About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

YES MADAM SPEAKER WE ARE SERIOUS!!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, October 23, 2009 10:36:04 AM

Friday, October 23, 2009

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

CNSNews posed a question to the power happy “capo” of Obama in the House of Representatives that illustrates the extent the left has shredded the Constitution to accomplish the power grab of Obama and the Democrats.
The following is a direct quote from a CNS reporter that asked what Constitutional authority the Congress had to demand that Americans buy health insurance or be fined.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question it asked Speaker Pelosi by sending written questions for the speaker via e-mail to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. “If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

This is the most preposterous part of the contention/argument. Insurance company’s are presently forbidden to be domiciled in one state and sell in other states. That is what keeps the price of health insurance artificially high. If the Congress passed a law eliminating the provision that forbids a person in New York from buying a health insurance policy in any other state. This would create more competition and reduce the premium prices. There is no interstate commerce in health insurance now because of government prohibitions!

Further more, Doctors are licensed by the State not the Federal government. Where is the interstate commerce here?

The capitation clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, reads “[n]o capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Capitation here means a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per taxpayer. Direct tax means a tax levied directly by the United States federal government on taxpayers, as opposed to a tax on events or transactions. The United States government levied direct taxes from time to time during the 18th and early 19th centuries. It levied direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates in the late 1790s, but cancelled the taxes in 1802.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, outlawed the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition in voting in Federal elections. The 1966 Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections extended this explicit enactment as a matter of judicial interpretation of a more general provision, ruling that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Today we are facing a tax more heinous than a poll tax. WE all know that since the poll tax was abolished and made illegal, some (at times many) people still do not vote. Also, everybody does not get sick. Particularly the young adults who have not entered the years of debilitating and sometimes fatal diseases like hypertension, diabetes and cancer. Why should we force these people, who a large portion of the uninsured, to get insurance or be fined?

Americans who fail to sign up for a medical plan after health care overhaul takes effect could be hit with fines of up to $3,800, according to a new proposal circulated Tuesday by a senior Democrat.This would be included in the Baucus’s bill that is currently slated for a vote sometime before Christmas.



“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said a 1994 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

“An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique,” reads the report. “First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

And the most odious thing about this whole fine,aka TAX, is that it would be the IRS that collects the fine! Not the state or federal law enforcement people or the courts. And there is another provision floating around Congress that the fine would be automatically taken out of a person’s bank account. What about those people who do no have $3,800 in their bank account. Will we once again establish Konzentrationslager /gulags or debtors prisons?







Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CZAR ANOTHER NAME FOR POLITICAL COVER

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:31:28 PM

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
It will go down in history as one of Barack Obama’s signature decisions on the economy, a dramatic move to slash corporate pay at bailed out banks and automakers.
But on Wednesday night, administration officials said that the president of the United States didn’t have all that much to do with a decision that will, in many ways, come to define his relationship with Wall Street.
In fact, sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg’s, and his alone. A senior administration official tells POLITICO that Obama did not sign off on the pay master's decision. Feinberg didn’t even brief the White House on it, the official said, but he briefed Treasury officials instead.
“Decisions were his,” says the official. Treasury, in turn, briefed White House staff on the “shape and general direction” of the Feinberg decision last week, but didn't offer extensive detail. The president did not have to approve Feinberg’s plan.

Feinberg, a Washington attorney who was appointed to the unsalaried position as Treasury’s special master for corporate pay in June, has wide latitude to act independently of the administration. But it appears to me that the denial of the Obama syncophants is nothing more than giving Obama plausable deniability.

In fact I believe that the whole Czar set-up is an elaborate shield for the actions of Obama that could be damaging to the presidents "messianic" image.


The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else.



History will show that on more than one occasion President Truman referred to his desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.

Some one should remind Obama and the adoring press of this fact!!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DELEGITIMIZATION AND DEMONIZING ARE THE LATEST OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TACTICS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:25:08 AM

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

 

What Ronald Regan left out, is apparently the watchword of the Obama administration,demonize your opponents.
Used against anyone or any group that opposes what the Obama administration is  trying to do to our Country.Make it a “banana republic” like his friend Hugo and Raul have done.
First it was the bond holders of GM who held  27 billion dollars of bonds. They were told they could lose all if they continued to oppose the Obama bankrutcy plan and went to unregulated bankruptcy.
At approximately the same time they turned the dogs of Acorn and SEIU upon the homes of those on Wall Street, who dared to defy Obama and his czars on salary and bonus restrictions(aka .caps)

Then there is the attempt to intimidate the groups who protested  peacefully at the Town Hall meetings and TEA parties. Obama and his “workers” said they were mobs, nazis, and tools of the Republican party in an atttempt to intimidate them! And they had help from the Media! Except for the FOX network.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reportedly met with about a dozen doctors groups last week in which he promised to do the doctor “fix”.The next day the Senate bill included billions more for doctor payments for Medicare patients. But there still is 400-500 billion dollars that will be slashed from the medicare budget to fund the pool for the millions added to the plan who presently have no health insurance.
But several people familiar with the meetings with the doctors, say he also made it clear he would expect the support of medical groups for whatever health care bill emerges in exchange for sparing them from the deep reimbursement cuts.I guess he thinks they don’t know about the 400 billion taken from medicare!

Then an AARP executive warned Congressional opponents  of the Democrat health plan, of possible political consequences of voting against the plan as they were watching how the Congressmen and Senators voted.

And when Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress about “his” health care plan, he said this to any potential opponents of the plan. “But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

And Obama’s “capos” attack on the FOX network and specifically the Beck and Hannity TV opinion shows are classic examples of what Obama promised he would do to anyone who stood in his way to get socialized medicine.He calls it the government option, but any thinking man knows that is a bold faced lie!

First they attacked Fox news by putting a Mao loving women named Dunn on the tube to say that FOX was not a real news network. Then the Sunday talk shows on the “lame Stream media” carried Axelrod and Emanuel further villifying and excoriating FOX! All because FOX appears to be the only news TV network that is not a propaganda arm of OBAMA!

David Libaugh had it right when he wrote in todays Patriot Post that; “Obama’s perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street organizing headquarters to attack his opponents. Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can’t countenance legitimate dissent.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A DEAL WITH EVIL WILL LEAD TO CATASTROPHE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:19:14 AM

 

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

 

Danger – if you meet it promptly and without flinching – you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!…Winston Churchill

Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, AND HE POSTED THIS ON THE INTERNET. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL AMERICANS TO READ THIS POST.

In the face of rising domestic opposition to the war, mounting casualties and a clear unwillingness on the part of European allies to send additional troops for the NATO-led mission, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set his government down an extremely risky and dangerous path of negotiations with a barbaric enemy.

It is a dangerous strategy that is also backed in principle by some senior figures in the Obama administration such as Richard Holbrooke, the President’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who may be keen to use the British-led experiment as a trial balloon for a possible U.S. exit strategy as well. This is a disastrous approach that signals defeat, and one that must be firmly rejected by the next British administration, almost certainly Conservative, likely to take office in the spring of 2010.

Great Britain is the second largest contributor to the NATO-operation in Afghanistan, with over 9,000 combat troops on the ground. The British contribution in Afghanistan is roughly equal to that of continental Europe’s big four combined — France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So far 191 British troops have been killed serving in Afghanistan (more than were killed in Iraq), and hundreds wounded. In the month of July alone, Britain lost 22 soldiers in combat.

However great the bravery of British servicemen, it is being undercut by massive underfunding of Britain’s armed forces, crippling defence cuts, and by shortages of helicopters, armored vehicles, medical teams as well as basic equipment. Britain now spends less on defence than at any time since the 1930s, and is waging a major war on a peacetime budget. It is though the lack of political will in London that is the biggest threat to the British mission.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s recent speech on Afghanistan at NATO headquarters sent completely the wrong message to our enemies. In his address on July 27, the foreign secretary called for a political deal with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban in an effort to split the insurgency:

First, a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation. That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists — separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally — and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with their government.

In effect Miliband is saying that Britain and the United States must be willing to place cooperative, supposedly more reasonable wings of the Taliban back in local power in Afghanistan. This would be like putting the Nazis back in office after the fall of Berlin or the Khmer Rouge in charge of Cambodia again. No matter how much spin is placed on this negotiating strategy, it smacks of defeatism and appeasement, and a failure to place the conflict in Afghanistan within the broader context of a global war against a brutal Islamist ideology that seeks the destruction of the West and the free world.

British, American, Canadian and other NATO troops are not dying on the battlefields of south Asia to facilitate the return of a medieval-style government steeped in barbarism and savagery where women are treated as fourth-class citizens and individual liberty is non-existent. It would be only a matter of time before an Afghanistan dominated by “moderate” Taliban returned to its old position as a safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch attacks against New York, Washington or London.

Great Britain and the United States should have no truck with any strategy that allows a return to political power for the Taliban of whatever stripe. If this foolhardy policy is executed, it may ultimately lead to negotiations with al-Qaeda-linked groups in the region as well.

It is vital that a future British Conservative administration reverses what is a disastrously naïve approach, and commits to the complete political isolation, as well as the ultimate military defeat, of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This will require a significant increase in British defence spending to adequately fund a major military mission on this scale, as well as leadership in Downing Street that takes Britain’s great power responsibilities seriously.

As UK Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox wrote in a recent article for The Times of London,

If we abandoned our task in Afghanistan today, we would put the security of our own country in greater peril. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan for training, and to plan attacks on the West. We must not let that happen again. To throw in the towel at this stage would encourage every jihadist to believe that we lack the moral courage to see through a difficult mission. And it would gravely undermine the credibility of NATO, the alliance that has protected this country for six decades.

Negotiations with a fundamentally barbaric organization such as the Taliban will never result in anything good for the people of Afghanistan and will undercut both Britain and America’s long-term security. If NATO talks to the various wings of the Taliban, the Allied coalition will negotiate only with different shades of evil. This is a recipe for failure and defeat as well as a monumental surrender to a totalitarian Islamist ideology based on a doctrine of hatred, fear and destruction.

With the announcement that Obama is using the mess in the Afghanistan election as reason to once more delay the sending of more troops as requested by the Commander in the field. It is feeling to this veteran that the President is putting the lives of the brave men/women in jeopardy, because he would rather spend the tax payers money rewarding those who voted him into the Oval Office than he is to give the General he sent to Afghanistan, the tools he needs to win a victory over the evil Taliban. After all Obama said he has trouble with the word VICTORY!

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE DUPLICITY OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, October 19, 2009 9:40:43 AM

Monday, October 19, 2009

 TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.


"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.
Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."
SOURCE: WORLD DAILY NET

And if a Network like the Fox Network does not allow the Obama "captains" to force feed them as they do the other compliant Networks. They attack, and smear the Networks as this quote found on the internet illustrates!
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."
By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news." This attempt by the Obama Administration to silence FOX NEWS violates all that is American. What they are trying to accomplish is strangely reminiscent of what the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia did to their Press!
And in our time is similar to what Hugo Chavez did when he shut down all the television and radio stations who were critical of him     Freedom of the Press and  speech is in danger if this is continued unopposed by the voting public!


What's scary is how this administration has so readily turned their backs on debate and free speech and resorted to bullying and thuggery in their attempts to silence their critics.Americans meet Chicago politics now take residence in the White House!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NETWORKS ARE USING SAUL ALINSKY'S RULES TO ATTACK RUSH!!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:39:40 AM

 


Not since Marge Schott, the managing partner, president and CEO pf the Cincinnati Reds baseball team from 1984-1999 has the " Mean Stream" media stooped so low to destroy a Conservative. ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC have all printed and spoke lies that were SPOKEN as actual quotes that Rush limbaugh is a racist and as such should not be part owner of the Saint Louis Rams.
This is a case of character destruction by hearsay as was Schotts case.
One of Saul Alinsky's rules for Radicals is target your enemy and demonize him/her! The networks have done just that!!
 
On November 13, 1992, Charles "Cal" Levy, a former marketing director for the Reds, stated in a deposition for Tim Sabo, a former employee who was suing the team that he'd heard Schott refer to then-Reds outfielders Eric Davis and Dave Parker as "million-dollar ni**ers."[2] Sabo, whose position was "team controller," alleged that his 1991 firing was due to testifying against her in another lawsuit brought against Schott by several limited partners and because he opposed the unwritten policy of not hiring blacks. Schott's countersuit alleged that Sabo wrote unauthorized checks to himself and paid health insurance premiums to retired front-office employees. She asked for $25,000 in damages for defamation. Sabo ultimately lost his suit. source:Wikapedia


The media lies about Limbaugh, alleging that he said "slavery was a good thing" and the lies were repeated on MSNBC, CNN, NBC and ABC. Not satisfied with on lie the once reliable media carried this story to jump on Limbaugh with full force!:

"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark".

It’s also been spoken on the TV that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed". Both statements are blatant lies, but once spoken it becomes the task of the accused to prove that he did not say the lies. You could hold your breath until you pass out before the Media attack dogs would admit they told  bold faced lies to smear a Conservative.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC actually said esentially that Rush should blow-up! CHRIS MATTHEWS: You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush? And this man is an ancor man NBC is broud of after he wishes the death of another human being?

This is the main preoccupation of the once major  television networks. To malign all conservatives including past president Bush, and protect and promote any thing that Obama does that couldl destroy our  Free Enterprise Republic. Not since Goebbels was the propaganda minister for the Nazis has the media network been such a cheerleader for a "ruler"!  
And lest we forget the two hustlers Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson who have both encouraged the Black players on  NFL teams to vocally oppose Limbaughs involvement! Some have even appeared on TV to mouth their objections to Rush.It is the owners of NFL teams to decide not the players. I believe they would play for the devil as long as they get their muti-million dollar salaries!
Michael Vick, a convicted felon, was given a second chance as were  many players who have been involved in felonious assualts, but because of inuendo the consortioum that is trying to buy the Rams has dropped Rush from their list of potential owners. He is being unfairly treated because he is a popular radio talk show host who has 50 million listeners!
 
And get this, yesterday it was discovered that the White House staff was responsible for starting at least one of the lies!

TEN TOTALLY REAL AND NOT FAKE QUOTES THAT THE MEDIA SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON!
10. Democrat Fritz Hollings of South Carolina thinks being from Africa makes you a cannibal: “You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

9. Howard Dean(former DNC Chair) reaches out: “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

8. California Democrat Diane Watson thinks interracial marriage is icky: “He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

7. Howard Dean thinks service positions are for minorities, not big fancy white people: “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? … Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

6. Joe Biden explains why southern Democrats should vote for him: “My state was a slave state.”

5. “Conscience of the Senate” and former Klansman Robert Byrd on equal opportunity: “I’ve seen a lot of white n*###ers in my time.

4. Hillary Clinton does an impression (complete with accent) of an African-American man who didn’t know what Emily’s List was: “She’s supportin’ all these people. She’s supportin’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein . She’s supported Sen. Barbara Boxer . . . She supported everybody. Why won’t she support me?”

3. Democratic Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin denies that white people might live in New Orleans: “I don’t care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.””

2. Democrat Steny Hoyer reviews Michael Steele’s career: “[He has] a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”

1. Then Senator Joe Biden fills us in on who works at convenience stores: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent .
Every single one of those quotes is a real, legitimate, well-sourced quote. Totally real; not fake.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FEDERALISM UNDER ATTACK BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, October 16, 2009 9:38:36 AM

 

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, October 16, 2009 9:28:34 AM
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

 

Despite the fact that Obama advocates, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are pushing hard to force unread and undwritten Health Care legislation through their respective bodies of Congress. There is still a slim chnce that some Democrats, and all but the  RINOS, will realize that what they are supporting is not only anti-free enterprise, but dangerously close to being un-constitutional.
In the middle of the 19th century Americans fought a bloody war that pitted in many cases brother against brother to determine if we would remain one country or two divided by the Mason Dixie line.

Survey after suevey has shown that once again this is a country divided! Half of the country wants the government to take care of them from cradle to grave, and a good portion of this group has bought into the class hatred principal of hating the sucessfull wealthy, and desire redistribution of the wealth. Unfortunately so does our president! As he has said numerous times before he was elected president.

The other half still believes in states rights and the freedom to prosper if they become educated, work hard and follow the rules. But now it appears the Democrats in control are about to put a knife in the back of the free enterprise system in the name of “reforming” our healh care system. The envy of the world!
And unfortunately, this is only the begining of the demolishing of our Republic as this following quote illustrates.

“The founding fathers of the American Republic are the authors of a brilliant design of the distribu­tion of political power between the national govern­ment and the states. The national government, under the Constitution, is responsible for the gener­al concerns of the republic; the state governments are the custodians of the people’s trusts and are authorized to address their particular concerns. This is the essence of federalism.
America’s federalist system should not be destroyed in a narrow ideological hot pursuit of an illusory perfection: a nationalized health care sys­tem that will provide perfect security and will “bend the cost curve” downward. The massive bills on Capitol Hill will do neither.

From the inception of the Republic, Americans have been instinctively skeptical of the notion that Washington politicians, and the national bureau­crats who supposedly answer to them, are success­fully able to micromanage the affairs of tens of millions of individuals and their families.

Americans desperately need sound common sense and consequential health care reform. This means a reform that will result in a measurable expansion of private insurance coverage and control of cost. There is a great deal of work to do. While guaranteeing accessibility and controlling the costs of health care, Americans should reject national micromanagement and let the market work. They, and their elected representatives in Con­gress, should support major federal reforms that change tax policies that undercut consumer choice in the health insurance markets and federal regulatory burdens that stifle state reforms and subvert patient choice.

The states have a key role to play. State policy­makers should support the growing movement in the states themselves that support the protection and expansion of patient choice in health care. State officials should also insist on keeping state control of health insurance regulation. At the same time, they should take bold steps to enhance patient choice, and create an environment that rewards high-quality care from physicians and other medical professionals. If they are true to their public trust, if they are to defend the legitimate interests of their citizens, state officials must stand with their citizens and reject policies that would put the United States on a glide path to single-payer, government control of the health care of every American”.

The Honorable Thomas C. Feeney is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida and former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives

Amen to all of what he has to say!!

Source:

[1]David F. Forte and Matthew Spalding, eds., The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2005), and Eugene W. Hickok, Why States? The Challenge of Federalism (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 2007).

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THEN WHERE WILL WE GO TO FIND FREEDOM?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:10:23 AM

The statue of Liberty in New York harbor has been the light that people sought who were fleeing from tyrants, famine and religious persecution for over one hundred years. America has beeen the beacon of freedom and opportunity for those born here and especially those imigrants who passed through Ellis Island to try to get their little piece of a free society. Free fom government persecution, free from tyranny,freedom of religion and the freedom of speech!

But today we are faced with the diming of the light of freedom that the torch held high by Miss Liberty represents.
Not only has free speech been replaced by political correct speech, but freedom has been replaced by license, As we see in the "right to choose" that our un-august Supreme Court declared in Roe vs Wade.
Anything goes has replaced the rules of public speech as long is it isn't speech that offends some minority group or the present ruling class in Washington. Lewd an lascivious words, swear words are o.k, but do not say something that offends the minority groups

Now we are faced with a radical change of enormous affect on not only our health and welfare, but how we make decisions about our health and the health and welfare of our loved ones.
Thomas Sowell said it well in todays piece in the Patriot Post.
"Almost never are the dangers of having uninsured people weighed against the dangers of having government bureaucrats over-ruling doctors and deciding whether money would be better spent saving the life of an elderly person or paying for an abortion for some teenager.

The crowning irony is that the problems caused by insurance companies refusing to pay for certain medications or treatment are to be solved by giving government bureaucrats that same power, along with the power to prevent patients from using their own money to pay for those same medications or treatments".
More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said, "Nothing is good but in proportion"--

It appears to me that the present administration in Washington is he## bent on power over every sector of our way of life. It apso appears, that unfortunately the Democrats have the votes to ram through Congress a bill that will never see the light of day(only a synopsis of the over 1000 page bill) that will turn over 1/6th of our GNP to the federal government, and destroy millions of jobs presently held by people employed by the private insurance companies that offer health insurance that over 85% of our people have and are satisfied with! This at a time when unemployment is in excess of 10%!
 
When President Obama was inaugurated and gave his inaugural speech.He talked about the importance of transparency in government. He said ‘transparency breeds accountability and builds public confidence.' Where has this gone, or was it just another lie from a man who will say anything to gain power?


The bill passed in the Senate Finance Committe yesterday. Mmost of it will not be implemented until 2013,but the taxes begin in 2010!
Iit is not an inconvenience for the Senate to let those who voted them into their princely position to post at least what they ae voting on to allow those who are interested to read!
Thist is not something we ought to overlook, the opportunity to get the American people to be able to read it.There has been a lot of discussion at town hall meetings and elsewhere. People are mad about Congress voting on things we haven't even read. But unfortunately I think this is the way Obama and his sycophants will operate until they totally socialize our once great country!

Waiting in the wings is the Cap and Trade bill that will certainly be passed by the same lock step majority that will further the ambition of their messia, OBAMA!
This will destroy the energy system as we know it today by high taxation and fees, and replace it with a "Goreite" system that will certainly cost US more taxes and make life less free and more unpleasant due to regulations on how much energy the government believes we should be allowed to use each day.
 
Where will people who seek freedom rom tyrannts and opression go then?



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE ATTACK FOX NETWORK?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:03:33 AM

 







SAUL ALINSKY'S "RULES FOR RADICALS", RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
 RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.


First the Obama administration and his Democrat sycophants attacked Rush Limbaugh, in what many saw as a foreboding sign about what Congress and President Barack Obama will try to do with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine,"
Even though Obama has stated he will not  push the fairness doctrine--he has made falls promises before!!
Democrats are continuing their attacks on talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh over his opposition to what he has described as "Obama's Porkulus Bill." And recently they have also targeted the growing ever popular Glenn Beck'

Radio and television ads were launched by MoveOn.org and other organizations condemning Limbaugh's opinion that such government spending is wrong, and then linking Republican lawmakers to Limbaugh through their opposition to Obama's massive $1 trillion "stimulus" plan.

Now they have committed the biggest mistake since Obama promised that unemployment would never exceede 8%.
The Communications director has labeled Fox News as the enemy and an arm of the Republican party! This is an absurdity not worthy of a spokesperson for the President of the United States. Ms.Anita Dunn is claiming something that anyone who has watched Fox News for at least 4 years will attest that they were as critical of President Bush as they have of Obama.

The problem is that president Obama has done so much to destroy the free enterprise system, redistribute the wealth, and make our country less solvent and safe. That there are so many stories to report is a fact no one who is aware of what is going on in Washington can deny. Unfortunately, the other major news organisations like NBC,CBS, ABC and CNN are so enamoured with Obama that they are wont to print or speak anything negative about their "messiah"!

There is no pressure on Congress by any of the major media except Fox, as they continue to spend our country into insolvency. Congress has got away with so much , all the while they were keeping the pressure on anyone who prints or says they are destroying our financial stability.
As reports surfaced about Obama’s coming $9 trillion in new debt that will place the United States on course for anywhere between $17 trillion and $20 trillion in federal debt when Obama is done was hardly discussed this week by anyone by Fox.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both companies with federal ties, announced their bonuses shortly after Congress and the Obama White House staff(and he too) excoriated Bankers and Brokerage houses for bonuses.
Not much was said by the main stream media, because that would put Barney Frank in a compromised position. The House passed HR1388, which was Obama’s plan for required community service for all children. Remember a few days after the election, the unpopular idea showed up on Change.gov and was quickly removed once word spread, helped by Fox's Beck, creating anger towards Obama. All this and so much more was overlooked by the "Lame" Media.


Now Team Obama would dismantle the world’s greatest health care system and substitue a government health plan. That’s a losing proposition, which is why Mr. Obama is increasingly resorting to fear and misleading claims. It’s all the candidate of hope has left. And as a Lone Ranger , Fox News is reporting the facts that Obama does not want the public to know for fear that his major promise to the Left is in danger of being rejected in Congres as it has in the American populace. Thus the targeting of Fox News by Ms. Dunn as the enemy, aka an opponent!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ANOTHER ANTI-AMERICAN MOVE BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 7:49:23 AM

 

Monday, October 12, 2009

 

First Obama promised over the weekend that he would rescind the “don’t ask don’t tell” regulation presently in force in the defense department, and allow gays and lesbians to openly be accepted by the armed forces and serve in all miltary services.

 

Now today there is this news from the Guardian,co,uk that a sherriff in Phoenix Arizona who is trying his best to stem the tide of illegals pouring over the Arizona border, esentialy got a cease and desist order from the White House!
“ Joe Arpaio, a gruff lawman who styles himself as America’s toughest sheriff, has won acclaim from US anti-immigrant( correction, we are against illegals not immigrants!) forces for his relentless pursuit of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants in Maricopa county, Arizona, a fast-growing county of 4 million people that is home to Phoenix, the nation’s fifth largest city.

Under a two-year-old agreement with the federal department of homeland security, Arpaio and his deputies had been authorised to enforce federal immigration law by arresting suspected illegal immigrants in the field and by checking the immigration status of people arrested on other offences.
But after drawing thousands of complaints and a civil rights investigation from the justice department, Arpaio was this week stripped of his federal authority to make immigration arrests. County attorney Andrew Thomas, one of Arpaio’s supporters, condemned the “setback in the fight against illegal immigration”.

For his part Arpaio has promised to continue chasing illegal immigrants using state laws. In an angry press conference, he called US homeland security officials “liars” and said he would personally drive those caught on the streets to the border if federal officers refused to take arrested illegal immigrants into custody. “I’ll take a little trip to the border and turn them over to the border,” he said. Three cheers for Arpaio!!

“The department of homeland security is making a historic mistake if it continues its relationship with Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” said Paco Fabian, spokesman for immigration reform advocacy group America’s Voice. “The federal government is lending its full force and legitimacy to a rogue cop certain to go down in history as a serial violator of civil rights and an enemy of the Latino community.”

An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US. The federal government is virtually paralysed over how to react, with conservatives like Arpaio calling for the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement. Obama, many Democrats and some Republicans call for a system that will allow most to gain legal status after paying a fine and learning English, but reform efforts in 2006 and 2007 withered under sustained rightwing opposition.(the Democrats want the votes and only those Republicans in heavily Hispanic districts want the amnesty that Obama has promised to the Hispanic caucus)

More than 60 law enforcement agencies across the country have signed onto the same programme under which local officers are effectively deputised to enforce immigration law. But critics of the programme say it wastes police resources needed to fight street crime, promotes racial profiling of Hispanics, targets peaceful workers, breaks up families and breeds distrust of police among immigrants, who become afraid to report crime for fear they will be asked for immigration papers.( Well, then let us have more money for law enforcement officers and less money to create a cradle to grave welfare state!)

Why is Obama he** bent on amnesty?
First of all Latinos care deeply about immigration reform, and their votes trended Democrat in an extraordinary way in 2008, with Obama taking two-thirds of the vote. In states such as Nevada, New Mexico and especially the big prize of Florida, Latino voters were crucial to the result. Political operators are hardly unaware of an 11-million-strong voting bloc and are tantalised by the prospect of defining political change.

The second reason for legislative movement is opportunism. Obama is popular and has large reserves of political capital. But it is less about where we are in the presidential cycle and more about the public mood. Four out of five Americans express deep concern over immigration, but they also share a desire for action. When asked who is to blame, the public let employers and immigrants off the hook and blame government and Congress by a two-to-one margin. The public are anxious about immigration, especially illegal immigration, but they want the problem solved.
That problem is what to do with the huge illegally resident population in the US, estimated at 12 million, or one in three of the total foreign-born population.
In the end, though, the most compelling reason reform can succeed lies in the personality and huge ambition of the current White House occupant, OBAMA!  For the Obama team, immigration reform has become the civil rights issue for the 21st century. This is the prize that makes reform more likely than not, and sooner rather than later.And then we might as well disolve and abandon the Immigration and homeland security offices while we watch our country taken over by La Raza who has proclaimed that America should be Aztlan instaed of the USA!!
Aztlán became a symbol for mestizo activists who believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land. In order to exercise this right, some members of the Chicano movement propose that a new nation be created in South West United States,called The Republic of Aztlán..source: Wikapedia

Under the euphuism ‘Hispanic Homeland’ and ‘Nation of Aztlan,’ activists from numerous organizations including Mexican American Legal Defense and La Raza (The Race) activists are attempting to annex large portions of SW United States to Mexico. “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the North, which would include the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado, along with several current Mexican states, is “an inevitability” says Charles Truxillo, professor, University of New Mexico. He further states the new “Hispanic Homeland” should be brought into being “by any means necessary.”

AMNESTY means never having immigration enforcement! Those ‘undocumented’ are actually ‘highly documented’ with fraudulent documents our government readily accepts.There should be no debate over illegal invasion of OUR country!.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Posted in

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE ABSURDITY AND DUPLICITY OF OBAMA LED DEMOCRATS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, October 12, 2009 8:51:21 AM

 



Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty...Ronald Reagan



The Washington Times has a picture of Obama calling for bi-patrisan support for his Health Care Bill.
Either Obama is the least informed president we have ever had, or he is a man of deception and you cannot believe anything he says. I suspect it is the latter.
It is a wonder any Democrats, except for the leftist idealogs who would follow Obama to the gates of He**! Despite repeated motions by Republican members of the committee that is voting on the Baucus bill, to publish the text of the bill. The committee and I suspect the whole Senate will be voting on synopsis of the over 1000 page bill that was crafted by four Obama members of a secret group that is kept  secret from all but the group of four , Obama and selected beaurocrats.

This is a bill that was crafted in secret and will be voted on before anyone gets to read the complete bill, as was the case in the almost 800 billion dollar Stimulus package.People who agree to this deception are not upholding their Constitutional obligation as elected officials who supposedly represent those who voted them into their "princely" office!

According to the report just released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost roughly $829 billion over the next 10 years. And, significantly, it is even projected to reduce the budget deficit over 10 years by $81 billion. Of course, both those numbers are misleading.
as the CBO noted, there's no actual Baucus bill, just some "conceptual language." Actual language, CBO noted, might result in "significant changes" in its estimates. No wonder Democratic congressional leaders killed requirements that the actual language be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before Congress votes.

More significant is the number most publications did not put in their headlines and lead paragraphs: CBO's estimate that the Baucus "conceptual language" would increase federal spending by $829 billion over 10 years. So how do you increase federal spending and cut the deficit at the same time?
One way is taxes. The Baucus conceptual language includes a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion) and "indirect offsets" (whatever they are -- $83 billion)!

And if that is not enough to convince you. Consider the fact that under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won't start flowing until 2013. After the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the midle class!

The $829 billion cost is for the next 10 years, 2010-2019, but the most expensive provisions of the bill don't take effect until July of 2013. The cost over the bill's first 10 years of actual operation is closer to $1.3 trillion. This a clear attempt by Obama and the Democrats to decieve the public! It must be voted DOWN!

We all know Obama is a great speaker as long as he has a teleprompter, but he is anything but the open and transparent president he promised he would be in his campaign speeches.

A good example of Obam's deceptive nature is the fact that he knew tbe day before he chaired the UN Security Council, that Iran had built anothr uranium enrichment facility. But even though Irans dictator was sitting at the table Obama did not take the opportunity to bring up the subject. No, he proceeded as though nothing was changed in Iran and passed a non-binding resolution relating to nuclear disarmament!
He waited until he was at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburg to reveal what he knew long before his announcement. How can you trust a man who picks and chooses when he will , if ever,reveal important information that the voting public has a right to know in a timely basis.

And the dim ligt bulb from San Francisco that is holding on tightly to the Speakers position in the House, let the cat out of the bag last week, when she said a Value Added tax was on the "drawing board'! A tax that applies to all items bought by all econonomic classes, especially the poor!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REASONS FOR OBAMA GETTING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE??

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, October 10, 2009 9:45:27 AM

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Barack Obama today admitted he does not think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize after being sensationally awarded the honour.

The  president said he was both "surprised and deeply humble"' to win the award.
The Nobel Committee has shocked the world by choosing Mr Obama

It used to be the rule that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to politicians if they could point to tangible political successes. American presidents and politicians have consistently been recipients of the award: Theodor Roosevelt received the award in 1906 for his role in securing a peace deal between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson was honored with the prize in 1919 for his work on the creation of the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. Martin Luther King was presented with the award in 1964 for his commitment to civil rights for African Americans. The former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was even controversially given the nod in 1973 for his role in negotiating an end to the Vietnam War.

Now it is the turn of the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama, who was awarded the prize on Friday for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples," in the words of the Nobel committee.
It is possible to reward diplomatic efforts and thus make them more effective. The former German Chancellor Willy Brandt greatly benefited from that in 1971, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his famous Ostpolitik policy of rapprochement with the Warsaw Pact states. At the time, Brandt was no less controversial within Germany than Barack Obama is within the US today; the opposition was up in arms and ridiculed him in the most objectionable fashion. But Brandt, who like Obama was a fan of international diplomacy, had already signed the Eastern Treaties when the committee handed down its decision.

In contrast, who has accepted Obama's outstretched hand today? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The Taliban? North Korea's Kim Jong-Il? Russia's Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? None of them. Nowhere is there any success in sight.
Former Polish president and 1983 Peace laureate Lech Walesa slammed the decision as 'too early'.


'So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act,' he said today to a London Daily Mail reporter.He added: 'This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act.'

But his "soul mate", former president Jimmy Carter congratulated Obama saying:
"it was a bold statement from the Nobel committee. It shows the hope his administration represents not only to our nation but to people around the world".


My question is since the nomination was made nine days after Obama was sworn in as president. Who nominated him? And was this an award for the man who lost the Olympics for Chicago, but was rewarded for his radical shift of America towards European socialism?

This morning the field for the Nobel Peace Prize still appeared wide open.

'It's quite likely this committee will reward somebody who is engaged in current processes,' said Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the International Peace Institute in Oslo (PRIO). Could it be he got the Nobel because he was not Bush?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1219201/Barack-Obama-awarded-Nobel-Peace-Prize
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LESSONS FROM NHS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND COMMENT ABOUT NOBEL PRIZE

Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, October 09, 2009 9:28:55 AM

Friday, October 09, 2009

 



Before I write about the subject that I chose for todays blog. I aam comeled to offer this feature article that appears in the London Telegraph about our President winning the Nobel Peace Prize. It illustrates the absurdity of the prize for a man who has been president for only 37 weeks and has not overwelmed all in Great Britain.
"Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize and I’m still reeling at the shock. Most of us are, I should think.

Here are my theories as to how it might have come about:
1. Unlike in most of the rest of the world Øbama Køøl Aid (TM) remains Oslo’s most popular beverage.
2. The Norwegian prize committee’s sense of irony is growing ever more sophisticated, as it hinted when it gave the prize in 2002 to comedy ex-president Jimmy Carter, and hinted more strongly when it gave the prize in 2007 to climate-fear-promoting comedy failed-president Al Gore.
3. The other candidates on the shortlist were Robert Mugabe; Osama Bin Laden; Ahmed Jibril; and the late Pol Pot". (not everyone is swooning over the selection) It is important to note the fact that Obama was nominated for the Nobel prize in January at which time he was in office less than a month!!


While Obama and his sycophants Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are trying to take over 1/6th of the economy with their socialized medicine scam. I think it is important that we all understand the problems incumbent upon any government controled program, particularly our personal Health Care!
The number of NHS( in England, Scotand and Wales) errors putting patients at risk has soared by 12 per cent in just six months, according to figures released yesterday.

They show that 459,500 patient safety incidents occurred between October 2008 and March this year, compared to around 410,000 in the previous six months.
Of the latest cases, more than 5,700 victims died or suffered serious harm as a result.
At risk: The number of NHS errors rose 12 per cent in six months
Health service bosses say the rise is likely to have occurred since trusts are being encouraged to report incidents, rather than because the number of mistakes is actually increasing. ( YOU MEAN THEY WERE NOT REPORTING ERRORS BEFORE BEING ORDERED?)
But critics argue stringent Whitehall targets make doctors and nurses more likely to make serious mistakes. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS WILL DO THIS HERE IN THE USA!

They say the latest figures are likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, as so many previous mistakes have been swept under the carpet rather than being reported to the authorities.
The National Patient Safety Agency revealed most reported incidents - 303,016, or 66 per cent - resulted in no harm to the patient, while 122,246, or 27 per cent, resulted in low harm.
A further 28,521 (6 per cent) of incidents resulted in moderate harm while 5,717 (1 per cent) resulted in death or severe harm.

The most commonly reported incident was an accident involving the patient that could possibly have been prevented..
This was followed by errors or near misses with treatments or procedures (10.1 per cent) and medication (9.4 per cent).
Reports were provided by 382 out of the 392 health trusts in England.

Around 28,000 reports, six per cent of the total, resulted in moderate harm which included mistakes made in surgery that would require a repeat operation, a patient falling out of bed and knocking themselves unconscious for a short period or wrong blood given a patient resulting in temporary kidney failure.

The 3,717 reports of severe harm will have included things like a patient given the wrong medication which they are allergic to making their heart stop resulting in brain damage, ambulance crews moving a patient with a back injury resulting in paralysis or wrong blood given to a young woman meaning she will develop antibodies that could affect any future pregnancy. SOURCE:LONDON TELEGRAPH
Forget the cost of private insurance. You can always absorb this cost, but if the socialization of our medical care costs you your life or a loved one. No amount of savings or expenditure will restore it!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE LIES AND CHICANERY OF DEMOCRATS HEALTH SCHEME

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:08:17 PM

Thursday, October 08, 2009

 





Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan


Many people will question why I used the title I used for this blog. Read on and you will se just  few of the many reasons I used the terms in the title.
A senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told CNSNews.com that it is “likely” that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a “shell” for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.

Under the procedure, the substance of House Resolution 1586 would be removed and replaced with the entire Senate health care package. The maneuver would initially require the support of 60 senators to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1586 (i.e., end debate on the congressional procedure and move forward).
If Reid wins 60 votes, then debate begins on his health care package. Reid could then decide to block all amendments and attempt to get a vote on the entire package.

The Democrats including Senator Max Baucus of Montana have repeatedly used the American Journal of Public Health claims that 44,789 working-age adults die each year because they lack basic health insurance.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance found that uninsured Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who carry some sort of insurance. This number is up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. I wonder how they made this assumption. Did they consider the following statistics of the 2,426,264 who died in 2006 to come to their drastic and ominous decision, or where political bias the motivating factor. Any one who has watched Harvard for any time realizes that it is a Left wing Institution.
However, anotrher study done in 2008, Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, published another study based on the IOM methodology, again using more recent data, and found that 22,000 die due to lack of insurance. Who can you believe?
Certainly not anyone who carries the water for Obama.
In 2006 the number of people who died and the cause are listed as found in the NHI report.

Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234
Source: NIH Deaths: Final Data for 2006,

With so many causes for the death of over 2 million people, the scare tactic of using a claim that almost 50,000 die without Health Insurance(was used by Sen. Baucus yesterday) is suspicious at the very least. But then since  Obama took over the White House and the Democrats gained control of Congress. Claims of crisis and disaster has been the modus operandi!

He(president Obama) has said repeatedly that he will not raise taxes on the midle class, but the Baucus Bill would raise taxes severly!

It will tax medical devices 29 million dollars, that will  not be  absorbed by the manufacturers, but passed on to the consumer.Everything from breast pumps for new mothers to atificial hips will be taxed.
And when the concept of reforming our present health insurance system that comprises 17% of our GNP, it was sold to tthe people as a way  to cover all people who do not have insurance. BUT the Baucus Bill that Obama supports will not cover 25 million people!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REDISTIBUTION OF TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY BY OBAMA

Posted by Jax Hawk on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:11:11 PM

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL IN DETROIT

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Apparently Ronald Reagan had it right when he said" if it stops moving subsidize it". The "IT" he was refering to was not the it that is being subsidizes(aka given), but  money given to the non-earners from hard working tax payers.

When you compare the billions given to Wall Street bankers with the amount that is now given in Detroiy,15 million dollars, it is insignificant. But when you realize that 99% of the recipients are minorities who will vote for Democrats in 2010, and the bankers will not only vote but contribute large sums of money to re-elect those who gave them the money. You can understand that this is just another example of reditribution of wealth only to those who support Obama and the Democrats!

The stimulus bill was sold to the public as a "shovel ready program" that would put people back to work, but with the unemployment hovering around 10%  it appears that all the stimulus is doing is reassuring that Obama and his Congressional sycophants get re-elected!

The assistance in Detroit, announced by the media today, is from a 15 million dollar pile of money coming to Detroit, Michigan as part of the stimulus package.
I believe in charity for the homeless in the form of food kitchens and temporary housing for the really homeless, but it should come from the private sector via the Churches and Community organizations like San Francisco's Glide Memorial Center, which has been doing GODS work for decades. Not from the tax payers!

The thing that is going on Detroit has two fatal flaws that make it a non-starter before it began. One is that if you give money in the form of cash or check how do you know that the people whom you are giving it to will spend it on the intended purpose for which you gave the money?
The second is the final qualification sentence in the list of things that woul qualify a person or family for  the assistance. "That they must be able to maintain housing after receiving assistance. How can a homeless person do this?And by the wat how will those giving away the money determine that those who apply as homeless have bee residents of Detroit for at least six months. Will they evn try?
Also, a resident must make 50 percent less than the median area income, which would be less than $24,850 for single Detroit residents and less than $35,500 for a family of four.

All this is accomplishing is redistributing the wealth as we know Obama has promised he will do.
But there is a brewing problem with this seemingly good deed. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently disclosed that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year. Some will pay less than zero -- that is, they'll get money from those of us who do pay taxes.


The Tax Policy Center adds that this year the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax brings in, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.

The view from the top also shows the lopsidedness of the tax system. The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent.
This presents a serious problem because government has such vast powers to dispense favors. As Shaw suggested, people who pay no tax will not hesitate to vote for politicians who promise big spending. Why not? They will get stuff without having to pay for it. Source:PatriotPost.com


And to the  insult of the tax payers. The City of Chicago was visited today by the U.S.  Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to meet with officials of the Chicago leadership. The meeting was held because of the national outrage from the TV pictures of an honor high school student being beaten to death with large boards.Why did they not visit Los Angeles or New York where crime is rampant?
Why now? I believe that the Obama administration lost the bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago which would have brought millions to Chicago politicians. So now they are going to get money from Obama that will be handed over in the name of reducing the killing of teens, but will in fact be used to buy continued support for Democrats and Obama.
The amount is unspecified as is what they will use it for. Clinton when he was president sent millions to major cities including Chicago to establish midnight basket ball. But the plan failed to stop the killing!

Not one of the participants in the "meeting" mentioned increasing law enforcement and severe punishment for offenders. This is a dirty thought for Liberals who believe, as they have for decades, if you throw money at problems they will fade away. As Thomas Sowell says; ".the problem with the political left is that they seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition. All problems seem to them to be due to other people not being as wise or as noble as they are".
So unknown millions will go to Chicago and it will still have a crime rate among the youth unless the law enforcement people begin a war against the gangs!.

Don't hold your breath until that happens, as long as the Daley machine and the Obama machine believe in spending other peoples money will stop crime and solve all of societies problems!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…6263Next »