandma” taking a pill rather than getting a pacemaker, we can see where Sunstein’s influence might suggest that the elderly are a fiscal drain on the new health care system. And are we going to have a plethora of “baby boomers” that will fall into that category!
So, let’s see where this scenario leads us…Twenty-year olds are less likely to need pacemakers, expensive medication, etc. However, at about age 55, according Sunstein’s own research, costs for health care begin to increase.
Now comes the eugenics part. If we had less elderly folks, the government could cover all the health care needs of the active, pre-60s workers. So, maybe this fact would necessitate extending Medicare benefits to those who turn 70, instead of 65…how about the broken Social Security system? Let’s not give benefits until a person turns 68 or 70. In a worst case scenario, let’s just authorize money for pain pills for the 85 year-old who needs a knee or hip replacement.
Oh, and by the way, let’s limit the number of children born so the government doesn’t have such a big health care bill.
Obama has appointed John P. Holdren as his science czar. This crazed maniac penned a book with Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 1977 titled Ecoscience. In this book he mentions compulsory population-control laws, laws including compulsory abortion, and that these could be sustained under the existing constitution.
He also goes on about taking children from single mothers and placing them with married couples, adding a chemical that would sterilize humans to drinking water or to staple foods.
Below are some quotes by these goofballs from their book:
From page 786:
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
From pages 786-7:
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
From pages 787-8:
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
From page 837:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
From page 838:
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”
Maybe as a 68 year-old male who has fathered nine children, I would have been required to exercise reproductive responsibility under a new health care system…gee, wouldn’t that have been nice…no sleepless nights, diaper changes, etc. Nah, my wife did all those things…
What kind of “nudge” will it take to get this President and his buddies out of the business of governance? Maybe voting him out of a second term would be a good start.
Friday, July 31, 2009
The International Tragedy of Abortion
There has been a steady focus for years on whether a political party or politician supports abortion here in the U.S. The Democratic party’s platform is pro-abortion and the Republican party’s is pro-life. However, as I cited in a previous post, the country is moving more toward a pro-life position, with over half the population expressing disagreement with the practice.
However, the abortion scenario abroad is mind-boggling. The BBC reports that in China there are 13 million abortions each year, compared to 20 million births. In many cases women are restricted to just one child, although in rural areas some couples can have two children if the first is a girl. This policy, begun in the 1970s, has forced young women to seek abortions. In its front-page story, the China Daily said the high number of abortions was "cause for concern", adding that many women who have abortions are single and aged between 20 and 29. Women are complaining that they are pressured into terminating their pregnancies.
As horrendous as China’s disposal of human life in the womb is, Russia’s abortion rate is worse. There are often more abortions annually in Russia than live births. The latest figures from the UN and the CD for one recent year show that 1.8 million abortions were performed compared to 1.5 million births.
Natural family planning, where necessary, is common sense. The massive international slaughter of innocent children in the womb is self-destructive behavior at its unthinkable worse. I wonder how much of this international tragedy can be laid at the feet of the Supreme Court justices who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade because, even today, America leads the world in setting social mores.
What pro-abortion advocates in government do here and now in the U.S. contributes in ways unseen, in my opinion, toward an increasing international disregard for human life in its earliest stages.
However, the abortion scenario abroad is mind-boggling. The BBC reports that in China there are 13 million abortions each year, compared to 20 million births. In many cases women are restricted to just one child, although in rural areas some couples can have two children if the first is a girl. This policy, begun in the 1970s, has forced young women to seek abortions. In its front-page story, the China Daily said the high number of abortions was "cause for concern", adding that many women who have abortions are single and aged between 20 and 29. Women are complaining that they are pressured into terminating their pregnancies.
As horrendous as China’s disposal of human life in the womb is, Russia’s abortion rate is worse. There are often more abortions annually in Russia than live births. The latest figures from the UN and the CD for one recent year show that 1.8 million abortions were performed compared to 1.5 million births.
Natural family planning, where necessary, is common sense. The massive international slaughter of innocent children in the womb is self-destructive behavior at its unthinkable worse. I wonder how much of this international tragedy can be laid at the feet of the Supreme Court justices who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade because, even today, America leads the world in setting social mores.
What pro-abortion advocates in government do here and now in the U.S. contributes in ways unseen, in my opinion, toward an increasing international disregard for human life in its earliest stages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
