Thursday, March 25, 2010
Left says only "fringe" groups want ObamaCare repealed
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The "Stupak Swindle"
In a move I have christened the "Stupak Swindle," President Obama signed the health care bill into law today, knowing full well it still included all of the pro-abortion funding language.
What he didn't sign was the Executive Order he promised to Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, which Obama ensured would deny funding for abortions through the new health care legislation.
Stupak is a pro-life Democrat who, along with a dozen or so other pro-life Democrats, held up the passing of this legislation for quite some time. He and his followers relented and voted for the bill after meeting with President Obama and being promised by Obama an Executive Order that would eliminate the abortion funding.
I think Stupak was the only one who actually bought this. It seems every other pro-lifer in America knew President Obama would find some way not to keep his word to Stupak once his vote was purchased for the health care bill.
A Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) Blog post written yesterday, Abortion-expansion health care bill will become law, explains how the Executive Order was essentially meaningless anyway, and provides excellent links, such as the National Right to Life's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, which very thoroughly explaines all the pro-abortion language included in the bill, now the law of the land.
Pro-lifers will continue to fight against what the MCCL President Leo LaLonde called, "the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe vs. Wade."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Democrats walk in lockstep to House floor prior to health care vote in disgusting display of self-perceived superiority
to the House vote on health care reform.
Prior to the beginning of health care debate, House Democratic leaders walked in lockstep outdoors -- the long route to the House floor -- to convey their unity of mind in passing the historic bill." So say many articles on the web.
I think this is beyond scary, and I've been looking for images of this for a while.
I found them. As the old cliché says, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Here are "3,000 words" summing up the health care debate as represented by Speaker Pelosi and her ilk.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
On Flags and Health Care "Reform"
If this health care reform monstrosity passes (I hear they may try to do it as early as tomorrow), I will fly my flag at half mast.
Obama to appear on FOX News with Bret Baier tonight
Monday, March 15, 2010
Oberstar Announces He Will Vote for ObamaCare Without Abortion Language -- Time to Get to Work!
"Absolutist positions on one issue are not useful," Oberstar said,noting that discussions are still under way on adjusting the abortion language in the final bill that will follow the House passage of the Senate bill.
The first thought I have upon reading this is: the quote, "Absolutist positions on one issue are not useful," is the most robotic quote I may have ever heard.
Think about it. You can hear a robot saying those words, can't you?
The robot says in his non-human, nasal, scripted monotone containing just a hint of a programmed echo, "Absolutist..postions...on...one...issue...are...not...useful."
What did they do to this guy?
This is not just your average issue, Jim. It's abortion. It's about human life. It's about saving those lives. It's about not forcing your fellow American citizens to pay for killing human beings. It's about not having the blood of the innocent on your hands.
The second thought I have is: It's time to pick up the telephone!
So, if you are so inclined (and please be so inclined) here's his phone number:
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN-08)
Even if you're not in his district, you are a Minnesotan. Minnesotans have relatives. I personally have dozens of them who live in the 8th District, which Oberstar represents. Minnesotans have cabins "up north." We have friends there. Call your relatives and friends and ask them to call Jim. Time is closing in, and we can't possibly fight too hard for this.
I remember my cousin pointing out Oberstar's house to me when I was a kid on a bike. I'm a grandmother now. Probably time to retire this guy, huh?
Well, if you're on Facebook, you can join the "James Oberstar Retirement Task Force" page.
Now, after you've done all that, Facebook your relatives or friends who vote in the 8th District, and ask them to join the "James Oberstar Retirement Task Force" page. Then ask them to campaign and vote for for whomever goes up against him.
Then get off the phone, get off your computer, and live your life. Thanks. Ya done good.
(You can also read a very similar article in my column on Examiner.com. I love the photo--and the timliness of the photo--so much I can't stand it.)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The scariest video I've ever seen--starring Nancy Pelosi as the tyrannical lunatic
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
SD42 Full Committee Meeting - Republicans Are Energized!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Party of "No" Vol. 1: Anti-Health Care Reform
Many conservatives would like to see changes in the current system, such as insurance companies allowing coverage for pre-existing conditions, which can bankrupt a family if one of their family members has a chronic health condition, such as diabetes, high blood pressure or a chronic pain condition.
Insurance companies have to realize that pre-existing conditions are not like injuries incurred in a car accident or on the job. Those injuries and everything relating to them need to be paid by the auto insurance company or workers compensation. I understand an insurance company not wanting to pay for injuries for which the person has other insurance coverage and that insurance will pay those bills. In those cases, the auto insurance or workers compensation will follow that person wherever they go and whatever health insurance they have.
But a pre-existing condition is different. If someone develops high blood pressure while they are covered by Insurance Company A, and they, for whatever reason, must switch to Insurance Company B, Insurance Company A isn't responsible for the high blood pressure and will not pay for anything associated with it. It doesn't follow the patient anywhere. The practice of disallowing pre-existing conditions needs to stop, and I think insurance companies can afford it. Their executives are some of the highest paid professionals in the country.
Putting caps on malpractice awards would also help. The most these awards do is to line the pockets of trial lawyers. We have to stop being a "blame game" society. For example, the average cost of malpractice insurance for an OBGYN is $100,000 annually. The cost is passed directly to the consumer. The premiums are so high primarily because people have decided they have a "right" to a perfect baby. I can find no document giving people this right, but people still insist they have it. It stems, I think, from the lack of respect for the sanctity of life in our country. The most disgusting example of this is the "wrongful life" suit. This is when a woman or couple sue a doctor because he or she failed to diagnose a birth defect before birth, when the baby could have been aborted. Since the birth defect isn't detected until after the birth when, dang it, it is too late to legally kill the baby, the doctor is sued for the "wrongful life" of that child. If we were inject some common sense (or common decency) into malpractice lawsuits and have real tort reform, which most Conservatives believe in, we could considerably bring down the cost of health care in America.
Most Conservatives would like to allow people to shop for health insurance across state lines, just like any other service. For example, people who have adult children and live in a state that offers poor coverage for them might like to purchase health care in Minnesota, where insurance companies are mandated to cover adult children until age 26 regardless of student status. They aren't taking anything away from anyone by doing this because they are paying premiums for the privilege of buying this out-of-state health insurance. This will also stimulate the free market capitalist system because insurance companies or states will be forced to offer better products and services. This will improve health insurance, thus improving health care.
Most people who aren't politically affiliated or who are progressives think that if the health care bill passes on March 18, (the day Obama has declared as the deadline for voting on this bill), that they will magically have "free" health insurance. That's not how it works.
I think the best thing Conservatives could do would be to pour money into creating public service announcements (PSAs) to educate the public about what government-run health care is really like. They could teach people that they will be paying high taxes for health care while not receiving care for four years. On top of that tax money, they will have to continue paying their regular insurance premiums, which will skyrocket because they are anticipating huge losses once Obamacare is in place.
They could have PSAs that show how the "free" health care systems in Canada and the UK are doing. They could show the statistics of how many people die from certain cancers here and compare them to countries with socialized medicine. Guess what--when your health care is rationed, more people die. When you have extremely long waits for health care, more people die. Americans are hisotorically a generous people. We give more money to charitable organizations than any country in the world. What good does it do to give your money to the American Cancer Society to discover new life-saving treatments, only to have them go unused because they're too expensive. Patients could also die waiting for life-saving treatments because of long waiting lists or a lack of early detection.
The citizens also need to know about the government's actions regarding mandated health care. If you lose your job, you can't just get another job and get that corporation's health care; you are required to buy government health care. If you are young and healthy and don't want health care, the government will make you buy it. If you don't, you could be fined or imprisoned. Gee, that sounds like a free society to me: buy what the government wants you to buy or we throw you in jail. That's not America.
Conservatives believe that by turning over our health care to the government (a system which is failing in nearly every country that has enacted it), is to give up our inalienable right to liberty.
Do we think there are problems with health care as it stands? Yes. But we believe we can fix those problems without overhauling what is widely considered to be the best health care system in the world. President Obama has said that the American people deserve a final vote on health care reform. He means the current health care reform monstrosity they call a "bill." We want that vote to be a resounding "no."
But we are not anti-health care reform. We are pro-health care reform, if it complies with and doesn't endanger our constitutional rights.
Coming next: Party of "No" Vol. 2: Anti-Government
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Party of "No?"
Two people had these same remarks about an article I wrote for my Examiner.com column about Erik Paulsen. The posts were so similar that one might think they were written by the same person, but one of the posters assures us that they are two different people.
I find this happens so often it's funny. I'll be watching the Sunday morning shows or something on Fox, and the Democrats or progressives will all, without exception, use the same words, phrases, insults, etc. Then I say to my husband, "Well, it looks like everyone got the memo."
The party of "no." We're starting to hear it everywhere now. From conversations with progressives in our communities or families, to almost every progressive pundit on T.V. or radio saying the Republican party is the party of "no."
That couldn't be farther from the truth.
Progressives would say, "How can you say that? Let's enumerate everything you say no to. You're:
- against health care reform;
- against business regulations;
- against the government's saving essential industries like banks and automobile manufacturers;
- anti-gay marriage;
- anti-gun control;
- against the separation of church and state;
- against teachers and public schools;
- anti-welfare and social safety nets.