Friday, July 31, 2009
Well, not surprising. We haven't seen the President's long-form birth certificate or his college records, either.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Bullshit. They just don't want to take full responsibility for the FUBARed situation that mandatory Medicaid would, by definition be.
Especially since the voters are beginning to realize that The One is trying to take our working system, and trade down for Canada's broken one, and decided that they want none of it.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Alaska, Tennessee, and (I think) Montana have argued that the federal government has no business regulating firearms that are produced in-state, and sold only to residents of that state, to be used only within that state. Washington, D.C.'s anti-gun lobby--ahem, the Democrat-run federal government--has said "nope, hasn't worked that way since 1942."
Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wyoming claim that they will opt out of mandatory Medicaid. I suspect the same reasoning will be given for the federal government overriding these states' rights: that the private insurance they purchase will somehow be against the common good of those in other states who somehow should have had access to that money, just as Filburn cheated wheat-growers in other states out of his money by growing his own.
In any case, the federal government is stepping on individual rights, and using the interstate commerce clause--which is written in plain enough language that a normal person can understand what it means, but broadly enough that a lawyer can successfully use it to invent new powers--to do so.
Now, they were talking about Professor Gates, but it goes for this bunch, too. Four boys, aged 14, 13, 10, and 9, raped a little eight-year-old girl. And her father blamed her for it.
The little girl and her father, at least, were Liberian immigrants. The boys were more than likely all four black--the only one shown is the one being tried as an adult.
Not all black males are rapists. Not all black people are bad parents. It's not their race that makes them act like this.
Yeah. She was bleeding and in labor, and they sent her home.
I cannot help but compare this scenario with the care I received when I went to the hospital in labor with my son. In my case, my water broke eight weeks early, and I called the hospital. They told me to come in immediately, that they'd have someone take me down to labor and delivery right away.
Suffice it to say, my care was excellent. I have no complaints about the hospital food, much less the care I received from the staff. And I have suspicions that, should The One get his way with the health care reform he wants to ram up our collective ass, my care will not be anywhere near as good with my next child.
I cast no aspersions upon the doctors, nurses, aides, and techs, here, but upon the idea of rationed care.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Um...no it's not. He'd be denied a transplant here, too. He's an alcoholic, who, at age 22, had destroyed his liver. That means he is ineligible for a liver transplant in the United States just as he was in the United Kingdom.
There are other, better reasons to oppose mandatory Medicaid. Look at VA benefits, if you want to see where the rest of the country's health care is going.
Monday, July 20, 2009
On the one hand, I say, "He's just another criminal amonst criminals. He just so happened to land amongst the blue collar bunch rather than the white collar bunch. He screwed up; let him get the full effect of the punishment, including the same beatings other prisoners face."
On the other, however...the man's 71 years old. My father-in-law isn't much older. And those prisoners looking for street cred for beating up Madoff? Yeah, takes a lot of manhood to beat up someone who's likely 30-50 years older, and not in nearly as good of physical shape. Be about like beating up a woman or a kid.
Now, if they want to beat up people running a real Ponzi scheme, they need to find people working in the upper levels of the Social Security administration...
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
He won the challenge.
I argued, as this topic came up just after the election, that there was no way that a man who was not actually eligible could make it all the way through the primaries, and be named the party candidate. I mean, McCain demonstrated that, though he was born in Panama, he was born to two U.S. citizen parents, in territory basically owned by the United States.
Obama was not born to two U.S. citizens. And apparently, the army has doubts that his certificate of live birth in a Hawaiian hospital isn't valid. And no one has seen his official birth certificate.
The White House backpedaled awfully fast on the soldier's deployment for this to have no credibility. There hasn't been anything else said--not why, nor any punishment for the refusal to obey orders.
I suspect that we may well see our military take action to protect our Constitution, along the lines of what just happened in Honduras.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Basically, when the government sets what they'll pay a doctor (typically about 60% of what they charge), the doctor has to recoup his/her costs somewhere.
That "somewhere" ends up being by charging more to everyone not on Medicaid.
And people wonder why medical care is so expensive, why optometrists and dentists won't accept Medicaid patients over the age of twelve, and why some doctors won't accept them at all.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."--The Declaration of IndependenceIt's time, my friends. Our government no longer provides for our security, but has had us riding that long train of abuses and usurpations delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Not only has our own judiciary been acting in the same manner as King George III when the various pacifistic and loyal British men who lived on this side of the Atlantic realized that the British monarchy did not see them as British subjects equal to those living in the British Isles, but our President has ignored and broken his oath as required by Article 2, section 1, clause 8 of the Constitution: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"
He has decided that it isn't against our interests to house known terrorists amongst our people.
He has decided that it is his duty to apologize to a world full of our enemies for our strength, and to reduce that strength both in appearance and in fact.
He has decided that it is within his power to take earned wealth from the few and give it to those who haven't earned it.
He has decided that it is within his power to revoke our God-given rights, by ignoring what limits are placed upon his power and the power of the legislature and judiciary by the Constitution of these United States and the amendments thereto.
I speak specifically of section 304 of the fully unconstitutional Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
This section refers to energy efficiency of buildings. All buildings, publicly or privately owned, businesses or residences. Common readings suggest that this bill would infringe upon private property rights to the point that no one would own their own home in more than name only.
After all, how much do you actually own if the government forbids you to alter it in whatever way you see fit, within common-sense building safety codes?
This is unconstitutional on many levels. Not only is it unconstitutional in that nowhere in the Constitution is the right to pass legislature like this enumerated (making it expressly forbidden, by the language of the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), but in several other amendments passed to protect private property rights from infringement and intrusion by the federal government:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Due process of law" in this case means specifically legal process against the individual, such as the determination of whether or not a crime was committed, and the punishment of said crime, not sweeping, unconstitutional legislation intended to deprive large groups, if not the entire citizenry of the United States of America, of rights to live as they please, in freedom, and with full rights to their own property purchased with money they earned, and improved with their own money, sweat, and blood.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment says that these rights are God-given, not government-granted by the Constitution or the amendments thereto, much less any legislation or treaty passed by the government that this document was designed to limit, and not empower. Which, again, means that the state does not and cannot tell you what to do with your own private property.
...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Again, "due process of law" refers to the legal determination of whether an individual committed a crime; however, this applies the Fifth Amendment (which had formerly only applied to the federal government's actions against its citizens) to the level of state government.
This particular section of the cap-and-trade bill violates every limitation of power that the Constitution places upon the federal government. As such, it is upon us to refuse to permit our government to remain in power.
By any means necessary.
And, as my forefathers swore, I will put my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor behind this stand.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
It was pristine, on the inside, at least. It looked like someone had bought it, shot it once, and dropped it on a concrete shooting bench when it kicked the shit out of them (there was a ding in the otherwise gorgeous stock).
So, that was my Mother's Day present. I hadn't wanted to say anything about it until after I'd gotten to take it out and play with it.
I got to take it to a friend's private range and play with it today, along with part of my fifth anniversary present (which happened to have been yesterday)--which worked better than advertised, wasn't visible at all (read further for funny story about this), and I highly recommend for women who like to shoot either large caliber rifles or shotgun. One caveat: trim the edge of the Velcro closest to the arm, or the corners will irritate the hell out of the shooter.
Back to the gun. I have one thing to say about it:
Oh. My. God.
It was MAGNIFICENT. I can barely see a target at a hundred yards (really poor vision, combined with the standard antique rifle's iron sights), and I hit the damn target all five times I shot the gun. Combine that with the fact that I really, really enjoy the roar of a large caliber rifle, as well as the feel of it coming back into my shoulder--well, let's just say I had a very good time.
Okay. Funny story as promised: the recoil pad my beloved other half got for me let me get someone else who was at the range today. Got 'im good. I was having a good time shooting my rifle, and asked him if he wanted to try out my new baby.
Well. All he could see was me having fun. He didn't see that I was wearing a pussy pad under my shirt, velcroed to my bra strap. So, he sat down at the bench, shouldered my new rifle, chambered a round, and took the shot. Without a recoil pad. And he did it twice, which was about as much as his shoulder could stand. And he didn't know I had a recoil pad until we were leaving, and I was taking it off my bra and out of my shirt. At which point, he told me that his shoulder still hurt.
Anyhow, it was a good day. Exactly what I've been needing for a while.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The blogger at The Blind Squirrel sums up neatly the way I feel.
This would explain two proposals that, given the financial difficulties faced by auto manufacturers, were previously inexplicable: increasing CAFE standards, and taxing miles traveled (as well as likely keeping the existing tax on gasoline).
Increased CAFE standards forces auto manufacturers to spend much more in research and development, which, in turn, raises prices on new cars. Given the built-in breakdown factor, that will more than likely put new cars out of the reach of many American families who carry debt, and some that don't.
And if that isn't enough, the government proposes to tax miles traveled, tracking your road usage with a GPS device in your car that reports how many miles you've driven between fill-ups, and you'll get a bill in the mail from Big Brother--er, the United States government.
The secretary of transportation says he wants people to use more public transportation to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Umm...newsflash, dipshit: public transportation only works in highly urbanized, high population density areas. Like Europe. And the United States is nothing like Europe.
Added up, I doubt this is an attempt to control enviornmental impact so much as it is an attempt to control the citizenry of the United States, by controlling their travel. I don't think it'll work out like they hope--it really isn't hard to get around computer programming, and we the people are citizens who do not appreciate government interference, rather than serfs that are subject to government control.
Monday, July 6, 2009
And here's the same monkey with him at nine months.
And here's another, for good measure.
He is just an amazing little guy, and cracks me up on a regular basis.
First of all, he makes the same mistake Wilson made with the League of Nations: he partnered with a foreign power to create a treaty that will reduce the nuclear armaments held by both the United States and Russia. This is a huge misstep on two fronts. First of all, the stupid idealist forgot that creating and signing treaties is not among his powers as enumerated by the United States Constitution (which he says is a deeply flawed document--guess this shows part of why he thinks that). Second of all, he trusts Russia to hold up their end of a bargain, when they've demonstrated, time and time again, that they are our enemies.
The other FUBAR is on a level with his 57 states gaffe: he referred to Prime Minister Putin as President. Now, granted: Putin does still hold the reigns of power; however, he holds them through his ventriloquist's puppet, Medevev.
Not just a spoiled, petulant child, then, but a spoiled, petulant, idiot child.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
It gives me a small measure of hope.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Proponents of mandatory Medicaid trot out the figure of 46 million uninsured, and whinge about "we need to do it for the children."
Well. The scare tactic statistic has been broken down into more honest numbers: about 10-12 million of those are illegal aliens. Wetbacks and Canuks alike, often here for emergency care that they cannot get in their own countries. Another 16-20 million are the idiots under 25, whose employers don't write insurance into their benefits, and they'd rather buy the next X-Box game than purchase their own. Many of the rest are simply between jobs.
As for the children...anyone ever heard of WIC? I cannot believe it's unique to my state, though it may be called something else somewhere else. It's where women who are pregant, who fall under a certain income level, recieve not only Medicaid for the duration of their pregnancy, but their children receive Medicaid until they're 12, or until their parents income comes up. The children are already eligible.
Speaking of "for the children," government run medical insurance that's only concerned with cutting costs (often by rationing care by restricting supply) frequently hurts children. Two specific cases--one in Canada, the other in Britain--come to mind.
In the Canadian case, a baby born 14 weeks early had to be shipped to Buffalo, New York, for treatment because there were no NICU beds open anywhere in the province (for comparison, my son was born eight weeks early, and was 3 pounds 13 ounces) . Her parents aren't able to be at her side, yet--neither has a passport.
If Canada's system ran on captialism's supply and demand, rather than socialism's arbitrary cost cutting measures, that baby would have not only found a bed in the province but likely the same hospital she was born in, and her parents could be there with her.
I've read bloggers who are proponents of the Canadian system trying to justify that by pointing out that "at least she's guaranteed care." I won't link to him because he's a self-riteous moron: anybody who's that sick in the U.S. is guaranteed care, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, it is an empty argument made by a socialist apologist that has an even emptier head.
The British case is perhaps a little worse. A little three year old girl was born with an underdeveloped aorta, leading to all sorts of problems for her. She has had several relatively minor surgeries already, but needs major surgery to correct the problem. She's already suffered a stroke at the ancient age of three years, for God's sake. Her parents have been told that she could drop dead of this condition at pretty much any time.
And she hasn't had the surgery yet. It's been scheduled three times, but canceled every time because of a lack of beds in the ICU for her recovery.
Were she in Canada, her doctors would likely have sent her over the border to us for surgery immediately upon discovery of the condition.
So, how, precisely, can the proponents of similar systems being imposed upon us say that similar results will not occur?
Again, I do not speak ill of doctors. Most of the doctors I've ever met will move heaven and earth for their patients. Most hospital administrators, while they're less devoted to the patients' wellbeing, are not heartless. A government which rations how many beds per capita there are in any given department without taking the actual people who will need to use them into account, on the other hand...
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A good example is the per gallon fuel tax. As prices go up, and tax rates on gallons purchased go up even more steeply (one figure I read--forget where--mentioned that oil companies get about $.08 profit/gallon, while the government made $.35-.75 per gallon on fuel taxes, depending on state and type of fuel), people either buy more fuel efficient cars, or else they drive less. Which means that the government doesn't get the same size of bounty from their cut off the top. Which means that they have to find something else.
I think it's time to use that fictional constitutional "right to privacy" that permits women to murder their unborn children. They say "Keep your laws off my body." I say "Keep your noses out of my business."
Call me paranoid, but the Soviet Union restricted their serfs' travel. I think this tax may well be a not-so-veiled attempt to do the same.
Why do I say that? Well, several reasons. First of all, he thinks the world is fundamentally a fair place, or should be, according to his definition of "fair." Second, since it's not a fair place where everybody shares and shares alike, he's going to use the government to make everybody share (whether the people that have less are willing to work for more or not). Third, when he's balked, he gets sullen and throws a fit. You can see that by just following the link.
A petulant brat should not be the one in the Chief Executive's office. America, you made a mistake.