Steele reads the tea-leaves that even the smartest President in history cannot discern.
My only complaint is that Republicans should be pushing to bring it to the floor. Some hard, pipe-hitting Republicans that believe in the Constitution and freedom. Tell the Democrats straight up, vote on it, go on record, not a voice vote.
Then go back home and face your constituents.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Is it "I am my brother's keeper"
or "Am I my brother's keeper"?
Obama is a skilled dissimulator, and is now applying his skills to the Bible. It may be a skill he learned from Jeremiah Wright, who found things in the Bible that centuries of scholars did not find. Now Obama has apparently found a commandment in the Bible that demands that we become a socialist nation.
Actually, neither the words "my brother's keeper" nor any expectation of being my brother's keeper came from God. It was never a commandment. Maybe we are simply to ignorant of the Bible to catch it, but Cain said these words to God when asked where his brother Abel was. In case you didn't know, Cain has just murdered Abel, and tried to cover it up by basically saying that it wasn't his day to baby-sit his brother.
Commandment? Maybe not.
Obama is a skilled dissimulator, and is now applying his skills to the Bible. It may be a skill he learned from Jeremiah Wright, who found things in the Bible that centuries of scholars did not find. Now Obama has apparently found a commandment in the Bible that demands that we become a socialist nation.
Actually, neither the words "my brother's keeper" nor any expectation of being my brother's keeper came from God. It was never a commandment. Maybe we are simply to ignorant of the Bible to catch it, but Cain said these words to God when asked where his brother Abel was. In case you didn't know, Cain has just murdered Abel, and tried to cover it up by basically saying that it wasn't his day to baby-sit his brother.
Commandment? Maybe not.
Obama reaches out to rabbis
which is normally a safe move for liberals.
Wonder if the rabbis asked to cut a deal: we'll support Obamacare if you support Israel.
Wonder if the rabbis asked to cut a deal: we'll support Obamacare if you support Israel.
Liberal Lies on Healthcare
Pay attention to about 1:15 to 1:40 into the clip. Dr. Som Saha says it's "an unfortunate interpretation of the letter." Then at about 2:00 to 2:10 he says "that's not a question that we think about."
Finally, at about 2:20, the good(?) doctor admits that treating an expensive illness such as cancer uses money that could be spent to treat other, less expensive illnesses. But somehow they can make that determination without ever thinking about a question like treatment vs. euthanasia.
He lies. They thought about it and decided that someone can die. If you don't want to die painfully, you can die painlessly with assistance from a doctor.
Liars.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Dems to go it alone on Obamacare?
So thinks the NYTimes. Assorted Dems think it is a good idea.
The question will be how many Dems agree that the idea is a winner for them. Some, such as David Boren, know that it's a killer for them. A lot of others should have a clue by now whether it works in their districts.
If the polls are correct, it won't.
Maybe the best thing the Republicans can do is bring to the floor of the respective houses, similar to shutting up Charlie Rangle's call for the draft. Make it clear that the Democrats always had the votes to bring it to the floor, even in the Senate. The Republicans in each chamber should make it clear that the Republican Party is still the party of freedom and capitalism, but, hey, if you Dems want to do, do it now. Call for a clear reading and debate on the bill, so the public knows exactly what they are getting. Point out that it was Republicans that removed the death panels, but if the Dems want to add them back in, fine. Finish the motion with reassurances that the Republicans will run in 2010 on rolling back Obamacare, the $1.5 trillion deficit, and listening to their constituents.
Enough Democrats will back away from this one. It will destroy Pelosi, Reid, David "Astroturf" Axelrod and Obama.
The question will be how many Dems agree that the idea is a winner for them. Some, such as David Boren, know that it's a killer for them. A lot of others should have a clue by now whether it works in their districts.
If the polls are correct, it won't.
Maybe the best thing the Republicans can do is bring to the floor of the respective houses, similar to shutting up Charlie Rangle's call for the draft. Make it clear that the Democrats always had the votes to bring it to the floor, even in the Senate. The Republicans in each chamber should make it clear that the Republican Party is still the party of freedom and capitalism, but, hey, if you Dems want to do, do it now. Call for a clear reading and debate on the bill, so the public knows exactly what they are getting. Point out that it was Republicans that removed the death panels, but if the Dems want to add them back in, fine. Finish the motion with reassurances that the Republicans will run in 2010 on rolling back Obamacare, the $1.5 trillion deficit, and listening to their constituents.
Enough Democrats will back away from this one. It will destroy Pelosi, Reid, David "Astroturf" Axelrod and Obama.
More WWJD on Healthcare
The estimable but atheist Allahpundit repeats the question on Obamacare, and appears to believe that it may be a valid question:
"Frankly, I’m surprised the Democrats haven’t pushed more of a moral/religious spin on red-staters to try to weaken support among conservatives who are making Blue Dogs’ lives hell. There are worse sales pitches than reminding evangelicals that universal health care means treatment for 47 million people who currently suffer without."
If he were to poll the leaders of some churches, he would probably get a positive response. The Episcopals, for example, are solidly on board, though some continue to question whether the TEC remains a Christian group in any sense of the word, other than the fact that they continue to use Christian vocabulary to describe their heresies.
Methodist, hard to say but likely. Presbyterians, likewise. Catholics have almost made social justice one of the sacraments (/sarc), so I'm guessing yes. Someday the Catholics might wake up and realize that those who would demand their support for socialized medicine are the same people who would demand abortion on demand from Catholic hospitals, gay marriage, and the destruction of their faith.
But Allah's question may stem from his lack of experience with Christian values. It's obvious from his writing that he has a decent grasp of Christian "dogmas" but he seems to have little understanding of issues like responsibility and consequences. After all, Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church straight and straight up said, "If a man won't work, neither shall he eat." His assessment of the people of Crete was similar if not more descriptive: "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true..."
Incidentally, this is not an argument against Christian charity, but rather an argument against parasitism. The Bible, Old and New Testament, always requires that believers assist those who cannot help themselves: widows, orphans, people on whom catastrophe has fallen. But Christ never proposed supporting a permanent victim class.
He was always ready to forgive and restore, if the recipient of the forgiveness and restoration repented. In the parable of the Prodigal, the father didn't find the son and continue to transfer money to his bank account so the son could continue to waste it on whores and riotous living. Christ told the woman taken in adultery that He did not condemn her, but it was time to cut that adultery thing out. And it seems likely that He would say to the permanently unemployed "Get a job."
WWJD? Be responsible. That just might mean stop blaming others for your stupidity.
Just saying.
"Frankly, I’m surprised the Democrats haven’t pushed more of a moral/religious spin on red-staters to try to weaken support among conservatives who are making Blue Dogs’ lives hell. There are worse sales pitches than reminding evangelicals that universal health care means treatment for 47 million people who currently suffer without."
If he were to poll the leaders of some churches, he would probably get a positive response. The Episcopals, for example, are solidly on board, though some continue to question whether the TEC remains a Christian group in any sense of the word, other than the fact that they continue to use Christian vocabulary to describe their heresies.
Methodist, hard to say but likely. Presbyterians, likewise. Catholics have almost made social justice one of the sacraments (/sarc), so I'm guessing yes. Someday the Catholics might wake up and realize that those who would demand their support for socialized medicine are the same people who would demand abortion on demand from Catholic hospitals, gay marriage, and the destruction of their faith.
But Allah's question may stem from his lack of experience with Christian values. It's obvious from his writing that he has a decent grasp of Christian "dogmas" but he seems to have little understanding of issues like responsibility and consequences. After all, Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church straight and straight up said, "If a man won't work, neither shall he eat." His assessment of the people of Crete was similar if not more descriptive: "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true..."
Incidentally, this is not an argument against Christian charity, but rather an argument against parasitism. The Bible, Old and New Testament, always requires that believers assist those who cannot help themselves: widows, orphans, people on whom catastrophe has fallen. But Christ never proposed supporting a permanent victim class.
He was always ready to forgive and restore, if the recipient of the forgiveness and restoration repented. In the parable of the Prodigal, the father didn't find the son and continue to transfer money to his bank account so the son could continue to waste it on whores and riotous living. Christ told the woman taken in adultery that He did not condemn her, but it was time to cut that adultery thing out. And it seems likely that He would say to the permanently unemployed "Get a job."
WWJD? Be responsible. That just might mean stop blaming others for your stupidity.
Just saying.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Is the Public Health Care Option Dead?
Senator Conrad (D-ND) says it is. Secretary Sebelius says it's not an essential element for Obamacare.
Conrad we can trust, probably. Sebilius, not so much. But it looks like we are moving into the face-saving phase of Obamacare, wherein Obama takes what he can get and proclaims himself the winner, except the Leftists will scream and the Right will spew liquids through their nostils in derision. The question is whether Obama can walk it back without Jim Demint blasting "Waterloo" over the Senate sound system. Obama will certainly try, and the media will undoubtedly help him.
No one will want Gibbs job, that's for sure. Another win for Sarah Palin? I vote yes.
The real issue now is what smaller damages the Dems can do to health care... I mean, what measures they can craft to try to save something from this debacle. It's questionable whether they can salvage enough to save 50 seats in the House, and who knows how many Senate seats.
Are there acceptable compromises?
1. Remove restrictions on selling health insurance across state lines. Figure this one out: the federal government can use the Interstate Commerce clause to fight hate crimes, which was NOT the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause, but they won't open up a normal economic transaction like the sale of insurance, which WAS the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause. (And no, I don't think crime is a good thing. I just think we need to prostitute the Constitution to achieve some social goal. And why isn't a crime just a crime?)
2. Something needs to be done about preexisting conditions. A family has insurance, someone changes jobs, and neither the old or new insurance companies have to pay for medical treatment for serious illnesses. If a person paid for insurance with their old job, they need to be covered for catastrophic illnesses. No, I don't know how it should be worked out, I just know that it should be worked out.
3. Restrictions on medical lawsuits. Lawyers should not be able to treat medical care like Vegas. Get the right case, get the right jury, and get rich. If you want proof that this is a bad system, I give you John Edwards. (While we are on this subject, why should any aspect of our national life be subject to throw of the judicial dice? Legal representation should not be a crap shoot wherein a lawyer can gamble on your claim to get rich. I read that the ACLU is basically self-funding via lawsuits. Is that correct?)
What about co-ops? The idea is that the federal government can manage insurance for people who aren't doing it themselves. If this is bad on a large scale, doing it on a small scale does not suddenly infuse it with wisdom and virtue. It's just another dumb socialist idea. Co-ops looks like another wedge in the system, similar to SCHIP. As long as we agree that the government is responsible for some part of health care, they can take over the whole thing, assuming that they have the votes. We need to make it
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Conrad we can trust, probably. Sebilius, not so much. But it looks like we are moving into the face-saving phase of Obamacare, wherein Obama takes what he can get and proclaims himself the winner, except the Leftists will scream and the Right will spew liquids through their nostils in derision. The question is whether Obama can walk it back without Jim Demint blasting "Waterloo" over the Senate sound system. Obama will certainly try, and the media will undoubtedly help him.
No one will want Gibbs job, that's for sure. Another win for Sarah Palin? I vote yes.
The real issue now is what smaller damages the Dems can do to health care... I mean, what measures they can craft to try to save something from this debacle. It's questionable whether they can salvage enough to save 50 seats in the House, and who knows how many Senate seats.
Are there acceptable compromises?
1. Remove restrictions on selling health insurance across state lines. Figure this one out: the federal government can use the Interstate Commerce clause to fight hate crimes, which was NOT the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause, but they won't open up a normal economic transaction like the sale of insurance, which WAS the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause. (And no, I don't think crime is a good thing. I just think we need to prostitute the Constitution to achieve some social goal. And why isn't a crime just a crime?)
2. Something needs to be done about preexisting conditions. A family has insurance, someone changes jobs, and neither the old or new insurance companies have to pay for medical treatment for serious illnesses. If a person paid for insurance with their old job, they need to be covered for catastrophic illnesses. No, I don't know how it should be worked out, I just know that it should be worked out.
3. Restrictions on medical lawsuits. Lawyers should not be able to treat medical care like Vegas. Get the right case, get the right jury, and get rich. If you want proof that this is a bad system, I give you John Edwards. (While we are on this subject, why should any aspect of our national life be subject to throw of the judicial dice? Legal representation should not be a crap shoot wherein a lawyer can gamble on your claim to get rich. I read that the ACLU is basically self-funding via lawsuits. Is that correct?)
What about co-ops? The idea is that the federal government can manage insurance for people who aren't doing it themselves. If this is bad on a large scale, doing it on a small scale does not suddenly infuse it with wisdom and virtue. It's just another dumb socialist idea. Co-ops looks like another wedge in the system, similar to SCHIP. As long as we agree that the government is responsible for some part of health care, they can take over the whole thing, assuming that they have the votes. We need to make it
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)